[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]

DavidKok, on 2023-June-25, 12:24, said:

@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]

mycroft, on 2023-June-25, 12:07, said:

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.

mycroft, on 2023-June-25, 12:07, said:

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.

mycroft, on 2023-June-25, 12:07, said:

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]

pescetom, on 2023-June-25, 14:52, said:

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.

[mycroft]

Sure, over 4M. But players open a "big hand" 2♣ and you have a 5143 (even 6043) 13-count...you "can count" the rest of the hands. Are you coming in? As opposed to coming in over the Zia Transfer 4♥? And when partner has 5323 with the ♥A in their 14 (who also is thinking you're on a bust)...

How about the hand in the other thread (AKQJxx T9 Q6 AQ5)? Sticking your neck out (farther than a 2♠ system check)?

I'm not saying your experience, or Italy's decision is wrong. I am saying that I had at least three national level players get caught by it back in the day and each time had a 10+minute fight about it, having to pull up the paragraph out of the Tech files and having the end conclusion being "I can see that that's how you're supposed to rule, but the Law (Regulation) is an ass." And I certainly didn't disagree with them, publicly or otherwise. So *here*, I think our decision is right.

(Now, we Just Can't Play "big or 'some weak option'" 2♣ in our games here. I think i It's Open+ legal, sure. So the very common agreement in Europe is something we Just Don't See here. So players don't have experience bidding against "preempt or strong", even if it's "4-loser preempt with no Aces".

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-June-26, 11:58, said:

Sure, over 4M. But players open a "big hand" 2♣ and you have a 5143 (even 6043) 13-count...you "can count" the rest of the hands. Are you coming in? As opposed to coming in over the Zia Transfer 4♥? And when partner has 5323 with the ♥A in their 14 (who also is thinking you're on a bust)...

How about the hand in the other thread (AKQJxx T9 Q6 AQ5)? Sticking your neck out (farther than a 2♠ system check)?

I'm not saying your experience, or Italy's decision is wrong. I am saying that I had at least three national level players get caught by it back in the day and each time had a 10+minute fight about it, having to pull up the paragraph out of the Tech files and having the end conclusion being "I can see that that's how you're supposed to rule, but the Law (Regulation) is an ass." And I certainly didn't disagree with them, publicly or otherwise. So *here*, I think our decision is right.
is something we Just Don't See here. So players don't have experience bidding against "preempt or strong", even if it's "4-loser preempt with no Aces".

I follow your point, but sometimes these decisions are at least partly a dog chasing its tail. If your players expect a thermonuclear 2♣ then they might well keep quiet (and trust that they will be protected if necessary) even with game or slam at their fingertips. Our players promised "game forcing" and nothing more are going to call their cards if they can. Sure AKQJxx T9 Q6 AQ5 is pushing things as a strong opening (and would be unlikely over here) but the opps will not go quietly if they have a red game. And if it goes further than that (rarely) then the psyche ban is in the wings, assuming it was not just a beginner's poor evaluation.

If anything, I think the weakness is in the notion of "game forcing", in the sense that it is ambiguous whether the agreement is unconditional or not and that it can be disobeyed without consequences in any event. A few partnerships (although less than in US, ironically) have some agreement for a weak responder to cancel the game force, others will pass a discouraging sequence without any prior discussion. The problem is not so much that the opener speculates on this to open weak hands, but rather that the defence is on unsure ground. A problem not limited to 2♣ of course.

[Gilithin]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-25, 18:39, said:

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.

Your notable pedigree notwithstanding, I do not think it is much of a stretch to consider at least 4-4-4-1 as semi-balanced and there are a few systems around that even treat certain 4-4-4-1s as balanced.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I know. Rosenkranz put it this way: “we treat a singleton A or K as if it were a doubleton.”

By the wat, thanks for the compliment. :-)

[Gilithin]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-06, 00:17, said:

By the way, thanks for the compliment. :-)

You've done a lot of great things for these forums over the years Ed. I think it deserves to be called out sometimes.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-06, 00:17, said:

Rosenkranz put it this way: “we treat a singleton A or K as if it were a doubleton.”

"We treat a small singleton as if it were a doubleton without A or K" is then only a small stretch, for those of us with more liberal regulations