Am I violating the laws opening this 2C?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat5hakjt9842d5c8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp4h]133|200[/hv]

 

I love these hands! I open 2♣ and jump to 4♥ over any response from partner.

With stronger hands, I will make the normal 2♥ rebid and with weaker hands preempt 2,3 or 4♥'s.

After 2♣ 4M partner knows I have this type of hand, I'm going to make 4M opposite very little or nothing.

It doesn't shut partner out but suggests this is the maximum unless partner has some 1st round

controls in other suits.

 

I have had some players object to me "preempting" with a 2♣ bid. This is obviously not a preempt

but I have made the same bid with weaker hands. Is it correct that if a player believes their

hand to be "strong", then it is acceptable to open 2♣?

 

2♣ openings are marked as "22+ or 8.5 playing tricks" on our CC's, if asked do we need to spell this out?

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat5hakjt9842d5c8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp4h]133|200[/hv]

 

2♣ openings are marked as "22+ or 8.5 playing tricks" on our CC's, if asked do we need to spell this out?

 

Personally, I think that this is legal within the ACBL

(I don't think it is within the EBU at low levels)

 

1. I think that your 2♣ bids should be alerted if you do so by agreement (I would certainly be surprised discover that you might hold this hand type)

 

2. I think that its bad bridge to open this 2♣ (Much better to open this with a NAMYATS type bid)

[Mbodell]

It is not against the laws to open these hands 2♣.

It is not against ACBL regulations to open these hands 2♣.

It is not required to alert these bids in the ACBL.

You should have something on your convention card beyond just point count for 2♣ (like "or distributional" or "8.5 playing tricks" or "4 LTC" or whatever judgement you use).

You do have to tell opponents about this agreement if they ask about the auction at any point.

 

Is it really a good idea compared to opening 1♥ with this hand? You even have 3♠ so opponents are less likely to sacrifice in spades over hearts.

 

Consider partner with KQx xxx Axx xxxx and partner with xxx xxx Axx KQxx how will he know which hand is good over your 2♣...4♥ sequence?

[the hog]

Opening this with 2C is poor bridge imo. Are you guaranteed to a game the opponent's might bid?

[Lord Molyb]

I would open ♠AQ5 ♥AKQ109842 ♦- ♣A8 with 2 clubs, but no less.

Actually, I'd open ♠AQ5 ♥AKQ109842 ♦A ♣8 with 2 clubs.

[pigpenz]

I think in acbl land it still is close to pushing it

generally it should be Nine Winners or Four loser hand

 

you could give your partner both minor suit kings and still not have any play for ten or nine tricks in some cases

 

on Brideguys.com

Rick Beye ACBL gave some examples

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sakt9865432h7dac7]133|100[/hv]

this would be ok

but this next one wouldnt

[hv=pc=n&n=skqjt987642hjdjck]133|100[/hv]

 

anything following between these falls into a grey area, He also

states that at the club level most likely anything goes but at an ACBL tournament it

would be up to the TD, if the intent is to deceive your opps on your strength then a penalty may apply

[lycier]

imo,I open 4♣ as namyats,don't open 2♣ due to too many lost tricks in this hand, however 2♣---2♦---4♥,4♥ show a solid ♥ suit with 9 tricks.

[aguahombre]

If I wanted to call this hand 9 tricks, no one should object in ACBL. Would rebid 2H, not 4H, and accept partner's second negative to sign off in partscore.

 

Opening 2C and then jumping to 4H is kind of like an admission that you know it isn't a 2C opening and were preempting.

[jillybean]

Hi Ron, I don't understand your question?

 

I don't play namyats

 

Maybe this hand is a little extreme, it is actually a hand that my partner opened 4♥ and I said

at the time I would rather open 2♣. I would hate to open 1♥ and hear the opps come in with 5m.

[rmnka447]

No violation, but 2 ♣ for distributional hands ought to be reserved for those within a trick of game.

 

I would think a 4 ♥ rebid would be more likely to lead to a director call.

[blackshoe]

At a sectional some years ago, I held this hand:[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj5432hj54dcj6]133|100[/hv]

My RHO opened 2♦ (weak two), and his side sac'd in 5♦. At the other table, my teammate holding the 2♦ hand didn't like her AQTxxx for a weak two bid, so she passed. The opponent holding my cards opened 2♣ and rebid 4♠, and my teammates misdefended, expecting declarer to have more high cards for his 2♣ opening. The director was unsympathetic. He did say "it's almost a psych" but would not elaborate on that. I wrote to HQ, and Rick Beye replied, saying "'Strong', in the General Convention Chart, means whatever the person making the bid thinks it means". If you ask me, that's a dumb way to regulate the game, but it's what we've got.

[paulg]

It is legal in both England and Scotland to open this hand two clubs subject to proper disclosure. You have to be extremely clear on your system card and with your explanation to ensure that your opponents understand that this sort of hand is possible. The EBU has led the UK in trying to prevent misinformation with this sort of hand.

 

[The TDs will soon say that this is subject to local regulations rather than the Laws themselves]

[mycroft]

If you choose to do this, you need to (as many have said here) make it very clear that you could have this hand. 8.5 tricks, sure, but people will assume you have defence. Also, eventually, you are going to run into someone who overcalls your 2♣ with 4♠ white on red, figuring he has 7 tricks and it should be good. Partner will double with nothing, and with the stiff heart, it may make an overtrick. And if you're going to pull it to 5♥ now the hearts split, and partner's got the stiff spade and you're making 10 tricks - but 4♠ is making 9.

