[LH2650]

---

ACBL General Convention Chart, so psyching of artificial opening bids is prohibited.

Playing a strong, forcing club, the hand shown is opened with 1C. When asked, opener stated that he was afraid they would miss 4 hearts if he chose one of the other possible initial actions. Do you allow this?

[trevahound]

I strongly disagree with the ACBL's prohibition. However, as a director even absent that prohibition I would not accept any sort of description of the 1♣ opener as "strong, artificial, and forcing", or "precision style", or "big club", or anything like that. I'd prefer to hang my hat on misinformation rather than a psyche or not. If this hand fits their description of a 1♣ opener, their description needs to include it, or at least brush the edges of it.

I think the overwhelming majority of people, including myself, would consider this a psyche if their agreements for a 1♣ opener are strong/artificial/forcing.

[Vampyr]

I would also consider this a matter of disclosure rather than a psyche.

[hrothgar]

Systemically this doesn't qualify for a MOSCITO "strong" club opening, and MOSCITO's are a lot weaker than most.

More importantly, I don't think that the ACBL allows you to have an agreement to open this weak a hand with a strong, artificial, and forcing 1♣.
(Which is amusing, because they would allow you to open this with a strong 2♣)

[whereagles]

This sort of thing just keeps happening. I think the best way out is to recommend people to describe 1♣ as "any 16+ HCP or distributional equivalent".

But to be honest I don't think this even qualifies under "distributional equivalent" LOL.

[ArtK78]

While this hand does have significant playing potential, calling it the distributional equivalent of a 16+ strong club opening bid is too much of a stretch for me.

Make the hearts AKxxx and you have a reasonable case. Not that I would open that hand with a strong club, just that you have a reasonable case for avoiding having the 1♣ opening referred to as a psych.

[ggwhiz]

 LH2650, on 2015-January-27, 11:58, said:

When asked, opener stated that he was afraid they would miss 4 hearts

The answer to that is open 1♥. 1♣ is severely out of bounds on the gcc.

[steve2005]

 LH2650, on 2015-January-27, 11:58, said:

ACBL General Convention Chart, so psyching of artificial opening bids is prohibited.

Playing a strong, forcing club, the hand shown is opened with 1C? When asked, opener stated that he was afraid they would miss 4 hearts if he chose one of the other possible initial actions. Do you allow this?

How do you miss 4♥ by opening 1♥ showing your 5-card suit. Yes opening a natural 2♣ could cause problems but your not strong enough to open 2♣ and make a bid which shows 5♥. You make it harder to find a fit by opening with an artificial 1♣ bid.

[lamford]

As I understand it, the ACBL cannot ban someone from opening a strong club on this hand, as 40A3 allows anyone to make any call which is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. They can ban them someone from agreeing to open 1C on hands of this type, and it is therefore a matter of disclosure.

[Bbradley62]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-27, 12:51, said:

I would also consider this a matter of disclosure rather than a psyche.

It's only a matter of disclosure if his partner agrees that this hand fits their requirements for 1♣.

[aguahombre]

Are you saying it is o.k. to psyche a strong artificial opening bid if the partnership agrees to psyche strong artificial opening bids? Next, we question the credulity of the person who gave the excuse that he was afraid of missing the heart suit, since Opening 1C natural and non-forcing, or 1C artificial and forcing are both good ways to miss a heart fit.

The real purpose would be to intimidate the opponents into silence.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2015-January-27, 19:57, said:

Are you saying it is o.k. to psyche a strong artificial opening bid if the partnership agrees to psyche strong artificial opening bids?

The de facto agreement here might be clubs or strong.

[Mbodell]

I think the latest ACBL rules are you need 10 hcp for an artificial 1♣. However, I don't know how strictly they enforce occasional deviations below 10 (I.e., is it like most things and those are fine or is it like a 10-12 nt where a deviation with a 9 hcp is near death, and a second is death). This hand has the offensive playing strength of a 16+ hand, no problem, and even has 2 QT, so I'm not sure it is that unreasonable to treat it as a strong club (tactically I think it might be a bad idea as I expect it to be at least 3 spades and probably 4 before you get a chance to bid again).

[blackshoe]

The regulation Mbodell is thinking of is item one under opening bids on the GCC:

Quote

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

I suppose a strong, forcing, artificial 1♣ bid which by agreement normally shows 15+ or 16+ HCP is included in the above, as there is no other provision I can see in the GCC that would make such an opening legal. However, the fact that the regulation allows an all-purpose 1♣ opening on as little as ten points does not give the pair with the "strong, forcing" agreement leeway to open on any 10 point hand. Every Precision book I've ever read gives leeway to open 1♣ on good hands with 15 points, and maybe 14 points, but no lower.

