2C opening - would you be happy with this auction

[Vampyr]

I doubt you can get away with saying that it was a psyche if it was also described/alerted/announced as strong and artificial.

 

You know how a psych works, right? What is described is your agreement. If the hand (deliberately) does not fit the agreement, it is a psyche. You do not announce that it is a psych.

 

Some RAs have (arguably illegal) restrictions on psyching artificial bids. Sensible RAs do not.

 

If, like the OP, you do not believe it is a psych, then depending on how it is described you may be guilty of misinformation,

[mcphee]

The hand does not qualify for a 2C opening. if you open 1H its not so clear to jump shift even imo. I dont miss many games but its possible I could miss this one.

[nullve]

I would rebid 3♣. Frankly, I don't understand the appeal of 2♣. Sure, if partner has KJxxx-x-KJxxx-xx it would be to be able to stop in a partscore but I want to show my slam potential and I don't think I can make partner enthusiast without a 3♣ rebid.

Wouldn't

 

1♥-1♠

2♣-2♦/2N

3♣-3any

4♣

 

logically show 6+H6C and at least some slam interest?

[helene_t]

Wouldn't

 

1♥-1♠

2♣-2♦/2N

3♣-3any

4♣

 

logically show 6+H6C and at least some slam interest?

Yes except that after

1♥-1♠

2♣-2NT

3♣

would be non-forcing so you would have to bid 4♣ it this stage.

[AL78]

Let me see: OP exhibits the following characteristics (at least, as I see it):

 

a) makes posts that purport to seek advice or constructive criticism

 

b) makes posts denigrating and insulting those who provide advise or constructive criticism

 

c) never once acknowledges that he may be in error....see point (b)

 

d) eventually stops posting on the thread, and

 

e) begins another thread with the same approach

 

 

 

Repeat ad nauseam

 

 

Now, is there a term for people like that?

 

 

Narcissism?

[AL78]

I don't think 2♣ is absurd. I wouldn't do it except maybe in one partnership where 2♣ shows specifically a certain range of hands including a GF ♥+♣ hand.

 

I think it's reasonable to open 1♣ and then bidding hearts twice. But then you have to be prepared to bid 4NT if opps bid 4♠ in the first round, and that could easily lead to misunderstandings.

 

So 1♥ it is. If that means that I have to bid 5♣ in next round I am still happy.

 

As for

1♥-(p)-1♠)-(p)

?

 

I would rebid 3♣. Frankly, I don't understand the appeal of 2♣. Sure, if partner has KJxxx-x-KJxxx-xx it would be to be able to stop in a partscore but I want to show my slam potential and I don't think I can make partner enthusiast without a 3♣ rebid.

 

Problem is your hand only has slam potential if you have a fit with partner. If partner is stacked in diamonds and spades (which is most likely), you might not make game, never mind slam. It comes down to listening to the auction. If the opponents haven't come in with diamonds or spades after two opportunities each, it is probably because partner has them. If it's a misfit, quit.

[AL78]

Yes except that after

1♥-1♠

2♣-2NT

3♣

would be non-forcing so you would have to bid 4♣ it this stage.

 

If partner can't bid over 3♣ after telling you the hand is a stonking misfit, that is probably the limit of the hand.

[nullve]

Yes except that after

1♥-1♠

2♣-2NT

3♣

would be non-forcing so you would have to bid 4♣ it this stage.

Or use a Fred Gitelman invention* (described in this article):

 

1♥-1♠

2♣-2N

3♦(1)-3♥(2)

3♠(3)-3N

4♣

 

(1) puppet to 3♥

(2) forced

(3) 5+ C, GF

 

:)

 

* possibly outside the intended context (= 1M-1N; 2♣-2N only?)

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s2hk97432dcakqj74&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2d2s3hp3np4cp4dp5cppp]133|200| ThePossum 'Dear all. had no idea about how to bid this in a recent IMPs tourney. I figured I had 9(.5) tricks and enough to justify 2C but wasn't sure how happy anyone else would be. How else could you bid and force this to ensure you ended in the right game (or even slam). Which was 5C. Would you be upset in duplicate with another table bidding this. The alternative sequences started 1H-P-1S-P-? I was in serious need of points having made a miss click cue bid on an earlier hand causing me to miss an easy game and also missing another game by only bidding to 3. So I needed to be less cautious'[/hv][hv=pc=n&s=s2hk97432dcakqj74&w=s75hj85daq8752c95&n=sjt43hqdkj964ct86&e=sakq986hat6dt3c32]399|300| Here is the full hand. How would competent opps have interfered after 1H and how would a better south than me have approached this auction. I understand that everyone will say this is GiB's limitations. Note there was one other south (an "expert") who bid the exact same auction as me so I didn't feel totally lucky. However I genuinely feel on all assessments that my hand is stronger than everyone is saying and that it is (almost) worthy of 2C on the distributional 9 trick criteria, if not points. It also only has 3 losers. Anyway, sometimes you have to take a risk in tourneys to get some IMPs (especially after two unlucky hands) and I feel this was legitimate without exaggerating the strength of my hand "grossly"

