GCC clarification?

[A2003]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqxhakj98765d9c8]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♣[/hv]

 

Is it 2♣ opener per GCC convention chart?

[hrothgar]

Believe it or not, the ACBL has stated (essentially) the following

 

If you think its strong, it is strong....

Do whatever you damn well please....

[blackshoe]

Hrothgar's right. :)

 

This hand[hv=s=sakqjxxxxhjxxdcjx]133|100|[/hv] when opened 2♣ at a local sectional a while back, was described (by the TD) as "not a psych, but close". :)

[peachy]

If your partner agrees it is a 2C opener, then it is fine and allowed.

 

The problem comes when none of the opponents expect this hand and there is no disclosure of your 2C opening style. Good players will not open this 2C and I really think ACBL should set some parameters what hands qualify. Until they do, hrothgar and blackshoe said it.

[LH2650]

Knowing that partner has the spade Jack is sufficient to make me want to be in game. Since the criterion is that there is a reasonable chance for game, with little help from partner, this hand must qualify. Blackshoe's TD perhaps should have done a little more research, because the example hand does not seem to qualify according to the Tech Files.

[jdonn]

What is "little"? What is "reasonable"?

[aguahombre]

Hrothgar's right. :(

 

This hand

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ AKQJxxxx ♥ Jxx ♦ [space] ♣ Jx

when opened 2♣ at a local sectional a while back, was described (by the TD) as "not a psych, but close". :ph34r:

this is wrong, but the O.P. hand is o.k., IMO. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

However, if the TD's only criterion was whether it was a deliberately misleading and intentional overstatement of opener's values, then the 8-solid spades is not that.

[Mbodell]

The OP hand is perfectly fine. I have an agreement with a couple of my partners that any 4 LTC hand is strong and opened 2♣. It is not the best possible agreement, but it is the best agreement possible in these partnerships. And it isn't uncommon amongst int- players in NA (either explicitly or more often implicitly). I write "or distributional" in the 2♣ space on the card and if I were ever asked about it (which I haven't) I'd include something about distributional 4 LTC hands in the explanation.

[Siegmund]

My card is marked "23+bal, 21+unbal, or 9+ playing tricks", and I am very happy to call OP's hand 9 playing tricks, 7.5 in hearts and 1.5 in spades, though I admit I need an entry or a favorable lead to achieve that. If that's what your CC says, your opps shouldn't be surprised when you open accordingly.

 

I've seen many other cards marked 8 1/2 tricks. For them, 8 solid tricks plus two jacks... welll.... its less than half a trick off, anyway.

 

As I understand the rules, both hands would not be counted as strong enough in Europe - though I've never much cared for the rule of 25 as a basis for a regulation.

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe's TD perhaps should have done a little more research, because the example hand does not seem to qualify according to the Tech Files.

The then CTD of the ACBL, I forget his name at the moment, concurred with the on-site TD.

 

Many parts of the tech files are probably years old.

[peachy]

Knowing that partner has the spade Jack is sufficient to make me want to be in game.  Since the criterion is that there is a reasonable chance for game, with little help from partner, this hand must qualify.  Blackshoe's TD perhaps should have done a little more research, because the example hand does not seem to qualify according to the Tech Files.

In ACBL, you should rely on ACBL regulations and the laws. The Tech Files are not part of the regulations.

 

Until we get updated criteria for 2C opening in ACBL regulations, anything goes. It has been so ruled consistently and it is very unfortunate. I believe the low HCP variants should be described honestly on the system card, not just "9+ tricks".

KQ109xxxxxx-x-xx-void also has "reasonable chance for game with a little help from partner".

[JLOGIC]

It seems like this rule changes all the time

[Cascade]

though I've never much cared for the rule of 25 as a basis for a regulation.

Its nearly as bad as using high card points.

[blackshoe]

It seems like this rule changes all the time

A common complaint about the laws and regulations generally, but I'm not sure there's much basis to it. ;)

[Cascade]

Until we get updated criteria for 2C opening in ACBL regulations, anything goes. It has been so ruled consistently and it is very unfortunate. I believe the low HCP variants should be described honestly on the system card, not just "9+ tricks".

KQ109xxxxxx-x-xx-void also has "reasonable chance for game with a little help from partner".

It does seem particularly odd that a hand that would not be strong enough to open at the one-level is strong enough for the partnership's strong bid.

 

As a director I always tell players that open a weakish (in hcp) playing trick hand with a 2♣ bid that I expect more than just "strong" or similar as their disclosure of this method and I make a note that they have been informed to disclose better. I also am willing to adjust a score based on misinformation but not based simply on the fact that this playing trick hand was opened. e.g. if you stay out of the auction because you believe they are strong and miss a contract of your own you might get an adjustment however if you double a final contract with a bunch of hcp and no real tricks you seldom get my sympathy.

[aguahombre]

Until we get updated criteria for 2C opening in ACBL regulations, anything goes. It has been so ruled consistently and it is very unfortunate.  I believe the low HCP variants should be described honestly on the system card, not just "9+ tricks".

KQ109xxxxxx-x-xx-void also has "reasonable chance for game with a little help from partner".

It does seem particularly odd that a hand that would not be strong enough to open at the one-level is strong enough for the partnership's strong bid.

 

............... if you stay out of the auction because you believe they are strong and miss a contract of your own you might get an adjustment however if you double a final contract with a bunch of hcp and no real tricks you seldom get my sympathy.

Would this be your same inclination if someone opened 1♠ on that example hand, and continued as if s/he had an opening bid (i.e. opener did not pass any forcing bids to indicate treating it as a psyche)?

 

Also, is it true that the "8 HCP" thing applies to 1-bids, but not to 2C? Different jursdictions might have different answers to this, and I don't know the answer for any jurisdiction.

[barmar]

Since the criterion is that there is a reasonable chance for game, with little help from partner, this hand must qualify.

Where is that criterion written down?

 

Many players expect some defensive strength along with the playing strength, so that partner will know that it's safe to double the opponents when they interfere (as is likely when you have a freak). Although when your suit is spades, you can always pull the double without forcing the level higher, and maybe partner will get the idea (or he might put you in a no-play slam).

 

I like to suggest that you should open 2♣ when you're worried about missing game if they pass your one-level opening. Holding a hand like this one, that's extremely unlikely. There are so many points outstanding that someone, possibly everyone, is going to get into the auction. Then you'll be able to describe the nature of your hand.

 

But that's not what this thread is about. As others have said, ACBL has decided that they don't want to legislate judgement, so they leave this up to the players' discretion. So if you like to use such poor criteria to call a hand "strong", it's OK with ACBL and you don't have to alert it.