All Blacks

[Cascade]

To celebrate they dealt me:

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sjt9874hdcaq96543]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

So how do you handle this?

 

Side question: Are you allowed to open 1♠ or 1♣ on 7HCP where you play?

[CSGibson]

We're allowed to do what we want when we want here in America; we just call it a psych & get on with it.

 

As for what to do, I probably pass first chair & wait for developments. I'll make up for it by bidding more later.

[Cascade]

I don't think it is a psyche if everytime you hold this hand (and similar hands) you would open at the one-level. It then is part of your implicit agreements.

[CSGibson]

I don't think it is a psyche if everytime you hold this hand (and similar hands) you would open at the one-level. It then is part of your implicit agreements.

Luckily, I have no partnership agreements, either implicit or explicit, about how to handle 6-7 hands with less than 8 HCP. They just don't seem to come up that often.

[peachy]

We're allowed to do what we want when we want here in America; we just call it a psych & get on with it.

It is not a psych if you decide to open this hand; well, unless you open 1D or 1H.

[Fluffy]

1♠ then clubs for me.

[gwnn]

6C

[whereagles]

I would pass and cue or bid some ridiculous nr. of NT later.

[Free]

Pfff I can open 2♠ weak with 55+♠-m, but I don't like it.

I am allowed to open 1X, even with 5HCP (rule of 18: 6♠ + 7♣ + 7HCP = 20 >= 18).

Pass probably works out best.

[ONEferBRID]

I'm opening 1C ... planning on bidding Sp twice whether interference or not.

This hand becomes huge with a fit or worth a save if opps have a Ht game.

[Cyberyeti]

I would pass and cue or bid some ridiculous nr. of NT later.

Yup, ideal when your partner jumps in a red suit ... NOT

 

I'm probably opening a weak 2S, then bid clubs (at the 5 level if necessary). This hand is not going to die at low level and I'll get my chance to bid. I'll establish the sort of amount of defence I have immediately, and the amount of offence by bidding a lot.

[gwnn]

BTW I just understood the (bridge part of) the thread title.

[Phil]

I would laugh at any director or NBO that disallowed a natural 1♣ opening.

[Cascade]

I would laugh at any director or NBO that disallowed a natural 1♣ opening.

I think that is unfair on the director. He did not make the rules.

 

The ACBL is one jurisdiction where it seems to me that you cannot open this hand at the one level unless it is an unexpected deviation from your system. "unexpected" in the sense that partner does not expect you to open this hand at the one level not "unexpected" in the sense that this hand does not come up very often.

 

The ACBL's rule is a rigid

 

Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

 

It is the regulators that should be laughed at not the Tournament Director IMHO. The Tournament Director is "bound by the announced regulation".

[JLOGIC]

Why do people want to open 1C? It is a complete misdescription. Admittedly it's hard to describe 6-7 with a lot of offense.

 

Still my best bet would be to start with 3C showing 6 or 7 clubs and a good offensive hand with little defense. My next bid of 4S will surely sound like a 5-7 hand, still with good offense and little defense (and high cards). I could be weaker in HCP for this, but I think it's about as good of a description as I can offer, and it also preempts the opponents a bit.

[foo]

I don't think it is a psyche if everytime you hold this hand (and similar hands) you would open at the one-level. It then is part of your implicit agreements.

Luckily, I have no partnership agreements, either implicit or explicit, about how to handle 6-7 hands with less than 8 HCP. They just don't seem to come up that often.

ROTFLMAO! :)

[the hog]

As every bid is a misdescription, even if you play 2 suited openings, I would make a rare pass with a 2 suited hand and bid very strongly afterward.

I realise this is not good bridge, to let the opps have first bite at the cherry, and certainly if I didn't have the S suit, I would open something else. However as someone said, 7-6 hands don't come up that often.

[akhare]

Pass, with the intention of bidding a lot on the subsequent rounds. However, given that it's a team game with a NZ vs. Oz rivalry (I am guessing that's what the title means), it's really comes down to what you think your opps might do at the other table, the system we are playing, etc...

[OldPalooka]

I believe the ACBL reg is that you may not _agree_ to open this hand, not that you may not open it. If you pick up a bunch of 76 hands with 7HCP in one session, you could fall afoul of an implicit agreement ruling if the same director gets called to your table a lot. Of course he might also decide the law that allows the ACBL or any other organization to control agreements on hands of a King or more below average strength may not apply in this case.

 

Regardless, I would open 3C and expect to bid again the next round. There will be a next round, right?

[Cascade]

I believe the ACBL reg is that you may not _agree_ to open this hand, not that you may not open it. If you pick up a bunch of 76 hands with 7HCP in one session, you could fall afoul of an implicit agreement ruling if the same director gets called to your table a lot. Of course he might also decide the law that allows the ACBL or any other organization to control agreements on hands of a King or more below average strength may not apply in this case.

 

Regardless, I would open 3C and expect to bid again the next round. There will be a next round, right?

Sure but agreements can be explicit or implicit.

 

If you would always open a hand like this at the one level then you may well have an implicit agreement.

[H_KARLUK]

To celebrate they dealt me:

 

Dealer: South Vul: E/W Scoring: MP

♠ JT9874 ♥ [space] ♦ [space] ♣ AQ96543

 

So how do you handle this?

 

Side question: Are you allowed to open 1♠ or 1♣ on 7HCP where you play?

There are still 33 HCP somewhere!!

 

P A S S

[helene_t]

I am worried that 3♣ then 4♠ sounds more like 4-8 than 5-7, let alone 6-7. Without having discussed this with p I start with pass. If I start with 1♣ I would find it hard to respect partner's penalty double of 5red or something.

 

If I play Muiderberg I would use it with this hand.

[gwnn]

whoa and you won in Melbourne. impressive stuff.

 

edit: to reiterate, everybody is a chicken on these forums. opening anything less than at least on the 4 level is a big lol. B)

[cherdanno]

I am worried that 3♣ then 4♠ sounds more like 4-8 than 5-7, let alone 6-7. Without having discussed this with p I start with pass. If I start with 1♣ I would find it hard to respect partner's penalty double of 5red or something.

 

If I play Muiderberg I would use it with this hand.

Obviously you need to discuss this stuff more with your partners. With 8-4 you start with 4♣ and bid 4♠, with 8-5 you start with 4♣ and bid 5♠. If your partner refuses to discuss this stuff then probably he wants to open them all 1♣ without having an agreement with you about it so its still legal.

[OldPalooka]

I believe the ACBL reg is that you may not _agree_ to open this hand, not that you may not open it. If you pick up a bunch of 76 hands with 7HCP in one session, you could fall afoul of an implicit agreement ruling if the same director gets called to your table a lot. Of course he might also decide the law that allows the ACBL or any other organization to control agreements on hands of a King or more below average strength may not apply in this case.

 

[snip]

 

If you would always open a hand like this at the one level then you may well have an implicit agreement.

If you play a lot of bridge you can expect a 7 count rule of 20 hand once or twice a decade. I personally would not worry about a potential implicit agreement until the second one is actually opened with a 1-bid in the same partnership in significantly less than a decade. Hopefully by then there will be addenda to the ACBL regs to the effect that freaky seven counts are not actually a king less than average strength since it is difficult for a bridge player, instead of a lawyer or bureaucrat to think so.

 

I assume that NZ regs are more enlightened. It is difficult to imagine less light than ACBL regs about 8-9 point NTs and <8 HCP one-bids.