[nige1]

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♦.

Scoring: MP

Autumn Congress 2 stars Final
Sesstion 1 Board 1
---- 2♦ (_P) ??
I play multi with some of my partners. We have always interpreted this Orange book directive to mean that responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener’s Multi 2♦ (without qualification so that it applies even if responding may be a disaster opposite a weak option). We have suffered many bottoms as a result

An opponent held this hand yesterday and passed his partner's Multi 2♦. My partner asked for a ruling. 2 Questions ...

• Is game possible with this hand opposite the strong option -- a flat 22-24 HCP?
  
• In a level 3-4 tournament under Orange Book regulations, how would you rule as director?

---

[TylerE]

Well, as to the first question, 7NT might make on the combined layout, and 6 is practically assured. I think the important point is wether this hand is GOOD enough to make the odds of partner having the strong variant essentially zero. According to Richard P's site the odds of having 22-24 HCP (note that this ignores distribution) is 0.37% without any other information. Given that the hand given is 12 count, thus lowering the expectation of HCP in the other 3 hands, the likely percentage is quite a bit lower, perhaps 0.25%.

EDIT: Played around with some numbers in Bridge Baron, and it suggests that the percentage of holding 22-24 when partner has at leatt is on the order of 0.03%.

[paulg]

As game is possible with this hand opposite one of the weak options, it will be interesting to hear the views of the EBU TDs. If passing is acceptable, then I feel that this regulation should be removed from the Orange Book as it is misleading.

[nige1's partner may well have written the SBU regulation, "responder is expected to bid whenever game is possible opposite a maximum", which is stronger in its meaning and would presumably lead to an illegal convention penalty in such a case]

Paul

[gordontd]

What do you mean by a Level 3-4 tournament? Isn't it a Level 4 tournament?
Does the restriction you quote apply to Level 4 or just to Level 3? [edit] I've now checked this and it does seem to apply to Level 4 as well as Level 3. So, the final question is what their agreement was as to their Multi? What sort of hands were contained in it?

[helene_t]

I have seen several top pairs playing the weak-only multi at level 4 events. If you play that, can partner pass it? Sounds weird to me that the regulation mentioned in the OP applies at level 4 also. But OK if you say so. Maybe the weak-only multi is illegal too?

Anyway, agree with Paul. This hand certainly makes game opposite a strong variant so case closed.

[Trinidad]

To answer your first question first:
I think that opposite a 22-24 NT game has a better than decent chance of making.

Having said that, I think that this regulation should be taken out immediately for the following reasons:
- It asks of responder to stop playing bridge. In this case, responder can see that if he has this hand 10 times, Pass will be right 10 times. And that is not because of a tactical joke on the opponents. It is because 2♦ has, by far, the best probability of being the right contract.
- It uses vague terminology, like "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities". That means something like: "Responder will explore game possibilities, but there are exceptions". Well, this hand with a void in hearts and a six card diamond suit would qualify as an exception.
- Because of the vague terminology, it misleads the opponents. They feel certain that they will get another turn to bid (after all, "responder is expected to"), and they will build their defense on that, but then it turns out that there is no such certainty, since "to expect" implies that exceptions are allowed and do occur. My son expects to get a bike for Christmas. I think he knows that it still depends on what Santa thinks of him.

Rik

[campboy]

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.

[paulg]

helene_t, on Oct 26 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

I have seen several top pairs playing the weak-only multi at level 4 events. If you play that, can partner pass it? Sounds weird to me that the regulation mentioned in the OP applies at level 4 also. But OK if you say so. Maybe the weak-only multi is illegal too?

Anyway, agree with Paul. This hand certainly makes game opposite a strong variant so case closed.

Quote

Level 4 Only

11 G 10 General
Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or two of the following:
(a) Strong: Any combination of meanings provided that it promises a minimum strength of ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4).
(B.) Any combination of meanings which either:
(1) includes one specified suit of at least four cards; or
(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.
Notes:
(i) Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of his partner’s opening bid.

So a weak-only multi is permitted (11G10.b. (2)), except you should not call it a multi, as is passing it if your hand justifies it.

Paul

[jeremy69]

Quote

except you should not call it a multi

I agree but the accepted phrase is "Weak only multi" which I think conveys it quite well.

[bluejak]

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:

Quote

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

Nigel asks:

Quote

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

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



Second, Trinidad says:

Quote

Having said that, I think that this regulation should be taken out immediately for the following reasons:

But none of the reasons have anything to do with why the regulation exists! Surely, if you think a regulation is wrong, it should be because one of the following:

• it does not do what it is designed to do, or
  
• what it is designed to do is unnecessary

[jdonn]

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

Quote

Having said that, I think that this regulation should be taken out immediately for the following reasons:

But none of the reasons have anything to do with why the regulation exists! Surely, if you think a regulation is wrong, it should be because one of the following:

• it does not do what it is designed to do, or
  
  
• what it is designed to do is unnecessary

That's not true. Those are good reasons to think a regulation is wrong, but there are several others that are just as good:
- It creates a new problem (or combination of problems) worse than the problem(s) it solves.
- It's unenforceable, or at least unenforceable fairly.
- It was not created through due process.
Btw, his reason that the regulation uses vague terminology is exactly the same as your "it does not do what it is designed to do", so your criticism was not only wrong (imo), but also unfair.

