Clubs From the Club
#22
Posted 2021-June-10, 18:41
Without that agreement, I think North has enough to double 5♣.
I am not sure if South should bid 5♠ anyway, assuming that he expects West to have a normal 2♣ opening. North's red/white 4♠ bid should be sound enough that 5♠ should have a chance, maybe, but on the other hand, partner's preempt made opps make the last guess, and bidding 5♠ now might lift opps into a makeable slam.
#24
Posted 2021-June-11, 04:32
AL78, on 2021-June-11, 03:20, said:
Bigger...
#25
Posted 2021-June-11, 04:53
shyams, on 2021-June-10, 11:06, said:
But if 2♣ was a psyche (and the local regulations allow the psyching of strong 2♣ openings), there's no problem.
The TD needs to establish if EW have an implicit agreement to open 2♣ with this kind of hands. In than case there's misinformation (and possibly an illegal agreement, but Australia is quite liberal so that's probably not the case)
#26
Posted 2021-June-11, 07:33
helene_t, on 2021-June-11, 04:53, said:
The TD needs to establish if EW have an implicit agreement to open 2♣ with this kind of hands. In than case there's misinformation (and possibly an illegal agreement, but Australia is quite liberal so that's probably not the case)
I had a quick look through the ABF System Regulations 2017 and it seems WBF based similar to the Italian Regulations, although more detailed and practical. I saw nothing that disallowed any particular agreement for 2♣ opening, brown stickers aside. The psyching of strong 2♣ openings is explicitly forbidden however:
9.6 The psyching of a conventional bid, which is unequivocally forcing and systematically indicative of the
strongest possible opening hand (e.g., a Game Forcing 2♣ or a Precision 1♣) is strictly forbidden.
The ABF Alerting Regulations 2017 also say that:
5.1(d) Strong artificial 2♣, 2♦ openings are alertable.
so you are definitely due an alert and clear explanation of the agreement (Italian regulations allow an announcement of "Strong" if the agreement is game forcing, whatever the TD may deem that to mean).
#27
Posted 2021-June-11, 14:24
#28
Posted 2021-June-11, 14:48
#29
Posted 2021-June-11, 14:58
#30
Posted 2021-June-11, 17:08
pescetom, on 2021-June-11, 07:33, said:
9.6 The psyching of a conventional bid, which is unequivocally forcing and systematically indicative of the
strongest possible opening hand (e.g., a Game Forcing 2♣ or a Precision 1♣) is strictly forbidden.
The ABF Alerting Regulations 2017 also say that:
5.1(d) Strong artificial 2♣, 2♦ openings are alertable.
so you are definitely due an alert and clear explanation of the agreement (Italian regulations allow an announcement of "Strong" if the agreement is game forcing, whatever the TD may deem that to mean).
You can play whatever you like for 2C here as long as it's not totally destructive (section 2.6 in that document). If 2C doesn't show clubs, you need to alert it though. And you don't get to describe the original hand as "strong" without risk of a MI-related ruling.
#31
Posted 2021-June-11, 21:55
sfi, on 2021-June-11, 17:08, said:
So, what is your conclusion re this hand?
#32
Posted 2021-June-20, 03:49
Two days later! but this time I was ready.
Different opps.
IMP's
The full deal
#33
Posted 2021-June-20, 06:35
For 0%, here's the full hand.
My partner - thinking that there must be 50 HCP in the deck - passed the bid of 5♣.
I passed thinking that West must have a monster and that South and East must both have nothing.
West scored 5C-3 -150 for 100%.
One other person was in 5CX-3 for 5.8%
Everyone else made 12+ tricks with North in 4S (3 tables) or 5S (13 tables).
In the end, I did call the Director whose ruling was "They can do that" and "You should bid 5♠" - I don't think the second part was a ruling - albeit true.
I enjoyed this hand because (apart from the mysterious bidding and our terrible result) both 6S and 6NT are available - but 7CX is the best result.
Although 2♣ misdirected everyone, I have no idea if it's a reasonable call in Australia.