LH2650 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 [hv=pc=n&w=s2ha9754d3ckq7543&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1c]133|200[/hv] ACBL General Convention Chart, so psyching of artificial opening bids is prohibited. Playing a strong, forcing club, the hand shown is opened with 1C. When asked, opener stated that he was afraid they would miss 4 hearts if he chose one of the other possible initial actions. Do you allow this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevahound Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I strongly disagree with the ACBL's prohibition. However, as a director even absent that prohibition I would not accept any sort of description of the 1♣ opener as "strong, artificial, and forcing", or "precision style", or "big club", or anything like that. I'd prefer to hang my hat on misinformation rather than a psyche or not. If this hand fits their description of a 1♣ opener, their description needs to include it, or at least brush the edges of it. I think the overwhelming majority of people, including myself, would consider this a psyche if their agreements for a 1♣ opener are strong/artificial/forcing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I would also consider this a matter of disclosure rather than a psyche. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Systemically this doesn't qualify for a MOSCITO "strong" club opening, and MOSCITO's are a lot weaker than most. More importantly, I don't think that the ACBL allows you to have an agreement to open this weak a hand with a strong, artificial, and forcing 1♣.(Which is amusing, because they would allow you to open this with a strong 2♣) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 This sort of thing just keeps happening. I think the best way out is to recommend people to describe 1♣ as "any 16+ HCP or distributional equivalent". But to be honest I don't think this even qualifies under "distributional equivalent" LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 While this hand does have significant playing potential, calling it the distributional equivalent of a 16+ strong club opening bid is too much of a stretch for me. Make the hearts AKxxx and you have a reasonable case. Not that I would open that hand with a strong club, just that you have a reasonable case for avoiding having the 1♣ opening referred to as a psych. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 When asked, opener stated that he was afraid they would miss 4 hearts The answer to that is open 1♥. 1♣ is severely out of bounds on the gcc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2005 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 ACBL General Convention Chart, so psyching of artificial opening bids is prohibited. Playing a strong, forcing club, the hand shown is opened with 1C? When asked, opener stated that he was afraid they would miss 4 hearts if he chose one of the other possible initial actions. Do you allow this?How do you miss 4♥ by opening 1♥ showing your 5-card suit. Yes opening a natural 2♣ could cause problems but your not strong enough to open 2♣ and make a bid which shows 5♥. You make it harder to find a fit by opening with an artificial 1♣ bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 As I understand it, the ACBL cannot ban someone from opening a strong club on this hand, as 40A3 allows anyone to make any call which is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. They can ban them someone from agreeing to open 1C on hands of this type, and it is therefore a matter of disclosure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I would also consider this a matter of disclosure rather than a psyche.It's only a matter of disclosure if his partner agrees that this hand fits their requirements for 1♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Are you saying it is o.k. to psyche a strong artificial opening bid if the partnership agrees to psyche strong artificial opening bids? Next, we question the credulity of the person who gave the excuse that he was afraid of missing the heart suit, since Opening 1C natural and non-forcing, or 1C artificial and forcing are both good ways to miss a heart fit. The real purpose would be to intimidate the opponents into silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Are you saying it is o.k. to psyche a strong artificial opening bid if the partnership agrees to psyche strong artificial opening bids? The de facto agreement here might be clubs or strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I think the latest ACBL rules are you need 10 hcp for an artificial 1♣. However, I don't know how strictly they enforce occasional deviations below 10 (I.e., is it like most things and those are fine or is it like a 10-12 nt where a deviation with a 9 hcp is near death, and a second is death). This hand has the offensive playing strength of a 16+ hand, no problem, and even has 2 QT, so I'm not sure it is that unreasonable to treat it as a strong club (tactically I think it might be a bad idea as I expect it to be at least 3 spades and probably 4 before you get a chance to bid again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 The regulation Mbodell is thinking of is item one under opening bids on the GCC: ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.I suppose a strong, forcing, artificial 1♣ bid which by agreement normally shows 15+ or 16+ HCP is included in the above, as there is no other provision I can see in the GCC that would make such an opening legal. However, the fact that the regulation allows an all-purpose 1♣ opening on as little as ten points does not give the pair with the "strong, forcing" agreement leeway to open on any 10 point hand. Every Precision book I've ever read gives leeway to open 1♣ on good hands with 15 points, and maybe 14 points, but no lower. This hand is a gross distortion of the high card strength required for a strong, artificial, forcing 1♣ opening. The definition of a psych is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length." The hand fits the definition. It's a psych IMO even if the player doesn't think so (or claims not to think so), especially for purposes of a regulation that prohibits psyching this bid. Note that such a prohibition is legal (Law 40B2{d}). