[jtfanclub]

OK, so suppose next the ACBL decides to ban all wallets and purses from the playing area. After all, they might contain cheating devices too.

"Wallet and purse checking could be a small source of revenue for organizers, either by manning a desk with volunteers and charging a small fee, or by renting desk space to an entrepreneur, similar to agreements with book sellers. (Either way, there ought to be a waiver of responsibility for lost items.)"

You wouldn't have any problem with that, right?

Or is it merely that "if it's not an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for me, it must not be an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for anybody else", which seems to be the modus operandii on these forums?

EDIT: And yes, that applies to Multi defense as well.

(I say make every event at the Regionals or Nationals midchart except the 299er events, then give people the written generic Multi defense. I think most people can handle that).

[cherdano]

TimG, on Mar 31 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 31 2008, 09:01 AM, said:

It might be worth inquiring whether the District 25 organizing committee might consider something like this for Boston in 2008...

That's a very good idea.

I don't think ACBL should be responsible for handling cell phones during sessions. Sort of in the same way that they are not responsible for coats or cars during a session. Many organizers make allowances for coats and cars -- coat racks or a coat check and discounted or free parking -- but these are not, and should not be, requirements for organizers.

Cell phone checking could be a small source of revenue for organizers, either by manning a desk with volunteers and charging a small fee, or by renting desk space to an entrepreneur, similar to agreements with book sellers. (Either way, there ought to be a waiver of responsibility for lost items.)

I am pretty sure the ACBL won't like to collect hundreds of cell phones for every session. There is a reason you are not supposed to leave valuables at the coat check, you know.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Mar 31 2008, 09:40 AM, said:

OK, so suppose next the ACBL decides to ban all wallets and purses from the playing area. After all, they might contain cheating devices too.

You wouldn't have any problem with that, right?

Or is it merely that "if it's not an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for me, it must not be an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for anybody else", which seems to be the modus operandii on these forums?

I don't carry a wallet or a purse...I do carry a money clip with my driver's license, one credit card, one debit card and (sometimes) a few notes of currency.

I do not think a wallet is in the same category as a cell phone because a wallet is not something that people typically use to communicate. The ban on cell phones (and other devices capable of sending or receiving electronic communication) is not arbitrary.

[pclayton]

From reading this thread and Jonathan Steinberg's comment does this mean ALL midchart is banned from pair events?

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Mar 31 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

From reading this thread and Jonathan Steinberg's comment does this mean ALL midchart is banned from pair events?

I've always had issues with the way these sorts of regulations are passed:

As far as I understand matters, the local sponsors are the ones who get to determine which convention charts are used for what events.

In theory, District 25 could decide to use

1. The Super Chart for the 0-20 Novice pairs
2. The Limited Convention chart for the Flight A KOs

I don't expect that this would be popular, but it is permitted (In much the same way, note that many districts selectively modify individual aspects of the Convention Chart)

Personally, I would prefer to see the Conventions Committee focus on developing different convention charts, while recognizing that the local sponsors are the ones who decide whether or not to use them. For example, if the Conventions Committee might decide that a Conventions Chart suitable for a 0-6 Board team event should look very different that a chart suitable for a 12+ board team event.

I have no problem with the Conventions Committee producing two different convention charts. They can even suggest that one chart is intended for 0-6 board rounds, while the other is intended for 12+ board rounds. But the committee shouldn't pretend that they can mandate what chart will be used by individual sponsors.

[mycroft]

I actually don't think very many would complain about your suggestion, Richard: at least here, it's the FltA KO players who grumble about having to play against Precision and the like, and the Limited CC probably would contain all of their agreements; whereas the novices wouldn't play anything else anyway, and the few 0-20 who play in that event that play weird stuff would get a "what's that? How do I deal with that?" rather than "you can't do that!"

We train OTBS (B=bidding, here) into players at around the 50-100 point. It takes a fair bit to untrain them later. 0-20, *everything* is new and confusing.

Michael.

[inquiry]

To get back on topic....

Multi 2♦ gives an unfair advantage to too many partnerships when playing in an ACBL environment. If justin and kevin who know about multi can end up playing 4♥ instead of 4♠ when exposed to multi, what is the normal club players to do if someone springs it upon them?

Now I understand this is just a matter of experience. If the ACBL players ran into multi 2♦ two or three times a session, they would soon handle it as well as those globally who see it. But in the short term, those of us who play multi 2♦ (I admit I do) would have an unfair advantage.

Eventually, I think multi 2♦ will be allowed.... but I surely see why it is not.

[awm]

It's true that a lot of acbl players have trouble with Multi. And it makes sense to gradually allow it, starting at the "top levels" and slowly moving down.

The concern is that this decision seems to be retrograde -- we are removing the multi from top flight pairs events where it had been allowed for quite some time. This is different from a decision like "the rank and file is not yet ready for multi, we will not introduce it into regional level events."