This hand is a gross distortion of the high card strength required for a strong, artificial, forcing 1♣ opening. The definition of a psych is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length." The hand fits the definition. It's a psych IMO even if the player doesn't think so (or claims not to think so), especially for purposes of a regulation that prohibits psyching this bid. Note that such a prohibition is legal (Law 40B2{d}).

[johnu]

 Mbodell, on 2015-January-27, 23:06, said:

I think the latest ACBL rules are you need 10 hcp for an artificial 1♣. However, I don't know how strictly they enforce occasional deviations below 10 (I.e., is it like most things and those are fine or is it like a 10-12 nt where a deviation with a 9 hcp is near death, and a second is death). This hand has the offensive playing strength of a 16+ hand, no problem, and even has 2 QT, so I'm not sure it is that unreasonable to treat it as a strong club (tactically I think it might be a bad idea as I expect it to be at least 3 spades and probably 4 before you get a chance to bid again).

Agree, not sure how firm the 10 HCP rule is, but since they explicitly wrote 10 high-card points in the GCC, I wouldn't be surprised if that was a bright line test on the legality of opening 1♣ artificial.

The other GCC roadblock is where it says

RESPONSES AND REBIDS
7) ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher.

Among other things, that would disallow an artificial 1♦ response if the opening was less than 15 HCP.

[blackshoe]

RESPONSES AND REBIDS
1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one club.

Even if the opening is less than 15 HCP.

[mycroft]

And the other thing is that game-forcing responses are legal after a forcing 1♣, even if they're artificial. But if they have any way to stop short of game (in particular, in 2NT (and potentially 4m)), they may hit a big roadblock.

I too am concerned about disclosure. I dislike "disallow psyches of..." requirements because they lead to these kinds of questions; but their goal is to shortcut the "hiding" of illegal agreements in "psychic calls" - which I know the ACBL at least was very concerned about when building these regulations. And certainly, opening "a strong club" on hands like this is going to gain in reduced (or inefficient - many people play aggressive/"quick in, quick out" against strong clubs, and ignore constructive auctions) competition (hey look, we talked them out of their 25-point 4♠ contract by opening a 16+ 1♣!); inefficiently disclosing one's tendencies will only help that.

Having said that, I think in my game I'd adjust as a psych, assuming their disclosure was equivalent to "Precision" - probably after asking a couple of my Precision-playing players what they'd do with it (and potentially what they'd do to partner if they opened it 1♣) for backup of my admittedly imperfect bridge judgement. It is an interesting question what to open with this hand - all of pass, 1♥ and 2♣ have fairly serious issues - but still fewer than 1♣-1♥ (spades) on KJTxx xx ATxx 86 like my partners always seem to have. If the player had an issue with the ruling, I'd ask whether partner is going to expect this, and whether they had experience with this kind of upgrading. People with a bit of larceny in their blood, and who know me, are going to recognize this path really quickly and likely, will suddenly be happy about the adjusted score for an illegal psychic call :-)

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2015-January-27, 19:57, said:

Are you saying it is o.k. to psyche a strong artificial opening bid if the partnership agrees to psyche strong artificial opening bids?

If you agree to do it, it's not a psych -- psychic calls have to deviate grossly from your agreements. If you agree to open 1♣ on hands like this, but describe your 1♣ as strong (e.g. Precision-style) then it's misinformation.

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2015-January-28, 14:29, said:

If you agree to do it, it's not a psych -- psychic calls have to deviate grossly from your agreements. If you agree to open 1♣ on hands like this, but describe your 1♣ as strong (e.g. Precision-style) then it's misinformation.

Also, if you agree to open 1♣ on hands like this, such an agreement may be illegal. (But I do not understand the ACBL regulations for permitted agreements re strong/artificial opening bids.)

[barmar]

I think the GCC regulation quoted above is to allow things like Polish Club. But you have to describe it properly as including those types of weak hands; saying that it shows 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength would not include weak, distributional hands like this.

This hand seems more like the kind of hand that would be opened 2♥ if you play that as showing weak 5♥ + 4+minor. While judgement varies, I find it hard to reconcile that the same hand could be considered a "strong, forcing" opening by some and "weak, distributional" by others.