[haka9]

helene_t, on 2020-October-26, 19:11, said:

I don't think 2♣ is absurd. I wouldn't do it except maybe in one partnership where 2♣ shows specifically a certain range of hands including a GF ♥+♣ hand.

I think it's reasonable to open 1♣ and then bidding hearts twice. But then you have to be prepared to bid 4NT if opps bid 4♠ in the first round, and that could easily lead to misunderstandings.

So 1♥ it is. If that means that I have to bid 5♣ in next round I am still happy.

As for
1♥-(p)-1♠)-(p)
?

I would rebid 3♣. Frankly, I don't understand the appeal of 2♣. Sure, if partner has KJxxx-x-KJxxx-xx it would be to be able to stop in a partscore but I want to show my slam potential and I don't think I can make partner enthusiast without a 3♣ rebid.

2 ♣ opening is by no means absurd nor psyche. I think any player has a decent right to overestimate (or underestimate) the value of his/her hand. However neither I would open 2 ♣ (overestimation). With 6-6 or 5-5 suits I always open with the higher and repeat the lower as far as reasonable.

[mycroft]

The argument (before that rule change) was that you were allowed a specific agreement if you agreed never to psych it. That was - legally questionable (but definitely had the imprimatur of the WBF Laws Commission) - so now the law says it explicitly.

Remember, the problem isn't psyching these things, really; it's the lack of disclosure, and "psyches" that hide illegal agreements - which it is good and right for the rule makers to want to thwart.

On this hand, it's not that 2♣ is a psych or not - that all depends on the pair's agreement for 2♣. It's whether the agreement (if this hand is part of it) is legal under the player's regulations, and whether the opponents are made as aware of it as partner.

For instance, for me, opening 2♣ would be a deviation, whether gross enough to be a psych I don't know. Definitely if the clubs were AQJT74 it would be a clear 2♣ opener. The thing is, I'm playing EHAA...

I do consider it bad bridge to open this hand 2♣ Strong Artificial and Forcing. 2♣-2♠-p (GF)-4♠; now what? are you going to commit to slam to show both of your suits? Note that it's quite possible that the opponents can make 6♠, if you do and they "sacrifice"...So for me, "absurd" is the exact word for it. But opponents don't come in over 2♣ SAF in weaker games, and especially if they're not told it could be a 13-count with at most 1 trick in defence. So, in weaker games, players get away with this, and learn to think it isn't "bad bridge". Ah well, they will learn.

[haka9]

mycroft, on 2020-November-01, 11:52, said:

The argument (before that rule change) was that you were allowed a specific agreement if you agreed never to psych it. That was - legally questionable (but definitely had the imprimatur of the WBF Laws Commission) - so now the law says it explicitly.

Remember, the problem isn't psyching these things, really; it's the lack of disclosure, and "psyches" that hide illegal agreements - which it is good and right for the rule makers to want to thwart.

On this hand, it's not that 2♣ is a psych or not - that all depends on the pair's agreement for 2♣. It's whether the agreement (if this hand is part of it) is legal under the player's regulations, and whether the opponents are made as aware of it as partner.

For instance, for me, opening 2♣ would be a deviation, whether gross enough to be a psych I don't know. Definitely if the clubs were AQJT74 it would be a clear 2♣ opener. The thing is, I'm playing EHAA...

I do consider it bad bridge to open this hand 2♣ Strong Artificial and Forcing. 2♣-2♠-p (GF)-4♠; now what? are you going to commit to slam to show both of your suits? Note that it's quite possible that the opponents can make 6♠, if you do and they "sacrifice"...So for me, "absurd" is the exact word for it. But opponents don't come in over 2♣ SAF in weaker games, and especially if they're not told it could be a 13-count with at most 1 trick in defence. So, in weaker games, players get away with this, and learn to think it isn't "bad bridge". Ah well, they will learn.

Did I miss something? I don't understand three first paragraphs.

I also do consider it bad bridge to open this hand 2 ♣ Strong Artificial and (Game) Forcing as we play it. I wouldn't shoot the pianist. Every player bids on his/her own cards and on his/her (and partner's) account. If You open with one of Your suits and: 1♣/♥ - 1/2 ♠ - p - 4 ♠; so what? Once in a blue moon they have 12 tricks in ♠. For me "absurd" is not the appropriate word for this deal and whatsoever bidding. I hope all will learn especially from their own bad bidding.

[mycroft]

So, there are at least two conversations going on in this thread:

• is this hand a good SAF 2♣ opener?
  
• is it legal to open it 2♣?, and as a sub-thread of this one,
  
• is it (and should it be) legal for regulating authorities to regulate psychic 2♣ openers?

You might have missed the 3. subthread.

You can't stop people from psyching - it's a legal tactic (much as many wish it wasn't). However, certain psychic calls are more ugly than others, and one is "psyching your strong bid" (the other one is "psyching (or misbidding) your artificial preempt", especially when it's something like 3♣ "diamonds and spades, or clubs if I feel like it"). Saying "I have half the deck" with nowhere near that hand makes a very good preempt.

Now the issue is, if this hand is not legal to open 2♣ SAF (which it wouldn't be on the ACBL Basic or Basic+ charts, having neither the "14 HCP" or "5 controls" to meet the regulations for Very Strong (not sure it has the "within one trick of game given equal distribution of the other suits" either), then people who think this hand *is* a 2♣ opener have three choices:

• find a game where it is legal (like the ACBL Open chart - note that they will have to Alert their "not always Very Strong" tendencies, though);
  
• change their system to play to their regulations; or
  
• claim that this isn't their agreement, they just "used judgement" or "psyched" it.

Many many players over many many years and many many conventions have picked the last option. Which presents a slippery slope problem for the regulators. "We want to set a floor, so you must have 10 HCP minimum for 1NT". "Okay, but really KQT9 KJT8 T8 T73 is a 10-count - it's much stronger than many 10-counts". If they allow that, then those people start "using judgement" more and more, and eventually are opening things like "KJ85 Q6 QT3 J853" "it looks like a 10-count to me". No, you just want to play 9-12, and you're saying to the director what you think you can get away with. Same with "I want to open 8 AKQJT8432 T 54 2♣ - it's within one trick of game, right?" knowing (or not knowing) that 2♣ is a much more effective preempt than the "Zia transfer" 4♥ call.

So the regulators petitioned for, and got, the ability to regulate psychics of certain artificial calls.

None of that relates to whether it's a *good* call here. That was my last paragraph, and my rule is "if I open 2♣ and partner has a balanced yarborough, he should be able to double the opponents' sacrifice in game and, barring duelling voids or the like, expect to set it." That's because, especially when you don't have the spade suit, the opponents will take that sacrifice, and sure -200 is a bad score, but -790 is much worse. This hand, as I said, the opponents could easily be cold for game; there's a reasonable chance they're cold for slam. Therefore, for me, it's not a 2♣ opener.

The reason you see this a lot in weaker pairs is that there, their opponents *don't* overcall 2♣ aggressively, so bids like this work. In fact, it successfully preempts the opponents out of their auction. Which brings us back to the point where "is that legal?" "should it be?" "is that correctly disclosed?"