bluejak, on 2011-April-28, 12:01, said:
I had the bidding sequence
and my opponents, Nickell-Freeman, looked slightly puzzled. Eric Kokish, who was kibitzing, nearly fell off his chair laughing.
"You know, David", he said, "I don't think anyone has passed that sequence here in North America in the last thirty years!".
Personally I have little sympathy for the failure of ACBL opponents to find out your basic system - we were playing Acol, of course.
There is a space for Basic System on the card. It is easy to check whether it says 2/1, Standard, Strong Club, Precision Club, Polish Club or Acol.
and my opponents, Nickell-Freeman, looked slightly puzzled. Eric Kokish, who was kibitzing, nearly fell off his chair laughing.
"You know, David", he said, "I don't think anyone has passed that sequence here in North America in the last thirty years!".
Personally I have little sympathy for the failure of ACBL opponents to find out your basic system - we were playing Acol, of course.
There is a space for Basic System on the card. It is easy to check whether it says 2/1, Standard, Strong Club, Precision Club, Polish Club or Acol.
While it's surprising that N-F and Kokish failed to appreciate your system, I would have more sympathy if you were playing against LOLs in a side game. I've heard of Acol, but mostly what I know about it is that it's a popular system in the UK. I certainly wouldn't know if that sequence is forcing or not, and I wouldn't expect the average ACBL member to know, either. Naming a general approach is only helpful to opponents who are actually familiar with it.
I don't play 2/1 with my regular partner. On the basic approach line, I've written "Standard American (2/1 forces to 2NT)".
Another thing I think is missing from the ACBL CC: When opener rebids their major after responder's 2/1, does it promise extra length, or could it be a waiting bid when opener doesn't have the other suits stopped for NT? This isn't even covered by the general approach -- some 2/1 partnerships go one way, some go the other.