[jillybean]

Yes Twerb , not with a P.
Is this the same as what is known here as suction?

Is it Brown sticker?


Typical TWERB Structure
While variations exist, a common implementation over a 1NT opening follows a "next suit or the other two" pattern:
2♣: Shows Diamonds OR Hearts + Spades.
2♦: Shows Hearts OR Spades + Clubs.
2♥: Shows Spades OR Clubs + Diamonds.
2♠: Shows Clubs OR Diamonds + Hearts.

[awm]

The following are categorised as Brown Sticker:

1. Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that could be made on 9 high card points or less, and does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.
2. An overcall that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit, over a natural opening bid of one of a suit.
3. Any "weak" two-suited overcalls at the two or three level that may by agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits.

There are some exceptions to these rules as well.

However, it would seem that no defence to a 1NT opening is brown sticker (except possibly via #3 above, if for example 2♣ could be "hearts + spades" with a 4324 distribution).

[mw64ahw]

Two way exclusion relay bids

A new one on me TWERB

Sounds like 2 applies if playing the version above with no known 4-card suit

[mycroft]

...as awm says, "over natural one of a suit" opening.

So, not Brown Sticker over Precision Club (as one pair plays against me)(*). Not B-S as a defence to 1NT. But again, unless JB is magically transported to a WBF event (this one, perhaps?) then it doesn't matter. In the ACBL, "legal Open/+, not legal Basic/+" over 1NT; in NZ, any defence to an opening 1NT is "Junior grade" allowed.

Note, there are those who believe the other term for the system has a silent "K". (My problem with it is that very frequently, less so now than back in the day when it was Mid-Chart, the bidder has "the third option" - i.e. "I forgot, this is the suit I have". Which, oddly enough, would make it a harder system to defend against if overcaller's partner would actually believe them).

(*) Surprisingly, they want to play this over 1♣, and over 1♣-1♦, but not over 1♣-1♥ "any 8-11" or over 1♦ "usually a weak NT, but either minor could be our long suit". Not sure I understand, but I'm okay with it as the opponent :-).

[pescetom]

I played Suction for a while over our strong 1♣ pair, over 1NT and over Multi. I was told it was not legal to play it as a two level opening, which seems odd given that a weak-only Multi is considered legal.

[awm]

pescetom, on 2026-March-10, 13:07, said:

I played Suction for a while over our strong 1♣ pair, over 1NT and over Multi. I was told it was not legal to play it as a two level opening, which seems odd given that a weak-only Multi is considered legal.

Multi is a special exception to the Brown Sticker rules (basically because it was quite popular before the current rules came into place); you can't generalise by comparing things to Multi. Openings which can be weak without a known suit (OTHER than Multi) would be Brown Sticker (and thus often disallowed, for example in pairs events).

[pescetom]

 awm, on 2026-March-10, 13:32, said:

Multi is a special exception to the Brown Sticker rules (basically because it was quite popular before the current rules came into place); you can't generalise by comparing things to Multi. Openings which can be weak without a known suit (OTHER than Multi) would be Brown Sticker (and thus often disallowed, for example in pairs events).

That is what I was told by a national chief Director at the time. FWIW I thought and think it stinks, because the exception for Multi barely makes sense in the first place (even after the explanation) and seems to be partially dependent upon the implications of the presence of a strong option, not present in a weak-only Multi.

[mycroft]

Hysterical Raisins again - this time on the World stage, not just the ACBL. Too many played Multi 2♦, and in particular, played conventional 2M openers allowed by the presence of the Multi 2♦, for the PTB to "ban" it when they came to the conclusion that some (Brown Sticker) conventions were just BS.

[mycroft]

On that last; I am amused by the current trend with Multi users - specifically mini-Multi users - to use the "freed" 2M openers as "good weak 2s". Not saying anything about the effectiveness of that decision, just that the whole point was "take the weak 2 out of 2H and 2S and use them for something more effective" - and 60 years later, "more effective" turns out to be close to a 70-year-old idea (Schenken weak 2s).

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-March-09, 18:24, said:

Yes Twerb , not with a P.
Is this the same as what is known here as suction?

Is it Brown sticker?


Typical TWERB Structure
While variations exist, a common implementation over a 1NT opening follows a "next suit or the other two" pattern:
2♣: Shows Diamonds OR Hearts + Spades.
2♦: Shows Hearts OR Spades + Clubs.
2♥: Shows Spades OR Clubs + Diamonds.
2♠: Shows Clubs OR Diamonds + Hearts.

