[Fluffy]

I'm reading http://worldbridge.o...tems/policy.asp and it says that any opening that "could be weak" that doesn't promise a known suit is forbidden. And they define average hand as 10 Milton Work points without distributional values. So if I open Alder 3♠ with any suit AKQ10xxx is this considered weak?

[Gerben42]

Yes, that would be Brown Sticker.

[Fluffy]

But if I say it at leasts promises 10 HCP in the form of a jack doubleton or whatever, then it is ok?

I don't fully understand the definition of average, I am not subjective if I say that AKQ10xxx is stronger than 10 milton work points once you add some distribution.

[paulg]

Fluffy, on 2011-October-13, 13:56, said:

But if I say it at leasts promises 10 HCP in the form of a jack doubleton or whatever, then it is ok?

It is okay if the bid promises 10 HCP or more.

[Fluffy]

and if I do it with AKQ and out then I am psyching?

[paulg]

Fluffy, on 2011-October-13, 15:38, said:

and if I do it with AKQ and out then I am psyching?

No, but if the director has read this thread then he will probably rule that you have an implicit agreement to open with only AKQ, rule an illegal convention and award an artificial score that is not to your benefit.

[Free]

lol Fluffy! You might as well define your agreement as ♣AKQxxxx, then the suit is known. If partner holds any of the 3 ♣ top honours, he can "see" that you psyched and bid like you've forgot the agreement.

[Fluffy]

its just that I don't fully understand the laws. Does a suit have be known in all the options, or only in the weak ones?, if only in the weak ones I can allow 9 HCP hands in clubs for example, and 10 HCP for the rest.

nice advice Free, but my follow ups are highly artificial, can't have agreements after psyches

[helene_t]

hi Gonzalo,

you can play an opening with a suit that is know insofar the hand is weak, but then the other options have to be "strong", whatever that means.

I.e. you can play an opening that shows either a weak hand with four hearts or an 18+ hand with any shape.

You can't play an opening that shows a weak hand with hearts or 11+ with any shape. Not sure exactly where the threshold is, though.

If there are no weak options there are no restrictions. You can for example play an opening defined as 11-15 any two-suiter.

This all applies to openings from 2♣ through 3♠. A 3NT opening and higher can mean whatever you like. 1-level openings are not subject to BSC restrictions but they are subject to other restrictions.

[paulg]

helene_t, on 2011-October-14, 14:45, said:

you can play an opening with a suit that is know insofar the hand is weak, but then the other options have to be "strong", whatever that means.

"strong" is defined as a king above average strength: why they don't just say 13+ HCP is beyond me.

So if you wish to define a bid with an option for 9 HCP and another option with 10+ HCP, then there must be a known suit of at least four cards in both options.

If you define a bid with an option for 9 HCP, and further options all of which have 13+ HCP, then there only has to be a known 4+ suit for the 9 HCP option.

[Gerben42]

Let me note that playing 3♠ as a weak hand with ♠ is likely to be more effective than playing it as a solid minor. Especially since in Veldhoven, people may have discussed auctions like 3♥ (weak with ♠) Pass 3♠ Pass Pass Dbl.

[Fluffy]

I agree that;s why we use nat 3♥ and 3♠ and use 3♦ as alder

[Zelandakh]

By the wording of the OP the trusty old Gambling 3NT opening would also be brown sticker. I assume this was not the intention of the regulations and that some latitude might be allowed for such a hand...

[RMB1]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-16, 08:11, said:

By the wording of the OP the trusty old Gambling 3NT opening would also be brown sticker. I assume this was not the intention of the regulations and that some latitude might be allowed for such a hand...

Brown sticker regulations cover 2♣ through 3♠.
There are no WBF restrictions on opening bids from 3NT upwards (or an opening 1NT).

[Free]

Classic discussion about BSC, but there's always one who doesn't know what he's talking about...

The suit must be known in case you're weak only (otherwise a standard 2♣ opening would be BSC). You can have multiple weak versions, but then you need the same suit (for example "2♦ = weak 6+♥ or weak 55+♥-m" is allowed because ♥ is known).

Fluffy, I think the consensus is that the Alder opening will need to require at least 10HCP (you already have 9 in the standard version). A side suit J or trump J won't make a big difference and is still quite frequent. But don't deviate that 1HCP because it will definitely be penalized.

[mgoetze]

paulg, on 2011-October-14, 15:32, said:

"strong" is defined as a king above average strength: why they don't just say 13+ HCP is beyond me.

Because A109xxx - x KQJ10xx is above "average strength" by at least the king of clubs.

[paulg]

mgoetze, on 2011-October-23, 05:58, said:

Because A109xxx - x KQJ10xx is above "average strength" by at least the king of clubs.

You may think so, I may even agree.

Unfortunately the regulation states "Strong = high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand" and "Average Hand = a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values".

[blackshoe]

Hm. Is, by those definitions, a hand with 10 HCPs + another Q and another J "strong"?

[semeai]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-23, 08:31, said:

Hm. Is, by those definitions, a hand with 10 HCPs + another Q and another J "strong"?

Is part of those 10 HCP a King?

(Irrelevant of course, but I couldn't resist!)

[mycroft]

So, a "strong" hand, to those definitions is *either*:
13 Milton Work points "with no distributional values", or
something less in HCP with distributional values.

What that something is is somewhat Justice Stewartic in current implementation - "[we] know it when [we] see it";

Yes, it doesn't *say* it, but where do you put distributional values? I'd bet everyone, even with those definitions, would consider ATxxx QJTxxx - xx "average" - or better. This would make AJxxx KQTxxx - xx a "strong hand". So, okay, we could add "or with less strength and compensating distribution" to "average hand", or do something for "strong", but (my self-described anal-retentiveness aside), if that was the worst "read it like a human, rather than a lawyer" in the WBF regulations - even the system regulations, I'd be very happy.