[goobers]

I was playing at a newcomer club game last night, and one lady opened first seat 2C, holding:

AKxxxxx
xx
KQx
x

(She may have had some decent spade spots, I can't remember, but it doesn't really affect the issue one way or the other.)

Her rationale was that her hand was so good that she didn't want her partner to pass.

Now certainly this hand is not a 2C opener. My question is: is this legal? Of course, I wasn't about to make a fuss over this and ruin the mood, but is opening like this okay in a higher level game? Can an opener psyche a long strong suit as 2C instead of just preempting it (or in this case, just opening 1S)? I vaguely remember reading something that said the ACBL forbid strong artificial opening psyches.

[helene_t]

I think you're right but this is unlikely to be a psyche. If the lady carries a gold star it may qualify as a tactical bid (=minor psyche, donno what the rules say about that) otherwise it's just a bad bid.

[goobers]

Well, to be more specific, the example that I had read looked like this:

Say you held
xx
x
AKQxxxxxx
x

I'm sure we all agree this is a some number of diamonds opening. I had read that opening 2C with this kind of hand is illegal.

[helene_t]

OK, this is closer to a psyche, but stil.

The TD must judge what the player's motivation for opening 2♣ was. If it was done in order to confuse opps, it may be illegal. If it was out of ignorance, there is nothing the TD can do. Except if there was some undisclosed partnership agreement about it.

As a TD (I'm not an ACBL TD, just run my own tournaments where all psyches are allowed, so for me only "undisclosed agreement" is a potential issue) I would look at the player's self-rating - "advanced" players cannot use ignorance with respect to standard methods as an excuse.

[DrTodd13]

Psyching 2♣ is illegal in the ACBL. Whether a 8.5 trick hand based on a long strong suit qualifies as a psyche or not is a matter of interpretation that you'll get different answers from different directors.

[pbleighton]

"Whether a 8.5 trick hand based on a long strong suit qualifies as a psyche or not is a matter of interpretation that you'll get different answers from different directors."

This is an ongoing issue. The ACBL should give a definitive answer on this.

I dislike the 2C opener, and don't strain to upgrade unbalanced hands - 2 suiters are handled badly, and one suiters can be opened at the one or game level. I don't think I've ever opened 2C with less than ~18 hcp, and rarely open with less than 20. But other folks love to upgrade. I have no problem with them doing so, but we should know if it's OK or not.

I suspect that if they did, they would say that the bid must have at least 15 hcp.

Peter

[hrothgar]

I've seen a LOT of conflicting statements what hand types can legitimately be opened with a strong, artificial, and forcing 2♣ in ACBL land.

I have NO idea what the official policy is. Each time I think that I've seen a definitive statement I get referred to some weird piece of esoterica in some random book that's only available to super secret level TDs and / Sith Lords.

My most recent discussions with the ACBL's TD staff makes me question whether its possible to get an unambiguous answer out of the organization...

[goobers]

hrothgar, on Jan 25 2007, 01:46 PM, said:

My most recent discussions with the ACBL's TD staff makes me question whether its possible to get an unambiguous answer out of the organization...

Nice, sounds like politics.

Thanks for the (non-definitive) answers. I certainly will never open a 1 suiter with no strength outside as a 2C, but at least now I know the (lack of) stance that the ACBL takes on it.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Jan 25 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

OK, this is closer to a psyche, but stil.

Actually, 9 diamonds AKQ and nothing else is not a psyche- it fits the definition of the 2♣ opening (22+ hcp or 8.5 quick tricks). Legal, I dunno, but it's not a psyche.

AKxxxxx
x
KQx
xx

On the other hand, this isn't 8.5 tricks off the top- even if the spades split 2-2-2 around the table, it's 8 tricks.

I think the above qualifies a psyche, even though it has more hcp.

[DrTodd13]

There is no "official definition" of 2♣. There are "allowed definitions." I have never seen the term "8.5 quick tricks" as part of the description for allowable meanings for 2♣. The GCC says that 2♣ may be an artificial bid showing a "strong hand or a three-suiter with a minimum of 10HCP." What is a "strong hand?" Not defined...that is the argument.

