Two club opening?
Jim Greer
Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
--
Jim Greer
Home: (203) 966-9469
Cell: (203) 979-6236
goodwintr
Permissible? Why not? Wise? Maybe not so much . . . .
TLG
KWSchneider
Jim - you may not want to post your home and cell phone numbers on the
internet...
Kurt
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Jim - you may not want to post your home and cell phone numbers on the
> internet...
He might not - but I have done so a long time ago, and my numbers
are avaliable several places on the internet, and I haven't
received any sms-spam.
I have also published my bank account number, but alas, no extra
money has been deposited.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Will in New Haven
>
> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>
It certainly should be. It is a hand that a Strong Two partneship
would open 2S, so it isn't a psyche. Of course, I would not open it 2C
because I want to bid my suits. 1C and then, after they reach 4H, some
number of Spades. If there is no interference, partner will respond
and I will make a game-forcing jump-shift to 2S. My partners don't
pass my game-forcing jump-shifts.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
<splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> KWSchneider skrev:
>
> > Jim - you may not want to post your home and cell phone numbers on the
> > internet...
>
> He might not - but I have done so a long time ago, and my numbers
> are avaliable several places on the internet, and I haven't
> received any sms-spam.
>
> I have also published my bank account number, but alas, no extra
> money has been deposited.
I once got a phone call from my bank that someone was trying to
deposit money in my account and was _refusing_ to show identification.
I told them that it was my policy to accept deposits from _anyone_ and
that they should never again ask for identification in those
circumstances. Obviously, she already had the numbers for my account
and she would not have had them if I didn't trust her with them.
Derek Broughton
> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>
> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>
Yes. Is it a good idea? Opinions differ (but most would probably say no -
not because it's not strong enough, but because you really want your partner
to know about the extreme shape).
--
derek
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
>KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>
>Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
If your card shows 20+ HCP you might have a problem unless you are
using the ACBL Yellow card showing 9+ tricks.
Stig
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I once got a phone call from my bank that someone was trying to
> deposit money in my account and was _refusing_ to show identification.
> I told them that it was my policy to accept deposits from _anyone_ and
> that they should never again ask for identification in those
> circumstances. Obviously, she already had the numbers for my account
> and she would not have had them if I didn't trust her with them.
I'll accept deposits from anyone at all, and I do not need to
trust them. As my mother used to say:
Small contributions will be received with gratitude,
and large ones with greed.
boblipton
Go roight ahead so far as I'm concerned and watch as lefty bids two
hearts and righty raises it to 4 hearts.
Me, I'll open 1 spade and rebid some lrge number of clubs. Or
maybe open 1 club and rebid 4 spades.
Bob
Fred.
I'm not sure what the ACBL requirement is. But, 2C will make it
difficult to show your distribution. How will partner have a clue
that red honors other than the HA are worthless on offense? And,
unless you first show partner your extreme offensive bias, how will
you kno whether to sit responder's double or pull it?
Fred.
Derek Broughton
> On Jan 10, 7:00 am, "Jim Greer" <jim...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>>
>> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>
> I'm not sure what the ACBL requirement is.
That's OK, neither really is the ACBL - but significant rulings and appeals
have upheld that it's legal to open this 2C.
--
derek
Kenny McCormack
What about: 1=10=1=1 with AKQJ hearts?
This has been done against me. And, of course, we can make 4S, but
neither of us felt able to enter the bidding against a "strong" opening.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article <dbpp17-1ve....@morgen.pointerstop.ca>,
That is entirely legal and the reason the rule against psyching the 2C
opening is such a bad idea. You and your partner probably felt
protected by the fact that the rules require your opponent to have a
strong hand but the rules require no such thing. They require that the
bid not be a psych. Ten tricks in Hearts is a game, so it is hard to
say that a game-forcing bid with that hand is a psyche. And no
director will rule against the player who does it. So you had no
protection but were under the impression that you had.
Stig Holmquist
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
Will in New Haven
That would be a reasonable amendment to a bad rule. However, I have
never seen a "he psyched 2C" ruling made. The history of the rule is
well-known, it was proposed in a fit of pique because a board-member,
who is no longer alive, was psyched out of a game by a player, who is
also no longer alive, who then needled him about it.
There is no reason to keep such a rule on the books.
Kenny McCormack
>That is entirely legal and the reason the rule against psyching the 2C
>opening is such a bad idea. You and your partner probably felt
>protected by the fact that the rules require your opponent to have a
>strong hand but the rules require no such thing. They require that the
>bid not be a psych. Ten tricks in Hearts is a game, so it is hard to
>say that a game-forcing bid with that hand is a psyche. And no
>director will rule against the player who does it. So you had no
>protection but were under the impression that you had.
You're making (and making up) a lot of (false) assumptions.
But that is the way on Usenet.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article <865dae43-f43c-4442-a9ba-c504fa361...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> >That is entirely legal and the reason the rule against psyching the 2C
> >opening is such a bad idea. You and your partner probably felt
> >protected by the fact that the rules require your opponent to have a
> >strong hand but the rules require no such thing. They require that the
> >bid not be a psych. Ten tricks in Hearts is a game, so it is hard to
> >say that a game-forcing bid with that hand is a psyche. And no
> >director will rule against the player who does it. So you had no
> >protection but were under the impression that you had.
>
> You're making (and making up) a lot of (false) assumptions.
>
> But that is the way on Usenet.
One assumption I made, after a lot of evidence, is that you are a
moron. But I made nothing up.
Kenny McCormack
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
...
>One assumption I made, after a lot of evidence, is that you are a
>moron. But I made nothing up.
Wow. That's so clever. Can I get your autograph?
When is your book coming out?
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article <3106e0f0-1ef4-405e-a1cb-8b427d313...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> >One assumption I made, after a lot of evidence, is that you are a
> >moron. But I made nothing up.
>
> Wow. That's so clever. Can I get your autograph?
>
> When is your book coming out?
What exactly do you accuse me of making up? I'm sorry that you and
your partner got robbed blind and I'm sure that the 2C opening
prevented you from looking at your hands but I didn't even mention
that part. You asked if it was a legal 2C opening and I said that I
don't think a director is ever going to rule against it. So it is
legal.
Stig Holmquist
I just discovered the reference to ACBL. It's on p.41 of Apr.2009
Alan Malloy
Actually, I recently read a different reason in the January Bridge
World, more to do with disclosure than with intentional psyches. It's
still a bad rule, of course (and Ruben says so in his article), but he
claims the rule came about because of the incidence of psychic 2C
openers shortly after the strong-artificial 2C became popular. One set
of people, A, played 2C as either a very strong hand, or a weak hand
with diamonds; responder bids 2D to find out which. The other set, B,
played 2C as a very strong hand, but often psyched it with a very weak
hand. But the B players noticed that since responder usually bid 2D, it
was a good idea to have some length in diamonds when you psyched 2C, so
that the contract would be less bad. Then, responder started bidding 2D
all the time, because very weak hands outnumber very strong hands, and
soon they're playing the exact same agreements as A, but not disclosing
them nearly as well. Ruben thinks (knows?) that the ACBL introduced this
rule as a band-aid to cover up B's poor disclosure, not because of any
specific incident.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
Kenny McCormack
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Jan 10, 6:11�pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
>wrote:
>> In article <3106e0f0-1ef4-405e-a1cb-8b427d313...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> Will in New Haven �<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> >One assumption I made, after a lot of evidence, is that you are a
>> >moron. But I made nothing up.
>>
>> Wow. �That's so clever. �Can I get your autograph?
>>
>> When is your book coming out?
>
>What exactly do you accuse me of making up? I'm sorry that you and
>your partner got robbed blind and I'm sure that the 2C opening
>prevented you from looking at your hands but I didn't even mention
Well, first of all, to stay within the confines of the idea of the
group, for just a bit, I do believe that the issue isn't as clearcut as
you seem to think it is. The ACBL has gone back and forth on the issue
a few times over the past 10-15 years, and Stig has found some
references and citations that seem trustworthy. I also don't doubt that
the ACBL board does make decisions based on one of their own getting a
bad result (see other postings for more about this unseamly side of
things).
