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."
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit