Is it 2c opener?

[A2003]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...2899-1233457171

This link is noW working.

 

Is it 2C opener by west, per ACBL Tournaments-GCC?[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sak8765ha6d4caqt5]133|100|Scoring: Imps[/hv]

[Cascade]

The ACBL GCC licence is for:

 

3. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

a) a strong hand.

...

 

Therefore 2♣ can be played as any strong hand.

 

"Strong" is not specifically described in the GCC. From memory the WBF use a definition of strong that includes hands around a king above average. Although it would be possible to use other definitions relating to playing strength or tricks etc.

 

However an ACBL Convention Card requires further description of the 2♣ opening including HCP range and there is room for a description. This hand would not obviously conform with a description of 23+ HCP. A description of GF would be a best misleading. I would expect for a pair opening 2♣ this light that there should be some prior disclosure.

 

There has been another recent thread on this topic.

[1eyedjack]

The hyperlink just takes me to a blank table, no hands displayed. Is that a bug?

 

Probably not relevant to the thread, however.

 

For me it is not a 2C opener. I am not convinced that you need to be certain of game in your own hand, without any help from partner, to game force, but that does not necessarily prove that a gf 2C is the best way to handle the hand.

 

I guess you just have to poll a large number of peers, on questions of this nature, but I vote no.

[matmat]

No.

[jdonn]

Is it a 2♣ opener? No.

 

Is it legal for a partnership to consider it a 2♣ opener? Yes.

[Mbodell]

Yes, those in the school that open 2♣ based on distribution would be able to legally open this as 2♣ strong. This is a 4 LTC hand, with a major suit. That is 1 trick from game, the way some evaluate it (give partner xx xxxx xxxx Kxx and game has chances, make it xxx xx xxxx Kxxx and game is quite good).

 

In some SA partnerships I play in we agree to open all 4 LTC or better hands 2♣. It may not be ideal, but it simplifies many auctions that aren't opened 2♣ and we very rarely encounter opponent interference. In higher level competition this may not be true, but in higher level competition I'd be opening 1♣ strong and not playing SA anyways.

[peachy]

This is not a 2C opener. Can this be legally opened 2C? Yes, if the pair's agreement is that this qualifies as a "strong" hand. The problem is that GCC and ACBL regulations do not give adequate, if any, guidelines what constitutes a strong hand. This is a disclosure problem! When and how to tell opponents about this style? Moreover, those who think this is a 2C opener, probably have no clue that it is unexpected to the opponents to have 2C opener show up with this hand so they would not understand what there is to disclose...

 

As said in the related recent thread, I am still puzzled as to when/where/how this style became popular in the intermediate level. Maybe they have noticed that there is less interference when we open 2C and decided to open to 2C with "anything more than minimum". But to me, this style borders on secret agreements.

[glen]

I thought you were doing quite well until:

 

... But to me, this style borders on secret agreements.

This bordering on "secret agreements" is nonsense because you haven't figured out how it is secret or not: how it is to be disclosed and what is proper disclosure.

 

Given the move by the ACBL away from style alerts, disclosure is via the cc and full description when asked. Thus the real question is what do these folks put on their cc, and how do they describe their bid when asked?

[Walddk]

Is it a 2♣ opener? No.

 

Is it legal for a partnership to consider it a 2♣ opener? Yes.

What he said.

[keylime]

Ditto jdonn. As long as it's disclosed to me, I don't have a problem - quite often they miss the right contract anyway when this happens.

 

I had someone open a 15 point 2 suiter 2C, one of those AKxxxx AKJxx x x. We appealed it, stating it was a psychic. TD did not overturn the decision. Funny tho, because they missed their grand due to the inability to untangle the strain of the hand.

[jdonn]

I had someone open a 15 point 2 suiter 2C, one of those AKxxxx AKJxx x x. We appealed it, stating it was a psychic. TD did not overturn the decision. Funny tho, because they missed their grand due to the inability to untangle the strain of the hand.

Hmm. Why did you appeal if they missed their grand? And I'm confused, you appealed to the TD? Whose decision did he not overturn, I thought he makes the original decision and a committee either does or doesn't overturn that.

[Old York]

Hi

 

Having examined the traveller it is hard to see how the Spade Slam was missed after a 2C opener. Perhaps responder knew too much about his partner's style of 2C opening and fielded the bid.

 

The bid is legal, unless this pair have an "undisclosed partnership agreement"

 

Tony

[keylime]

Well realize I was a greenhorn that thought I knew more than I really did, at a STaC game in Oklahoma, hence the context.

[jtfanclub]

Is it 2C opener by west, per ACBL Tournaments-GCC?[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sak8765ha6d4caqt5]133|100|Scoring: Imps[/hv]

ACBL Midchart:

.

.

Allowed:

.

.

5. Opening 2♦ showing a weak 2 bid in an unspecified major and may include additional strong (15+ HCP) meaning(s).

.

.

8. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid.

 

So as far as I am concerned, "strong" in the ACBL charts means "15+ HCP". They can overrule me if they want, but I'm not going to rule that any 2♣ call is illegal as long as it includes at least 15 HCP.

 

This is not to say that I plan to play such a monstrosity, or that there are no 14 HCP hands that I might find legal. If the ACBL's going to put that much wiggle room into the description of what is legal, I'm going to find on the side of the players as often as I can.

[peachy]

I thought you were doing quite well until:

 

... But to me, this style borders on secret agreements.

This bordering on "secret agreements" is nonsense because you haven't figured out how it is secret or not: how it is to be disclosed and what is proper disclosure.

 

Given the move by the ACBL away from style alerts, disclosure is via the cc and full description when asked. Thus the real question is what do these folks put on their cc, and how do they describe their bid when asked?

