🚀 go-pugleaf

hl_bridge <hl_bridge@yahoo.com> wrote -
>My team is playing a light opening system. The kernal of it is the
>    1NT:        10-12pts, have a 5+-card minor suit;
  I read this as 1NT artificial showing a minor rather than balanced

>but one day a couple complained that 1NT opening should with no single
>suit,
>accutally the couple just opened the 2NT with two single suits on the
>board before.

 20-22 hands can be hard to bid, and I accept 5422's The EBU accept
 singleton honours provided it's 'on the card'. 

>We provided the defence plan for 1NT opening: just take it as weak-2 and

 I don't think it is fair to expect opponents to adapt to what is in
 effect a highly unusual method on the fly.  This particularly true 
 of pairs where you only playa couple of boards

> Do you
>think
>the system is acceptable to play in club level Thanks

 And even more so at club level.
 (I accept you might want to practice your method there)

>Our system is quite a  simple one comparing to any system existing now.
>And the 1NT opening meaning minor suit instead of a balanced hand is the
>kernal of the system, I want to keep it in our system.

 It all depends on what your zonal authority say about 1NT.

 Here most clubs play 'level 3' which allow a natural (balanced NF)
 opening *or*  a completely artificial and forcing one.  

 If your minor based 1NT could be passed its not allowed.
 Seems about right to me.  Anything else would help you win
 by confusion - but that's not the idea ... 
-- 
Chris Ryall Birkenhead UK 

hl_bridge wrote:
>My team is playing a light opening system. The kernel of it is the
>following openings:
>
>    1H/1S:    8-12pts, 5+-card suit;
>    1NT:        10-12pts, have a 5+-card minor suit;
>    1C:        13- 15pts;
>    1D:         16+  pts;
>
>We provided the defence plan for 1NT opening: just take it as
>weak-2 and then use your calls against the even distribution
>for our 1C -> 1NT (13-15, even) or
>            1D -> 1NT (16-18, even).


This doesn't sound like a very good defence to me.

>Our system is quite a  simple one comparing to any system
>existing now.

Arguable. Merely by being different, your system loses some of
its "simplicity".

>And the 1NT opening meaning minor suit instead of a balanced
>hand is the kernel of the system, I want to keep it in our system.
>
>The question for my bridge friends, especially the directors is:
>Do you think the system is acceptable to play in club level ?
>typically the 1NT opening not mean a balanced hand, and if
>we provide the defence plan for it before game, is that ok?


Dear Hong,
I think it is perfectly acceptable for a bridge club to ban your
system due to its 1NT opening. However, if I were running a
bridge club, I personally would not ban it, especially if you were
to provide a better written defence to 1NT which explains what
X, 2C, 2D, 2H etc should mean.

Peter Gill
Sydney Australia.

Hong,

I'll assume ACBL clubs, since your post says Columbus, Ohio.

ACBL clubs may allow/disallow pretty much whatever they like.

Your 1NT opening is illegal for a GCC event.  SOs may not regulate
natural bids (however than can, and do regulate conventional followups
to natural bids);  any natural meaning is therefore OK.  In addition,
the GCC allows 1NT as a forcing opening promising at least 16 HCP.

The MidChart allows any call which promises at least 4 cards in a known
suit.  Clearly your 1NT opening qualifies.

ACBL regulations state that you must provide defenses to any conventions
which are not permitted on the GCC.

I'll second an earlier post that questioned the soundness of your
provided defense.  I hate the idea of folks being required to provide
defenses to their own methods (the incentives are wrong;  they are
asking the fox to guard the henhouse), but that's the way things are.

You should at least define double, pass, two level bids (especially 2D),
as well as followups by fourth hand to each call by second hand.  Good
luck and try not to be too discouraged.

In answer to your question, I don't believe this opening is unreasonable
(even in the ACBL :-)) for your opponents as long as you provide a
reasonable defense.

