Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-26, 08:10, said:
I open a lot more slightly unusual weak no trumps than my partner, not flat out psyches but little distortions (xx, Q10xx, xx, AKQ9x which he would open 1♣ for example yesterday in 3rd seat to shut out the spades). This means that I do something other than redouble (I'd bid 2♣ here if 1N-x came back to me) much more often than he does, and I don't think he'd ever pass out 1Nx while I have 2 or 3 times in 15 years.
While our system agreement is the same for both of us, our propensity for bending system agreements is different, meaning that even though we would both pull 1Nx on the same hands, he wouldn't have opened 1N in the first place with many of them, meaning the odds at the table of something other than a redouble are different.
A side effect is that I explain his forcing pass subtly differently to the way he explains mine. I explain his as "forcing usually to a redouble", he explains mine as "forcing to a redouble". I don't think this has been a conscious decision by either of us up to this point, it just comes out like that.
How close does this come to breaking the "both partners must play the same system" requirement.
I'm not expert on EBU requirements, but flicking through the Orange Book, I think you are OK:
10 A 2:
Both members of a partnership must have the same bidding agreements and play the same system of leads, signals and discards.
4 D 5:
The two members of a partnership may play a different style from each other, for example while opening pre-empts one player may take more liberties with suit quality than the other. Such differences in style should be explained in answer to a question, and, where suitable, disclosed on the convention card.
However, you do need to be careful with your disclosure obligations, starting with indicating on your convention card the different styles adopted for your 1NT openings and the implications this has on your escape mechanism after you've been doubled.
You also need to be careful with using the term "forcing" in the EBU as it is regulated there that if the term is used without qualification it must convey that the forcing nature is based on strength, refer:
3 B 6:
‘Forcing’ means a call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength. If a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, a player must qualify any explanation to make this clear.
3 B 7:
Whilst all agreements must be disclosed, they do not constitute an undertaking to the opposition. For instance, a player is quite entitled to pass a forcing bid, as long as the partnership has no agreement that this might happen.
Under EBU regulations, if you have a partnership agreement that partner's forcing pass can be passed you must explicitly disclose that agreement in your explanation.
I'm not sure what your 1NT escape mechanism is, but if there are negative inferences from responder's failure to redouble or bid a suit at the two level, this should also be disclosed in your explanation of the pass. For example, if you play something like SWINE where single-suiters redouble as a puppet to 2
♣ you need to describe responder's pass as something like, "pass asks me to redouble which he's either going to pass to play or bid the lower of his two-suits, so he's either a hand suitable to play 1NTxx or a weak two-suiter; but if I've got a good suit of my own I can bid that rather than redouble and I could even pass 1NTx".
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer