[32519]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-02, 15:06, said:

Anyway some of us are more concerned about the fact that you do not mention this bid when describing your system (apart from the misleading "we play Multi") thus relying on the element of surprise (and making your opponents deal with a convention that may it be permitted even in the clubs where you play). Do you feel good about this?

These are club games where you sit down and give a brief outline of your system (not the whole system), "We play a differenet form of Multi, if you want to know more now we can tell you. Alternatively, should the bid arise, at that point it will alerted and all the info given that you require." Most are quite happy with that.

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-02, 15:06, said:

Anyway, as we all know, the only real proving ground for conventions is the Secret Bridge Olympics.

My plea to you and to everyone else for an invite to the Secret Bridge Olympics has thus far fallen on deaf ears. I would absolutely love to run all these crazy ideas past the world's best players. I got a whole pocketful for them to test.

[gwnn]

32519, have you read the definition that hrothgar has posted? Do you need new glasses? Hint: when someone shows you a rule that shows you're wrong, you have roughly speaking three good ways of replying:
1. Agree with him.
2. Show why the rule should be interpreted differently.
3. Show that there is another rule that overrides the one quoted by them, e.g. by being more specific.

There are other strategies too of course but the following are NOT proper responses:
4. Refusing to read the rule quoted.
5. Knowingly twisting the words of their explanations.
6. Name calling and/or unsolicited psychoanalysis.
7. Acting like a victim.

The following may or may not be appropriate:
8. Going away.

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2014-February-03, 01:35, said:

These are club games where you sit down and give a brief outline of your system (not the whole system), "We play a differenet form of Multi, if you want to know more now we can tell you. Alternatively, should the bid arise, at that point it will alerted and all the info given that you require." Most are quite happy with that.

Yes this seems fine, but you really ought to leave out the word "Multi" because I am pretty sure that a Multi includes a major-suit weak two.

[manudude03]

 32519, on 2014-February-02, 10:24, said:

Convince me how the current Multi (with strong options) passes the Brown Sticker requirements.

The normal multi shows a weak 2 in a major plus one or two of the following:
Some big balanced hand (whether this is 20-22, 23-24 or whatever).
A strong (4441) hand, with minimum of 16+.
An Acol 2 in any suit (sometimes only in a minor), this should be 16+, though you will probably get away with doing it with a 15 count with a 7 card suit or something.

From the WBF Systems Policy:

Quote

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.

Multi is typically a 2D opening (2 of a minor) that could be a weak 2 in either major, and all the strong options show 16+.

[32519]

Nah, I stand by this post.

I believe that I have an excellent chance of getting a favourable ruling at an appeals committee.

 32519, on 2014-February-02, 05:44, said:

With that being the case, if my 2♦ opening bid gets outlawed, I will go to the appeals committee and point out to them that the two bids are almost identical. Then I can get an official ruling on the bid once and for all with no further backlashes in any tournament, including those sanctioned by the SABF.

If you're still puzzling about this, I haven't lost the ♦ suit as part of my defence to 1NT. After the 2♦ overcall, partner is allowed to pass with a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. So effectively, I have retained all four options of my 2♦ opener as part of my NT defence.

I think I have a decent chance for a favourable ruling by the appeals committee.

[the hog]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-03, 01:45, said:

Yes this seems fine, but you really ought to leave out the word "Multi" because I am pretty sure that a Multi includes a major-suit weak two.

No it doesn't, Stephanie. Multi simply means multi meanings. Eg Ms or ms.

[gwnn]

Congratulations for standing by that post. Functional illiteracy is a serious condition but it's nice to see it doesn't affect your self confidence.

[MrAce]

Overall story of this topic is....
Csaba for president 2016 !

[Zelandakh]

The hog is correct that multi can be used for any multi-way bid within a certain context. However, a multi 2♦ opening, short form for "multi-coloured 2♦ opening", is more specific than this. This always contains a weak 2 in one or both majors and may (or may not) contain strong hand types. If only one major is possible for a weak 2 then it will always contain strong hand types.