Bruce

In rec.games.bridge hl_bridge <hl_bridge@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Hi Bridge Friends,

: My team is playing a light opening system. The kernal of it is the
: following
: openings:

:     1H/1S:    8-12pts, 5+-card suit;
:     1NT:        10-12pts, have a 5+-card minor suit;
:     1C:        13- 15pts;
:     1D:         16+  pts;

:     The brief description of the system can be viewed on web:
:     http://www.angelfire.com/wy/hl/

: [snip]

: The question for my bridge friends, especially the directors is: Do you
: think
: the system is acceptable to play in club level ? typically the 1NT
: opening
: not mean a balanced hand, and if we provide the defence plan for it
: before
: game, is that ok?

: --
: Thanks

: Hong



-- 

<Bruce.Moore@NOSPAM.akamail.com> wrote in message
news:QGYm4.567$v74.8117@ord-read.news.verio.net...
    [snip]
> The MidChart allows any call which promises at least 4 cards in a known
> suit.  Clearly your 1NT opening qualifies.
    [snip]
> :     1NT:        10-12pts, have a 5+-card minor suit;

Not clear to me at all, since either minor suit seems acceptable, so,
no "known suit" would appear to exist.


Alex

hl_bridge <hl_bridge@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> My team is playing a light opening system. The kernal of it is the
> following

SNIP
> We provided the defence plan for 1NT opening: just take it as weak-2 and
> then
> use your calls against the even distribution
> for our 1C -> 1NT (13-15, even) or
>             1D -> 1NT (16-18, even).
>
The 1NT opening meaning minor suit instead of a balanced hand is the
>
> kernal of the system, I want to keep it in our system.
>
> The question for my bridge friends, especially the directors is: Do you
> think
> the system is acceptable to play in club level ? typically the 1NT
> opening
> not mean a balanced hand, and if we provide the defence plan for it
> before
> game, is that ok?

I'm afraid (and this is only a personal opinion, mind) that I don't think
that it is okay. I don't like the idea of suggsted defences anyway: Why
should I be put in a position where the opponents are telling me what
methods to use? More to the point, though, at club night, playing two board
rounds in a short space of time, it's impractical. The first minute of the
round is explaining what you're playing, the second minute explaining the
defence, and the third minute, or more, is spent explaining it all two or
three more times for the hard of understanding. Your opponents have come to
play bridge, no matter how useless they are, not to indulge this sort of
thing.

If you want to play this sort of thing in longer matches, get a couple of
like-minded people to come around to your place and have some friendly
evenings practicing the system. An advantage of this approach is that you'll
play more boards, and have more time for discussion when things go wrong.

Whether this system is technically acceptable where you come from I have no
idea. As to whether it's socially acceptable, I don't think it is.

At a club where I play, by the way, there was many moons ago a phase where
people experimented with HUMs - strong passes etc. The compromise reached at
the time was that folks were allowed to play what they wanted, but if
opponents objected at the beginning of the round, they had to revert to more
'normal' practices.

Sloppy of me.  I misread the convention.  Thanks Alex.

It would seem that an ambiguous minor limits the convention to
SuperChart.  Indeed, it is explicitly permitted by the SuperChart in
item 1 (the MidChart is included by reference):

	1. Artificial weak bids at the two or three level (including
	those with strong adjuncts) must possess: 

		a. a known suit, or
		b. one of no more than two possible suits not
		to include the suit bid. 

I still believe it should be allowed in a liberal club, but it should be
noted that it will not be allowed anywhere else in ACBL play (unless you
play in the Vanderbilt or Spingold).  Your club director may well feel
differently; methods limited to SuperChart usually require a more
persuasive argument.

Bruce

In rec.games.bridge Alex Martelli <alex@magenta.com> wrote:
: <Bruce.Moore@NOSPAM.akamail.com> wrote in message
: news:QGYm4.567$v74.8117@ord-read.news.verio.net...
:     [snip]
:> The MidChart allows any call which promises at least 4 cards in a known
:> suit.  Clearly your 1NT opening qualifies.
:     [snip]
:> :     1NT:        10-12pts, have a 5+-card minor suit;

: Not clear to me at all, since either minor suit seems acceptable, so,
: no "known suit" would appear to exist.


: Alex



--