Looking for ideas

[Cyberyeti]

It seems perverse to also outlaw something else I would have considered, 2M shows exactly 4 of that major and 5+ in an unspecified minor, while 5-5 and 5-4 are legal

[pescetom]

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.

It is not clear to me either, but they could have avoided any ambiguity by saying "specifying a known suit" or "specifying an unknown suit" or some similar artifice.

 

 

It seems perverse to also outlaw something else I would have considered, 2M shows exactly 4 of that major and 5+ in an unspecified minor, while 5-5 and 5-4 are legal

I can imagine why this might be on their hit list, but would rather hear the reason from them.

[Cyberyeti]

I checked with the L&E, yes the second suit has to be specifically named, so 4 diamonds and a 4 card major is not allowed, 4 diamonds and 4 hearts is.

[nullve]

Any bid showing 6 also shows at least 5.

System designers may disagree! Besides, if this is the sense in which the system regulators have used the verb 'show', can't it be proven that a classical Weak 2♠ is both legal and illegal?

 

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

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 5+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened and the opening is not of type (a), it must be of type (b) (i) and therefore legal.

 

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 4+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened but the opening is not of type (a), (b) (ii) or © (iii), it must be illegal.

 

-------

 

What am I missing?

[Cyberyeti]

System designers may disagree! Besides, if this is the sense in which the system regulators have used the verb 'show', can't it be proven that a classical Weak 2♠ is both legal and illegal?

 

 

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 5+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened and the opening is not of type (a), it must be of type (b) (i) and therefore legal.

 

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 4+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened but the opening is not of type (a), (b) (ii) or © (iii), it must be illegal.

 

-------

 

What am I missing?

 

That you go through them in order, if it's legal under b, you don't get to c.

[smerriman]

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 4+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened but the opening is not of type (a), (b) (ii) or © (iii), it must be illegal.

 

-------

 

What am I missing?

I don't get it. To satisfy b, it must satisfy i OR ii. It satisfies i, so the fact it doesn't satisfy ii is irrelevant?

[Cyberyeti]

The really awful bit, I had a conversation with one of the members of the L&E, and was told

 

"We have to try and draw a line between providing flexibility whilst at the same time avoid giving defending sides difficult agreement problems without the need for a long discussion. For example, is (2D)-3D natural or something else when 2D can be a 4cd suit? Anyhow, in your case, 2D has either to be 5+ cards, or have a named second suit, in which case 2D may have only 4D."

 

This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Dude, you allow a weak only multi (which is a reasonably recent change) which pretty much demands a different defence to the version which contains strong bids as your 6th seat actions may not happen and is waaaay more difficult to defend than a natural 4 card weak 2. There is no agreement problem with a 4 card weak 2, you play what you play against a 5 card weak 2. Only 20% of our weak 2s at most are 4 cards.

[nullve]

To satisfy b, it must satisfy i OR ii. It satisfies i, so the fact it doesn't satisfy ii is irrelevant?

Yes, missed that.

[DavidKok]

The really awful bit, I had a conversation with one of the members of the L&E, and was told

 

"We have to try and draw a line between providing flexibility whilst at the same time avoid giving defending sides difficult agreement problems without the need for a long discussion. For example, is (2D)-3D natural or something else when 2D can be a 4cd suit? Anyhow, in your case, 2D has either to be 5+ cards, or have a named second suit, in which case 2D may have only 4D."

 

This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Dude, you allow a weak only multi (which is a reasonably recent change) which pretty much demands a different defence to the version which contains strong bids as your 6th seat actions may not happen and is waaaay more difficult to defend than a natural 4 card weak 2. There is no agreement problem with a 4 card weak 2, you play what you play against a 5 card weak 2. Only 20% of our weak 2s at most are 4 cards.

I think this is not ridiculous or awful at all. The multi is grandfathered in, and while requiring defensive agreements there is sufficient experience playing with and against it that most people are comfortable with it. I think you overstate the degree to which you need different agreements against a weak-only multi and a can-be-strong multi (and if you need me to prove it, I passed a can-be-strong multi by partner about half a year ago). By comparison a 2♦ opening showing "4+ diamonds and 4+ in an unspecified suit, weak" does present unique challenges for the opponents. You might be familiar with this opening, but the majority will likely not be.

