[Fluffy]

♠Q10
♥Ax
♦AKJxxx
♣Axx

nobody vul, MPS

RHO opens 2♣ fort indetermine, wich means either 23 balanced or 8 playing tricks (2♦ would be a GF opener, this is the almost GF opener).

What's your plan?

[Hanoi5]

I'll start with 2♦. I think I'll repeat diamonds again or maybe bid 3NT if RHO has hearts or make a cuebid if he bids spades. If they jump to game without LHO showing signs of life, I might double.

[chasetb]

I don't know what you use as defense over this kind of bid, but I would X and then bid my Diamonds to try and get the point across to partner that I have a huge hand with Diamonds.

[Cyberyeti]

I would pass as bids are weak, then bid 3♦ when he reveals his suit, odds are it will go 2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠-3♦ showing a good hand. Unfortunate I can't ramp the bidding up before he bids a suit, but we have no strong bids available.

[ggwhiz]

I hate it too and hate all of several approaches I can think of. This bird likely has a raft of semi-solid spades and a side card or three and at least one of the other 2 is broke.

I'm thinking that if I pass followed by 3♦ they won't sell out. I have no interest in notrump and pard may come to life over an expected 3♠ bid with appropriate shape and if they have 2 spades I'm well out of it. I'll choose the wrong bid immediately after this.

[mike777]

2d


lets give opener:


Ax..xx...x....KQJTXXXX

or something close, so 3nt is dicy.

I don't want to pass or x and have to back in later.

option2=3d

[1eyedjack]

3N

LHO is on lead and doesn't know RHO's suit. Fair chance of wrapping up 9 tricks despite that oppo have 7 or 8 off the top.

P will know the type of hand that I have (it can only be something like this) and will be well placed to act appropriately if RHO backs in with his suit at the 4 level. No need for us even to double in front of p.

[Zelandakh]

Mike, if Opener held that hand and the opps had not alerted it as such then the score is likely to be adjusted. Some pairs play a different defence over a "strong" artificial bid that can include a good preempt from one that is a true strong hand. Against the strong-only type, it seems natural to start this hand with a pass; against the strong but could be weak type this is dangerous because the auction could easily go (2♣) - P - (2♦) - P; (4♠).

[broze]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-08, 06:03, said:

Mike, if Opener held that hand and the opps had not alerted it as such then the score is likely to be adjusted.

Well, that hand is 8 PTs right? And that is what the bid was explained as so why would there be an adjustment?

[1eyedjack]

broze, on 2013-July-08, 06:38, said:

Well, that hand is 8 PTs right? And that is what the bid was explained as so why would there be an adjustment?

Two tests need to be satisfied to be sure of avoiding an adjustment:
1) The explanation needs to be a complete and accurate description of the bid, and
2) That explanation needs to fall within permitted use of the bid as set down by a regulatory body who has the authority to limit permitted methods.

The problem with the first test is that absent any restrictions imposed by the second test you could end up with a system in which more than one systemic bid is available for a given hand. A vulnerable 4 level pre-empt is likely to contain (certainly MIGHT contain) 8 playing tricks. You might decide to adopt a mixed strategy of opening at the 4 level on some days, and opening your system strong bid on other days, for the purpose of misleading the opponents regarding whether they should wish to contest the auction (particularly over the strong 2 variant). If you simply describe the hand as "8 playing tricks" with no embellishment, most opponents would assume an implied qualification "... and not suitable for a pre-emptive opening". Although not expressly stated in the explanation it is not an unreasonable interpretation if your system also allows for pre-emptive openings. If you adopt a mixed strategy then under "full disclosure" principles the burden of responsibility would be on you, the bidder, expressly to say so, that being an uncommon treatment.

If you are permitted to use, and choose to use, a mixed strategy with hands like this, then the ethical bar that you have to meet is a high one, because your partnership is likely to develop with time an implicit understanding of the likelihood of a strong 2 opener being made with a pre-emptive hand, and it is hard to express that likelihood with accuracy, even given the will, to the opponents (which somewhat removes the effectiveness of the strategy in the process).

In environments in which players have been permitted free reign to open system strong bids on hands that are primarily pre-emptive, the observed compliance with full disclosure requirements has been generally poor (ie limited to the brief description of "8 playing tricks"). While there may be a remedy for inadequate disclosure already in the laws, some sponsoring organisations take the simpler route of barring the use (by agreement) of system strong bids to contain hands which are essentially pre-emptive in nature (ie hands where there is a good likelihood that the highest ranking makeable contract rests with the opponents). The EBU in the UK is one such body.

