Introducing a new convention: Lee Two Diamonds

[Vampyr]

For the benefit of 32519, I looked it up (http://www.sabf.co.za/laws/sabfcc2013a.pdf):

 

So you can play it EITHER as a natural preempt, OR artificial but you can't play it as both. So it looks like your side will gain 100% of the time out of the 0 boards that you are allowed to play it legally :(

 

In the EBU clubs have the freedom to have whatever regulations they choose. So it is only in club bridge that you can play, for example, forcing pass. Perhaps the situation is similar in SA.

 

I have given this reply of yours the thumbs up. If you only had 2-minutes to agree on a defence beforehand, this is good.

 

Probably they do have a minute or two. Or do you not mention this when they ask about your system? Or do you just say "Multi"? This would be improper, since "Multi" does not mean any 2♦ opening with several different meanings.

[32519]

I make sure to agree with all my partners to assume that they've hit whatever option they are bidding, so I double here, won't work well if partner is 4333, but even then, there's a decent chance of getting rescued by the opps.

I have given this reply of yours the thumbs up. If you only had 2-minutes to agree on a defence beforehand, this is good.

After your double this is how the bidding continued –

[hv=pc=n&n=skqh5dk98532ca972&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(Multi)p2h(My%20longest%20major)d(T/o%20for%20the%20minors)2s(6%20spades%2C%204%20hearts)]133|200[/hv]

Because of the vulnerability, I do not know how aggressive your side is. Will South bid or not over 2♠? You have a known 4-4 fit in ♣ after the t/o double.

Maybe I need to rephrase my question -

If South does enter the auction over 2♠, then -

1. What is the minimum number of HCP you would expect South to hold?

2. Dropping the number of HCP required on hands where South has extra length must certainly be a consideration because of cross-ruffing potential (doubler has shown a t/o of the majors). The lower the HCP, the longer the requirement of the suit bid.

[32519]

SOUTH AFRICAN BRIDGE FEDERATION Congress 2013 said:

OPENING suit bids at the 2 level or higher may indicate ONE of the following:

a) a weak single-suited hand with a minimum of 5 cards in the suit, the minimum point

count and range must be specified;

b) A two-suiter where at least one of the suits is designated, the minimum point count

and range must be specified;

c) a three-suited hand where at least one of the suits is designated;

d) a hand containing at least 16HCP;

e) a hand that guarantees 8 playing tricks, if played in that suit.

 

2D: ARTIFICIAL opening bid indication ONE OR MORE of the following:

a) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, forcing for at

least one round. Suit need not be specified;

b) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, game-force.

Suit need not be specified;

c) A three-suiter, minimum point count and range to be specified;

d) Both majors, minimum point count and range to be specified;

e) A 5-card major, the minimum point count and range must be specified;

f) As in a) above, but with Diamonds as the suit denomination.

g) Multi showing a weak opening in a major, combined or not with strong

hands. Point count and ranges must be specified.

 

This is actually interesting. Multi is allowed, but because no one has ever challenged it in its original form, the SABF simply doesn't know about any other form. This will need to be taken up with the committee.

[gwnn]

You do realise that their description covers about 500 variants, right? So accusing them of only using the "original form" seems factually challenged. Note that they do not use the misleading word Multi. You do, which is incredibly bad form. I hope you do a better job when you explain your illegal convention in real life.

[johnu]

Note that they do not use the misleading word Multi.

 

Actually, from your original post, they do:

 

g) Multi showing a weak opening in a major, combined or not with strong

hands. Point count and ranges must be specified.

[gwnn]

Thanks for that, I definitely missed that part. My (unclearly worded) point still stands, though: I meant that they do not refer to 2D that can be one or more things from the list as Multi.

[32519]

What’s it with you guys and my 2♦ bids? Back in 2012 hrothgar called my 2♦ bid insane while a defence to his Moscito system was being developed. The thread started out with completely laughable suggestions before it ended up by my 2♦ bid being called insane.

 

In this post I took his calling the bid insane as a compliment.

 

One thing I can confirm with you. I wanted to play hrothgar’s Moscito system at three of the biggest clubs in and around Johannesburg and Pretoria here is South Africa. All three clubs banned me from even thinking about doing so. So I took one final shot by asking the South African Bridge Federation where they would let me play it. Answer…no where. So I spent all that time developing a defence to Moscito for nothing.

 

You do realise that their description covers about 500 variants, right? So accusing them of only using the "original form" seems factually challenged. Note that they do not use the misleading word Multi. You do, which is incredibly bad form. I hope you do a better job when you explain your illegal convention in real life.

Now I got another of my 2♦ bids under fire here, this time by you calling it illegal. If there are already about 500 variants of Multi, I fail to understand why mine would be called illegal.