[nullve]

Blakset's 2♠

 

Opening bid of 2S in 1./2./3. Position seat at

Shows: ANY weak PRE

Detailed Description:

NV vs. V: 0-5 HCP; any PRE. Could be a 5-card suit IF in spades, otherwise 6+ in any suit.

NV vs. NV: Just a bit weaker than a normal PRE. 6+ in the suit.

V: Weaker than normal PRE. Opening 3C/D shows HHxxxxx; with a weaker suit we open 2S. Opening

3H/S is just stronger 1-1½ trick than opening 2S

seems to be allowed.

[Cyberyeti]

I think this is not ridiculous or awful at all. The multi is grandfathered in, and while requiring defensive agreements there is sufficient experience playing with and against it that most people are comfortable with it. I think you overstate the degree to which you need different agreements against a weak-only multi and a can-be-strong multi (and if you need me to prove it, I passed a can-be-strong multi by partner about half a year ago). By comparison a 2♦ opening showing "4+ diamonds and 4+ in an unspecified suit, weak" does present unique challenges for the opponents. You might be familiar with this opening, but the majority will likely not be.

 

Yes, but the weak only multi gets passed by any weak hand non vul. If you have a 6 count opposite, just take your -250, it will be a good score. It's not an uncommon method to play as we do that 2♦-P-2♥-P-P-X is what you do on any hand that wants to take out double hearts and is less than absolutely enormous. Also a decent hand with 4 spades and longer clubs, with the clubs not good enough to overcall is bid 2♦-P-2♥-P-P-3♣. It distorts your auctions if you have to double first or have to balance on indifferent hands without short diamonds. The multi with strong options passed is very rare, I've seen 2 in 40 years. There used to be rules on what you were allowed to pass it on when you had to have strong options of reasonable frequency included. Weak only has not been allowed until recently.

 

The difference between a 4 card weak 2 and a 5 card weak 2 with the agreement that you don't open 5332s as I've had in the past is virtually zero.

[DavidKok]

The difference between a 4 card weak 2 and a 5 card weak 2 with the agreement that you don't open 5332s as I've had in the past is virtually zero.

So play that second option? To my understanding it's legal.

[Cyberyeti]

So play that second option? To my understanding it's legal.

 

The reason we switched to 3 weak 2s was because at the time the restrictions on weak 2s as weak 2s were different to those in a multi. We will probably go to weak 2s like that in a multi, 2♥ both majors then work out what to do with 2♠. While we're working it out, we will just switch to 5 card weak 2s. We originally played 5 card weak 2s but found we were psyching them too often so fully embraced the 4 card option.

 

My point about them being very similar was from a "defending against them" point of view.

[paulg]

Blakset's 2♠

 

Opening bid of 2S in 1./2./3. Position seat at

Shows: ANY weak PRE

Detailed Description:

NV vs. V: 0-5 HCP; any PRE. Could be a 5-card suit IF in spades, otherwise 6+ in any suit.

NV vs. NV: Just a bit weaker than a normal PRE. 6+ in the suit.

V: Weaker than normal PRE. Opening 3C/D shows HHxxxxx; with a weaker suit we open 2S. Opening

3H/S is just stronger 1-1½ trick than opening 2S

seems to be allowed.

This is only legal if, NV v V, the 2♠ is 0-5 with a 5+ suit as long as it is not spades. The EBU permits a lot of Brown Sticker methods but weak hands with no specified suit cannot include the suit opened.

[nullve]

This is only legal if, NV v V, the 2♠ is 0-5 with a 5+ suit as long as it is not spades. The EBU permits a lot of Brown Sticker methods but weak hands with no specified suit cannot include the suit opened.

The way I read

 

(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

is that Opener, in order to satisfy © (i), can have (5+) spades as long as he doesn't show (4+) spades. (Having a suit and showing it are not the same.)

[Cyberyeti]

The way I read

 

 

is that Opener, in order to satisfy © (i), can have (5+) spades as long as he doesn't show (4+) spades. (Having a suit and showing it are not the same.)

 

I just asked the EBU that question as the wording is unclear, I suspect it means "as long as no meaning is agreed to contain 4+ spades".

[AL78]

System designers may disagree! Besides, if this is the sense in which the system regulators have used the verb 'show', can't it be proven that a classical Weak 2♠ is both legal and illegal?

 

 

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 5+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened and the opening is not of type (a), it must be of type (b) (i) and therefore legal.