[hautbois]

1eyedjack, on 2013-July-08, 07:05, said:

The problem with the first test is that absent any restrictions imposed by the second test you could end up with a system in which more than one systemic bid is available for a given hand.

I'm having a difficult time figuring what better defines the problem you're describing. For instance, I could see Kx xx AKQxxxxx x being opened 1D, 2C, 3D, 3NT, 4D or 4NT. Not that I think those are all good decisions, there's usually more than one bid available and that's what makes solver's clubs so popular.

Of course the EBU is within its rights to prohibit a convention that is "8+ PT in an undisclosed suit or NT", but I think the motivation may be more akin to ACBL's ban of Multi 2D at low levels than there's more than one bid to open a hand.

[PhilKing]

I'm guessing this was in France, so they would assume you were mad if you even asked for a ruling - and they would be right.

[1eyedjack]

hautbois, on 2013-July-08, 08:38, said:

I'm having a difficult time figuring what better defines the problem you're describing. For instance, I could see Kx xx AKQxxxxx x being opened 1D, 2C, 3D, 3NT, 4D or 4NT. Not that I think those are all good decisions, there's usually more than one bid available and that's what makes solver's clubs so popular.

Of course the EBU is within its rights to prohibit a convention that is "8+ PT in an undisclosed suit or NT", but I think the motivation may be more akin to ACBL's ban of Multi 2D at low levels than there's more than one bid to open a hand.

For the record I am not saying that I agree with the argument, only that this is the argument put forward. I actually have an open mind. I don't think that your example hand illustrates the point of the original objection, by the way. Yours is a problem of borderline decisions. The "objection" centres on two fundamentally different hand types.

[ggwhiz]

1eyedjack, on 2013-July-08, 00:57, said:

3N

Jump ball and much better than my first thought.

If lho is going to have to choose from leading a short nothing suit it might as well be a diamond.

[gnasher]

If 3NT was going to end the auction, I wouldn't be very keen on it. It doesn't just need the right lead: we'll also need the diamonds to come in and a ninth trick from somewhere.

If we do bid 3NT, however, RHO will almost certainly compete to four of his suit rather than risk letting us make 3NT. That's probably a good thing: if he thinks he's got only eight tricks he's not that likely to make ten. So I like 3NT.

[MrAce]

Do you all play 3NT natural and to play over a "23 balanced or 8 tricks hand" 2 ♣ ?

Or is this fresh cooked new product which applies to this hand ( and probably 1 time in life convention) ?

[1eyedjack]

MrAce, on 2013-July-08, 16:59, said:

Do you all play 3NT natural and to play over a "23 balanced or 8 tricks hand" 2 ♣ ?

Or is this fresh cooked new product which applies to this hand ( and probably 1 time in life convention) ?

OK I’ll bite. What do you play 3N as?

[MrAce]

1eyedjack, on 2013-July-08, 17:45, said:

OK I'll bite. What do you play 3N as?

I play it M+m, wild hand (wild enough to make game despite the 2♣ opening if we find a fit) because i play almost all other jumps natural and preemptive and DBL =MM NT =mm

You can also play 4m over 2♣ = this minor + a major and 3NT as 4m preempt. I have seen other aproaches too.

The reason i am asking is, did you all have agreement with pd that 3NT over such 2♣ is to play, or are you all expecting him to figure that you are bidding 3NT with the hope that they can't find the lead, or they just simply can not take the risk to leave it in doubled ? Because telling pd to pass regardless of what he has is quite an agreement after they open 2♣.

And what is the exit plan if they double ? Are you all happy to play at 4 level doubled with 6322 hand when they probably have no game bonus ?

But i am looking at some of the hands constructed in this thread for 2♣, perhaps playing 3NT as natural has merits to it.

[Fluffy]

Its been a couple of years since I faced this semi-psyche openings, and the best tactic still remains the same, RHO wants to play 4♠, this must mean that it is a good tactic to start the bidding at the 5 level. Bidding 5♦ (or 4NT) earns a top as you will get at least +200 in 5 something. Being a pussy and bidding slow as I did was a disaster, also because my partner is not reliable.

---

[PhilKing]

Fluffy, on 2013-July-09, 04:21, said:

Its been a couple of years since I faced this semi-psyche openings, and the best tactic still remains the same, RHO wants to play 4♠, this must mean that it is a good tactic to start the bidding at the 5 level. Bidding 5♦ (or 4NT) earns a top as you will get at least +200 in 5 something. Being a pussy and bidding slow as I did was a disaster, also because my partner is not reliable.

You may have spared yourself some agony:

2♣ 5♦(shove it to them) Pass Pass
5♠ DOUBLE!!! Pass

And then partner goes into the tank ...