What a multi-coloured 2♦ opening is not is a weak 2 in diamonds or some stronger hand types and it is misleading to describe it as such. Moreover, if you are playing under an NBO that restricts a convention I think it is unreasonable not to pre-alert it even if the club itself provides a specific exception and allows it. I suspect that if one of the players at the club complained that the convention would indeed be banned but that the players there are either unaware of this or simply do not care. If 32519 tells us where he plays then we could test this by emailing them and asking about the legality.

What is clear now is that he does not give proper disclosure here. Describing this multi-way bid as a Multi 2♦ opening is misleading - period. When you make disclosure the onus is on you to describe in a way that the opponents will understand. A convention name is always problematic in this case but it is absolutely unacceptable to use a convention name with a specific definition for one of a completely different meaning. And in ZA Multi 2♦ does have a specific meaning. This happens to match the international definition, which at least keeps things simpler. Neither a competent TD nor an Appeals Committee would rule that such disclosure was acceptable should the opponents be damaged as a result of this. If someone playing this convention in ZA were so stupid as to Appeal they would probably not only keep the deposit but might also ask the TD why no penalty had been applied for all of the other boards where this convention was being played.

[32519]

As of this post I am renaming my 2♦ bid, “Lee 2♦,” after my surname, much like Bill Flannery named his bid after himself. This seems to be the way things are done in the game of bridge, just to name some of the obvious ones everyone knows; Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, Michaels, Ghestem, Smolen, etc.

This post in the BBO forums introduces a new convention to the bridge playing world, “Lee 2♦.” If I am the only one who ever ends up playing it, that’s fine. If it gets outlawed as brown sticker, I think I can provide a reasonable argument before an appeals committee to get it declared legal.

Toodle do!!!

[gwnn]

That's a nice thing to do, 32519. Just remember to specifically ask your director whether he allows brown sticker conventions, and show him why Lee 2♦ is brown sticker.

[Zelandakh]

Just a note to 32519, if the 6-4 majors option is changed from 10-15 to 13+ (with any maximum you like) then it would not be BS. I daresay you could find a way to rearrange the bids in the system to make this so. I do not know if that would make it legal in ZA but it would now match the first Exception (all strong options are a king above average strength and all weak options promise a known suit).

[WellSpyder]

 32519, on 2014-February-03, 07:22, said:

This post in the BBO forums introduces a new convention to the bridge playing world, “Lee 2♦.” If I am the only one who ever ends up playing it, that’s fine. If it gets outlawed as brown sticker, I think I can provide a reasonable argument before an appeals committee to get it declared legal.

One thing you might want to bear in mind is that as I understand it deciding the legality or otherwise of a particular method is not a question on which an appeals committee can legitimately rule (though as with any TD ruling on a matter of law they can ask the TD to reconsider).

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about how these things are organised in South Africa, but the above is at least how I think the laws are interpreted in England.

[32519]

First things first:
I need to type out the name of my new convention in full, “Lee Two Diamonds.” Why in full? So that it can be picked up in a Google search. The short name is “Lee 2♦.”

Now to your post –

 Zelandakh, on 2014-February-03, 08:00, said:

Just a note to 32519, if the 6-4 majors option is changed from 10-15 to 13+ (with any maximum you like) then it would not be BS. I daresay you could find a way to rearrange the bids in the system to make this so. I do not know if that would make it legal in ZA but it would now match the first Exception (all strong options are a king above average strength and all weak options promise a known suit).

The Rule of Eighteen is a rule employed by the World Bridge Federation to define the boundary between light opening bids and Highly Unusual Methods, known as HUM, in which bad hands are regularly opened. There is a mathematical calculation involved.
Only if the number of High Card Points added to the total of the two longest suits totals 18, is the bid acceptable.

The Rule of Nineteen is a rule employed by the bridge players in England to satisfy the requirements of the World Bridge Federation to define the boundary between light opening bids and Highly Unusual Methods, known as HUM, in which bad hands are regularly opened. There is a mathematical calculation involved.
If the number of High Card Points added to the total of the two longest suits totals 19, the bid is acceptable within the English bridge tournaments. This is just 1 point higher than the lower limit established by the World Bridge Federation, which constitutes The Rule of Eighteen.

