Artificial 2 openings

[Trinidad]

You said that you think the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open the hand under discussion with 2♣. I showed the rest of the regulation that means that is not correct. No amount of wanting the regulation to be what you think is better will make it so.

The rest of the regulation doesn't contradict my point of view in any way. I will quote it for you with a little emphasis of my own:

8 clear-cut tricks and the points normally associated with a one level opening

And you think that "normally" applies to 12-0-0-1 distributions? I would say that they are well beyond 3 sigma. Hence my "Points schmoints".

 

Rik

[campboy]

The only reason the word "normally" is used in the regulation is to make it clear (which it does) that it is the points most people associate with a 1-level opening that are required, not the points you personally associate. It is the association, not the hand, which needs to be "normal".

 

Since an agreement to open at the 1-level on fewer than 8 HCP is not permitted, it is clear that whatever number of points is "normally associated", it is at least 8. The L&E committee recently discussed changing the regulation to give a specific number of points instead, but this was narrowly defeated. I think that it should have been changed.

[bluejak]

It is difficult to understand whether the majority of the posts in this thread are serious. If people really believe what they are saying .... Ok, I shall fall for it, and pretend that people who are posting about wild and impossible hands really are not just having a joke. So I shall pretend to take it seriously.

 

Whether it shoudl be so or not, it is a fact that every RA that I know has some restriction on what you are allowed to play. Since there are restrictions in WBF events it is hardly surprising that the EBU regulates its events. Regulations are made to provide what the RA considers the fairest methods for its members. Caterwauling about hands that will never come up does not alter this nor make it an undesirable approach.

 

Suppose you decide to learn K-S, or 2/1 GF. You get the book. How many pages are concerned with 12-card suits? Surely you are not going to play a system where the author fails to consider how to bid a 12-card suit? :ph34r:

 

Now, anyone with half a brain knows that worrying about hands that turn up once a lifetime if that is pointless. That is why people who write bridge books do not: that is why people who write regulations do not worry. You do not need an agreement on 12-card suits and if you have one, you have wasted valuable time and brain cells.

 

One of the problems that England has to face is that players have found a very effective pre-empt: you do not have to open 4♣ with 8 points and ten playing tricks, it is much easier to open 2♣ and call it strong and artificial. It is not bridge, but it is surprisingly effective. This is abuse, of course, and surely unintentional with the majority, but it needs to be controlled. The EBU has come up with its own solution, better I believe than the ACBL which has rules about strong bids but no definition of strong.

 

There is more to it, of course: for forty plus years the EBU has had an approach of requiring applications to play new agreements. Strangely, there has only been one application in my twenty years for a bid of this sort, and even that is now included in what is permitted. Could it be that players who understand prefer to play it illegally with the advantages that "It is strong" brings even when it is not?

 

So we have a regulation. It is easy to get it looked at: unlike the ACBL, where it seems very difficult to get things looked at and explained, the L&EC deals with a lot of correspondence, answers questions, and puts sensible queries and applications on the Agenda. The minutes are available on the website for all to see. But if you think that the thing wrong with the regulation is it does not allow you to open 2♣ with a 12-card suit and no brains whatever you will not get a very sensible answer! :)

 

Of course, there was one post lost in the middle that seemed to fully answer the silly hands:

 

I have always been amazed that the "laws" might have a problem with my opening 2C with (exaggerated example) AQJT9XXXXXXX - - x, if I determine that is the best way to find out if partner has the club ACE. Is that intermediate? I guess it barely meets the rule of 20 for a 1-bid.

I'm no expert - but I thought that the prohibition under the laws was against an agreement . In this case I might bid outside my agreement (so that partner is as unaware of my true hand as the opponents).

 

I might do this where my agreement is insufficient and I expect my bid to elicite information that I need.

[blackshoe]

Suppose that I get dealt ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2. What am I supposed to do? :( :ph34r: :)

 

;)

Rik

Play Namyats.

[nigel_k]

It seems to me this falls into the category of regulating psyches, rather than simply regulating agreements. You just don't want people opening a strong artificial 2♣ (whether Benji or Std) on weak hands because it is too easy for them to avoid subequent problems and too hard for the opponents to deal with.

 

If so, wouldn't it be simpler to just say it is illegal to open 2♣ without meeting the stated requirements, regardless of partnership agreement? It would also be much easier to police and would catch the fairly common case of people who decide to take advantage of their one or two chances to open a weak hand before it becomes an implicit agreement.

[bluejak]

The problem with many solutions offered about regulations is that they often look at a specific problem rather than the general. The EBU Orange book has a lot of regulations covering permitted agreements of which this is one. Are you suggesting that opening artificial twos should be a special case? What are you going to do about all the other permitted agreements?

