[gwnn]

The good old days were when Ken was arguing with Fred, now it's just 32519 vs gwnn

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

If the number of High Card Points added to the total of the two longest suits totals 19, the bid is acceptable within the English bridge tournaments. This is just 1 point higher than the lower limit established by the World Bridge Federation, which constitutes The Rule of Eighteen.

Obviously these rules are irrleevant as they refer to minimum standards for one level openings and not to an "average hand" for the purposes of 2 level openings. Fortunately we have some case law in this area and the WBF have indeed clarified that an average hand for this purpose is 10hcp with distribution being irrelevant. There is a good argument for this being rubbish but it is the line they have chosen to draw.

Whether this opening would be legal in England is another matter entirely as they do not use the WBF regulations there. You can check this in the Orange Book (but I am not going to bother at this time).

32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

My 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP hand pattern option, meets The Rule of Twenty, and therefore automatically the Rule of Eighteen and the Rule of Nineteen. With 2-1 in the minor suits, I am adding 3 distributional points for the singleton and 1 distributional point for the doubleton, bringing the minimum total hand strength to 14. With 3-0 in the minor suits, I am adding 5 distributional points for the void, bringing the minimum total hand strength to 15.

Even if you could do this, and as written above the WBF have specified that you cannot, you are comparing to an average hand. An average hand has 10hcp and I would guess a distribution of something more extreme than a doubleton. So something above 11. If the WBF changed its position and allowed you to count in this way then you could get away with 11+hcp for the 6-4 rather than the 13+ required under the current regulations.

32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

I cannot see how my 2♦ bid will ever be outlawed by either the World Bridge Federation of the EBU. If somehow or other it does end up before an appeals committee, a head-to-head comparison with the current Multi can be put forward as part of getting the bid declared legal –

Because your opening matches the definition of a BS convention. It is not outlawed providing you manage to qualify for one of the tournaments where BS conventions are allowed. The reason why the Multi 2♦ is not BS is because there is a specific exception for it. A comparison of your opening to this exception shows that it does not qualify.

32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

1. Multi has no known anchor suit (the other 3 players at the table are not sure whether opener has ♥ or ♠). With my bid the anchor suit is known to be ♦ 74.8% of the time.
2. Multi with strong options is permitted. Permitting strong options in my 2♦ bid should be no different.

As above, the Multi 2♦ opening would be BS without the exception for it written into the laws. That you have a known anchor suit for weak options is why your convention is not BS at all should you choose to raise the minimum standards for the 6-4 hand type. The point here is that an opening 2♦ that shows "weak with diamonds or various strong" is not BS. To qualify as a strong option requires 13hcp. So under the WBF regulations your multi has 3 non-strong options, not one.

32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

In short, I can see absolutely no conceivable way that either the WBF or the EBU will outlaw the bid. The USA has already red-carded the current Multi in many instances. I will never in a lifetime even bother trying to get it legalized there.

As above, the WBF would not outlaw it, just classify it as BS. ZA also. England has different regulations that do not seem to be relevant to a ZA club.

[phil_20686]

gwnn, on 2014-February-03, 14:39, said:

The good old days were when Ken was arguing with Fred, now it's just 32519 vs gwnn

I come back after a year and get a horrible sense of deja vu.

Pretty sure that when I decided to take some time off from my BBF addiction it was in the middle of an epic 32519 vs Zel & hrothgar flame war.

[eagles123]

FAO 32519 your convention is *****

regards,

bbo forums

[Zelandakh]

phil_20686, on 2014-February-04, 12:00, said:

Pretty sure that when I decided to take some time off from my BBF addiction it was in the middle of an epic 32519 vs Zel & hrothgar flame war.

Do you consider my post above flaming? I would be somewhat disappointed with myself if it came across that way.

[32519]

32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

If somehow or other it does end up before an appeals committee, a head-to-head comparison with the current Multi can be put forward as part of getting the bid declared legal –
1. Multi has no known anchor suit (the other 3 players at the table are not sure whether opener has ♥ or ♠). With my bid the anchor suit is known to be ♦ 74.8% of the time.
2. Multi with strong options is permitted. Permitting strong options in my 2♦ bid should be no different.

In short, I can see absolutely no conceivable way that either the WBF or the EBU will outlaw the bid. The USA has already red-carded the current Multi in many instances. I will never in a lifetime even bother trying to get it legalized there.

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-04, 03:17, said:

The reason why the Multi 2♦ is not BS is because there is a specific exception for it. A comparison of your opening to this exception shows that it does not qualify.

The Multi 2♦ opening would be BS without the exception for it written into the laws. That you have a known anchor suit for weak options is why your convention is not BS at all should you choose to raise the minimum standards for the 6-4 hand type. The point here is that an opening 2♦ that shows "weak with diamonds or various strong" is not BS. To qualify as a strong option requires 13hcp. So under the WBF regulations your multi has 3 non-strong options, not one.

