[jdonn]

mrdct, on Oct 26 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

I wonder what the Orange Book writers had in mind with the term "reasonable frequency"?  On the surface 0.37% (apparently Richard P's calculation of the frequency of a 22-24 balanced hand) would appear to be outside the realms of "reasonable frequency".

Not that I have any idea how much is a 'reasonable frequency', but I'm pretty sure it should be interpreted to mean a reasonable frequency of 2♦ opening bids, not a reasonable frequency of hands overall.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Oct 26 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 26 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

I wonder what the Orange Book writers had in mind with the term "reasonable frequency"?  On the surface 0.37% (apparently Richard P's calculation of the frequency of a 22-24 balanced hand) would appear to be outside the realms of "reasonable frequency".

Not that I have any idea how much is a 'reasonable frequency', but I'm pretty sure it should be interpreted to mean a reasonable frequency of 2♦ opening bids, not a reasonable frequency of hands overall.

Right. The right simulation for this would be: deal a bunch of hands, and filter them down to hands that would open multi-2♦. What percentage of these are 22-24 balanced versus 5-10 with a long major? And apropos the original deal, put 4=0=6=3 and 12 HCP in partner's hand, now see what the probabilities are. Intuitively, I'd guess at least 80% of them are a weak hand with 6 hearts.

[barmar]

campboy, on Oct 26 2009, 08:27 AM, said:

The relevant regulation for level 4 is 11G10 of the Orange Book. Here any weak meaning which is permitted may be played either with or without additional strong meanings. There is a note: "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of his partner's opening bid." Note "stronger" rather than "strong": presumably if there are no strong meanings then you merely have to explore game if it is likely opposite a maximum weak hand.

I interpret the wording to only apply when there are multiple types. If they play "weak multi", then there's just one type, with a continuous strength range. I don't think "stronger" refers to the top portion of that range.

[helene_t]

The regulation is obviously aimed at pairs who play multi at level 3 with a very infrequent strong option which responder could ignore and just pass with any hand weak enough for opting a number of undoubled downtricks in 2♦ when opps are cold for game.

Not sure why the same regulation applies at level 4 but maybe the idea is that opps are entitled to know whether you play multi or weak-only multi. I.e. if you say you play multi, opps may pass with some strong hands expecting responder to keep it open. If I am correct, you could cater for it by pre-alerting "there are strong options in our multi but responder sometimes passes 2♦, gambling that it's the weak option".

As for the wording "expected": in general, system restrictions apply only to agreements, not to infrequent deviations. I suppose responder is allowed to pass 2♦ on the same basis that allows him to psyche or misbid.

[bluejak]

nige1, on Oct 26 2009, 08:47 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

While not commenting specifically on this case at this moment, I should like to draw your attention to two things.
First there is a regulation which says:

Orange book said:

Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of his partner’s opening bid.

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

Nigel asks:

Nige1 said:

•Is game possible with this hand opposite the strong option?

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

Please note that the question does not reflect the wording of the regulation - not even close.

I believed I had made myself clear; but apparently not Opponent's multi showed a weak two in a major or 22-24 flat. The regulations allow more than one strong option but in this case the latter was the only strong option. This regulation (like many local regulations in the EBU and elsewhere) prevents you from playing Bridge (as some people understand the game) but the subtext of my question is twofold ...

• I presume that directors are reluctant to enforce regulations that serve little purpose. But until they are cancelled, should directors enforce them?
  
  
• Assuming, however, that such regulations are enforced sporadically or not at all, should the EBU make it clear that players may interpret them with a large dose of salt ie "judgement". Otherwise directors and their confidantes have a considerable advantage over naive players, who slavishly and masochistically conform to the rules.

No, I think you have missed the point. By asking a different question, it seems to me that you have slavishly followed a different set of rules from those in the actual regulation.

helene_t, on Oct 26 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

The regulation is obviously aimed at pairs who play multi at level 3 with a very infrequent strong option which responder could ignore and just pass with any hand weak enough for opting a number of undoubled downtricks in 2♦ when opps are cold for game.