Now, getting back to the personal-back-forth that we all live for...
Go back and re-read your post of a few posts back - you make a lot of
statements about my and my partner's motives and states of minds that,
to put it charitably, you can't possibly know. Hence my statement that
you were making stuff up. You may even have been right (but you
weren't), but even so that would have been through blind luck alone.
You were still making sh*t up.
>that part. You asked if it was a legal 2C opening and I said that I
>don't think a director is ever going to rule against it. So it is
>legal.
Well, you know that those are two different things; your position seems
thus to depend on mushing them together. There are a lot of things that
no director is ever going to rule against that are clearly against the
laws. Theory and practice and all that.
I could say more, and probably will, if we keep this up...
Will in New Haven
The specific incident may be an urban legend but a lot of people tell
it and retell it. Did Rubens reference it and say it is an urban
legend. It wouldn't shock me if it were.
Alan Malloy
He doesn't mention the urban legend, but I've certainly heard it myself,
and assumed it was true till I read the article by Rubens. I didn't mean
to suggest you were making stuff up, as you are apparently prone to doing...
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article <df71969b-3fe1-4853-ad51-52483fb59...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
When I said "You and your partner probably felt protected by the fact
that the rules require your opponent to have a strong hand" I was
_speculating_ not making anything up. The word "probably" clearly
indicates that I wasn't making a factual claim. Obviously, if you
didn't at least consider that the rule was protecting you and still
got robbed, more power to your opponent.
> >that part. You asked if it was a legal 2C opening and I said that I
> >don't think a director is ever going to rule against it. So it is
> >legal.
>
> Well, you know that those are two different things; your position seems
> thus to depend on mushing them together. There are a lot of things that
> no director is ever going to rule against that are clearly against the
> laws. Theory and practice and all that.
>
> I could say more, and probably will, if we keep this up...
Well, your last paragraph fits exactly my view of the situation except
that anything a director isn't going to rule against is _functionally_
legal. Committees do overturn rulings but I've never seen a ruling of
this nature overturned. The article in the ACBL Bulletin that Stigg
referenced is fairly recent and maybe directors will start to pay
attention to it.
Chris
Another usually sensible poster recently posted that no American
experts use the 2NT response to 1m as game forcing unless they have an
artificial gadget to use for balanced invitations.
I agree that the rule against psyching strong artificial openings is
silly, but let's be a little more careful before asserting something
as the "only reason" something else was done, or that "everyone plays
bid A as meaning B".
Christopher Monsour
henry...@yahoo.com
> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>
> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>
As far as I know, the answer is yes.
It would be silly to do so, in my opinion, since defensively this hand
is very very poor, but it would not be illegal to do so.
Henrysun909
Raija D
"Jim Greer" <jim...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b49c172$0$31265$607e...@cv.net...
> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>
> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>
> --
>
>
> Jim Greer
> Home: (203) 966-9469
> Cell: (203) 979-6236
>
This horse has been beaten to death on many forums/fora before.
ACBL requires that the 2C opening hand is "strong" but not regulating at all
how it is determined whether a hand _is_ "strong". So, if you decide this
hand or even something like KQJxxxxx-void-KQJx-x is "strong", then you are
allowed to open it 2C.
I would call it very bad judgment but that is not the point. It is legal to
open such hands 2C. However, it will be unexpected to your opponents if you
open 2C with the example hand or with some even weaker one-suiters (which
admittedly have 8 1/2 tricks, maybe even 9) so it should be alerted for that
reason. Whether it is alerted or not, and opponent asks about the 2C bid,
you must not answer "strong and artificial" or "standard" but instead
explain it in full as "either 20HCP, or, a weaker hand that has lots of
playing tricks". - or WHATEVER YOUR PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT IS.
It is about time that ACBL gets its act together and defines what the
parameters are for "strong. But it has not done anything about clarifying
the regulation so whatever the player considers "strong" is allowed, in
ACBL.
