CRASH over precision club

[Ayjay]

(1) Consider the following auction....

 

N...................E....................S......................W

 

1♣*.......... 1NT**................?

 

* Artificial 16+

 

** Two suits of the same shape (either ♣&♥ or ♦&♠) and point range UNKNOWN

 

Is Easts bid legitimate? Is he allowed to make a bid that is not only ambiguous in terms of suits but also in terms of values?

 

(As it happened N-S missed a fairly straightforward slam, giving them a bad score.)

 

(2) Next, is it acceptable to open 1NT (or natural 2NT) with values slightly less or more (by 1 point) than the specified range, after downgrading or upgrading the hand? For example:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqjhkjxxdkjxxcajx]133|100|Would I be found fault with if I were to decide to open the above hand 1NT instead of 1♣(16+) in precision?[/hv]

[helene_t]

Hi AyJay,

 

You will have to specify which jurisdiction you play in. Regulations vary around the globe.

 

As for Crash against strong NT I think it's allowed everywhere, possibly with the exception of ACBL (it might be deemed a "destructive" method).

 

As for downgrading 16 to 15, you can do that everywhere. If you often downgrade and/or use an unusual evaluation method, you should specify it on your CC, and it may be inadequate to explain 1NT as 13-15 if you often open 1NT with hands which most people would not consider to be in that range. Your example hand is obviously a below-medium 16-count so even though most people would probably treat it as 16, it won't be an issue if you have the partnership understanding that you treat it as 15. Anyway, as long as you disclose your agreements correctly, you can bid what you want. If you downgrade so often that partner starts expecting 14-16 from your 13-15 1NT openings, you must obviously state that on you CC.

 

BTW, posts about regulation issues should be in the laws&regulations forum. Maybe one of the mods will move it to there.

[Free]

1. A call is basically NEVER ambiguous in terms of values. 0-37HCP is very clear to me. If you have a 7-6 distribution with 0HCP, wouldn't you want to overcall? But with a 5-4 distribution you might have more HCP, and with a very strong 2-suiter you'll intervene and show you're strong afterwards.

Btw, a strong 1♣ opening is as "ambiguous" as can be: 16-37HCP without a known suit... So why would one pair be allowed to be "ambiguous" but not the other pair?

 

2. Upgrading and downgrading is part of the game, so I don't think you can be punished for this, as long as it's not extreme and you can explain it.

[glen]

... is it acceptable to open 1NT (or natural 2NT) with values slightly less or more (by 1 point) than the specified range, after downgrading or upgrading the hand? ...

The best "convention" that world champions Meckwell have on their wbf cc is "All points can be adjusted in any situation" and "Judgement allowed in any situation".

[mgoetze]

1. A call is basically NEVER ambiguous in terms of values. 0-37HCP is very clear to me. If you have a 7-6 distribution with 0HCP, wouldn't you want to overcall? But with a 5-4 distribution you might have more HCP, and with a very strong 2-suiter you'll intervene and show you're strong afterwards.

Btw, a strong 1♣ opening is as "ambiguous" as can be: 16-37HCP without a known suit... So why would one pair be allowed to be "ambiguous" but not the other pair?

I think you can even narrow down your calls over their 1♣ to 0-24. If you adjust/psyche, then they adjusted/psyched first. :lol:

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

My understanding is that any defense to a forcing 1C* is allowed in ACBL

events.

 

Other ruling bodies may very well have different ideas.

 

My normal style is to play a big club defense as 0-8HCP.

 

Pass and a later bid shows decent values.

 

They start out with 16+ so you are normally out pointed to start off bidding.

 

Regards,

Robert

[dake50]

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

 

No one seems to take advantage of throwing sand into an auction they start 1C: 2-7xC, 0-6xD, 0-5xH, 0-5xS, and 12-21 hcp. Haven't they got a myriad of cases to untangle? Don't we CRASHing expect a fit in pass/correct/not yet fashion?

[jjbrr]

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

 

No one seems to take advantage of throwing sand into an auction they start 1C: 2-7xC, 0-6xD, 0-5xH, 0-5xS, and 12-21 hcp. Haven't they got a myriad of cases to untangle? Don't we CRASHing expect a fit in pass/correct/not yet fashion?

I feel natural and constructive auctions are much more important not only for getting to games but also for finding the best fit and the right level. Even if you think a could-be-short 1♣ has a lot of stuff to untangle, it has much less to untangle than a strong club, and so the opponents are more likely to jump in the auction or at least respond naturally, which is not necessarily true of strong club auctions where responder has to double instead of bidding a suit sometimes, giving us less room to untangle our auction if we have the balance of the points.

[ArtK78]

I have played CRASH over strong, forcing and artificial 1♣ openings for over 25 years without anyone ever suggesting that the convention was not "legitimate." To the best of my knowledge, any defense against a strong, forcing and artificial 1♣ opening is permitted.

[jjbrr]

To the best of my knowledge, any defense against a strong, forcing and artificial 1♣ opening is permitted.

Except destructive methods iirc, eg 1♠ showing that you counted your cards and indeed have 13.

[aguahombre]

CRASH VS artificial 1C is Permitted in ACBL. I don't know why someone answered about CRASH vs. NT opening, since I don't see that question asked.

 

However, since it was brought up, CRASH vs. NT opening is o.k. in ACBL if playing above GCC chart, and can be adjusted for GCC by using double and 2C for "Color" and "Shape" respectively --with 2D for majors and 2NT for minors. That leaves the major suit overcalls natural.

[bluecalm]

I think using such defense is just cheating.

It's impossible for humans to assume "unkknown range" if they played with each other for some time and they will automatically make assumptions about partners hands.

