652 up to you

[nullve]

I don't understand the discussion in the first place. That opening would frequently have 5M4+m. It would also meet the WBF criteria of Brown Sticker, and I would play the defence that I found some Polish pairs recommend against the Wilkosz against it (it was surprisingly hard to find where I had read this, but this page has some information).

The following conventions or treatments are categorised as ‘Brown Sticker’:

a. Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that:

i. could be made on 9 high card points or less AND

ii. does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

 

[...]

 

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 containing 16 high card points or more, or with

equivalent values. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below.

If someone say they play "undisciplined Weak Twos", can they really play something deserving the name 'Weak 2M' if they open 2M only if they have either 6M3-OM, 5M4+m3-OM or 5M(332)? If the answer is Yes, why is the above Garbage Multi a Brown Sticker?

 

Btw, Brown Sticker conventions are not generally allowed in Norway. The above Garbage Multi is, rightly or wrongly.

[DavidKok]

I don't know what the rules in Norway are, so I can't speak to their ruling. I know that previously people have used this exact argument to attempt to legalise the Rainbow 2 diamonds, showing either 5M4(+)m weak or some strong hand types (in particular, any strong Acol two or a 22-24 NT hand). The argument was as follows:

• You are allowed to open weak two's on a five card suit.
  
• The multi is allowed, showing exactly a weak two in an unspecified major or some strong options.
  
• You may put additional restrictions on your openings, without making them illegal.
  

Combine them and you get the Rainbow 2♦.

Apparently this convention was ruled to be Brown Sticker at the time of the Maastricht Bridge Olympiad in 2000, see Chris Ryall's page.

The same argument was used to attempt to legalise the Wilkosz 2♦, and it seems you are relying on the same. To the best of my knowledge the multi is only an exception to brown sticker regulations as long as the weak options are traditional weak two major openings. If not, I would love to play the Wilkosz everywhere, using your argument (I will insist on a 5+ card 'side' suit, possibly in the other major).

 

To get back on the main topic, I think the defence against the Wilkosz will adequately help one defend against openings of this type.

[nullve]

I don't know what the rules in Norway are, so I can't speak to their ruling.

WBF rules (WBF Systems Policy)

 

I know that previously people have used this exact argument to attempt to legalise the Rainbow 2 diamonds, showing either 5M4(+)m weak or some strong hand types (in particular, any strong Acol two or a 22-24 NT hand). The argument was as follows:

• You are allowed to open weak two's on a five card suit.
  
• The multi is allowed, showing exactly a weak two in an unspecified major or some strong options.
  
• You may put additional restrictions on your openings, without making them illegal.
  

Combine them and you get the Rainbow 2♦.

Apparently this convention was ruled to be Brown Sticker at the time of the Maastricht Bridge Olympiad in 2000, see Chris Ryall's page.

The same argument was used to attempt to legalise the Wilkosz 2♦, and it seems you are relying on the same. To the best of my knowledge the multi is only an exception to brown sticker regulations as long as the weak options are traditional weak two major openings. If not, I would love to play the Wilkosz everywhere, using your argument (I will insist on a 5+ card 'side' suit, possibly in the other major).

Here is a convention card from the 2022 Bermuda Bowl.

 

The NV 2♦ opening is described as "5/6cM, 3-8 hcp"

 

If that's a Brown Sticker convention (say, because the weak option is not hands that would open a tradional Weak 2M), the CC should have a Brown Sticker attached to it. It doesn't, so I conclude again that it's not a Brown Sticker convention.

 

I bet the Garbage Multi I defined above is not significantly different from what they actually play except for the range.

 

To get back on the main topic, I think the defence against the Wilkosz will adequately help one defend against openings of this type.

Despite some Burn's law violations or worse?

[DavidKok]

The defence I'm thinking of doesn't have a significant frequency of Burn's law violations. I'm not sure what the problem is. Is there any particular sequence you're worried about?

 

Based on that reading I think some other conventions are also no longer brown sticker. Maybe the WBF changed their mind? Very interesting!

[nullve]

The defence I'm thinking of doesn't have a significant frequency of Burn's law violations. I'm not sure what the problem is. Is there any particular sequence you're worried about?

 

Yes,

 

(2♦)-X-(P)-P

(P)

 

and

 

(2♦)-X-(P)-2♠

(P),

 

for example if

 

Overcaller: 14 hcp and 2434

Advancer: 6 hcp and a) 5+ S b) 4324

[DavidKok]

I'm not particularly worried about this. Responder doesn't know advancer's shape or diamond holding. They don't have the ability to pass with an 8(+) card fit in diamonds but run without one. I think these auctions are low frequency, and if responder passes more often we will instead get a profitable (2♦)-X-(P)-P; (?) more often.