[Shugart23]

Partner opened 8 pt hand 1D with k q j 10 x x and a j x and j x and x x x. Somewhere I heard or read need 10 hcp for that bid. Can someone clarify and also provide link so I can print out the rules. I’m still in GCC world for acbl. Thank you

[awm]

The convention charts are here. The alerting rules are here.

In general it's fine to agree to open these sorts of hands (natural/quasi-natural and at least near-average strength) except possibly on the basic/basic+ chart. This would not require an alert. If you take away a side jack (so less than 8 hcp), it would only be allowed in 3rd/4th seat though. Of course, there could be a disclosure issue if their card suggests sound openings (or when asked, they tell you that they have minimum 12 points or something like that).

[Shugart23]

Thanks. Appreciate it. Was in first seat whereupon our agreements is 11-15 or Rule of 20, so I was the one caught by surprise. In my mind I justified it as some kind of psych bid. What do you think would happen had I explained what our agreement is and a director called over ? Wood shed?

[mycroft]

[list=1][*]Let's work out what your agreement actually is (based on both "explicit[] discussion or [] mutual experience/awareness of the [partnership]" (40A1a, my edits for context and grammar).
[*]Let's work out whether your agreement is legal in this game.
[*]Let's work out if what you told your opponents your agreement is qualifies as misinformation, and if so, whether they were damaged by that misinformation.
[*]Let's work out whether this call - compared to your agreement - is a minor, major, or gross deviation (or none at all).
[*]Now, Directors rule (on this hand) based on this information. Going forward, you bid to and explain your actual agreement (and know what the "allowed deviations for this agreement" are, and don't violate that) - or agree to do something different, and bid to and explain *that* going forward.

The first one is the big one; everything else evolves from that. Note: Directors do bring their BS meter to these discussions; even if you can't see it, it's there.

Directors, despite what several will say, aren't here to enforce OTBS, or "if you play normal, you can get away with stuff. If you play weird, and you're not letter-perfect, we'll nail you to the wall." (Yes, there's a bit of truth in that last one, but see "whether they were damaged by the misinformation" as to why. Players playing "what everybody understands" can frequently get away with half-***ing their explanations because the opponents will "fill in the blanks" and not be damaged in ways they won't when dealing with "something they don't understand".)

We do expect you to know whether your system is legal in the game you're playing (and what you have to change to make it legal in other games you're eligible for, should you choose to play in them). We expect you to not say you're doing one thing and actually do another - doubly so if "what you actually do" would not be legal and "what you claim to do" is. We expect you to actually pay attention to your partnership's actions and modify what you admit your agreements are (rather than hiding behind "we haven't discussed it" or "it's just bridge"). And we expect, especially if you're not playing "normal", to be patient when explaining your stuff and think about "are there implications that are obvious to you that might not be obvious to people who don't play this that need to be in the explanation?"

I, personally, expect that your explanations be useful and explain what hands partner would make this call with rather than what partner is telling you to do - especially when it's a puppet ("bid the next suit up, please, I might pass it, but there are other options") and "I'm to bid X" could easily be interpreted as "partner has X". Again, this comes under "implications obvious to you..." but it's something that is both a blind spot to *many* and when it is a problem, tends to get really impolite *fast*. And I want to avoid this. There are many directors for whom this is less of an issue (would be happier if it was done, but do not consider it as big a deal as I do).

I, personally, expect that when the opponents want to know what your auction showed during the Clarification period, that you consider your job to do that, efficiently and without umbrage. I have my own opinions on what is best (which is technically not correct, but if you're ethical will be equivalent), but if you want to do it the normal way, fine. But not "well, 2♠ shows [this]." "keep going" "Oh, you'll have to ask partner for that one." Pause. "so what was 3♦" "that means [this]." Pause... You're not a computer, you can understand "please explain the auction" to mean "I want to know what every bid means" or, better yet, "I want to know what your partner knows about your hand from the auction". Again, others will have different opinions; this is just one of my bugbears. Especially because this usually applies to slam(-try) auctions, where the Alert Procedure *requires* you do the explaining *without prompting* anyway (because almost all of the calls in question are Delayed Alertable). But, again, bugbear.

[Shugart23]

Thanks. In the 1000s of hands I’ve played with Peter, we have never psyched or ‘violated’ either Rule of 20 or 11-15. Other than preempts. Hence my total surprise with his bid. Bidding went 1D-1M-2D-2NT. I had 13 hcp, balanced and stops.. no interference…. Went down 1 because opponents gave me 3 tricks as a gift. Thanks both of you for the clarification

[Shugart23]

His 2D bid told me he had 6 or more diamonds

[johnu]

A quasi natural or natural 1♦ has at least 10 HCP or meet the rule of 19 in the Basic/Basic+ charts.

Under the Open/Open+ charts, that's near average or 8 HCP and rule of 17 in 1st or 2nd seat.

An artificial 1♦ like many strong club players use must have at least average strength, 10 HCP or rule of 19 in the Open/Open+ charts. Illegal in Basic/Basic+