is this a legal opening ?

What seat? What chart?

The new card doesn't have the "very light openings" boxes - nobody thought their agreements were "very light", they were just "the aggressive end of normal in our game", so they never checked them, because there wasn't a definition.

(They were supposed to pre-Alert them too, and there *were* guidelines on what was "very light" for pre-Alertable purposes, but nobody did that either. On the rare case that they were called on it by someone who knew, "I just made a small deviation, we don't normally open *this* light, but..."

You want to know *why* the new CCs and Alert Procedures read like contracts? And why the arguably (but definitely) legal "you can't use judgement if, if it was your agreement, it would be an illegal agreement" phrasing is in there? That's why.)

The new card, instead, has "minimum strength for opener/responder" lines. Which are useless (IMHO) because it's "minimum expected *if balanced*", when I want to know if this kind of hand is a first-seat opener. Or a third-seat opener. (I raised this issue with the committee during the review, and it wasn't important enough to worry about).

With of that as preamble, the charts say:

Basic Chart: Allowed: Any Natural opening bid in a suit, as long as it shows at least Average Strength. (1)
Basic+: Allowed: Any opening bid in a suit which is Natural, as long as it shows at least Near-Average Strength. (2)
Open: Disallowed: A Natural or Quasi-Natural 1-level opening bid in first or second seat that could contain less than Near-Average Strength.(3)
Open+: Same as Open.

It's a 9-count and Ro18, it's legal in any tournament session not limited to 300 MPs, and any club game that isn't Basic Chart. And if you're playing *your system* in a club game that is Basic Chart only, frankly even *if* it's totally Basic legal, you're not wanted, you should find a stronger game.

Now, if that were a "Could be 2" (and not 4=4=3=2) 1♣, the rules are slightly different (on the Basic+ Chart). If it were a "could be 1" (and not "stiff A, K, or Q"), then the rules are slightly different on all charts. But we are not told that, so I assume "standard" means 3+ (or 4=4=3=2).

If you get recourse from a director call, it will be for misinformation, not "use of an illegal agreement". And given the Alertable nature of this call (i.e. "none"), you'd better have some reason that you think you were misinformed (looking at their card and not seeing "very light openings" checked, *before you saw the hand*, would probably count. Seeing it *after* you found out would not, you were not misinformed, just (correctly) not informed at all.)

Note: all the above is predicated on it being either within their agreement or only a petty deviation from their agreement ("we play Ro19, this looked close enough"). If *I* did it, in first seat playing K/S, I think I'd have a good argument for it being a psych ("Our 1♣ openers are 15+ balanced, sound if unbalanced, unless 12+ and 6+clubs"). Another answer that protects (even if you do check their card before play), provided the director believes them: "Sorry, lost my mind. I double-counted my ♣K, thought I had 12."

But I agree with Jillybean - call the director. As you can see, there are lots of cases, and maybe they committed an offence? You don't know; even if the answer is "no, that's legal in this game. If you need to know their minimum, you have to ask", it's okay to get the director over to get that answer. And I'm saying this as an EHAA under GCC player, who used to carry a copy of the GCC because sometimes even the Directors were sure of the wrong answer(4).

(1): “Average Strength”: A hand that has at least 10 HCP or meets the “Rule of 19”.
(2): “Near Average Strength”: A hand that has at least 8 HCP or meets the “Rule of 17”.
(3): What is the lower limit for third or fourth seat? There isn't one. What's pre-Alertable? If it's Natural and non-Forcing, nothing. What's Alertable at the time of call? If it's Natural, nothing. How do you know if their agreement is "QTxxx and out is a third-seat 1♠ call"? You can ask :-).
(4): Of course, I got my own back with them, the *second time* someone called the (same) director on our bids. They'd look at us as they came to the table and say "yes, it's legal, we already checked it." Sometimes, without even being asked the question :-).

BBO Discussion Forums: is this a legal opening ? - BBO Discussion Forums