[gnasher]

BunnyGo, on 2011-July-21, 07:28, said:

It seems that the "weak" meaning is a sound opening (14+ HCP) with 5+ clubs.

hrothgar, on 2011-July-21, 07:49, said:

This changes things dramatically.
I wouldn't bother worrying much about the 1♣ opening (treat it like any other strong club)

I'd treat it like any other natural club. I don't think that's strong enough to justify our giving up constructive bidding.

[wyman]

Nice win, Ben. Looking forward to hearing stories...

[awm]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-21, 07:49, said:

This changes things dramatically.

Players are allowed to upgrade and down grade slight (except where mini NT openings are concerned)

In this case, their system is perfectly fine.

I don't think this is right. Certainly you can upgrade or downgrade on exceptional hands. If my general agreement is that 1♣ is 15+ I am free to upgrade on 14 with a seven card suit or whatever. But this pair's agreement is that any/every unbalanced 14-count with primary clubs opens 1♣ -- this is not an occasional upgrade on exceptional hands, it's a standard part of their range on extremely ordinary hands.

While their system is mid-chart, I'm actually quite sure that GNT B is a mid-chart event, so that's a non-issue.

As for the question that wyman asked, a few years ago my opponents opened a 5/5 7-count against me in third chair. Their official agreement was "rule of 17" (which they happily disclosed when asked) so this was totally by agreement. The rest of the auction also made clear that responder expected this hand as a possibility (he had a non-fitting 11-count and didn't bother to invite game). When I queried the ACBL about this, Rick Beye replied with an email making three very clear points. (1) The rules about legal agreements for first seat openings versus third seat openings are exactly the same. (2) An agreement to open this sort of hand at the one-level in first chair would be illegal. (3) An agreement to open this sort of hand at the one-level in third chair is perfectly fine and "we all open these hands."

[BunnyGo]

As it turns out, their openings were 15+ with 1C just to compensate for this GCC issue (I had tried to figure out their system from online references but was a little off). The director at the game said:

1) If it was 14+ it would be disallowed to bid transfer responses.

2) Since it was 15+ they could do what they wanted.

Thanks for the responses, they were very helpful, now time to sleep.

[wyman]

awm, on 2011-July-21, 22:57, said:

When I queried the ACBL about this, Rick Beye replied with an email making three very clear points. (1) The rules about legal agreements for first seat openings versus third seat openings are exactly the same. (2) An agreement to open this sort of hand at the one-level in first chair would be illegal. (3) An agreement to open this sort of hand at the one-level in third chair is perfectly fine and "we all open these hands."

lol

In some sense, this is exactly the right response, though.

So, since you seem to have a grasp here:
(a) what do you tell opps when they ask what your agreements about 3rd seat openers are?
(b) what do you tell opps when they tell you that you're using an illegal agreement
(c ) what do you tell the director when he tells you you're using an illegal agreement

[Zelandakh]

a) you tell them your agreement in full
b) you call the TD and explain what the opps said and explain that you feel this is abusive and should not be acceptable behaviour
c1) you apologise and amend your agreement, at least for that competition
c2) after the event, if you cannot live with the amendment, you write to the regulating authority asking for a definitive ruling

[Gerben42]

c) Of course you have checked before the tournament that your agreement is not illegal so you keep playing it and appeal the director's ruling on any of those boards, pointing out the correct paragraph.

[hrothgar]

How did the match go?

[BunnyGo]

Won that match, but got KO'd today in the round of 8.

[semeai]

Congrats on the win, and condolences on the loss.

Was playing the modified Fantunes pair in any way eventful? Did their wide-ranging (in suit quality) two bids lead to any interesting hands?

[BunnyGo]

Not really. The system swings came from right/wrong siding on their weak notrump. My partnership never ended up playing them (they chose a different partnership in the first quarter, and we were so happy with the setup we left it that way).

The match was entirely decided by card play, opening leads and the like.

[awm]

wyman, on 2011-July-22, 10:09, said:

lol

In some sense, this is exactly the right response, though.

So, since you seem to have a grasp here:
(a) what do you tell opps when they ask what your agreements about 3rd seat openers are?
(b) what do you tell opps when they tell you that you're using an illegal agreement
(c ) what do you tell the director when he tells you you're using an illegal agreement

(a: The truth. Anything else would be unethical, although you'd probably get away with it in practice.
(b: That I think the agreement is legal, that Rick Beye at ACBL said it was legal, but that they're welcome to call the director.
(c: Apparently the trick is to name a bunch of good players... "Meckstroth would open this hand, Grue would open this hand...."