 

I am not saying you are wrong, but personally I do not like special approaches different from the rest, and my guess would be that the L&EC would not either. If you are going to have a special rule for one type of agreement how do you justify it? Or how are you going to generalise it? And how do you get players to understand it?

[Trinidad]

Suppose that I get dealt ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2. What am I supposed to do? :(  :( :huh:

 

;)

Rik

Play Namyats.

I think I beat you by almost 7.5 hours:

(Quite obviously (;)), the actual correct opening bid is 4♦. After partner's expected 4♠ you rebid 5♥, and then after partner's expected 5♠, you rebid 6♦. What are you saying? You don't play Namyats?!?)

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Ok, I give in: please excuse one completely off-topic post. Nothing to do with the Laws!!!!

 

I played a Welsh Cup match. I cannot remember the exact hand, but it was something like:

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=saqxhdakjxxxxckxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W. .N. .E. You

4♠ 6♣ 6♥ 7♣

.P. .P. 7♥ ?[/hv]

Do you double?

[aguahombre]

Nothing you could do would be off-topic. Just use your powers and move everthing else to a different forum.

[Trinidad]

I will be serious in this post, David.

 

I understand that you want to do something about players that open 2♣ when they really hold a preemptive hand. I fully agree with you that something must be done there. I have played against pairs where the auction started 2♣-2♦;2♥-2♠;3♥-Pass. In those cases, dummy will always say that "he had a hunch" when he passed with a decent hand. And those hunches somehow always work. So, I think it is good that you do something about that. I may not agree on what you do about it, but that is an entirely different story.

 

The point that I want to act against is Jeremy's idea that if someone opens a freak 12 CCT hand with 2♣ that the pair:

- either has a partnership understanding about it

- or that it will create an implicit partnership understanding

and that these understandings are illegal.

 

The point is that no one has a partnership understanding for something that never happens. And when it does happen anyway, it can't create an implicit agreement, since the frequency is far too low to establish a pattern.

 

That simply means that if any one would get dealt a freak 12 CCT hand, he can open it any way he wants, without fearing that there would be an illegal understanding, since there wasn't any understanding at all... and there never will be.

 

(In practice, when you do get a 12-0-0-1 distribution, probably someone else has opened the bidding before you. :rolleyes:)

 

Rik

[jeremy69]

The point that I want to act against is Jeremy's idea that if someone opens a freak 12 CCT hand with 2♣ that the pair:

- either has a partnership understanding about it

- or that it will create an implicit partnership understanding

and that these understandings are illegal.

 

I am happy to agree that the frequency is so low that you are liekly to die waiting for the next one to turn up. I don't believe I've had a 12 card suit yet after about 43 years of playing. It's probably not worth wasting brain power over either not only because it won't happen but also because very extreme hands don't fit all that well to a set of rules. I guess, however, that if you and I play we now have an implicit understanding. I think the implicit agreement that arises is in general rather than with respect to 12 card suits and whether it is right or not or you agree or not it is not legal to agree to make an agreement under English regulations to open such a hand 2C.

[Trinidad]

The point that I want to act against is Jeremy's idea that if someone opens a freak 12 CCT hand with 2♣ that the pair:

- either has a partnership understanding about it

- or that it will create an implicit partnership understanding

and that these understandings are illegal.

 

I am happy to agree that the frequency is so low that you are liekly to die waiting for the next one to turn up. I don't believe I've had a 12 card suit yet after about 43 years of playing. It's probably not worth wasting brain power over either not only because it won't happen but also because very extreme hands don't fit all that well to a set of rules. I guess, however, that if you and I play we now have an implicit understanding. I think the implicit agreement that arises is in general rather than with respect to 12 card suits and whether it is right or not or you agree or not it is not legal to agree to make an agreement under English regulations to open such a hand 2C.

So you think that you and I now have an implicit understanding. What would our implicit understanding be?

 

(Let's assume for argument's sake that any understanding would be allowed. Otherwise the fact that I would not knowingly break the rules might influence your answer. Obviously, you are also allowed to answer a second question where we would be playing under EBU regulations.)

 

Rik

[karen4]

I understand that you want to do something about players that open 2♣ when they really hold a preemptive hand. I fully agree with you that something must be done there. I have played against pairs where the auction started 2♣-2♦;2♥-2♠;3♥-Pass. In those cases, dummy will always say that "he had a hunch" when he passed with a decent hand. And those hunches somehow always work.

I think that the problem is finding a rule that prevents this. Whatever rule you come up with is going to be arbitrary to some extent and is going to prevent some freak hands opening 2♣ that some people feel should be allowed and / or allow some that people feel should not. I think the laws and ethics committee have done a pretty decent job with the current regulations and having a rule that are not perfect is preferable to not having a rule at all and allowing the 2♣ or 2♦ strong artificial openings to be abused.

