[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-September-20, 10:10, said:

If we agree to play a 2♥ opening as a weak two in a major, and then I open it on a hand with spades, that's still against the rules, even though it's legal to play a 2♥ opening as showing spades only. This is no different.

If you agree to play a 2♥ opening as a weak two in either major, and that agreement is illegal in the event in which you're playing, it's illegal whether or not you ever open 2 of a major.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-September-20, 14:59, said:

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

I agree they are difficult to defend against. But BB section 7C1B(iv) contradicts the above in that a three-suit-multi without an 'anchor' suit is permitted: "Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which [must] not be the suit opened. <snip>"

So, one can play that 2C and 2D show one of three suits (not including the suit opened) of at least five cards with presumably any strength. One might show a six-card suit and the other a five, for example. Or am I missing something?

[billw55]

If they are hard to defend against, IMO all the more reason to allow them in tournaments. Fine, club bridge can be a protected social event, but tournaments should be competitive.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2013-September-21, 15:05, said:

If they are hard to defend against, IMO all the more reason to allow them in tournaments. Fine, club bridge can be a protected social event, but tournaments should be competitive.

I think one argument is that a two-board round, which is the most common type of tournament bridge played by perhaps half the populace, should have relatively simple conventions. These events are usually level 4 in Britain, while some top events are level 5. The contradiction in the Blue Book was the main issue I was raising, having conceded the grammatical issue.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 17:03, said:

I agree they are difficult to defend against. But BB section 7C1B(iv) contradicts the above in that a three-suit-multi without an 'anchor' suit is permitted: "Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which [must] not be the suit opened. <snip>"

Perhaps you are merely pointing out that the use of "may" is inconsistent here, but the sentence Frances quoted is intended to describe opening bids which have (non-strong) options some of which involve length in the suit opened, and which have no anchor suit. None of the options in what you describe involves length in the suit opened. Of course it is possible that when opening 2♦ to show a weak two in some other suit you will happen to hold four diamonds by coincidence, but that is true even for a normal multi and is addressed by the sentence immediately following the one Frances quoted.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-September-21, 15:57, said:

Perhaps you are merely pointing out that the use of "may" is inconsistent here, but the sentence Frances quoted is intended to describe opening bids which have (non-strong) options some of which involve length in the suit opened, and which have no anchor suit. None of the options in what you describe involves length in the suit opened. Of course it is possible that when opening 2♦ to show a weak two in some other suit you will happen to hold four diamonds by coincidence, but that is true even for a normal multi and is addressed by the sentence immediately following the one Frances quoted.

I have accepted that the "may not" in 7C1B(iv) is interpreted as "must not", so let us not cloud the issue by continuing to discuss that. I was drawing attention to the statement in the Blue Book, as quoted by Frances:

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

An opening bid of 2C or 2D showing an unspecified 5-card suit other than the suit opened, has no 'anchor' suit, may or may not have length in the suit opened and is particularly difficult to defend against. But it is permitted. And it is different to a normal multi in that the suit can be one of three, but not the suit opened.

Or do we think "may or may not" is different to the expected meaning here? Using "may not" to mean "must not" would be very confusing here!

PS I think I have worked out what the BB is intending to say. Is it:

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which either promise or deny length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted"?

This post has been edited by lamford: 2013-September-21, 16:50

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-September-21, 16:21, said:

An opening bid of 2C or 2D showing an unspecified 5-card suit other than the suit opened, has no 'anchor' suit, may or may not have length in the suit opened and is particularly difficult to defend against. But it is permitted. And it is different to a normal multi in that the suit can be one of three, but not the suit opened.

But the only way it can have length in the suit opened is by coincidence: you have a weak hand with hearts which happens to have a club side-suit. The full paragraph that Frances' quote comes from is

Blue Book 7C1 note c said:

Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted. However, players are permitted to open (say) 2♦ showing a weak two in either major while coincidentally also holding diamond length, as long as they have no specific understanding to do so.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-September-22, 03:37, said:

But the only way it can have length in the suit opened is by coincidence: you have a weak hand with hearts which happens to have a club side-suit.

So you think the following statement is true: "Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."? I do not, and it should say, "which are only permitted if length in the suit opened is not promised or denied." The next sentence does not clearly correct the error in the previous sentence. And whether or not you have length in the suit opened does not make them any harder to defend against. The lack of an anchor suit does.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2013-September-20, 11:32, said:

I agree with StevenG's implication that EBU rulings should comply with explicit rules in the Blue Book. The director seems to have done the necessary homework and ruled straight from the new book.

I think they neglected or ignored the requirement in the regulation for proper disclosure.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-September-21, 16:21, said:

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

An opening bid of 2C or 2D showing an unspecified 5-card suit other than the suit opened, has no 'anchor' suit, may or may not have length in the suit opened and is particularly difficult to defend against. But it is permitted. And it is different to a normal multi in that the suit can be one of three, but not the suit opened.

"X is prohibited because it has quality Y" does not necessarily mean "all treatments with quality Y should be prohibited." What's usually going on is that Y is just one of several criteria used to decide whether to allow a treatment. It may strongly suggest prohibiting, but it's not sufficient by itself or there may be mitigating factors (e.g. a convention that's very popular might be allowed even though it's difficult to defend against).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-September-23, 11:00, said:

"X is prohibited because it has quality Y" does not necessarily mean "all treatments with quality Y should be prohibited." What's usually going on is that Y is just one of several criteria used to decide whether to allow a treatment. It may strongly suggest prohibiting, but it's not sufficient by itself or there may be mitigating factors (e.g. a convention that's very popular might be allowed even though it's difficult to defend against).

I agree, but the "they" refers to "opening suit bids with no anchor suits which may or may not have length in the suit opened". The statement that they are not permitted is untrue. They are permitted as long as they do not show length in the suit opened, and the following sentence does correct the wrong impression given.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-September-23, 11:30, said:

I agree, but the "they" refers to "opening suit bids with no anchor suits which may or may not have length in the suit opened". The statement that they are not permitted is untrue. They are permitted as long as they do not show length in the suit opened, and the following sentence does correct the wrong impression given.

Eh? If a bid does show length in the suit opened then the suit opened is an anchor suit, so it's not one of "they".

What is not permitted is methods where some (non-strong) options show length in the suit opened, and others do not (unless there is a different anchor suit). That is what is meant by "may or may not have length in the suit opened".

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-September-23, 12:32, said:

Eh? If a bid does show length in the suit opened then the suit opened is an anchor suit, so it's not one of "they".

What is not permitted is methods where some (non-strong) options show length in the suit opened, and others do not (unless there is a different anchor suit). That is what is meant by "may or may not have length in the suit opened".

If a suit bid "may or may not show length in the suit opened", then that suit is not an anchor suit. I understand now, eventually, what it is trying to say, but I don't think it does a good job of saying it.

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit, where one option shows length in the suit opened, are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted" seems to be the intended meaning. Am I right?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-September-23, 15:04, said:

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit, where one option shows length in the suit opened, are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted" seems to be the intended meaning. Am I right?

Yes, that's what I understand it to mean.