[qwery_hi]

Psyching a strong 2♣ opening is prohibited. Is it allowed if 2♣ is 2-way, i.e. a ♦ preempt or a strong opening?

[DrTodd13]

Who says it is prohibited? I assume you mean the ACBL under the GCC.
Ten seconds at the ACBL website under GCC shows this:

3. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a ) a strong hand.
b ) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

So, 2♣ showing strong or weak ♦ is not specifically allowed, therefore it is prohibited.

[awm]

ACBL General Chart said:

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.

Of course, the convention described is illegal on the general chart anyway, but:

ACBL Mid-Chart said:

Disallowed
...
2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto.

ACBL Super-Chart said:

Disallowed
...
2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto.

This seems to ban such things. It also bans psychs of flannery (for example). Of course, regulations outside ACBL may vary, although I think this sort of rule regarding psyching 2♣ is not unusual.

[qwery_hi]

qwery_hi, on Jan 18 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

Psyching a strong 2♣ opening is prohibited. Is it allowed if 2♣ is 2-way, i.e. a ♦ preempt or a strong opening?

Just wanted to clear up that in Mid chart,

7. A transfer opening bid at the two-level or higher showing a weak bid in the suit being transferred to or a type or types of strong hand.

the 2C as strong or a diamond preempt is allowed, as awm pointed out.

However, psyching this is not allowed.

[Tcyk]

I guess that if 2C is not artificial, it could be psyched. Beware of Precision 2C openings

[Gerben42]

Quote

  Psyching a strong 2♣ opening is prohibited. Is it allowed if 2♣ is 2-way, i.e. a ♦ preempt or a strong opening?

Yes in almost all countries at most levels of play. No for the ACBL and GCC.

I can heartily recommend this 2-way opening bid, it stops opponents from preempting too much against your strong variations, when you actually have one.

[JanM]

The rule against psyching an artificial opening bid was added to ACBL laws sometime in the 60's. I remember because Mike Lawrence used to like to do it, and right before the rule became effective, he found several opportunities. I'm afraid I don't remember the hands or whether it worked - you'd have to ask Lew Stansby about that, since he never forgets a bridge hand.

[mycroft]

And just to make what others have said explicit, it's a ban on psychic *artificial* opening bids, not just strong ones. There's relative bans on psychic artificial responses to artificial (/natural on the GCC) opening bids as well.

[barmar]

I think the ban on all psychic artificial bids is new to the latest revision of the convention charts. The previous revisions only prohibited psyching strong artificial openings.

[blackshoe]

The current GCC prohibits "Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less
than 2NT, to natural openings." The first sentence, but not the second, applies to the mid- and super-charts, as well. I can't speak to the history of the regulation.

[awm]

barmar, on Jan 22 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

I think the ban on all psychic artificial bids is new to the latest revision of the convention charts. The previous revisions only prohibited psyching strong artificial openings.

I'm sure this rule has been there the entire time I've been playing in ACBL events (so about ten years, probably a lot longer).

[qwery_hi]

awm, on Jan 22 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 22 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

I think the ban on all psychic artificial bids is new to the latest revision of the convention charts.  The previous revisions only prohibited psyching strong artificial openings.

I'm sure this rule has been there the entire time I've been playing in ACBL events (so about ten years, probably a lot longer).

Strange, I had the same idea that psyching artificial strong bids was disallowed. Asking around in the club, a few players with the same level of experience also thrught this. In my club, it was drilled into us that you cannot psyche the strong 2♣ opening. Since this is the only artificial bid most of us play (below 2NT) we kind of assumed that psyching strong openings was prohibited.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing since the early 70's, and the ban on psyching strong forcing and artificial 2♣ openings was in place when I started to play.

This was a time when there were still a lot of players using strong 2 bids.

[shintaro]

Interesting in EBU land

6 A General
6 A 1 A Psyche or Psychic bid is a deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A Misbid is an inadvertent mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length. A Deviation is a deliberate but minor mis-statement of honour strength and/or suit length.
6 A 2 A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it contains the same element of surprise for the psycher’s partner as it does for the opponents.
6 A 3 Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted. A partnership may not use any agreement to control a psyche. For example, if you play that a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you’ve bid (Watson), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche.
6 A 4 A player may not psyche a Multi 2♦ opening in a Level 3 event (see 11 G 6). A psyche is a deliberate action; if a player misbids this is not illegal.
6 A 5 Frivolous psyching, for example suggesting a player has lost interest in the competition, is a breach of the Laws. (Law 74A2, 74B1, 74C6)
6 A 6 The regulation in the last Orange Book that a player may not psyche a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening bid no longer applies.

