Psyching a 2C opening

[blackshoe]

IMO, the current interpretation of the regulation regarding what constitutes a "strong" 2♣ opening, viz. "whatever the player making the bid decides" is, as I said, stupid. You might as well say one can open 2♣ on whatever hand he likes. And if that's the case, then calling any 2♣ bid a psych makes no sense at all.

 

I believe it was Paul Soloway who suggested that a strong 2♣ opener should have more quick tricks than losers. That's one way of providing a more objective criterion. In England they have another — the "rule of 25" (sum of HCP + length of two longest suits ≥ 25). Someone might well come up with something else. I just think a more objective definition is needed, lest we get into the realm of "you can do whatever you want, but if you do something I (the TD) don't like, I will rule against you".

 

I don't object to the no psyching rule. I object to the nebulous, even wide open, "definition" of "strong".

 

I've heard rumors this will soon be rectified, which is good. But if the rumors are true, then "strong" will be defined as. essentially, any hand that, in Precision Club, would open 1♣ — and there are an awful lot of hands in that group which IMO should never be opened with a strong 2♣. And that's not so good.

 

I suppose another possible solution is to require the 2♣ bidder (online) or his partner (f2f) to immediately fully explain the agreed meaning, and with more than just "strong", specifying, perhaps by example, particularly the lower limit of the bid.

[jdonn]

I believe it was Paul Soloway who suggested that a strong 2♣ opener should have more quick tricks than losers. That's one way of providing a more objective criterion. In England they have another — the "rule of 25" (sum of HCP + length of two longest suits ≥ 25). Someone might well come up with something else. I just think a more objective definition is needed, lest we get into the realm of "you can do whatever you want, but if you do something I (the TD) don't like, I will rule against you".

I repeat, you want something unrealistic since there is no acceptable objective criterion.

 

More quick tricks than losers? Most people would not consider Kx x AKxxx AKxxx anywhere near a 2♣ opener (some forums posters wouldn't open it 2♣ with another ace). And what about AKx AKxxx AJx QJ, now I can't open a 22 count with AKxxx 2♣? Also, what about players who don't know what quick tricks or losing trick count is? When I first learned to play it was several years before having heard of those concepts. It's pretty hard to follow regulations without knowing what high card points are, but otherwise there is no requirement (nor should there be) that people learn some other method of evaluating their hands.

 

HCP + Two longest suits = 25? That would nearly allow the very hand your opponents opened 2♣, and you called the director on them for that one (if the clubs had been QJ you wouldn't have minded?) And the first hand I quoted makes 27, I guess it's too good for 2♣.

 

I still don't see the issue. For some people in third seat KJTxx xxx xx xxx is a preempt, for others in the same seat and vul AKQxxx Kx xx xxx is a preempt. If there was a rule that psyching a preempt would be illegal, it just has to be a preempt to you, then both of these hands are fine to me no matter how much I may disagree on either end. People just have to explain their style when asked, and there is no problem. If it happens to be a very wide ranging style, good for them.

 

If your teammates didn't set the opponents because they didn't consider this hand, then either shame on them for not thinking about it or asking, shame on the opponents for not explaining correctly (which is a different story of course), or good for your opponents for having a very wide range that makes you guess on defense.

[blackshoe]

I repeat, you want something unrealistic since there is no acceptable objective criterion.

Or we just haven't found it yet. Some eighty years ago, the Portland Club found takeout doubles unacceptable, so they banned them. Things have changed. There is no reason to think they won't change in this area.

 

More quick tricks than losers? Most people would not consider Kx x AKxxx AKxxx anywhere near a 2♣ opener (some forums posters wouldn't open it 2♣ with another ace). And what about AKx AKxxx AJx QJ, now I can't open a 22 count with AKxxx 2♣? Also, what about players who don't know what quick tricks or losing trick count is? When I first learned to play it was several years before having heard of those concepts. It's pretty hard to follow regulations without knowing what high card points are, but otherwise there is no requirement (nor should there be) that people learn some other method of evaluating their hands.

 

Your first hand is not a 2♣ opener in my eyes either. Note that I did not say (and perhaps I should have clarified that there's more to it) that "more QTs than losers" should be the only criterion. That's like saying, using LTC, that one should open all hands with seven or fewer losers, regardless of HCP — and we both know that's ridiculous. I would open your second hand 2♣, planning to rebid 2NT. The criteria for balanced hands to open 2♣ are, or should be, completely different from the criteria for opening unbalanced hands with that bid. As to hand evaluation, QTs is simple, useful even for novices, and was at one time the only method of hand evaluation taught (my father would still be using it as his primary evaluation method, if he still played the game). LTC in its full glory is more complicated, but the rudiments are simple.

