mtvesuvius Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 In ACBL is it legal to have the agreement that you open a precision 1♣ with either: 1) 16+ HCP2) Less than 5 loser hand I have been told one way by Mike Flader, and another by Patty Johnson, who is right and what about the WBF/EBU etc? I had this agreement with one of my partners and a pro also informed us it was illegal... Who is right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 In the ACBL I think this would be legal provided the five-loser option has at least 10 HCP "ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose openingbid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points." As far as I can tell this is the only statement that licenses a Precision style 1♣. There is nothing in this except the "10 high-card points" minimum to restrict that style. I don't think there would be any problem playing this in the WBF. Your system would be BLUE "Blue Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong " provided that your five-loser hand is always "strong" which is defined as "high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand". If your five-loser hand could be weaker than then then your system would be RED. If your five-loser hand could be "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. " then you would be playing a HUM. The real problem with this sort of opening in practice is often disclosure. The onus would be on the pair playing this method to make sure that the opponents understand that the 'strong 1♣' could be relatively weak in terms of high cards. The same sort of problem occurs when players routinely open weak high card but strong playing trick hands with 2♣. We had an appeal in NZ a year or two back where a pair opened 1♣ and described it simply as "Strong". When it turned out they had some 6=5 in the majors 11 HCP and that this was a relatively frequent practice for that partnership the opponents claimed rightly IMO misinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 In the ACBL I think this would be legal provided the five-loser option has at least 10 HCP "ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose openingbid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points." I do not doubt your quote is accurate. But, I thought there was something about the 1C opening having to be forcing. Does anyone know if a recent change has removed the forcing requirement? (And, can anyone confirm the recollection?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 seems legal, but it seems like it would limit your responses to nonconventional.1D can be a forcing artificial response (a negative response, for example), but I doubt 1H could show spades (for instance) against a hand that by agreement could be x KQxxxx AJxxx x. Maybe you only want natural responses, but I'd rather not be restricted to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 seems legal, but it seems like it would limit your responses to nonconventional.1D can be a forcing artificial response (a negative response, for example), but I doubt 1H could show spades (for instance) against a hand that by agreement could be x KQxxxx AJxxx x. Maybe you only want natural responses, but I'd rather not be restricted to them. This is correct - the opening would be legal if always 10+, but to play conventional responses above 1♦ would require the 1♣ opening to always be 15+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is correct - the opening would be legal if always 10+, but to play conventional responses above 1♦ would require the 1♣ opening to always be 15+. Not so. Item 3 under "responses and rebids": "CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is correct - the opening would be legal if always 10+, but to play conventional responses above 1♦ would require the 1♣ opening to always be 15+. Not so. Item 3 under "responses and rebids": "CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system." True - thus conventional responses above 1♦ would be allowed when they promise game forcing or better values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I think you folks are right. As long as the response created a GF, it could be conventional. I guess you couldn't play conventional semipositive responses...for example, you couldn't play that 1C-2H showed six spades and 4-7 HCP, but most people don't use semipositives anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrecisionL Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 This subject has been discussed many times over the years. ACBL Rick "Beye said yes, I could open this hand 1C even though it has only 14 HCP. Beye said that the question is whether there is an intent to deceive, and given this hand, that is clearly not my intent. " See the rest of this posting (and thread): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...57f7cac35958eb5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 This subject has been discussed many times over the years. ACBL Rick "Beye said yes, I could open this hand 1C even though it has only 14 HCP. Beye said that the question is whether there is an intent to deceive, and given this hand, that is clearly not my intent. " See the rest of this posting (and thread): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...57f7cac35958eb5 " intent to deceive" is misleading here. Simply explain 1♣ as artificial, forcing, and either 16+ or 10-15 with less than 5 losers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Legal or not, it's not a good idea. When you play strong club you should still open your distributional 13 and 14 counts naturally, as the opponents will usually interfere with the strong club (and then you are a step behind the other tables). For instance the purpose of the Precision auction 1M-1NT-3m is to show exactly this sort of hand -- one with the playing strength for 1♣ but a few hcp short Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I don't think a semi-positive response would nececcasrily be a problem, either, depending on how you showed a semi-positive. A 1♣-P-2♠ sequence as a natural asemi-positive (or even 1♠) should not be a problem because it is natural. Something more artificial, like a random 1♥ semi-positive, might be problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Something more artificial, like a random 1♥ semi-positive, might be problematic. Ironically I use 1♥ as a semi-positive with this partner, because he would double the opponents on the 2 and 3 level "hoping" that I had a maximum for my 1♦ bid... So I chose to sacrifice the 1♥ bid as a semi-positive to avoid this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Something more artificial, like a random 1♥ semi-positive, might be problematic. Ironically I use 1♥ as a semi-positive with this partner, because he would double the opponents on the 2 and 3 level "hoping" that I had a maximum for my 1♦ bid... So I chose to sacrifice the 1♥ bid as a semi-positive to avoid this. 1♥ as a semi-positive is quite frequently included in strong club auctions. That's why I was concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I agree with the consensus here: legal but in general not a good idea, especially on two suiters. Shading a bit on a hand with a good 7 card suit seems to work fairly well--I'm told Meckwell do this quite a bit. In any case, I would tend to insist on two things for a <16 HCP 1♣: (1) at least 14 HCP; (2) good defense for my HCP. Examples: ♠AKxxxx ♥AKxxx ♦x ♣x is reasonable; ♠KQJxx ♥KQJxx ♦Kxx ♣void is more doubtful though an HCP stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I think you folks are right. As long as the response created a GF, it could be conventional. I guess you couldn't play conventional semipositive responses...for example, you couldn't play that 1C-2H showed six spades and 4-7 HCP, but most people don't use semipositives anyway. This is natural not conventional. 1♥ any semi-positive would be an example of a convention that would be a problem if the opening does not guarantee 15 HCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 ... you couldn't play that 1C-2H showed six spades and 4-7 HCP... This is natural not conventional. Now, I know you guys in Australia and New Zealand love your transfer openers. But calling this one natural is just a bit off the deep end, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 ... you couldn't play that 1C-2H showed six spades and 4-7 HCP... This is natural not conventional. Now, I know you guys in Australia and New Zealand love your transfer openers. But calling this one natural is just a bit off the deep end, don't you think? whoops i misread :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.