partnership agreement on Acol 2C opening bid
Ref the new rules concerning Acol 2C opening bids.
12pts + 5 controls
or
16+
or
23+
A partnership is describing their 2C opening bid as possibly any of these options. Opponents and partner have no idea.
Is this legal or should the partnership agree on the strength of their 2C opening bid?
Comments
23+ is a subset of 16+, so to include all three seems potentially confusing. Also, it sounds as though they are just reciting the limits permitted, rather than describing what their agreement actually is.
You might need to examine their follow-ups to see whether they are giving misinformation as the actual agreement on the 2C opening, notably whether they have systems in place to distinguish the three ranges.
An agreement to open 2!c with any 12 point 5 control hand would be pretty strange. Thus, the opponents should disclose what separates a 2!c hand from, say, a 1!h hand in their system.
It's certainly possible to create reasonable systems where 2!c is the "strongest bid" but can be fairly weak – I experimented with one where a typical 2!c opening would show about 18 points, and weaker hands could still open it – but such systems will have some dividing line between a 2!c opening and a 1-of-a-suit opening (in my case it was losing trick count).
As ever, disclosure is key. From a personal perspective as an opponent I am not so concerned whether the opponents' agreement is legal, as long as I know what sort of hand types to expect.
It sounds as if you are wasting a level. With a dividing line in that neck of the woods, the "strongest bid" comes up too often for it to be efficient to cut out the whole 1-level. You are effectively pre-empting your own side. Grasp the nettle and play a strong club system!
It is legal BUT they would have a serious problem in obeying law 20F!
.. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made..
Unless the call was made on all qualifying hands. (FWIW in Bridge you have to develop conventions that maximise : bid frequency X bid accuracy - sort of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - there is a level of combination that cannot be exceeded (bids that are made a lot tend to be inaccurate))
Would this be an infraction to play 2C as could be weak, could be strong?
Would this be an infraction to play 2C as "could be weak, could be strong?"
I was amused after the recent change to the definition of "strong" that partner could open a weak NT and I could announce it as "weak, could be strong".
It's not uncommon to play it as weak with diamonds or any strong hand, but you couldn't play it as weak with an unspecified suit, whether or not it could be strong.
It's legal to have both weak and strong options, but the weak options need to give a hint about the suit. Either all the weak options must contain the same specified suit, or all the weak options must exclude the suit bid (in this case, clubs). So "diamonds, hearts, spades, both majors" is a legal set (these all deny clubs), as is "minors or reds" (as even though "both minors" is a possibility, and thus clubs aren't denied, all the possibilities include diamonds).
There are no restrictions on the suits of the strong options, and these don't need to match the weak options. So "if it's weak, then diamonds, if it's strong, then could be any suit or even balanced" is a legal (and moderately common) agreement.