[dickiegera]

---

West opens 2♣ 3rd seat. Alerted as Red Club. Explained as 11-15 pts 6+clubs or 5 clubs and a 4 card major.

Legal???

[Hanoi5]

Of course it's legal. What I don't understand is the name, isn't this a normal opening bid in Precision?

Oh, and it's a psych, so just call the Director and have it recorded.

[barmar]

What does "alerted as red club" mean? Did you mean they announced "red club" rather than just alerting? But this isn't an announceable bid. Or did you mean that when they were asked for an explanation, they gave the name as well as the description. In this case, the name is superfluous, although it's certainly useful for thread naming.

However, I've yet to hear of anyone in ACBL being penalized for announcing when they should have alerted.

[Elianna]

I have no clue what chart is governing where this was played, so I'm answering under the most common convention restrictions we have, the General Chart.

ACBL General Chart: http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf

See specifically Disallowed #2: "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings."

So while the agreement is legal, if this is ruled a psyche (which seems rather clear in my opinion) then psyching this is not legal under ACBL General Chart. What the director is supposed to do about, I don't know.

[Cascade]

 Elianna, on 2011-April-28, 22:13, said:

I have no clue what chart is governing where this was played, so I'm answering under the most common convention restrictions we have, the General Chart.

ACBL General Chart: http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf

See specifically Disallowed #2: "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings."

So while the agreement is legal, if this is ruled a psyche (which seems rather clear in my opinion) then psyching this is not legal under ACBL General Chart. What the director is supposed to do about, I don't know.

Why is this opening artificial or conventional?

[Elianna]

 Cascade, on 2011-April-28, 23:06, said:

Why is this opening artificial or conventional?

Good point, except that ACBL has consistently ruled that things like this are "conventional" (even if they are not artificial). I don't know if it's logical, but see their classification of Muiderberg as conventional.

I am not arguing that they are right, or the logic behind it makes sense, I am just saying that this is how they've been known to rule.

ETA: I think that it's the 5+C, 4+ of a major option that would make it conventional in ACBL's eyes.

[Trinidad]

 Elianna, on 2011-April-28, 23:37, said:

Good point, except that ACBL has consistently ruled that things like this are "conventional" (even if they are not artificial). I don't know if it's logical, but see their classification of Muiderberg as conventional.

I am not arguing that they are right, or the logic behind it makes sense, I am just saying that this is how they've been known to rule.

ETA: I think that it's the 5+C, 4+ of a major option that would make it conventional in ACBL's eyes.

Let me start by saying that I believe you that the ACBL reasons like that.

But how is it possible that "6+♣ or 5+♣+4M" (Red club/Precision 2♣) is conventional and "4+♣ or 3+♣+4M" (SAYC 1♣) is not?

Rik

[awm]

I don't think ACBL considers precision 2♣ to be conventional. It was discussed in the minutes of a board meeting about a year ago and they decided it was "obviously" natural and therefore allowed by the general chart. It would seem that psyching the opening is therefore okay (subject to the usual recorder process to prevent CPUs for any psych of course).

[Free]

Isn't this a standard precision 2♣ opening with common sense "with passed partner anything goes"? Light openings in 3rd seat are normal, the guy even had 7♣s and didn't open 3♣...

[blackshoe]

Not everyone agrees that "with passed partner anything goes". Some would say this hand is more than "light" even for third seat.

[helene_t]

 Elianna, on 2011-April-28, 23:37, said:

I don't know if it's logical, but see their classification of Muiderberg as conventional.

I think this is slightly "less conventional" than Muiderberg. But I admit it is close.

[campboy]

 helene_t, on 2011-April-29, 08:38, said:

I think this is slightly "less conventional" than Muiderberg. But I admit it is close.

Well, Muiderberg guarantees a second suit. Precision 2♣ doesn't, it just has some restrictions on what the second suit can be if there is one. If the specification were "6+ clubs or 5 clubs 4 other" then it would just be any unbalanced hand with clubs (strictly) longer than any other suit; what could be more natural? The only difference is that it doesn't include hands with 4=5 in the minors, since those get opened 1♦.

Anyway, the point is, as awm suggests, that there is no separate clause covering precision 2♣ in the GCC, so if it were conventional it (like Muiderberg) wouldn't be permitted. Since we know it is permitted it can't be conventional for the purposes of the convention charts.

[NickRW]

 helene_t, on 2011-April-29, 08:38, said:

I think this is slightly "less conventional" than Muiderberg. But I admit it is close.

I think the difference between a precision 2C and a Muiderberg opening is that the Muiderberg one definitely promises another suit other than the one bid, whereas the precision one, although it quite often has a major, does not promise anything other than clubs - and is therefore natural.

Nick

[Cascade]

 Free, on 2011-April-29, 07:49, said:

Isn't this a standard precision 2♣ opening with common sense "with passed partner anything goes"? Light openings in 3rd seat are normal, the guy even had 7♣s and didn't open 3♣...

You may think that light openings are normal.

However if they become implicit agreements based on their frequency (e.g. every or almost every time you are third seat favourable etc) then they are subject to regulation. In most places the regulations prohibit such agreements.

The ACBL regulations include under prohibited:

Quote

1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the
opponents’ methods.
...
6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than
8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

A four point opening masquerading as a constructive normal opening strength opening seems pretty destructive to me.

If there is an implicit partnership agreement to open hands around this strength then you are fully into the disallowed range.

It is disappointing that some players flaunt these rules with 'its just bridge' etc.

[blackshoe]

A 2♣ opening is not "an opening one bid", even if it's natural.

[barmar]

If your agreement is 11-15, a 3rd-seat "light" opening might be as low as 8 or 9, depending on how frisky you are. But 4 falls into the "gross misstatement of honor strength" criteria for a psyche.

[Cascade]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-29, 18:02, said:

A 2♣ opening is not "an opening one bid", even if it's natural.

true

[Cascade]

 barmar, on 2011-April-30, 01:46, said:

If your agreement is 11-15, a 3rd-seat "light" opening might be as low as 8 or 9, depending on how frisky you are. But 4 falls into the "gross misstatement of honor strength" criteria for a psyche.

This is only true if you do not have an implicit agreement.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2011-April-30, 01:46, said:

If your agreement is 11-15, a 3rd-seat "light" opening might be as low as 8 or 9, depending on how frisky you are. But 4 falls into the "gross misstatement of honor strength" criteria for a psyche.

If your partnership style allows you to open 2♣ on an 8-count in third seat, you shouldn't describe it as "11-15". You should describe it as "11-15 in first or second; 8-15 in third".

[blackshoe]

Andy's right — if you have an agreement, whether implicit or explicit, you have to disclose the agreement fully and accurately.