olien Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 A few weeks ago I was at the ACBL regional in London, Ontario and, for the first time, came up against the following opening structure which has been discussed significantly on this site. 1♣ - strong, artificial (something like 15+)1♦ - 11-14 a) 4♠, may have longer side suit; b) 6+♠ 5+♥1♥ - 11-14 4+♥, denies 4♠, may have longer side suit1♠ - 11-14, exactly 5♠1NT - 11-14, balanced (I assume could have a 4-card major)2♣ - 11-14, 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4♦2♦ - 11-14, 6+♦ or 5+♦ 4♣2NT - 11-14, 5+/5+ minors When we first sat down, I was told 1♦ was "catchall" but upon further inquiry it was determined that it promised 4♠. This was the first time I had seen it in action, but I was unsure of it's legality as it seemed like a transfer opening. So, when I was at the DC nationals, I asked Gary Zeiger and Mike Roberts, both national level tournament directors, and they both said it was legal. Zeiger said this pair clearly had an issue with disclosure, but other than that it was 100% legal. I hope this settles any outstanding doubt about its legality. Edit: with regards to legality, it is for the purposes of the ACBL general convention chart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 A few weeks ago I was at the ACBL regional in London, Ontario and, for the first time, came up against the following opening structure which has been discussed significantly on this site. We seem to have a significant issue when holding 11-14, 6+♠, 0-4♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegmund Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 Others of us have asked other national level tournament directors about similar systems (OK, my question was about 1D promising 4 hearts, rather than 4 spades) and gotten the opposite answer -- even a "I wish that was what 'catchall' meant too, but no" amplifying remark. At least it means you know which directors you want on the floor if you want to try to play the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 At least it means you know which directors you want on the floor if you want to try to play the system.Or maybe it suggests that if you ask a director if you can play the system they will always say "no" but if you ask if it is ok for someone else to play the system against you they will answer "Yes." :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 Asking random nationally rated directors is a great way to get random answers. The only way to get anything official is to contact Horn Lake directly and get something in writing. (The response that I received indicates that this opening is clearly illegal) I am curious to know whom you were playing against... If it was Glen Ashton, then he should know better than to use this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 remove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straube Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/29757-legality-of-artificial-openings-and-responses/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/29757-legality-of-artificial-openings-and-responses/ We had better discussions back then 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.