[Trinidad]

Ok, I give in: please excuse one completely off-topic post. Nothing to do with the Laws!!!!

 

I played a Welsh Cup match. I cannot remember the exact hand, but it was something like:

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=saqxhdakjxxxxckxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

W. .N. .E. You

4♠ 6♣ 6♥ 7♣

.P. .P. 7♥ ?[/hv]

Do you double?

I would double. I wouldn't expect to beat it a lot, but I would expect to beat it. (And I am not allowed to save in 8♣, anyway.)

 

What's the story?

 

Rik

[jeremy69]

So you think that you and I now have an implicit understanding. What would our implicit understanding be?

 

That you would open hands which had extreme distribution but did not meet the current EBU regulations for a strong two with a 2C artificial opening. You also know that I wouldn't, of course, as it would be too embarrassing for the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee to be caught breaking this rule. :(

[Blue Uriah]

Ok, I give in: please excuse one completely off-topic post.  Nothing to do with the Laws!!!!

 

I played a Welsh Cup match.  I cannot remember the exact hand, but it was something like:

 

Dealer: West Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQx ♥ [space] ♦ AKJxxxx ♣ Kxx

W. .N. .E. You 4♠ 6♣ 6♥ 7♣ .P. .P. 7♥ ?

Do you double?

I would double. I wouldn't expect to beat it a lot, but I would expect to beat it. (And I am not allowed to save in 8♣, anyway.)

 

What's the story?

 

Rik

Did East have 12 hearts? :( It wouldn't be a story unless 7♥ was cold. :(

[Trinidad]

So you think that you and I now have an implicit understanding. What would our implicit understanding be?

 

That you would open hands which had extreme distribution but did not meet the current EBU regulations for a strong two with a 2C artificial opening. You also know that I wouldn't, of course, as it would be too embarrassing for the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee to be caught breaking this rule. :(

Hi Jeremy

 

You took the bait. Don't worry, I am not going to eat you, but it makes it possible to make my point clear.

 

I would never open ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2 or ♠2 ♥3 ♦- ♣KQJT9876543 with 2♣. You can be pretty sure about that.

 

This has nothing to do with the EBU regulations. It has everything to do with the fact that I don't think 2♣ is the best bid. In fact, I think it is a horrible bid, because it will get me a bad result. This is not the situation to bid cooperatively with your partner, following your agreements, to some nice result.

 

So my point is not: "I should be allowed to open 2♣, since I think it is the best way to find out where we belong." My point is: "When Aunt Millie happens to get this hand, she should be allowed to open it 2♣ if she thinks that it's the best way to find out where she belongs." And since Aunt Millie and Uncle Ted won't have an agreement on how to bid these hands, they are not breaking any rules.

 

And by all means, read "Justin Hacket" or "Andy Robson" where I wrote "Aunt Millie". Or do you think that they have any agreements for these hand types?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Did East have 12 hearts?  :(  It wouldn't be a story unless 7♥ was cold.  :(

I think it would be a much better story if he would have 13 hearts.

 

Rik

[campboy]

If we are really talking about 12-card suits then I have wasted my time in reading this thread.

 

But I think people are talking about really extreme hands, and exaggerating. And the worry is that someone will apply what is said here to a 10-card suit, or a 9400.

[NickRW]

It seems to me this falls into the category of regulating psyches, rather than simply regulating agreements. You just don't want people opening a strong artificial 2♣ (whether Benji or Std) on weak hands because it is too easy for them to avoid subequent problems and too hard for the opponents to deal with.

 

If so, wouldn't it be simpler to just say it is illegal to open 2♣ without meeting the stated requirements, regardless of partnership agreement? It would also be much easier to police and would catch the fairly common case of people who decide to take advantage of their one or two chances to open a weak hand before it becomes an implicit agreement.

I think this post has legs and that David's response is not really adequate. The EBU, in its infinite wisdom, has no problem in regulating that a multi 2D is not allowed to be psyched at Level 3. Therefore there is precedent, in the current regs, for an exception.

 

The reason I say this is that we had a case of this at the local club only last night where someone opened a strong 2 of some sort on an 8 card spade suit and little else - probably in ignorance of the rules, rather than deliberately. The pair they were playing against did know the rules and when they had taken an (as its turns out) ill advised 6♥ sac against what they thought was a making 5♠ the other way, called the director (not me this time fortunately). Now that was simple enough to deal with, but there are a few players, possibly ignorant of the rules, who are never the less street wise enough to say, "but I psyched - my partner did indeed think it was strong". Which leaves the TD in an awkward position.

 

Frankly, I wish the L&EC would simply come up with a version of this regulation that they wouldn't keep changing. I think I am right in saying that there has been a tweak to the wording of this every year since it has come into being and, apparently from one thread here, maybe yet another in the pipeline.

