Clubs

[pescetom]

But if 2♣ was a psyche (and the local regulations allow the psyching of strong 2♣ openings), there's no problem.

 

The TD needs to establish if EW have an implicit agreement to open 2♣ with this kind of hands. In than case there's misinformation (and possibly an illegal agreement, but Australia is quite liberal so that's probably not the case)

 

I had a quick look through the ABF System Regulations 2017 and it seems WBF based similar to the Italian Regulations, although more detailed and practical. I saw nothing that disallowed any particular agreement for 2♣ opening, brown stickers aside. The psyching of strong 2♣ openings is explicitly forbidden however:

 

9.6 The psyching of a conventional bid, which is unequivocally forcing and systematically indicative of the

strongest possible opening hand (e.g., a Game Forcing 2♣ or a Precision 1♣) is strictly forbidden.

 

The ABF Alerting Regulations 2017 also say that:

 

5.1(d) Strong artificial 2♣, 2♦ openings are alertable.

 

so you are definitely due an alert and clear explanation of the agreement (Italian regulations allow an announcement of "Strong" if the agreement is game forcing, whatever the TD may deem that to mean).

[gszes]

if rho had not been a passed hand I would open 5c. I chose 1c because the odds are in our favor of making game atm and I see no strong reason to preempt partner. I will undoubtedly come to regret this decision (sigh).

[gszes]

I do not see why north was in such a hurry to bid 4s. This bid at unfavorable might be nothing more than KQJxxxxxx void xx xx. I see little reason to preempt the opps here. Any contract N does not wish to x they can bid 4 or even 5s later in the bidding if need be. The delayed bid should be read by partner as strong in the sense that N expects to come pretty darn close to making the delayed bid in their own hand (else a preempt immediately).

[gszes]

Having already bid 4s I see little option but to x 5c. I do not know if this will perk up partner, but it should at least convince them that 5s seems reasonable, since their large fit will surely negate at least 1 if not 2 defensive tricks N might be counting on. I knew I would regret opening 1 measly club but I admit the thought of opening 2c was never seriously considered even when I saw it as an option.

[sfi]

I had a quick look through the ABF System Regulations 2017 and it seems WBF based similar to the Italian Regulations, although more detailed and practical. I saw nothing that disallowed any particular agreement for 2♣ opening, brown stickers aside. The psyching of strong 2♣ openings is explicitly forbidden however:

 

9.6 The psyching of a conventional bid, which is unequivocally forcing and systematically indicative of the

strongest possible opening hand (e.g., a Game Forcing 2♣ or a Precision 1♣) is strictly forbidden.

 

The ABF Alerting Regulations 2017 also say that:

 

5.1(d) Strong artificial 2♣, 2♦ openings are alertable.

 

so you are definitely due an alert and clear explanation of the agreement (Italian regulations allow an announcement of "Strong" if the agreement is game forcing, whatever the TD may deem that to mean).

You can play whatever you like for 2C here as long as it's not totally destructive (section 2.6 in that document). If 2C doesn't show clubs, you need to alert it though. And you don't get to describe the original hand as "strong" without risk of a MI-related ruling.

[pilowsky]

You can play whatever you like for 2C here as long as it's not totally destructive (section 2.6 in that document). If 2C doesn't show clubs, you need to alert it though. And you don't get to describe the original hand as "strong" without risk of a MI-related ruling.

 

So, what is your conclusion re this hand?

[pilowsky]

[hv=pc=n&w=sq9ha52dat985432c&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2c(4%20losers)]133|200|

Two days later! but this time I was ready.

Different opps.

IMP's

[/hv]

 

The full deal

[hv=pc=n&s=s2hqj4dckqj876542&w=sq9ha52dat985432c&n=saj874hk963dk7ca3&e=skt653ht87dqj6ct9&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2c4d4sp5cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

[pescetom]

No apparent MI this time. But if their agreement is based on losers it looks a bit odd to pass 5♧.