What does this show?q

[blackshoe]

2♣-(P)-2♦-{P)-4♥/♠

 

?

[aguahombre]

dunno...never did it. How about ten solid and three stiffs?

[manudude03]

I was thinking the same thing, I found a reference that seems to say its a long broken suit with 9 tricks.

[blackshoe]

If you play that "weak/strong" thing, should you alert (ACBL rules)?

 

Never mind - the 9 card suit thing isn't in the "weak/strong" section.

[manudude03]

"First straight-forward methods are presented for 2NT and 2C openers. Then using 2NT and 2C as a weak or strong bid is presented. The latter is wicked, so often will not be allowed except for special events."

 

It will be alertable when it is allowed.

[blackshoe]

I once held, at teams, [hv=s=sakqjxxxxhjxxdcjx]133|100|[/hv]

 

The opponent who held my cards opened 2♣ in second seat and rebid 4♠. My teammates misdefended because they expected more high card strength in the side suits for a 2♣ opening (a point with which I agree). The TD ruled no MI and no psych, on the grounds that if the player believes his hand is "strong" then it is strong, pretty much regardless how many HCP it has. Rick Beye, in correspondence later, agreed with this ruling.

 

Max Hardy suggests this hand: [hv=s=sakqjxxxxhjxxdcjx]133|100|[/hv] and suggests that with only a seven card suit you should open 4♠ except at unfavorable, when it should be 3♠.

 

I guess what I really want to know is "where's the dividing line between a (4 level?) preempt and a strong 2♣ opening?" And also "where does 1♠-whatever-4♠ (uncontested) fit in?"

[pooltuna]

2♣-(P)-2♦-{P)-4♥/♠

 

?

It has to be different from

 

2♣-(P)-2♦-(P)

3♥/♠

 

I would think something like[hv=s=saxxxxxxxhaxdakca]133|100|[/hv]

[jdonn]

Zia once bid it and Rosenberg explained it as "needs 2 aces plus something more for slam". So maybe something like AKQJxxx AQx Kx x? Or maybe that's even too good. I was kibitzing in person and left so I never saw what he actually held.

[aguahombre]

the hand given by blackshoe, with only 8 tricks and just the solid spade suit should not be legal. My contention, on another string, was that 10-trick hands were ok for 2C regardless of HCP---but less is a violation unless it complies with the letter of the laws.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, well, you saw how it was ruled. I get the distinct impression in several cases that the ACBL has just got tired of fighting the tide, so they'll just rule the way people are playing, instead of requiring them to play according to the rules. :lol:

[mike777]

Mountains out of molehills...prime exhibit number one.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, Mike, I'm not sure what you mean.

[aguahombre]

Mountains out of molehills...prime exhibit number one.

huh? there is nothing trivial, IMHO about a deliberate psyche of a strong artificial bid contrary to the the rules. When the trick-taking power is such that at least game is virtually assured, "psyche" is assumed not to be the intent. When the trick-taking power is not present, "psyche" should be assumed.

[blackshoe]

In the case I cited, the director said "it's not a psych - but it's close". I couldn't get him to tell me what would have made it a psych.

 

Part of the problem may have been that the player concerned had previous experience which indicated that his bid would be ruled "not a psych" and/or "okay". If so, he can hardly be faulted for making it. OTOH, it's probably more likely that either he just didn't know what he was doing, or that he'd read Hardy or some similar book which suggested bidding this way with this kind of hand.

[Hanoi5]

9 tricks.

[ArtK78]

The determination of whether bidding 2♣ followed by 4 of a major on 8 solid in the major and out must be based on subjective, rather than objective, criteria until there is some rule in place that clearly states that 8 playing tricks with less than X HCP is not a legal strong 2 bid.

 

As was stated in the original post, the ruling was that if the player who made the bid believed that he held a "strong" hand then the 2♣ bid was not a psyche. You and I may disagree with the 2♣ opening on 8 solid and out, but that doesn't make it a psyche.

 

To me, 2♣ followed by 4 of a major should show a power hand (not a preemptive hand) consisting of an inflexible one suiter with about 9 1/2 to 10 playing tricks. Partner should expect that two aces would put us in the slam range, and anything more should virtually insure a slam.

[skjaeran]

For me it shows 9-9.5 tricks with a long suit. Less strength and far less defence than you normally expect for a 2♣ opening.

[straube]

What it might ought to promise is a minimum of 15 HCP. The GCC reads...

 

allowed are "Two Clubs Artificial Opening Bid indicating one of: a) a strong hand b) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP"

 

allowed are "Artificial and or Conventional Calls after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and openings of 2 or higher..."

 

This implies to me that the definition of strong is 15+ HCP.

 

One might argue that opening 2C with 13 isn't a psyche because it's within 2 points of the expected holding. I think then the crux of the argument is whether the opponents are using artificial responses to their 2C (possibly not counting a 2D response). If they are, then it seems like the opponents are entitled to banking on opener having 15. If they aren't, then perhaps not.

 

Anyway, I know the ACBL hasn't ruled this way, but I think they should think about it. Perhaps they could relax it to 13.

 

I remember I once had a hand that was something like AK AKxxxxxx xx x and opened that 2C. The opponents were miffed, but I thought I had my bid at the time and the director ruled that it wasn't a psyche.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I think it implies that the definition of a "strong and forcing" one level opening bid includes a requirement for at least 15 HCP.

 

It would be easy for ACBL to write in the regulation '"strong", where used in this regulation, means 15+ HCP', but they haven't.

 

I note that the current convention chart document on the ACBL web site was revised in July of last year. I have seen a comment somewhere from someone in the ACBL that the convention regs would be revised to clarify "strong", but I think it was after that date.