[ArtK78]

I was playing in a match last night in our Unit round-robin. Each "match" is 2 12 board matches scored at VPs.

In the first match this hand came up. I held:

---

2♦ was waiting and game forcing (2♥ would have been negative).

I thought that the auction was a bit odd, as partner opened 2♣ and when I showed signs of life he jumped to the five level. After some thought, I passed, and 5♦ became the final contract, and I got to play it thanks to my artificial response.

The ♥A was led (opps played A from AK) and this dummy hit:

---

The opps cashed their 3 major suit winners. They were cold for 5♠.

Questions:

1. In the ACBL, is it legal to open 2♣ on a hand with great playing strength but minimal high card strength such as this hand?
2. Is it ethical?

Other than noting that our opps were cold for 11 tricks in spades, no one seemed to be bothered by the 2♣ opening except for me.

[Zelandakh]

This is a common theme in the Laws forums further down the list. From what I remember from previous threads of the type, "strong" in the ACBL supposedly means "what the person saying it wants it to mean", so anything that can be justified as "strong" is legal. The term is not defined anywhere. In other jurisdictions, there are more stringent rules, such as the Rule of 25 in EBUland. The EBU also have some specific regulations for handling these "strong preempt" types which qualify under the rule.

As for whether it is ethical, providing you write this on your CC and explain it accurately on request, I do not see the problem. I personally think that using a strong 2♣ opening as a smoke-screen for strong preempts should be alerted as having an unusual meaning but I do not think there is an actual requirement for this other than "active ethics". If a pair agree to open such hands and fail to disclose that then I think it is a clear case of MI. David (Stevenson) has pointed out that some pairs may even want to adopt a different defence for a 2♣ bid that can include this hand type as opposed to a more traditional strong opening.

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-20, 09:00, said:

This is a common theme in the Laws forums further down the list. From what I remember from previous threads of the type, "strong" in the ACBL supposedly means "what the person saying it wants it to mean", so anything that can be justified as "strong" is legal. The term is not defined anywhere. In other jurisdictions, there are more stringent rules, such as the Rule of 25 in EBUland. The EBU also have some specific regulations for handling these "strong preempt" types which qualify under the rule.

As for whether it is ethical, providing you write this on your CC and explain it accurately on request, I do not see the problem. I personally think that using a strong 2♣ opening as a smoke-screen for strong preempts should be alerted as having an unusual meaning but I do not think there is an actual requirement for this other than "active ethics". If a pair agree to open such hands and fail to disclose that then I think it is a clear case of MI. David (Stevenson) has pointed out that some pairs may even want to adopt a different defence for a 2♣ bid that can include this hand type as opposed to a more traditional strong opening.

We did not have any agreement to open this type of hand - a strong preempt, as you put it - with 2♣, and I was more than a little surprised when the dummy hit. As I mentioned, I gave some thought to bidding over 5♦, but even a "true" 2♣ opener could have 2 losers opposite my hand. Given the lack of agreement, there can be no disclosure. I just had a bad feeling about the hand after the fact.

Query: If my hand were a little stronger - say, add the ♠A - would it be unethical for me to pass 5♦? How about adding the AK of spades?

[Zelandakh]

If you have no agreement then I do not see how it can be unethical. Since you have no UI, I do not see how passing can be unethical, even if you held AKQJ/AKQJT/K765/-. Whether it would be a good idea is another matter. AT least you now know this partner's style better and can disclose next time. You are also better placed to know how to advance such a call, including not bidding on with some hands which would be obvious slam drives opposite a different partner.

[aguahombre]

I take a different view on the ethics of opening 2C with trick-taking hands, and the key IMO is INTENT. The unclear regs about psyching an artificial forcing opening bid just don't work for the situation, but I believe they were trying to disuade the use of strong-sounding bids for preemptive purposes.

Regardless of whether we have agreements ---written or implied--- if we open 2C, then jump to a suit game with a hand 2 tricks short of that game, our intent has been demonstrated as destructive/preemptive, not constructive.

If we open 2C with one of these big trick takers and our goal is to set a system in motion to discover the controls for slam, then we have constructive intent and demonstrate that by utilizing those methods.

[Phil]

If jumps to game are made on sub-minimum HCP + extra playing strength + a few defensive tricks for a 2♣ opener, I don't see what the fuss is. Surely if you gave us x AQJTxxxx xx AK and partner rebid 4♥, no SB's would be offended, nor questioning the 'ethics' of the situation.

Change the hand to: x Ax KQJTxxxxx x and I think there is merit in Agua's argument.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-20, 09:56, said:

...if we open 2C, then jump to a suit game with a hand 2 tricks short of that game, our intent has been demonstrated as destructive/preemptive, not constructive.

Except I have seen pairs specifically state a 2♣ opener is "8 tricks in a major, 9 in a minor". Its not like Art and partner can even stop in 4♦, so I don't think any 'intent' has been demonstrated at all.

[aguahombre]

The intent is in the rebid jump to game without any attempt at a partnership auction along the way; that is the main theme of preemptive bidding, whether they disclose their methods or not.

