The Laws requirements for a strong 2C opener

[mangurian]

Unless I am wrong, there are now minimum requirements imposed by ACBL in order to open (a strong) 2 clubs.

 

If that's true, what are the requirements?

If not true, tell me. :(

 

AT one time, you could just decide your hand was close enough to game to try for it.

e.g. KQJ10xxxx, x, KQxx, -

[mycroft]

Nothing in the Laws (except that they allow the ACBL to create system regulations).

 

The old regulations (GCC at least) required it to be "a strong hand", and the definition of strong was effectively "they think it's strong". There was a problem with that, as you might imagine.

 

The new regulations say:

Basic/Basic+: must be Very Strong.

Open/Open+: can't have less than Average Strength.

 

Very Strong:

• 20+HCP (note: HCP does NOT include points for shape); or
  
• 14+HCP and within 1 trick of game assuming suits break evenly in the other hands, or
  
• at least 5 Control Points (A=2, K=1) and within 1 trick of game assuming...

 

So allowing hands like your example is not a legal 2♣ agreement on the Basic or Basic+ chart (it only has 2 Control Points (K, K) and <14 HCP). Note that it is not legal to psych an Artificial Opening bid on the Basic/+ charts, and deviations that do not meet the "gross" level of Psych are not permitted if those deviations, if part of the agreement, would make the agreement illegal. So literally no outs here.

 

On the Open/+ Chart, it is legal to agree to open these hands 2♣, but you must Alert your 2♣ openers (Artificial: do not Alert "a Very Strong Artificial 2♣ Opening Bid"), and explain when asked that it could include hands that have shape, but limited defence. Now the opponents, who can make 5 or 6 of either red suit, are not surprised. Note: it is still not legal to Psych an Artificial Opening Bid.

 

All capitalized terms are defined explicitly in the Definitions at the top of the Convention Charts.

[pescetom]

By contrast, Italian regulations are very liberal here, you can announce 2C as "strong" provided it is by agreement game forcing. Opening the hand of OP in this way would not raise any eyebrows, at least from a legal point of view. With an alert you can have almost any agreement promising 10 HCP or more. It's illegal to psyche an artificial 2C in a pairs tournament, although the only specified consequence is restoration of equity when appropriate.

 

I've rarely seen any of this cause problems, either as a player or director. Yes beginners and poor players will occasionally open hopeless hands 2C, but it is often apparent and rarely works to their advantage. My only nitpick is that many of us play that 2C 2D; 2N could be as little as 22 HCP and so must alert rather than announce, which causes irritation and suspicion when opponents hear the perfectly normal explanation "22-23 balanced or game forcing unbalanced". My request to modulate the announcement more precisely went unheeded.

[mycroft]

The problem comes when someone opens this hand (or better yet, the same hand with the majors reversed), and after quietly going down 1 in 4, or worse yet, making it, the expert opponents realize they can make slam. The comments - starting with "how can that be legal?" and going into how stupid it is (but it worked this time!) and and and...I think making it Alertable is a nice balance; let's see how many times they get to overstrength-preempt the experts when they know about it in advance. (Also, let's laugh at the experts when they complain about getting preempted and being told "well, you were Alerted to it". But inside only, please).

 

And I'm happy they decided this was illegal in the limited games. Maybe if they don't get into the habit because it's not legal, they won't play it where it is legal (because, yes, it is bad bidding which isn't paid off by 2♣-2♥-p-4♥;4♠-5♥-X (making, or 6♠ off two cashers) because in the limited games, 2♣ is a shutout bid).

 

Maybe the culture in Italy is to ask about this when 2♣ and then suit. It wasn't here.

[DavidKok]

I feel like half the partnerships here put some weak option in their strong 2♣, so we make it a habit to always ask (or check the CC) regardless.

 

@pescetom presumably you meant "22-23 balanced or any GF", unless you have a different bid for GF (semi)balanced.

[pescetom]

@pescetom presumably you meant "22-23 balanced or any GF", unless you have a different bid for GF (semi)balanced.

Yes that's exactly what I meant and how I would explain (after the gratuitous alert) in Italy too.

But in ACBL-land I thought the alternative explanation was clearer.

I guess it depends partly on what if anything semi-balanced still means today (for me 5332 is semi-balanced, but don't try that in ACBL-land).

[pescetom]

The problem comes when someone opens this hand (or better yet, the same hand with the majors reversed), and after quietly going down 1 in 4, or worse yet, making it, the expert opponents realize they can make slam. The comments - starting with "how can that be legal?" and going into how stupid it is (but it worked this time!)

It's not as if the opponents could have complained or easily found slam if this hand was opened 4♠. If the majors were reversed, then expert opponents have some questions to ask themselves in any case.

 

 

And I'm happy they decided this was illegal in the limited games. Maybe if they don't get into the habit because it's not legal, they won't play it where it is legal (because, yes, it is bad bidding which isn't paid off by 2♣-2♥-p-4♥;4♠-5♥-X (making, or 6♠ off two cashers) because in the limited games, 2♣ is a shutout bid).

In our limited games, most quickly decided that it was advantageous to intervene aggressively with a 5+ major once it was clear that this was no longer 2♣ Crodo. No particular problems.

 

Maybe the culture in Italy is to ask about this when 2♣ and then suit. It wasn't here.

No such culture, if anything there is intense and legitimate suspicion about the 2♦ response, where all sorts of agreements are possible. I don't recall anyone ever questioning a simple suit rebid unless alerted (2♥ Kokish, RIP).

[blackshoe]

Yes that's exactly what I meant and how I would explain (after the gratuitous alert) in Italy too.

But in ACBL-land I thought the alternative explanation was clearer.

I guess it depends partly on what if anything semi-balanced still means today (for me 5332 is semi-balanced, but don't try that in ACBL-land).

To me (and I think most in ACBL) "balanced" means 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2; "semi-balanced" means 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2, and all other distributions are "unbalanced". This means the only unbalanced distribution that does not contain a singleton or void is 7-2-2-2, and that both semi-balanced distributions include exactly two doubletons.

[DavidKok]

I would imagine some offbeat shapes with a singleton honour, in particular 5431, 4441 and even 6m331, can also be claimed to be semibalanced without much of a stretch.