[sailoranch]

---

[blackshoe]

Unfortunately, yes, it is. Basically, "strong" means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means.

A couple of years ago, in a Sectional Swiss Teams, I held a similar hand, except it was Jxx in hearts, diamond void, Jx in clubs. My RHO opened 2♦ (weak), and they sacrificed in 5♦, which was down one, over our making 4♠. My teammate at the other table didn't like her AQxxxx in diamonds, so she passed, and the guy holding my cards opened 2♣. They got to 4♠, my teammates mis-defended because they expected more high card strength in opener's hand, and the director basically ruled everything was kosher. He said "it's almost a psych, but not quite." I asked him what change would make it a psych, and he wouldn't (or couldn't) answer. I later called ACBL HQ and got what I said in my second sentence above.

[Vampyr]

What is the relevant regulation?

[PrecisionL]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-27, 19:13, said:

What is the relevant regulation?

NO! It is an attempt to deceive the opponents, so ACBL would rule a psych.

There has been lots of discussion on the internet about such hands.

The 'old rule of thumb' was that the number of defensive Quick Tricks must equal or exceed the number of losers in the hand. There are 5 losers and only 2 quick tricks, so it does not qualify for a strong 2♣ opening.

However, ACBL seems reluctant to issue any guidelines on this frequent question and the Directors end up using their own judgment. As a Club Director, I would rule that it is NOT a legitimate 2 ♣ opening and therefore a forbidden psych of a strong [artificial] opening bid.

General Convention Chart - Disallowed

2. Psyching of artificial or convention opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. ...

[Vampyr]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-27, 19:22, said:

As a Club Director, I would rule that it is NOT a legitimate 2 ♣ opening and therefore a forbidden psych of a strong opening bid.

On what basis? Isn't the ACBL definition of "strong", "I knows it when I sees it"?

[Mbodell]

Quote

TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) a strong hand
b) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP

Nowhere does the ACBL define what strong means, and the case law - such that it is - basically says "if a player thinks it is strong, it is strong". Note, to be a psych the player has to intentionally deviate. If a player just thinks AKQ and out in an extra long suit is a strong hand, then it is allowed. I've seen my partner once open a strong 2♣ with x x AKQxxxxxx xx and then raise my 2♦ response to 5♦, just making (they had 5M). The opponents called the director and my partner's call was ruled legal, as he thought it was a strong hand (9 sure tricks).

[Vampyr]

Mbodell, on 2012-May-27, 19:29, said:

Nowhere does the ACBL define what strong means, and the case law - such that it is - basically says "if a player thinks it is strong, it is strong". Note, to be a psych the player has to intentionally deviate. If a player just thinks AKQ and out in an extra long suit is a strong hand, then it is allowed.

There is a serious contradition here. If

Quote

if a player thinks it is strong, it is strong

is the case, then how can there be regulations about psycing, etc, a "strong" bid?

The defense "It looked strong to me" will always work. Even on a Yarborough.

[Bbradley62]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-27, 19:22, said:

As a Club Director, I would rule that it is NOT a legitimate 2 ♣ opening and therefore a forbidden psych of a strong opening bid.

Do newcomers to your club have any reasonable way of knowing what the Conditions of Contest are there?

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2012-May-27, 19:50, said:

Do newcomers to your club have any reasonable way of knowing what the Conditions of Contest are there?

It would require a little investigation. If the ACBL regulations are "a bid is strong if I think it is" then the corollary is "I hope to Christ the director agrees with me", so a simple poll sent to the director or club manager of any game you are planning to play in should do nicely.

[PrecisionL]

Bbradley62, on 2012-May-27, 19:50, said:

Do newcomers to your club have any reasonable way of knowing what the Conditions of Contest are there?

No one at our club would open such a hand posted with 2♣.

Also, I teach that partner will make a slam try if you open 2♣ with that junk and he has 8+ hcp and an Ace or King or better. So, deceiving partner is the real problem and destroying the partnership is the consequence of being so loose in your agreements.

[Bbradley62]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-27, 19:58, said:

Bbradley62, on 2012-May-27, 19:50, said:

Do newcomers to your club have any reasonable way of knowing what the Conditions of Contest are there?

No one at our club would open such a hand posted with 2♣.

Also, I teach that partner will make a slam try if you open 2♣ with that junk and he has 8+ hcp and an Ace or King or better. So, deceiving partner is the real problem and destroying the partnership is the consequence of being so loose in your agreements.

It sounds like everyone in your club has been taught to play the way that you want them to and the answer to my question is "no, they must become indoctrinated".

[PrecisionL]

Bbradley62, on 2012-May-27, 20:07, said:

It sounds like everyone in your club has been taught to play the way that you want them to and the answer to my question is "no, they must become indoctrinated".

