[Cyberyeti]

 nullve, on 2022-October-11, 02:27, said:

The way I read


is that Opener, in order to satisfy © (i), can have (5+) spades as long as he doesn't show (4+) spades. (Having a suit and showing it are not the same.)

I just asked the EBU that question as the wording is unclear, I suspect it means "as long as no meaning is agreed to contain 4+ spades".

[AL78]

 nullve, on 2022-October-10, 12:39, said:

System designers may disagree! Besides, if this is the sense in which the system regulators have used the verb 'show', can't it be proven that a classical Weak 2♠ is both legal and illegal?


Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 5+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened and the opening is not of type (a), it must be of type (b) (i) and therefore legal.

Since it shows 6 spades, it also shows 4+ spades. Then, since spades is the suit opened but the opening is not of type (a), (b) (ii) or © (iii), it must be illegal.

-------

What am I missing?

The lower bound. 5+ spades excludes four card suits. The minimum length of the suit opened makes a difference.

[Cyberyeti]

Confirmed with the EBU, the Blakset 2♠ is NOT legal here, it is supposed to read as I suggested, so could be used as weak preempt in any of the other suits.

[Cyberyeti]

What do people make of this as an off the wall version

2♠ = one suited clubs or hearts or 5-5 both reds

common responses

Pass = lots of spades
3♣ = to play opposite clubs, opener rebids 3♦ with both reds or 3♥ with hearts.
3♦ = would raise clubs, to play 3♦ opposite reds, rebid 3♥ with hearts
3♥ = would raise clubs, to play 3♥ opposite reds or hearts

otherwise 2N and opener shapes out in the obvious fashion

higher bids are P/C not sure what 3♠/3N should be as I can't imagine you want to bid 3N very often without finding out which option partner has first.

If combined with 3♣ 5-5 minors, a 3♠ rebid over 2N would show a good 3♣ preempt, 3N rebid would show another good club type, would need to work out the difference

[DavidKok]

I would not mind playing against this at all, it seems a lot worse than (for example) a natural weak 2 or a Muiderberg.

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2022-October-11, 04:53, said:

I would not mind playing against this at all, it seems a lot worse than (for example) a natural weak 2 or a Muiderberg.

We would have the weak 2 in the multi and 2♥ as both majors

What do you feel are the weaknesses ?

[DavidKok]

The fact that the defenders get multiple rounds to get in on the action, so they have more time to coordinate their defence. I think my generic 'what to do when the opponents play weird conventional weak bids' defence will do quite well against this. Getting your suit in only at the 3-level and on the second round means that this opening should generally be stronger than a standard barrage bid.

I think it is a mistake to have slower, multi-meaning bids to give yourself more hand types to preempt on if it comes at the cost of making individual preemptive bids less effective. As an example, if you open a 2-under transfer 2♠ showing clubs (not too far off, really) LHO gets a double-then-pass, 2NT and 3♣ option that might not have been available over a 3♣ opening. Skilled defenders will lower their ranges for taking action over such an opening bid, allowing the axe to come down more often. Furthermore, if you do have the both reds or the hearts type, partner might be placed in an impossible competitive situation if LHO has a normal bid that would also be made over 3♣ at the other table (say, 3♦ or 3NT, and partner has some clubs).

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2022-October-11, 08:05, said:

The fact that the defenders get multiple rounds to get in on the action, so they have more time to coordinate their defence. I think my generic 'what to do when the opponents play weird conventional weak bids' defence will do quite well against this. Getting your suit in only at the 3-level and on the second round means that this opening should generally be stronger than a standard barrage bid.

I think it is a mistake to have slower, multi-meaning bids to give yourself more hand types to preempt on if it comes at the cost of making individual preemptive bids less effective. As an example, if you open a 2-under transfer 2♠ showing clubs (not too far off, really) LHO gets a double-then-pass, 2NT and 3♣ option that might not have been available over a 3♣ opening. Skilled defenders will lower their ranges for taking action over such an opening bid, allowing the axe to come down more often. Furthermore, if you do have the both reds or the hearts type, partner might be placed in an impossible competitive situation if LHO has a normal bid that would also be made over 3♣ at the other table (say, 3♦ or 3NT, and partner has some clubs).

That said, if partner has clubs and hearts, opps could have a major issue which is why I preferred it to the EBU friendly blakset style bid. 2♠-P-4♥ and now do you want to bid a slightly sketchy 5♦ knowing opener could easily have 5, or 4♠ knowing the raiser could easily have 5, your double now gets overloaded.

It gives you a bit more definition in that 3♥ is now a very classical heart preempt with the one through 2♠ being less good.

[Gilithin]

 nullve, on 2022-October-11, 02:27, said:

The way I read


is that Opener, in order to satisfy © (i), can have (5+) spades as long as he doesn't show (4+) spades. (Having a suit and showing it are not the same.)

It is starting to look like the EBU rushed this thing out in an afternoon. Did anyone with a passing knowledge of the English language even glance at the wording of this regulation before making it public? With all of the experience the EBU has in making regulations that are clear, this version of the Blue Book is downright embarrassing.