Strong 2C

[EricK]

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

It looks like you should have doubled them!

[bluejak]

Let us look at the problem another way.

 

Pair A play an Acol 2♣ traditionally. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand with 5+ quick tricks unbalanced. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

 

Pair B play an Acol 2♣ in the more modern style but with common sense. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand [nearly] and a fairly strong hand. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

 

Pair C play an Acol 2♣ in modern palooka style. It shows 23+ balanced, or any hand which they are scared of missing game, including nine nearly solid spades and an outside king. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

 

Some of you, judging by your description of game forcing, consider that these three pairs have practiced full disclosure since they are playing it as 23+ or game forcing. I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

[StevenG]

Some of you, judging by your description of game forcing, consider that these three pairs have practiced full disclosure since they are playing it as 23+ or game forcing. I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

They are not playing different methods. They are playing the same method, but using significantly different judgement.

[campboy]

They certainly are playing different methods if 2♣ establishes forcing passes for some but not others.

 

Even if none of them can allow the opponents to play undoubled then style is disclosable. The Orange Book specifically says that a strong artificial opening which can be as weak as the hand in the OP is only permitted "subject to proper disclosure"; bluejak's pair C have a particular responsibility to make it clear that their style is to open on much weaker hands than normal.

[StevenG]

I play Benji, so I have a choice of two strong forcing opening bids. People who play three weak twos often open their 2♣ noticeably lighter than I would open my 2♦, because it is the only forcing bid they have. This seems to go unmentioned, but is surely part of the same argument.

 

As to the forcing pass argument, I would suggest that 85% of the EBU membership would not have the first idea about the concept of a forcing pass, and that the argument cannot be taken seriously for that reason alone.

[PeterAlan]

"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).

This is hardly unduly restrictive: since 3NT-4minor is the only way to go from a game contract to one that is not game, it follows that if you are prepared to bid to game in a suit then the opponents must also bid to game to outbid you and in this event the EBU definition is satisfied whether you double them or not - the regulation does not specify that the game or slam contract should be by the partnership side. It also follows that the issues above about forcing passes become irrelevant in this situation (so far as regulation is concerned).

 

Mind you, it also means that the traditional Acol 2♣ bid does not meet the EBU GF definition, because 2♣-2♦-2NT may be passed.

 

Peter

[RMB1]

As to the forcing pass argument, I would suggest that 85% of the EBU membership would not have the first idea about the concept of a forcing pass, and that the argument cannot be taken seriously for that reason alone.

 

I disagree, they may not have discussed the concept of a forcing pass but they do know that when they have opened with their strongest bid that they will not pass out the opponents: "I had to double, partner".

[aguahombre]

 

the regulation does not specify that the game or slam contract should be by the partnership side.

I love it.

[Trinidad]

Let us look at the problem another way.

 

Pair A play an Acol 2♣ traditionally. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand with 5+ quick tricks unbalanced. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

 

Pair B play an Acol 2♣ in the more modern style but with common sense. It shows 23+ balanced, or game in hand [nearly] and a fairly strong hand. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

 

Pair C play an Acol 2♣ in modern palooka style. It shows 23+ balanced, or any hand which they are scared of missing game, including nine nearly solid spades and an outside king. They describe the bid as 23+ or FG on their SC and in answer to questions.

 

Some of you, judging by your description of game forcing, consider that these three pairs have practiced full disclosure since they are playing it as 23+ or game forcing. I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

 

Or to get back to the topic of 2♣ openers: You are exagerating. The difference between the different 2♣ openers is marginal. The biggest difference lies in the bidding a round later when the opponents interfere. For some a pass would be forcing, for others it isn't. The cure: Alert the fact that the pass is forcing. This would at the same time make life easier on palooka's who don't know what a forcing pass is, whether they now play your method A, B and C. After all, they wouldn't need to alert. (You can't alert an agreement that you don't have, even less an agreement that you don't even know what it is or that it exists.)

 

Rik

 

P.S. It may be an idea to keep the word "palooka" out of posts that also involve regulations of the complexity of the Orange book. After all, a palooka is not able to understand the orange book.

[campboy]

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

What you describe is not adequate disclosure. This is why the EBU convention card, under "1NT openings" has a space for "strength" and another for "shape constraints".