 

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 4+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened but the opening is not of type (a), (b) (ii) or © (iii), it must be illegal.

 

-------

 

What am I missing?

 

The lower bound. 5+ spades excludes four card suits. The minimum length of the suit opened makes a difference.

[Cyberyeti]

Confirmed with the EBU, the Blakset 2♠ is NOT legal here, it is supposed to read as I suggested, so could be used as weak preempt in any of the other suits.

[Cyberyeti]

What do people make of this as an off the wall version

 

2♠ = one suited clubs or hearts or 5-5 both reds

 

common responses

 

Pass = lots of spades

3♣ = to play opposite clubs, opener rebids 3♦ with both reds or 3♥ with hearts.

3♦ = would raise clubs, to play 3♦ opposite reds, rebid 3♥ with hearts

3♥ = would raise clubs, to play 3♥ opposite reds or hearts

 

otherwise 2N and opener shapes out in the obvious fashion

 

higher bids are P/C not sure what 3♠/3N should be as I can't imagine you want to bid 3N very often without finding out which option partner has first.

 

If combined with 3♣ 5-5 minors, a 3♠ rebid over 2N would show a good 3♣ preempt, 3N rebid would show another good club type, would need to work out the difference

[DavidKok]

I would not mind playing against this at all, it seems a lot worse than (for example) a natural weak 2 or a Muiderberg.

[Cyberyeti]

I would not mind playing against this at all, it seems a lot worse than (for example) a natural weak 2 or a Muiderberg.

 

We would have the weak 2 in the multi and 2♥ as both majors

 

What do you feel are the weaknesses ?

[DavidKok]

The fact that the defenders get multiple rounds to get in on the action, so they have more time to coordinate their defence. I think my generic 'what to do when the opponents play weird conventional weak bids' defence will do quite well against this. Getting your suit in only at the 3-level and on the second round means that this opening should generally be stronger than a standard barrage bid.

 

I think it is a mistake to have slower, multi-meaning bids to give yourself more hand types to preempt on if it comes at the cost of making individual preemptive bids less effective. As an example, if you open a 2-under transfer 2♠ showing clubs (not too far off, really) LHO gets a double-then-pass, 2NT and 3♣ option that might not have been available over a 3♣ opening. Skilled defenders will lower their ranges for taking action over such an opening bid, allowing the axe to come down more often. Furthermore, if you do have the both reds or the hearts type, partner might be placed in an impossible competitive situation if LHO has a normal bid that would also be made over 3♣ at the other table (say, 3♦ or 3NT, and partner has some clubs).

[Cyberyeti]

The fact that the defenders get multiple rounds to get in on the action, so they have more time to coordinate their defence. I think my generic 'what to do when the opponents play weird conventional weak bids' defence will do quite well against this. Getting your suit in only at the 3-level and on the second round means that this opening should generally be stronger than a standard barrage bid.

 

I think it is a mistake to have slower, multi-meaning bids to give yourself more hand types to preempt on if it comes at the cost of making individual preemptive bids less effective. As an example, if you open a 2-under transfer 2♠ showing clubs (not too far off, really) LHO gets a double-then-pass, 2NT and 3♣ option that might not have been available over a 3♣ opening. Skilled defenders will lower their ranges for taking action over such an opening bid, allowing the axe to come down more often. Furthermore, if you do have the both reds or the hearts type, partner might be placed in an impossible competitive situation if LHO has a normal bid that would also be made over 3♣ at the other table (say, 3♦ or 3NT, and partner has some clubs).

 

That said, if partner has clubs and hearts, opps could have a major issue which is why I preferred it to the EBU friendly blakset style bid. 2♠-P-4♥ and now do you want to bid a slightly sketchy 5♦ knowing opener could easily have 5, or 4♠ knowing the raiser could easily have 5, your double now gets overloaded.

 

It gives you a bit more definition in that 3♥ is now a very classical heart preempt with the one through 2♠ being less good.

[Gilithin]

The way I read

 

 

is that Opener, in order to satisfy © (i), can have (5+) spades as long as he doesn't show (4+) spades. (Having a suit and showing it are not the same.)

It is starting to look like the EBU rushed this thing out in an afternoon. Did anyone with a passing knowledge of the English language even glance at the wording of this regulation before making it public? With all of the experience the EBU has in making regulations that are clear, this version of the Blue Book is downright embarrassing.