 

As long as 2♣ in your games means "it's my hand, stay out of the way", you'll win opening hands like these 2♣-then-game. You'll also win when they misdefend, unless you're very clear on your explanations (granted, and they ask; the ACBL disclosure requirements are horrible in this situation). But eventually you'll start losing, maybe when people start to learn that opposite 2♣, their 15-count could mean that it's their hand.

 

And PaulG, absolutely it's a matter of regulation rather than Law. It's a partnership understanding, and legality and disclosure requirements are all about regulation.

[mikeh]

I doubt that there is anything illegal about this, but I think it to be terrible bridge, and really bad partnership bridge.

 

The 2♣ hand often feels like it should be entirely in charge of the auction but the reality is that you have a partner. A partner you want to feel able and free to make intelligent contributions to the bidding dialogue, and opening 2♣on this kind of hand greatly impairs partner's ability to have any clue as to what is going on.

 

Sure, it's ever so easy to argue that you'll just jump to 4♥over a 2♦ response but in the real world there is no rule requiring the opps to pass or for your partner to routinely bid 2♦.

 

The fact that you hold only 12 hcp might be a clue that this highly-desired sequence won't happen. Then what?

 

2♣ [3♣] x [5♣] where partner's double showed a bust.

 

You are in a forcing auction: I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree that your opening bid established a force in this auction, and for all you know they can make a slam and you can't make more than 9 tricks.

 

This is but one of a host of problems that arise when you open 2♣ with this type of hand. Indeed, partner holding nothing is probably one of the better outcomes....pity the poor partner who holds a smattering of non-fitting cards and thinks.....wow...I hold a 9 count and partner opened 2♣, and we can't even make game.

 

Perhaps this 'style' could be playable if it solved a bidding problem, but it doesn't appear to do so. What kind of problem does it solve?

 

Frankly, opening 2♣ on this kind of hand strikes me not only as bad but as lazy bridge. Rather than learn how to deal with the sometimes complex judgment calls that may arise after 1♥ (or naymats, etc) we'll bypass them all in the mistaken belief that 2♣ avoids all problems. Unfortunately, the cure is far worse than the disease.

[pigpenz]

the problem with opening these type of hands 2♣ is that alot of times you may not get to show your

suit till the five level

[straube]

I think 2C should advertise 15 hcps (in the ACBL) since that's the threshold of "strong". Since you're allowed a 2 point deviation, then 13 hcps would be the minimum for this not to be considered a psyche. If you have a hand with 10 or 11 tricks etc that doesn't qualify, then you would need to use a different opening...Namyats or whatever. This isn't what the ACBL rule is, but I think it would remove a lot of the gray decisions.

[blackshoe]

I think 2C should advertise 15 hcps (in the ACBL) since that's the threshold of "strong". Since you're allowed a 2 point deviation, then 13 hcps would be the minimum for this not to be considered a psyche. If you have a hand with 10 or 11 tricks etc that doesn't qualify, then you would need to use a different opening...Namyats or whatever. This isn't what the ACBL rule is, but I think it would remove a lot of the gray decisions.

 

The threshold of "strong" in opening 2♣ is whatever the player making the bid thinks it is — at least until some director somewhere decides he "psyched". The threshold of "strong" when opening 1♣ (artificial, forcing) is fifteen HCPs. Apples and oranges.

[the hog]

Jilly, mikeh stated it well. You open 2C, the opps bid at whatever level and your auction is forcing. Now what do you do? Opps cannot play at the 5 level undoubled. Can you beat a 5 level contract in your hand? What is your poor partner supposed to do?

[jillybean]

I've just caught up with this thread and I see I have some reading and reconsidering to do!

[aguahombre]

I've just caught up with this thread and I see I have some reading and reconsidering to do!

Yeh, but the answer to the Title question is NO, where we play. Whether it is a good idea is separate.

 

Jumping to 4H afterward, as mentioned by a couple of us, could lead to problems convincing the TD of your intentions in opening 2C.

[jillybean]

I have some questions,

 

1. What does a "8.5 trick" 2C opening look like?

 

2. What does 2C 2x 4M show?

[aguahombre]

I have some questions,

 

1. What does a "8.5 trick" 2C opening look like?

 

2. What does 2C 2x 4M show?

For us, neither exists.

[straube]

The threshold of "strong" in opening 2♣ is whatever the player making the bid thinks it is — at least until some director somewhere decides he "psyched". The threshold of "strong" when opening 1♣ (artificial, forcing) is fifteen HCPs. Apples and oranges.

 

That's what the rule is (I said the same), but the rule is poor because it is subject to so much interpretation. Strong is whatever the player thinks it is until the director rules otherwise? I once had a hand AK AKxxxxxx x xx that I opened 2C. The opponents were miffed because they had a good spade sacrifice and called the director. If 2C had to have the same point requirement as 1C, then I would have a simple defense to this opening. "My partner expects 15. I'm within 2 of this and obviously didn't intend a psyche." This rule would keep folks honest and also would allow a little leeway. The problem with this hand is that I pretty much have game in my hand, but it's too strong for even a Namyats opening. I expect expert practice is to open 1H, but occasionally (rarely) they will play there.

[aguahombre]

The problem with this hand is that I pretty much have game in my hand, but it's too strong for even a Namyats opening. I expect expert practice is to open 1H, but occasionally (rarely) they will play there.

Referring to AK AKXXXXXX X XX......someone would have to be very, very petty to challenge a 2C opening with that. We write 22+ or 9+ tricks for major/ 10+ tricks for a minor. I don't believe anyone has ever read it.

[blackshoe]

Yes the rule is poor. More than poor - it's ridiculous. Also, if a player opens 2♣ because in his opinion his hand is "strong", any director who rules he has psyched does not understand what a psych is.

 

Personally, I think 15 is too low for a 2♣ opening.