[rbforster]

awm, on Apr 1 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

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.

I agree - why bother discussing special defenses if there's a good one you can reference if the rare bid actually comes up? ACBL could help in this way by approving some "standard" defenses to other midchart conventions so that those too don't need to slow things down.

[jtfanclub]

And selling them at cost.

I would also include IDAC and Mathe, to name two. I wouldn't mind Cap and Unusual over Unusual there either.

[JanM]

I play both multi and transfer responses to 1♣. Anyone with any sense having those two things pre-alerted would surely discuss the transfer responses, right? You need to know what DBL and Q-bid are. But they don't - they just sort of shrug at the transfer response, but they very often ask lots of questions about multi, even though I explain that I have the ACBL defenses and will give them whichever one they want. I'm not saying that's sensible, but it certainly has been my experience. And of course, the ACBL defense isn't really adequate, which is a whole other issue. By the way, I could live quite happily without a weak 2♥ bid if I really felt I needed to use only one bid as a weak 2M bid. I play multi because my partner likes it and I don't care. We keep changing around what we use 2♠ for (2♥ is Flannery which I'm sure you'll all tell me is a total waste, but takes a lot of pressure off many auctions, as well as working well when one opens it). So I really don't think taking multi away for pair games is a big deal.
And ACBL does have approved defenses to other MidChart methods. In fact, a method isn't really approved for use in MidChart events unless there's a recognized defense or it has an asterisk next to it on the list of Midchart methods (I can't seem to get the ACBL website to open and don't have a paper Midchart, but my recollection is the things with asterisks are constructive bids).

[olegru]

JanM, on Apr 2 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

And ACBL does have approved defenses to other MidChart methods. In fact, a method isn't really approved for use in MidChart events unless there's a recognized defense or it has an asterisk next to it on the list of Midchart methods.

Sorry for off-top.
Very painul topic for me.
Starting 2004 I am trying to get ACBL approval for my favourite toy: 2 diamonds preempt showing 5 spades and 5 unknown. Last reply was:

Quote

The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment.  They have stated that they are  not adding any weak agreement at this time.  Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year.  Please be patient.

Forgot to say, it was February last year.

[pclayton]

JanM, on Apr 1 2008, 08:19 AM, said:

... 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.

And there's a sinister element that sometimes happens too.

At SF in the Blues, Gnome opened a garbage NV/NV multi and I held a scattered 18 with 3-1-5-4 and bid 2N. This hideous creature on my left starts in with, "where's your defense", "I can't find any defense to this sequence", "how am I supposed to defend against this convention if there isn't anything about what to do over 2N". This went on for two or three minutes.

This diatribe convinced me she had a good hand. She held a 5=1=2=5 with 3 quacks. +100 wasn't a good score.

[jdonn]

Phil you should invest in Caro's Book of Tells

[hrothgar]

olegru, on Apr 2 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

JanM, on Apr 2 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

And ACBL does have approved defenses to other MidChart methods. In fact, a method isn't really approved for use in MidChart events unless there's a recognized defense or it has an asterisk next to it on the list of Midchart methods.

Sorry for off-top.
Very painul topic for me.
Starting 2004 I am trying to get ACBL approval for my favourite toy: 2 diamonds preempt showing 5 spades and 5 unknown. Last reply was:

Quote

The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment.  They have stated that they are  not adding any weak agreement at this time.  Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year.  Please be patient.

Forgot to say, it was February last year.

Another example why I so very much love the ACBL Conventions Committee

1. The bid in question is sanctioned at the Midchart level (The bid shows 4+ cards in a known suit). However, once again the defensive database is being used to neuter the Midchart

2. The bid in question is clearly analogous to other legal Midchart methods. (A 2♠ opening showing 5+ Spades and another suit). However, the decision to open this at a LOWER level makes the bid impossible to defend against

3. The Conventions Committee apparantly has had a new blanket policy that they are refusing to sanction any defenses for Midchart methods that could be weak. Of course, its FAR too difficult for them to actually communicate this policy to the membership at large any time during the last 14 monthes...

4. The Convention Committee has (apparantly) been reworking the Midchart for at least 14 monthes without bothering to communicate this to the membership at large (we already knew about this, but only because we have a back channel). Lord knows the Conventions Committee won't ever submit any of their proposals for any kind of external review prior to putting these new changes into effect.

Out of curiousity: Phil, were you ever able to get a straight answer from the Conventions Committee regarding that NAMYATS / 3NT question from four monthes ago?

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

Out of curiousity: Phil, were you ever able to get a straight answer from the Conventions Committee regarding that NAMYATS / 3NT question from four monthes ago?

I sent them that same question about 2 years ago and never heard back.

[blackshoe]

What was the question?

[jdonn]

About the legality of opening 3NT to show a (strong) preempt in either major, since it is already legal in either minor. Apparently it is not legal just based on unfamiliarity to inexperienced players, despite being no harder to defend against than if 3NT shows a minor, easier in fact since you are less likely to want to bid and since you don't need a bid to show both majors.

[awm]

blackshoe, on Apr 2 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

What was the question?

Not to rehash the whole discussion, but it involved a 3NT opening showing a good 4M preempt. This is basically an inversion of namyats -- instead of 3NT being a 4m preempt and the 4m bids showing the respective majors, the 4m bids remain natural.

