Strong 2C

[manudude03]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa7htdakqj9632c83]133|100[/hv]

 

Is it permitted to agree to open 2C (GF or 23+ balanced) with the above hand? I initially thought no, but not so sure now.

[iviehoff]

Is it permitted to agree to open 2C (GF or 23+ balanced) with the above hand? I initially thought no, but not so sure now.

The answer is "Yes", but you must provide proper disclosure that it might include this kind of a hand.

 

See Orange Book 10 B 4 (you need to get the 2009 amended version). You can call a hand "strong" if it satisfies the "Extended Rule of 25". One way of satisfying that is "a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear-cut tricks". According to the definitions there, your hand has 9 clear cut tricks, and 14 points is definitely "a normal opening hand", so you can call it "strong".

 

But if you described this hand type as just "game forcing", that would be liable to mislead, as we had a discussion recently.

[Finch]

You are allowed to open it 2C showing a strong hand; you shouldn't describe it as "23+ or game forcing" because it isn't. It's (I assume) something like "23+ or game forcing or a strong single-suiter with 8+ playing tricks"

[jallerton]

Surely it's a matter of judgement whether this hand is worth a game force or not. In my judgement it isn't worth a game force, but if both partners think it is and both keep the auction going to at least the level of game with a 0-count opposite then who are we to argue?

 

If they describe it as game forcing and then proceed to have the auction 2♣-2♦-3♦-Pass, then that's a different matter.

[bluejak]

The problem with that approach is that you are required to tell your opponents what you are playing, and names are not good enough. Why? Because they mean different things to different people. One thing that has become very obvious over the last five years or so is that when a player says he plays an opening as "game forcing" [or "game forcing or 23+ balanced"] there is an amazing breadth of views as to what hands are included. So in my view to describe an opening bid as game forcing without further explanation is not adequate disclosure.

[barmar]

"game forcing" isn't a name, it's a description. It means "strong enough that we can't pass until we reach game". The only typical ambiguity is whether this includes 5 of a minor.

 

If someone makes a Jacoby 2NT bid, do you expect them to provide details about how they evaluate a hand to be game forcing?

[bluejak]

If you think weaselling out of full disclosure is acceptable, so be it. I think it is a terrible approach to bridge. Different people have different ideas, so saying "game forcing" as a description is not full disclosure. Saying it is not a name is no excuse whatever.

 

And yes, the same applies to a Jacoby 2NT. If your system allows you to respond 2NT to 1♥ on

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shqt87654d4ck8765]133|100[/hv]

 

because you think it is worth going to game, then you are not disclosing adequately if you describe your 2NT as showing a game force.

[Free]

Is it permitted to agree to open 2C (GF or 23+ balanced) with the above hand?.

Yes, as long as you don't describe this as GF... You have only 9 tricks in a ♦ contract and 2 suits wide open in NT, you can hardly call that a GF hand, right? Describe it as 9+ tricks in a suit contract and you're ok.

[wank]

the key to whether something is reasonably described as game forcing or not is how they would react if opps bid on over game. GF bids establish a forcing pass (even if the pair are too bad to understand what a forcing pass is, they will say they would not never pass something out), shapely jumps to game on the other hand do not.

[Trinidad]

If you think weaselling out of full disclosure is acceptable, so be it.

It's hardly weaselling out of full disclosure to explain a bid as "game forcing" if your explicit agreement is "game forcing" (and you don't have implicit agreements indicating something else).

 

You would be a lot poorer and I would be a lot richer if you would pay me a penny for every pair who have "22/23+ Balanced or game forcing" as the only agreement that they have about the requirements for a 2♣ opening.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

Yes, but we're not talking about them - at least almost always, they *do* play it that way. It's the few that play "23+ or game forcing" and mean that ♠AKQ ninth and an Ace is "game forcing" because they can make game. You can't tell whether they know they have this agreement (that it could be a 9+trick "strong preempt") until you find out what they do when the opponents "sac"; having said that, not telling the opponents it could be a strong preempt means that they don't compete as often as they could, so they never have to worry about the opponents "sacrificing" over their 4♠.

[Trinidad]

"Forcing to game" means exactly that: "We don't pass unless we are in a game contract". It doesn't mean that pass is forcing when opponents bid above game. In my opinion it is very sensible to play that way, but that is my opinion (and yours too). But that means that if anything should give way, it should be us and we should explain something like: "Game forcing, based on power" to show that distributional hands that will drive to game are not opened 2♣.

 

If someone else thinks that it is a good idea to open 2♣ on every hand where he wants to be in game (including "strong preempts") and he doesn't pass below game, you or I cannot say that this is not game forcing, just because a pass after opponent's bidding above game is not forcing. It is like saying "This flower can't be a rose because it isn't red.". There is no causal relation between "game forcing" and "forcing pass at the game level or higher".

 

Rik

[RMB1]

"Forcing to game" means exactly that: "We don't pass unless we are in a game contract". It doesn't mean that pass is forcing when opponents bid above game. ...

