disclose "strong" 2C style?

[Trinidad]

There are many things we should borrow from EBU. But, IMO, there should be definitions of "strong" which apply separately to strong artificial 1C from strong artificial 2C.

 

If EBU already does that, O.K. But the posts I have seen on the subject seem to indicate they don't.

 

For instance take Jilly's hand. Forget for a moment that there should be a higher-level bid to describe that type; certainly, no one would say that the hand is not "strong" in a 1C forcing context.

 

I think "no-one" is a little over the top. For example, playing a strong 1♣, I open it 1♠.

 

Furthermore, it fits into the definition of "strong" used by the EBU for openings anyway.

I play a very conservative strong club system ("17+, with conservative adjustments for distribution") and I would open Jilly's hand with 1♣. Switch the majors and I could be convinced to open 1♥ to convey my distribution first. But when you have the boss suit, there is no reason to show distribution before strength. If I would open this hand with a strong 1♣ then "everybody" will. This only shows that there is an exception to every rule.

 

This is not an accidental feature of the EBU regulations, though, and unfortunately not enough of the Laws and Ethics Committee agree with you and me that this is very poor regulation. They have been asked on a number of occasions by different people to allow a strong 1♣ opening on 15+ points, or something that would have a similar effect, and have always felt they do not wish to change the current regulations.

True. I believe that a strong opening should be strong. I find the arguments for opening weaker hands with a strong bid unconvincing.

Everything should be seen in context. Apart from some really old and obsolete strong club systems, there are no strong club systems that claim to have a strong 1♣ opening that is as strong as the Acol 2♣ opening. Effectively what you are saying is that the modern strong club systems are not strong club systems but something like "Good intermediate and stronger club systems". And you continue by saying that that is not the same as "strong".

 

In my opinion, that is the wrong way of looking at this. The right way to look is by recognizing the similarities between the Acol 2♣ and a strong 1♣ opening:

- They are the only strong bid in the (basic) system. ("Basic" referring to the fact that one has the option to put some other, specific strong hands in additional conventions, such as a Multi 2♦, etc.)

- The fact that this bid exists limits the strength of all other bids.

- It is the only bid that is forcing.

- All other bids are not forcing.

 

The fact that a strong 1♣ opening can be made on less strength than an Acol 2♣ opeing is due to the fact that there is more bidding room left after opening 1♣ which makes it possible to sort out more hand types. Giving yourself as much room as possible to bid is a typical feature of constructive bidding.

 

If you force the same requirements on a strong 1♣ opening as you do on a strong Acol 2♣ opening then that is equivalent to denying the strong club openers to use this constructive intent in a proper way. You might as well say "Of course, you are allowed to use strong 1♣ systems in the EBU. You're just not allowed to use them properly."

 

Just my two cents, thank you.

 

Rik

[Jeremy69A]

I'm sorry, I didn't think this could possibly be true, but apparently it is. This is very poor, I agree.

 

Feel free to denigrate the regulations but it is bizarre IMO to speak with such certainty without even bothering to check. This is not new. A strong artificial opening in EBU land needs to meet any ONE of three criteria

 

1. 16+ HCPs

2. The extended rule of 25(add HCP to length of two longest suits)

3. 8 clearcut tricks(and there is a definition) AND the HCP normally associated with a one level opening bid

 

If it does not it is illegal to agree to open it whether it is a 2C opening or a Strong Club or diamond.

 

If you force the same requirements on a strong 1♣ opening as you do on a strong Acol 2♣ opening then that is equivalent to denying the strong club openers to use this constructive intent in a proper way.

 

I play a Strong Club and do not feel handicapped. The same minima apply by regulation but, of course I would open a balanced 18 count 1♣ and would not dream of opening it 2♣. The problem, at least the way the L&E currently see it(elections coming up next month!), is one of inadequate disclosure with players using the word "strong" inaccurately to put opponents off intervening in auctions.

[WellSpyder]

The problem, at least the way the L&E currently see it(elections coming up next month!), is one of inadequate disclosure with players using the word "strong" inaccurately to put opponents off intervening in auctions.

