[karen4]

Playing in a county swiss teams I came across a pair who were playing their 2♣ opener as an artificial bid and describing it as 'Intermediate'. When we questioned this they said that they explained to the director that they did not want to use the 8 playing trick and opening points / 16 points / rule of 25 rule and they were told they didn't have to as long as they described it as intermediate not strong. Is this permitted?

[MFA]

They can only say intermediate if it is intermediate, which would be something in the 11-16 interval.

[blackshoe]

If the bid is artificial, then "intermediate" is surely inadequate disclosure.

[bluejak]

It depends somewhat on what their agreement actually is. But if you mean they are playing it as an 11-16 opening, for example, in any suit, no, that is illegal at any Level in England.

[aguahombre]

I have always been amazed that the "laws" might have a problem with my opening 2C with (exaggerated example) AQJT9XXXXXXX - - x, if I determine that is the best way to find out if partner has the club ACE. Is that intermediate? I guess it barely meets the rule of 20 for a 1-bid.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I have always been amazed that the "laws" might have a problem with my opening 2C with (exaggerated example) AQJT9XXXXXXX - - x, if I determine that is the best way to find out if partner has the club ACE. Is that intermediate? I guess it barely meets the rule of 20 for a 1-bid.

The regulations in England don't permit you to open an artifical two level bid on this hand. The rule of 20 does not matter here. It doesn't meet any of the tests i.e.

a. 16+ points OR
b. Rule of 25 OR
c. 8 clear-cut tricks and the points normally associated with a one level opening.

If you only care about the club ace on this hand then 4NT might be a better opening.

Quote

Playing in a county swiss teams I came across a pair who were playing their 2♣ opener as an artificial bid and describing it as 'Intermediate'. When we questioned this they said that they explained to the director that they did not want to use the 8 playing trick and opening points / 16 points / rule of 25 rule and they were told they didn't have to as long as they described it as intermediate not strong. Is this permitted?

First it sounds as if it was intermediate or better i.e. they were just using a device to get round the existing rule and second the director, if he really said, this needs some education.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on Sep 21 2009, 06:31 AM, said:

I have always been amazed that the "laws" might have a problem with my opening 2C with (exaggerated example) AQJT9XXXXXXX  - - x, if I determine that is the best way to find out if partner has the club ACE.  Is that intermediate? I guess it barely meets the rule of 20 for a 1-bid.

Opening 2♣ on such a hand might talk the opponents out of a grand slam in NT (in the right hand ).

But I think that the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open this hand with 2♣.

Partner holding the ♣A is not guaranteeing the contract. But then it will be a good save against their 6NT on the following layout:

---

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on Sep 21 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

But I think that the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open this hand with 2♣.

But what about "the points normally associated with a one level opening"?

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on Sep 21 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 21 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

But I think that the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open this hand with 2♣.

But what about "the points normally associated with a one level opening"?

"Points Schmoints"

Seriously, if a player thinks that opening this hand 2♣ is the best way to bid it constructively (e.g. since 4NT doesn't ask for specific aces), then I think no regulation should get in this player's way.

Rik

[aguahombre]

jeremy69, on Sep 21 2009, 02:47 AM, said:

Quote

I have always been amazed that the "laws" might have a problem with my opening 2C with (exaggerated example) AQJT9XXXXXXX - - x, if I determine that is the best way to find out if partner has the club ACE. Is that intermediate? I guess it barely meets the rule of 20 for a 1-bid.

The regulations in England don't permit you to open an artifical two level bid on this hand. The rule of 20 does not matter here.

If you only care about the club ace on this hand then 4NT might be a better opening.

The "rule of 20" comment was a check on people's sense of humor.

I see that the EBU can dictate hand evaluation and thus force a particular ace asking bid so one can comply with its rules.

Let's see if I understand: an 8-trick hand with 11 HCP (AKQJXXXX XX J XX) is ok to open 2C, but a 12-trick hand with 7 HCP is not. Regulation gone mad.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on Sep 21 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

The "rule of 20" comment was a check on people's sense of humor.

I see that the EBU can dictate hand evaluation and thus force a particular ace asking bid so one can comply with its rules. 

Let's see if I understand:  an 8-trick hand with 11 HCP is ok to open 2C, but a 12-trick hand with 7 HCP is not.  Regulation gone mad.

As long as there is no agreement, anything goes.

Therefore, let's stop discussing this. After all, one day, we might end up as partners. Then we would have an agreement and we can never play in England. Suppose that I get dealt ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2. What am I supposed to do?


Rik

[jandrew]

Quote

I have always been amazed that the "laws" might have a problem with my opening 2C with (exaggerated example) AQJT9XXXXXXX - - x, if I determine that is the best way to find out if partner has the club ACE. Is that intermediate? I guess it barely meets the rule of 20 for a 1-bid.

I'm no expert - but I thought that the prohibition under the laws was against an agreement . In this case I might bid outside my agreement (so that partner is as unaware of my true hand as the opponents).

I might do this where my agreement is insufficient and I expect my bid to elicite information that I need.

jandrew

[Blue Uriah]

aguahombre, on Sep 21 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

Let's see if I understand:  an 8-trick hand with 11 HCP (AKQJXXXX XX J XX)  is ok to open 2C, but a 12-trick hand with 7 HCP is not.  Regulation gone mad.

