Legality of System

[ASkolnick]

We are playing I guess a modified version of MOSCITO counted in ZAR Points. With 2/1 non-forcing. Our 1 of a major bid is limited to 4-5 cards since our 2 bids are more like 1.5 bids.

 

But for Mid-Chart, would this be legal?

 

Borrowed from 2 way xfers over 1N. All bids force next bid. X+Suit may mean NT or a 6+ of same suit.

 

 

1M- 1N

1) Drop dead in Clubs

2) Invitational single suiter. (3C is single suited clubs)

3) Invitational NT

 

1M-2C

1) Drop dead in Diamonds

2) Clubs + next suit Inv+.

 

1M-2D 1) Drop dead in Hearts

2) Good Raise to hearts if M is Hearts

3) Diamonds+Suit Inv+

 

1M-2H 1) Good Raise to spades if 1M is spades

2) Hearts+suit Inv+

 

1M-2M Simple Raise.

 

This way you can get your weak hands in, your invitations in all at the two level. The tough hand will be the diamonds and hearts over 1S. Over 1H, with less strength, you can always bid spades first.

[inquiry]

Legality of a system is too broad a subject. Is this legal is Australia? Sure. Is this legal in ACBL events in the United States? The answer is it depends on the condition of contest. Could you play this in BBO's ACBL games? The answer is no.

 

The ACBL divides systems/conventions into three large groups. General Convention Chart, Mid Chart, and Super chart. I will not go into all of what is in each, but my understanding is that "relay systems" (other than some relays over specific opening bids like 1NT and 2NT) are disallowed on general chart, which is what is allowed in the BBO ACBL events. Relay systems are allowed on Mid chart, but only if the relayer promises GAME FORCING values. Clearly yours do not, so it is not mid-chart legal either. So I think you can only play it in super chart events.

 

The good news, other than the ACBL events, many of the BBO events and of course the main room will let you play whatever you like as long as you alert it.

 

Of course those who play similiar methods might weigh in on this topic, like Richard Wiley.

[hrothgar]

I THINK that this response structure would be legal at the Mid Chart level, but I'm not sure.

 

The Midchart specifically states the following:

 

3.* All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except

for:

a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values,

b. conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or

overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a

range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES

AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General

Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend

to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of

which exceeds 3 HCP - and

c. conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of

more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may

be four cards (see #7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7

under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart). THIS

APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.

 

I think that the structure that you describe qualifies as a "Constructive Response". Unfortunately, there isn't any official definition of the expression "Constructive" so you might run into differing interpretations about the legality of the response structure.

[awm]

I'm pretty sure this is not legal under the ACBL mid-chart.

 

Two main reasons:

 

(1) ACBL allows "all constructive responses to opening bids" on the mid-chart. However, a response which is "drop dead" in some suit is not constructive. Obviously natural responses are allowed also so this doesn't restrict weak jump shifts (for example).

 

I've had some direct experience with this, in that with one partner I play 1♦ as "could be zero" (part of a big club) but usually a balanced hand, and use the 2NT response as "weak with one minor." This has been repeatedly ruled illegal on the mid-chart if "weak" could be zero points, but has been ruled acceptable if "weak" is replaced with "constructive" (i.e. something like 5-9, not trash but not a game bid opposite our limited opening unless there's a big fit) and we have some way to reach game if opener has length in the suit of the weak bid and side shortness.

 

So you could get around this particular problem by saying that the transfers guarantee 5+ points or the like, and perhaps allowing opener to super-accept somehow with a maximum that includes a nice fit for the weak option.

 

(2) ACBL disallows "relay systems which are not game forcing" on the mid-chart. A relay is described as being either an asking bid which says nothing about asker's hand (i.e. forcing notrump response to 1M) or a "puppet" bid which forces partner to make a particular call (i.e. lebensohl 2NT). Since this method falls under the second definition, and is not game forcing, and is started prior to opener's rebid, there would appear to be an issue here as well.

 

Again you might get around this by permitting opener to make alternative calls with certain hand types, the obvious candidates being hands with a good fit for the weak option.

[aelred]

I thought "constructive" in "all constructive responses" meant "that honestly tries to improve contract, not to confuse opponents", or something like such. That a certain strength range over an opening is traditionally called constructive does have little to do with this regulation IMHO. It is just a mere coincidence - or is it?

 

Second, this certainly is not a relay system. There are no questions asked. As for the puppet aspect, it might intervene if opener will always bid the drop-dead suit at minimum level. But I think there may be some super-accept, although that may be deemed "not constructive" as opener is limited and responder is drop-dead B)

 

Just my 2 cents, and I have no first-hand experience with the way the ACBL uses this regulation in practice as I never played there. Problem is, at this moment in time, in my impression "Law is what law does". At least, that is the way things go around here (Romania).

 

Aelred

[ASkolnick]

1) I mentioned Mid-Chart, so obviously I am referring to the ACBL (Inquiry)

 

2) When I say drop dead, partner never has to accept the "puppet", but can deal with the consequence. No different than a transfer or lebensohl. I am not sure why this is any more than the same two-way transfers we play over 1N.

 

3) This is the reason I despise the ACBL since conventions would be much easier to deal with, if you let people actually play conventions.

 

I will probably check with the powers that be. Thanks for everyone's contribution.