[RMB1]

I was consulted at the event about this ruling. I made the point to the TD that my opinion was based on my understanding of the intent of the regulation (and I did not remind myself of the wording of the regulation).

I understand the intent of the regulation is to catch players who are misdescribing their multi-way bids: describing stronger options than they do not in fact actually open with the multi-way bid. The extreme example being players who play a weak-only multi but include a strong option in their description, in fact finding other opening bids with (say) 20-21 balanced or strong 4441 hands. This is particularly an issue at level 3 where a weak-only multi is not a permitted agreement.

Does passing a multi with no hearts and six diamonds give evidence that the stronger options are an illusion? No. It is evidence that the player understands conditional probability: whatever the a priori odds on the various options in the multi were, once you hold this shape and these high card points the odds have skewed greatly towards a weak hand and a weak hand with hearts. A player should be able to back those odds and the regulations should not prevent him from "playing bridge".

Robin

[paulg]

RMB1, on Oct 26 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

I was consulted at the event about this ruling.  I made the point to the TD that my opinion was based on my understanding of the intent of the regulation (and I did not remind myself of the wording of the regulation).

I understand the intent of the regulation is to catch players who are misdescribing their multi-way bids: describing stronger options than they do not in fact actually open with the multi-way bid.  The extreme example being players who play a weak-only multi but include a strong option in their description, in fact finding other opening bids with (say) 20-21 balanced or strong 4441 hands.  This is particularly an issue at level 3 where a weak-only multi is not a permitted agreement.

Does passing a multi with no hearts and six diamonds give evidence that the stronger options are an illusion?  No.  It is evidence that the player understands conditional probability: whatever the a priori odds on the various options in the multi were, once you hold this shape and these high card points the odds have skewed greatly towards a weak hand and a weak hand with hearts.  A player should be able to back those odds and the regulations should not prevent him from "playing bridge".

Robin

Robin, as always, covers the subject well and if the regulation said,

"Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it."

then I'm sure nige1 and everyone would be happy with his explanation.

Unfortunately, the playing public is playing to the regulation that says

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

There is no mention of 'intent', likelihood of holding a strong hand or 'playing bridge' that presumably the L&EC and TDs are working to. The regulation at Level 4 appears to be redundant, except to those foolish enough to believe that it means what it says.

(I think the Scottish regulation is just as foolish, btw)

[jdonn]

I would say even by the regulation the player can pass multi with this hand. "If his hand justifies it" is not synonymous with "If his hand is good enough to make game opposite it". If passing is much more likely to be successful then bidding, then his hand doesn't justify exploring game possibilities.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Oct 26 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

I would say even by the regulation the player can pass multi with this hand. "If his hand justifies it" is not synonymous with "If his hand is good enough to make game opposite it". If passing is much more likely to be successful then bidding, then his hand doesn't justify exploring game possibilities.

Yeah, but the same is also true if you play multi as "weak 2 in a major, or a 3=4=5=1 hand with 26 hcp and a stiff Q of clubs". My impression is that the regulation intends to make such an agreement (which is basically equivalent to playing a weak-only multi) illegal.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on Oct 26 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

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♦.

<snark>

I had always interpreted this regulation as meaning that responder can not bid game directly and, instead, must use a game invitational sequence.

</snark>

[RMB1]

cherdanno, on Oct 26 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

Yeah, but the same is also true if you play multi as "weak 2 in a major, or a 3=4=5=1 hand with 26 hcp and a stiff Q of clubs". My impression is that the regulation intends to make such an agreement (which is basically equivalent to playing a weak-only multi) illegal.

There is a separate statement in the regulations (OB 11G6 bullet (v)) that one strong option must have a "reasonable frequency".

For the thread as a whole, it may also be relevant to quote OB 11G6 bullet (vi)

Quote

It is only permissible to pass a multi 2♦ if responder has good reason to believe that 2♦ is the partnership's best contract.

Robin

[nigel_k]

I think there is an important difference between saying:

A. "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it."

and

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

If the regulation is A, then responder is entitled to consider the probability of partner having the string option. When the regulation is B, that suggests to me that responder has to act if he'd want to be in game when partner is strong.

I agree that this is not really playing bridge, but the time to worry about that was when creating the regulation not when applying it.

I'm not convinced that the the intent of the regulation is solely to catch players who are misdescribing their multi-way bids. It's more dangerous to act over a multi that can have a strong option but you can lessen that risk by passing and bidding on the next round after the hand type has been revealed. Possibly the regulation is just intended to facilitate that.

So I'd interpret the regulation as meaning responder can pass with xx xx xxxxxxx xx but not with the given hand.

[nige1]

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.

[mrdct]

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". But assuming their 2♦ opening is considered a legal opening bid ( particularly as 11G6 seems to have been purposefully written to allow people to play 2♦ as weak either major or strong balanced given the widespread popularity of the method prior to the introduction of system restrictions) I would've thought application of 11G6(b)(vi) "It is only permitted to pass a Multi 2♦ if responder has good reason to believe that 2♦ is the partnership’s best contract" means case closed - responder clearly had good reason to believe the 2♦ is the partnership's best contract so is explicitly permitted to pass.

Further, a semantic point, 11G6(b)(v) uses the term "is expected to" not "must" or "shall" - this choice of words could only have the intent of not making it mandatory to explore game.