Why would you want to open either 2♣? It's just awful bridge...

[campboy]

jandrew, on Sep 21 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

I'm no expert - but I thought that the prohibition under the laws was against an agreement . In this case I might bid outside my agreement (so that partner is as unaware of my true hand as the opponents).

I might do this where my agreement is insufficient and I expect my bid to elicite information that I need.

If I were called as TD, I would ask you what your partnership's normal opening with such a hand is. In this particular case the hand is so extreme that you might reasonably say you had never held such a hand before, so you have no agreement. Fine, but now you need to discuss it and agree on an alternative, otherwise you have a de facto (illegal) agreement to do the same thing next time.

tl;dr You can't say "we don't have an agreement to open such hands" and coincidentally break your agreement whenever such hands come up.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I'm no expert - but I thought that the prohibition under the laws was against an agreement

It is. How often do you expect to avoid a regulation you don't agree with by pretending that you don't have an agreement whether explicit or implicit? Whilst the regulations are not there to determine good or bad bridge I am amazed at some of the bridge teachers who want to try to teach their students ways round reguations instrad of teaching them some good bridge i.e. a strong two bid artificial or not is a hand of power and quality and this includes defensive strength.

Quote

Suppose that I get dealt ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2.

Why is opening an artificial 2C better than opening 4NT? The frisson of walking on the wild side?

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on Sep 21 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

gordontd, on Sep 21 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 21 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

But I think that the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open this hand with 2♣.

But what about "the points normally associated with a one level opening"?

"Points Schmoints"

Seriously, if a player thinks that opening this hand 2♣ is the best way to bid it constructively (e.g. since 4NT doesn't ask for specific aces), then I think no regulation should get in this player's way.

You said that you think the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open the hand under discussion with 2♣. I showed the rest of the regulation that means that is not correct. No amount of wanting the regulation to be what you think is better will make it so.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on Sep 21 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

If I were called as TD, I would ask you what your partnership's normal opening with such a hand is. In this particular case the hand is so extreme that you might reasonably say you had never held such a hand before, so you have no agreement. Fine, but now you need to discuss it and agree on an alternative, otherwise you have a de facto (illegal) agreement to do the same thing next time.

With properly shuffled cards, the odds are heavily against you having a 12-card suit even once in a lifetime of bridge playing, let alone twice. I don't think I will waste time discussing with my partner what to do next time. Nor will be I able to tell a TD what my "normal" opening for such a hand is. Though I might explain to him the folly of his question.

[campboy]

The specifics of the hand someone made up aren't really the point. There is some level of freakishness where you might reasonably claim "never come up before". If I am called as TD for such a hand, it is overwhelmingly likely that it will be near the lowest level of freakishness where that is the case. It is not worth thinking about whether I would act differently as TD if it is a 12-card suit rather than a 10-card suit; it won't be.

[Trinidad]

jeremy69, on Sep 21 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

Why is opening an artificial 2C better than opening 4NT? The frisson of walking on the wild side?

No, the frisson of trying to bid the hand that you are dealt correctly.

I agree that a 4NT opening to ask for specific aces works great with such a hand. (*) But...

Not the whole world plays 4NT as asking for specific aces. Some people have other meanings for the bid. In my career, I have seen CCs with "freak minors", "freak minor + major" and "minor-major giraffe", as well as "Natural, balanced, x-y HCPs". And then I am not even talking about the non-expert players, who have never even heard of a convention to ask for specific aces (or any of the other conventions that I mentioned).

Now, what would you open if you were Aunt Milly or Uncle Ted and you don't have your fancy ace asking convention available? I think that 2♣ would be a fair choice. I can certainly see alternatives (Pass, 1♦, ...), but 2♣ might be the most accurate way to figure out whether to bid 6♠ or 7♠.

Essentially, the contents of your post amounts to:

The regulation is that 2level bids promise A, B or C. Therefore, you cannot open a slamforcing hand that doesn't meet A, B or C at the 2 level. (If you do, you will have an illegal agreement for the rest of the session.) Given the fact that with this hand you want to play either 6♠ or 7♠, you either have to give up and need to bid 6♠ (which would be a misdescription, since partner might bid 7 with the ♠K) or 7♠ (which has about 33% chance of succes) or to force the partnership to have a conventional forcing bid, not at the two level.

Simply put: If you don't have a conventional opening bid to ask for specific aces, you are not welcome to play in the EBU, since you have no bid to describe ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2.

(Quite obviously (), the actual correct opening bid is 4♦. After partner's expected 4♠ you rebid 5♥, and then after partner's expected 5♠, you rebid 6♦. What are you saying? You don't play Namyats?!?)

Campboy and iviehoff made some posts, pointing out that a regulation about agreements will break down for hand types that you don't expect to get. That is just common sense. It also is common sense that sometimes Aunt Milly will be dealt an extreme freak and that she needs to make the best of it.

Rik

(*)Until the opponents bid 5♥ over it. Did anybody discuss how to handle interference over a convention that comes up once every ten years? And does anybody still remember it?

[karen4]

Post deleted