[PrecisionL]

mycroft, on 2012-May-28, 11:21, said:

As far as PrecisionL goes, a 2♣ opening on this hand is a *bad* agreement, but it's not yet at this point an illegal agreement.

Yes it is an illegal agreement.

We had a similar argument with ACBL a few years ago about how low in hcp can a Precision 1♣ opening be allowed. The 'rule of thumb' stated by Mike Flader was about a Q less if compensated for by length in the assumed trump suit. The current Duplicate Decisions published by ACBL, 2008: A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table: A Deviation (Q in hcp and no more than 1-card less than promised) is allowed, but greater variance than this is a PSYCH: A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length.

[blackshoe]

To me, a deliberate and gross misstatement, etc., means that the player is knowingly misstating his etc. If the player thinks his bid is legit he is not knowingly misstating. If there is a partnership understanding that a 2♣ opening may be made on AKQJxxxx and out, then that may be, as I said earlier, an illegal agreement, but it is NOT a psych.

The guidance in Duplicate Decisions is not, AFAIK, official policy. Which is a good thing, since some of it is flat wrong.

Beginners make mistakes all the time. Back quite a few years ago, I made a silly 2♦ bid, because I didn't know what I was doing. I posted the hand here, asking "did I psych?" The unanimous answer was "no, you misbid, a psych is a deliberate departure from agreements". Shall we tell beginners, when they misbid, that they have psyched because the departure from system was "gross"?

[mycroft]

...and if they promise 8+playing tricks for their "strong" 2♣, and have it marked on their card, and explained, then they are:

- playing a legal "strong, artificial" 2♣ according to the regulations and tech notes, and
- opening AKQ-ninth and out 2♣

The "how weak can a Precision 1♣ be" is a canard: the regulations on whether a strong club is legal, and how few HCP whether a strong club announced as "Precision" can be, are different from a "strong, artificial" 2♣. I can play a strong club 13+ if I want (and have. The followups are somewhat GCC-constrained :), and open 6 controls and out 1♣ and have it not be a psych. But I can't call it Precision, either on the card or as part of an explanation.

This quote is from the Tech files available from Google search, but I just checked on the latest version of ACBLscore, and it's still there and identical.

Quote

Opening an artificial and forcing bid without an "abundance" of high
card values is acceptable under the following circumstance: IF, IN THE
VIEW OF THE BIDDER, THERE IS A REASONABLE CHANCE FOR GAME IN
HAND WITH LITTLE HELP FROM PARTNER.

The following hands would qualify:

S AKQJ109765 or
H 754
D 2
C ---

S AKQ1098
H J109876
D 4
C ---

These hands may be accepted as artificial 2 club openers IF THE
OPENING BIDDER THINKS THEY ARE REASONABLE. On the first hand opener
needs only one trick from partner. On the second hand, two small
spades and a heart honor probably would be enough to produce game.

What is NOT acceptable is the use of a strong, artificial, forcing two
holding the following hand:
S 6
H 2
D QJ109876542
C 5

There would be good reason for a director to conclude that the opening
bidder's prime motive is to confuse the opponents rather than to reach
the right contract constructively, It is clear that opener is
psyching what is ordinarily a well defined bid in an attempt to
intimidate the opponents. This is exactly what the rule is intended
to prevent.

If a pair thinks that Examples 1 and 2 are two club openers, then
their convention card should have some notation about playing strength
in the appropriate place. Also, if a pair marks their card with HCP
limits for their two club openers, they should note if it only refers
to balanced hands. (Directions - April 1992)

[blackshoe]

I have come to the conclusion that it's best, when opponents open 2♣ and rebid a suit, to ask after the auction is over "what's the worst hand your partner can have?" Unfortunately, I don't always get a straight answer.

[PrecisionL]

And everyone did what they thought was right in their own mind ...

The opening 2♣ bidder is best suited to decide if his/her bids are legal and reasonable ....

Are the inmates running the ACBL?

I STAND CORRECTED (1992 ACBL Score, hmmm), but Marty Bergen (2008) thinks otherwise ...

Marty Bergen (the wild pre-emptor) in Chapter 4 of Slam Bidding Made Easier:

The Bergen Gold Standard for opening 2♣:

(a) If the hand is balanced (4333 or 4432) open 2♣ only if you have 22 hcp. Opener intends to rebid 2NT

(b) If the hand is semi-balanced (5332) or unbalanced only open if the hand has 4 or fewer losers and the hand also has 4 or more quick tricks.

Note: If you have only 4-losers, then you have 9 winners. Does that sound familiar?

[mycroft]

Again, you are conflating what is good bridge with what is legal bridge. Marty Bergen is a great teacher (when he doesn't teach what he played - which I notice he never does). But he is neither a Law person nor does he pretend to be.

And a 4-loser hand... like

---

? It's only that good because I had to add Bergen's "4 quicks". It's nowhere *near* 9 winners, and nowhere near game if partner is misfitting or if the fit's in diamonds.

Please note: I agree with you when it comes to what's a 2♣ opener! But I also think that Flannery is a waste of a good weak 2♦ opener; unless you're playing transfers, opening a 4=3=4=2 18 count in the shortest suit is insane; and that if you need Gerber often enough to care about using it for a better purpose, I'd still rather fix the rest of the system than play Gerber. But that doesn't stop any of it from being legal.

I also happen to agree with you on this regulation. But it's regulation, and it's been around for 20 years, so I don't expect it's going to change any time soon. Cynical me says that it's like that because the experts on the C&C committee never have to worry about these 2♣ openers; the players that play it are eaten for lunch on all the other hands; and the ones that get fixed are addicted enough that they'll complain, but won't quit playing.

[barmar]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-29, 18:05, said:

Note: If you have only 4-losers, then you have 9 winners. Does that sound familiar?

Except that that's not how losers and winners are counted. AQ2 AQ2 A432 A32 has 6 losers, but nowhere near 7 winners. And AQJ AQJ AJT9 AJT has the same 6 losers.

[aguahombre]

PrecisionL, on 2012-May-29, 18:05, said:

Note: If you have only 4-losers, then you have 9 winners. Does that sound familiar?

Too familiar. You said the same thing twice...two separate threads, same day; and the error of your "logic" was explained both times.