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?"
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)