Looking for ideas

[Cyberyeti]

We've been playing natural 4+ card weak 2s in diamonds hearts and spades for 20+ years. The EBU has now suddenly without warning decided you can't do this.

 

What do we do now ? there seem to be several options.

 

(Basic system weak NT acol, wide range 1N rebid with no gap to 2N opener, 1x-1y-2N used artificially)

 

1: simply play 5 card + weak 2s

 

2: play a mexican 2♦ and weak 2s in the majors

 

3: play a multi 2♦ containing the weak 2Ms with or without strong options, 2♥ both majors, 2♠ something else (both minors ?)

 

4: play 2♦ both majors and weak 2s in the majors

 

5: play 2♦ as weak 2 in hearts or strong options, 2♥ both majors, 2♠ weak 2

 

Interested to hear recommendations and reasons for them, plus any options we haven't considered.

[DavidKok]

I'm struggling to believe that weak two's are not legal. Are you sure that this is the case?

[Tramticket]

I am a fan of the multi - particularly now that we have switched to weak-only, meaning it can be passed. If you want to still be very aggressive, why not play the multi as very weak - say 2-7 and a five+ card suit, with 2H/S as 8-11 and constructive?

[AL78]

I'm struggling to believe that weak two's are not legal. Are you sure that this is the case?

 

Taken from the EBU blue book new edition 1st September 2022:

 

Level 4:

 

7C: Opening bids from 2♣ to 3♠ inclusive

 

Suit opening bids

 

These may be played as one or more meanings within (a), or (b), or ©. Alternatively any number of meanings of (a) may be combined with a single meaning from (b) or ©.

 

(a) Any “Strong” hand (see 5D1(b) above)

(b) Natural, defined as either of the following in the suit opened:

(i) 5+ cards, or

(ii) 4+ cards if a second suit is also specified

© Non-natural, defined as either:

(i) Any hand that shows 5+ cards in at least one suit, specified or not, but which must not show 4+ cards in the suit opened, or

(ii) Any hand that shows at least 4-4 in two specified suits, neither of which is the suit

opened, or

(iii) A 3-suited hand (5440, 4441 or 5431) with any specified shortage

 

https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/blue-book/blue-book.pdf Page 23-24

[DavidKok]

So doesn't b1 include weak two's? Any bid showing 6 also shows at least 5.

[sfi]

[...] natural 4+ card weak 2s in diamonds hearts and spades [...]

[AL78]

So doesn't b1 include weak two's? Any bid showing 6 also shows at least 5.

 

Yes, weak twos which could have five or more cards in a suit are allowed, but not allowed if it could be a four card suit which is what the OP has been playing (and presumably is what has been updated in the blue book). It can be 4+ cards if a second suit is also specified so you could play 2♥ as weak with 4+/4+ in the majors for example.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, as summed up above, it's that we used to do this on 4 card suits (and no points) that has been outlawed.

[DavidKok]

Ah, I see. Then may I recommend: 2♦/2♥/2♠ showing 6(+) in the suit bid, preemptive? I am a big fan of allowing 5-card suits as well but starting with 6 and working your way down is a good way to learn how to play them.

[Cyberyeti]

Ah, I see. Then may I recommend: 2♦/2♥/2♠ showing 6(+) in the suit bid, preemptive? I am a big fan of allowing 5-card suits as well but starting with 6 and working your way down is a good way to learn how to play them.

 

I know perfectly well how to play those but don't because many of the top end ones get opened 1 by our methods, and we find destructive > constructive at the 2 level.

[sfi]

2♦=♦+♠

2♥=♥+♠

2♠=♣+♠

 

All 4+/4+ and can be very weak depending on vul.

 

I've never played this, but there are a couple of pairs who do and they seem to get good results against me far too often when the bids come up.

[Gilithin]

Does this give you most of your original system back?

 

2♣ = 4 card weak 2 in diamonds or strong, artificial

2♦ = 4+♥ and 4+♠

2♥ = 4+♥ and 4+♣

2♠ = 4+♠ and 4+♣

[Cyberyeti]

Does this give you most of your original system back?

 

2♣ = 4 card weak 2 in diamonds or strong, artificial

2♦ = 4+♥ and 4+♠

2♥ = 4+♥ and 4+♣

2♠ = 4+♠ and 4+♣

 

I don't think the 2♣ is legal and we wouldn't play it anyway, I thought about something like this though, along with sfi's suggestion

[Gilithin]

I don't think the 2♣ is legal and we wouldn't play it anyway, I thought about something like this though, along with sfi's suggestion

I had not checked the actual Blue Book. Having done so, it seems to me that as long as your 2♦ opening promises either a 5th diamond or a second 4 card suit you are on the right said of the rules. That means you cannot continue to open 3343 hands but otherwise nothing changes. A complication here is that regulation 7C1bii is written particularly badly, even for bridge authorities. Does specifying a suit mean showing a specific suit, or just specifying that a second suit exists? My reading of it is the latter but maybe someone from the EBU (Frances or Jeffrey, are they still here?) can clarify.

[michel444]

runing forward and backward on the thread realized

you use to open weak 2 in ♦♥♠

2 ♦ Bayli or Ekren seem legal

so that left 2 Major for Major club or other

i will chose

2♥ 4+♥ and 4+♠ both Major (ekren style)

2♠ 4+S and 4+ ♣

2♦ both minor

we lose the♦♠

the ♥ ♣

and♦♥

 

there are 6 possibility and 3 bid

its up to you what seem better to have

[Cyberyeti]

I had not checked the actual Blue Book. Having done so, it seems to me that as long as your 2♦ opening promises either a 5th diamond or a second 4 card suit you are on the right said of the rules. That means you cannot continue to open 3343 hands but otherwise nothing changes. A complication here is that regulation 7C1bii is written particularly badly, even for bridge authorities. Does specifying a suit mean showing a specific suit, or just specifying that a second suit exists? My reading of it is the latter but maybe someone from the EBU (Frances or Jeffrey, are they still here?) can clarify.

