[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-10, 08:43, said:

Even the can-be-strong option can be passed without major headaches. It hasn't come up often, but I agree that passing with a strong hand with spades + a minor is a risk. Doubling is relatively safe if you agree that a bid at the 4-level shows the Leaping Michaels option. That does mean that you might have a problem with a strong single-suited minor hand on an auction such as (2♦*)-X-(2♠*)-P; (3♥)-?, where 4m would show the LM option. I don't mind choosing between 3NT, double and 5m there but it can get confusing.

This was precisely my doubt.
I think I can live with 4m after double as LM.
I guess we also gain the nuance that pass then 4m is a lesser type of LM (non forcing, or whatever).
Although one reason I was reflecting on 2H as hearts takeout is that 2H then 4m as LM would not be ambiguous (if Double then 4m shows the big single suit minor).

[nullve]

To those who play X of Multi as (13-15?) balanced or strong:

Suppose the bidding went

(2♦)*-X-(P)**

* Multi, frequently 5M4+m
** to play opposite 4+ diamonds

. Would Advancer's position be interestingly different from the one over

(2♦)*-X**-(P)

* Weak Two
* (13-15?) balanced or strong (I know, noone actually plays the double this way against Weak Twos)

?

It seems to me that he would have to worry about violating Burn's law on partscore deals in both cases.

[DavidKok]

Which is exactly why a multi like that is a brown sticker convention, and comes with its own set of restrictions. I think others have tried this before, in particular to smuggle in the Wilkosz ("it's just a weak only multi except we still play 6-card weak two's so it's almost always a 5-card major, and we like to have a 5-card minor on the side as backup. Don't punish us for wanting extra definition when it comes to minor suits!") but I don't think you get to do that freely.

I haven't tried this at all, but I think it is a solid idea to demand 3(+) diamonds for a 'balanced' double of a Wilkosz 2♦. This greatly alleviates the pressure on advancer. The downside is you have to pass with some classical takeout doubles of diamonds, but the opponents might be unwilling to pass out 2♦ without exploring the major suits.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-16, 07:46, said:

Which is exactly why a multi like that is a brown sticker convention, and comes with its own set of restrictions. I think others have tried this before, in particular to smuggle in the Wilkosz ("it's just a weak only multi except we still play 6-card weak two's so it's almost always a 5-card major, and we like to have a 5-card minor on the side as backup. Don't punish us for wanting extra definition when it comes to minor suits!") but I don't think you get to do that freely.

Suppose someone's Garbage Multi in 1st seat NV is defined as

0-7 hcp and either 6M3-OM, 5M4+m3-OM or 5M(332),

which is what many Norwegians actually play when they say the play Garbage Multi, since they hardly ever use it with 7+ M or 5+M4+OM. Am I wrong to say, for the sake the of discussion, that the opening is frequently made with 5M4+m? (I'm making a statement about the opening as opposed to defining it.)

[DavidKok]

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). I don't know if the Norwegian rules allow me to consult a printed copy of that defence at the table - in the Netherlands that would be legal. Incidentally that defence greatly helps relieve the pressure on advancer. I think this was constructed at least in part to combat a smooth pass by responder.

The issue isn't the fact that you can list out hands with a 5 card major (either 5(332) or 5M4(+)oM or 5M4(+)m) but that you fail to promise a 6-card suit, which is the only variant of the multi that got grandfathered in. Now if you wanted to insist on 6M4(+)m you could probably do that without any consequences.

Attempting to double your 2♦ opening without an accompanying note what partner may expect over a third hand pass is just poor bridge, I would not recommend that.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-16, 09:05, said:

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).

WBF Systems Policy said:

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]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-16, 10:08, said:

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

WBF rules (WBF Systems Policy)

DavidKok, on 2023-January-16, 10:08, said:

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.

DavidKok, on 2023-January-16, 10:08, said:

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]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-16, 18:50, said:

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.