[Old York]

barryallen, on May 16 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Even when you go to the trouble of explaining all the negative inferences from any bid as well as the positive, you still get the mumbles and the grumbles

I honestly think that this is the crux of the problem, the vocal minority who hate to be de-railed by unusual bids and cannot be bothered to do any research. They will immediately complain loudly to the Host and try to get these "new-fangled" bids banned. In my own BBO Tournies I am guilty of being persuaded by the minority, Sorry all
Good news from bbo-juniors, they have lifted their ban on Multi

Anyway, here is the ACBL "permitted" defenses to Multi:

http://web2.acbl.org...database/3b.htm

Trying to keep an open mind
Tony

[helene_t]

Hog said:

Fwiw I believe 2D 2S should be pass/correct to 3H only, not invit.

Well you would have to bid it with a hand than would invite opp hearts but hasn't 3-level safety opp spades. Maybe (void)-KJx-Axxxx-KQxxx would qualify.

chris said:

My partner and I have been using a multi 2 diamonds at a club open game for about a month and a half now (with permission of the club owner, obviously). We pre-alert, have a write-up of our system, and provide our opponents two copies of both ACBL approved defenses.

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on May 16 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

If these folks weren't bitching about a multi 2♦, they'd be bitching about something else

[helene_t]

OK, that's quite possible.

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on May 16 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 16 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

If these folks weren't bitching about a multi 2♦, they'd be bitching about something else

I have to confirm that is, sadly, true.

In the club where I usually play, the multi is not commonly employed, but the players are familiar with it to some extent - and it doesn't get queried. However, when we first joined, we had elected to play, over 1NT:

2♣ = often a weak take out in ♦, ♥ or ♠, or maybe a flat invitational hand planning to rebid 2NT, or maybe an invitational hand with 6+ cards planning to rebid at the 3 level. Opener mostly relays with 2♦ and waits to hear which it is.

2♦ = Staymanic with inv+ values

2♥/2♠ = inv, but passable, with 5 cards exactly.

2NT = transfer to clubs.

Well, regardless of whether you think this is a good idea or not, it seems to work OK. But everyone else is playing 2♣ = Stayman and at least red suit transfers. Our 2♥ and 2♠ they can understand, the 2NT transfer - well they've seen things like that, and we got only a raised eyebrow about 2♦, but the 2♣ bid was met with "Is that legal?". Yeah, it is legal even at level 2 (novice and holiday bridge level) in England - but a few didn't like it even so. They've got used to it now, fortunately, but it took a while.

If some folks are going to query even simple things like this, then you're on a rocky road with anything else unfamiliar too.

Nick

[CSGibson]

helene_t, on May 16 2009, 07:26 AM, said:

chris said:

My partner and I have been using a multi 2 diamonds at a club open game for about a month and a half now (with permission of the club owner, obviously). We pre-alert, have a write-up of our system, and provide our opponents two copies of both ACBL approved defenses.

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

yes. Our system, while ostensibly 2/1, has a lot of nuance made available by our use of 2 hearts & 2 spades as 9-14 with a 6+ card suit (we use judgment on which to use with 9 point hands). The use of multi for hands with 4-9 & a preempt in one major is a better treatment than our fall-back of 9-14 with diamonds. We are practicing this system in the clubs with the intent of playing it in events where multi is legal, so it is worth it to us.

The other thing is that I am 29 years old, and still being exposed to new conventions and responses. I love playing different NT ranges and conventions that you don't see in this part of the US (like Multi) because it will allow me to either decide to play them with people if they are effective later, or be able to defend against them intelligently later. I am fairly ambitious bridge-wise, and believe that I will be playing at a top level before I'm done, so this exposure will be useful if I can make that happen.

[the hog]

Like Richard says, they would bitch about something else.
I remember one pair bitching about others claiming. They stated that they paid money and wanted to play every card and could not be bothered looking at the opps' cards to see if the claim was correct.

What do you do? I actually tried to claim even more often against them, but this was in my younger more hot headed days.

[hanp]

This is why you are now known as a mild old man.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't go out of my way to claim against people who bitch about claiming. Nor would I go out of my way to avoid claiming against them. We're all entitled to enjoy the game in our own way, within the limits of the law.

[JanM]

NickRW, on May 15 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

What do you do if responder doesn't have a minor? Presumably revert to paradox style responses...

Yes, of course. The response in the longer Major as a way to get to the minor is only in the fairly rare situations where responder wants to sign off in a minor. It's used mainly to free up 3m for good hands with a long Major, but does have the side advantage that if by chance opener has responder's longer Major we can play there. On the majority of hands, we bid as high as we're willing to get in our shorter/worse Major.

[JanM]

Old York, on May 16 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

Anyway, here is the ACBL "permitted" defenses to Multi:

It's a mistake to refer to the ACBL defenses as "permitted" - they're approved and a pair playing multi has done what it is required to do if it gives those defenses to its opponents, but they are definitely not the only defenses that may be used. Most serious competitors have their own defense to multi, which they are allowed to look at during the auction. The ACBL defenses are really very minimal.