 

HCP + Two longest suits = 25? That would nearly allow the very hand your opponents opened 2♣, and you called the director on them for that one (if the clubs had been QJ you wouldn't have minded?) And the first hand I quoted makes 27, I guess it's too good for 2♣.

 

Now you're just being silly. First I don't call directors "on" anybody. I call directors because I think there may be a problem, and I know it's the director's job to sort it out. Second, you need to read more carefully. I said that "rule of 25" is that the count should be greater than or equal to 25. I brought up the EBU's regulation, so I suppose it's only fair I check what it actually says these days. Here it is

Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:

a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-

card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks,

or

;) any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or

c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs

Examples:

♠ A K Q J x x x x ♥ x x  ♦ x x  ♣ x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks.

♠ A K Q x x x x x ♥ x x  ♦ x x  ♣ x does not.

So it seems the bid in question would have been legal under the EBU's current rules as well. Still I like this regulation a lot better than "strong means whatever the player thinks it means".

 

I still don't see the issue. For some people in third seat KJTxx xxx xx xxx is a preempt, for others in the same seat and vul AKQxxx Kx xx xxx is a preempt. If there was a rule that psyching a preempt would be illegal, it just has to be a preempt to you, then both of these hands are fine to me no matter how much I may disagree on either end. People just have to explain their style when asked, and there is no problem. If it happens to be a very wide ranging style, good for them.

 

You seem to think I'm objecting to the 2♣ opening solely on the basis of the fact that I don't like it and would not open that hand 2♣ myself. No. My problem was that I, in my naiveté, thought that the primary obligation regarding disclosure lay on the users of a method, not on the opponents who might be fooled by it. I have now concluded that since I have no clue what an opponents 2♣ opener may show, I shall have to ask questions whenever one is made. I despair though at the thought of trying to get full disclosure out of about 90% of the players in my local field, even with the assistance of the director.

 

If your teammates didn't set the opponents because they didn't consider this hand, then either shame on them for not thinking about it or asking, shame on the opponents for not explaining correctly (which is a different story of course), or good for your opponents for having a very wide range that makes you guess on defense.

 

Heh. The other day, a player overcalled my opening bid with 1NT. I don't remember the precise result, but we ended up with a bad board because that overcall showed 11-14 HCP. It was clearly marked on their card, it was just that my partner and I had never run into this particular agreement before. What bothered me had nothing to do with that, though. It was that the opponent gloatingly chortled, after the hand, about how we'd been fooled. This is, of course, a violation of the proprieties. Did I call the director? No. Will I be more careful in future? You bet your ass I will.

 

BTW, when the question whether the 2[CL} bid I cited was a psych came up, the director who gave the ruling that it wasn't did say that it "was close" to one. I didn't ask him to define what that meant, or what small change would have sent it over the line.

[awm]

I agree with Blackshoe that there's a problem.

 

The regulations seem to require that the director gauge the intent of the bidder. This is a totally subjective criterion that lets the director rule however he wants with no recourse. How does he know what went through the bidder's mind? Obviously he can ask, but a canny player will always say "I thought it was a good hand." This opens the door for the director to believe some people and not others... once again encouraging rulings based more on "who the people are" than any facts of what happened.

[jdonn]

I repeat, you want something unrealistic since there is no acceptable objective criterion.

Or we just haven't found it yet. Some eighty years ago, the Portland Club found takeout doubles unacceptable, so they banned them. Things have changed. There is no reason to think they won't change in this area.

We're not searching for the quark here. What you really mean isn't that we haven't found it, it's that nothing is yet considered acceptable. The problem is peoples' opinions will in general shift over time, but still be too wide-ranging to form an acceptable criterion. Your example is not analogous because it's a yes/no question: should this meaning of a call be allowed? What are you talking about in this case is drawing a line along a continuum, a far more subjective proposition.

 

Note that I did not say (and perhaps I should have clarified that there's more to it) that "more QTs than losers" should be the only criterion. That's like saying, using LTC, that one should open all hands with seven or fewer losers, regardless of HCP — and we both know that's ridiculous. I would open your second hand 2♣, planning to rebid 2NT. The criteria for balanced hands to open 2♣ are, or should be, completely different from the criteria for opening unbalanced hands with that bid. As to hand evaluation, QTs is simple, useful even for novices, and was at one time the only method of hand evaluation taught (my father would still be using it as his primary evaluation method, if he still played the game). LTC in its full glory is more complicated, but the rudiments are simple.

Aside from being needlessly complicated, having separate criterion for balanced and unbalanced hands is not a good solution. You stuck your finger in the leak, and ten more leaks burst around it. What is balanced? Six card minor ok, and if so less high card strength is required? What about a hand with a singleton honor? Maybe any hand where you rebid 2NT, but then what if the opponents interfere. Uh oh, now we have to judge the player's intent again...

