[bluejak]

If you want to play something at Level 3 then it must appear under

Permitted at Levels 2 and 3

or

Permitted at Level 3


If you want to play something at Level 4 then it must appear under

Permitted at Levels 2, 3 and 4

or

Permitted at Levels 2 and 3

or

Permitted at Level 4


At Level 4 it is permitted to play a weak-only Multi, or a Multi with a strong option that does not have a strong option of reasonable frequency because it appears under

Permitted at Level 4


I have been told many times [many many many many many times ] that the way the Orange book is set out is not best. But none of the suggested alternatives are better, most are wholly impractical, and the majority o4e1` [qqq] of complaints come with no suggested alternative.



[qqq] I have no idea what o4e1` means: Nanki Poo put that in.

[suprgrover]

bluejak, on Oct 27 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

At Level 4 it is permitted to play a weak-only Multi, or a Multi with a strong option that does not have a strong option of reasonable frequency because it appears under

Permitted at Level 4

I really don't have a horse in this race, but it took me four readings to figure out that a weak-only Multi was included in 11G10. (The OB defines a weak-only Multi early on, then never refers to it again.)

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Oct 27 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

I have been told many times [many many many many many times ] that the way the Orange book is set out is not best. But none of the suggested alternatives are better, most are wholly impractical, and the majority o4e1` [qqq] of complaints come with no suggested alternative.

It's undoubtedly better than how it was before the last major rewrite.

The problem is that the rules are of the form "You can play x at level y or higher", but the questions people ask are either "What am I allowed to play at Level y?" or "Am I allowed to play x at level y?". That seems to call for a piece of software.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on Oct 27 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

... That seems to call for a piece of software.

I am sure that is the way we are going: regulations (e.g. EBU Orange Book and White Book) only available online and not necessary as linear documents; with a simplified summary available as a printed document (c.f. the "Tangerine Book"). It is impossible to capture the regulatory requirements/contraints on (say) passing a multi-way bid (or asking questions during the auction) accurately and concisely. Too many people (in England) who play, direct or regulate the game need precise, detailed statements of regulations: statements which the remaining players do not want to read (or even know about). The cost of maintenance, (re-)printing and (re-)distribution of complicated regulations as printed documents is becoming prohibitive.

Robin

[jeremy69]

I suspect that at some future review the bit about a strong option of "reasonably common frequency" will bite the dust because it comes from a time when players would put in the balanced 36-37 count in an attempt to make it legal but he licensing of a weak only multi made this device unnecessary and if anyone played that now you would, of course, ignore the strong option anyway.
At level 3 the strong option of reasonable frequency must be there but why you can't play weak only is a bit puzzling as it is simpler than having to cater for the rock crusher hand. Level 3, of course only remains as an anachronistic courtesy to clubs and is unused by the EBU for tournaments so it is unlikely much work will be done on it in the future.

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on Oct 27 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

At level 3 the strong option of reasonable frequency must be there but why you can't play weak only is a bit puzzling as it is simpler than having to cater for the rock crusher hand. Level 3, of course only remains as an anachronistic courtesy to clubs and is unused by the EBU for tournaments so it is unlikely much work will be done on it in the future.

Simpler for whom, Jeremy?

I expect that the idea was to make the Multi easier to defend against by ensuring that the opening side could rarely, if ever, pass out 2♦. The 'wait and see' defence is still popular in some quarters.

[jeremy69]

Simpler if there are fewer options. I agree it is not uncommon to adopt the wait and see defence in clubs where the auction almost never starts 2D No 3H.

[bluejak]

The Level 3 Multi is a compromise after a very hard-fought and bitter battle between two factions, those who felt that since it was well-known and frequently played it should stay available in the newly redesigned General Licence, and those who felt [correctly] that it did not fit in with what was generally allowed at General Licence. As a result it has rather more rules around it than almost anything else that is permitted.

But I am surprised that the rule about not passing it even exists at Level 4.

[Cyberyeti]

I think the people running the simulations are missing the point, is partner not allowed to have ♠ QJ10xxx, ♥xxx, ♦KQxx, ♣ None. Admittedly you'll probably get rescued by the oppos, but 2♦+5 is a suitably embarrassing result.

What are the chances of partner having 6 spades on this hand, as if he does, game also figures to be pretty good. I don't think the chances of this are vanishingly poor enough to pass, now if you have 5 spades and 6 diamonds ...

