[Cyberyeti]

We've been playing natural 4+ card weak 2s in diamonds hearts and spades for 20+ years. The EBU has now suddenly without warning decided you can't do this.

What do we do now ? there seem to be several options.

(Basic system weak NT acol, wide range 1N rebid with no gap to 2N opener, 1x-1y-2N used artificially)

1: simply play 5 card + weak 2s

2: play a mexican 2♦ and weak 2s in the majors

3: play a multi 2♦ containing the weak 2Ms with or without strong options, 2♥ both majors, 2♠ something else (both minors ?)

4: play 2♦ both majors and weak 2s in the majors

5: play 2♦ as weak 2 in hearts or strong options, 2♥ both majors, 2♠ weak 2

Interested to hear recommendations and reasons for them, plus any options we haven't considered.

[DavidKok]

I'm struggling to believe that weak two's are not legal. Are you sure that this is the case?

[Tramticket]

I am a fan of the multi - particularly now that we have switched to weak-only, meaning it can be passed. If you want to still be very aggressive, why not play the multi as very weak - say 2-7 and a five+ card suit, with 2H/S as 8-11 and constructive?

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-08, 10:26, said:

I'm struggling to believe that weak two's are not legal. Are you sure that this is the case?

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

[DavidKok]

So doesn't b1 include weak two's? Any bid showing 6 also shows at least 5.

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-08, 10:17, said:

[...] natural 4+ card weak 2s in diamonds hearts and spades [...]

[AL78]

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

So doesn't b1 include weak two's? Any bid showing 6 also shows at least 5.

Yes, weak twos which could have five or more cards in a suit are allowed, but not allowed if it could be a four card suit which is what the OP has been playing (and presumably is what has been updated in the blue book). It can be 4+ cards if a second suit is also specified so you could play 2♥ as weak with 4+/4+ in the majors for example.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, as summed up above, it's that we used to do this on 4 card suits (and no points) that has been outlawed.

[DavidKok]

Ah, I see. Then may I recommend: 2♦/2♥/2♠ showing 6(+) in the suit bid, preemptive? I am a big fan of allowing 5-card suits as well but starting with 6 and working your way down is a good way to learn how to play them.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-08, 11:52, said:

Ah, I see. Then may I recommend: 2♦/2♥/2♠ showing 6(+) in the suit bid, preemptive? I am a big fan of allowing 5-card suits as well but starting with 6 and working your way down is a good way to learn how to play them.

I know perfectly well how to play those but don't because many of the top end ones get opened 1 by our methods, and we find destructive > constructive at the 2 level.

[sfi]

2♦=♦+♠
2♥=♥+♠
2♠=♣+♠

All 4+/4+ and can be very weak depending on vul.

I've never played this, but there are a couple of pairs who do and they seem to get good results against me far too often when the bids come up.

[Gilithin]

Does this give you most of your original system back?

2♣ = 4 card weak 2 in diamonds or strong, artificial
2♦ = 4+♥ and 4+♠
2♥ = 4+♥ and 4+♣
2♠ = 4+♠ and 4+♣

[Cyberyeti]

Gilithin, on 2022-October-08, 12:45, said:

Does this give you most of your original system back?

2♣ = 4 card weak 2 in diamonds or strong, artificial
2♦ = 4+♥ and 4+♠
2♥ = 4+♥ and 4+♣
2♠ = 4+♠ and 4+♣

I don't think the 2♣ is legal and we wouldn't play it anyway, I thought about something like this though, along with sfi's suggestion

[Gilithin]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-08, 12:49, said:

I don't think the 2♣ is legal and we wouldn't play it anyway, I thought about something like this though, along with sfi's suggestion

I had not checked the actual Blue Book. Having done so, it seems to me that as long as your 2♦ opening promises either a 5th diamond or a second 4 card suit you are on the right said of the rules. That means you cannot continue to open 3343 hands but otherwise nothing changes. A complication here is that regulation 7C1bii is written particularly badly, even for bridge authorities. Does specifying a suit mean showing a specific suit, or just specifying that a second suit exists? My reading of it is the latter but maybe someone from the EBU (Frances or Jeffrey, are they still here?) can clarify.