I have personal experience about how "they" explain when asked to explain their 2C opening. The explanation is "Strong and forcing" preceded by a sideways look of *why are you asking, don't you know that 2C is standard or did you start playing yesterday*. Anyway, at the level of play where I want to play, this problem is rare. At clubs etc. it is more common.

 

Asking about a 2C opening could also present UI to my partner. The only reason to ask DURING THE AUCTION about a non-alerted standard 2C opening is if I have reason to suspect they don't have their bid. It is better to ask before the match or before the round, but nobody is that diligent and sometimes round gets started in a hurry, etc. etc. It's not worth the trouble at a club game or some local sectional, just accept *I got beat by a bunny* and move on.

[crazy4hoop]

PSYCHS

BARRING PSYCHIC ARTIFICIAL OPENING BIDS

All psychic openings of artificial bids are prohibited at ACBL

sanctioned events. This also applies to the SuperChart.

(Board of Directors - Summer 1992)

 

Opening an artificial and forcing bid without an "abundance" of high

card values is acceptable under the following circumstance: IF, IN THE

VIEW OF THE BIDDER, THERE IS A REASONABLE CHANCE FOR GAME IN HAND WITH

LITTLE HELP FROM PARTNER.

 

The following hands would qualify:

1. S AKQJ109765 or 2. S AKQ1098

H 754 H J109876

D 2 D 4

C --- C ---

 

These hands may be accepted as artificial 2 club openers IF THE

OPENING BIDDER THINKS THEY ARE REASONABLE. On the first hand opener

needs only one trick from partner. On the second hand, two small

spades and a heart honor probably would be enough to produce game.

 

What is NOT acceptable is the use of a strong, artificial, forcing 2C

opener holding: S 6

H 2

D QJ109876542

C 5

There would be good reason for a director to conclude that the opening

bidder's prime motive is to confuse the opponents rather than to reach

the right contract constructively. It is clear that opener is

psyching what is ordinarily a well defined bid in an attempt to

intimidate the opponents. This is exactly what the rule is intended

to prevent.

 

If a pair thinks that Examples 1 and 2 are two club openers, then

their convention card should have some notation about playing strength

in the appropriate place. Also, if a pair marks their card with HCP

limits for their two club openers, they should note if it only refers

to balanced hands. (Directions - April 1992)

[blackshoe]

So as far as I am concerned, "strong" in the ACBL charts means "15+ HCP".  They can overrule me if they want, but I'm not going to rule that any 2♣ call is illegal as long as it includes at least 15 HCP. 

 

This is not to say that I plan to play such a monstrosity, or that there are no 14 HCP hands that I might find legal.  If the ACBL's going to put that much wiggle room into the description of what is legal, I'm going to find on the side of the players as often as I can.

What is true for the Midchart does not necessarily apply to the General Chart. That said, my understanding is that the ACBl plans to "clarify" the meaning of strong on the GCC, and that it will probably say minimum 15 HCP. OTOH, this hand[hv=s=sakqjxxxxhjxxdcjx]133|100|[/hv] was ruled a permitted 2♣ opener at a sectional last year, and Rick Beye, ACBL CTD, agreed via private correspondence with the ruling. :)

[WckedKadie]

Yes, those in the school that open 2♣ based on distribution would be able to legally open this as 2♣ strong. This is a 4 LTC hand, with a major suit. That is 1 trick from game, the way some evaluate it (give partner xx xxxx xxxx Kxx and game has chances, make it xxx xx xxxx Kxxx and game is quite good).

When I open in 2♣ I am guaranteeing that I have game in hand. I will ALWAYS alert it as strong and may be artificial. Unless my rebid is 2NT showing that I have 23+ hcp, so I was too strong to open in 2NT, I will have at most 3 losers for a game in majors or 2 or less losers for a game in minors. With the exception of the rebid of 2NT, I never count hcp to open in 2♣. And if I am playing with a known partner they know it is GF. Wish I got to open with it more often :) This is why partnership agreements are so important in this game. With this hand I wouldn't be opening in 2♣ As an opponent it never hurts to ask what the bid means.

[TylerE]

Yes, those in the school that open 2♣ based on distribution would be able to legally open this as 2♣ strong.  This is a 4 LTC hand, with a major suit.  That is 1 trick from game, the way some evaluate it (give partner xx xxxx xxxx Kxx and game has chances, make it xxx xx xxxx Kxxx and game is quite good).

When I open in 2♣ I am guaranteeing that I have game in hand. I will ALWAYS alert it as strong and may be artificial. Unless my rebid is 2NT showing that I have 23+ hcp, so I was too strong to open in 2NT, I will have at most 3 losers for a game in majors or 2 or less losers for a game in minors. With the exception of the rebid of 2NT, I never count hcp to open in 2♣. And if I am playing with a known partner they know it is GF. Wish I got to open with it more often :) This is why partnership agreements are so important in this game. With this hand I wouldn't be opening in 2♣ As an opponent it never hurts to ask what the bid means.

So what do you open with:

 

A

AKQ

AQxx

KQxxxx

[Old York]

The old fashioned requirement for any game-forcing opening bid was 5QT in any unbalanced hand :

 

(AK, AQ. KQ, Kx) etc

 

According to Culbertson, the original hand contains 5QT because of the singleton

 

This has been drastically diluted by modern players, sometimes it works and sometimes it don't.

 

It is not the job of TD to judge (unless a psyche [gross distortion])

 

Tony

[blackshoe]

The problem with that, Tony, is that some people (like me) consider opening 2♣ on some hands (like the one I posted) to be a gross distortion, and therefore a psych. The table TD, while he refused to rule it a psych, did say that it was "very close". I didn't get an answer to "what would put it over the line"?

 

OTOH, I suppose it is the TD's judgment that must prevail - at least until the case gets to a committee. :P