And just note the current 6 a 6 reproduced above

[rbforster]

Luckily for those US-based would-be 2♣ psychers, no one in the ACBL can seem to agree on the standards for what 2♣ should promise. So while you can't do it with zero points, you can do it with long 1-suiters and maybe 15 points, like

AQJxxxxx
A
Ax
xx

1 trick from game, 3 defensive tricks, wtp? Most experts don't handle this hand using a strong 2♣, but there are plenty of non-experts who do under their own simple rules and directors have regularly ruled that this type of hand is not a psych (much to some players annoyance, but that's how it is).

[blackshoe]

A year or so ago, at a Sectional Swiss Teams, I picked up

Scoring: IMPS

---

in second seat. RHO opened 2♦, so I was not in an opening bid situation. They ended up in 5♦, down 1.

At the other table, my team mate in first seat passed (she didn't like her diamond suit ). The opponent holding my cards opened 2♣ "strong". The autction went on 2♦-4♠-ALL PASS, making when my other team mate mis-defended because he expected more high card strength in declarer's hand. I found this out when we sat down to compare results after the match. We called the director, whose ruling, later confirmed by Rick Beye, ACBL Chief TD, was basically that "if the player feels his hand is 'strong', then it is." This struck me then, and still does, as an incredibly stupid way to interpret a regulation, but there it is.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jan 23 2009, 10:24 AM, said:

A year or so ago, at a Sectional Swiss Teams, I picked up

Scoring: IMPS

---

in second seat. RHO opened 2♦, so I was not in an opening bid situation. They ended up in 5♦, down 1.

At the other table, my team mate in first seat passed (she didn't like her diamond suit ). The opponent holding my cards opened 2♣ "strong". The autction went on 2♦-4♠-ALL PASS, making when my other team mate mis-defended because he expected more high card strength in declarer's hand. I found this out when we sat down to compare results after the match. We called the director, whose ruling, later confirmed by Rick Beye, ACBL Chief TD, was basically that "if the player feels his hand is 'strong', then it is." This struck me then, and still does, as an incredibly stupid way to interpret a regulation, but there it is.

I'm curious what definition you recommend. Base it on high cards?

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Jan 23 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 23 2009, 10:24 AM, said:

A year or so ago, at a Sectional Swiss Teams, I picked up

Dealer: East Vul: ???? Scoring: IMPS

♠ AKQJ9875 ♥ Jxx ♦   ♣ Jx

in second seat. RHO opened 2♦, so I was not in an opening bid situation. They ended up in 5♦, down 1.

At the other table, my team mate in first seat passed (she didn't like her diamond suit ). The opponent holding my cards opened 2♣ "strong". The autction went on 2♦-4♠-ALL PASS, making when my other team mate mis-defended because he expected more high card strength in declarer's hand. I found this out when we sat down to compare results after the match. We called the director, whose ruling, later confirmed by Rick Beye, ACBL Chief TD, was basically that "if the player feels his hand is 'strong', then it is." This struck me then, and still does, as an incredibly stupid way to interpret a regulation, but there it is. 

I'm curious what definition you recommend. Base it on high cards?

I think at a minimum you should need only 1 trick from partner for game.

[TimG]

qwery_hi, on Jan 23 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

I think at a minimum you should need only 1 trick from partner for game.

For game to be good? For game to be cold? I guess no opening AKx AKx AKx Axxx 2♣.

I'm generally opposed to subjective regulations that can be interpreted as "if a player feels it is strong, then it is". But, in this case, I don't really see how you are going to define it objectively without running into some sort of problem.

In this case, getting rid of the regulation would seem like a fine solution.

[jdonn]

qwery_hi, on Jan 23 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

I think at a minimum you should need only 1 trick from partner for game.

As Tim says, that means AKx AKx AKx Axxx is not a 2♣ opener?

And what if partner has x Qxx QJTxxx Axx? That is just one trick but you are cold for 3NT.

What if partner has Axxxxx of hearts and out, then 4♠ is a perfectly acceptable contract.

What if your main suit is AK seventh. Does partner having three small count as a trick (you are 78% to have no losers)? What about two small (40%)? Jx (52.5%)? Maybe two small only counts when you are vul since it brings the odds above that needed to bid a vul game...

I agree with Tim in that if you want to keep this regulation there is no better way to do it. So either get rid of it altogether, or accept that it's up to the individual player to interpret (and the director to judge if he/she did so fairly).