[michel444]

runing forward and backward on the thread realized
you use to open weak 2 in ♦♥♠
2 ♦ Bayli or Ekren seem legal
so that left 2 Major for Major club or other
i will chose
2♥ 4+♥ and 4+♠ both Major (ekren style)
2♠ 4+S and 4+ ♣
2♦ both minor
we lose the♦♠
the ♥ ♣
and♦♥

there are 6 possibility and 3 bid
its up to you what seem better to have

[Cyberyeti]

Gilithin, on 2022-October-08, 13:17, said:

I had not checked the actual Blue Book. Having done so, it seems to me that as long as your 2♦ opening promises either a 5th diamond or a second 4 card suit you are on the right said of the rules. That means you cannot continue to open 3343 hands but otherwise nothing changes. A complication here is that regulation 7C1bii is written particularly badly, even for bridge authorities. Does specifying a suit mean showing a specific suit, or just specifying that a second suit exists? My reading of it is the latter but maybe someone from the EBU (Frances or Jeffrey, are they still here?) can clarify.

It has to be a specific suit I think, so not "diamonds and another" but "diamonds and spades".

[LBengtsson]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-08, 10:17, said:

We've been playing natural 4+ card weak 2s in diamonds hearts and spades for 20+ years. The EBU has now suddenly without warning decided you can't do this.

Surely a precedent has been established for allowing you to bid this way for 20+ years. I do not know how the English Bridge Union operates, and I do not know how conventions are licensed, but someone needs to man up and take them to task over this.

It is not like a Multi 2♦ which is banned in most of North American tournaments as far as I know. You are bidding a suit, a natural bid, with less points than a minimum one level opening. It is a natural bid, defined in easy terms, but a pre-emptive way.

I guess that as there is not any defense listed for your methods - is there? - that is why they have banned it.

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-08, 12:24, said:

I know perfectly well how to play those but don't because many of the top end ones get opened 1 by our methods, and we find destructive > constructive at the 2 level.

Are you familiar with Andrew Gumperz sequence on preemptive bidding? One of the maxims is "preemptive bids deny having defence. Having offence is optional." I think this would fit your style quite well, especially if you lower the requirement to 5-card suits.

If you want something wild and 'out there', I would suggest:

2♦ - 5(+) diamonds, weak.
2♥ - weak two with 5(+) hearts or 6 spades.
2♠ - 5(+) spades, weak. Often exactly five.

Edit: on second reading it seems this multi 2♥ is not legal since rule c1 does not apply. I'd keep the diamonds and spades bids though, and go wild with the 2♥ opening. Bidding where you live is maximally preemptive.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-08, 15:06, said:

Are you familiar with Andrew Gumperz sequence on preemptive bidding? One of the maxims is "preemptive bids deny having defence. Having offence is optional." I think this would fit your style quite well, especially if you lower the requirement to 5-card suits.

If you want something wild and 'out there', I would suggest:

2♦ - 5(+) diamonds, weak.
2♥ - weak two with 5(+) hearts or 6 spades.
2♠ - 5(+) spades, weak. Often exactly five.

Edit: on second reading it seems this multi 2♥ is not legal since rule c1 does not apply. I'd keep the diamonds and spades bids though, and go wild with the 2♥ opening. Bidding where you live is maximally preemptive.

When we first started playing the 4 card weak 2s, I opened 2♠ off Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx in first seat, so we already think like this.

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-08, 15:37, said:

When we first started playing the 4 card weak 2s, I opened 2♠ off Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx in first seat, so we already think like this.

You have a 2nd suit in this example so calling it say; an ultra weak Frelling 2♠ may solve that specific issue? Although that may fall foul of Cii if defined as non-natural.

Perhaps a petition to revert?