[shugart24]

j 10 6 of spades k765 hearts q diamond k 10 742 clubs ..Opponent opens 1C playing Standard American. I suspect it is legal

[jillybean]

---

Do they have 'very light openings' checked on their CC?
Club game, ACBL?

I believe the minimum allowed opening 1m is 10hcp, perhaps they miscounted.

[shugart24]

jillybean, on 2025-February-22, 08:57, said:

---

Do they have 'very light openings' checked on their CC?

no

[jillybean]

shugart24, on 2025-February-22, 09:02, said:

no

Director please

[smerriman]

I believe it's only *illegal* on the ACBL basic chart, Basic+ or higher is fine. Though if you do it regularly enough to be a partnership agreement rather than a miscount, the lack of checkbox may be a disclosure issue.

[mycroft]

What seat? What chart?

The new card doesn't have the "very light openings" boxes - nobody thought their agreements were "very light", they were just "the aggressive end of normal in our game", so they never checked them, because there wasn't a definition.

(They were supposed to pre-Alert them too, and there *were* guidelines on what was "very light" for pre-Alertable purposes, but nobody did that either. On the rare case that they were called on it by someone who knew, "I just made a small deviation, we don't normally open *this* light, but..."

You want to know *why* the new CCs and Alert Procedures read like contracts? And why the arguably (but definitely) legal "you can't use judgement if, if it was your agreement, it would be an illegal agreement" phrasing is in there? That's why.)

The new card, instead, has "minimum strength for opener/responder" lines. Which are useless (IMHO) because it's "minimum expected *if balanced*", when I want to know if this kind of hand is a first-seat opener. Or a third-seat opener. (I raised this issue with the committee during the review, and it wasn't important enough to worry about).

With of that as preamble, the charts say:

• Basic Chart: Allowed: Any Natural opening bid in a suit, as long as it shows at least Average Strength. (1)
  
• Basic+: Allowed: Any opening bid in a suit which is Natural, as long as it shows at least Near-Average Strength. (2)
  
• Open: Disallowed: A Natural or Quasi-Natural 1-level opening bid in first or second seat that could contain less than Near-Average Strength.(3)
  
• Open+: Same as Open.

It's a 9-count and Ro18, it's legal in any tournament session not limited to 300 MPs, and any club game that isn't Basic Chart. And if you're playing *your system* in a club game that is Basic Chart only, frankly even *if* it's totally Basic legal, you're not wanted, you should find a stronger game.

Now, if that were a "Could be 2" (and not 4=4=3=2) 1♣, the rules are slightly different (on the Basic+ Chart). If it were a "could be 1" (and not "stiff A, K, or Q"), then the rules are slightly different on all charts. But we are not told that, so I assume "standard" means 3+ (or 4=4=3=2).

If you get recourse from a director call, it will be for misinformation, not "use of an illegal agreement". And given the Alertable nature of this call (i.e. "none"), you'd better have some reason that you think you were misinformed (looking at their card and not seeing "very light openings" checked, *before you saw the hand*, would probably count. Seeing it *after* you found out would not, you were not misinformed, just (correctly) not informed at all.)

Note: all the above is predicated on it being either within their agreement or only a petty deviation from their agreement ("we play Ro19, this looked close enough"). If *I* did it, in first seat playing K/S, I think I'd have a good argument for it being a psych ("Our 1♣ openers are 15+ balanced, sound if unbalanced, unless 12+ and 6+clubs"). Another answer that protects (even if you do check their card before play), provided the director believes them: "Sorry, lost my mind. I double-counted my ♣K, thought I had 12."

But I agree with Jillybean - call the director. As you can see, there are lots of cases, and maybe they committed an offence? You don't know; even if the answer is "no, that's legal in this game. If you need to know their minimum, you have to ask", it's okay to get the director over to get that answer. And I'm saying this as an EHAA under GCC player, who used to carry a copy of the GCC because sometimes even the Directors were sure of the wrong answer(4).