Now this is starting to get even more intriguing. Flannery is a legal bid in the USA, both anchor suits are known, and the HCP range is stipulated as 11-15. So effectively Flannery also meets the Rule of 20, 11 points in HCP and 9 cards in your two longest suits.

The anchor suit in my 2♦ is also known; 74.8% of the time it is ♦. When one of the strong options is opened, as soon as opener makes his second bid, the 6-4 hand pattern is revealed, minimum of 10 HCP plus the 10 cards in my two longest suits.

Chances are this bid of mine will be legal in the USA as well, not being brown sticker in any way.

[Zelandakh]

Once again, America has its own regulations and these are completely separate from those of the WBF (and the EBU). The reason Flannery is legal on the GCC in America is because it is explicitly stated. Anything not explicitly stated as GCC-legal is not. Lee 2♦ is not listed on the GCC. I can assure you that it is not BS under the ACBL though.

[gordontd]

32519, on 2014-February-05, 03:32, said:

The anchor suit in my 2♦ is also known; 74.8% of the time it is ♦.

That's 25.2% short of being a known anchor suit.

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-05, 02:21, said:

Do you consider my post above flaming? I would be somewhat disappointed with myself if it came across that way.

it certainly didn't come across that way to me. In fact it came across as an incredibly patient attempt to be genuinely helpful, even though you must have suspected it would be ignored or misunderstood by the intended recipient.

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2014-February-05, 04:08, said:

Once again, America has its own regulations and these are completely separate from those of the WBF (and the EBU). The reason Flannery is legal on the GCC in America is because it is explicitly stated. Anything not explicitly stated as GCC-legal is not. Lee 2♦ is not listed on the GCC. I can assure you that it is not BS under the ACBL though.

The future of my 2♦ bid shines brighter by the day. To get it out to a wider audience sooner, I need to bring it to the attention of the ACBL, i.e. submit it to them directly. Someone else posted somewhere that whenever something is submitted for approval, it needs to be accompanied by a suggested defence.

Well the suggested defence is really quite simple – treat the bid as though the opponents have opened a natural weak two in diamonds. After that I intend submitting the following to the ACBL as part of my getting approval request:
1. Double = a takeout of ♦
2. 2♥/2♠/3♣ = all natural
3. 2NT = Treated as natural, i.e. as though the opponents have opened the bidding with 1NT. Each individual partnership can agree on their own HCP range for a 2NT overcall; some will choose 13-15 HCP, others will choose 15-17 HCP, others maybe 16-18 HCP.
4. A 3♦ overcall can be treated as any other Michael’s overcall, 5-5 in the majors.
5. After a t/o double of 2♦, 2NT by partner of doubler can be treated as Lebensohl.

25.2% of the time the opponents will run into one of the three strong options and end up with a bad result. Tuffies! That’s all part of the game.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2014-February-05, 03:32, said:

Chances are this bid of mine will be legal in the USA as well, not being brown sticker in any way.

The Lee 2D opening is not listed in either the GCC or the Midchart, nor does it have a suggested defense in the ACBL's Defense Database.
It clearly can not be played in the vast majority of ACBL events.

With this said and done, I do believe that this opening is sanctioned at the Superchart level.

[manudude03]

32519, on 2014-February-05, 06:43, said:

The future of my 2♦ bid shines brighter by the day. To get it out to a wider audience sooner, I need to bring it to the attention of the ACBL, i.e. submit it to them directly. Someone else posted somewhere that whenever something is submitted for approval, it needs to be accompanied by a suggested defence.

Well the suggested defence is really quite simple – treat the bid as though the opponents have opened a natural weak two in diamonds. After that I intend submitting the following to the ACBL as part of my getting approval request:
1. Double = a takeout of ♦
2. 2♥/2♠/3♣ = all natural
3. 2NT = Treated as natural, i.e. as though the opponents have opened the bidding with 1NT. Each individual partnership can agree on their own HCP range for a 2NT overcall; some will choose 13-15 HCP, others will choose 15-17 HCP, others maybe 16-18 HCP.
4. A 3♦ overcall can be treated as any other Michael’s overcall, 5-5 in the majors.
5. After a t/o double of 2♦, 2NT by partner of doubler can be treated as Lebensohl.

25.2% of the time the opponents will run into one of the three strong options and end up with a bad result. Tuffies! That’s all part of the game.

That wouldn't even come close to being an acceptable defence. You also need to consider future bids by the opposing sides, plus with 2D being "forcing", differences between immediate actions and delayed actions etc. Also, you can't ignore the stronger options and just say "Tuffies!", especially when they're that frequent.

[32519]

hrothgar, on 2014-February-05, 06:56, said:

The Lee 2D opening is not listed in either the GCC or the Midchart, nor does it have a suggested defense in the ACBL's Defense Database.
It clearly can not be played in the vast majority of ACBL events.

