[jillybean]

If in 1st seat you chose to open 2♣ holding

AKQJTxx, Jxx, 9, AT

Our agreement is 22hcp or 8.5 tricks, in future should this partnership disclose the weaker 2♣ style? I assume that since this type of hand comes up so infrequently that an annoucement is not needed.

[blackshoe]

Having run afoul of a similar hand in a sectional Swiss Teams a couple of years ago, I tend now to ask an opponent whose partner opens 2♣ "tell me about your style". The problem with this is that the question isn't asked enough, so the usual response is a blank look, possibly followed by a director call.

The ACBL's position is that "strong" in the context of this opening is in the mind of the bidder — if you think it's strong, then it is even, I suppose if Meckwell, Hamman, and thirty other experts say differently*. If it's strong, it doesn't require an alert or prealert. If they ask about style, you should tell them what your minimum is (something very like this hand, I would guess).

*There is a point at which some hand which the opener thinks is "strong" will be ruled as "not strong" (and probably a psych) by the TD. I'm not at all sure where that point is. The hand I ran afoul of was ♠AKQJ9875 ♥Jxx ♦ - ♣Jx. The director said of this hand "it's not a psych, but it's close".

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-22, 15:58, said:

Having run afoul of a similar hand in a sectional Swiss Teams a couple of years ago, I tend now to ask an opponent whose partner opens 2♣ "tell me about your style".

Do you ask each time?

[blackshoe]

Unless I forget, yes.

[jillybean]

I like it and I could see myself asking at tournaments but at the club I think I would ostracized.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2011-August-22, 16:26, said:

I like it and I could see myself asking at tournaments but at the club I think I would ostracized.

This is unfortunate, but probably an accurate observation. At tourneys I would not expect to run into 8-trick two club openers. The couple of times I did, the pair did alert.

At the club, where this happens more frequently, would be where I would want to know. But, the ones who do it are not likely to know it is different from the mainstream.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2011-August-22, 15:48, said:

If in 1st seat you chose to open 2♣ holding

AKQJTxx, Jxx, 9, AT

Our agreement is 22hcp or 8.5 tricks, in future should this partnership disclose the weaker 2♣ style? I assume that since this type of hand comes up so infrequently that an annoucement is not needed.

I dont see 8.5 tricks or 22 hcp I see 8 tricks for starters. You might just want to change your cc to 8 tricks.

I just make a mental note of this pair and move on.

In any event next hand.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, Mike. In the old days, partners used to constantly ask me, "Where is the hand you held during the auction?"

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-22, 21:30, said:

Yeh, Mike. In the old days, partners used to constantly ask me, "Where is the hand you held during the auction?"

We were the only pair to find 6N so I wasn't asked that question, though I did get an odd look when I put dummy down. I know its not '22 8.5 tricks' but I like my bid.

[bluejak]

I think that if you need to ask each time then you ask, club or no club, and let people who gain through unfair tactics, even if unintended, be snotty if they wish.

[blackshoe]

Bridge evolves. If the "strong" 2♣ opening is going to evolve into "strong or preemptive", so be it. I don't like it much, but that's just me. Disclosure is another matter, and I feel strongly that if you're going to stretch the envelope this way you should make sure to disclose your style. It's not required, but I'm now thinking a pre-alert would be appropriate. And I wish the ACBL card had a space on the front for "things the opponents need to know", as the EBU one does.

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

FWIW, I think that hands like this are best handled using specialized high level preempts

1. Your 2♣ opening promises a bit more defense
2. You're able to preempt the opponents

4N can be used to handle strong 5 level preempts in a minor
3N is used to handle strong 4 level preempts in a major (alternatively, use NAMYATS in ACBL-land)

The salient characteristics for these types of openings

1. Long solid suits
2. Restrictions regarding the maximum number of first round controls in side suits

Preempts from A-Z by Zenkel and Anderson has some good discussion about these types of methods

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-22, 15:58, said:

The ACBL's position is that "strong" in the context of this opening is in the mind of the bidder — if you think it's strong, then it is even, I suppose if Meckwell, Hamman, and thirty other experts say differently*. ... *There is a point at which some hand which the opener thinks is "strong" will be ruled as "not strong" (and probably a psych) by the TD. I'm not at all sure where that point is.

