[DavidKok]

It probably differs by region. As far as I know opening 2♣ on this hand is completely legal. And if is wasn't, I would be happy to waive the right to call the director just so my opponents would do it more often.

[AL78]

thepossum, on 2021-December-11, 06:15, said:

Too late to comment
Can't be bothered to argue

And if anyone claims I can't bid 2c they are in for an argument

And I learnt to bid in England. Simple unpretentious and no unnecessary complexity and restrictions

From the EBU blue book section , level 4

"7C Opening Bids from 2♣ to 3♠ inclusive

7 C 1 General, including ’Multi’ style opening bids

These may be played as one or both of (a) and (b) below

(a) Any meaning or meanings as long as they all show a strong hand (16+ HCP, or 12+ HCP with at least 5 controls), and/or

(b) At most one from the following four options:

(i) One or more meanings which all show at least four cards in the suit opened, or
(ii) One or more meanings which all show at least five cards in the same one specified suit, or
(iii) One or more meanings which all show at least 4-4 in the same two specified suits, or
(iv) Any combination of meanings that show either or both of

1) At least five cards in a suit, specified or not, which must not be the suit opened, and/or
2) At least 5-4 in two suits, either or both of which may be specified or not, but both of which must not be the suit opened.

Notes:
(1) A ‘Benji’ 2♣ or 2♦ opening (or any other opening with a similar meaning) which may have ‘eight playing tricks’ in any suit must by agreement satisfy (a) above. If the minimum strength does not, by agreement, satisfy (a) above the long suit (or suits) may not be the suit opened (in accordance with (b) (iv) above).

...

(5) It is permitted to open (say) 2♣ to show an unspecified long suit that is not clubs under (b)(iv) above. If such an opening may contain (for example) a solid eight card major with little outside this should be clearly described and not called simply, ‘Strong’ or ‘Acol’."

This does imply in England at least you are allowed to open 2♣ to show a hand like this at level 4+, but you must disclose the agreement that it could be a long solid suit with little outside.

[thepossum]

9 playing tricks in the selected trump suit

Some of us don't need to refer to rule books either. We know how to bid

Plus when I learned to play Bridge is wasn't run by police and lawyers

Sn we don't like having unnecessarily complex CCs with hardly used conventions for very rare occasions

One GF bid on CC -& clear GF situation -> use GF bid

Ideally have a partner that understands what it may mean

My dislike of the 4H option is that it is too good a hand for 4H in white vs red

[Cyberyeti]

thepossum, on 2021-December-11, 20:13, said:

9 playing tricks in the selected trump suit

Some of us don't need to refer to rule books either. We know how to bid

Plus when I learned to play Bridge is wasn't run by police and lawyers

Sn we don't like having unnecessarily complex CCs with hardly used conventions for very rare occasions

One GF bid on CC -& clear GF situation -> use GF bid

Ideally have a partner that understands what it may mean

My dislike of the 4H option is that it is too good a hand for 4H in white vs red

Yes but you need to describe it as GF but not necessarily strong. Eleven to the QJ10 is 9-10 playing tricks, but nobody would describe it as a classic strong 2♣, your opponents are entitled to know what you know if you would open it 2♣.

[thepossum]

As I said. One trick short of game. That is 2c

What is everybody's problem. You suggesting I don't bid according to my CC. I may not be the world's best player but I think I am rather painfully disciplined

Why the constant pileons with you lot

Stop trying to patronise and lecture me all the time

Its incessant, highly personal and annoying

I think I am entitled to a clear explanation from all the regular pileon participants why I am personally singled out on these forums for years now, simply for engaging like everyone else. I never attacked anyone. Just commented like everyone. Please leave me alone. Its upsetting and stressful dealing with this repeated behaviour. Am I the only person arguing for 2C bid. I think now. So why me?

Also, you want to know why I get upset at lectures. Its because I was brought up with and have more in the way of Bridge ettiquette and ethics than the majority on this site and world it seems these days. So don't lecture mw about Bridge rules and ethics. I know more about them than even having to read the rule book. Look elsewhere for the recipients of your lectures mateys

Maybe my memory is longer than others or I felt it more but the personal attacks and pileons (and accusations) started many years ago simply because I raised the issue of extreme rudeness at tables

And in case its not obvious I don't like fights. I get upset

PS For full disclosue my current preemptive style is 234 so favorable vulnerabily, 9 tricks = 7H - so I'm not bidding that

EDIT N. I feel I need some backing. Pavlicek rates it at 9.5 tricks with KR of 20+

[pilowsky]

FWIW - it was a 16 table Club game.
3 people started with 2♣.
The rest divided roughly 50/50 with 1 or 4 ♥.

Nobody bid Namyats.