(1): “Average Strength”: A hand that has at least 10 HCP or meets the “Rule of 19”.
(2): “Near Average Strength”: A hand that has at least 8 HCP or meets the “Rule of 17”.
(3): What is the lower limit for third or fourth seat? There isn't one. What's pre-Alertable? If it's Natural and non-Forcing, nothing. What's Alertable at the time of call? If it's Natural, nothing. How do you know if their agreement is "QTxxx and out is a third-seat 1♠ call"? You can ask :-).
(4): Of course, I got my own back with them, the *second time* someone called the (same) director on our bids. They'd look at us as they came to the table and say "yes, it's legal, we already checked it." Sometimes, without even being asked the question :-).

[pescetom]

Fair enough I guess. Although I still struggle to see how ACBL can be so anal about an upgrade into 1NT and yet be happy with no disclosure needed for "QTxxx and out is a third-seat 1♠ call" (or with the related legal psychic control, for that matter).

But more seriously, would any Director really be willing to believe "I counted my K twice (and the stiff Q once for good measure too)"?

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-February-22, 12:50, said:

What seat? What chart?

The new card doesn't have the "very light openings" boxes - nobody thought their agreements were "very light", they were just "the aggressive end of normal in our game", so they never checked them, because there wasn't a definition.

(They were supposed to pre-Alert them too, and there *were* guidelines on what was "very light" for pre-Alertable purposes, but nobody did that either. On the rare case that they were called on it by someone who knew, "I just made a small deviation, we don't normally open *this* light, but..."

pescetom, on 2025-February-22, 13:43, said:

Fair enough I guess. Although I still struggle to see how ACBL can be so anal about an upgrade into 1NT and yet be happy with no disclosure needed for "QTxxx and out is a third-seat 1♠ call" (or with the related legal psychic control, for that matter).

But more seriously, would any Director really be willing to believe "I counted my K twice (and the stiff Q once for good measure too)"?

ACBL Logic.

[mikl_plkcc]

What is the agreement? Can't I define my 1C opening to be, e.g. 7-14 HCP any hand not containing a 5-card major, except that 9-11 HCP balanced hands where 1NT is opened?! (for example, when playing a strong diamond system?)

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2025-February-22, 13:43, said:

Fair enough I guess. Although I still struggle to see how ACBL can be so anal about an upgrade into 1NT and yet be happy with no disclosure needed for "QTxxx and out is a third-seat 1♠ call" (or with the related legal psychic control, for that matter).

I don't have a problem with the ACBL outlawing upgrading a 9 HCP hand to a 10 HCP hand for opening an e.g. 10-12 HCP 1NT. Right or wrong, they set the lower limit for opening 1NT at 10 HCP and said it was illegal to open with 9 HCP. If they allowed players to upgrade with 9 HCP, that's giving those bidders an advantage over players that follow the rules.

Your 1♠ example is a psyche. Why would you need disclosure? Maybe for frequent psyches? Psyches are allowed if they aren't disallowed. Psychic controls are not allowed at any level. BTW, you could open a 6 (or less) HCP 1NT when playing 10-12 NT since that is a psyche.

[mycroft]

How do you know it's a psych?

Remember, it's a deliberate and gross deviation from *the bidder's* agreements, not yours or anybody else's (sane or otherwise). Sure, it would be a psych if *you* did it, maybe even if *I* did it.

But it's *legal* to agree that 1♠ in third seat is 0+ as long as it promises 4 spades. How the pair is going to survive this is anyone's guess (but playing a limited opener system like Precision would help, as now it's 0-15 opposite at most a bad 10).

Psychs are one thing. If it is a psych, then fine (as long as partner has no more chance of catching it than opponents, it doesn't happen enough to become an implied agreement, yada yada).

Agreements are another. But if it's legal, then it's legal. If it's disclosed "properly" (whatever that means), then, again, fine (even *if* partner completely expects it and plans for it, or even if the system is designed to cater to it).

If not disclosed "properly", then there's a problem, but it's a misinformation problem, not a "is it legal to open this" problem.

If the agreement isn't legal, then that's a different story, sure, but most of the "is this legal?" questions are "yes, clearly, by a simple reading of the chart. Which you could have done before asking me. Just because you don't *believe it*, or even because you don't believe it *should be*, is Not My Problem. Take it up with the Committee."(1)

And many apologies to pescetom and others re: what is allowed for different calls in different seats. There Is History behind a lot of the "silly" decisions(2), and until History has Passed, there's nothing anybody is going to be able to do. And that's as far as I'm going to go on that one (especially as some of "farther" is clearly gossip, if not speculation).