[barmar]

You're not likely to ever get a definitive answer to a question like this. Bridge is a game of judgement, so it's difficult to make precise rules that cover these decisions. When the ACBL does try to do that, they also get complaints; for instance, if you play 1NT=10-12, you're not allowed to upgrade 9-counts and open them 1NT (but they don't have any problem with 15-17 NT players upgrading 14-counts, so it's not a general prohibition against upgrading).

Most good players know that there's more to a 2C opener than the simple definition that fits on the CC. It's not just points or running tricks, you should also have defensive tricks. The rule of thumb I like is that you should have at least as many quick tricks as losers. The hand in the original post has 5 losers but only 3 quick tricks.

The player's "rationale" in this case makes no sense. A common reason for opening 2♣ is that there's a chance for game opposite many hands that partner would pass with, and you're worried about the hand being passed out at the 1 level. While this is certainly a concern if you hold a shapely 19 count, it's nearly impossible when you hold only 12 HCP. For partner to pass he has to have 5 HCP or less, which means the opponents have at least 23 HCP between them. One of them will almost always be able to bid with that, so you'll get a chance to bid again.

However, since this was a newcomer game, I'm willing to believe that she meant what she said. A beginner isn't likely to realize all these points, it takes some experience. So I wouldn't call this a psyche, I'd call it ignorance or poor judgement.

[SoTired]

Opening 2C on AKxxxx x KQx xx is a psyche??? Come'on... It is NOT a psyche by any way shape or form of the definition of a psyche. A psyche is a deliberate attempt to fool the opponents about the strength or distribution of your hand. This was not the case.

The bidder was trying to describe her hand and concluded that 2C was the best description.

How dare the director put his judgement about how to bid ahead of the players.

It is illegal to psyche an artificial opening bid, especially a strong 2C, because it is too devastating.

Opening 2C on this hand is a terrible bid, but maybe it worked out great. Sounds like a classic fix to me.

The day they start penalizing players for bad bids that work out well, is the day I quit bridge.

[paulg]

A newcomer believes that this is an exceptional hand, a common mistake for beginners, so this means that 2♣ is not a psyche.

If a more experienced player opens 2♣ with this hand, or the nine solid diamonds example, then I believe it is a gross misstatement of honour strength and would rule it as either a misbid (inadvertent, perhaps an intermediate player) or psychic call (deliberate by someone who should know better).

Paul

PS Interestingly the EBU now permits the psyching of strong opening bids and defines a strong opening bid as one that satisfies the Rule of 25 (HCP + 2 longest suits).

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Jan 25 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

You're not likely to ever get a definitive answer to a question like this. Bridge is a game of judgement, so it's difficult to make precise rules that cover these decisions. When the ACBL does try to do that, they also get complaints; for instance, if you play 1NT=10-12, you're not allowed to upgrade 9-counts and open them 1NT (but they don't have any problem with 15-17 NT players upgrading 14-counts, so it's not a general prohibition against upgrading).

Most good players know that there's more to a 2C opener than the simple definition that fits on the CC. It's not just points or running tricks, you should also have defensive tricks. The rule of thumb I like is that you should have at least as many quick tricks as losers. The hand in the original post has 5 losers but only 3 quick tricks.

Here, once again, I'd like to point out a significant difference between the ACBL and the EBU. The EBU Orange Box provides fairly good guidance about what is/isn't permissable, and does so using a specific evaluation standard that (gasp) is actually defined in the document.

The EBU uses a metric to evaluate hand strength based on Milton Work Point Count + (length of the two longest suits)

Level 3 of the Orange Book permits any two level opening showing

1. A game forcing hand

2. Balanced or semi balanced hand with a defined range (minimum of 18 HCPs); Alternatively may be played such that is (occasionsally) shows a singleton

3. Acol Two or Rule of 25, The suit need not be specified

4. Three suiter, minimum of 16 HCP

Admittedly, I've some debate regarding whether players are allowed to exercise judgement or whether these rules are set in stone. Nigel Gutherie is notorious for complaining that his teams are constantly losing matches because the use the "Rule of 19" for 3rd eat openings, while the evil "Mad Dog" Probst applies judgement.

(BTW, why don't North American bridge players have cool nick names like Mad Dog or the Dormouse, or whatever...)

[paulg]

The latest version of the EBU Orange Book provides an even more comprehensive advice. Actually Level 3 is not really used in the EBU any more and the Level 4 regulations are widely used except in newcomer events.