[Cyberyeti]

pilowsky, on 2021-December-12, 04:10, said:

FWIW - it was a 16 table Club game.
3 people started with 2♣.
The rest divided roughly 50/50 with 1 or 4 ♥.

Nobody bid Namyats.

Namyats/SAT is a lot less common than it used to be, people have appreciated that a natural 4m is more useful.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are obligations around disclosure, and you have to be VERY careful with what is on your convention card, and with explanations.

An example: You pick up QJ10xxxxxxx, x, x, x you open an "Acol" strong 2♠ because you have 8 playing tricks. Yes it meets your description on the card accurately, but it doesn't meet the expectations anybody else has of an Acol 2♠ in terms of high cards and defence. That is not reasonable.

You cannot describe your 2♣ as GF as people assume (and in many countries the rules tell them they can do this) this is "GF through strength". It may or may not be legal in your jurisdiction to have on your card "GF,not necessarily as strong in HCP as you'd expect but 9+PT if very unbalanced", you just need the extra disclosure.

[pilowsky]

Thanks for your concern.
I did play Acolised Benji with one partner - having read the book "Benjamin two's" - and a few other UK documents on the topic, but in the end decided to stick to a vanilla 2/1.

I only bid 2♣ when I have a hand that A) I want to force to a game contract and is too strong for a 2NT opening and too weak for 3NT - I don't play Gambling.
AND B) it has <= 4 losers. This hand had a cloven hoof but it did chew its cud.

If you provide a form of words that you think would best describe the kind of hand outline above, I'll be happy to use it next time I play in an EBU game (I am a member).

I actually don't like the 2♣ opening and rarely use it.
What concerned me about 4♥ is that it doesn't describe the trick taking potential of my hand. Opening 1♥ seemed to risk getting trampled on.

The response (on my CC) is a forced relay 2♦.
If asked for further information I'm always happy to clarify 4 or fewer losers or 22+.

[Cyberyeti]

pilowsky, on 2021-December-12, 05:33, said:

Thanks for your concern.
I did play Acolised Benji with one partner - having read the book "Benjamin two's" - and a few other UK documents on the topic, but in the end decided to stick to a vanilla 2/1.

I only bid 2♣ when I have a hand that A) I want to force to a game contract and is too strong for a 2NT opening and too weak for 3NT - I don't play Gambling.
AND B) it has <= 4 losers. This hand had a cloven hoof but it did chew its cud.

If you provide a form of words that you think would best describe the kind of hand outline above, I'll be happy to use it next time I play in an EBU game (I am a member).

I actually don't like the 2♣ opening and rarely use it.
What concerned me about 4♥ is that it doesn't describe the trick taking potential of my hand. Opening 1♥ seemed to risk getting trampled on.

The response (on my CC) is a forced relay 2♦.
If asked for further information I'm always happy to clarify 4 or fewer losers or 22+.

The EBU regs were stated above, not sure it's even legal here.

But a note like "GF 2?-2? bal or 9+ PT (if 9+PT no guarantees on HC strength)" would describe it.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-December-12, 04:39, said:

You cannot describe your 2♣ as GF as people assume (and in many countries the rules tell them they can do this) this is "GF through strength". It may or may not be legal in your jurisdiction to have on your card "GF,not necessarily as strong in HCP as you'd expect but 9+PT if very unbalanced", you just need the extra disclosure.

I agree with most of what you say, but not this: a description of just "GF" (or "GF or 22+ balanced") seems perfectly acceptable to me, if that is the actual agreement (rather than something more detailed, or specifically quantitative even in the case of a suit rebid) and your jurisdiction is open minded. Opponent has the right to ask about which hands with standalone GF potential are unlikely to make the same opening, but no more.

The fly in the ointment if anything is the possible existence of agreements to stop below game in case of misfit, notwithstanding the "GF". But that's common to a 2/1 or other GF too, any nobody seems to consider it a big problem, particularly those who have such agreements and do not disclose them until it already happened.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2021-December-12, 15:41, said:

I agree with most of what you say, but not this: a description of just "GF" (or "GF or 22+ balanced") is perfectly acceptable, if that is the actual agreement (rather than something more detailed, or specifically quantitative even in the case of a suit rebid) and your jurisdiction is open minded. Opponent has the right to ask about which hands with standalone GF potential are unlikely to make the same opening, but no more.

Not really, that description covers opening it on a flat Yarborough as long as it's still game forcing. There are legitimate assumptions made about what GF really means.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-December-12, 15:52, said:

Not really, that description covers opening it on a flat Yarborough as long as it's still game forcing. There are legitimate assumptions made about what GF really means.

So what exactly is the problem if one uses the same 2 level bid to force to game with a a distributional hand and few HCP or with a more balanced hand stronger in HCP?
Why should opponents be able to legitimately assume things that partner cannot?
This strikes me as a classic case of blinkers imposed by national traditions.

