[DavidKok]

This is possibly not even worth posting, but I'm confused so here we go.

The Wilkosz 2♦ is an opening showing any weak (~7-10 HCP) two-suiter (at least 5-5) with the exception of both minors, i.e. it shows an undisclosed major and another (can be the other major). It is brown sticker by rule 2.3a of the WBF (the 2018 version - is that still the most up-to-date one?) since it meets both criteria (can be made on 9 high card points or less AND does not promise at least four cards in a known suit) while not falling under one of the two exceptions (a weak-strong multi-bid where all the weak options share an anchor suit, or a 2♣ or 2♦ opening that shows a weak two in an undisclosed major).

Several strong players have recently told me that it is a general rule (whose rule? The WBF? The local regulation authority? Club management?) that if a certain agreement is not brown sticker/HUM, taking out hand types from that treatment does not make it brown sticker/HUM. But I also somewhat frequently run into people commenting on playing weak-only five+ card multi 2♦, i.e. a 2♦ opening that shows a weak hand with at least (or sometimes exactly) a 5-card suit in an undisclosed major, citing that it is specifically listed as an exception in 2.3a.

Together these seem to imply that the Wilkosz (as well as some other treatments) are not brown sticker. I could hypothetically play an "I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-Wilkosz" weak-only five+ card multi 2♦ where I opt to not open it on all hands that lack a(t least a) 5-card side suit (and of course state this fact/'partnership agreement' both on the CC and at the table). In fact, I think many people have the partnership agreement to (almost) never open a multi with a 5332 or with 4oM, which means they are effectively playing Rainbow (of which I have no idea whether that is brown sticker or not, Chris Ryall lists it on his page of brown sticker conventions).

In practice I think it is clear that trying to smuggle in the Wilkosz like this goes against regulations. Where did I introduce the error?

[sfi]

I think it's hard to make a case that the weak 5/5 hands are a subset of weak 2 in a major. As evidence for that, the typical reason to use Wilkosz is so that you can play 2H/S as weak and natural and still show your two-suited hands. It feels like it stops quacking like a duck at some point along your chain of logic, but I'm not quite sure where.

I don't get why it's a problem from a regulation point of view though. We always just suggest opponents use whatever their defence is against a multi-2D. It may not be optimal, but it works well and is easy for the opponents to deal with. Nobody has ever complained about it not being suitable.

[helene_t]

I agree this is a problem. Consider the following two agreements:
1) 2♦ is 5-6 in a major but not both majors and not 5332
2) 2♦ is a 6-card major OR a Muiderberg hand

I am afraid that you could get away with 1) but not with 2), although the two agreements are identical. Or maybe you could only get away with 1) if you use a more sloppy disclosure, like "6 cards, or sometimes 5 if we like the shape and texture".

There were some English juniors that played 2♣ showing 4+ in either ♦/♥/♠, apparently legal since it didn't say anything about clubs as part of its specification (EBU rules are slightly more liberal than WBF rules in this respect).

Personally I think that given that we don't want to outlaw 5-card Multi we might as well just allow everything.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2023-February-06, 08:26, said:

I agree this is a problem. Consider the following two agreements:
1) 2♦ is 5-6 in a major but not both majors and not 5332
2) 2♦ is a 6-card major OR a Muiderberg hand

I am afraid that you could get away with 1) but not with 2), although the two agreements are identical. Or maybe you could only get away with 1) if you use a more sloppy disclosure, like "6 cards, or sometimes 5 if we like the shape and texture".

There were some English juniors that played 2♣ showing 4+ in either ♦/♥/♠, apparently legal since it didn't say anything about clubs as part of its specification (EBU rules are slightly more liberal than WBF rules in this respect).

Personally I think that given that we don't want to outlaw 5-card Multi we might as well just allow everything.

I think that 2♣ was legal until the last revision in EBUland, it now has to be 5 cards in one of them

[mycroft]

Very common issue: when does "removing hands that don't fit from a call" become "adding restrictions to the call"? Agreeing with Helene here, with the Muiderberg Multi.

I note that written defences would be allowed to this, even if it was a "very special Multi". So it would only be useful in order to get it into Category 3.

Unfortunately, even now, the WBF system regulations are written with a huge "you know, and we know you know, what we mean here, so we don't have to lawyer it down, right?" sticker on it (see, for example, 2.1d HUM vs a Precision 1♦ opener). Which means when you do try lawyer games, it all looks fine until the systems committee says "ruled illegal. You know it doesn't mean that." Whether or not you do.

They're written that way because it is very very hard to write regulations that do solve all the problems intended, without introducing a number of "well, we didn't mean to restrict that" or "we didn't mean to allow that". Witness my latest go-round with the ACBL Open Chart (where, because "it's just bridge, everybody would expect that" to open 1♠ in third seat with AQ864 5 T86 8543, so why am I a Name Pro being told it's illegal?", it's now both legal in any Open side game, without Alert or Pre-Alert, to play 1♠ is "5+ spades, 0-6 or 12+" in third seat), or why 1NT sandwich *by a passed hand* is Alertable in the ACBL.

[DavidKok]

Why is the distinction between "removing hands that don't fit from a call" and "adding restrictions to the call" important (if there even is such a distinction)? I thought the principle was that was could restrict and redefine our calls as much as we wished, we just can't add in any new hand types without possibly changing the classification. When you say it's a common issue, do you perhaps have some other examples of non-brown sticker treatments that would be brown sticker when sufficiently narrowed down?

The 2♦ "Muiderberg or 6(+)M" is interesting exactly because that's what people already play. If I say I prefer a 5cm for my Muiderberg, does that change the situation?

sfi, on 2023-February-06, 08:07, said:

I think it's hard to make a case that the weak 5/5 hands are a subset of weak 2 in a major.

Actually I think the work has been done for me. The people playing 2♦ as "weak with a major, may be a 5-card suit" have already shown that [weak and a 5cM] is a subset. I also think the implication of the line being drawn here would be very interesting - it would amount to saying "Yes, you may play 2♦ as weak with a 5-card major, but if you do not habitually open that with 5332 or 54xy in range you will be breaking the rules".

[sfi]

At some point I think the relevant authority will rule it as brown sticker and simply say "you know what we mean". Agreements that meet the letter of the regulation while violating the intent have an indifferent record of being allowed. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for allowing it. It just seems like you're unlikely to effect more than a change of wording that may wind up in making more brown sticker (weak-only multis or 5-card multis for example). I would suggest being upfront about how it's kind of a subset, which means it's really no different from an opponent's point of view. And push for regulation changes.

[mycroft]

When you are actively saying something about your hand over and above what you claim you are saying, or when you restrict hands from a call so strongly that it says something positive about your hand (rather than denying, say, 5332), then something that intends to regulate against the thing you're actually playing either fails at its task, or is ruled that way anyway.

People wanted to play "5+4" weak 2s a fair bit in the ACBL, and they tried to sneak it in the way Helene was mentioning. So their agreements were quite reasonable:

• mini-multi 2♦;
  
• 2M weak with 5-card major;
  
• but we didn't open 5332s because that's too dangerous;
  
• and we don't like opening hands with both majors for fear of missing game in the other suit.

But we're not playing that we *promise* a minor, that wouldn't be legal! (of course, some of them argued it was legal, because "just because we put restrictions on a Natural call doesn't make it conventional, even if "just by chance" it "ends up" always having a 4-card minor.)

The ACBL tried to fix this eventually by adding a "weak 2 with a 4-card minor" weaksauce into the GCC. Of course, because "we know what we mean", they never got around to explaining what a "weak 2" was. 9-13? 11-15? 6=4 allowed, or required, or never?

The new ACBL definitions do away with this problem (at least for bids made in the long suit) by explicitly stating that "A call is still Natural if it also shows distribution in another suit." Well, some people would say "do away with". Others would say "capitulated to". One of the interesting parts of the new regulations is that: Alert "Always: 1. A Natural bid which also shows Length or values in another suit." Because they know that it's a nasty little surprise to most (that these bids are Natural by definition), and want to ensure that the surprise doesn't continue through "full disclosure".

I would also warn you - as I've warned many for over a decade (note: I have no official sanction for this. Just my reading of the history and practise of this in the past): There is a specific exemption from the Brown Sticker regulations for "Multi 2♦". It's there because when the regulations were being set up, too much of the world played Multi, and played the things you can play 2M for if you play Multi, and they knew they couldn't just shadowban it the way they were shadowbanning Forcing Pass and Suspensor. They made that exception as small as possible (and recently added the "even though it's not a HUM, you can still use written defences" bit. I wonder who's responsible for that?) and if you try to shoehorn anything in as "no harder to defend against than the Multi", or "just a Multi with some hands taken out", it is more likely that the exemption will be pulled than your thing will be added to it.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try; that doesn't mean you shouldn't show how stupid the rules are. After all, it's a game with a famous and well-regarded history over decades. Just don't put anything you can't live without on having it happen.

