Now that's what I thought, Sean, but in previous discussion here, the consensus seems to be that coasts do not matter for this purpose. Could we get a second opinion?

My initial thoughts were the same as you Sean... that it shouldn't be allowed.

But I discussed this with respect to St Petes in a recent game (think it was our 1st league game) and it seems that the Barents Sea was able to support a move to St Petes (sc) and that this was fine by the official rules.

Yes, Braveheart, that was the discussion I am referring to. So shouldn't the same rule apply to Bulgaria?

A unit that can itself physically move into a territory can support the territory. And when it supports the territory it supports the entire territory. Coasts are not an issue.

Coasts only become an issue as follows: A fleet in St-Pete SC cannot physically move to Norway, thus it cannot either support a unit in Norway from attack or cannot support a unit attacking Norway.

A fleet in Bulgaria EC(Bulgaria does not have a north coast) cannot physically move to Greece and thus cannot support either a unit in Greece or an attack on Greece. An army in Bulgaria, because it can physically move into Greece, can support either a unit in Greece or an attack on Greece.

So I think I should be able to execute this order, but the option is not showing up in the list. If I support a move to Bulgaria (rather than Bulgaria(sc) ) will I get the support?

Just say Bulgaria. That's all you need to do.

You will indeed get the support

I sure hope so

It is. Kestas said so, and he is trustworthy.

The rules definitely state you can and everyone, including Kestas, says that for the purpose of support Bul = Bul(sc) = Bul(nc) and it does not matter what you pick. You just support anything Bulgaria and it works. I've yet to find someone who has done it though so let us know once it works.

Alright, I'm going to try it.

The adjudicator de-coasts all territories before processing them; coasts only factor in when selecting orders, they don't actually matter once processing starts.

The problem is that it's giving you the North Coast as a separate choice, because that's confusing as Bulgaria and Bulgaria(nc) are essentially the same thing in this respect

Ok, thanks Kestas.

You can indeed support to both coasts.

However, it is one of the most disputed items of the rules, whether you can or must support to a specific coast or that a support is a support for both coasts. The opinions are split on this issue.

See also issue 4.B.4 of the DATC:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.B.4

Lucas

Yes this is controversial.
The game designer thinks one thing and the North American hobby thinks another.
Anyway it looks like Kestas agrees with the North American hobby, that coast is not significant in the support order, so that if it is specified differently in the move order and support orders, that difference is ignored. So pity poor Russia that orders Rum S Turkish F Con-Bul(sc), and the Turk orders F Con-Bul(ec). The support is valid according to the hobby, but not to the game designer.
Allan Calhamer says "Allies should be in evident agreement", or to expand his extremely terse English, "Allies should be in agreement, and there should be evidence that they are in agreement".
To me the game designer's reasoning on this subject is sound, and if we've been playing it wrong all these years, so be it.
What follows S in the written support order looks like a move order for the supported unit. It has the same syntax. For the support order to be valid it makes sense to require its last section to be a valid move order. In other words if it looks like a duck, it should quack like a duck.
I suspect that this was so obvious to Allan Calhamer, that he didn't bother spelling it out in the rules.