As for quick tricks or LTC being simple, you are missing the point. You would have a regulation that forces people to learn them. That is not a good idea.

 

HCP + Two longest suits = 25? That would nearly allow the very hand your opponents opened 2♣, and you called the director on them for that one (if the clubs had been QJ you wouldn't have minded?) And the first hand I quoted makes 27, I guess it's too good for 2♣.

Now you're just being silly. First I don't call directors "on" anybody. I call directors because I think there may be a problem, and I know it's the director's job to sort it out.

Tomato, tomahto, who cares? I think you are the one being silly here, but anyway...

 

Second, you need to read more carefully. I said that "rule of 25" is that the count should be greater than or equal to 25.

Actually I don't need to read more carefully, I need to write more carefully. I wasn't saying it was too good as if you couldn't open 2♣, I was just saying it's even better than needed.

 

Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:

a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-

card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks,

or

;) any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or

c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs

Examples:

♠ A K Q J x x x x ♥ x x  ♦ x x  ♣ x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks.

♠ A K Q x x x x x ♥ x x  ♦ x x  ♣ x does not.

So it seems the bid in question would have been legal under the EBU's current rules as well. Still I like this regulation a lot better than "strong means whatever the player thinks it means".

I don't. Do you think in practice your teammates would have thought to ask questions if this rule were in effect? I very seriously doubt it. This regulation is trying to use a bandaid to stop a leaking dam. To make it wide enough to accommodate players who like to open 'strong' 2♣ on lighter hands, they had to make a ridiculously low threshold which includes tons of hands most people wouldn't consider strong enough for 2♣.

BTW, is AKQTxxxx QJxxx - - '8 clear cut tricks'? If not, don't you think it's foolish I can't open that hand 2♣ but I can open AKQJxxxx xx xx x 2♣? This is why any objective criterion is bad.

 

I still don't see the issue. For some people in third seat KJTxx xxx xx xxx is a preempt, for others in the same seat and vul AKQxxx Kx xx xxx is a preempt. If there was a rule that psyching a preempt would be illegal, it just has to be a preempt to you, then both of these hands are fine to me no matter how much I may disagree on either end. People just have to explain their style when asked, and there is no problem. If it happens to be a very wide ranging style, good for them.

You seem to think I'm objecting to the 2♣ opening solely on the basis of the fact that I don't like it and would not open that hand 2♣ myself. No. My problem was that I, in my naiveté, thought that the primary obligation regarding disclosure lay on the users of a method, not on the opponents who might be fooled by it.

You seem to think that an opponent who opens 2♣ on a hand lighter than you would must be trying to fool you.

I find what you said interesting. I am fairly sure you know that questions of style should be asked about, not automatically disclosed (otherwise every auction would be followed by a long conversation).

 

I have now concluded that since I have no clue what an opponents 2♣ opener may show, I shall have to ask questions whenever one is made. I despair though at the thought of trying to get full disclosure out of about 90% of the players in my local field, even with the assistance of the director.

I somehow doubt you will have to do that. But if the players can't disclose their agreements, that is a completely different problem.

[jdonn]

I agree with Blackshoe that there's a problem.

 

The regulations seem to require that the director gauge the intent of the bidder. This is a totally subjective criterion that lets the director rule however he wants with no recourse. How does he know what went through the bidder's mind? Obviously he can ask, but a canny player will always say "I thought it was a good hand." This opens the door for the director to believe some people and not others... once again encouraging rulings based more on "who the people are" than any facts of what happened.

Your problem is with, as it has always been, the general approach of vague regulations for directors to interpret rather than giving them concrete guidelines. You do have to grant they are at least consistent in this regard.

[mycroft]

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

Yeah, well, since when has consistency been a priority?

 

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.

And you can. Be prepared to defend yourself, however, because:

 

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.

What you're looking at is another section of the GCC that has "issues" with sub 15+ openers:

 

7.  ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under DISALLOWED.)

 

Now, 1C-1D (if forcing) is allowed under RESPONSES 1, and any GAME-FORCING conventional calls are allowed after RESPONSES 3 (provided it's not a relay system). But if there are any non-natural responses to 1C that can stop below game at all...

 

Plus, of course, if you define 1C as "strong, artificial, forcing, 16+" then they'll get you on the "strong 11". But I think, according to the reading of the GCC, and with the caveat of RESPONSES 3 and 7, any hand you can open 2C in standard, you can open 1C in Precision. All caveats apply.

[Fluffy]

The problem with psyching 2♣ is that there is no cue avaible.

 

That is why you cannot psyche a 2♣ bid, but IMO as long as you are not passing opponents overcall at any level, your 2♣ opening is mostly fine.

 

2♣ should then be autoforcing (deciding that your 2♣ opening is not worth another bid would be to psyche).