[Gerardo]

I don't think this is true.

Would be best if you have some documentation (CC, or supplementary notes).
But if that's your agreement, that's how it should be explained.

Partner would also have to explain tendencies on what s/he observed on your choice, if s/he noticed any.

[RD350LC]

msjennifer, on 2017-July-09, 02:58, said:

If your LHO asks you or your partner "Then what is the difference between the two" you have to give a full explanation.Like.let us say,"white against red our 3C is 6/9 and our 2C is 10plus when red "
,
.You can't give an explanation that it depends upon your mood.In any tournament you are required to carry your system methods and bid accordingly.The director will ask you to explain the full information that your partner gets from any of your bidsA strong willed director will keep watch on you or even ask an observer to sit at your table."It all depends upon my mood" is little short of misleading the opponents on purpose and that will not be tolerated by any director when exposed.

It is very possible to have bids have completely different meaning depending on vulnerability, or position at the table. I know of people who have bids that have COMPLETELY different meanings whether they are vulnerable or not vulnerable. Of course, such bids do have to be alerted.
But, as has been said previously, having two bids with the same meaning is a waste of a bid.

[sakuragi]

Exactly. Bidding is more than a system.

Vampyr, on 2017-July-08, 00:23, said:

Perhaps it is not, strictly speaking, a bridge difference. The decision could be based, for instance, on knowledge of the players; their strength, willingness to compete, maybe even their mannerisms -- were either of their passes reluctant? I think that this still needs to be disclosed, but i am not sure how. It might be better to just have two,convention cards, each with one version of the raise, and decide which card you will use for which opponents.

[Zelandakh]

First of all, it is perfectly legal to have 2 calls with the same meaning. A classic example is a pair that plays both RKCG and RKCB, with both 1♠ - 3♠; 4♣ and 1♠ - 3♠; 4NT asking for key cards. The difference? Simply whether Opener remembered that Gerber applied in this partnership.

That said, there is good reason to be skeptical of such an agreement in the present case. Although the point count might be correct, it would not be a surprise if practice showed that the 3♣ choice was made with more clubs on average than 2♣. The point here is that you do not only have to disclose the agreement as written on the system card but also the way it is implemented at the table. If you know that your partner will almost always bid 2♣ with any 4 clubs or with 5 clubs and a defensive hand, and will similarly always bid 3♣ with 6 clubs or 5 clubs and an offensive hand, then this is your agreement regardless of what your system document states and the opponents are entitled to know this. You cannot hide behind "same meaning" any more than you can hide behind "no agreement". So yes, it is legal in theory, but unless you and your partner are genuinely able to randomise raises to leave no discernible pattern, you will almost certainly be providing misinformation and should therefore not be surprised to find yourselves ruled against.

[nullve]

Fisher-Schwartz played

Quote

1♣ = CAN BE SHORT WHEN 3-4 IN MINORS IF 12-14 BAL.
1♦ = CAN BE SHORT WHEN 3-4 IN MINORS IF 12-14 BAL.

I remember wondering why a top pair would waste useful bidding space by having 1m openings with overlapping meanings, but that was before the cheating allegations against them. Then I realised that the choice of opening with this hand type could be used to send a (binary) signal for nefarious purposes. (I don't mean to suggest they actually did.)

[Vampyr]

nullve, on 2017-July-10, 08:46, said:

Fisher-Schwartz played


I remember wondering why a top pair would waste useful bidding space by having 1m openings with overlapping meanings, but that was before the cheating allegations against them. Then I realised that the choice of opening with this hand type could be used to send a (binary) signal for nefarious purposes. (I don't mean to suggest they actually did.)

LOL it would not be a shock!

[nullve]

I heard the word 'baloney' on CNN yesterday, and my immediate association was a bid of 1y showing a balanced hand, as in the following ('Baloney'?) defence to strong a strong club:

(1♣)-1y = BAL,

i.e.,

(1♣)-?:

1♦ = BAL
1♥ = BAL
1♠ = BAL.

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2017-July-12, 05:35, said:

I heard the word 'baloney' on CNN yesterday, and my immediate association was a bid of 1y showing a balanced hand,

Why not: 1♣ = any unbalanced; 1♦ = 10-12 bal; 1♥ = 13-15 bal; 1♠ = 16-18 bal; 1NT = 19-21 bal? Or something along those lines.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-12, 09:34, said:

Why not: 1♣ = any unbalanced; 1♦ = 10-12 bal; 1♥ = 13-15 bal; 1♠ = 16-18 bal; 1NT = 19-21 bal? Or something along those lines.

1♣ is insufficient, but maybe you meant double? But with an unbalanced hand you want to bid at least to 2M.

Anyway, of course a defence to an artificial opening is not the same as a constructive bid, and the regulations are not the same. For instance, you can assign all your one-and two-level overcalls to the meaning "present at the table" with the choice determined by the second hand on your watch. I am not sure whether it is permitted for instance to respond to your partner's opener with a bid that means "present at the table", although I do know that you can open a strong or multi-type bid with no permitted responses other than the next step.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-July-12, 11:32, said:

1♣ is insufficient, but maybe you meant double?

How is an opening bid of 1♣ insufficient? My point was that when confronted by an apparent system/convention name of "balanced 1y", it surely makes more sense to look at opening bids rather than introduce a strong club, and in this case it is obviously better as assigning multiple bids for overcalling on balanced hands to the detriment of unbalanced ones is just illogical within that context.