Psyching a 2C opening

[qwery_hi]

Psyching a strong 2♣ opening is prohibited. Is it allowed if 2♣ is 2-way, i.e. a ♦ preempt or a strong opening?

[DrTodd13]

Who says it is prohibited? I assume you mean the ACBL under the GCC.

Ten seconds at the ACBL website under GCC shows this:

 

3. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

a ) a strong hand.

b ) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

 

So, 2♣ showing strong or weak ♦ is not specifically allowed, therefore it is prohibited.

[awm]

Disallowed

...

2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses which are less than 2NT to natural openings.

 

Of course, the convention described is illegal on the general chart anyway, but:

 

Disallowed

...

2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto.

 

Disallowed

...

2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto.

 

This seems to ban such things. It also bans psychs of flannery (for example). Of course, regulations outside ACBL may vary, although I think this sort of rule regarding psyching 2♣ is not unusual.

[qwery_hi]

Psyching a strong 2♣ opening is prohibited. Is it allowed if 2♣ is 2-way, i.e. a ♦ preempt or a strong opening?

Just wanted to clear up that in Mid chart,

 

7. A transfer opening bid at the two-level or higher showing a weak bid in the suit being transferred to or a type or types of strong hand.

 

the 2C as strong or a diamond preempt is allowed, as awm pointed out.

 

However, psyching this is not allowed.

[Tcyk]

I guess that if 2C is not artificial, it could be psyched. Beware of Precision 2C openings :)

[Gerben42]

  Psyching a strong 2♣ opening is prohibited. Is it allowed if 2♣ is 2-way, i.e. a ♦ preempt or a strong opening?

 

Yes in almost all countries at most levels of play. No for the ACBL and GCC.

 

I can heartily recommend this 2-way opening bid, it stops opponents from preempting too much against your strong variations, when you actually have one.

[JanM]

The rule against psyching an artificial opening bid was added to ACBL laws sometime in the 60's. I remember because Mike Lawrence used to like to do it, and right before the rule became effective, he found several opportunities. I'm afraid I don't remember the hands or whether it worked - you'd have to ask Lew Stansby about that, since he never forgets a bridge hand. :D

[mycroft]

And just to make what others have said explicit, it's a ban on psychic *artificial* opening bids, not just strong ones. There's relative bans on psychic artificial responses to artificial (/natural on the GCC) opening bids as well.

[barmar]

I think the ban on all psychic artificial bids is new to the latest revision of the convention charts. The previous revisions only prohibited psyching strong artificial openings.

[blackshoe]

The current GCC prohibits "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less

than 2NT, to natural openings." The first sentence, but not the second, applies to the mid- and super-charts, as well. I can't speak to the history of the regulation.

[awm]

I think the ban on all psychic artificial bids is new to the latest revision of the convention charts. The previous revisions only prohibited psyching strong artificial openings.

I'm sure this rule has been there the entire time I've been playing in ACBL events (so about ten years, probably a lot longer).

[qwery_hi]

I think the ban on all psychic artificial bids is new to the latest revision of the convention charts.  The previous revisions only prohibited psyching strong artificial openings.

I'm sure this rule has been there the entire time I've been playing in ACBL events (so about ten years, probably a lot longer).

Strange, I had the same idea that psyching artificial strong bids was disallowed. Asking around in the club, a few players with the same level of experience also thrught this. In my club, it was drilled into us that you cannot psyche the strong 2♣ opening. Since this is the only artificial bid most of us play (below 2NT) we kind of assumed that psyching strong openings was prohibited.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing since the early 70's, and the ban on psyching strong forcing and artificial 2♣ openings was in place when I started to play.

 

This was a time when there were still a lot of players using strong 2 bids.

[shintaro]

:rolleyes:

 

Interesting in EBU land

 

6 A General

6 A 1 A Psyche or Psychic bid is a deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A Misbid is an inadvertent mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A Deviation is a deliberate but minor mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length.

6 A 2 A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it contains the same element of surprise for the psycher’s partner as it does for the opponents.

6 A 3 Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted. A partnership may not use any agreement to control a psyche. For example, if you play that a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you’ve bid (Watson), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche.

6 A 4 A player may not psyche a Multi 2♦ opening in a Level 3 event (see 11 G 6). A psyche is a deliberate action; if a player misbids this is not illegal.

6 A 5 Frivolous psyching, for example suggesting a player has lost interest in the competition, is a breach of the Laws. (Law 74A2, 74B1, 74C6)

6 A 6 The regulation in the last Orange Book that a player may not psyche a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening bid no longer applies.