Not sure why the same regulation applies at level 4 but maybe the idea is that opps are entitled to know whether you play multi or weak-only multi. I.e. if you say you play multi, opps may pass with some strong hands expecting responder to keep it open. If I am correct, you could cater for it by pre-alerting "there are strong options in our multi but responder sometimes passes 2♦, gambling that it's the weak option".

There is no doubt that the regulation started life because pairs played the Multi, which was illegal as a 'weak-only Multi', as a weak two or 32-33 balanced. There were other abuses the L&EC of the day worried about, such as playing it 'weak only' but saying it was 17-20 4441 or weak - and then opening one of a suit with a 4441 17-20.

Why the regulation applies at Level 4 I am not entirely sure, but I think the reason is historical because of abuses. Perhaps it should be re-considered.

[hotShot]

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♦.

So imagine you play a tourney with 26 boards every day for 6 years and 10 month, your side should be in first seat on about 32343 boards leading to an average of 2167 Multi-openings.

Just to give you an idea how often it makes sense to explore game.

Edit: And I didn't use responders shape as restriction yet.

[jdonn]

hotShot, on Oct 26 2009, 05:00 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♦.

So imagine you play a tourney with 26 boards every day for 6 years and 10 month, your side should be in first seat on about 32343 boards leading to an average of 2167 Multi-openings.

Just to give you an idea how often it makes sense to explore game.

What shapes did you include in 22-24 balanced, only since you apparently got half as many as Pavlicek.

And 3-11 seems way too wide to me.

[hotShot]

jdonn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

What shapes did you include in 22-24 balanced, only since you apparently got half as many as Pavlicek.

And 3-11 seems way too wide to me.

Any shape that has 2-4 cards in each major and 2-5 cards in each minor.


Edit: On http://www.rpbridge.net/7z76.htm the number 0.377849809933 % is for all shapes with 22-24 HCP not only balanced ones.

I didn't want to pick a range that was to small.

[mjj29]

hotShot, on Oct 26 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 26 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

What shapes did you include in 22-24 balanced, only since you apparently got half as many as Pavlicek.

And 3-11 seems way too wide to me.

Any shape that has 2-4 cards in each major and 2-5 cards in each minor.

I'll open a 'balanced' 20-something bid in the appropriate range with all 5332s, quite a lot of 5422s and some 6322s

[mich-b]

I think the regulation was intended to disallow "random" passes of the 2♦ opening, the purpose of which is to prevent opps from reaching their best contract.

I mean "random" here to mean - not trying to reach a playable contract, just hoping that going down a lot undoubled would be ok.

The PASS in the OP's hand is different - it is responder'd best effort to play a makable contract.

While I accept the original intent of the regulation - to prevent the "destructive" kind of PASS , I think it should be changed so it will allow the "constructive" purpose - moderate hands , with ♦ length , and shortage in one major.
This would go well with a general policy of disallowing destructive conventions, while allowing various preempts where the preempting side does take measures to ensure they end up in a contract with a reasonable number of trumps, and on a reasonable level.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

Why the regulation applies at Level 4 I am not entirely sure, but I think the reason is historical because of abuses.  Perhaps it should be re-considered.

The weak-only Multi is allowed in Denmark without it causing any trouble (as far as I know). In fact, these years most league players using Multi have no strong options included, probably because it allows responder to preempt whenever he has suitable major suit lengths without fearing a strong hand opposite.

There are those who argue that Multi is only allowed for historical reasons, but I believe most players above the beginner's level have little more difficulty defending against Multi than defending against natural weak twos. The issue certainly has not raised any sort of heated debate.

[gnasher]

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).

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.

[lamford]

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

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.