Raija
Barry Margolin
<3fe59ab7-b160-476c...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I've always wondered why I have to endorse a check that's made out to me
and being deposited in my own bank account. Who cares if an imposter
deposits the check, since it's still going to the intended recipient.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Barry Margolin
Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
The ACBL requirement is "strong", leaving judgement up to the bidder and
partnership. In other words, if you think the hand is too strong to
open at the one level, then you're not psyching by opening it 2C.
Chris
> In article
> <3fe59ab7-b160-476c-bd69-380e1b470...@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 11:42 am, Bertel Lund Hansen
> > <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > > KWSchneider skrev:
>
> > > > Jim - you may not want to post your home and cell phone numbers on the
> > > > internet...
>
> > > He might not - but I have done so a long time ago, and my numbers
> > > are avaliable several places on the internet, and I haven't
> > > received any sms-spam.
>
> > > I have also published my bank account number, but alas, no extra
> > > money has been deposited.
>
> > I once got a phone call from my bank that someone was trying to
> > deposit money in my account and was _refusing_ to show identification.
> > I told them that it was my policy to accept deposits from _anyone_ and
> > that they should never again ask for identification in those
> > circumstances. Obviously, she already had the numbers for my account
> > and she would not have had them if I didn't trust her with them.
>
> I've always wondered why I have to endorse a check that's made out to me
> and being deposited in my own bank account. Who cares if an imposter
> deposits the check, since it's still going to the intended recipient.
If someone else who is also named Barry Margolin were to happen to
take the check, knowing it was intended for you, and fraudulently
deposit it in HIS account rather than yours, the fact that he would
have endorsed the check would presumably make the fraud easier to
prove.
Anyhow, that's my guess as to why.
Christopher Monsour
Derek Broughton
> In article <dbpp17-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca>,
> Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>Fred. wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 7:00 am, "Jim Greer" <jim...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>>>>
>>>> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the ACBL requirement is.
>>
>>That's OK, neither really is the ACBL - but significant rulings and
>>appeals have upheld that it's legal to open this 2C.
>
> What about: 1=10=1=1 with AKQJ hearts?
>
> This has been done against me. And, of course, we can make 4S, but
> neither of us felt able to enter the bidding against a "strong" opening.
Certainly. I see 10 certain tricks there, unless somebody miraculously has
a void to match one of your singletons. I can't imagine anybody ruling that
that's not strong.
--
derek
Chris
By this same logic, you could open 2 AK1098765432 2 void with 2C, but
it's "too weak" to open 1H in ACBL-land, since it has fewer than 8
HCP.
Which district is Jeff Rubens in? We need people like him on the ACBL
board. Maybe he could impart some of the common sense he writes in
his BW editorials.
Christopher Monsour
Michael Angelo Ravera
> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>
> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
It is permitted. In response to another question to rul...@acbl.org,
I was informed that the term "strong" was intentionally not tied to a
number of HCP in some cases (including the 2C and 2D opening
permissions) because "Shapely hands are considered 'strong' by some
players".
This hand should be completely legal just about anywhere. It is
definitely "a king or more above average strength" (WBF) and even
meets the "rule of 25" (EBU).
In the ACBL, you should include a definition that suggests "extreme
shape without defense possible" or "UNB nonDef OK" or you are not
doing a proper job of disclosure. If you just write "22+" in the
description and you have agreed to open hands like this, you haven't
done a good job of disclosure. I happen to open hands like this, but I
never write down a number of HCP on my convention card for my forcing
2C or 2D opener. It's always "Almost Game". and under the description
section, I always include "UNB NONDEF OK"
So, if you have methods to handle hands such as this as part of your
2C opener, you can certainly agree to open this type of hand. Shapes
such as this are a good reason to have a forcing opener that forces
responder for 2 rounds regardless of strength (or until Opener has
shown his complete shape and strength such as by rebidding 2NT).
Stig Holmquist
What bidding agreement can a pair use to show if the 2C bid is based
on 20+ HCP or just 10 HCP with a long suit, so that the opps will know
Stig
Derek Broughton
Where's the false assumption?