In principle this convention is probably easier to defend than a namyats 3NT. Both methods show a "preempt in an unknown suit" but this convention is in principle a better hand (less likely opponents want in) and it shows a major (so you don't particularly need a defensive method to show "both majors" and 3NT-Pass-Pass is also unlikely). The method was written up in The Bridge World quite a long time ago and is hardly some "newfangled convention."

The questions are: (1) Is this allowed on the General Chart? It does not seem to be specifically allowed, even though the easier-to-defend namyats 3NT is allowed; however one might be able to argue that this "is a strong bid" because it does show a pretty good hand and get it through that way. Certainly if it shows a "solid major" it's allowed and it's not clear why making it a "solid major" is easier to defend than "one loser suit with at least one side control" or something like that. (2) If it's not allowed on the General Chart, is it Mid Chart? Does it need a suggested defense? Will one be approved soon? Unfortunately there isn't much reason to think that this is mid chart based on actually reading the charts, even though most people's intuition is that it's unbelievable that this would not be allowed on the mid chart. (3) If it's Super Chart only, why? This is an established convention and easier to defend than something on the General Chart!

The point is not just that this convention is sort of mysterious as to its legality -- it's that a number of people have queried the various relevant people and no one can get a straight answer about it.

[jdonn]

And by the way people don't just ask to be difficult. It is IMO clearly superior to Namyats since I think opening 3NT to show a minor suit preempt is totally ineffective. This is a method I would want to play.

Also making the method simpler than regular Namyats is it involves one artificial opening instead of three.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Apr 2 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

The point is not just that this convention is sort of mysterious as to its legality -- it's that a number of people have queried the various relevant people and no one can get a straight answer about it.

I'm not sure if this is even a question of getting a straight answer:

Has anyone ever gotten ANY answer to this one? (other than random comments from local TDs)

[awm]

I did get a response from Rick Beye:

Quote

Your 3NT call is not a solid suit? What kind of sound 4M opening? Examples of what qualifies and what does not, please.

I replied with an explanation for the reasoning behind the method and a bunch of example hands. No further response from Rick Beye.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

2. The bid in question is clearly analogous to other legal Midchart methods. (A 2♠ opening showing 5+ Spades and another suit). However, the decision to open this at a LOWER level makes the bid impossible to defend against

It is clearly not analogous because 2♠ showing spades and another shows the suit bid, while 2♦ showing spades and another may not show the suit bid.

I'm going to guess that the proposed 2♦ opening is not strictly forcing and it is this uncertainty which makes it more difficult to defend against. Also, by its very unfamiliarity, it will be more difficult for people to defend against. Yes, I am fully aware that by not approving a defense, and thus barring this and similar methods, they will never become familiar.

A few years ago, before the Defense Database, I was playing a Multi-type 2♣ opening bid. When we came to Jan Martel's table, she found the suggested defense unacceptable and commented that Multi 2♣ was more difficult to defend against than a Multi 2♦ and that a simple adoption (with minor modification) of the Multi 2♦ defense was insufficient. I'm still not exactly clear what the problem was and I do not remember the exact details. I believe we agreed not to play the method, and scrapped it for the entire tournament.

When the Defense Database came into being, I submitted a similar method for approval. There was a back and forth and a defense was eventually approved (and is still in the defense database). But, it was approved only for 12+ board segments.

[TimG]

awm, on Apr 2 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

I replied with an explanation for the reasoning behind the method and a bunch of example hands. No further response from Rick Beye.

In my experience, the process is very slow and requires regular requests for updates on progress.

[blackshoe]

My reading of the charts is that a 3NT opener to show a good preempt in either major, but not necessarily a solid suit, is legal on the Super Chart.

I confess it does seem silly not to allow it on the Mid Chart, at least.

[awm]

Yeah it seems clear that this convention is not mid-chart. It's either general chart or super chart. This is why I haven't really pursued trying to get an official defense.

The reason it might be general chart is that you can call it a strong bid, and strong bids are allowed. It does typically show eight tricks in hand, and people (okay mostly bad players) have been known to open 2♣ strong on similar hands (maybe bad bridge, but not a psych). ACBL has repeatedly ruled that you don't need 15+ hcp for something to be a strong bid (even though it kind of looks that way from a loose reading of the general chart), and that opening 2♣ on:

♠AQJTxxxx
♥Axx
♦x
♣x

and the like is okay (eight and a half tricks). So I guess an opening 3NT that shows this sort of hand should be okay too?

[skjaeran]

I can't believe what I'm reading in a couple of posts here.

Does someone seriously mean that it's harder to defend against 2♦ showing a weak hand with 5c♠ and an unknown 5c sidesuit than against 2♠ showing the same?

And the same for 2♣ as a multi compared to 2♦ as a multi?

If you haven't got any idea what you should use the extra possible bids to show, just defend just like you would over 2♠ and 2♦ respectively. And don't give any meaning to the 2♥ overcall and 2♠ cuebid (over 2♦) nor 2♦ overcall (over 2♣). (Yeah, I know that's stupid, but compared to the suggestions about harder to defend it's pretty genious.)

[jdonn]

"harder" just means "more confusing for bad bridge players".