[NickRW]

JanM, on May 17 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

Yes, of course. The response in the longer Major as a way to get to the minor is only in the fairly rare situations...

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Nick

[barryallen]

hanp, on May 16 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

This is why you are now known as a mild old man.

I often wondered how Henry Kissinger spent his formative years!

[Mbodell]

JanM, on May 16 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

The ACBL defenses are really very minimal.

For a serious world class pair, maybe. For a typical bridge partnership, the written defenses (even the simple first one) is likely as good or better than their partnership understanding of agreements in competitive situations IME.

[helene_t]

Old York, on May 15 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

I dunno. The more I read, the more I believe that Multi should be banned in all low-level events
It just seems totally impossible to find a cohesive defense against this plethora of private treatments

I don't think different agreements about the 2♠ response is much of a problem.

The most common examples of bad disclosure related to multi, as I encounter them on BBO and at clubs in various countries, are:

- 2♦ just being explained as "multi".
- 2♦ being explained as "weak for the majors or ....", suggesting it is weak with both majors, rather than weak with one major.
- A long story about details about the strong variants, thereby obscuring the fact that what matters to the defense is that it is weak with a major. (OK, in the very rare cases that it is nonforcing that should be explained as well).
- The 2♥ response not alerted and/or explained as "mandatory".
- People being totally unable to explain what the 2♠ response means and it is unclear whether they don't know or just don't have a good enough command of bridge jargon to explain it.

I suppose if I "everyone" played the 2♠ response as showing opening strength, I might agree with p that a 2NT overcall over the 2♠ response was artificial. And then when we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

[Old York]

helene_t, on May 18 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

...we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

This is the type of situation that I was thinking of.
If you are genuinely damaged by an unfamiliar or unusual 2♠ response, should the board be adjusted?

In a Swiss Tournie, I had a pair with identical profiles and similar names who refused to explain their methods in exactly this situation, so I booted them and got 30 mins of abuse. they seemed to think I had only booted them because they were on table one but I had not even noticed this

Tony

[helene_t]

No, unless the CoC specify that such an agreement needs a pre-alert.

If that doesn't seem fair it may be better to disallow Multi in the first place, but similar situations come up in relation to short 1♣ openings (how likely are they to be short?), light openings, unusual notrump ranges, unusual versions of Stayman etc. If people don't play multi, they will play the 2♦ opening as something else which is also "unusual", or they may play a natural weak 2♦ with some unusual follow-ups (say non-forcing shifts, constructive raise, whatever).

I can certainly see some reasons to ban multi but this 2♠ response just isn't one of them. After all you can't force people to play "standard" methods, since few people know any standard, let alone "the" standard. Except in a beginers-vs-experts show it might be a good idea to ask the experts to play a particular system.

[Codo]

Old York, on May 18 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 18 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

...we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

This is the type of situation that I was thinking of.
If you are genuinely damaged by an unfamiliar or unusual 2♠ response, should the board be adjusted?

Tony

Why should a board be adjusted because of an unfamiliar or unusual bid?

And where do you see the borderline: In our club really anybody play 1 NT as 15-17 (or 16-18) NT without a five card major.
Is a weak NT unfamiliar enough?
Or that it may include a 5 card major?

Nobody over here play a 2 ♦ opening as a weak two in diamonds. So we shall ban this tool of the devil? Or at least adjust the score?

Sorry. I think a 2 ♠ answer to 2 ♦ should be fully explained and that's it.

[NickRW]

Old York, on May 18 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 18 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

...we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

This is the type of situation that I was thinking of.
If you are genuinely damaged by an unfamiliar or unusual 2♠ response, should the board be adjusted?

In a Swiss Tournie, I had a pair with identical profiles and similar names who refused to explain their methods in exactly this situation, so I booted them and got 30 mins of abuse. they seemed to think I had only booted them because they were on table one but I had not even noticed this

Tony

I don't think "unfamiliar" or "unusual" is, by itself, reason to adjust provided that it is within the regs for the event in question. If the bid was alerted, but then inadequately explained despite repeated questions and there was damage - then of course there is a case for adjustment - just the same as any other similar situation - the multi is no different to any other artificial sequence.

As for booting people - your tournie - your call - your thick skin that probably needed to get thicker too

Nick

[Codo]

The consensus about 2 ♦ 2♠ is that this is just pass or correct.

But why?


This bid gives the opponents one more possibility to act (pass and double instead of 2 Spade) and has no preemptive value. So where is the sense? Okay, you may face opps who cannot cope with this bid, but I would not like to make a bid just for this reason.

When you playing as invitational with hearts, you at least have a constructive value for a bid which gives the opponents more room to explore their chances.

So why do you like it as pass or correct?