[thepossum]

I admit its hard to be upset with GiB for getting excited after my game force but sadly it was a trick or two too many and I knew my limitations - and I know I stretched my minor game force too much too

GiB does get very excited sometimes

---

[nige1]

ThePossum 'I admit its hard to be upset with GiB for getting excited after my game force but sadly it was a trick or two too many and I knew my limitations - and I know I stretched my minor game force too much too. GiB does get very excited sometimes.'
++++++++++++++++++++
GIB's 7♣ seems peculiar with such a balanced hand
IMO, GIB should check on key-cards, if possible, then settle for 7NT

---

[smerriman]

If you forgot you were playing with GIB, you also forgot that 2♣ would be completely illegal with anyone but GIB

But yes, after the opening GIB should bid slower, but there's no chance even a human North would stop short of grand here.

[thepossum]

That 2 club bid would be fine with anyone I would regard as a worthy partner

It fits any reasonable parameters of a game going hand with anything other than rubbish opposite. You know it's always possible to stop short of game

Plus I don't care about going down a trick or two. It's better than missing slams. I expect my partner to be the same

Plus it would be on my convention card and/or alerted or explained as to my bidding style

But of course on most days it's 1 club

[smerriman]

By illegal I mean, at least in the ACBL, you actually aren't *allowed* to open it 2♣. Not sure what the regulations are in Australia.

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2020-October-09, 19:59, said:

By illegal I mean, at least in the ACBL, you actually aren't *allowed* to open it 2♣. Not sure what the regulations are in Australia.

I don't know. But I only play where I can play what's on my convention card

But of course if I were playing with and against people who didn't know my game and/or people obsessed with strict rules I would moderate my natural tendency for freedom and fun

And in case anyone wonders, usually my style benefits my opponents

But don't you think it was very close to a beautiful 7 clubs, and remarkably makes spot on 5 clubs against best defence

A few people managed to bid and make 6 after getting a friendly lead. But most were in 3NT or 5 clubs

[smerriman]

thepossum, on 2020-October-09, 20:09, said:

But don't you think it was very close to a beautiful 7 clubs, and remarkably makes spot on 5 clubs against best defence

It was a very nice hand, yes. But a very nice hand where there's no downside to opening 1♣ - you'll be able to force by reversing or jump shifting into hearts next bid, showing both your pattern and your strength at the same time, so you'll never miss game/slam when it's on (or end in grand when it's not).

[thepossum]

Sure, but I am always amused at the rules against bidding what you have (maybe occasionally slightly exagerrated) and people will get up in arms and throw a rage, but all these obnoxious disruptive and negative bids are allowed

Bid what you have and be fair to your opponents

But I appreciate I'm old fashioned and that the whole world has changed

Bridge maye is and always has been something of a metaphor for the world. But it seems disruption, negativity, dishonesty and anything goes in undermining a better or more meritotious or better trained competitor these days

I thought what we were talking about was what was permitted under the "rules". You can be as dirty as you like and undermine your oppos using any number of "dishonest" methods but God forbid you use a game force for a hand worthy og forcing to game

Oh another thing thats changed in the world is the obsession with over complex over engineered systems to give an advantage and privileged compelxity and technical detail over quality, intelligence, flair, imagination, feel, sensitivity, and creativity. That has happened too

I guess its not surprising in a discussion about robots playing bridge and the constraints a computational approach places upon much more complex things. Sadly it has happened evereywhere and rather than computers and AI (or whatever GiB has??) being simply a tool they have become the be all and end all - as have (as I said above) ridicukous over engoneeered techological solutions to everything - at the expense I dare to say of the planet and peoples mental and physical well-being.

But I've kind of given up with all the powerful interests aligned that there will ever be a change.