 

And just note the current 6 a 6 reproduced above

 

B)

[rbforster]

Luckily for those US-based would-be 2♣ psychers, no one in the ACBL can seem to agree on the standards for what 2♣ should promise. So while you can't do it with zero points, you can do it with long 1-suiters and maybe 15 points, like

 

AQJxxxxx

A

Ax

xx

 

1 trick from game, 3 defensive tricks, wtp? Most experts don't handle this hand using a strong 2♣, but there are plenty of non-experts who do under their own simple rules and directors have regularly ruled that this type of hand is not a psych (much to some players annoyance, but that's how it is).

[blackshoe]

A year or so ago, at a Sectional Swiss Teams, I picked up [hv=d=e&s=sakqj9875hjxxdcjx]133|100|Scoring: IMPS[/hv] in second seat. RHO opened 2♦, so I was not in an opening bid situation. They ended up in 5♦, down 1.

 

At the other table, my team mate in first seat passed (she didn't like her diamond suit :rolleyes: ). The opponent holding my cards opened 2♣ "strong". The autction went on 2♦-4♠-ALL PASS, making when my other team mate mis-defended because he expected more high card strength in declarer's hand. I found this out when we sat down to compare results after the match. We called the director, whose ruling, later confirmed by Rick Beye, ACBL Chief TD, was basically that "if the player feels his hand is 'strong', then it is." This struck me then, and still does, as an incredibly stupid way to interpret a regulation, but there it is. B)

[jdonn]

A year or so ago, at a Sectional Swiss Teams, I picked up [hv=d=e&s=sakqj9875hjxxdcjx]133|100|Scoring: IMPS[/hv] in second seat. RHO opened 2♦, so I was not in an opening bid situation. They ended up in 5♦, down 1.

 

At the other table, my team mate in first seat passed (she didn't like her diamond suit :rolleyes: ). The opponent holding my cards opened 2♣ "strong". The autction went on 2♦-4♠-ALL PASS, making when my other team mate mis-defended because he expected more high card strength in declarer's hand. I found this out when we sat down to compare results after the match. We called the director, whose ruling, later confirmed by Rick Beye, ACBL Chief TD, was basically that "if the player feels his hand is 'strong', then it is." This struck me then, and still does, as an incredibly stupid way to interpret a regulation, but there it is. B)

I'm curious what definition you recommend. Base it on high cards?

[qwery_hi]

A year or so ago, at a Sectional Swiss Teams, I picked up

Dealer: East Vul: ???? Scoring: IMPS

♠ AKQJ9875 ♥ Jxx ♦ [space] ♣ Jx

in second seat. RHO opened 2♦, so I was not in an opening bid situation. They ended up in 5♦, down 1.

 

At the other table, my team mate in first seat passed (she didn't like her diamond suit :rolleyes: ). The opponent holding my cards opened 2♣ "strong". The autction went on 2♦-4♠-ALL PASS, making when my other team mate mis-defended because he expected more high card strength in declarer's hand. I found this out when we sat down to compare results after the match. We called the director, whose ruling, later confirmed by Rick Beye, ACBL Chief TD, was basically that "if the player feels his hand is 'strong', then it is." This struck me then, and still does, as an incredibly stupid way to interpret a regulation, but there it is.  :(

I'm curious what definition you recommend. Base it on high cards?

I think at a minimum you should need only 1 trick from partner for game.

[TimG]

I think at a minimum you should need only 1 trick from partner for game.

For game to be good? For game to be cold? I guess no opening AKx AKx AKx Axxx 2♣.

 

I'm generally opposed to subjective regulations that can be interpreted as "if a player feels it is strong, then it is". But, in this case, I don't really see how you are going to define it objectively without running into some sort of problem.

 

In this case, getting rid of the regulation would seem like a fine solution.

[jdonn]

I think at a minimum you should need only 1 trick from partner for game.

As Tim says, that means AKx AKx AKx Axxx is not a 2♣ opener?

 

And what if partner has x Qxx QJTxxx Axx? That is just one trick but you are cold for 3NT.

 

What if partner has Axxxxx of hearts and out, then 4♠ is a perfectly acceptable contract.

 

What if your main suit is AK seventh. Does partner having three small count as a trick (you are 78% to have no losers)? What about two small (40%)? Jx (52.5%)? Maybe two small only counts when you are vul since it brings the odds above that needed to bid a vul game...

 

I agree with Tim in that if you want to keep this regulation there is no better way to do it. So either get rid of it altogether, or accept that it's up to the individual player to interpret (and the director to judge if he/she did so fairly).

