[helene_t]

Tx Adam.

Actually a Multi 2♣ is another exception to the BSC thing. As for Major Flash it is understandable that this is somewhat less allowed than Multi 2♦ or 2♣ since the risk of misunderstandings when defending Major Flash with a pick-up p is greater than with 2♦ (and also Major Flash seems more "destructive", but that is not a criterium for making something a BSC in general. I.e. Lorenzo openigns are not BSC. OTOH you can't play Lorenzo in England but that's another story).

A better example may be 2♣ showing a weak hand in either red suit, as played by an English pair that featured in the Challenge the Champs a few years ago. I believe they can play that at EBU level 5 or some such where any Multi that promises length in an unknown suit which can't be the opening suit, is allowed. They can't play it in tourneys in e.g. Netherlands where the BSC criterion applies, though. Same for 2N showing a preempt in either minor, as in Icelandic Precision for example.

[MickyB]

2♣ as "either red suit" is legal in most events in England, I think the level 5 convention you are recalling was a 2♦ opening showing either red suit. The pair in question gave up playing it not long after, I think.

[the hog]

awm, on Mar 26 2008, 08:13 AM, said:

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.

Ok. Fair comment.

[TimG]

Also from Jonathan Steinberg's report:

"On the advice of the ACBL Competitions & Conventions Committee, the Multi 2 Diamond convention (opening two diamonds to show a weak two in either major) will no longer be allowed in pair games. This is a Mid Chart convention. It will still be allowed in team games of at least six boards. Effective August 1, 2008. Carried 22-2."

[blackshoe]

You know, I've always thought that teams is more fun than pairs. Since the ACBL seems determined to limit pairs games to whatever the current novice flavor of the month system is, I conclude that I was right.

[awm]

I wonder how this will effect BAM events.

Will we ban multi in the Reisinger?

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Mar 26 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

You know, I've always thought that teams is more fun than pairs. Since the ACBL seems determined to limit pairs games to whatever the current novice flavor of the month system is, I conclude that I was right.

heh. this reminds me a lot of school... teachers always catering to the slowest kids in the class...

[helene_t]

Not really. Beginners (including "eternal beginners") have little problems with opps playing weird conventions since they just bid their own cards. Who cares if a cuebid is available if we haven't agreed to play unassuming cuebid in the first place?

[hrothgar]

What I find most frustrating about this is that the ACBL continues to drift further and further away from International Standards...

In all seriousness: How many locations outside North America ban the Multi 2♦ opening in anything other than novice only "no fear" type events? In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

Here in North America, its too complicated for our most advanced players to handle.

Moreover, we get to listen to our international representative whining how they need protection because they don't get to practice against nefarious systems like "Polish Club". Its like shooting yourself in the foot prior to a track meet and then complaining that none of the other runners aren't dumb enough to do the same...

[rbforster]

TimG, on Mar 26 2008, 07:00 AM, said:

"<Banning Multi at pairs> Effective August 1, 2008. Carried 22-2."

Any word on exactly who the 24 voters are in this? I'd be happy to contact mine (if I knew who they were) and put in my 2 cents worth.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Mar 26 2008, 09:49 PM, said:

In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

I don't think so. In the Netherlands, everybody plays multi, yet I have not discussed defense against Multi in any partnership, and when it comes up in bidding panels of the magazines, the moderator just notes that different partnerships seem to have different ideas about the meaning of
(2♦)-x-(2M)-x
and
(2♦)-3m-(pass)-3M
etc.
The "Van start to finish" books describe a defense based on transfer overcalls, I think less than 1% of the readers of the books bothered to read that chapter. As for the Berry Westra books, I don't know what (if any) defense they describe and I doubt that many readers of the books know much more about that issue than I do.

This may sound weird but the fact is that defense against multi is not important. The vast majority of multi-auctions are dealt with by means of common sense. And besides, when the auction starts
(2♦)-x-(2M)-?
and opps are unable to explain what 2M means (some play it as p/c, some as natural, some have more exotic ideas, but above all many don't seem to play the same as partner does) any defense agreements that depend on the meaning of 2M won't work.

[the hog]

helene_t, on Mar 31 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 26 2008, 09:49 PM, said:

In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

I don't think so. In the Netherlands, everybody plays multi, yet I have not discussed defense against Multi in any partnership, and when it comes up in bidding panels of the magazines, the moderator just notes that different partnerships seem to have different ideas about the meaning of
(2♦)-x-(2M)-x
and
(2♦)-3m-(pass)-3M
etc.
The "Van start to finish" books describe a defense based on transfer overcalls, I think less than 1% of the readers of the books bothered to read that chapter. As for the Berry Westra books, I don't know what (if any) defense they describe and I doubt that many readers of the books know much more about that issue than I do.

This may sound weird but the fact is that defense against multi is not important. The vast majority of multi-auctions are dealt with by means of common sense. And besides, when the auction starts
(2♦)-x-(2M)-?
and opps are unable to explain what 2M means (some play it as p/c, some as natural, some have more exotic ideas, but above all many don't seem to play the same as partner does) any defense agreements that depend on the meaning of 2M won't work.

