[Jamesod]

In my club my opponents opened 2D with 6 poor spades and only 1 point. Alerted as a weak bid. I Overcalled 2 S with all the royals. Went down 1 in 4 S.
Is it legal to open weak with 1 point?

[jillybean]

Where in the world are you playing?

[pescetom]

Also

Was it explained as "a weak two in an undisclosed major" or similar, or just as "weak" without any mention of a major (or Multi)?
What is their real agreement about 2D?

[barmar]

Why does this matter? The problem is that you overcalled in the same suit they had. Would you have done any better if they had the expected 5-10 HCP?

The ACBL convention charts mention minimum HCP for normal weak 2 bids (4 in Basic chart, 3 in Basic+). They don't specify a minimum for Multi 2♦, but maybe we're supposed to presume the same as a natural weak 2.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2026-February-17, 15:20, said:

The ACBL convention charts mention minimum HCP for normal weak 2 bids (4 in Basic chart, 3 in Basic+). They don't specify a minimum for Multi 2♦, but maybe we're supposed to presume the same as a natural weak 2.

4 in basic, 3 in basic+. really? who knows this, who violates the minimum and how do they enforce the restrictions in these charts?

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2026-February-17, 15:20, said:

Why does this matter? The problem is that you overcalled in the same suit they had. Would you have done any better if they had the expected 5-10 HCP?

The ACBL convention charts mention minimum HCP for normal weak 2 bids (4 in Basic chart, 3 in Basic+). They don't specify a minimum for Multi 2♦, but maybe we're supposed to presume the same as a natural weak 2.

The question of OP matters because rules are rules. How does his overcall influence the answer to his question about 1 HCP being legal?

Not sure why you assume he even knew that Opener might have spades rather than diamonds. His post does not mention them explaining it. He certainly should clarify this and where he plays.

[blackshoe]

The IP address from which the OP was posted is in Ireland. It would appear only Irish regulations are relevant. A quick look at Irish regulations doesn't show any minimum point count for a weak two opening. So the answer to the OP question appears to be "yes, it's legal."

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2026-February-17, 19:09, said:

A quick look at Irish regulations doesn't show any minimum point count for a weak two opening. So the answer to the OP question appears to be "yes, it's legal."

No minimum for the agreement about a preempt here in Italy either.
But the minimum be able to Announce a weak two as "weak" is 6 HCP (too high, IMO). So if the minimum is 0 HCP it is correct to alert, but I would not retain an explanation of "weak" without a minimum as sufficient disclosure (in theory it begs further questioning, but the most likely explanation is that they have a normal agreement but do not know to announce).

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2026-February-17, 16:03, said:

The question of OP matters because rules are rules. How does his overcall influence the answer to his question about 1 HCP being legal?

Even if it's illegal, there has to be damage in order for the TD to award an adjusted score for the NOS, although they could issue a PP against the offenders.

If the explanation didn't make it clear that Multi shows an unspecified long major, that could indeed have caused this damage. But the question was specifically about the point count, I assumed the rest was made clear.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2026-February-18, 13:25, said:

Even if it's illegal, there has to be damage in order for the TD to award an adjusted score for the NOS, although they could issue a PP against the offenders.

If the explanation didn't make it clear that Multi shows an unspecified long major, that could indeed have caused this damage. But the question was specifically about the point count, I assumed the rest was made clear.

The OP does not make it clear if the explanation made it clear that it was Multi, rather than diamonds. He might have deduced it was intended as Multi only later.
The only clear question it asked was about the points count.
I agree it's a pretty poor post and the author should pay more attention and clarify when requested.

[jillybean]

We don't have enough information to make any decision.

We don't know where this occurred but I believe all governing bodies will have similar approaches in regards to full disclosure.
The ACBL policies, somewhere made it clear that any request for information should initiate a full disclosure, it's not up to your opponents to "ask the right question"

From the ACBL Principals of Full Disclosure
Let’s take a look at weak two bids from the point of view of full disclosure.
When an established partnership opens a weak two bid, they have a great deal of information of which their opponents are not aware.
The convention card (WhatCC?) discloses the point range, but little else. However, the partners are aware of the range of hands on which the bid can be made (discipline?, suit quality requirements?, five-or-seven card suits allowed?, side four-card major ok?, void ok?, positional variations?, etc).
Full disclosure requires that all these inferences, restrictions and tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about their style.

Let's put the responsibility where it belongs, a grunt and a nod towards the 2D card should initiate FD.

[Jamesod]

Sorry for delay. Only found thread today.
Fault lies with me for assuming the major in hearts as I held the Spades.
Yes I'm in Ireland. I just never encountered an opening with 1 pt.
Thanks for the input.

[mw64ahw]

The trick here is to have a good defence such as Multi Vs Multi. One of the options for X is indicating a 5-card Major. Now unless responder is passing 2♦ the ops. are the ones who could be in trouble.

[jillybean]

Jamesod, on 2026-February-23, 17:41, said:

Sorry for delay. Only found thread today.
Fault lies with me for assuming the major in hearts as I held the Spades.
Yes I'm in Ireland. I just never encountered an opening with 1 pt.
Thanks for the input.

Not so fast did you ask about the 2D call?
What does the IBU say about Multi and 1hcp openings?

After a quick look.
BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS & TREATMENTS
The following conventions or treatments are categorised as "Brown Sticker":
(a) Any opening bid of 2C through to 3S that:
(i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength); AND
(ii) 2 does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

Talk to your Director.

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2026-February-24, 00:37, said:

The trick here is to have a good defence such as Multi Vs Multi. One of the options for X is indicating a 5-card Major. Now unless responder is passing 2♦ the ops. are the ones who could be in trouble.

The trick here is to penalize the clowns opening 1hcp multi at the club.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-February-24, 09:05, said:

What does the IBU say about Multi and 1hcp openings?

After a quick look.
BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS & TREATMENTS
The following conventions or treatments are categorised as "Brown Sticker":
(a) Any opening bid of 2C through to 3S that:
(i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength); AND
(ii) 2 does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

Talk to your Director.

It would be excellent if IBU had the courage to define Multi as the Brown Sticker it clearly is. Alas, the WBF System Policy and most of the RAs that follow it insert a contorted exception (and equally contorted clarification) specifically to let Multi off the hook. Not only, but a weak-only Multi (aka "Wagner") is considered by Directors equally legitimate, even though the contorted exception to Multi is based upon the existence of a 13+ strong option (or so I read it, if it has any logic at all).

[Gerardo]

AFAIR, Multi usage predates Brown Sticker regulations.
That's why it was granted an exception.

As I read what Jilly provided, there is no exception there, for neither Multi nor Wagner.

Multi vs Wagner: So the overcaller in direct seat can pass (relatively) safely, because s/he would get another chance to bid?