The "silly" decision of minimum strength of third seat 1M openers, however, looks to me like sheer "fine. You're going to argue to the BOD that the next minor downgrade from legal is 'an obvious opener, everybody would do it, how dare it be ruled illegal?' Okay, you win. No restrictions. Have fun" frustration. And you know? I'm good with that.

(1): Of course I wouldn't phrase it that way here, or at the table, at least not the first time. I'm Canadian.

(2): I have pointed out the anomaly of "10-12 1NT is simple enough for 0-20 games, but 9-11 is too hard for full-time pros in 60-board matches with 2 weeks notice" before. I have pointed out that the lower limit for 1NT is *not*, and never has been, the lower limit for 1 of a suit, and anyone saying "but you can't upgrade KQTx KJTx T9x T9 to 1NT, but you can upgrade 85 AKQT853 763 5 to a '10-21' 1♥ opener? What's the difference, it's still 9 HCP?" is clearly *ignoring the clear words of the regulation* for their own argument's benefit. I still think the fact that we have to Alert that our weak 2 in hearts in third seat could have 12 or 13 HCP is ludicrous (1st or 2nd I agree is different); 50+years have made "third seat, we have 13 cards, and some of them are hearts" at least as standard as "AKTxx and out is a 1♠ opener in third seat". And I bet that I'm the only one in the ACBL who does so - even though I can't remember the last time my partners *did* have 12. And eventually someone important is going to do it at my table, or at a table in a game I'm running, and there will be a row. But these, *and many more*, have been pointed out, by more than me, to the Committee. They have made their decisions. I look forward to dumping the fallout, should I be correct and there is any, in their lap. [/rant]

[mycroft]

Also, re: pescetom: I'm not sure what director will believe me. But I have definitely doublecounted an honour before, as well as skipped one. Usually I catch it on another count, or "surely it's not..." just looking at all the eyeballs. But sometimes, it happens. I've opened a 12-14 1NT with a solid 4432 16 count; I've said "AQ AJ is 13" before.

I will admit I'm more careful in situations where I'm not allowed to "use judgement" because my openings are Quasi-Natural or Artificial (or 10-12 1NT), but it might happen. And I'll make my case. And I will accept the director's judgement.

[jillybean]

Of all the Laws that are routinely ignored, these light openings are the least of my concerns.
It's simple to come into the auction over a 1 bid and wouldn't be surprised if these ultra light openings are a net negative loss, unless you are bashing beginners.

[mycroft]

I[Note: first posted in a very wrong topic. Apologies for the unintended hijack. Deleted and moved here.]

I guess, shorter mycroft: I have no problem Reading the Fine(*) Regulation for people who find it confusing, or are lazy, or just would rather have someone who has many more hours with it than they care to. I have time, I enjoy the minutiae of the Laws and Regulations (and I really like the lack of ambiguity of the CCs and the AR now, compared to before. I am willing to deal with bridge players who don't want to read another contract, to get it) - see my self-appointed title. And I like helping people.

But when people tell me that the regulations can't Say What They Say, I'm less in the "no problem" world.

When people try to tell me that What the Regulations Say isn't correct, even less so. Please note, I have *no problem* with "that's not the right way to read that sentence"; my interpretation is *not* infallible. This is more the "but of course Michaels over a strong club is Alertable, it's not Natural" or "the Multi is allowed in Flight A of a regional, so that means it's allowed in Flight A of all tournaments" that are clearly contradicted by the black letter of the regulations.

When people tell me the regulations are stupid, or can't be the way they are because it makes no sense, only then does it become Not My Problem™. I'm not on the Committee, I'm not on the BoD (and can't be by regulation), you got a problem with the words, take it up With Them. After all, when I had issues with what the words Should Be, that's exactly what I did. And I got them changed, more than once. Even got a couple of loopholes fixed.

(*) Sorry, what did you think the F in RTFR meant?