1) It's entirely legal - proven many times.
2) The rules say you can't psych a strong 2C
3) 10 tricks is certainly a major game
I can only see two things you could call assumptions.
4) No director will rule against it - that's not so much an assumption as an
easily disproved statement. If one director ever has done, Will is wrong.
But then so is the director.
and finally:
"You and your partner probably...". OK, that's obviously an assumption, and
he may have assumed incorrectly, but it's hardly "making up ... a lot of
false assumptions".
--
derek
Larry
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
> > In article
> > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >>That is entirely legal and the reason the rule against psyching the 2C
> >>opening is such a bad idea. You and your partner probably felt
> >>protected by the fact that the rules require your opponent to have a
> >>strong hand but the rules require no such thing. They require that the
> >>bid not be a psych. Ten tricks in Hearts is a game, so it is hard to
> >>say that a game-forcing bid with that hand is a psyche. And no
> >>director will rule against the player who does it. So you had no
> >>protection but were under the impression that you had.
>
> > You're making (and making up) a lot of (false) assumptions.
>
> > But that is the way on Usenet.
>
> Where's the false assumption?
>
> 1) It's entirely legal - proven many times.
> 2) The rules say you can't psych a strong 2C
> 3) 10 tricks is certainly a major game
>
> I can only see two things you could call assumptions.
>
> 4) No director will rule against it - that's not so much an assumption as an
> easily disproved statement. If one director ever has done, Will is wrong.
> But then so is the director.
>
> --
> derek
At the ACBL Pigeon Forge Sectional this past weekend: My partner
opened 2C with:
AKQxxxxx - x AJxx and the director when asked if legal, said it was
marginal, but another A or K would be OK.
Silly me, with xx Axx KJxxx xxx made a slam try and he went down 2 at
5S.
So, the real problem arises! Partner is not to make a slam try with 8
hcp and doubleton support?
The unresolved question is what to open this hand with? It is too
strong for Namyats... Partner's solution was to open 2C and rebid 4S
intending to shut me out?!
Larry
castigamatti
Well, I would consider 2C with AKQxxxxx - x AKxx. This AKxxxxxx - x
AKxx being borderline. My last post I promise.
LOL
BR
Derek Broughton
> At the ACBL Pigeon Forge Sectional this past weekend: My partner
> opened 2C with:
> AKQxxxxx - x AJxx and the director when asked if legal, said it was
> marginal, but another A or K would be OK.
>
> Silly me, with xx Axx KJxxx xxx made a slam try and he went down 2 at
> 5S.
>
> So, the real problem arises! Partner is not to make a slam try with 8
> hcp and doubleton support?
You're right. That's why it shouldn't be necessary to regulate what
constitutes a 2C opener. If people misevaluate, they get into trouble; and
if they psych, it should be subject to the normal rules about psychs.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On Jan 10, 10:04 pm, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> > In article <dbpp17-1ve....@morgen.pointerstop.ca>,
>> > Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> >>Fred. wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Jan 10, 7:00 am, "Jim Greer" <jim...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >>>> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>>
>> >>>> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>>
>> >>> I'm not sure what the ACBL requirement is.
>>
>> >>That's OK, neither really is the ACBL - but significant rulings and
>> >>appeals have upheld that it's legal to open this 2C.
>>
>> > What about: 1=10=1=1 with AKQJ hearts?
>>
>> > This has been done against me. And, of course, we can make 4S, but
>> > neither of us felt able to enter the bidding against a "strong"
>> > opening.
>>
>> Certainly. I see 10 certain tricks there, unless somebody miraculously
>> has a void to match one of your singletons. I can't imagine anybody
>> ruling that that's not strong.
>
> By this same logic, you could open 2 AK1098765432 2 void with 2C,
Yes.
> but
> it's "too weak" to open 1H in ACBL-land, since it has fewer than 8
> HCP.
No, it's not. You can't have an agreement to open that hand in the ACBL.
Now, when you get it a second time, and your partner fields it, you'll be in
trouble.