Opponents have right to know those assumptions too. This is why they should specify the range they play.

[awm]

It's a legitimate style to decide that we will not look for game on power after the opponents open a strong 1♣, and that our one-level overcalls therefore just show shape and could have an extremely wide point range.

 

Obviously we have to disclose partnership agreements and experience, but it could easily be the case that (for example) 1NT shows two suits of the same shape either 4-4 or 5-4 and could be as few as 3 hcp or as much as 20, if that's really how we bid.

[ArtK78]

It's a legitimate style to decide that we will not look for game on power after the opponents open a strong 1♣, and that our one-level overcalls therefore just show shape and could have an extremely wide point range.

 

Obviously we have to disclose partnership agreements and experience, but it could easily be the case that (for example) 1NT shows two suits of the same shape either 4-4 or 5-4 and could be as few as 3 hcp or as much as 20, if that's really how we bid.

Absolutely. Much the same logic is behind the basic principal of DONT - find a fit quickly and play in it at the lowest level possible (unless you want to preempt). DONT does have a mechanism to investigate a game - a 2NT response to the DONT bid shows an unspecified game-going hand. But that is rare.

[PrecisionL]

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

[glen]

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

That's because this hand:

 

[hv=d=s&v=&s=sakq3ha842d98754c]133|100|[/hv]

if it opens 1♣, non-forcing, is an ACBL "natural" bid.

[PrecisionL]

Really!? I think in ACBLand you have to have at least 2 clubs for it to be 'natural.' Montreal Relay promises 3 cubs, and Richmond Relay promises 2 clubs. So this usage for 4-4-5-0 distribution would be artificial.

[glen]

Really!? I think in ACBLand you have to have at least 2 clubs for it to be 'natural.' Montreal Relay promises 3 cubs, and Richmond Relay promises 2 clubs. So this usage for 4-4-5-0 distribution would be artificial.

you said "may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)" - what part of that does not match the hand I gave?

[aguahombre]

Really!?  I think in ACBLand you have to have at least 2 clubs for it to be 'natural.'  Montreal Relay promises 3 cubs, and Richmond Relay promises 2 clubs.  So this usage for 4-4-5-0 distribution would be artificial.

you said "may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)" - what part of that does not match the hand I gave?

I think the wording refers to 4 4 3 2 hands, and the choice of minor opening....not that ridiculous example.

[the hog]

(1) Consider the following auction....

 

N...................E....................S......................W

 

1♣*.......... 1NT**................?

 

* Artificial 16+

 

** Two suits of the same shape (either ♣&♥ or ♦&♠) and point range UNKNOWN

 

Is Easts bid legitimate? Is he allowed to make a bid that is not only ambiguous in terms of suits but also in terms of values?

 

(As it happened N-S missed a fairly straightforward slam, giving them a bad score.)

 

(2) Next, is it acceptable to open 1NT (or natural 2NT) with values slightly less or more (by 1 point) than the specified range, after downgrading or upgrading the hand? For example:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqjhkjxxdkjxxcajx]133|100|Would I be found fault with if I were to decide to open the above hand 1NT instead of 1♣(16+) in precision?[/hv]

It depends where you play. This would certainly be acceptable in the ABF fr example.

Fowr what its worth, I don't think this method is an optimal defence to a big Club, but that has nothing to do with your question.

[the hog]

I think using such defense is just cheating.

It's impossible for humans to assume "unkknown range" if they played with each other for some time and they will automatically make assumptions about partners hands.

Opponents have right to know those assumptions too. This is why they should specify the range they play.

No this comment is plain silly as well as provocative. Provided there is high variance, there is nothing that is "cheating: about such methods. Whether these methos are effective and "good bridge" is another story.

[Free]

To the best of my knowledge, any defense against a strong, forcing and artificial 1♣ opening is permitted.

Except destructive methods iirc, eg 1♠ showing that you counted your cards and indeed have 13.

Don't know if this is an ACBL rule.

 

According to WBF rules you're not allowed to play a method where you're obligated to be 1♠ just because opps open a strong 1♣. This has nothing to do with being destructive, it's about obligation. For example, you are allowed to play 1♠ as any hand with 0-3♠. :D

[glen]

I think the wording refers to 4 4 3 2 hands, and the choice of minor opening....not that ridiculous example.

There are a whole stack of people who say "could be short" and it means far more than just the 4=4=3=2 case. If you take the 'ridiculous example" and flip the minor suits (i.e. making it a 4=4=0=5), there are pairs that open 1♦ as 11-15, "could be short". Some though are nice to say "could be short as zero", but then it takes several questions to find out the hand types that are in or not in 1♦. Likewise questions are necessary over a "could be short" 1♣ as methods vary.

[hrothgar]

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

I'm calling bullshit...

 

There was a discussion about just this topic a few monthes back which (essentially) concluded that players in ACBL-land can use whatever methods they want over a short club.

 

As I recall, Jan Martel made a comment concurring with this...

[rbforster]

Even more notable ACBL GCC allows CRASH against 1C that may be 2-card club as not a 'natural' bid.

CRASH is not allowed in ACBL GCC events if the 1♣ opening may be short and is NOT forcing AND is NOT strong (15+ hcp)

Incorrect. A 1♣ opener that does not promise 3+ clubs is conventional, as natural minor openings are clearly spelled out to require 3+ cards on the GCC. As such, if you open some weak NT hands 1♣, including those with only 2 clubs (like 4=4=3=2), your 1♣ is conventional. Per GCC, any defense is allowed over an opponent's conventional call.

 

Time to bust out your 2♥ multi and 2♦ Wilcosz weak jump overcalls...