[JanM]

Back in the misty past, before this rule applied, the sort of hands that psyched 2♣ (at least the ones I heard of) and that caused the imposition of the rule were xxx,xxx,xxxx,xxx, not AKQJxxxs, Jxx, --, xx.

[atlantajon]

It is hard for some player to remember that bridge is a game of evaluations. And just because 1 player doesn't think a hand is "strong" doesn't mean another may not believe it is.

 

For example, I have an agreement with a lot of regular partners that a "limit" raise is a hand with 3 cover cards for a contract in that suit. So we regularly give limit raises with a hand like this: Qxxx , x, Axxxx, Jxxx after a 1 spade opener by partner. Since this is a 3 cover card hand, and partner can now go to game with a 6 loser hand.

 

The problem comes when one player believes that his evaluation of a hand is superior to another players. And calls the director on a player for opening 2 clubs with a hand like: AKJxxxxxx ,x ,x, x . I am also ACBL_22 on BBO, and I had a call not long ago about a hand like this. The player opened 2 clubs. and after they ended up in 6 spades opposite x,Axxx,Axxx,xxxx. I was called to the table for a "psych" of 2 clubs. My ruling was clear. As 2 clubs is defined by the ACBL as "a strong hand", and any hand that has 8.5 winners in it is surely strong, I had no choice but to rule that it was not a psych.

 

The player refused to accept my ruling, and came up with all sorts of "club" rules from many clubs that she had belonged to in the past. I tried to remind her that, as ACBL directors, we are required to apply the Laws as the ACBL enforces them. Not as a club in a small town somewhere does.

 

So, as most of the ACBL directors I have polled about this. If a player feels that a hand is strong, then it is strong. I would add, that as long as a reasonable number of the players peers would feel the same, then it is strong.

 

Think about it. Can one players evaluation of a hand over-rule another players? I think not.... as long as it is with-in the spirit of the game.

[awm]

Seems to me that the same rules about opening 2♣ should apply to opening 1♣ in precision.

 

In general the precision 1♣ includes weaker hands than the strong 2♣ (i.e. the lower limit is less). So if my opponents who play 2/1 can open a particular hand with 2♣ strong, I should certainly be able to open that same hand with 1♣ strong in my precision system.

 

Yet I don't think this is quite the case. Apparently in ACBL-land a strong 1♣ opening is supposed to promise 15+ points or something, and seemingly if I open 1♣ strong on AKJxxxxxxx x x x I will get in trouble... but opening 2♣ strong on the same hand is okay.

[atlantajon]

You may have an argument about the 1 club precision opener. If your agreement with partner is any strong hand. (a hand that wants to play game opposite a trick), then perhaps opening 1 club with AKJxxxxxx,x,x,x would be acceptable. However, most players agreements are based on high card points. And in that case, opening 1 club with 8 high card points is a gross distortion, and therefore a psych....

 

As for the 2 club opener.... Most people have the pre-determined argeement that it includes 22+ high card points or 8.5 tricks. Then, this hand is NOT a distortion of what partner expects. And therefore not a psych.

 

I hope that helps....

[peachy]

You may have an argument about the 1 club precision opener. If your agreement with partner is any strong hand. (a hand that wants to play game opposite a trick), then perhaps opening 1 club with AKJxxxxxx,x,x,x would be acceptable. However, most players agreements are based on high card points. And in that case, opening 1 club with 8 high card points is a gross distortion, and therefore a psych....

 

As for the 2 club opener.... Most people have the pre-determined argeement that it includes 22+ high card points or 8.5 tricks. Then, this hand is NOT a distortion of what partner expects. And therefore not a psych.

 

I hope that helps....

It is not a psych but if their style includes it as a systemic 2C opener, then it is highly unexpected to the majority of opponents [in my estimation]. As such, alertable, under the spirit and letter of the ACBL alert regulations.

 

To my knowledge, no beginner's bridge text advocates 2C with 8.5 tricks and no defensive tricks (something resembling AKJxxxxx-v-Jxx-Q), and to my knowledge, no self-respecting expert or even advanced player opens 2C with such a hand. Would be interesting to find out where that style was born and why. And more importantly, why ACBL cannot add explicit alertability to this style. Or define what the parameters of a non-alertable strong 2C are. It is certainly very misleading to see "8.5 tricks or 22HCP" and then find out afterwards that the example hand qualified under their agreements. The least the players of that style IMO should do is add something like "8.5 tricks regardless of HCP or 22+HCP", to be ethical and honest about disclosure.