[blackshoe]

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

What you describe is not adequate disclosure. This is why the EBU convention card, under "1NT openings" has a space for "strength" and another for "shape constraints".

 

In the ACBL, NT ranges are announced. All of these would require the announcement "15-17". If opponents want more info, they have to ask about style. I do not think you would get redress here if you failed to ask about style, assumed one of the above, and later found it to be another one. The only way one of these would require an alert is if it were considered "highly unusual and unexpected", and then you would disclose your style (which would be what makes it "highly unusual and unexpected") in your initial explanation. But I don't think any of them fits that criterion.

[PeterAlan]

the regulation does not specify that the game or slam contract should be by the partnership side.

 

I love it.

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

 

It's perfectly reasonable for a regulation to say that you shouldn't describe a bid as game forcing if you're prepared to let the opposition take the contract from you below game level without playing for penalties (because that's what the double implies). It's not reasonable for a regulation to go further by insisting that making a game forcing bid requires you to double whatever contract the opponents may outbid you with once you've got to your game level, not least because their contract might be making. And this balance, in effect, is what the definition strikes.

 

Peter

[AlexJonson]

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

 

It's perfectly reasonable for a regulation to say that you shouldn't describe a bid as game forcing if you're prepared to let the opposition take the contract from you below game level without playing for penalties (because that's what the double implies). It's not reasonable for a regulation to go further by insisting that making a game forcing bid requires you to double whatever contract the opponents may outbid you with once you've got to your game level, not least because their contract might be making. And this balance, in effect, is what the definition strikes.

 

Peter

 

I don't know if there was sarcasm, but I do believe that your position is clearly correct in relation to the regulations, because that is what they say (and could hardly reasonably say anything else without attracting derision).

 

Whether it's a good thing to pass an opponents preemptive game bid in this context is not the business of regulators.

[aguahombre]

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

Sarcasm? Perhaps the regualtors have thought this through rather more thoroughly than they expressed in the Orange Book Glossary. They didn't make it clear, and you did.

 

You are a hard person to agree with, apparently.

[Trinidad]

The sarcasm's out of place - perhaps the regulators have thought this through rather more thoroughly than you?

 

It's perfectly reasonable for a regulation to say that you shouldn't describe a bid as game forcing if you're prepared to let the opposition take the contract from you below game level without playing for penalties (because that's what the double implies). It's not reasonable for a regulation to go further by insisting that making a game forcing bid requires you to double whatever contract the opponents may outbid you with once you've got to your game level, not least because their contract might be making. And this balance, in effect, is what the definition strikes.

 

Peter

You are entirely correct. There is no reason to assume that the regulators meant something other than what they wrote. This is also the only interpretation that makes sense. Game forcing means that you will not pass below the game level. It doesn´t say anything about what you do once you reach the game level.

 

This regulation is a lot better than I thought originally. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Rik

[campboy]

In the ACBL, NT ranges are announced. All of these would require the announcement "15-17". If opponents want more info, they have to ask about style. I do not think you would get redress here if you failed to ask about style, assumed one of the above, and later found it to be another one. The only way one of these would require an alert is if it were considered "highly unusual and unexpected", and then you would disclose your style (which would be what makes it "highly unusual and unexpected") in your initial explanation. But I don't think any of them fits that criterion.

Sure, "15-17" doesn't mislead opponents since it says nothing about shape, but it would still be incomplete in answer to a question. Announcements on the other hand are not expected to be complete explanations, and "15-17" is the correct announcement for all three pairs in the EBU too.

[PeterAlan]

Sarcasm? Perhaps the regualtors have thought this through rather more thoroughly than they expressed in the Orange Book Glossary. They didn't make it clear, and you did.

 

You are a hard person to agree with, apparently.

If I misunderstood your post, I apologise. You're a lot more succinct than me!

 

Peter

[barmar]

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.=

I disagree that these are "vastly" different. They're only a little different.

 

The ACBL CC has a check-box for "5 card majors common".

 

I think being flexible in your NT openings is "just bridge". I've seen plenty of people open NT with nontraditional shapes, but I think it's usually just personal judgement, not a partnership agreement. There's an occasional player in our club who doesn't have a regular partner, so he always plays with pickups, and he likes to mastermind by opening NT whenever he feels like it. This obviously doesn't come up in the 5 minutes of system discussion before the game.