 

I doubt this version of Multi of mine will follow the same path as hrothgar's Moscito system.

[gwnn]

I didn't just call it illegal. I showed you why it's disallowed. You are welcome to read the rules that I posted upthread. You don't need to click on the link.

[Vampyr]

 

Now I got another of my 2♦ bids under fire here, this time by you calling it illegal. If there are already about 500 variants of Multi, I fail to understand why mine would be called illegal.

 

 

Pointing out that your 2♦ bid is illegal is hardly mocking it or criticising it on its merits.

 

What concerns me is your disclosure, since your opponents never seem to be prepared.

[manudude03]

Maybe I need to rephrase my question -

If South does enter the auction over 2♠, then -

1. What is the minimum number of HCP you would expect South to hold?

2. Dropping the number of HCP required on hands where South has extra length must certainly be a consideration because of cross-ruffing potential (doubler has shown a t/o of the majors). The lower the HCP, the longer the requirement of the suit bid.

 

I misread it earlier and thought partner had replied 2S. Anyway, I'd expect a reasonable 6 or 7 count for a 3C bid, but I'd also assume that some judgement has been used regarding shape etc.

[johnu]

If there are already about 500 variants of Multi, I fail to understand why mine would be called illegal.

 

Maybe 490 out of the 500 variants are also illegal. :rolleyes: Your version is illegal because it doesn't meet the requirements defined by your country's bridge organization.

[32519]

Pointing out that your 2♦ bid is illegal is hardly mocking it or criticising it on its merits.

 

What concerns me is your disclosure, since your opponents never seem to be prepared.

This guy disagrees with you as does all those who upvoted his post, not to mention the scorn higher up in this thread as well. This is what he said -

 

I oversaw a discussion where a bad player was explaining his artificial methods, while a very good player was taking the patience to explain the flaws on the convention or how he calculated odds or whatever, the bad player then started to say some gibberish about how it works, and ended up with this gem: "Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%. "

[Vampyr]

This guy disagrees with you as does all those who upvoted his post, not to mention the scorn higher up in this thread as well. This is what he said -

 

This is not relevant. I was talking only about someone (helpfully, I might add) looking up your country's regulations. It's true that few think that your convention is good bridge, but that is unrelated to the fact that it is apparently illegal in your NBO (although your local club might have its own regulations).

 

Why so cagey when asked what you do In terms of disclosure?

[32519]

Your local club might have its own regulations.

 

Why so cagey when asked what you do In terms of disclosure?

Club games are not nearly as restrictive. All unusual bids must be alerted when then occur, and then LHO can ask for an explanation until he is happy before bidding. RHO needs to wait for his turn to ask further questions.

 

Alert as Multi, but with these 4 possible hand patterns and HCP ranges...

[Vampyr]

Club games are not nearly as restrictive. All unusual bids must be alerted when then occur, and then LHO can ask for an explanation until he is happy before bidding. RHO needs to wait for his turn to ask further questions.

 

Alert as Multi, but with these 4 possible hand patterns and HCP ranges...

 

So you don't mention this when describing your basic system?

[Vampyr]

Club games are not nearly as restrictive. All unusual bids must be alerted when then occur, and then LHO can ask for an explanation until he is happy before bidding. RHO needs to wait for his turn to ask further questions.

 

Alert as Multi, but with these 4 possible hand patterns and HCP ranges...

 

So you don't mention this when describing your basic system?

[32519]

A couple of questions and remarks for all of you –

The probability of me ever playing against any of you in a F2F tournament must be almost zero, if not in fact zero. So why would it bother you, even in the tiniest little bit if I “get a kick” out of developing some of these crazy ideas. All of you (with Fluffy on top of the list), have condemned it as useless and awful. If it is so bad you should all be rubbing your hands in glee if someone sat down as your opponents and said they play my version of Multi. The huge smile beaming across your faces will say it all, “here’s three top boards for our side, partner,” should the bridge dealer have dealt your opponents three hands which meet the requirement for the bid. Getting three top boards will boost your chances of winning the evenings bridge. So what’s all the fuss about?

 

Gwnn keeps on hammering on the fact that it (might) not be allowed by the SABF in any tournament run by them. The SABF runs on average four tournaments annually sponsored by them, Congress being the biggest. Then there is also an interclub and an inter-provincial tournament. Then there are also qualifying tournaments to represent the country internationally. I’m not good enough as a player for the last one, so there are three other tournaments on our calendar where I might be prevented from using it. Club games and Red Point events shouldn’t pose any problem whatsoever.

[the hog]

you are quite right. If you want to make a nonsensical bid, it should not worry anyone here.

[gwnn]

Maybe 490 out of the 500 variants are also illegal. :rolleyes: Your version is illegal because it doesn't meet the requirements defined by your country's bridge organization.