11 G 9 Mixing types
These regulations do permit an opening [Two] bid to have a mixture of strong and other meanings at Level 4.

11 G 10 General
Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or two of the following:
(a) Strong: Any combination of meanings provided that it promises a minimum strength of ‘extended Rule of 25’ (Rule of 25, or equivalent playing strength subject to an absolute minimum of 14 HCP).
(b.) Any combination of meanings which either:
(1) includes one specified suit of at least four cards; or
(2) has a specification which does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid.

[Echognome]

I think asking whether it's a psych is the wrong way to go about it. You need to ask whether it was an illegal convention. Sure it's possible that the lady intended it as a psych (but from the sounds of it, she thought it was her best bid). So the question is whether this partnership has agreed that a strong 2♣ can show this type of hand. That's why you'll find the definition of what's allowed in the EBU. Now, it used to be the case that you were not allowed to psych a strong, artificial opening in the EBU. However, that regulation was dropped in the latest revision of the Orange Book. I'm not sure what's allowed in the ACBL regarding that.

[blackshoe]

A few months ago, playing in a sectional Swiss teams, I picked up

Scoring: IMP

---

My RHO opened 2♦, I bid 4♠, LHO bid 5♦, all pass. 5♦ was down one.

At the other table, my teammate sitting East passed (she didn't like her 6 diamonds to the KJT for a weak two suit ) and the opponent holding my cards opened 2♣. They ended in 4♠ making. Out teammates, expecting more high card strength in declarer's hand, misdefended - they could have set it one or two.

I discovered this when, as we were comparing scores, the West player at the other table asked me "isn't psyching a 2♣ opener illegal?" I said it was, and asked which hand he was talking about. Then I went and talked to the director. I got this:

"People are opening 2♣ on weaker and weaker hands these days."
"That's very close to a psyche."
"I wouldn't open that hand 2♣."

He declined to investigate further. So I wrote to Rick Beye, ACBL CTD. He pretty much agreed with the onsite TD, adding, as I recall, that "if a player thinks he has a 2♣ bid, I'm not going to argue with him," or something similar.

As someone mentioned upthread, the problem arises because the ACBL never defines "strong" even though they require that a 2♣ be that (or the 10+ 3 suiter, but that's irrelevant here).

For myself now, whenever an opponent opens 2♣ and rebids a suit, I'm gonna be asking his partner what kinds of hand the opener might have for a minimum 2♣ opener, and if I don't get what seems to me to be full and complete disclosure, I will call the director. So long as the ACBL fails to define "strong", players have a right to open hands like the one above, or the one that started this thread, with 2♣, but as far as I'm concerned, they have an obligation to see their opponents are not misled.

[goobers]

Echognome's right, I asked this question in the wrong way.

There was no doubt that the lady thought 2C was the best description of her hand, and I knew something was obviously wrong with the bidding.

In either case, thanks for all the responses.

[Gerben42]

I like this Rule-of-25 boundary. Could also be used for a minimum strong 1♣ if you want to regulate that, although rule-of-23 or so would be more reasonable for that.

Quote

"I wouldn't open that hand 2♣."

TDs are not bridge teachers. There is no rule against bad bidding. If you want to disallow opening 2♣ on weak hands, regulate what are the requirements! Else my "no-defense" hand I held this weekend would qualify also:

Scoring: MP

---

[excuse] But I had only 3 losers! [/excuse]

I opened 1♥ (5+♥, 13+ HCP, forcing) on it, so I was two HCP off my minimum. Luckily no one called the director, lol.

[Apollo81]

Keep in mind that it's a newcomer game. You should call the director as rarely as possible. That means if they do something technically wrong like an insufficient bid, bid out of turn, or revoke just let them take it back. If they are obviously doing something unethical that's a different story.

Anyway back to the topic...I saw a document that I can no longer find that says the official policy is that hands like KQninth or QJtenth cannot be opened 2c but hands like AKQ9th can. Officially they need to have "or tricks" on their card under 2c.

However, this is an unenforced rule. People can open 2c on anything they want unless they are obviously trying to steal. If it looks at all like the person is just making a bad bid, then directors are not going to adjust anything.

I guarantee anyone playing in a newcomer game isn't in the "steal" mindset