[JmBrPotter]

If 1♦ is a conventional, artificial opening forcing for one round (♦ void possible with one of seven generic hand types including 11+ HCP required), to what extent or in what system contexts may a 1♥ response say, "OK, I kept the bidding open for you, partner. What do you have?" In the context I have in mind, responder will show any balanced hand with 6HCP or more and one-suited hands that would suggest a short stop in partscore unless opener has a fit and maybe some extras. Thus, a 1♥ response to 1♦ shows one of the following hand types:

- Hands that would pass if the 1♦ opening were not forcing
- One-suited hands of limit raise or greater strength
- All two-suited hands
- All three-suited hands

. . . and asks opener to indicate which hand type the 1♦ opening shows and switch the partnership into a natural sequence.

All responder's bids over ♦ except 1♥ are limit bids placing captaincy with the 1♦ opener.

Thanks,

Brian Potter

843/586-9177
JmBrPotter@att.net

[helene_t]

The laws put no constraints on agreements but most sponsoring organizations impose some constraints. In England you cannot play this at EBU level 3 (most club evenings) but you can play it at level 4 and higher (most tournaments).

In most of Europe you could probably play it.

If you are in North America, I dunno.

[JmBrPotter]

Thank you. I should have specified that I'm in North America and have made every effort to make the methods acceptable under the ACBL General Convention Chart (allowed in all ACBL sanctioned events including local club games).

Thanks,

Brian

[Sven Pran]

I do not know ACBL regulations, but in Norway we have adopted the WBF suggestions and it seems to me that your system would be permissible here provided you change the 1♦ opening bid to require at least 13 HCP. It would be then grouped along with for instance Vienna.

As described your system would only be permissible in the most top class events like national championships etc.

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

JmBrPotter, on Sep 2 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Thank you. I should have specified that I'm in North America and have made every effort to make the methods acceptable under the ACBL General Convention Chart (allowed in all ACBL sanctioned events including local club games).

Thanks,

Brian

That bit about clubs is not entirely correct - clubs can, for most games (STaCs are an exception, there are others) modify the GCC, or even toss it out and write their own regulation. I dunno about other places, but most clubs around here don't bother to tell anyone what the regulations are until a problem comes up.

Your 1♥ response is not legal under the GCC, AFAICS.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Sep 2 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

Your 1♥ response is not legal under the GCC, AFAICS.

I agree. You could use an artificial 1♥ response if the 1♦ opening was strong (15+ HCP) and forcing, but not after an 11+ HCP 1♦ even though it is forcing.

[mycroft]

I'm not even sure that that 1H call is legal on the Mid-Chart (or that it was before they rebuilt it, or that it was before they invoked the "defence has to be approved"). And I know from that...at one time I thought of putting a Piranha Club partnership together (now why would I do that?), and that was the stumbling block - 1D-1H is the "negative or semi-positive without hearts" aiming to get out when a 13-16 with 4 hearts hits a non-game-interested hand.