[samxyz123]

Hello.
My partner and I employ an unnatural 1C opening bid. (To mean: "opening values and no 5-card major".) The implication being not necessarily "good" clubs.
My partner (S and dealer) opened 1C and I supplied the above description.
W passed and I responded 1NT. As you will see, this was not a good bid. (I believe 1D, a relay, would have been better. Sadly, this did not occur to me at the time!)

My hand was as follows:

S: Qxxx
H: xxx
D: xxx
C: xxx two Js were present in the three-card suits. So, 4 HCPs in total and less than the agreed 6-9 points normally used in our partnership for an uninterrupted response.

W queried my 1NT and my partner replied "6-9 points".
E passed.
My partner bid a new suit at the 2 level and all passed.
W complained (unofficially) when I presented dummy.
Did he have any grounds for this? Was my (poor) bid felonious or "unsporting" in any way?
I thought not (obviously). And, I think we went down!
Many thanks.

[pescetom]

Hello, good question !
There is a specific subforum "Simple rulings" in the Laws forum for questions like this, maybe some moderator will move the post.

Anyway the simple answer is that you committed no infraction. You are free to deviate from your agreement, whether by mistake or intention, although if it happens often then partner will come to make allowances for that and then your agreement has changed in a way that must be described to opponents.

Your opponent has a right to ask why the hand did not match the explanation. If he thinks anything is wrong then he should call the Director, who is there to sort out things like this. If he is moaning on, then call the Director yourself. It is no shame to call the Director or to have the Director called by an opponent. But there is nothing unsporting in making a mistake, or a deviation that you think (at least at the time) makes sense.

Beware that in some situations your regulating authority (ACBL or whatever) may limit or forbid certain deviations, particularly when opening. When in doubt, stick to what you agreed, which is a good way to score well anyway

[samxyz123]

Thank you. Much appreciated. (Must try harder!)

[akwoo]

I have no problem with your 1N bid (as long as you aren't doing it enough to make it an implicit agreement), but I have two more potential problems that you should address:

1) The sequence 1C-1N-2D/H/S is a reverse and typically played as forcing. If your partnership agreement is that it is not forcing, you need to alert the bid.

2) If your 1C opening is forcing, you need to tell the opponents, and you must have an agreement as to what response a very weak hand makes. Whether 1C is forcing or not, if your system doesn't account for a very weak hand (without long clubs), then you have some implicit agreement to make some bid with that hand, and the opponents should be told. ("1N is 6-9 points, but 1C is forcing and our system doesn't have any bid for hands with 0-5 points, so with such hands he must lie in some way." Then the opponents can further inquire as to what your possible lies are to get a sense of which hands might lie with 1N.)

[samxyz123]

Thank you.

[mycroft]

Agreeing with all that akwoo said, but making clear that "there are some zero HCP hands we will not pass" (with 0-3 clubs, maybe?) is not the same as Forcing.

Depending on where you play, that can make a large difference in your disclosure requirements. Not "we do/don't have to tell the opponents what we play here", but *how* you are required to alert your opponents that they may be interested in knowing what you play here. And doing it wrong can be more of a problem than not doing it at all (which is definitely a problem - bridge is a game of Full Disclosure).

[samxyz123]

Thank you.

[barmar]

Another point: In systems like this, in ACBL-land you just announce "could be as short as N", where N is the minimum number of clubs opener could have. The fact that this is a catch-all bid for hands with no 5-card major outside NT ranges is implied, you don't have to go into detail.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2026-February-09, 15:23, said:

Another point: In systems like this, in ACBL-land you just announce "could be as short as N", where N is the minimum number of clubs opener could have. The fact that this is a catch-all bid for hands with no 5-card major outside NT ranges is implied, you don't have to go into detail.

The same is true in many other lands too, with differences in the wording.
But the devil is in the detail, and different countries have different rules about what agreements can be announced N=2+.
If in doubt, read your regulations and/or ask a Director.