I still want to know whether this applies to BAM events, which have short rounds and a pairs-like movement. The Reisinger is supposed to be one of the most prestigious bridge events in the world. Can we (Americans) expect the international bridge community to continue taking the Reisinger seriously if we disallow a convention that is virtually standard bridge in most of the world?

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Mar 31 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

I'd hazard that 95% of ACBL players have never even seen a multi 2♦ opening.  Hell, I bet a goodly portion of them haven't ever seen a pass or correct bid...

If they have been exposed to SAYC they have also been exposed to
(1NT)-pass-(2♠)-pass
(3♣*)
and maybe they have also been exposed to Lebensohl.

Actually this is more tricky than Multi because it's not obvious (at least not to me) whether a double on 3♣ shows clubs or whether it's t/o of clubs. If a natural 2♣ overcall was not available I suppose it makes sense to play it as showing clubs, and also the fact than one opp has shown 15-17 points plus the fact that we are at the 3-level suggest that it should show clubs.

Not that I'm making a point here since the need to be able to defend opp's weak 2-openings is obviously bigger than the need to be able to defend their minor suit transfers.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Apr 1 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 31 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

I'd hazard that 95% of ACBL players have never even seen a multi 2♦ opening.  Hell, I bet a goodly portion of them haven't ever seen a pass or correct bid...

If they have been exposed to SAYC they have also been exposed to
(1NT)-pass-(2♠)-pass
(3♣*)
and maybe they have also been exposed to Lebensohl.

It's not the same when the player ALWAYS makes the same bid, in multi they can bid 2♠ for example to show a good heart fit. If responder had to bid 2♥ 100% of the time I bet that would solve a lot of confusion for the n00bs who haven't seen it before.

[joshs]

inquiry, on Mar 31 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

To get back on topic....

Multi 2♦ gives an unfair advantage to too many partnerships when playing in an ACBL environment. If justin and kevin who know about multi can end up playing 4♥ instead of 4♠ when exposed to multi, what is the normal club players to do if someone springs it upon them?

Now I understand this is just a matter of experience. If the ACBL players ran into multi 2♦ two or three times a session, they would soon handle it as well as those globally who see it. But in the short term, those of us who play multi 2♦ (I admit I do) would have an unfair advantage.

Eventually, I think multi 2♦ will be allowed.... but I surely see why it is not.

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage.

Bridge is a combination of skills. Memory. Understanding of bidding logic. Of system development. Of Table feel. Of card combinations.

Different people have different skills. For instance, playing a GCC only event merely improves some players chances (say Michael Rosenberg or Geir Helgemo) and hurts others (say Meckwell).

For newer players in national events, who for some reason havn't seen the Multi or an intrafinesse, you are at a disadvantage until you become familiar with them. And you only become familiar with them if you become exposed to them. And quite frankly that occurs pretty quickly.

I also am pretty sure, even in day 1 of national events, the multi does not outperform natural weak 2 bids on weak 2 hands. The reason people play multi, is that it uses only 1 bid for both weak 2's, and thus frees the 2M bids for something else which is where your gain comes from.

You talk about accidents when the opps end up in the weak 2 bidders suit. Well the weak 2's side missing game, or making the wrong opening lead has to be a much more common event then the opps playing in a blatantly wrong strain.

[jdonn]

joshs, on Apr 1 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 31 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

To get back on topic....

Multi 2♦ gives an unfair advantage to too many partnerships when playing in an ACBL environment. If justin and kevin who know about multi can end up playing 4♥ instead of 4♠ when exposed to multi, what is the normal club players to do if someone springs it upon them?

Now I understand this is just a matter of experience. If the ACBL players ran into multi 2♦ two or three times a session, they would soon handle it as well as those globally who see it. But in the short term, those of us who play multi 2♦ (I admit I do) would have an unfair advantage.

Eventually, I think multi 2♦ will be allowed.... but I surely see why it is not.

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage.

Come on, I think you know that is not analogous. A beginner is no more disadvantaged if their opponent intrafinesses them than you or I are, whether they know what happened to them or not.

[joshs]

jdonn, on Apr 1 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

joshs, on Apr 1 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 31 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

To get back on topic....

Multi 2♦ gives an unfair advantage to too many partnerships when playing in an ACBL environment. If justin and kevin who know about multi can end up playing 4♥ instead of 4♠ when exposed to multi, what is the normal club players to do if someone springs it upon them?

Now I understand this is just a matter of experience. If the ACBL players ran into multi 2♦ two or three times a session, they would soon handle it as well as those globally who see it. But in the short term, those of us who play multi 2♦ (I admit I do) would have an unfair advantage.

Eventually, I think multi 2♦ will be allowed.... but I surely see why it is not.

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage.

Come on, I think you know that is not analogous. A beginner is no more disadvantaged if their opponent intrafinesses them than you or I are, whether they know what happened to them or not.

Really?

Ok, here is my bet. Take a pair playing in a national event for the first time. (We are talking about nationals, not about begginer events).

In event A they face the multi every round.
In event B they have to deal with a technical card combination, like intrafinesses.

In which event do you think they get a better score?

[JanM]

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

[helene_t]

Yesterday I played the BIL jackpot with a novice p (I think her total of IRL bridge is 150 boards until now plus a similar number of boards online).

Helene_t: Hi opps, we play Precision 14-16, 1♦ can be short, wjs, no transfers, lo=enc

LHO: I think Precision should be banned in the BIL. Most BILs don't know Precision

Helene_t: You don't have to play it

LHO: No but we have to play against it. At least I hope you explain your bids better than what your CC says.

Helene_t: No problem, if there is anything that differs from SAYC I will message you.

LHO: Thanks.

Afterwards I regretted that I didn't ask him to provide full disclosure of his bids also. Ever tried to provide full disclosure of a SAYC 1♣ opening?

As I have stated earlier I think it's silly to have specific rules for Multi: preempts without a known suit are either allowed or not allowed, period. But more generally, I think advancing players would benefit for being exposed to a more varied environment with respect to bidding systems. At least it improves one's understanding of one's own bidding system if one learns that certain principles might as well have been different.

[joshs]

JanM, on Apr 1 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

Why wasn't the change applied to everything that requires a pre-alert? (I would hate that but at least its consistant)

When I pre-alert Multi, transfers over 1C, and Kaplan Inversion, the majority of the discussion time is not on the multi. 1D could be very short also generates more discussion than multi ever did....

Actually, when I play 12-15 or 13-16 NT, that generates more discussion then any of the above.

In my case, I just can't play in these events with a number of partners. Multi is not just an add on. My canape system requires 2M as an opening bid, and you need weak 2 bids in the majors in pair events, so without the multi I am stuck....

[TimG]

JanM, on Apr 1 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

This is a pretty bad argument, in my opinion, unless you are suggesting all mid-chart methods should be excluded from pair events. Many other mid-chart methods (and even some GCC methods) probably slow opponents down, but Multi seems targeted because it is gaining popularity -- more people are playing it, more opponents are taking extra time, and the game slows down more often as a result. Instead of slowing down the spread (and acceptance) of Multi by ushering it off to events with 7+ board rounds, let the process unfold. The more often players face the method, the more familiar they will become with it and the less time they will need to prepare at the table. By moving Multi to events with longer rounds, you are slowing down the acclimation period.

If your opinion is that all mid-chart (experimental) methods ought to be restricted to events with 7+ board segments, you might as well make pair events GCC and restrict the use of mid-chart to team events. (This might be a good idea, but as I understand the current structure of convention charts, it is not the intended goal.)

[jdonn]

joshs, on Apr 1 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

Ok, here is my bet. Take a pair playing in a national event for the first time. (We are talking about nationals, not about begginer events).

In event A they face the multi every round.
In event B they have to deal with a technical card combination, like intrafinesses.

In which event do you think they get a better score?

But that won't prove what you want it to. This would be an experiment designed to argue against multi being disallowed on the basis of being too difficult for inexperienced pairs to PLAY, but the rationale for it being disallowed is that it's too difficult for them to play AGAINST. The accurate experiment would be to give the OPPONENTS of an expert and an inexperienced pair some difficult card combinations but give our sample pairs themselves no decisions at all, and see who does better. And of course they will do the same, which just shows as I was saying that your analogy is bad.

By the way, I believe multi should be allowed. I was just pointing out your example was a poor way of arguing for it.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Apr 1 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

Hi Jan:

I don't know about you, but when I am playing in midchart type pairs event, I pretty much assume that one (or more) pairs is going to be using a multi 2♦ opening.

On those occasions when I am playing in a serious partnership, its pretty much assumed that some discussions of defensive methods are required. It shouldn't be necessary to have any discussions between rounds.

I appreciate the fact that there are going to be some pickup pairs who haven't spent any time discussing multi defenses. And yes, on occasion, this could slow things down. However, as other folks have noted this same issue applieis to everything from a mini-NT to a Kaplan inversion. (I'll bet dollars to donuts that the mini-NT is much more of a time sink that a multi)

[awm]

Yeah, I've noticed that when people pre-alert multi, usually the response is "okay we play defense two" and that's the end of the story. When the multi actually comes up there is a bit of delay as people parse the defense.

When people pre-alert Kaplan Inversion, often a long discussion ensues over whether we play Hamish (double of 1♠ is spades, 1NT is takeout of hearts) or Reverse Hamish (double of 1♠ is takeout of hearts, 1NT is spades) or some other defense. In fact Hamish himself once had a huge accident against me because he didn't know which defense he was playing (despite the pre-alert and ensuing discussion with partner).

In general methods where there is an ACBL approved defense at the table often people just agree to play that defense, whereas methods where no ACBL defense is necessary (i.e. transfer responses to 1♣, kaplan inversion) often require a lot more discussion.