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnu Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I think the latest ACBL rules are you need 10 hcp for an artificial 1♣. However, I don't know how strictly they enforce occasional deviations below 10 (I.e., is it like most things and those are fine or is it like a 10-12 nt where a deviation with a 9 hcp is near death, and a second is death). This hand has the offensive playing strength of a 16+ hand, no problem, and even has 2 QT, so I'm not sure it is that unreasonable to treat it as a strong club (tactically I think it might be a bad idea as I expect it to be at least 3 spades and probably 4 before you get a chance to bid again). Agree, not sure how firm the 10 HCP rule is, but since they explicitly wrote 10 high-card points in the GCC, I wouldn't be surprised if that was a bright line test on the legality of opening 1♣ artificial. The other GCC roadblock is where it says RESPONSES AND REBIDS7) ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. Among other things, that would disallow an artificial 1♦ response if the opening was less than 15 HCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 RESPONSES AND REBIDS1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one club. Even if the opening is less than 15 HCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 And the other thing is that game-forcing responses are legal after a forcing 1♣, even if they're artificial. But if they have any way to stop short of game (in particular, in 2NT (and potentially 4m)), they may hit a big roadblock. I too am concerned about disclosure. I dislike "disallow psyches of..." requirements because they lead to these kinds of questions; but their goal is to shortcut the "hiding" of illegal agreements in "psychic calls" - which I know the ACBL at least was very concerned about when building these regulations. And certainly, opening "a strong club" on hands like this is going to gain in reduced (or inefficient - many people play aggressive/"quick in, quick out" against strong clubs, and ignore constructive auctions) competition (hey look, we talked them out of their 25-point 4♠ contract by opening a 16+ 1♣!); inefficiently disclosing one's tendencies will only help that. Having said that, I think in my game I'd adjust as a psych, assuming their disclosure was equivalent to "Precision" - probably after asking a couple of my Precision-playing players what they'd do with it (and potentially what they'd do to partner if they opened it 1♣) for backup of my admittedly imperfect bridge judgement. It is an interesting question what to open with this hand - all of pass, 1♥ and 2♣ have fairly serious issues - but still fewer than 1♣-1♥ (spades) on KJTxx xx ATxx 86 like my partners always seem to have. If the player had an issue with the ruling, I'd ask whether partner is going to expect this, and whether they had experience with this kind of upgrading. People with a bit of larceny in their blood, and who know me, are going to recognize this path really quickly and likely, will suddenly be happy about the adjusted score for an illegal psychic call :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Are you saying it is o.k. to psyche a strong artificial opening bid if the partnership agrees to psyche strong artificial opening bids?If you agree to do it, it's not a psych -- psychic calls have to deviate grossly from your agreements. If you agree to open 1♣ on hands like this, but describe your 1♣ as strong (e.g. Precision-style) then it's misinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 If you agree to do it, it's not a psych -- psychic calls have to deviate grossly from your agreements. If you agree to open 1♣ on hands like this, but describe your 1♣ as strong (e.g. Precision-style) then it's misinformation. Also, if you agree to open 1♣ on hands like this, such an agreement may be illegal. (But I do not understand the ACBL regulations for permitted agreements re strong/artificial opening bids.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 I think the GCC regulation quoted above is to allow things like Polish Club. But you have to describe it properly as including those types of weak hands; saying that it shows 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength would not include weak, distributional hands like this. This hand seems more like the kind of hand that would be opened 2♥ if you play that as showing weak 5♥ + 4+minor. While judgement varies, I find it hard to reconcile that the same hand could be considered a "strong, forcing" opening by some and "weak, distributional" by others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I think the GCC regulation quoted above is to allow things like Polish Club. But you have to describe it properly as including those types of weak hands; saying that it shows 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength would not include weak, distributional hands like this. This hand seems more like the kind of hand that would be opened 2♥ if you play that as showing weak 5♥ + 4+minor. While judgement varies, I find it hard to reconcile that the same hand could be considered a "strong, forcing" opening by some and "weak, distributional" by others. If legality and misinformation are not a concern, I'd be a lot more concerned about partner's judgement treating this as a two suited 5♥+4+minor weak two than I would be treating this as a strong club strength (I.e., it is closer to strong club than weak 2). x Kxxxx Jxx KQxx is a maximal weak 2 2-suited hand for me (7 losers, I'd expect often to have 8 losers). The given hand in OP is a 5 losing trick hand (~ 6 hcp better), it meets the rule of 20 for constructive openers, and it is 28 ZAR points (more than a bare minimum opener, but not enough for a strong club). KQx Axx KQxx Qxx is a 16 hcp hand with no J even, but still 6 losers (not 5), the same 28 ZARs. Sure that 4333 is a below average 16 hcp and a bare minimum strong club, but it is a strong club. And there are reasonable enough evaluation systems that show the OP hand and that hand as about the same strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 This hand seems more like the kind of hand that would be opened 2♥ if you play that as showing weak 5♥ + 4+minor.If someone opened 2♥, Lucas, Muiderberg or similar, partnering me, I would politely find a new partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dburn Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 x Kxxx Jxx KQxx is a maximal weak 2 2-suited hand for me (7 losers, I'd expect often to have 8 losers)You show me your thirteenth card, and I'll show you a loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 If someone opened 2♥, Lucas, Muiderberg or similar, partnering me, I would politely find a new partner. All fine and dandy, however, this is precisely the type of hand that two suited preemptive opening methods were designed to handle.(I consider this a near textbook Wilkosz 2♦ - admittedly, one at the top of the range) The reason that the Wilkosz 2♦ used to score so well in competitive play had little to do with the destructive nature of the bid: Rather, the really good scores occurred because being able to offload hands like the following from the constructive one level auction prevented a whole world of hurt. The tables that were NOT playing Wilkosz would invariably open these hands with some kind of one level opening and end up careening into some no play 3NT contract or worse yet, see the opponents penalty doubled in some cold part score. I'm not sure whether the same would necessarily hold true today (people open on crap a lot more and their auction style has adjusted to compensate) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 You show me your thirteenth card, and I'll show you a loser. Sorry was supposed to be 1=5=3=4 7 loser 9 count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.