Simple question, not about ruling

[gombo121]

I just cannot see why when people really know what a basic system is there seems a crazy idea of getting two different systems and calling them one system. Why? What gain do you get apart from confusing the majority?

Actually, you can get some quite real gain. Depending on position you get quite different expectation on strength of partner's hand and probability of interference from opponents, which makes it very reasonable to vary opening and response structure to accomodate accordinagly, possibly changing both beyond recognition, so that notion of "basic system" became unreasonable.

Of course, that leads to excessive strain on memory so hardly anyone does that, but from theoretical point of view the concept is sound.

[mycroft]

There are many reasons for playing two systems, Gombo. But David is asking "why call it one system, when it isn't?"

 

I've played two-system methods probably more than 99.9% of the ACBL - either because we played "Precision when they are VUL, 2/1 if they're not" or Kontrast - where, since we opened almost all 8-counts, opposite a passed hand, 1-level openings were *sound* - 13-18 or so - or a Southern EHAA variant with a two-way 1♣ by 1/2, and sound-and-unlimited 1-openers 3/4.

 

It's legal, (provided it's pre-Alerted), so why not? But why try to hide it - either to get around regulations, or for other reasons - is the question?