[mycroft]

Just in case people read my last as implying I'm on the side of the luddites, I will make it clear that my first response to the draft Gold (eventually becoming the Open) convention chart was "great. It's time we get some more liberalization. Now show me the chart that I'll be playing all my games at, not the ones restricted to 'KOs over 24000 MPs/team and separate flight A events.'" I was absolutely (and pleasantly) shocked at what eventually happened (despite my (many!) nitpicking criticisms).

Oh, except for the "KOs over 24000 6000 MPs/team" thing. It's insane that the National 0-2500 GNTB is Basic+, but when I get knocked out of the event and play the single session "random side game" the next day (or even "the 5 table club game 30 minutes out of town"!), it's Open; and the next day when we put in our 4600 MP team for the KOs, I won't know whether it's Open or Basic+ until halfway through the first session. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, but what we have isn't it.

[DavidKok]

I think you're both misreading what I'm saying, or at least uncharitably suggesting that I'm trying to play the Wilkosz and/or improperly disclosing my agreements (I play a weak two, may be a five-card suit, in three suits). In fact, I even went out of my way to add that these 'partnership agreements' should be included on the CC and disclosed at the table. I personally would not at all be surprised if the game is better off without two-suited preempts like the Wilkosz or Rainbow. The goal of my post is to find out where the line is drawn - my guess is between helene's two treatments suggested above (the fact that they are identical notwithstanding).
My personal motivation in this runs the other way - I'm annoyed to no end by people playing 'just a multi' with six more undisclosed partnership agreements, and when the dust settles it's a different beast entirely. I am hoping to find some clarity on the line between a multi with some partnership understanding on the one hand and a brown sticker convention on the other hand, and started the discussion with a Wilkosz as a clear example of something on the wrong side.

I have no experience with the ACBL or their rules and have no bone to pick with them. Though if they happen to have a good guideline for how to treat this situation I'd love to learn from it.

[sfi]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-06, 15:42, said:

I think you're both misreading what I'm saying, or at least uncharitably suggesting that I'm trying to play the Wilkosz and/or improperly disclosing my agreements

Not at all - I got the idea that this was mostly an academic exercise. I was merely trying to point out what I expect would happen if this logic were stretched too far.

We don't get stressed about brown sticker conventions here, so the "multi with six other agreements" is not a regulation problem as long as it's disclosed. The practical impact is that people are better at explaining their agreements because they're not trying to shoehorn it into a box that's made for something else. Therefore there aren't many discussions about what constitutes a multi or where the boundary between brown sticker and not lies.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-February-06, 15:24, said:

I would also warn you - as I've warned many for over a decade (note: I have no official sanction for this. Just my reading of the history and practise of this in the past): There is a specific exemption from the Brown Sticker regulations for "Multi 2♦". It's there because when the regulations were being set up, too much of the world played Multi, and played the things you can play 2M for if you play Multi, and they knew they couldn't just shadowban it the way they were shadowbanning Forcing Pass and Suspensor. They made that exception as small as possible (and recently added the "even though it's not a HUM, you can still use written defences" bit. I wonder who's responsible for that?)

I hope I'm not a Luddite, and I wasn't playing bridge in those days, but wasn't the exemption for Multi 2♦ slipped in by surprise during a hastily convened meeting? Or so I seem to remember reading somewhere. It certainly seems against the spirit of Brown Sticker and also difficult to adjudicate given the lack of definition of "weak two" (not exactly "small as possible").
I'm surprised that the "even though it's not a HUM, you can still use written defences" bit is recent: I always assumed it was a tacit admission of guilt about making the exception and an attempt to placate opposition, it was certainly already there when I first hit my nose against Multi not so long ago (I turned up the next week with a written defence and was not allowed to read it).

[dokoko]

As long as your response structure does not rely on the fact that opener promises a second suit, I think you can call your Wilkosz Multi and use it.

But if you bid 2♠ on Kxx-xx-Qxxx-Axxx you obviously rely on the fact that opener promised a second suit if his long suit is hearts. In that case I would rule you are not playing Multi.