[Vampyr]

campboy, on Oct 27 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

The problem with multi -- at least in England where natural weak twos are much more common -- is that pairs who aren't established partnerships are frequently not on the same page when defending against it. Even if they know what 2nd hand's actions mean, they can easily get confused about 4th hand's options when it starts (2D) pass (bid) or (2D) dbl (any). This can be an issue in club bridge where you often have unfamiliar partnerships playing 2-board rounds, although to be fair it applies equally well to plenty of methods which are allowed at level 2.

Such as?

[helene_t]

The convention that causes most misunderstandings by opps at our club is of course the weak notrump opening, which more than 95% of pairs play.

But also the short minor suit openings should be mentioned. Opps often don't know whether a direct cuebid is natural or Michael's.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I was going to say it's "Michaels" not "Michael's", but I suppose it could be either - his name was Michael Michaels.

[campboy]

I was thinking of things like Ekren 2♥, as well as 1NT defences and runouts. 1♦=either minor is also allowed at level 2, and has the potential to cause confusion.

[hotShot]

Cyberyeti, on Nov 1 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

I think the people running the simulations are missing the point,....

EBU Orange Book, on 6G (v),Multi 2

Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener’s Multi 2♦.

The simulations were done to investigate, if holding 12 HCP is enough to justify not to explore game because your are not opposite the stronger options of opener’s Multi 2♦.

What to do once you decide that partner can't have the strong option, is a different question.

[jdonn]

Cyberyeti, on Nov 1 2009, 05:51 AM, said:

I think the people running the simulations are missing the point, is partner not allowed to have ♠ QJ10xxx, ♥xxx, ♦KQxx, ♣ None. Admittedly you'll probably get rescued by the oppos, but 2♦+5 is a suitably embarrassing result.

What are the chances of partner having 6 spades on this hand, as if he does, game also figures to be pretty good. I don't think the chances of this are vanishingly poor enough to pass, now if you have 5 spades and 6 diamonds ...

Instead of making up your own opinions arbitrarily about what you think the likelihood of partner having such and such is, you could run a simulation.

It's funny to say people who are running simulations are missing the point and then base that on the possibility of exactly one hand. It's like saying people who calculate the expected value of a lottery ticket are missing the point because you are allowed to have the winning numbers.

[hotShot]

hotShot, on Oct 26 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

Just a little statistic:

A balanced 22-24 count has a probability of 0.2%.
The probability of a a 3-11 HCP 6+ card major hand is 6.5%.

So 1 in 32.5 Multi-openings is the strong hand.
Opposite the strong hand the probability to have 12 HCP is 1.5%.

So you hold 12 HCP opposite a strong Multi-Opener one time in 2167 cases partner opens 2♦.

I re-run the simulation using a smaller HCP range for a weak 2 bid.

A balanced 22-24 count has a probability of 0.2%.
The probability of a 6-10 HCP 6+ card major hand is 4.4%.

So 1 in 21.5 Multi-openings is the strong hand.
Opposite the strong hand the probability to have 12 HCP is 1.5%.

So you hold 12 HCP opposite a strong Multi-Opener one time in 1441 cases partner opens 2♦.

I would think that holding 12 HCP more than demonstrably suggests that partner is not likely not have the strong option.

[bluejak]

While the regulation is from before my time on the EBU L&EC, I think part of its effect is psychological. It does not really matter what the percentages are, a pair that plays a 22-23 NT opening as part of the Multi expects it to occur occasionally: a pair that plays a 32-33 NT opening as part of the Multi does not expect it to occur. It is the expectation that matters, not the actual figures.

[nige1]

duschek, on Oct 27 2009, 08:44 AM, said:

The weak-only Multi is allowed in Denmark without it causing any trouble (as far as I know).

gnasher, on Oct 27 2009, 03:31 AM, said:

The weak-only Multi is allowed in England too, at Level 4 (which basically means any event that isn't aimed at beginners).  The rule about strong options only covers what you have to do if there is a strong option; it doesn't require that there actually be a strong option.

EBU Orange Book said:

"The term 'Multi' without qualification means a traditional Multi, i.e. it is a 2♦ opening that shows one of these three possibilities:

• a weak hand with ♥;
  
  
  
• a weak hand with ♠;
  
  
  
• a strong hand of one or more types.

A 2♦ opening that does not follow this rule should not be described as a Multi unless an appropriate qualification is included."

I believe that this means that as far as this EBU regulation is concerned, a multi 2♦ includes a weak two in a major and must also have at least one strong option. Anyway, in the case under discussion, there was a strong option.