And, unlike level 2-3, the strong option does not have to be of reasonable frequency at level 4. I presume therefore that the methods employed by one pair where the multi was weak with either major or a balanced 36-37 would be allowed at level 4, but their explanation "two-way multi - weak two in a major or strong balanced" still fell short of full disclosure.

[helene_t]

mich-b, on Oct 27 2009, 08:43 AM, said:

While I accept the original intent of the regulation - to prevent the "destructive" kind of PASS , I think it should be changed so it will allow the "constructive" purpose - moderate hands , with ♦ length , and shortage in one major.

Agree in principle but this is gonna be complicated (if it is to be spelled out concisely).

The Orange book is long enough already. I appreciate EBU's effort to describe their regulations in a concise way (something which cannot be said about other bridge organizations that I know of), but it would be better if the rules were simpler so they could be described in a shorter document.

Off-topic rant: Dear EBU, why don't you reduce the number of levels to 2 or 3 instead of 5. Multi could be banned at the lowest level. But whenever Multi is allowed, I think responder should be allowed to pass it for any reason. As should opener be allowed to pass the 2♥ relay when he has spades.

[RMB1]

helene_t, on Oct 27 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

... But whenever Multi is allowed, I think responder should be allowed to pass it for any reason. As should opener be allowed to pass the 2♥ relay when he has spades.

I think 2♦-2♥-Pass = "weak two in a major" is a permitted agreement.

Certainly, a successful pair at national level do play
2♦-(Pass)-3♥-(Pass)-Pass = "weak two in either major"

Robin

[campboy]

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

There are those who argue that Multi is only allowed for historical reasons, but I believe most players above the beginner's level have little more difficulty defending against Multi than defending against natural weak twos.

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.

[Ant590]

I realize that the strong option in the original post was strong balanced, so the following is an aside.

I have asked many EBU directors whether it is allowed to play the following as part of a multi at level 3:
(1) Weak two in major
(2) Acol two in diamonds

all agree that (2) is frequent enough for legality at level 3, and I believe this is almost close enough to a mini-multi (in terms of the hands which would want to pass it) as you can get. The odd favourable poker pass is disallowed, but most of the tactical passes with long diamonds are safe enough. Sure you may miss 6♦ sometimes...

For me this is evidence of a clear loophole in the way the clause of the orange book was worded.

[mjj29]

helene_t, on Oct 27 2009, 06:04 AM, said:

Off-topic rant: Dear EBU, why don't you reduce the number of levels to 2 or 3 instead of 5. Multi could be banned at the lowest level. But whenever Multi is allowed, I think responder should be allowed to pass it for any reason. As should opener be allowed to pass the 2♥ relay when he has spades.

The EBU defines "simple systems" (basically, everyone plays a standard system), Levels 2, 3 and 4 and "unusual systems" (anything else).

Simple systems and unusual systems are just monikers used for specific events for which you don't want to use the normal levels, so in practice there are only 3 levels. The EBU is trying to phase out level 3 as well, since they only run level 4 or 2 competitions (and not many level 2, only the C flight at a couple of congresses), but lots of club- and county-organised events are still level 3 (but the EBU doesn't control those, they can make any systems restrictions they like).

[suprgrover]

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

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).

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.

Really? Why does the Orange Book (see here) require at least one strong option "of reasonable frequency" at Level 3 and 4 (11G6)?

[helene_t]

suprgrover, on Oct 27 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

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

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).

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.

Really? Why does the Orange Book (see here) require at least one strong option "of reasonable frequency" at Level 3 and 4 (11G6)?

It is a little confusing that "At least one strong option must be of reasonable frequency" is under "at levels 3 and 4", but the note says
"Since the Multi 2♦ has only continued to be allowed at Level 3 because it was a popular agreement long before the present approach to permitted agreements was adopted, the following restrictions have been imposed upon its use:"
and further, under level 4 only:
"Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or two of the following:" ..... "(2) has a specification which does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid, and does not include two-suiters where the suit bid is the longer suit."