[relknes]

Is this system of preempts legal? I tried to design it so that it was, but a friend told me "No... it can't be." without being able to explain exactly why.
They are "transfer preempts", so partner bids the next step unless he has a very strong hand, in which case he can refuse the transfer, or unless he has length in the suit indicated and so can add to the preempt. These bids are made with unbalanced hands of 6-10 points.

1NT = promises 4+ clubs (will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♣/♦/♥)
2♣ = promises 4+ diamonds(will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♦/♥/♠)
2♦ = promises 4+ hearts(will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♣/♥/♠)
2♥ = promises 4+ spades(will pass after transfer if 6, bid longer suit with a 2 suited hand, or bid 2NT with 4+ each of ♣/♦/♠)

So, for example, with 4 spades and 5 diamonds, the bidding would go 2♥-2♠-3♦.
This would allow you to open ANY unbalanced hand in the 6-10 point range. The drawback is that it is harder for partner to add to your preempt when you have exactly 6, and you have to give up the 1NT bid (our system treats strong NT hands the same way a weak NT system treats them, and opens a Polish 1♣ with a balanced minimum).
So is this system legal or not? If not, why, and can it be tweaked to become legal?

[hrothgar]

The GCC sanctions specific treatments.

It's up to you to prove that a treatment is legal.
If you can't document a clause in the GCC that allows you to play a given method, you're ***** out of luck.

For the record

1. I don't know of any part of the GCC that allows what you want to play
2. The methods in question are legal at the Midchart level IF you can get the clue gits that comprise the Conventions Committee to approve a defense.
3. The Conventions Committee has labelled preemptive methods that could be based on balanced hands inherently destructive.

I'd be shocked if you can get said worthies to pull their head out of their asses long enough to send you a reply, let alone approve your submission.

[awm]

The quick answer is no, it's not GCC legal.

The General Chart states that methods are disallowed unless specifically listed. This one is not specifically listed. Essentially, the ACBL does not like openings which are artificial and could be less than ten points. No such treatments are allowed on the general chart; a few are allowed on the mid-chart (transfer preempts which guarantee five cards in the suit transferred to would qualify) but they are unlikely to approve any more.

[relknes]

Well, I gues that answers that... so basically I'll never be able to use it.
I am currious, then, what the "Brown Sticker" and "HUM" designations are for. This dosn't fit into either of those categories, but is still disallowed, so are those designations only for international tournaments or what?

[barmar]

Brown Sticker and HUM don't appear anywhere in the ACBL convention charts. Those come from WBF regulations, and a number of other countries adopt them.

[FrancesHinden]

The ACBL restrictions on what you can play are much stricter than WBF regs, even for open WBF tournaments. "HUM" and "Brown sticker" have no meaning for domestic ACBL events*

*except possibly for the trials

[mtvesuvius]

From the 2010 CoC for the US open trials:

Quote

In Long Knockout Matches
Any method included on the ACBL Super Chart is allowed in a Knockout match
of 60 or more boards.
In Round Robins and Short Knockout Matches
Only methods included on the ACBL Mid Chart are allowed in any Round Robin
phase or in a knockout match of fewer than 60 boards.

So no, not even there I think.