[Zelandakh]

Here are some questions:
1. Is the 1♣ explanation really complete? As an example, do you open 1♣ with a 3=3=6=0 hand of any range from 10 to 28hcp?
2. Given #1, what is your 1♦ opening?
3. Is the 1♣ opening forcing? Did you communicate this to the opponents?
4. If #3 is no, under what circumstances can you pass?
5. If #3 is yes, have you and your partner seriously never discussed what to do with a hand of 0-5hcp and a 4 card major, or indeed without a 4 card major?

As someone who has played a seriously complicated system on BBO, my view is that the burden is on anyone playing such an unfamiliar method to make sure the full meanings are fully conveyed to opponents. I am not convinced you succeeded in this. That said, it seems clear from the OP that this was played face to face rather than on BBO, and that the setting is not one where rules are taken all to seriously, with questions being asked out of turn and the like.
It is not at all unreasonable for West to have queried whether misinformation had been provided. After all, I would also assume that any pair choosing to play this method had at least discussed the answers to #4 and #5. If there had been damage, the TD should investigate and assume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This would likely result in an adverse ruling and potentially worse. We had a married Precision pair in our local club who routinely failed to provide full disclosure and also did some dubious things online during lockdown. After a particularly tetchy set, I personally ran an analysis of their hands and passed the results on to the club chief TD. They were subsequently suspended.
So my quite strong suggestion would be for you and your partner to get together and clean up your alerts and explanations if you want to continue playing this system. That will make for a much better bridge experience for everyone involved.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2026-February-09, 15:23, said:

Another point: In systems like this, in ACBL-land you just announce "could be as short as N", where N is the minimum number of clubs opener could have.

• minor quibble, but it is now "could be N", no longer "as short as".
  
• But if N is < 2, or if N is 2 and the suit is diamonds, or if N is 2 and the hand shape can be other than 4=4=3=2 (including (43)4=2), the system must be Pre-Alerted, at which point frequently explanation will be requested (especially if N is zero!)

Quote

The fact that this is a catch-all bid for hands with no 5-card major outside NT ranges is implied,

sure

Quote

you don't have to go into detail.

...because you already did in the Pre-Alert. Right? And if they ask, you do?

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2026-February-10, 09:33, said:

• minor quibble, but it is now "could be N", no longer "as short as".
  
• But if N is < 2, or if N is 2 and the suit is diamonds, or if N is 2 and the hand shape can be other than 4=4=3=2 (including (43)4=2), the system must be Pre-Alerted, at which point frequently explanation will be requested (especially if N is zero!)

sure ...because you already did in the Pre-Alert. Right? And if they ask, you do?

Did the OP say they were playing in the ACBL? I seem to have missed that part.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2026-February-10, 09:33, said:

And if they ask, you do?

Of course. From the Alert Procedures:

Quote

Upon the request of an opponent, a player must fully explain the meaning of any of their partner’s calls including any inferences from related auctions and from partnership experience.

[akwoo]

Zelandakh, on 2026-February-09, 16:25, said:

So my quite strong suggestion would be for you and your partner to get together and clean up your alerts and explanations if you want to continue playing this system. That will make for a much better bridge experience for everyone involved.

I've played against a few pairs playing a homegrown or local system with lots of holes. In principle it makes sense to ask for better disclosure; in practice the players might not actually understand their system or how they manage their holes. In most such cases, after seeing a few instances of how they managed their holes and asking detailed questions (to which they were as forthcoming as their own understanding allowed), I ended up understanding their system much better than they did.

Now, if these players managed to understand their system so that they could better explain it, they probably would also play their system better. But a better understanding might not be possible for them without help from someone who understands bridge and bidding systems better as well as a fair amount of time they might not be willing to spend.

Asking them to play 'standard' might not be an option because then they'd have to learn 'standard'. Invariably they'll mislearn 'standard' and misdisclose because their understanding of 'standard' is wrong. (For example, I know players who can't recognize reverses and play them as non-forcing and not showing extra strength; they regularly have the auction 1C-1S-2H-P where opener has xx AQxx xx AQxxx. Asking them to alert their reverses is a lost cause because they can't tell (after repeated explanation) what is a reverse and what isn't.)

In the end, it's better to encourage players to play badly, following the Laws to the best of their ability, than to discourage them from playing at all.