[bluejak]

They are not playing different methods. They are playing the same method, but using significantly different judgement.

They are not playing the same method.

 

Consider, for example, a pair that plays an opening 1♣ as 14+ because they judge that works better: they are not playing the same methods as a normal player who opens on 11+ - or less with distributional hands. Both are playing a natural 1♣ opening.

 

Bridge is not a game of secret agreements.

 

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

So do I. If they describe them as the same they are practicing inadequate disclosure and gaining an unfair advantage.

 

Or to get back to the topic of 2♣ openers: You are exagerating. The difference between the different 2♣ openers is marginal. The biggest difference lies in the bidding a round later when the opponents interfere. For some a pass would be forcing, for others it isn't. The cure: Alert the fact that the pass is forcing. This would at the same time make life easier on palooka's who don't know what a forcing pass is, whether they now play your method A, B and C. After all, they wouldn't need to alert. (You can't alert an agreement that you don't have, even less an agreement that you don't even know what it is or that it exists.)

The difference is enormous. I know that some players open a hand with 2♣ that is eight to ten points lighter than I open but they do not tell people.

 

P.S. It may be an idea to keep the word "palooka" out of posts that also involve regulations of the complexity of the Orange book. After all, a palooka is not able to understand the orange book.

When an answer is made clearer by using the term palooka, I use the term palooka. But if you think this argument is about Orange book regulations then you have no idea what we are arguing about: we are disagreeing over the complete failure by some people to follow the Laws on full disclosure, not regulations at all.

[PeterAlan]

Pair A plays old fashioned strong 1NT openings. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair B plays a slightly more modern style. Their 1NT opening can contain a five card major. Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

Pair C plays a more modern style. They can have a six card minor or a 2245 distribution with a five card minor and a four card side suit. (But typically not 5 clubs and 4 spades). Their convention card says and when asked they explain: "15-17".

 

I find it incredible that anyone believes that this is adequate disclosure when people play vastly different methods but describe them the same.

So do I. If they describe them as the same they are practicing inadequate disclosure and gaining an unfair advantage.

This is all very well, but it's not so straightforward in practice. First, what campboy says above is correct:

 

Sure, "15-17" doesn't mislead opponents since it says nothing about shape, but it would still be incomplete in answer to a question. Announcements on the other hand are not expected to be complete explanations, and "15-17" is the correct announcement for all three pairs in the EBU too.

and the expected form is specified:

 

5 B 8 Always use a consistent form of wording when announcing, preferably the recommended form.

...

 

5 ALERTING AND ANNOUNCING

 

5 C Announcements – 1NT Openings and Responses

5 C 1 Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying “12 to 14”.

5 C 2 Where a 1NT opening which is in principle natural may be made by agreement on

some hands which contain a singleton, it is announced by stating the range followed by

“possible singleton”.

Moreover, none of these natural 1NT openings are alertable in EBU-land:

 

5 G 3 Players should not alert:

(a) The calls specified in 5 C ... as announceable.

...

(c ) Opening bids:

...

(3) A natural 1NT opening that has some agreed distributional constraints such

as having no four card major, or allowing a six card minor.

The standard EBU system card has a "Shape Constraints" section that all pairs are expected to complete. Beyond this, the requirements above place the onus on them NOT to make further unasked-for disclosures.

 

The intention, evidently, is that opponents should either consult that section or ask questions (or both) if they want clarification on just what methods (to use the term above) are being played. This is the process that's mandated to overcome the shortcomings of the announcements which, as Rik highlights, are indeed "inadequate disclosure" if not otherwise supplemented.

 

Moreover, there's no backing for by-passing the OB requirements in the interests of better disclosure, since the Orange Book begins:

 

1 C 2 Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge).

 

Peter

[bluejak]

I am talking about Full Disclosure. Full Disclosure means disclosing fully within the rules set down by the TO. So if you open 1NT your partner announces without mentioning shape restraints [except singletons in the EBU/WBU]. But that does not mean they do not put the shape restraints on their SC and give them in answer to questions.

 

Similarly, if you play a legal 2♣ opening in the EBU/WBU you are required to describe your methods fully. Sure, all you do is alert when they are opened, whichever one. But you are still required to describe your agreements, and 23+ or game forcing is inadequate on the SC or in answer to questions when in practice you know a lot more about the partnership agreement.