Jumping to conclusions wastes a lot of energy! :<) I am not the Club Manager.

Stig Holmquist
View profile
More options Jan 10 2010, 5:46 pm
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:35:01 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven

- Show quoted text -

Some time ago, don't ask me when, it was stated in the ACBL Bulletin,
regarding the 2C opening bid, that it's not allowed holding a solid
single 9-card or longer suit, because it has no defensive strength.

Stig

More arguments for and against: http://groups.google...opening&lnk=ol

[Vampyr]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-27, 19:58, said:

Also, I teach that partner will make a slam try if you open 2♣ with that junk and he has 8+ hcp and an Ace or King or better. So, deceiving partner is the real problem and destroying the partnership is the consequence of being so loose in your agreements.

This is not a question about partnership harmony though; it is about how to rule on a particular hand. There is the (unlikely, I admit) possibility that the four players at the table are not all your students.

[blackshoe]

I don't agree with the ACBL's take on this, but it is what it is, and ACBL directors who are following the policy will NOT rule that this is a psych. I think it's a stupid policy, but that cuts no ice with HQ.

What's published in the Bulletin, including in Mike Flader's "Ruling the Game" column, is not official policy unless specifically stated to be such.

BTW, a psych is a deliberate action, so if a player thinks his strong 2♣ opening is legit, it cannot possibly be a psych, although it could be an illegal agreement.

The relevant regulation is the General Convention Chart.

[Mbodell]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-27, 22:02, said:

BTW, a psych is a deliberate action, so if a player thinks his strong 2♣ opening is legit, it cannot possibly be a psych, although it could be an illegal agreement.

The relevant regulation is the General Convention Chart.

Right, I've also gotten a bad result and no rule of psych when a beginner bid 2♣ artificial, forcing, and strong with a weak 2 in clubs and then passed the partner's 2M bid (which we set 1 trick). We missed our game, and the ruling was results stand since the beginning player didn't psych deliberately but just forgot that while a 2 bid in any of the other 3 suits would have been weak for her, a 2 bid in clubs was special and had an unusual conventional meaning. Unlike the other case (where it was a senior national TD who ruled), the director in this case was just a club director, but I think the ruling makes sense, as frustrating as it was at the time.

[barmar]

Many pairs have on their convention card that 2♣ is something like "22+ HCP or 8 1/2 tricks". If they do this, then I think they can't use the "I felt it was strong" argument.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-27, 19:36, said:

There is a serious contradition here. If is the case, then how can there be regulations about psycing, etc, a "strong" bid?

The defense "It looked strong to me" will always work. Even on a Yarborough.

The Laws generally assume players are honest. If someone says their Yarborough "looked strong", they're obviously lying or delusional.

Even without a concrete definition (like they have in EBU), everyone knows that 2♣ shows a hand that is close to making game on its own. A hand that's hardly likely to take any tricks at all could in no way be considered strong.

A player can get away with it with a hand like in the OP because he has 8 sure tricks in his hand (assuming spades are trump). Needing only 2 tricks from partner fits the loose criteria of "close to making game on its own".

[sailoranch]

This happened to me at a regional yesterday, and I was the one shamed on defense as a result of thinking this sort of hand was not possible. I considered appealing, but our place in the standings eventually made the point moot. The (friendly) director did give me an info sheet (dated April 1992) detailing what constituted a permissible 2♣ opening:

"If, in the view of the bidder, there is a reasonable chance for game in hand with little help from partner."

This and the example hands that were included would have driven me to pursue the appeal. On the other hand, I'm glad I didn't because everyone's telling me it would have failed.

As an aside, I think it's fine if partnerships agree to open 2♣ on hands like this, but I feel that this style is enough of a deviation from normality that it should be agreed (and the opponents informed). In this case, the opponents' agreement seemed to be a general notion that bidding 2♣ on playing tricks was okay, but the exact number was unclear.

Thanks for your insight.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-May-27, 23:31, said:

Many pairs have on their convention card that 2♣ is something like "22+ HCP or 8 1/2 tricks". If they do this, then I think they can't use the "I felt it was strong" argument.

Why not? The given hand is only half a trick short.

[mycroft]

Unfortunately, with the policy as it is, you're sort of stuck with it being a legal *agreement*. I wish this would change, but with the C&C committee never playing against pairs who do this, it's not a real problem likely to get fixed.

However, you have to see if the opponents have been given proper disclosure.

Is it anywhere on the card that it can be a heavy preempt? Did they ask, and if they did, did they get this potential hand, or just "big"?

As far as PrecisionL goes, a 2♣ opening on this hand is a *bad* agreement, but it's not yet at this point an illegal agreement.