[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2022-October-09, 00:34, said:

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]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-08, 13:57, said:

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]

AL78, on 2022-October-09, 05:15, said:

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.

[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]

AL78, on 2022-October-09, 05:15, said:

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.

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-09, 13:09, said:

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]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-08, 11:08, said:

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?

AL78, on 2022-October-08, 10:46, said:

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.u...k/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]

nullve, on 2022-October-10, 12:39, said:

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]

nullve, on 2022-October-10, 12:39, said:

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]

smerriman, on 2022-October-10, 12:49, said:

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]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-10, 12:55, said:

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♠

Quote

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]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-10, 13:33, said:

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]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-10, 13:43, said:

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]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-10, 17:30, said:

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]

nullve, on 2022-October-10, 13:36, said:

Blakset's 2♠

Quote

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]

paulg, on 2022-October-11, 01:45, said:

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

Quote

(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.)