Au contraire. Richard did say "in most parts of the world." Clearly I can't comment on the Netherlands as I have never played Bridge there, but I guarantee that here and in European countries in which I have played, players DO have an idea of how to defend against the multi. Granted, it may well not be the most optimal defence, but they HAVE discussed it.

If the Netherlands is so different as you suggest I am curious to know why that might be the case. Very odd.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Mar 31 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

If the Netherlands is so different as you suggest I am curious to know why that might be the case. Very odd.

lol, it has nothing to do with NL versus other multi-countries. It depends on the level at which you play. Players at the national sub-top and above obviously do have agreements about defense against multi. But Richard said "standard part of learning how to play bridge". Sounds to me as if one could expect ordinary club players and players in minor regional tournaments to have agreements about defense against multi. Maybe that was not intended.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of players, even some decent card players that manage alright in regional tournaments, who are not interested in bidding theory much beyond negative doubles, Jacoby transfers and a few other essential gadgets. For those players, a specific defense against multi (other than generic principles such as "low-level doubles are t/o and jumps over enemy preempts are strong") is not high on the priority list.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Mar 31 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 31 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

If the Netherlands is so different as you suggest I am curious to know why that might be the case. Very odd.

lol, it has nothing to do with NL versus other multi-countries. It depends on the level at which you play. Players at the national sub-top and above obviously do have agreements about defense against multi. But Richard said "standard part of learning how to play bridge". Sounds to me as if one could expect ordinary club players and players in minor regional tournaments to have agreements about defense against multi. Maybe that was not intended.

I think that people are getting all worked up over semantic distinctions

I originally stated the following

Quote

In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

Helene seems to have assumed that I meant that all partnerships have highly sophisticated artificial defenses to a multi 2♦. I didn't say any such thing. I simply noted, that players seem able to defend against a multi 2♦. Helene says precisely the same thing when she says

Quote

In the Netherlands, everybody plays multi

In a similar vein, I don't think that most pairs here in the US have perfect defenses versus the opponents Jacoby transfers, yet they somehow seem able to play bridge...

[helene_t]

OK, we probably agree. If what you say is at the level of
(2♦)-pass-(2♥)-X*
is take-out of hearts rather than a lead-director for hearts then yes, most players you encounter in minor tournaments or in the A-line of ordinary clubs will understand that.

Wouldn't the same be true in ACBL-land?

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Mar 31 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

OK, we probably agree. If what you say is at the level of
(2♦)-pass-(2♥)-X*
is take-out of hearts rather than a lead-director for hearts then yes, most players you encounter in minor tournaments or in the A-line of ordinary clubs will understand that.

Wouldn't the same be true in ACBL-land?

I hesitate to make general comments about the competancies of typical ACBL players. I'm especially leery to speculate about a convention like the Multi which is (essentially) banned in North America.

The only time you get to use the multi is in

1. Mid Chart level events (soon to be Midchart level team events with 7+ Board rounds)

2. The occasional local club

Midchart team events are few and far between - many districts don't run any. Furthermore, few pairs like to switch methods back and forth and make significant system modifications for 3-4 tournaments a year.

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...

But don't take my word for it... Look what the ACBL Conventions Comimitte has decided: The Conventions Committee decided to ban the multi in all pairs events. We're not talking about novices here: We're talking about the top level players using written defenses...

(Of course, many folks have said for years that the ACBL's recommended defenses to the multi 2♦ are cryptic at best)

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Mar 26 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

What I find most frustrating about this is that the ACBL continues to drift further and further away from International Standards...

While their cell phone policy is drifting towards international standards.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Mar 31 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 26 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

What I find most frustrating about this is that the ACBL continues to drift further and further away from International Standards...

While their cell phone policy is drifting towards international standards.

Hi Tim:

I'd like to have more complete information regarding cell phone policies at international tournaments:

In particular, I'd be interested in knowing how many locations have implemented a blanket ban without providing some mechanism by which players can check their phones at the door?

I'm highly skeptical about the ban. However, many of my concerns would disappear if I believed that the ACBL were capable of creating/managing the equivalent of a coat check for cell phones.

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

[ASkolnick]

You see the whole convention ban is a CATCH-22 in itself:

The reason people in the ACBL are uncomfortable with Multi is because they don't get the practice to defend against it. The reason they don't get to defend against it is because you are not allowed to play it.

Me personally, never understood why it was so difficult. I don't play probably the most efficient system against it, but all I do is play natural with double being slightly stronger. 2N shows both minors.

People also seem to forget some of the drawbacks of multi:

1) You get to bid 2H over the "2S preempt" (If you play naturally). The times when it is 6-5-1-1 around the table, I lose. I'll take my chances.
2) They don't know the suit either. 2D-3D-(what does he do 4-2 in majors).
3) You usually can get back in the auction.
4) You get a cheap way to show the minors.

Will you lose out some of the time? Sure, but not really sure why it is so difficult.

[TimG]

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.)