 

Opening a strong 2 on some of the sorts of hands talked about here may be good bridge, but changing the rules every year is not good regulating either.

 

Nick

[Trinidad]

Of course, we are not talking about 12 card suits. They just make clearer examples.

 

The key is that at some point, the hand will be so extreme that you have reached hand types that you can't describe by "system". You are on your own, your system won't help you. Then your job is to make the best of it.

 

Since at that point, there is no "system", there are no agreements. That means that there are no agreements to regulate either. Therefore, system regulations simply do not apply.

 

Therefore, if someone has 10 CCTs in an 8 HCP hand or 12 CCTs in a 7 HCP hand, just let them bid whatever they think is best. Don't go even close to saying that this is an illegal agreement, since there is no agreement.

 

I am fully agreeing on dealing with pairs that open 2♣ on ♠KQJTxxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣x and manage to stop in 3♠, where the field is in 4♠X (or the opponents playing game or slam). I even would want to act if a player opens 2♣ on ♠AKQJxxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣x and somehow, mysteriously, everything falls in place. But in those cases, you can be reasonably sure that a similar situation has come up several times before or even that it was discussed at some point.

 

But when you are dealt a hand where 7 different opening bids are chosen when the board was played 6 times only, then anything goes, since nobody has any agreement what so ever.

 

Rik

[NickRW]

The problem with many solutions offered about regulations is that they often look at a specific problem rather than the general. The EBU Orange book has a lot of regulations covering permitted agreements of which this is one. Are you suggesting that opening artificial twos should be a special case? What are you going to do about all the other permitted agreements?

 

I am not saying you are wrong, but personally I do not like special approaches different from the rest, and my guess would be that the L&EC would not either. If you are going to have a special rule for one type of agreement how do you justify it? Or how are you going to generalise it? And how do you get players to understand it?

Just write into the regs that bids that are defined as strong or which include strong options can't be psyched at whatever level you deem they shouldn't. Its simple enough. Or stop trying to regulate against what is, in fact, common practice.

 

One or the other - you make up your mind. This regulation has been a dogs breakfast and continues to be so.

 

 

Nick

[NickRW]

Of course, we are not talking about 12 card suits. They just make clearer examples....

From a purely logical point of view, your post makes sense. But, in practice, where is the TD (or the regulating authority) supposed to draw the line? It is very easy to say that a hand that can be opened 7 different ways should not fall foul of rules, but who is to decide that the hand is of that type - and how are they to come to this decision?

 

Nick

[Trinidad]

Of course, we are not talking about 12 card suits. They just make clearer examples....

From a purely logical point of view, your post makes sense.

 

Thank you. ;)

 

But, in practice, where is the TD (or the regulating authority) supposed to draw the line?  It is very easy to say that a hand that can be opened 7 different ways should not fall foul of rules, but who is to decide that the hand is of that type - and how are they to come to this decision?

 

Nick

I know that this is very difficult. There is a line somewhere out there, but where? The second problem is that there will not be an aweful lot of jurisprudence since freak hands are rare. This also means that it is difficult to regulate by any rules (specified in HCPs, CCTs, LTC or AOKOHEM).

 

So: Don't specify. Leave it up to the TD.

 

In my opinion, a good TD can see whether a hand really is a rare beast or whether it was just a "preempt in disguise". And if he can't see it, just ask a few other players what they bid. If the whole room opened 3 or 4♠, and this pair opened 2♣, it was a "preempt in disguise". If the room opened anything varying from 4♠ to 1♠ to 2♣ to pass and a 1♦ psych, you know that it is the rare beast. Same thing goes if this was the hand that everyone talks about afterwards, since no one was sure what to bid. (I could imagine that the whole room opens 4♠, giving up on slam, and one pair tries to figure out whether slam is possible by opening 2♣. That should be allowed imo.)

 

The real thing that the TD has to judge is whether there was an agreement. If responder lets the auction die out in a partscore when holding two kings, you know that there was an agreement. This has come up before. Hands with a good 7+ card suit and little on the side (or "something" on the side, depending on the pair) occur much more often than hands with a good 7+ card suit and about 10 HCPs on the side. That means that for this pair "preempts in disguise" occur much more frequently than the hand type that would actually be considered "normal" for an auction like 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠; 3♥. In other words, when they have the auction 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠; 3♥, they know what it means. Therefore, they have an agreement.

 

Another thing about leaving it to the TD: TDs are human and make mistakes. It is not the end of the world. But I think that the odds that the TD misjudges when he actually sees the hand are much smaller than the odds that the L&E committee misjudges when they set specifications when they can only try to imagine the hand.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Trinidad doubles: anyone else?