2C opening - would you be happy with this auction
#21
Posted 2019-February-22, 12:32
You first commented that, I had no idea about how to bid this in a recent IMPs tourney, was presumably looking for others opinions. Yet, when opinions were offered that are in direct conflict with your own good reasoning and your quality bid, you throw a hissy fit.
Your post seems to be some sort of grope for the admiration others; a pat on the back for your brilliance. If it were deserved, believe me, it would be immediately forthcoming. Dont hold your breath.
Rather than looking deeper into the reasons and logic behind those viewpoints that differed from your own, you resorted to accusations of:
1. sour grapes,
2. self-appointed experts, and
3. average players.
Your everyone would be groveling at the quality of the bid claim exhibits astounding hubris. Take a step back, dude. You might consider doing your own research in an attempt to understand why your thinking differs so dramatically with that of others. It may open your eyes to personal blind spots.
Finally, this hand was posted on Bridgewinners as a bidding problem a day ago. There are currently 30 responses, some from very good players. The results are currently unanimous. A few of the comments (e.g. are you serious?) are telling.
Google is a wonderful research tool. Use it.
#23
Posted 2020-October-25, 13:37
thepossum, on 2019-February-20, 18:06, said:
I had no idea about how to bid this in a recent IMPs tourney. I figured I had 9(.5) tricks and enough to justify 2C but wasnt sure how happy anyone else would be. How else could you bid and force this to ensure you ended in the right game (or even slam). Which was 5C. Would you be upset in duplicate with another table bidding this
The alternative sequences started 1H-P-1S-P-?
regards P
PS I was in serious need of points having made a miss click cue bid on an earlier hand causing me to miss an easy game and also missing another game by only bidding to 3. So I needed to be less cautious
I would'nt open with 2 ♣: (almost) GF or 22-24 hcp. 1 ♥ - p - 1 ♠ - p - 3 ♣ and so on.
#25
Posted 2020-October-26, 19:11
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 nice 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.
#26
Posted 2020-October-26, 21:16
pescetom, on 2019-February-21, 15:17, said:
You know how a psych works, right? What is described is your agreement. If the hand (deliberately) does not fit the agreement, it is a psyche. You do not announce that it is a psych.
Some RAs have (arguably illegal) restrictions on psyching artificial bids. Sensible RAs do not.
If, like the OP, you do not believe it is a psych, then depending on how it is described you may be guilty of misinformation,
#28
Posted 2020-October-27, 01:37
helene_t, on 2020-October-26, 19:11, said:
Wouldn't
1♥-1♠
2♣-2♦/2N
3♣-3any
4♣
logically show 6+H6C and at least some slam interest?
#29
Posted 2020-October-27, 02:48
nullve, on 2020-October-27, 01:37, said:
1♥-1♠
2♣-2♦/2N
3♣-3any
4♣
logically show 6+H6C and at least some slam interest?
Yes except that after
1♥-1♠
2♣-2NT
3♣
would be non-forcing so you would have to bid 4♣ it this stage.
#30
Posted 2020-October-27, 03:38
mikeh, on 2019-February-22, 12:13, said:
a) makes posts that purport to seek advice or constructive criticism
b) makes posts denigrating and insulting those who provide advise or constructive criticism
c) never once acknowledges that he may be in error....see point (b)
d) eventually stops posting on the thread, and
e) begins another thread with the same approach
Repeat ad nauseam
Now, is there a term for people like that?
Narcissism?
#31
Posted 2020-October-27, 03:44
helene_t, on 2020-October-26, 19:11, said:
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.
Problem is your hand only has slam potential if you have a fit with partner. If partner is stacked in diamonds and spades (which is most likely), you might not make game, never mind slam. It comes down to listening to the auction. If the opponents haven't come in with diamonds or spades after two opportunities each, it is probably because partner has them. If it's a misfit, quit.
#32
Posted 2020-October-27, 03:46
#33
Posted 2020-October-27, 04:37
helene_t, on 2020-October-27, 02:48, said:
1♥-1♠
2♣-2NT
3♣
would be non-forcing so you would have to bid 4♣ it this stage.
Or use a Fred Gitelman invention* (described in this article):
1♥-1♠
2♣-2N
3♦(1)-3♥(2)
3♠(3)-3N
4♣
(1) puppet to 3♥
(2) forced
(3) 5+ C, GF
* possibly outside the intended context (= 1M-1N; 2♣-2N only?)
#34
Posted 2020-October-27, 07:01
++++++++++++++++++++
I would open 1♥ or 2♣ (Benjamin)
In the highly unlikely case that opponents remained silent, our auction would probably be
1♥ - 1♠
2♣ - Pass
Playing Gazilli, (again with opponents silent) a likely auction would be
1♥ - 1♠
3♣ - Pass (3♣ showing great shape but less than 16 HCP)
I understand the Possum's argument and his tactics worked well on this deal
#36
Posted 2020-October-29, 17:31
Vampyr, on 2020-October-26, 21:16, said:
Quote
(v.) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.
How would one argue that restrictions on such calls are illegal?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#37
Posted 2020-October-29, 23:34
But I do understand there are some sad cases in the world who would regard opening a hand with only 10 points and 5 losers at the 1 level a psych or shaving a point or two either way on a No Trump is a psych etc
There are different words for people like that.
#38
Posted 2020-October-29, 23:36
blackshoe, on 2020-October-29, 17:31, said:
OK; this must be in the new version of the Laws. But I think that it is an illegal law and its purpose is probably only to punish people who forget Ghestem.
#39
Posted 2020-October-30, 08:02
Players who dislike a system-regulation find many ways to rationalize what seem to be its infraction. For example, see threads, here and on Bridge Winners, about third-hand openers and opening 1NT with a singleton. Although routinely flouted, apparent infraction of such regulations rarely attracts a director call. Increasingly often, players criticize director-calls as "unsporting" or "unethical". Such calls are no exception. Understandably, adverse rulings are even rarer.
System-regulations have a drastic effect on the few who read, understand, and try to comply with them. We suffer a decisive handicap.
#40
Posted 2020-October-31, 10:22
Vampyr, on 2020-October-26, 21:16, said:
Yes, thank you.
Vampyr, on 2020-October-26, 21:16, said:
How would you argue that such restrictions are illegal?
Law 40B2(a) says that "The Regulating Authority... may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls".
The ACBL Open Chart lists "Psyching an Artificial opening bid" under Disallowed Bidding Agreements.
FIGB regulations say "It is forbidden to psych conventional opening calls in pairs competitions".
NZ Bridge Manual says "It is prohibited to "psyche" any conventional opening call that has as one of its options...".
And so on.
Ok, UK is different. "Historically, there have been EBU regulations that a player may not psyche a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening bid: these regulations are no longer in force." Just as well the EBU later became sensible