++++++++++++++++++++

I would open 1♥ or 2♣ (Benjamin) :(

In the highly unlikely case that opponents remained silent, our auction would probably be

1♥ - 1♠

2♣ - Pass :(

Playing Gazilli, (again with opponents silent) a likely auction would be

1♥ - 1♠

3♣ - Pass (3♣ showing great shape but less than 16 HCP) :(

 

I understand the Possum's argument :) and his tactics worked well on this deal :)

 

 

[/hv]

[thepossum]

Dear all, thanks for keeping the discussion on an ancient hand about bridge

[blackshoe]

Some RAs have (arguably illegal) restrictions on psyching artificial bids.

 

Law 40B2(a) The Regulating Authority:

…

(v.) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

How would one argue that restrictions on such calls are illegal?

[thepossum]

I find it remarkable that anyone anywhere would argue that is a psych

 

But I do understand there are some sad cases in the world who would regard opening a hand with only 10 points and 5 losers at the 1 level a psych or shaving a point or two either way on a No Trump is a psych etc

 

There are different words for people like that.

[Vampyr]

How would one argue that restrictions on such calls are illegal?

 

OK; this must be in the new version of the Laws. But I think that it is an illegal law and its purpose is probably only to punish people who forget Ghestem.

[nige1]

Rules restricting systems aren't illegal but seem ill-advised. Few directors or players are familiar with them.

 

Players who dislike a system-regulation find many ways to rationalize what seem to be its infraction. For example, see threads, here and on Bridge Winners, about third-hand openers and opening 1NT with a singleton. Although routinely flouted, apparent infraction of such regulations rarely attracts a director call. Increasingly often, players criticize director-calls as "unsporting" or "unethical". Such calls are no exception. Understandably, adverse rulings are even rarer.

 

System-regulations have a drastic effect on the few who read, understand, and try to comply with them. We suffer a decisive handicap.

[pescetom]

You know how a psych works, right?

Yes, thank you.

 

Some RAs have (arguably illegal) restrictions on psyching artificial bids. Sensible RAs do not.

How would you argue that such restrictions are illegal?

Law 40B2(a) says that "The Regulating Authority... may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls".

 

The ACBL Open Chart lists "Psyching an Artificial opening bid" under Disallowed Bidding Agreements.

FIGB regulations say "It is forbidden to psych conventional opening calls in pairs competitions".

NZ Bridge Manual says "It is prohibited to "psyche" any conventional opening call that has as one of its options...".

And so on.

Ok, UK is different. "Historically, there have been EBU regulations that a player may not psyche a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening bid: these regulations are no longer in force." Just as well the EBU later became sensible :)

[haka9]

I don't think 2♣ is absurd. I wouldn't do it except maybe in one partnership where 2♣ shows specifically a certain range of hands including a GF ♥+♣ hand.

 

I think it's reasonable to open 1♣ and then bidding hearts twice. But then you have to be prepared to bid 4NT if opps bid 4♠ in the first round, and that could easily lead to misunderstandings.

 

So 1♥ it is. If that means that I have to bid 5♣ in next round I am still happy.

 

As for

1♥-(p)-1♠)-(p)

?

 

I would rebid 3♣. Frankly, I don't understand the appeal of 2♣. Sure, if partner has KJxxx-x-KJxxx-xx it would be to be able to stop in a partscore but I want to show my slam potential and I don't think I can make partner enthusiast without a 3♣ rebid.

 

2 ♣ opening is by no means absurd nor psyche. I think any player has a decent right to overestimate (or underestimate) the value of his/her hand. However neither I would open 2 ♣ (overestimation). With 6-6 or 5-5 suits I always open with the higher and repeat the lower as far as reasonable.

[mycroft]

The argument (before that rule change) was that you were allowed a specific agreement if you agreed never to psych it. That was - legally questionable (but definitely had the imprimatur of the WBF Laws Commission) - so now the law says it explicitly.

 

Remember, the problem isn't psyching these things, really; it's the lack of disclosure, and "psyches" that hide illegal agreements - which it is good and right for the rule makers to want to thwart.

 

On this hand, it's not that 2♣ is a psych or not - that all depends on the pair's agreement for 2♣. It's whether the agreement (if this hand is part of it) is legal under the player's regulations, and whether the opponents are made as aware of it as partner.

 

For instance, for me, opening 2♣ would be a deviation, whether gross enough to be a psych I don't know. Definitely if the clubs were AQJT74 it would be a clear 2♣ opener. The thing is, I'm playing EHAA...

 

I do consider it bad bridge to open this hand 2♣ Strong Artificial and Forcing. 2♣-2♠-p (GF)-4♠; now what? are you going to commit to slam to show both of your suits? Note that it's quite possible that the opponents can make 6♠, if you do and they "sacrifice"...So for me, "absurd" is the exact word for it. But opponents don't come in over 2♣ SAF in weaker games, and especially if they're not told it could be a 13-count with at most 1 trick in defence. So, in weaker games, players get away with this, and learn to think it isn't "bad bridge". Ah well, they will learn.