--
derek
Will in New Haven
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
> > In article
I think "probably" demonstrates that it is _not_ an assumption but a
guess. It is also my experience that the rule _does_ seem to give
people a false sense of security in these situations.
paul
> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>
> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>
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.
One rule of thumb is more quick tricks than losers, and in any case a
minimum of 4 quick tricks is recommended. This hand can be bid easily
by opening 1C and then bidding spades forever, but it may be better
tactics to open 1S as you may not have enough bidding room over
competition to convince partner you have 6 spades. You won't play this
hand at 1C or 1S, there are too many points and too much shape out
there to be passed out at the one level.
Kenny McCormack
>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?
Adam Beneschan
Sure, if you're playing Precision. Although I'd still open 1S. :)
But you should have specified that you're playing a system in which 2C
is strong and artificial.
Assuming that's the case: it is *not* a psych to open this 2C, since
you are strong in playing strength. In the ACBL, it's illegal to
psych an artificial opening bid, but I don't think that rule applies
at all here.
It's also OK (by the GCC) to have an agreement that 2C can include
this type of hand, or even hands with lots of playing tricks and even
fewer high cards (like AKJ-ninth and out). Some people think that an
agreement like this is alertable. I don't know whether an agreement
that would include your hand is alertable, since that hand does have
some defensive tricks.
My experience is that many intermediate players haven't had any
discussion about 2C other than "X number of playing tricks, or a
balanced hand stronger than a 2NT opening". Then they pick up a hand
with extreme distribution that seems to have a lot of playing tricks,
and they don't know what else to do. So they open 2C. If anything,
this is simply poor judgment (in my view; I always open this hand 1S,
planning to bid some number of clubs next time). But poor judgment is
not disallowed by any ACBL regulation.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Yes, you can. I believe the ACBL has stated that the 8-HCP rule
(which says that you can't have an agreement to open hands with fewer
than 8 HCP at the 1 level) isn't intended to apply to hands with
extreme distribution. I wish they'd put it in the GCC to make things
clear, but I think that's how they see things, and no one is ever
going to get penalized for opening this hand 1H, even if you do it
more than once.
-- Adam
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.
Derek Broughton
> In article
> <d7cdac8f-d590-4cca...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> 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).
What makes comp.lang.c the right place for discussions for language lawyers?
It's still not a reasonable 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.
No. If you have a "strong" hand, that's all you have to have. If you want
to ask them about their agreements, go ahead. Then if they tell you
something other than what you see you might have grounds for an adjustment.
--
derek
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)
Michael Angelo Ravera
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:48:45 -0800 (PST), Michael Angelo Ravera
>
>
>
>
>
> <marav...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 4:00 am, "Jim Greer" <jim...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>
> >> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>
> >I was informed that the term "strong" was intentionally not tied to a
> >number of HCP in some cases (including the 2C and 2D opening
> >permissions) because "Shapely hands are considered 'strong' by some
> >players".
>
> >This hand should be completely legal just about anywhere. It is
> >definitely "a king or more above average strength" (WBF) and even
> >meets the "rule of 25" (EBU).
>
> >In the ACBL, you should include a definition that suggests "extreme
> >shape without defense possible" or "UNB nonDef OK" or you are not
> >doing a proper job of disclosure. If you just write "22+" in the
> >description and you have agreed to open hands like this, you haven't
> >done a good job of disclosure. I happen to open hands like this, but I
> >never write down a number of HCP on my convention card for my forcing
> >2C or 2D opener. It's always "Almost Game". and under the description
> >section, I always include "UNB NONDEF OK"
>
> >So, if you have methods to handle hands such as this as part of your
> >2C opener, you can certainly agree to open this type of hand. Shapes
> >such as this are a good reason to have a forcing opener that forces
> >responder for 2 rounds regardless of strength (or until Opener has
> >shown his complete shape and strength such as by rebidding 2NT).