 

It does mean that in the EBU.

Game forcing: A call after which a partnership has agreed the auction will end in a game or slam contract (or a doubled contract by opponents).

[StevenG]

It does mean that in the EBU.

 

Goodness - I never knew that!

 

How should those of us who play (the equivalent of) a perfectly traditional 2♣, but without the obligation to double a plausible sac, disclose it? "It's game forcing, because we're forcing to game, but it isn't really because there is a minute possibility that we might not double the opponents if they can find a making game in a different strain."

[aguahombre]

Telling the opponents (and partner) during an explanation about what you are going to bid next, or what will happen later if they compete, must be wrong.

 

In our case the explanation is "22+HCP, or 9+ tricks for a major, or 10+ tricks for a minor." This is not an advertisement for our methods; but it is disclosure of them without names or predictions.

 

They are entitled to judge, based on which possibilities are more frequent, whether they have license to steal. They are not entitled to know whether they are assured of being doubled if they compete beyond our strength.

[blackshoe]

2/1: "Normally 22+ HCP, particularly if balanced and if balanced usually at least 8 controls. If unbalanced, more quick tricks than losers, and no more than four (usually 3 if a major or 2 if a minor suit)".

 

Romex: "23+ HCP if balanced, except not 21-22 or 27-28, which are opened 2♦. If balanced, 8+ controls. If unbalanced, 3 or fewer losers if the primary suit is a major, 2 or fewer if it's clubs. In either case at least 6 controls, and usually more. If the primary suit is diamonds, we open 2♦".

[Trinidad]

"Forcing to game" means exactly that: "We don't pass unless we are in a game contract". It doesn't mean that pass is forcing when opponents bid above game.

 

It does mean that in the EBU.

Game forcing: A call after which a partnership has agreed the auction will end in a game or slam contract (or a doubled contract by opponents).

The EBU is allowed to change the English language?

 

In essence this says: "Game forcing call: A game forcing call after which forcing passes of opponents' interference apply.". This is equivalent to: "Rose: A rose that is red."

 

I am biting my tongue, but I was taught: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

 

Rik

[mjj29]

The fundamental problem here is that if you open 2C, alert, and then say "game forcing", the majority of opponents will assume something like an ACOL 2C - ie, a good deal of points and defensive values, not just a big long suit and maybe an outside ace. Hence, if you could hold such a hand, you have not adequately disclosed your methods to your opponents.

 

This is regardless of whether the regulations somewhere mention that 'strong' could include these hands.

 

Now, in a lot of cases we have to assume that opponents are reasonable au fait with the regs - but this is a very common situation, where it is known that just saying "game forcing" is likely to mislead, so you should be more verbose (very few people I find are sufficiently verbose with explanations), and saying "Game forcing, but could be based on a single long suit with little outside values" doesn't really cost you anything.

[aguahombre]

The EBU is allowed to change the English language?

Why not? the Colonies over here did it, and now the younger generation has done it again.

Over there? How about Cockney?

[campboy]

In essence this says: "Game forcing call: A game forcing call after which forcing passes of opponents' interference apply.". This is equivalent to: "Rose: A rose that is red."

You're begging the question here. Of course if your definition is right then theirs is wrong, but equally if their definition is right then yours is wrong. Perhaps, of course, either definition would be reasonable so regulation writers need to specify which they are using.

[barmar]

The EBU is allowed to change the English language?

All the words we use in bridge are normal words, but they have specialized meaning in the context of the game. And if some of them are used in regulations, it makes sense for the regulation to say how they should be interpreted there.

 

"game forcing" is an idiom. Idioms often don't mean what their literal words mean.

[aguahombre]

I didn't know "game forcing" was an idiom. But I am not in England, so maybe it is different there.

 

Do gentlemen believe "no" is just a figure of speech, also?

[Vampyr]

I didn't know "game forcing" was an idiom. But I am not in England, so maybe it is different there.

 

I am in England, and I was also unaware that "game forcing" is an idiom.

 

Do gentlemen believe "no" is just a figure of speech, also?

 

If they do, you are using the word "gentlemen" extremely loosely.

[Oof Arted]

 

If they do, you are using the word "gentlemen" extremely loosely.

 

 

 

Now this statement is a 'Gross' understatement Stephanie :lol:

[ahydra]

The "...or a doubled contract by opponents" thing is interesting. On Thursday my partner opened 2C (standard GF/23+ thing), 2S from RHO, all pass :) [Great view from partner, +100 for us instead of going off in 2NT - I had one 10 in my hand and nothing higher]

 

If you explained a bid as "extended rule of 25" in a club you'd get blank looks. I'm of the opinion that everyone has similar ideas about "game forcing" hands - they're the hands that they themselves would open 2C with (playing standard) - so I think opening the OP hand 2C and describing it as "GF" is fine, at least at club/county level, provided that when asked for further info (eg could it be a huge suit with not much outside) you answer appropriately.

 

ahydra