I have some sympathy with this viewpoint as far as "strong" 2-level bids are concerned - I think people are put off bidding over a 2♣ opening at times because they are told it is "strong". My experience of a strong 1♣, though, is very different - everybody loves to intervene over it, and hearing 1♣ described as strong acts as a positive incentive to bid. Another reason for regulating strong 1-level and 2-level bids differently in my view....

[campboy]

If you force the same requirements on a strong 1♣ opening as you do on a strong Acol 2♣ opening then that is equivalent to denying the strong club openers to use this constructive intent in a proper way. You might as well say "Of course, you are allowed to use strong 1♣ systems in the EBU. You're just not allowed to use them properly."

I think you have misunderstood what the L&EC has done. They have not pushed the requirements for a strong 1♣ up towards those for a strong 2♣; rather they have brought the requirements for a strong 2♣ down to those for a strong 1♣. The problem -- if there is one -- is that people are playing strong club systems weaker than they used to and that this hasn't been reflected in a change of regulations.

[bluejak]

Everything should be seen in context. Apart from some really old and obsolete strong club systems, there are no strong club systems that claim to have a strong 1♣ opening that is as strong as the Acol 2♣ opening. Effectively what you are saying is that the modern strong club systems are not strong club systems but something like "Good intermediate and stronger club systems". And you continue by saying that that is not the same as "strong".

No, I am not saying that at all. Minimum hands covered by the EBU's definition of "strong" are nowhere near strong enough for an Acol 2♣ opener. The definition of strong used by the EBU is to cover the following:

 

• Minimum strong 1♣/♦ openings
  
• Very weak Benjamin 2♣ openings for poorer players
  
• Very occasional freakish hands that have exceptional strength but low point count
  

Anyone who uses the EBU's definition of "strong" as a basis for opening a minimum Acol 2♣ opening has no idea whatever of the strength required for an Acol 2♣ opening.

[Vampyr]

Feel free to denigrate the regulations but it is bizarre IMO to speak with such certainty without even bothering to check.

 

Yes, but why are you quoting the post in which it is obvious that I have looked up the regulation and corrected myself?

[Jeremy69A]

Yes, but why are you quoting the post in which it is obvious that I have looked up the regulation and corrected myself?

 

Clearly no-one had told me the rules in this situation!

[awm]

There's sometimes a gap between what's allowed by regulation and what requires disclosure.

 

For example, suppose a pair agrees to open 2♣ (strong, artificial) on every hand with 16+ points. This may not be a good method or particularly advisable, but such an agreement is apparently allowed by EBU regulations. Fine, but I don't think anyone would suggest that a pair with such an agreement need not give any special disclosure about their 2♣ opening (other than "strong, artificial, forcing"). Such openings would lead to many highly unexpected hands being opened 2♣, might cause opponents to want to rethink their defense to the 2♣ opening, and so forth.

[blackshoe]

There's sometimes a gap between what's allowed by regulation and what requires disclosure.

 

For example, suppose a pair agrees to open 2♣ (strong, artificial) on every hand with 16+ points. This may not be a good method or particularly advisable, but such an agreement is apparently allowed by EBU regulations. Fine, but I don't think anyone would suggest that a pair with such an agreement need not give any special disclosure about their 2♣ opening (other than "strong, artificial, forcing"). Such openings would lead to many highly unexpected hands being opened 2♣, might cause opponents to want to rethink their defense to the 2♣ opening, and so forth.

 

Unfortunately, this is precisely the situation we have in ACBL: since "strong" means whatever the bidder thinks it means, "strong" is the only disclosure required. So it seems to me, anyway.

[pran]

There's sometimes a gap between what's allowed by regulation and what requires disclosure.

 

For example, suppose a pair agrees to open 2♣ (strong, artificial) on every hand with 16+ points. This may not be a good method or particularly advisable, but such an agreement is apparently allowed by EBU regulations. Fine, but I don't think anyone would suggest that a pair with such an agreement need not give any special disclosure about their 2♣ opening (other than "strong, artificial, forcing"). Such openings would lead to many highly unexpected hands being opened 2♣, might cause opponents to want to rethink their defense to the 2♣ opening, and so forth.

[...]but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

If bridge players generally understand "2♣ strong" to mean at least 20 HCP then the fact that "strong" here (only) means at least 16 HCP must be explicitly disclosed!