awm Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Do you think the following system would be ACBL legal? Openings are: 2-suit = 8-14 hcp, 6+ in suit bid, no 4-card side suit; if at the bottom of range should be decent suit quality1NT = 12-14, includes all 5332 patterns1♠ = 8-14 hcp; 4+♠ and either (4+♥ or 4+♣); side suit could be longer than spades1♥ = 8-14 hcp; 4+♥ and either (4+♦ or 4+♣); side suit could be longer than hearts1♦ = 8-14 hcp; 4+♦ and either (4+♠ or 4+♣); side suit could be longer than diamonds1♣ = 15+ artificial forcing After a one-level suit opening, 2♣ is an artificial game force. Other responses are natural, with 1M-1NT being effectively forcing and 2NT as a major suit raise. After 2m, the cheapest call is an artificial game forcing relay. 2♣-2N and 2♦-3♣ are invitational raises (2m-3m more preemptive). After 2M, the cheapest call is an invitational or better relay (shortness ask is first priority). After 1♣ or 1NT openings, some sort of ACBL-allowed response structure should be assumed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 This should be allowed, as long as the 2♣ response to 1x is not classified as "relay system", whatever that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Do you think the following system would be ACBL legal?I think it would be GCC legal in the ACBL. Though I'd want to double check the artificial 2♣ game forcing response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 FWIW, here's my opinion: I think that the system is legal so long as the 1♦ opening promises 10+ points. While your 1♦ opening promises 4+ Diamonds, I don't think that its (purely) a natural bid. You're using canape sequences with some two suited hand patterns, but not with others(from what I can tell, you're forced to open 1D with a 7=x=4=x pattern, but you'd open 1H with a x=7=4=x) From my perspective, canape bidding is a perfectly viable bidding style and I think that a consistent canape style is every bit as natural as a "longest suit first" style. However, in this case, you're using canape sequences in some occassions, but not in others. As such, I don't think that the 1♦ opening is legal by default. You'd need to squeak it in under the "all purpose" opening bd clause, and this require 10+ HCPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I've played lots of canape in GCC events. That includes 1♦ openings which could be as short as 3 with a longer suit and not what you call "consistent canape" -- that is, a sequence like 1♥-1♠-2♦ could be either x45x or x54x. Of course, the fact that I've played it doesn't mean it is GCC legal, I and everyone who I have played against might have been unaware that it was not GCC legal. (I don't mean that facetiously, it's certainly possible that it slipped by everyone's attention.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think it's legal. I think a 1D opening is natural as long as it shows 3+ diamonds. I don't think he'd be restricted to opening 1D with 10 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted January 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 A few points here... To Hrothgar... the definition of the 1♦ opening and 1♥ opening seem very similar don't they? In each case they show four cards or more in the suit opened, one of two side suits, and the side suit might be longer. So while you're correct that 1♦ might be 7x4x or 4x7x, similarly 1♥ might be x4x7 or x7x4. If you're right that 1♦ is "not a natural bid" for this reason, it would seem to follow that 1♥ is also "not a natural bid" and since there's no "all-purpose" clause relating to 1♥ openings, it would seem to follow that the system is illegal even if all point ranges are adjusted to 10-14. Another interesting point is that the 1♥ opening effectively shows "hearts and a minor." If such an opening is allowed, it seems to follow that a 2♥ opening which shows "hearts and a minor" should also be allowed. After all, there's nothing specific on the general chart which differentiates between legal 1♥ and 2♥ openings of this type. But of course, such a 2♥ opening is described on the mid-chart... The counterpoint to all of this is that the 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ openings all show four cards or more in the suit opened. Everything else is just a set of rules about which opening we make when two different openings would seem to be valid (i.e. we have ♥+♦, do we open 1♥ or 1♦? we have ♥ only, do we open 1♥ or 2♥?). Pretty much every system includes this kind of overlap and has rules about how to resolve it; for example in SAYC holding both 5♠ and 5♥, we open 1♠ and never 1♥. In Acol, holding 4♥ and 4♠, we open 1♥ and not 1♠. A canape system would resolve these overlaps in a different way, a "majors first" system would resolve them differently, etc. It seems like having these kinds of rules must be okay and should not invalidate an otherwise legal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 It seems like having these kinds of rules must be okay and should not invalidate an otherwise legal system. Pass: 0-37 HCP any distribution1♣: 10-37 HCP "all-purpose"1♦: 10-37 HCP "all-purpose"1♥: 0-37 HCP 4+ hearts1♠: 0-37 HCP 4+ spades... I have some rules for resolving the overlap but they are irrelevant for the legality of my system, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted January 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Pass: 0-37 HCP any distribution1♣: 10-37 HCP "all-purpose"1♦: 10-37 HCP "all-purpose"1♥: 0-37 HCP 4+ hearts1♠: 0-37 HCP 4+ spades... I have some rules for resolving the overlap but they are irrelevant for the legality of my system, right? Well, ACBL disallows opening 1M with fewer than 8 hcp by agreement, so you'd need to change this a little bit (say 1♥, 1♠ are 8-37 HCP 4+ in the suit). But otherwise I'd think this is a legal system! After all, your major suit bids are natural and your minor suit bids are 10+ hcp. You might run into trouble from people who think that "all-purpose" doesn't mean the same as "any purpose" I suppose. Of course, the level of disclosure in this description is sadly lacking and you'd have to do a better job at the table, but that shouldn't impact the legality of the system. No one said that you don't have to disclose your rules for resolving overlap, especially when the overlap is obviously significant as it is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbforster Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Looks good to me. Funny how showing single 6+ suits at the 2 level is just fine (out of habit), but swap the 1 and 2 level openers and people start whining. Consistency isn't high on the priority list of these types of complainers however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.