>
> What bidding agreement can a pair use to show if the 2C bid is based
> on 20+ HCP or just 10 HCP with a long suit, so that the opps will know
10 HCP and a long suit, is as far as I know, not a legal convention
(unless the bid is natural) in the ACBL or EBU and "Strong" would be
inadequate or incorrect disclosure in any case since it is not "a king
or more above average strength".
If your 2C opener is forcing for 2 rounds (perhaps using the cheapest
suit rebid by responder to say "I may not be able take even one trick"
and the second cheapest suit rebid by responder to say "I can take a
trick but I don't have a fit with your first suit).
If you have one bid (perhaps the cheapest jump as a third bid by
opener) to say "I have two of the remaining three suits as well as the
first one that I bid naturally earlier" You can handle strong single
suiters, strong 2-suiters, strong 3-suiters, and strong balanced
hands.
An alternative to a third bid by opener that says "and two others" is
to have a rebid that says "I'm three suited"
You could even work out a system where, when the responder shows a
hand that can't promise two tricks, Opener artificially shows whether
he is single suited, balanced, two-suited, or three-suited. I'm making
this one up on the spot, but you could do (with opponents silent, of
course):
2C[STR F ART]-2D[Negative]:
Then:
2H= Opener is two-suited
Then:
2S says "OK, I'm busted Bid the lower ranking one (Note that this
only "wrong sides" diamond contracts)
2NT says "OK, I'm busted. Bid the higher ranking one
Anything else says "I've got a trick and maybe more. Here is the
cheapest suit where I can't play"
2S= Opener is three-suited
Then:
2NT says "I'm busted and kind of balanced or minor oriented, bid
your lowest ranking suit" (Note that this only wrong sides diamonds)
3C says "I'm busted and kind of short in the minors. Bid your
second lowest ranking suit"
Anything else says "I've got a trick and maybe more. Here is the
cheapest suit where I wouldn't want play"
2NT=I'm balanced
Pass says "I'm busted and sort of balanced"
everything else uses your 2NT systems.
Over 2C-(P)-2D-(P)-2H/2S-(Bid), you can use pass and double in place
of the two cheapest bids.
As I said, I made this up on the fly, but it woudl seem to work.
Ben Bacarisse
> On Jan 11, 11:56 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
> wrote:
<snip>
>> It seems clear to me that one or the other needs an alert/disclosure.
Another alert: the message you replied to had been cross-posted to
comp.lang.c (I've removed the cross-post). People here might want to
check the newsgroups line when replying to a post from Kenny
McCormack.
<snip>
--
Ben.
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.
Will in New Haven
I've often had problems with Kenny and wouldn't mind at all if James
started posting here but there's no reason to be quite so negative
about Kenny.
dranon
Kenny was/is one of the G vigilantes. In any venue other than usenet
the appropriate course of action would be to ban him for life. As it
is, all that can be done is to encourage the process.
It is not my disagreement with him that provides the reason, it is his
actions towards another that is more than sufficient.
No, I don't want to bring up the matter again.
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...
Ron Johnson
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> The specific incident may be an urban legend but a lot of people tell
> it and retell it.
And they're pretty specific as to the player. Worth noting that the
player
in question was not merely a board member but among the best players
in
the ACBL.
David Stevenson
x
QJT9xxxxxxx
x
-
I can see a pretty likely 10 tricks there, but it certainly is not
strong.
The problem is that the ACBL do not define strong properly and do not
regulate it. Traditional expert teaching is that strong is dependent on
the top card structure, not the number of tricks. But more and more
mediocre individual players believe that they are god's gift to bridge
and experts have no clue.
--
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
David Stevenson
>James Dow Allen (ACBL Lifemaster since 1971!)
<mutter> <mutter> ACBL lifemaster <mutter> <mutter>
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.
Flash Gordon
<snip>
Please watch the cross-posts. This has nothing to do with C and
everything to do with bridge, so please keep it on the bridge news group.
--
Flash Gordon
Chris
Yes, I know the details. I was hoping the scare quotes would alert
readers to the metonymy.
Christopher Monsour
Chris
This isn't really about convention charts.