Edit: Also, Art was not in on opener's intent (He found the 5D bid odd). The intent is all opener's.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-February-20, 15:25

[billw55]

Re ethics: I agree that this bid is fine as long as it is properly disclosed.

Do you have an agreement that 2♣ or the subsequent 5♦ can include this hand type?
Do you have past experience with this partner that 2♣ or the subsequent 5♦ can include this hand type?

If both answers are no, then no worries IMO.

Re legality: this is just a matter of interpreting the laws. IMO this certainly should be legal.

Lastly: if it is illegal, and the bidder knows it, then it is also unethical, as is any deliberate infraction.

[JLOGIC]

Can't see there being a problem with opening 2C on this hand, it has not only 9.5 tricks but it has 3 defensive tricks.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-20, 10:20, said:

The intent is in the rebid jump to game without any attempt at a partnership auction along the way; that is the main theme of preemptive bidding, whether they disclose their methods or not.

Edit: Also, Art was not in on opener's intent (He found the 5D bid odd). The intent is all opener's.

Agua I don't know why you keep using the term 'intent', at least as it relates to this hand. Do you think the term or the use of boldface strengthens your claim? Do you think 3♦ would be weaker than 5♦?

There are lots of descriptive and constructive auctions where a jump to game indicates minimum values, neither having anything to do with preemption.

[aguahombre]

I use bold so that posters can more easily ignore what I am trying to emphasize, and it seems to work.

There is nothing wrong with opening this hand, or any other hand with a lot of tricks, 2C. If I do open 2C, which gives our partnership tools to explore for the appropriate strain and level, then follow up with a 2-trick overbid which doesn't allow any of those methods to be employed, then I was just screwing around. And my personal opinion remains that I shouldn't be opening 2C so that I can screw around; my personal opinion would be the same about it if an opponent did so, but other than on a forum I would keep that opinion to myself.

[mycroft]

If I open this hand 2♣ because systemically that's the call for it, and then bid game-in-my-suit because systemically that's the call for it, how have I not used the methods as well as possible? Partner knows exactly what I have (okay, not *where* my outside cards are, but what he needs for slam) and will bid appropriately. With two aces and a trump void, say, or even an ace-king and a protectable king (and either that same void or a singleton)...I'm not screwing around, I'm bidding my hand just the same as 1♣ Precision-4♦ showing a 12+, 3+control, 4=1=4=4 isn't screwing around, having taken up three levels of bidding with a slam-suitable hand.

The problem is with 2♣ as a preemptive weapon when not correctly disclosed, not with the game jump. The game jump is a descriptive call that is nothing if not constructive. Part of the power of an overstrength preemptive hand opening 2♣ is that it impedes the opponents, like any preempt, by taking up space, but also by offering the possibility - the likelihood, in fact - that opener has the traditional "I can set any game you bid, in my hand" hand. Given that the ACBL has declared that "strong means whatever strong means" is legal means that it's ethical as well. HOWEVER, failing to be actively forward in disclosing this tendency, by not making it clear on the card (and my personal belief is that "22 or 8.5 PT" isn't sufficiently clear; most players will assume enough defence even in the 8.5 PT hand), and not making the possibility clear on ask, increases said power dramatically, in the same way that failing to disclose Forget Transfers correctly gains when you pick off the opponents' heart suit, even though the convention-as-played (1NT-2♦ "hearts or diamonds") is legal and will in itself pick off the opponents' heart suit even if correctly disclosed. And that increase is both unethical (if done on purpose) and illegal (whether or not there was any intent).

Unfortunately, the ACBL has not made it *easy* - to the point of possibly not being *possible* to make this one clear. So we get this, againe and againe.

Please note: none of the above should e taken as support for playing the convention this way as *good*; I think it's bad bridge and will, when properly disclosed, be -EV against any class of player that doesn't equate 2♣ with "uncontested auction". And part of the problem with this is that the players learning this style from their partners and opponents *are* usually the above class of player, and it works against their peers, and catches out the stronger players (isn't there a chapter in Simon called "Fixed...By Palookas!"?) But I play a lot of bad conventions too, and they're legal...

[ArtK78]

mycroft, on 2013-February-21, 13:06, said:

Please note: none of the above should e taken as support for playing the convention this way as *good*; I think it's bad bridge and will, when properly disclosed, be -EV against any class of player that doesn't equate 2♣ with "uncontested auction". And part of the problem with this is that the players learning this style from their partners and opponents *are* usually the above class of player, and it works against their peers, and catches out the stronger players (isn't there a chapter in Simon called "Fixed...By Palookas!"?) But I play a lot of bad conventions too, and they're legal...

This is interesting. My partner, who committed this bidding sequence, is generally regarded as an expert player. In fact, he won an unrestricted NABC pairs championship (with a partner of no better than equal ability) as recently as 18 months ago, and frequently plays professionally (with significant success). In real life, he is a mathematician, so he is certainly no slouch either at bridge or intellectually.

And yet, he produces this exhibit with no previous discussion that we would ever open 2♣ on such a hand.