[joshs]

I heard that the Multi is going to be changed to being allowed only for 6+ board a round events, with 3 day national pairs as the exception.

Did anyone know they were considering this? Is it just multi? Why would it be multi, and not the less common stuff on the midchart?

[skjaeran]

Your last word implies you're talking ACBL-land here. Thus I've got no idea and don't care much. Surely this could never be an issue anywhere else.

[pclayton]

I thought it was just multi, but I also thought this was a done deal.

[glen]

Not only that, but, this just in, during longer matches you can only play Multi against players old enuff to drive a Multi defense

[blackshoe]

IME, the C&C Committee, like most of the ACBL administration, is not very good about letting the membership know what they're doing. At the ACBL website the C&C page mentions only "convention chart revisions" as a current discussion topic. There are no details. So I would say that whatever change(s) may be in the offing, anything we might say here is no more than rumor.

[fifee]

blackshoe, on Mar 24 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

IME, the C&C Committee, like most of the ACBL administration, is not very good about letting the membership know what they're doing. At the ACBL website the C&C page mentions only "convention chart revisions" as a current discussion topic. There are no details. So I would say that whatever change(s) may be in the offing, anything we might say here is no more than rumor.

Why can't the ACBL join the world in allowing multi and other banned conventions?

Does anyone from the ACBL read these posts and pass the along the wishes of the multitude?

[Mbodell]

fifee, on Mar 24 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 24 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

IME, the C&C Committee, like most of the ACBL administration, is not very good about letting the membership know what they're doing. At the ACBL website the C&C page mentions only "convention chart revisions" as a current discussion topic. There are no details. So I would say that whatever change(s) may be in the offing, anything we might say here is no more than rumor.

Why can't the ACBL join the world in allowing multi and other banned conventions?

Does anyone from the ACBL read these posts and pass the along the wishes of the multitude?

The ACBL has very stupid convention policies, but I'm not sure that it is acting against the wishes of the multitudes (of current players).

You could make the argument that one reason the average age of the ACBL membership is in the late 60s is because of decisions like this, but I think the majority of current casual players prefer highly restrictive conditions of play since they are just playing standard or 2/1. I know when I play a strong club system several opponents make comments that any strong club system should be banned.

[TimG]

fifee, on Mar 24 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

Does anyone from the ACBL read these posts and pass the along the wishes of the multitude?

I don't think the BBO postings of a few players constitutes the "wishes of the multitude".

[paulg]

Mbodell, on Mar 25 2008, 03:15 AM, said:

fifee, on Mar 24 2008, 09:36 PM, said:

Why can't the ACBL join the world in allowing multi and other banned conventions? 

Does anyone from the ACBL read these posts and pass the along the wishes of the multitude?

The ACBL has very stupid convention policies, but I'm not sure that it is acting against the wishes of the multitudes (of current players).

You could make the argument that one reason the average age of the ACBL membership is in the late 60s is because of decisions like this, but I think the majority of current casual players prefer highly restrictive conditions of play since they are just playing standard or 2/1. I know when I play a strong club system several opponents make comments that any strong club system should be banned.

My experience is limited to NABCs but I'd say it is more than just the casual players who prefer the restrictive regulations. The majority of people we've played are unhappy playing against us when we put down the tome detailing our 5 Mid Chart conventions and appropriate defences.

To be fair most are friendlier when they've seen that we do disclose more than most and are interested in our methods, but they'd never play them as they could not use them down the club.

But some, normally the client, just refuse to play us and toddle off to the other table (I know they are not really permitted to do this, but life is too short to play in such an environment in the KOs or 1-day Swiss events).

[Mbodell]

cardsharp, on Mar 25 2008, 03:04 AM, said:

To be fair most are friendlier when they've seen that we do disclose more than most and are interested in our methods, but they'd never play them as they could not use them down the club.

The odd thing for me is I can play more things at the local club games than I can in the majority of the events I've played at nationals (which admittedly aren't the top bracket of exclusive NABC+ events, at least not yet). But not everyone has as young a crowd or permissive an environment as where I play club games.

[blackshoe]

Club games vary. Around here, there are no published convention regulations. The rule seems to be "you can play whatever you like" (as one club owner told me) — at least until somebody complains. Then you're likely to find you've been playing an "illegal" convention for the past two years.

[hrothgar]

I think that the more interesting question is what elements of the Midchart will be permitted in short round events.

I will repeat my usual comment that it would sure be nice if the ACBL were to share some of its proposals with the membership prior to formally adopting them.

One might hope that the WBF Laws committees experience with the new and improved Law 27 might provide a useful example why developing regulatory systems without any outside commentary often creates a world of trouble...

[mycroft]

Why the Multi and not other things? Well look at the "civilized world" where conventions are freer, and see.

In England, the birthplace of the Multi, it is at a "play pretty much anywhere" license, but only if you play it in a very restricted fashion (in particular, no mini-multi, and no "guessing" it isn't the strong option).

In other places in the world, including at the WBF, the Multi is an exception to generic rules and is allowed at lower license - again, provided you play it exactly the way the SO says.

Basically, it's grandfathered in because everybody plays it, everybody uses the 2M bids it frees up for other things, and it's too useful to destroy. But it wouldn't be allowed at that level now if it were introduced. The EBU L&EC has a canned statement along the lines of "if you say this should be allowed because it's just like the Multi and that's allowed, your argument will be ignored. The Multi is a special case - if too many people try to use it as a crowbar, we're more likely to remove the special case than allow more stuff in."

Having said that, I do prefer the "well, suggest it, and we'll see where we should put it" about the Orange Book to the Star Chamber.

[mycroft]

Oh, and what bothers me about the Mid-Chart in general is that not only does one have to have two different systems depending on whether you're playing GCC or Mid-Chart, but you have to have two different subsystems (three, really, but I'd be happy either not playing 12+ board stuff or playing my pairs system at 7-board) depending on whether you're playing pairs or teams.

All that means is that people won't play any of it, even more so than they do; who (besides the full-time pros) can remember two serious systems for the N times a year they actually can play them?

Note, I'm talking systems like MOSCITO where the mid-chart nature is immutably linked with the system, rather than "bolt-ons" like "2D multi or 18+ Roman, 2H "Precision 2D", 2S weak preempt in a minor" or "we play CRaSh vs NT at Mid-Chart" or...

[blackshoe]

Heh. A while back, a thought occurred to me while reading Anderson and Zenkel's excellent Preempts From A to Z, in which they advocate opening 4NT to show a good five level preempt in either minor. This bid is also part of the Romex system. I couldn't find this convention on any of the ACBL's convention charts, so I asked Rick Beye about it. He said that as far as he could tell, it's not legal at any level.

I opined that seemed a little silly to me, so I wrote an email through the ACBL website about it to the C&C. Never even got an acknowledgement that they received it, which I figure is about par for the course.

[helene_t]

fifee, on Mar 25 2008, 03:36 AM, said:

Why can't the ACBL join the world in allowing multi and other banned conventions?

Most SOs disallow weak 2-openings that do not promise length in a known suit. I think it's very bad that Multi is then allowed as an exception:
- It creates a need to specify exactly what Multi is. E.g. Scollaard/Jacobs 2♦ opening promising a 5-card in an unknown major and 4+ in an unknown minor is probably not allowed but I wouldn't be surprised if different SOs and/or different TDs think differently about that convention, or about other borderline Multi-like conventions. In any case I know some cases of pairs playing BSCs at local clubs and smaller tourneys because they think that what they play is just a variant of Multi.
- it creates a need to develop a defense against Multi. I believe this is not much easier than a generic BSC defense, so the value of the BSC ban is very small when Multi is allowed.

I can sorta understand the position of European SOs who have to deal with the situation that Multi was popular long before the BSC bans were formalized. I do not agree with their position but I can understand it. OTOH if Multi isn't very popular in North America I see no reason why they should allow it. Unless of course if they were considering getting rid of all system regulations.

[the hog]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

OTOH if Multi isn't very popular in North America I see no reason why they should allow it. Unless of course if they were considering getting rid of all system regulations.

Helene to disallow something because it is not popular is a rather poor policy. On that basis many many harmless conventions will be disallowed. Would you disallow Keri for example? You are also building in a factor of inertia in that if people are not exposed to the unusual they will never be preared to accept anything new.

[helene_t]

I am not arguing in favor of system regulations. I'm saying that given the premise that almost nothing is allowed, I think it would be wrong to allow Multi as an exception.

[the hog]

I know that, but you did say "If it isn't popular, then...." That is the argument I think is erroneous.

[awm]

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

Helene to disallow something because it is not popular is a rather poor policy. On that basis many many harmless conventions will be disallowed. Would you disallow Keri for example? You are also building in a factor of inertia in that if people are not exposed to the unusual they will never be preared to accept anything new.

Helene's not saying that we should ban things that aren't popular.

She's saying that we should have a simple and consistent policy, but that if something which is popular falls on the "disallowed" side of that policy then it's tempting to make a special rule in order to allow it.

It doesn't make much sense that 2♦ multi is allowed, whereas using another two-level opening to show exactly the same hands (i.e. 2♣ or 2♥ as a weak two in either major) is not allowed. It also doesn't make much sense that 2♦ multi showing a five-card weak two is allowed, whereas 2♦ showing a five-card major and a four-card minor is (probably) not allowed. The point is that in most places the regulators want weak bids to have a known suit (this is true on both ACBL's mid-chart and in events restricting BSCs in much of the world) with the multi being a special exception that exists only due to its popularity. If the regulations had been made before multi became so popular then probably it would always have been considered a BSC.