My 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP hand pattern option, meets The Rule of Twenty, and therefore automatically the Rule of Eighteen and the Rule of Nineteen. With 2-1 in the minor suits, I am adding 3 distributional points for the singleton and 1 distributional point for the doubleton, bringing the minimum total hand strength to 14. With 3-0 in the minor suits, I am adding 5 distributional points for the void, bringing the minimum total hand strength to 15.

I cannot see how my 2♦ bid will ever be outlawed by either the World Bridge Federation of the EBU. If somehow or other it does end up before an appeals committee, a head-to-head comparison with the current Multi can be put forward as part of getting the bid declared legal –
1. Multi has no known anchor suit (the other 3 players at the table are not sure whether opener has ♥ or ♠). With my bid the anchor suit is known to be ♦ 74.8% of the time.
2. Multi with strong options is permitted. Permitting strong options in my 2♦ bid should be no different.

In short, I can see absolutely no conceivable way that either the WBF or the EBU will outlaw the bid. The USA has already red-carded the current Multi in many instances. I will never in a lifetime even bother trying to get it legalized there.

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

The Rule of Eighteen is a rule employed by the World Bridge Federation to define the boundary between light opening bids and Highly Unusual Methods, known as HUM, in which bad hands are regularly opened. There is a mathematical calculation involved.
Only if the number of High Card Points added to the total of the two longest suits totals 18, is the bid acceptable.

I would be surprised if you are able to convince the WBF that a 6-4 10 count qualifies as a strong hand. I would also be surprised if Bridgeguys is an authorative source regarding WBF system policy.

Regardless, your best option is probably to submit a direct question to the WBF and ask them whether they consider the Lee 2♦ opening to be a BSC.
Please let us know what they have to say.

[Vampyr]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-February-03, 10:48, said:

One thing you might want to bear in mind is that as I understand it deciding the legality or otherwise of a particular method is not a question on which an appeals committee can legitimately rule (though as with any TD ruling on a matter of law they can ask the TD to reconsider).

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about how these things are organised in South Africa, but the above is at least how I think the laws are interpreted in England.

Yes, in this month's EBU magazine there was a notice that those looking for a convention to be licensed should submit the convention by the end of February, so that the L&EC can consider it in time for it to be included in this August's Blue Book. This makes it pretty clear that the committee are the only people authorised to approve methods.

[Vampyr]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-February-03, 10:48, said:

One thing you might want to bear in mind is that as I understand it deciding the legality or otherwise of a particular method is not a question on which an appeals committee can legitimately rule (though as with any TD ruling on a matter of law they can ask the TD to reconsider).

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about how these things are organised in South Africa, but the above is at least how I think the laws are interpreted in England.

Yes, in this month's EBU magazine there was a notice that those looking for a convention to be licensed should submit the convention by the end of February, so that the L&EC can consider it in time for it to be included in this August's Blue Book. This makes it pretty clear that the committee are the only people authorised to approve methods.

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2014-February-03, 11:14, said:

My 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP hand pattern option, meets The Rule of Twenty, and therefore automatically the Rule of Eighteen and the Rule of Nineteen. With 2-1 in the minor suits, I am adding 3 distributional points for the singleton and 1 distributional point for the doubleton, bringing the minimum total hand strength to 14. With 3-0 in the minor suits, I am adding 5 distributional points for the void, bringing the minimum total hand strength to 15.

The rules of 18 etc are not relevant, because they are used to evaluate one-level opening bids. But anyway you can't randomly add points for shortness to bring your hand up to a king better than an average hand. This is measured in HCP.

Quote

I cannot see how my 2♦ bid will ever be outlawed by either the World Bridge Federation of the EBU.

The question is not whether it will be outlawed, but whether it is already illegal. Why not do what others have suggested -- write and find out.

[johnu]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-03, 11:48, said:

The question is not whether it will be outlawed, but whether it is already illegal. Why not do what others have suggested -- write and find out.

Plausible deniability? If it hasn't officially been ruled illegal, 32519 will continue to use this convention because he can truthfully say that nobody has officially said that it is illegal.

[kuhchung]

I would just like to be a part of this epic thread