Brown Sticker or not?

[Xiaolongnu]

A pair in my club plays the following 2C opening.

 

2C: Either Maxi-Roman, that is, 4441 16+, or light opening hand about 9-12 with 5-5 in at least one major (not sure about 2 majors).

 

The point is that this opening is used to handle those 5-5's where you have two suits with working honours, but still too weak to open 1M.

 

Is this convention considered as not Brown Sticker?

 

My teacher, a senior director in my club, advised that this convention is okay (not Brown Sticker), as it is sufficiently similar to a multi. The key point is that it promises a 5 card major, which could be justified as "weak 2 in either major", so the weak meaning of this system is more specific than the core variation of the multi, therefore it should be allowed. But this claim involves a certain amount of judgment. I agree with her. What do you guys think?

[paulg]

A pair in my club plays the following 2C opening.

 

2C: Either Maxi-Roman, that is, 4441 16+, or light opening hand about 9-12 with 5-5 in at least one major (not sure about 2 majors).

 

The point is that this opening is used to handle those 5-5's where you have two suits with working honours, but still too weak to open 1M.

 

Is this convention considered as not Brown Sticker?

 

My teacher, a senior director in my club, advised that this convention is okay (not Brown Sticker), as it is sufficiently similar to a multi. The key point is that it promises a 5 card major, which could be justified as "weak 2 in either major", so the weak meaning of this system is more specific than the core variation of the multi, therefore it should be allowed. But this claim involves a certain amount of judgment. I agree with her. What do you guys think?

It is a Brown Sticker Convention as it can be weak and the weak option does not promise four cards in a known suit. If they were to increase the requirements for the weaker option to 10-12 HCP then it would not be a BSC.

 

The Multi 2D opener has a very specific exemption for historical reasons. In my opinion it is wrong to transfer this exemption to any other call.

 

Finally, most clubs have the ability to permit whatever conventions they wish and many SOs, like the EBU, do permit conventions that are actually Brown Sticker as they do not use the WBF definitions in their regulations. One size does not fit all.

[campboy]

It was specifically confirmed by the authorities at (IIRC) the Olympiad in Maastricht that for the purpose of the multi exemption a "weak two in a major" may NOT guarantee a second suit.

[Gerardo]

the second part of it sounds very similar to Wilkosz 2♦ (weak 5-5, at least 1 major), which is forbidden anywhere but in Poland.

[Trinidad]

the second part of it sounds very similar to Wilkosz 2♦ (weak 5-5, at least 1 major), which is forbidden anywhere but in Poland.

Well, there are a few other countries that allow Wilkosz.

 

Rik

[Free]

It's definitely Brown Sticker, the weak option doesn't promisse any known suit. Also, showing 5-5 is not similar as showing a 5 card suit. So the comparison with Multi is flawed. Like others said, it's the exact same thing like Wilkosz (with a strong version), but Wilkosz is a BSC and therefor banned in many places.

[paulg]

the second part of it sounds very similar to Wilkosz 2♦ (weak 5-5, at least 1 major), which is forbidden anywhere but in Poland.

Permitted in Scotland's principal events #enlightenedcountry

 

Not in England except the trials.

[Finch]

Permitted in Scotland's principal events #enlightenedcountry

 

Not in England except the trials.

 

 

I was going to add ....and the final stages of the Gold Cup... but for 2011 at least these are still in Scotland.

[gnasher]

The Gold Cup is in Great Britain, regardless of the exact venue.

[paulg]

Permitted in Scotland's principal events #enlightenedcountry

 

Not in England except the trials.

I was going to add ....and the final stages of the Gold Cup... but for 2011 at least these are still in Scotland.

In all cases disclosure of Brown Sticker conventions and treatments is required prior to the event, so not really the Wild West.

[sfi]

Hmm, our club is currently debating the pros and cons of allowing Brown Sticker conventions in the lower quality of two consecutive daytime sessions. We are planning on the onerous requirement of people having to carry convention cards if they play them, so it really does come down to what you are used to.

[Fluffy]

at the worldbridge I read this:

 

EXCEPTION: A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below.

 

it doesn´t say or deny anything about secondary suits :/, but it says you need to provide a defence (in 6 below)

[campboy]

it doesn´t say or deny anything about secondary suits :/, but it says you need to provide a defence (in 6 below)

As I said above:

It was specifically confirmed by the authorities at (IIRC) the Olympiad in Maastricht that for the purpose of the multi exemption a "weak two in a major" may NOT guarantee a second suit.

[Fluffy]

Yeah I had read it, but Maastrich olympiad was when I was still a junior, and since there is no reference to what you say in the rules I had my doubts that your info might be outdated. Not that I claim to be right here, I would always bet for you over me on this matter.

[Xiaolongnu]

Does the following argument have a case? I claim that this opening, is NOT weak. I have spoken to the pair in question, and they have explicitly stated that in their system, the 2C opening where it is two unknown suits, must have 9-12 points in honour strength. The player that I spoke to has specifically mentioned that the purpose of this system is constructive, to find distributional major games, not preemptive. This is different from Wilkosz, at least in philosophy.

 

Also, is it possible to justify that this bid is fulfilling of the rule of 21 at least most of the time? There are 9 hcp at the very least, and given the explanation that I was supplied with, I am inclined to believe that they would not open on just any 9 point 5-5 hand, it probably means that the long suits were reasonably well stocked in honours. In that case the HLQT count is at least 19 without counting the top tricks. Do you guys think that this explanation is acceptable?

 

According to the System Policy, the definition of weak is "below average" and the definition of "average" is 10 hcp, WITHOUT distributional values. Does this imply that distributional values could be adjusted accordingly? That it is, for example, ok to include as "not weak" hands that are just below 10 points but with distribution?

 

There are definitely those among us who open on really good 9 point hands before. Are people allowed to take the meaning of "points" to a stretchy extent, at their choice and at their own risk?

[hrothgar]

The player that I spoke to has specifically mentioned that the purpose of this system is constructive, to find distributional major games, not preemptive. This is different from Wilkosz, at least in philosophy.

 

No, its not...

 

Traditionally, the Wilkosz 2♦ open showed about 7 - 11 HCP.

The primary purpose of the opening was to discipline Polish Club's 1M opening by removing minimal strength hands that would otherwise be opened 1M.

 

If you look at the board records back when Wilkosz was played in serious international competitions you'll find that the major games came from hands where the Polish team opened 2♦ while their counterparts at the other table opened 1M and subsequently landed in zero play 3NT contracts or were dreadfully exposed when their partner's made a penalty double and opener had zero defense.