4C and 4D opening bids
I was just looking through the Blue Book and noticed 8C6(b) pertaining to 4C and 4D opening bids...
"4C showing a strong 4H opener and 4D showing a strong 4S opener."
I was caught by the word "strong" in each case. Does this require that the opening be "strong", i.e. 12+ points and 5+ controls else 16+ points, or simply that it be strong for a 4H/4S preempt?
With one partner, I play these bids as simply being stronger than a normal 4H/4S opening bid with no more than an Ace or a King outside, i.e. clearly not "strong". Are we playing an illegal method?
Comments
Note that most events are at Level 4 nowadays. At Level 4, opening bids of 4!c and higher are allowed to have any meaning (Blue Book 7A1). Your bids are also permitted at Level 2 (Blue Book 6E2 allows "4!c showing a good 4!h" opening, with 'good' rather than 'strong' being unambiguous here).
8C6 is describing the rules for Level 3 understandings, which don't exist in official EBU events any more (and are included in case someone wants to run an event under the EBU Level 3 rules even though the EBU no longer uses them). Although the text of 8C6 is ambiguous, it seems illogical for the bids to be allowed at Levels 2 and 4 but not 3, so it makes the most sense to interpret the text as equivalent to that for Level 2.
You aren't playing an illegal method (calls of 3NT or above aren't regulated as ais523 says) - however I would recommend you try and avoid the word 'strong'. "Solid or nearly solid 7+ suit with a maximum of one outside Ace or King", or however you choose to define your qualifying suit length. To quote the Blue book
...
(b) any hand of at least 12 HCP with at least five controls.
"Partnerships who agree that an artificial opening (such as 2 !c) may be made with a hand with a lot of playing strength but limited high cards (such as eight solid spades and little else) must disclose this clearly. For example, the opening could be described as “Either a strong hand or eight playing tricks in a major”. This applies even if the minimum agreed strength is in line with (b) above."
Thanks, @ais523, I hadn't realised that the whole of section 8 pertains to level 3, careless of me.
@weejonnie , I'd never describe our four of a minor openings as "strong", since they clearly aren't. As I posted above, we simply describe them as being stronger than a four-level preempt with no more than an ace of king outside. Partner and I occasionally disagree on which hands fall into this method but we do have a relay to ask whether the suit is solid.
weejonnie wrote: "For example, the opening could be described as “Either a strong hand or eight playing tricks in a major”. This applies even if the minimum agreed strength is in line with (b) above."
Where is the definition of playing tricks?
How long is a piece of string? NB that quote is from the Blue Book, not me.
I don't think there is a definition - but I know one when I see it.
"Playing tricks, is probably slightly looser than the 'clear-cut' tricks in the unlamented ER25. I would have thought that the phrase "expected to win" given most likely distributions. (Although some may require partner to hold one or more entries before that can happen. e.g. KQX might be regarded as a playing trick - but it needs two entries to dummy and a favourable distribution.
Sometimes one feels that players open hands with '8 playing tricks' on hands that don't really qualify with the aim of intimidating opponents.
I have a strong suspicion that the intention was not to import the definition of "strong" in BB 5C3 into the quasi-Level 3 provisions of BB 8C6, but that a better hand than 4M but still a pre-emptive hand was the intention.
In particular a solid 8-card suit would be a strong 4M bid for the purposes of 8C6 but does not meet 5C3.