[DavidKok]

Partner may well hold a hand with some shapes and some values. If you have, say, a very strong balanced hand this is a near-automatic slam. If you have one long suit and nothing else even game may be off. 2♣ robs your side of the room to determine which, so partner will be left guessing (this requires no intervention by the opponents).

The opponents don't need to know more than your partner to figure out that a sacrifice at the 4- or 5-level might be good for them. They don't have to figure out whether you should defend or bid slam or bid exactly 5, making. They just need a good fit and a reasonable expectation that you can make game - which presumably you have when opening 2♣.

Regardless of the legalities and the historical preferences, there are significant technical downsides to consuming your own bidding space on a slam-going hand. This is why 2♣ is best reserved not for hands that can make game, but for hands that are afraid game might be missed because nobody will bid over a 1-level opening. Ideally I would NEVER open 2♣, but some hands are simply so strong that I fear 1X-a.p.

[johnu]

pilowsky, on 2021-December-12, 04:10, said:

Nobody bid Namyats.

Either nobody plays Namyats, or they forgot they played it and opened something else.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2021-December-12, 16:45, said:

So what exactly is the problem if one uses the same 2 level bid to force to game with a a distributional hand and few HCP or with a more balanced hand stronger in HCP?
Why should opponents be able to legitimately assume things that partner cannot?
This strikes me as a classic case of blinkers imposed by national traditions.

What I'm saying is that opps are entitled to the same info as partner, and simply putting GF does not give them that. GBK doesn't think an 11 card suit missing the AK and out looks like a 2♣ opener, if you do because it's 9 tricks, you really should use a definition that gives the opps a clue you might do this.

[Douglas43]

I agree with Cyberyeti and think the EBU disclosure requirement is fair, and reasonable. However, Pilowsky's profile says he is in Australia and for all I know ABF is different.

Irrespective of that, not keen on 2♣ as a bid without an explicit agreement to include this type of hand. How is partner with a AKQxx, x, KQJx, xxx going to know that their hand is basically waste paper?

[sfi]

Douglas43, on 2021-December-13, 03:41, said:

I agree with Cyberyeti and think the EBU disclosure requirement is fair, and reasonable. However, Pilowsky's profile says he is in Australia and for all I know ABF is different.

It's somewhat different because there are many fewer restrictions on what you can play. However, you still have to disclose your agreements appropriately - trying to claim that 9 solid hearts and out is somehow adequately described as "strong" without further explanation will leave you open to an adjustment based on misinformation.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-December-13, 02:04, said:

What I'm saying is that opps are entitled to the same info as partner, and simply putting GF does not give them that. GBK doesn't think an 11 card suit missing the AK and out looks like a 2♣ opener, if you do because it's 9 tricks, you really should use a definition that gives the opps a clue you might do this.

I think you said it all with "opps are entitled to the same info as partner". Of course they are, but not to more. If your agreement genuinely is that 2♧ may be any hand where opener forces unconditionally to game, then that is all opponents have a right to know, plus of course a summary of strong hands that would probably NOT open this way (if so asked, or if opponents are not familiar with your system). I can see David's argument that this is not a great agreement, but not your argument that it is reticent on any way.

FWIW, Italian regulations allow you to announce 2♧ as "strong" with no further explanation if the opening is game forcing. Unfortunately many of us include 22+ balanced hands and so need to alert due to the possible pass over a 2NT rebid.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2021-December-13, 07:31, said:

I think you said it all with "opps are entitled to the same info as partner". Of course they are, but not to more. If your agreement genuinely is that 2♧ may be any hand where opener forces unconditionally to game, then that is all opponents have a right to know, plus of course a summary of strong hands that would probably NOT open this way (if so asked, or if opponents are not familiar with your system). I can see David's argument that this is not a great agreement, but not your argument that it is reticent on any way.

Your partner at least knows which hands it can be, ie if a bid is unconditionally GF, this says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the hand itself, merely about the subsequent bidding could be a flat 3 count (although partner knows it isn't). You need to put SOMETHING on the convention card to help the opps, and give a reasonable explanation if asked if your interpretation is very different to most peoples'.

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2021-December-13, 07:31, said:

If your agreement genuinely is that 2♧ may be any hand where opener forces unconditionally to game, then that is all opponents have a right to know

Very few will have the agreement that 2♣ might be a weak hand that wants to force to game. I would argue that if that really is the agreement then it would be sufficiently unusual that an explanation should make reference to that fact that the bid is forcing to game, but is not necessarily strong.

I don't think that the EBU's Blue Book has everything right, but I think that 2.B.4 is useful in defining forcing:

Quote

2.B.4 ‘Forcing’
means a call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength. If a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, a player must qualify any explanation to make this clear.