Personally I think from a certain level, there should be no (or very few) restrictions. OTOH players participating in big tournaments should be obligated to publish their convention cards in advance. That way others could prepare defenses to unusual conventions.

[DavidKok]

This can also lead to other confusion. For example the Rainbow (2♦ as a Muiderberg with unspecified major) contains, I think, 2♦*-2♥ (pass or correct); 2♠ (I had spades)-2NT (put me in your minor suit instead); 3♣/3♦. You could argue that playing 'just 5-card multi 2♦' the 2NT correction of 2♠ doesn't have an assigned meaning, so you could just play it as 'natural, to play, or suggest a minor suit if you happen to have one' which coincidentally occurs 100% of the time by partnership agreement.

As far as I know most of the Wilkosz response structure could be shaded in a similar fashion. E.g. if we take a not-100%-standard-but-quite-common weak-only multi response scheme:
pass - I like gambling
2♥ - Pass or correct
2♠ - Pass with spades, make a descriptive call from 2NT to 3♥ with hearts (weak)
2NT - tell me more about your hand (traditionally shows min/max and major suit but this partnership just so happens to believe in feature showing, and a 4(+) card suit is a feature).
3♣ - To play
that's really close already. In theory I like the idea of judging conventions not just by their hand description but also by their continuations, but in practice I think it doesn't do much here. If anything it might lead to situations where (identical) agreements are allowed under name A but barred under name B.

[mycroft]

Sorry - at a tournament this weekend. I'm with sfi - I'm sure you're not trying anything on. I'm just pointing out that attempts to play "what the WBF says matters more than what the WBF means, and 'we all know' (for relevant versions of 'we') what the WBF means" have in the past and will in the future hit "yeah, despite what you think, it doesn't say that, and you don't get to do it".

And if Multi-with-6-different-options "feels okay" to the WBF, but the dreaded Wilkosz doesn't, well, then, that's how it goes. They might not even be wrong.

I despair of those countries (and I know they exist) that have simply decided to go with the WBF for their own system regulation, even down to the club level. The WBF regulation works for world championship events explicitly *because* everyone at that level knows what they mean, and knows what "should be" legal (there's an interminable thread on here from 2011 I think, about the last time there was a major disagreement about this - where one side were saying "just because our 1♣ call could easily be on the shortest suit in an 18-19 point 'balanced' hand, it's still obviously Natural and it's not fair that they get to use their strange defences to Polish Clubs (which also open 1♣ when it's the shortest suit if 19-ish points) against it." (along with "oh, there's just no real defence to transfer responses to 1♣, it's just better") and the other side was going "what planet are you from?") But the people making decisions about the odd weird setup like yours or the "multi-with-6-options" at the WBF have the experience that, say, the average club owner in RandomTown doesn't.

I can say a whole bunch of things about certain NBO's system regulations - and I do - but it really is necessary to be a bit less loosey-goosey than the WBF System Regulations at the "average Joe" (player, director, administrator) level.

[awm]

The core problem here is the choice of calls, particularly the choice to pass. If my stated agreement is that 2D is weak with a six card major, I can get in trouble if I frequently open 2D with only a five card major. However, it seems that if my stated agreement is that 2D is weak with 5+ in a major, it does not matter how often I pass when holding a hand seemingly in range. Even if partner knows my tendencies (for example that I only have a five card major if unbalanced or only if I have three of the top four honors), these undisclosed agreements to *not open* seem to be treated very differently from undisclosed agreements *to open*.

This leads to ridiculous situations where disclosing less makes things legal while disclosing more runs afoul of system regulations. WBF directors are well aware of this — we were explicitly told by a director to stop disclosing that our 2D opening promises a minor if only 5M because *this disclosure* (not our choice of when to open) made the method illegal.

Ideally, a choice to pass on a hand that meets disclosed agreements to open should be treated as a psych and (if frequent) a possible CPU. This doesn’t happen in practice though, and I suspect almost all experienced pairs have CPUs about their preempt style and when they choose to pass despite holding cards that fit the preempt definition written on their CC.

[DavidKok]

awm, on 2023-February-19, 05:17, said:

This leads to ridiculous situations where disclosing less makes things legal while disclosing more runs afoul of system regulations. WBF directors are well aware of this — we were explicitly told by a director to stop disclosing that our 2D opening promises a minor if only 5M because *this disclosure* (not our choice of when to open) made the method illegal.

This is absurd but also answers all my questions, thank you.