 

It has to be a specific suit I think, so not "diamonds and another" but "diamonds and spades".

[LBengtsson]

We've been playing natural 4+ card weak 2s in diamonds hearts and spades for 20+ years. The EBU has now suddenly without warning decided you can't do this.

 

Surely a precedent has been established for allowing you to bid this way for 20+ years. I do not know how the English Bridge Union operates, and I do not know how conventions are licensed, but someone needs to man up and take them to task over this.

 

It is not like a Multi 2♦ which is banned in most of North American tournaments as far as I know. You are bidding a suit, a natural bid, with less points than a minimum one level opening. It is a natural bid, defined in easy terms, but a pre-emptive way.

 

I guess that as there is not any defense listed for your methods - is there? - that is why they have banned it.

[DavidKok]

I know perfectly well how to play those but don't because many of the top end ones get opened 1 by our methods, and we find destructive > constructive at the 2 level.

Are you familiar with Andrew Gumperz sequence on preemptive bidding? One of the maxims is "preemptive bids deny having defence. Having offence is optional." I think this would fit your style quite well, especially if you lower the requirement to 5-card suits.

 

If you want something wild and 'out there', I would suggest:

 

2♦ - 5(+) diamonds, weak.

2♥ - weak two with 5(+) hearts or 6 spades.

2♠ - 5(+) spades, weak. Often exactly five.

 

Edit: on second reading it seems this multi 2♥ is not legal since rule c1 does not apply. I'd keep the diamonds and spades bids though, and go wild with the 2♥ opening. Bidding where you live is maximally preemptive.

[Cyberyeti]

Are you familiar with Andrew Gumperz sequence on preemptive bidding? One of the maxims is "preemptive bids deny having defence. Having offence is optional." I think this would fit your style quite well, especially if you lower the requirement to 5-card suits.

 

If you want something wild and 'out there', I would suggest:

 

2♦ - 5(+) diamonds, weak.

2♥ - weak two with 5(+) hearts or 6 spades.

2♠ - 5(+) spades, weak. Often exactly five.

 

Edit: on second reading it seems this multi 2♥ is not legal since rule c1 does not apply. I'd keep the diamonds and spades bids though, and go wild with the 2♥ opening. Bidding where you live is maximally preemptive.

 

When we first started playing the 4 card weak 2s, I opened 2♠ off Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx in first seat, so we already think like this.

[mw64ahw]

When we first started playing the 4 card weak 2s, I opened 2♠ off Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx in first seat, so we already think like this.

You have a 2nd suit in this example so calling it say; an ultra weak Frelling 2♠ may solve that specific issue? Although that may fall foul of Cii if defined as non-natural.

 

Perhaps a petition to revert?

[pescetom]

Perhaps a petition to revert?

 

I would petition them to scrap these regulations and adopt WBF systems policy, which while not particularly rational is at least fairly simple and the only standard out there (it also allows cyberyeti's toy, so this change is a further step away).

[AL78]

I've looked at the blue book again and read the 2NT requirements:

 

7C2 2NT Opening

Can be played as any meaning, but if not “Strong”, it must either specify at least one 5+ card suit, or maximum of two possible 5+ card one-suiters.

 

With one partner I play a 2NT opening as a 3-level pre-empt in either minor. Does 7C2 now forbid this? It is not clear to me whether "specify" means it must define a suit or whether it means it must show a suit but the suit doesn't have to be defined.

[Gilithin]

It has to be a specific suit I think, so not "diamonds and another" but "diamonds and spades".

I think you should check this before you panic too much - I would have expected the EBU to use a different sentence construction if this had been the intent of the regulation.

 

Now for getting around it if the EBU say they really do mean 2 specific suits. There are some more radical solutions that you might consider here. For example, since you can play a 1NT opening as anything you want, you could choose to play this as a 4 card weak 2 in any suit. To compensate you would either have to cover all of the balanced hands in nebulous 1m openings. You can add a Mexican 2♦ too if you like. If you still find the 1m openings overloaded, a Precision-style natural 2♣ opening would be available, moving your big hands to 2♦ instead of using the Mexican. A side effect of all of this is that you get the 2M openings back to use as regular Weak 2s.

[Gilithin]

I've looked at the blue book again and read the 2NT requirements:

 

7C2 2NT Opening

Can be played as any meaning, but if not “Strong”, it must either specify at least one 5+ card suit, or maximum of two possible 5+ card one-suiters.

 

With one partner I play a 2NT opening as a 3-level pre-empt in either minor. Does 7C2 now forbid this? It is not clear to me whether "specify" means it must define a suit or whether it means it must show a suit but the suit doesn't have to be defined.

Either minor qualifies as a maximum of two possible 5+ card one-suiters, so this would be legal providing your idea of a 3 level preempt is not a 4 card suit. The main intent here seems to be to ban the popular 2NT = any 2 of ♣, ♦ or ♥, as well as the Mini-2NT opening type popularised by Gerben. It would not even have occurred to me that a natural, balanced 2NT opening might be banned if this thread had not alerted me to it.

[paulg]

You can always play in SBU events as it uses the WBF Systems Policy. The only issue is that national points won outside the EBU do not earn Gold Points.

 

The Winter Fours is the strongest event in the calendar and will be run on RealBridge next year on 28-29 January and 4-5 February. EBU members do not need to join the SBU to play.

 

Note that some conventions permitted in the EBU, such as 2NT showing a weak minor pre-empt, are Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC). You are normally permitted to play these in the Winter Fours subject to pre-disclosure and filling of BSC forms.