I’ve played suction over strong notrumps, and strong artificial 1C or 2C openings…I now play psycho suction. I don’t think it’s a good idea v weak. Suction is designed to create ambiguity, which is seen as a good thing when the opps rate to hold the majority of the strength. But against a weak 1N, there is a significantly greater chance that te hand belongs to our side than had opener promised a good hand. Therefore ambiguity can backfire.

Also, when I played suction, double showed clubs or the reds. Having to bid 2S to show that means you need more shape than you’d need for the action. Indeed, when I played suction…or psycho suction…the higher you bid, the more shape you have. It’s not about hcp…it’s about distributional playing strength. The goal of suction is to disrupt their constructive auctions, so it’s ill suited for using over a weak notrump, imo

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2026-March-11, 11:02, said:

On that last; I am amused by the current trend with Multi users - specifically mini-Multi users - to use the "freed" 2M openers as "good weak 2s". Not saying anything about the effectiveness of that decision, just that the whole point was "take the weak 2 out of 2H and 2S and use them for something more effective" - and 60 years later, "more effective" turns out to be close to a 70-year-old idea (Schenken weak 2s).

Has it really taken 60 years for more effective, 5 card preempts to become popular with mini-Multi players?

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2026-March-11, 11:13, said:

I’ve played suction over strong notrumps, and strong artificial 1C or 2C openings…I now play psycho suction. I don’t think it’s a good idea v weak. Suction is designed to create ambiguity, which is seen as a good thing when the opps rate to hold the majority of the strength. But against a weak 1N, there is a significantly greater chance that te hand belongs to our side than had opener promised a good hand. Therefore ambiguity can backfire.

Also, when I played suction, double showed clubs or the reds. Having to bid 2S to show that means you need more shape than you’d need for the action. Indeed, when I played suction…or psycho suction…the higher you bid, the more shape you have. It’s not about hcp…it’s about distributional playing strength. The goal of suction is to disrupt their constructive auctions, so it’s ill suited for using over a weak notrump, imo

Thanks, I'll discuss this with the Aussy who suggested it.
Good to know it is not Brown Sticker!

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-March-11, 11:50, said:

Has it really taken 60 years for more effective, 5 card preempts to become popular with mini-Multi players?

What makes you think that five card weak twos are ‘more effective’?

I play multi as 5-9 hcp, and 2M as 10-13, with frequent upgrades into and out of both ranges (disclosed).

I very rarely open a 5 card multi and never a 5 card 2M.

Why?

Because I have a partner. It’s always disappointing but no longer at all surprising to see posts here that have the unspoken assumption that the poster is always in control of partnership decisions

What is the purpose of a weak 2 multi?

Actually, that should be ‘what are the purposes’.

Obviously the ambiguity can cause problems for the opps, although it’s not all one way. A common issue is after 2D (2N) P (3N). With, say, 3=3 majors, perhaps an honour in both, which suit do you lead?

But in addition to the preliminary ambiguity issue, one major (pun intended ) advantage of having a 6 card suit is the ability for partner to control the auction, including bouncing to the 4 level immediately when holding adequate support for both majors and either a weak hand or a strong hand. Bouncing to the 4 level can create problems for 4th seat, especially if the multi was in first seat. But it becomes dangerous to bounce that high with no assured 9 card fit and a weak hand.

As for 2M, one of the major…ok, still punning….gains we see is that the auction 1S 1N 2S not only shows 6 spades but also promises 14+ hcp (or an upgrade from 13). 1M 1N 3S is now very strong…a truly great 16 or more. Same for 1H 1S 2H/3H.

And, as with multi, responder can bounce a 2M to 4M with weak or strong hands (the latter with no slam interest). Again, it’s counter productive, imo, if responder has to cater to a 5 card suit.

There’s always been a tendency to see aggressive bidding as ‘better’ and, for the most part, I agree. But not only are there issues that are overlooked, because they are ‘inconvenient’ to those who want to show off how aggressive they are, but it’s essential that partner adjusts his or her bidding to cater to the possibility that opener has only a 5 card suit. Responder either goes a little conservative or risks occasional horrible results when ‘saving’ into only a 5=3 fit. I think this is what the adopters of new gadgets forget or simply ignore….bidding is a zero sum game if the goal is to maximize reaching the optimal contract. Yes, imo initial ‘aggressive’ action is a long term winner over conservative bidding but only if partner understands the implications.