This is truly bizzare. Given the ACBL's definition of "strong" it seems that the bid can be ruled a psyche only if it wasn't strong in the mind of the bidder. This would not matter too much, but aren't psyches of this type of bid illegal in the ACBL? If so, they should publish a definition of "strong". They can borrow the EBU's if they like.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-23, 11:05, said:

they should publish a definition of "strong". They can borrow the EBU's if they like.

There are many things we should borrow from EBU. But, IMO, there should be definitions of "strong" which apply separately to strong artificial 1C from strong artificial 2C.

If EBU already does that, O.K. But the posts I have seen on the subject seem to indicate they don't.

For instance take Jilly's hand. Forget for a moment that there should be a higher-level bid to describe that type; certainly, no one would say that the hand is not "strong" in a 1C forcing context.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-23, 11:20, said:

There are many things we should borrow from EBU. But, IMO, there should be definitions of "strong" which apply separately to strong artificial 1C from strong artificial 2C.

If EBU already does that, O.K. But the posts I have seen on the subject seem to indicate they don't.

For instance take Jilly's hand. Forget for a moment that there should be a higher-level bid to describe that type; certainly, no one would say that the hand is not "strong" in a 1C forcing context.

Jilly's hand is a minimum for a partnership's strongest opening. The relevant EBU regulation does not apply to strong 1♣ openings or the like. The definitions given by players with these methods are normally adequate.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2011-August-22, 17:22, said:

I dont see 8.5 tricks or 22 hcp I see 8 tricks for starters. You might just want to change your cc to 8 tricks.

Deviating from your agreement by half a trick is not "gross", so that doesn't make it a psyche. And unless she does this frequently, I don't think you can require a cc change. It sounds like she just had a feeling it was the right time to upgrade.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-23, 11:36, said:

Jilly's hand is a minimum for a partnership's strongest opening. The relevant EBU regulation does not apply to strong 1♣ openings or the like. The definitions given by players with these methods are normally adequate.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Vampyr. As far as I understand it, the EBU regulations for a strong (Precision-style) 1♣ and a strong (Acol-style) 2♣ are exactly the same. I believe this leads to a very unsatisfactory way of regulating a strong 1♣ (eg deviations of only 1 point below an agreed 16+ can lead to a ruling of an illegal partnership agreement even when there are huge compensating values in terms of intermediates, distribution, etc), but maybe I'm biased.....

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-23, 11:49, said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Vampyr. As far as I understand it, the EBU regulations for a strong (Precision-style) 1♣ and a strong (Acol-style) 2♣ are exactly the same.

What do you mean? You can play either bid however you like, as long as you disclose it properly. You may choose to play a forcing 1♣ as 14+ points, if you wish. If you have agreed 16+, just change it to good 15+, or just define the minimum hand with which you would open 1♣ and disclose that you will open rare hands with those HCP.

[iviehoff]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-23, 11:49, said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Vampyr. As far as I understand it, the EBU regulations for a strong (Precision-style) 1♣ and a strong (Acol-style) 2♣ are exactly the same.

The issue in EBU arises with certain multiple-meaning 2-level openings, which include Benjamin 2C and Multi 2D, among others. To play these, at certain levels, your "strong" options must comply with a specific EBU meaning of "strong". The rules applying to 1 level openings are different.

OP's 2C opening includes a club suit. You can certainly play such a 2C opening under EBU to show a club suit at any range of strength, even wide range, the rules defining "strong" do not apply when 2C shows clubs, though if it has a gap in the middle that gets more complicated. But I suspect OP's opening 2C could have been made with any long suit. As such it would have been more like a Benjamin 2C as regulated by EBU, and for that with EBU a "strong" meaning would have had to comply with the EBU "strong" definition.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-23, 11:49, said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Vampyr. As far as I understand it, the EBU regulations for a strong (Precision-style) 1♣ and a strong (Acol-style) 2♣ are exactly the same.

I'm sorry, I didn't think this could possibly be true, but apparently it is. This is very poor, I agree.