On the ACBL's website in the law book appendix under "Elections by the
ACBL Board of Directors" it states unequivocally:
"Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of
1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which
by partnership agreement could show fewer than
8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership
agreement. These two special partnership
agreements are disallowed in all ACBL sanctioned
events."
If the ACBL Board didn't intend this to apply to hands with extreme
distribution, presumably they were capable of saying so.
Or do you mean that someone in the ACBL is subverting the intentions
of the Board?
Oh, goodie, can I watch? :)
Christopher Monsour
Adam Beneschan
> This isn't really about convention charts.
>
> On the ACBL's website in the law book appendix under "Elections by the
> ACBL Board of Directors" it states unequivocally:
>
> "Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of
> 1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which
> by partnership agreement could show fewer than
> 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership
> agreement. These two special partnership
> agreements are disallowed in all ACBL sanctioned
> events."
>
> If the ACBL Board didn't intend this to apply to hands with extreme
> distribution, presumably they were capable of saying so.
That may be too much of a presumption. It would require that the
board be careful about looking at all the ramifications of their
statements, and also that they are careful about spelling out all
their intentions rather than assuming that "obvious" exceptions will
be seen as obvious by reasonable people. Computer experts who work on
standards are definitely capable of this. Lawyers probably are. The
ACBL Board, I'm not so sure. There are enough ambiguities in the
convention charts, for instance, to make one wonder whether they
really are capable of saying what they mean---at least at the level of
precision some of us like to see here on r.g.b.
So I'm sticking by my hypothesis that no matter what the ACBL Board
said literally, they really never intended to try to bar 7 HCP 1-level
openings on extreme 2-suiters (even if discussed), and they would have
put that in had they seen the need. OK, I can't prove my hypothesis.
It's just a guess. But I've gotten progressively better at guessing
what other people mean when they don't say exactly what they mean.
Marriage'll do that to you. ;-)
Having said all that, it would probably be a good thing for someone to
ask an authoritative ACBL official.
-- Adam
Derek Broughton
> Repeating data that has already been posted doesn't add to the body of
> knowledge.
Then stop asking the same question. Meanwhile, since you insist on dragging
us all into your trolling...
<plonk>
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On Jan 11, 6:45 am, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>> > By this same logic, you could open 2 AK1098765432 2 void with 2C,
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > but
>> > it's "too weak" to open 1H in ACBL-land, since it has fewer than 8
>> > HCP.
>>
>> No, it's not. You can't have an agreement to open that hand in the ACBL.
>
> Yes, you can. I believe the ACBL has stated that the 8-HCP rule
> (which says that you can't have an agreement to open hands with fewer
> than 8 HCP at the 1 level) isn't intended to apply to hands with
> extreme distribution.
Ah, yes. I should have remembered that I'd read that.
> I wish they'd put it in the GCC to make things
> clear, but I think that's how they see things, and no one is ever
> going to get penalized for opening this hand 1H, even if you do it
> more than once.
It's unlikely anybody's ever done it twice with the same partner :-)
--
derek
Stig Holmquist
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Derek Broughton wrote
>>Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>
>>> In article <dbpp17-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca>,
>>> Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>>>Fred. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 10, 7:00 am, "Jim Greer" <jim...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>> KQJTxx x --- AKJTxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it permissible in ACBL jurisdictions to olpen this hand 2C?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what the ACBL requirement is.
>>>>
>>>>That's OK, neither really is the ACBL - but significant rulings and
>>>>appeals have upheld that it's legal to open this 2C.
>>
>>>
>>> What about: 1=10=1=1 with AKQJ hearts?
>>>
>>> This has been done against me. And, of course, we can make 4S, but
>>> neither of us felt able to enter the bidding against a "strong" opening.
>>
>>Certainly. I see 10 certain tricks there, unless somebody miraculously has
>>a void to match one of your singletons. I can't imagine anybody ruling that
>>that's not strong.
>
>x
>QJT9xxxxxxx
>x
This hand qualifies for a 2C opening bid according to the ACBL Yellow
card, which states: 22+ balanced pts 'or' 9+ tricks.
Stig