Maybe it was part of supposedly equalising things - but dorwning out everything of quality in excessively compex technical approaches to everything misses (IMO) the far superior qualities that have been lost or replaced. And allowing skill (if thats the word) at one very limted over technical mindset also loses a lot. The planet and the entities that lvie on it are analog things - they are soft. Along the way some powerful forces thought it could all be replaced with mechanics

I think one of the first times I saw the writing on the wall and the way the world was going was in an economics class 25 or so years ago. A simple bid of maths on the board (with fractions - maybe 2/3) requiring a small amount of simple rearrangement and everyone in class except me went for their calculators and wouldnt even have produced an accurate answer

Actually I think out of the many questionable over-technological approaches we have around us at the momennt is that rather than a clincian being able to sit annd assess the reason for someones distress by getting to know the person, their history, their culture, their oppression, their traumas, their stresses etc - very soon all it will take will to be taken through to a brain scan machine, a blood test to check for dodgy genes etc

[mycroft]

Totally off topic, but:

smerriman, on 2020-October-09, 19:59, said:

By illegal I mean, at least in the ACBL, you actually aren't *allowed* to open it 2♣. Not sure what the regulations are in Australia.

On the Basic(+) charts, a "strong" Artificial 2 bid must be Very Strong, and I can't argue that is 20 high or "within one trick of game, with equal suit splits".
On the Open(+) charts, there is no restriction, except that it must have at least Average strength (10 high or Rule of 19). I have heard, but not seen, an official ruling (and I like it) that if their agreement is not covered in "Very Strong", then it is Alertable. (the new, proposed, Alert procedure makes it explicitly Alertable).

So, provided one's tendencies are disclosed at the table, this hand could be agreed to be a 2♣ SAF opener in any open club that follows the ACBL's recommendations, and any tournament game that does not have a top limit (of 3000 MPs or lower).

Before the new charts came in, it only had to be "strong" according to the opener's opinion, and how to disclose was murky. And caused many problems. This is better, even if it's even more of a shock than before.

Now, if one played strong 2s, and this was Natural - then it's always been legal (and Alertable), and nobody would bat an eye. But that's not what happened here...

[Douglas43]

EBU regulations define a strong hand as 16+hcp or 12+ with at least five controls. So in England (and the Isle of Man) you would be at liberty to open 2C with hand, but I wouldn't recommend it.

The problem is that partner should be able to expect at least 8 playing tricks (the old minimum Acol standard for a strong two bid) and more likely 9 tricks, but this hand has only 7. The hand would be worth 2C if it contained KQxx in Hearts instead of Qxxx, and then 7C or 7NT is on. I would open 1C and reverse over the response.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2020-October-12, 10:41, said:

On the Basic(+) charts, a "strong" Artificial 2 bid must be Very Strong, and I can't argue that is 20 high or "within one trick of game, with equal suit splits".
On the Open(+) charts, there is no restriction, except that it must have at least Average strength (10 high or Rule of 19). I have heard, but not seen, an official ruling (and I like it) that if their agreement is not covered in "Very Strong", then it is Alertable. (the new, proposed, Alert procedure makes it explicitly Alertable).

So “Very Strong” is announced?

[mycroft]

No, that does not come under our list of Announcements (even with the new proposed version). In fact, in the new version:

Quote

Alert the Natural bids listed below.
...
A Natural 2C Opening.

Do not Alert the Artificial bids listed below. Otherwise Alert Artificial bids. Alert any Quasi-Natural bid that is not Announced.
...
A Very Strong Artificial 2C Opening Bid.

So, if 2♣ opener agreement is not VS, ART, Forcing:

• 20+HCP, or
  
• 14+HCP and within one trick of game game assuming suits break evenly, or
  
• 5+ Control Points and within one trick of game assuming suits break evenly,

then it is Alerted, and it is up to the opponents to find out if it is Natural, strong, intermediate or weak, Artificial but could be an overstrength preempt, Minor suit Flannery, or whatever else people want to play (that is legal) (and no, it looks like "weak 2 in diamonds or Very Strong ART" isn't legal, even in the Spingold).

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2020-October-13, 15:20, said:

(and no, it looks like "weak 2 in diamonds or Very Strong ART" isn't legal, even in the Spingold).

Seriously?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2020-October-13, 15:20, said:

and no, it looks like "weak 2 in diamonds or Very Strong ART" isn't legal, even in the Spingold.