[haka9]

The argument (before that rule change) was that you were allowed a specific agreement if you agreed never to psych it. That was - legally questionable (but definitely had the imprimatur of the WBF Laws Commission) - so now the law says it explicitly.

 

Remember, the problem isn't psyching these things, really; it's the lack of disclosure, and "psyches" that hide illegal agreements - which it is good and right for the rule makers to want to thwart.

 

On this hand, it's not that 2♣ is a psych or not - that all depends on the pair's agreement for 2♣. It's whether the agreement (if this hand is part of it) is legal under the player's regulations, and whether the opponents are made as aware of it as partner.

 

For instance, for me, opening 2♣ would be a deviation, whether gross enough to be a psych I don't know. Definitely if the clubs were AQJT74 it would be a clear 2♣ opener. The thing is, I'm playing EHAA...

 

I do consider it bad bridge to open this hand 2♣ Strong Artificial and Forcing. 2♣-2♠-p (GF)-4♠; now what? are you going to commit to slam to show both of your suits? Note that it's quite possible that the opponents can make 6♠, if you do and they "sacrifice"...So for me, "absurd" is the exact word for it. But opponents don't come in over 2♣ SAF in weaker games, and especially if they're not told it could be a 13-count with at most 1 trick in defence. So, in weaker games, players get away with this, and learn to think it isn't "bad bridge". Ah well, they will learn.

 

Did I miss something? I don't understand three first paragraphs.

 

I also do consider it bad bridge to open this hand 2 ♣ Strong Artificial and (Game) Forcing as we play it. I wouldn't shoot the pianist. Every player bids on his/her own cards and on his/her (and partner's) account. If You open with one of Your suits and: 1♣/♥ - 1/2 ♠ - p - 4 ♠; so what? Once in a blue moon they have 12 tricks in ♠. For me "absurd" is not the appropriate word for this deal and whatsoever bidding. I hope all will learn especially from their own bad bidding.

[mycroft]

So, there are at least two conversations going on in this thread:

1. is this hand a good SAF 2♣ opener?
   
2. is it legal to open it 2♣?, and as a sub-thread of this one,
   
3. is it (and should it be) legal for regulating authorities to regulate psychic 2♣ openers?

You might have missed the 3. subthread.

 

You can't stop people from psyching - it's a legal tactic (much as many wish it wasn't). However, certain psychic calls are more ugly than others, and one is "psyching your strong bid" (the other one is "psyching (or misbidding) your artificial preempt", especially when it's something like 3♣ "diamonds and spades, or clubs if I feel like it"). Saying "I have half the deck" with nowhere near that hand makes a very good preempt.

 

Now the issue is, if this hand is not legal to open 2♣ SAF (which it wouldn't be on the ACBL Basic or Basic+ charts, having neither the "14 HCP" or "5 controls" to meet the regulations for Very Strong (not sure it has the "within one trick of game given equal distribution of the other suits" either), then people who think this hand *is* a 2♣ opener have three choices:

1. find a game where it is legal (like the ACBL Open chart - note that they will have to Alert their "not always Very Strong" tendencies, though);
   
2. change their system to play to their regulations; or
   
3. claim that this isn't their agreement, they just "used judgement" or "psyched" it.

 

Many many players over many many years and many many conventions have picked the last option. Which presents a slippery slope problem for the regulators. "We want to set a floor, so you must have 10 HCP minimum for 1NT". "Okay, but really KQT9 KJT8 T8 T73 is a 10-count - it's much stronger than many 10-counts". If they allow that, then those people start "using judgement" more and more, and eventually are opening things like "KJ85 Q6 QT3 J853" "it looks like a 10-count to me". No, you just want to play 9-12, and you're saying to the director what you think you can get away with. Same with "I want to open 8 AKQJT8432 T 54 2♣ - it's within one trick of game, right?" knowing (or not knowing) that 2♣ is a much more effective preempt than the "Zia transfer" 4♥ call.

 

So the regulators petitioned for, and got, the ability to regulate psychics of certain artificial calls.

 

None of that relates to whether it's a *good* call here. That was my last paragraph, and my rule is "if I open 2♣ and partner has a balanced yarborough, he should be able to double the opponents' sacrifice in game and, barring duelling voids or the like, expect to set it." That's because, especially when you don't have the spade suit, the opponents will take that sacrifice, and sure -200 is a bad score, but -790 is much worse. This hand, as I said, the opponents could easily be cold for game; there's a reasonable chance they're cold for slam. Therefore, for me, it's not a 2♣ opener.

 

The reason you see this a lot in weaker pairs is that there, their opponents *don't* overcall 2♣ aggressively, so bids like this work. In fact, it successfully preempts the opponents out of their auction. Which brings us back to the point where "is that legal?" "should it be?" "is that correctly disclosed?"