With this said and done, I do believe that this opening is sanctioned at the Superchart level.

Do you know the contact details of the ACBL person or department that I need to submit my bid to in order to get it onto their database, and therefore legalised at all level events at the same time?

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2014-February-05, 09:55, said:

Do you know the contact details of the ACBL person or department that I need to submit my bid to in order to get it onto their database, and therefore legalised at all level events at the same time?

You want the ACBL's C&C Committee which can be found on the organization's web site.

With this said and done

1. There is zero precedence for allowing this type of method at the GCC level.
2. The C&C committee has not been sanctioning defenses for Midchart Conventions for five years or so.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a reply. If you get one, it will probably be something equivalent to
"Why is some random South African wasting my time"

[HighLow21]

hrothgar, on 2014-February-05, 10:24, said:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a reply. If you get one, it will probably be something equivalent to
"What is some random South African wasting my time"

Wow.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2014-February-05, 09:55, said:

Do you know the contact details of the ACBL person or department that I need to submit my bid to in order to get it onto their database, and therefore legalised at all level events at the same time?

Why not apply for the approval of your own NBO?

[hrothgar]

HighLow21, on 2014-February-05, 10:40, said:

Wow.

It will be phrased more politely. There will probably be questions such as

1. Do you plan to play in events in the US?
2. If so, are you an ACBL member? WHy not pony up some $$$ so we know that you are serious...

However, the gist is "Why are you wasting our time"
"Member service" has never been a strong point for the C&C

[hrothgar]

HighLow21, on 2014-February-05, 10:40, said:

Wow.

It will be phrased more politely. There will probably be questions such as

1. Do you plan to play in events in the US?
2. If so, are you an ACBL member? Why not pony up some $$$ so we know that you are serious...

However, the gist is "Why are you wasting our time"
"Member service" has never been a strong point for the C&C

[PeterAlan]

32519, you raised the issue of the compliance of your 2♦ opener with EBU regulations, and Vampyr gave you a partial reply. For the reasons already noted, it's hardly a matter of great practical importance, but since I could do with an opportunity to look at the EBU's regulations on multi bids, here's why I consider your 2♦ opener does not meet them.

The current EBU regulations (Blue Book 2013 "BB") define bidding regulations in terms of Levels. Level 4 (part 7 of BB), which applies for most EBU tournaments and club sessions, is probably the most relevant for just that reason; the more restrictive Level 2 (part 6 of BB) typically applies at novice / "no-fear" events and the like. There are also Level 5 (part 9) and something broadly corresponding to the now obsolete Level 3 (part 8). It would be too lengthy to quote all the EBU regulations, but an important definition is Extended Rule of 25 ("ER25"; BB5C3), which is used (but not at Level 5) to distinguish between hands treated as "strong" and other hands: a hand satisfies ER25 if it's (1) Rule of 25, or (2) 16+ HCP, or (not applicable here) (3) 8 "clear-cut" tricks + other conditions.

32519, on 2014-January-24, 11:57, said:

The 2♦ is Multi, promising one of the following hand patterns -
a) A natural 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP
b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP
c) A big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP
d) A big 5-5 holding in the minors, 14+ HCP

In terms of the characteristics that apply for EBU regulations:

a) This is classified by EBU as "weak to intermediate" in strength (BB4F1&2). Doesn't meet ER25 (it's no more than Rule of 15, ie 6♦s, 3 of some other suit and 6 HCP).
b) Doesn't meet ER25 (it's Rule of 20 (6+4+10)); does not meet criterion of "a king or more above average strength".
c) Meets ER25 because 16+ HCP.
d) Doesn't meet ER25 (it's Rule of 24), but would if range raised to 15+ HCP.

Conflicts:

Level 2 & below: "‘Multi’ style openings are not allowed" (BB6D3)
Suggested Level 3 replacement: Specifies traditional ‘Multi’ style opening; in particular only non-ER25 option is either a ♥-only or a ♥ or ♠ weak option of limited HCP range (BB8C2).
Level 4: Non-ER25 options (ie your a), b) and, if not adjusted, d)) must all fit the same single choice from 4 options specified in BB7C1(b). a) and d) fit the same, but b) is the problem as it can't conform to the same category as a) / d).
Level 5: (Assuming not covered by WBF/EBL Category 3 exemption (BB9A)) b) doesn't show a hand with a king or more above 10 HCP (BB9A3(a) & BB9A1).

Additionally, you couldn't describe the bid as just "Multi" or "Multi-2♦" (BB3G1): further "appropriate qualification" is required.

Finally, a convention requires more than regulatory conformance to "shine brighter by the day". It also needs a cadre of people wanting to play it. I note your apt self-chosen Member Title - are there enough others?

[HighLow21]

hrothgar, on 2014-February-05, 10:48, said:

"Member service" has never been a strong point for the C&C

If your description is at all accurate then yes, service isn't a strong suit.