I was using a simple formula of 2^7 but that is in fact 128, not 512, plus many of the 128 variations would be identical, e.g. g) apparently already includes strong hands. Still I'd guess that there are about 50 variants that are allowed by the regulations and 32519's is clearly illegal. The rules seem clear that clubs may enforce stricter[\b] regulations than those prescribed by them but says nothing about less strict regulations. There's also another relevant section where they explicitly ban brown sticker bids.

 

As to why I'm posting about this, I'm having fun. Isn't everyone? What would be the point otherwise? Incidentally I would very much appreciate it if someone else told me that my system is illegal and would try to devise a modification thereof to make it legal again. You are saying your club is more permissive about this than other clubs or the SABF. That may well be true but I would advise you to go to your director, show him:

a) the description of your modified 2D bid (that you insist on calling Multi despite Vampyr's patient and my rude explanations that it will confuse your opponents)

b) the rules from the SABF apparently banning your 2D bid

and ask him if you can still play the convention. Speeding is illegal despite the millions of people every day who do it and not get caught.

[gwnn]

This is also from the SABF rules, emphasis mine:

 

The following CONVENTIONAL bids are acceptable at all levels of duplicate events, provided

that individual clubs may restrict the use of these conventional bids at their own club,

however, such restrictions may lead to these events not being eligible for master points. All

artificial bids are alertable, other than Standard Stayman as defined, Ace-asking bids above

the 3NT level and cue-bids after suit agreement. The last two conventional sequence must,

however, be alerted at the end of the auction and explained on request, if the bidders are

declarer and dummy, but only after the end of the hand if they are defenders.

[32519]

So now you’re saying that my defence to the opponents NT is also illegal?

When they open 1NT, a 2♦ overcall guarantees 1 of the 3 strong(er) hand patterns but with a proviso on the 4-4-4-1 hand pattern (obviously a natural weak 2 in ♦ falls away now) i.e.

The 2♦ overcall guarantees one of the following –

1. A 6-4 holding in the majors, 10-15 HCP

2. The big 4-4-4-1 16+ HCP hand, but with this proviso – it guarantees that the singleton is in either minor suit (with the singleton in either major suit, the 1NT opening bid will more often than not be passed and our side will then try and defeat the contact, after all between 2-hands you have already accounted for 31 HCP, and the 16+ hand is sitting behind opener)

3. The big 5-5 hand in the minors, 14+ HCP

 

With a major suit single-suiter, a direct overcall in the suit will be made.

With a minor suit single-suiter, the 1NT opening bid will be followed by a double. Partner is forced to bid 2♣ as P/C.

A direct 2♣ overcall shows an unspecified two-suiter, at least 5-4 with this proviso, the 5-card suit is guaranteed to be a major.

[gwnn]

No, I'm not saying that. There are different rules for openings and overcalls. In particular, overcalls over 1NT can be all sorts of stuff, especially 2C and 2D.

[32519]

No, I'm not saying that. There are different rules for openings and overcalls. In particular, overcalls over 1NT can be all sorts of stuff, especially 2C and 2D.

With that being the case, if my 2♦ opening bid gets outlawed, I will go to the appeals committee and point out to them that the two bids are almost identical. Then I can get an official ruling on the bid once and for all with no further backlashes in any tournament, including those sanctioned by the SABF.

 

If you're still puzzling about this, I haven't lost the ♦ suit as part of my defence to 1NT. After the 2♦ overcall, partner is allowed to pass with a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. So effectively, I have retained all four options of my 2♦ opener as part of my NT defence.

 

I think I have a decent chance for a favourable ruling by the appeals committee.

[gwnn]

It is outlawed right now. It's just that no one apparently realised it and you can continue using it until you get caught. Good for you. I'm looking forward to hearing from your arguments with the appeals committee, I'm sure they will enjoy it as much as we have.

[manudude03]

With that being the case, if my 2♦ opening bid gets outlawed, I will go to the appeals committee and point out to them that the two bids are almost identical. Then I can get an official ruling on the bid once and for all with no further backlashes in any tournament, including those sanctioned by the SABF.

 

If you're still puzzling about this, I haven't lost the ♦ suit as part of my defence to 1NT. After the 2♦ overcall, partner is allowed to pass with a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. So effectively, I have retained all four options of my 2♦ opener as part of my NT defence.

 

I think I have a decent chance for a favourable ruling by the appeals committee.

 

Not that it's relevant since as gwnn said, there are different rules for opening bids and overcalls, but you're simply not retaining all 4 options. An identical argument would be saying my 1NT opener could be a yarb because partner might have that. Your options must be constrained by what 13 cards might be in your own hand, partner's possible hands are irrelevant.