Re: Two club opening?
Kenny McCormack
paul <paul...@infi.net> wrote:
>> KQJTxx � �x � �--- � �AKJTxx
...
>Certainly legal. But partner with a random 8 hcp will tend to drive to
>slam; it's a good idea to have strength in 3 suits for a 2C opener.
I think it has become clear by now that the question isn't really "is it
legal?", but rather "Is it acceptable behavior w/o disclosure?". In
fact, I think the question "Is it legal?" is pretty much meaningless
(except to language lawyers, hence the cross-post).
Given that we, the smart people of r.g.b. would never open these sorts
of hands with 2C, yet we know that many of the unwashed would, and do,
it is clear that there are (at least) two sorts of people out there who
open 2C, so there are (at least) two version of the 2C convention in use.
It seems clear to me that one or the other needs an alert/disclosure.
It will never happen, though, of course, for political/social reasons.
By the way, do strong 2 bids (classic, old, standard American strong 2s)
require an alert?
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article <d7cdac8f-d590-4cca-806c-60b51b344...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> paul <paulh...@infi.net> wrote:
> >> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
> ...
> >Certainly legal. But partner with a random 8 hcp will tend to drive to
> >slam; it's a good idea to have strength in 3 suits for a 2C opener.
>
> I think it has become clear by now that the question isn't really "is it
> legal?", but rather "Is it acceptable behavior w/o disclosure?".
That's a more _interesting_ question. However, who gets to decide what
is acceptable other than those who decide what is legal?
In
> fact, I think the question "Is it legal?" is pretty much meaningless
> (except to language lawyers, hence the cross-post).
>
> Given that we, the smart people of r.g.b. would never open these sorts
> of hands with 2C, yet we know that many of the unwashed would, and do,
> it is clear that there are (at least) two sorts of people out there who
> open 2C, so there are (at least) two version of the 2C convention in use.
>
> It seems clear to me that one or the other needs an alert/disclosure.
At least one pair I know, life-mackarels, were told by a director that
they ought to alert their 2C bid. However, the descriiption he told
them to give, as they remember it, after they alert makes no sense to
me. They think he told them to say "It may only be a one-suiter." They
don't remember anything else he said. Of course, I think their bids
should all be alerted as "none of my partner's bids mean anything"
because people who don't know them might draw inferences from their
bidding.
>
> It will never happen, though, of course, for political/social reasons.
>
> By the way, do strong 2 bids (classic, old, standard American strong 2s)
> require an alert?
I don't know. I do know that a great many hands, especially two-
suiters, that would be reasonable Strong-Two openings would be insane
to open 2C. So all the texts that said that you could open 2C anytime
it would be right to open 2X are wrong. The hand that started this
thread might be opened 2S (or 2C) as a natural strong two without
anyone batting an eye.
--
Will in New Haven
Kenny McCormack
Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
...
>What makes comp.lang.c the right place for discussions for language
>lawyers?
Have you read that group? If you had, you'd know.
And if you haven't you should - and you will.
>It's still not a reasonable cross-post.
The cross-post amuses me. Hence, I have put it back.
...
>No. If you have a "strong" hand, that's all you have to have. If you want
Repeating data that has already been posted doesn't add to the body of
knowledge.
(Another thing they like to do ad infinitum in CLC, hence the cross-post)
James Dow Allen
wrote:
> >What makes comp.lang.c the right place for discussions for language
> >lawyers?
> Have you read that group? If you had, you'd know.
> And if you haven't you should - and you will.
> .
> >It's still not a reasonable cross-post.
> .
> The cross-post amuses me. Hence, I have put it back.
> knowledge.
> .
> (Another thing they like to do ad infinitum in CLC, hence the cross-post)
For someone who complains about newsgroup noise,
you are one of the noisiest, and probably the most offensive.
I've left r.g.b in the Newsgroup list so r.g.b'ers can
know what we c.l.c'ers think of Kenny.
James Dow Allen (ACBL Lifemaster since 1971!)
dranon
If James Dow Allen were to replace Kenny McCormack in r.g.b. it would
be a very good thing indeed.
Antoninus Twink
> I've left r.g.b in the Newsgroup list so r.g.b'ers can
> know what we c.l.c'ers think of Kenny.
What makes you think you speak for all clc'ers?
Your arrogance certainly marks you out as exactly one of those
"regulars" that Kenny is talking about.
> By the way, do strong 2 bids (classic, old, standard American strong
> 2s) require an alert?
In my opinion, yes, but it never happens...
David Stevenson
>James Dow Allen (ACBL Lifemaster since 1971!)
<mutter> <mutter> ACBL lifemaster <mutter> <mutter>
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
richlp
You are correct. They do require an alert.
But you are also incorrect, at least for me and my partner. We always
alert our opening 2's. We also get the strangest looks, especially
when we explain that 2C shows (of all things) CLUBS.
James Dow Allen
On Jan 12, 3:59 am, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2010 at 18:20, James Dow Allen wrote:
> > I've left r.g.b in the Newsgroup list so r.g.b'ers can
> > know what we c.l.c'ers think of Kenny.
> .
> What makes you think you speak for all clc'ers?
> .
> Your arrogance certainly marks you out as exactly one of those
> "regulars" that Kenny is talking about.
By this point, I think I'll take that as a compliment.
James
gwowen
> Your arrogance certainly marks you out as exactly one of those
> "regulars" that Kenny is talking about.
Oh please, Sockpuppet. Your opinion on yourself is not enlightening.