Yet it would be legal if the weak 2 was of an undisclosed major?

[mycroft]

It depends on how you read "No Artificial Preempts below 3NT" (except 2NT for the minors).

Oh, apologies, it's fine in the Spingold - misread the change in Open+. Not in the Reisinger, though (< 6 board rounds). The Multi rule.

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2020-October-14, 09:46, said:

It depends on how you read "No Artificial Preempts below 3NT" (except 2NT for the minors).

Oh, apologies, it's fine in the Spingold - misread the change in Open+. Not in the Reisinger, though (< 6 board rounds). The Multi rule.

Unclear to me. Seems unlike the Multi rule since if is weak, the suit is known as diamonds, unlike Multi where the suit is unknown.

But there is

8. *** An Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT that may have Length only in the suit opened.

I wish the convention committee had included a Q&A to show concrete examples of what they meant.

[thepossum]

Douglas43, on 2020-October-13, 10:22, said:

EBU regulations define a strong hand as 16+hcp or 12+ with at least five controls. So in England (and the Isle of Man) you would be at liberty to open 2C with hand, but I wouldn't recommend it.

The problem is that partner should be able to expect at least 8 playing tricks (the old minimum Acol standard for a strong two bid) and more likely 9 tricks, but this hand has only 7. The hand would be worth 2C if it contained KQxx in Hearts instead of Qxxx, and then 7C or 7NT is on. I would open 1C and reverse over the response.

Sometimes I get carried away and start thinking of a 2C opening with any hand with apprroximately 4 losers. Sometimes I forget about playing tricks, controls, and whether its a minor or major. I have 3 first round controls and Qxx. What could go wrong

[gordontd]

thepossum, on 2020-October-09, 19:28, said:

That 2 club bid would be fine with anyone I would regard as a worthy partner

It fits any reasonable parameters of a game going hand with anything other than rubbish opposite. You know it's always possible to stop short of game

You open with a game-forcing bid relying on being able to stop short of game?

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2020-October-15, 06:19, said:

You open with a game-forcing bid relying on being able to stop short of game?

As with "forcing one round", it all depends upon what one means by "game-forcing".
IMO it is eminently reasonable that game-forcing does not allow us to stop below (any) game, but others will insist that that is an "unconditional" game-force and that for an ordinary ("conditional"?) game-force it is normal to be able to quash the obligation with a second negative or whatever.

[helene_t]

It wouldn't occur to me to open this hand 2♣ unless playing a system like Bombay Club with a non-forcing 2♣ opening. After a Standard American 1♣ opening and a 1♦ response, I would just rebid 1♥. A 2♥ rebid would show a stronger hand.

The thing is, the hand is quite easy to describe after a 1♣ opening. Even if the auction gets wild, you can always show your hand by bidding some number of hearts - only if opps bid 4♠ in first round, it gets a bid awkward.

But let's make the hand a bit stronger so that a 1♣ opening might feel like an underbid:

Axx-AKxx-void-AKQJxx

With that hand I would normally still open 1♣ but 2♣ is reasonable if you have decent agreements with partner about the follow ups after 2♣. Usually I don't have good agreements about 2♣ openings so I avoid them whenever possible.

With GIB it is indeed so that it expects quite a lot for a lot for a 2♣ opening. You were lucky that GIB at least had ♥A. I have seen GIB bid 7NT on similar hands but without ♥A, and then you might write five down doubled. At least GIB never redoubles such countracts.

When I played in England, a lot of people would open a Benji 2♣ on hands that I consider completely normal 1-level openings. I think I have seen 2♣ on something like QJT-QJT-KQJTxxx-void because it has "8 playing tricks". Such openings are often successful because they can psyche opps out of a making game or discourage them from doubling you sacrifice, and that's why EBU is quite strict on weeding out such openings.

As for the question of legality: In Australia you can play almost anything so surely this opening would be OK, although it would have to be disclosed as "7+ playing tricks, no particular HCP promise" or whatever your de facto agreement is. Disclosing it as "game forcing" would clearly by misinformation.