nullve

I will be opening yarboroughs with a singleton or void, but only at the 2-level or higher.

Agree. Agree.

A Pass opening (1st seat NV only) that denies a singleton or void does indeed look ridiculous. But 1) opps are entitled to know about it, which is another thing that makes it different from your kind of Pass opening, which is (still) not alertable. 2) the opening might affect one's choice of preemptive structure in 3rd seat NV, and this is the part I find interesting.

The point of my 2M rebid is certainly not to confuse the opponents, but rather to enable Responder to figure out whether Opener has 6 M or 5M4+m on partscore deals. That's very hard to do after Multi 2D.

I did, because in Multi Squared, 2♣-2♦ 2♥ = 6 H or 5S4+m 2♣-2♦ 2♠ = 6 S or 5H4+m

Maybe you're (obviously) right, but I'm ignorant of why. Special or not, it also denies a singleton or void. I think it's an interesting idea which I haven't heard about before, that's why I decided to share it on BBF. Multi Squared is definitely not a 2-suited multi.

Yes, why not. Another possibility (i.e. another customisation): 2S = 6+m4Om; 2N = 5+D5+C. Again, I'm not a bridge lawyer, but Wilcosz guarantees a second suit while Multi Squared, even if it's weak-only version, does not. Also, when I define 2C as 6 M or 5M4+m, I'm just being explicit about not including 5M(332) or 5M4+OM as well, which I'm sure many would be more reluctant to open 2D (Multi) with than 5M4+m anyway.

Thx for a very thoughtful reply, helene_t It's my impression that it is upoen reading "EXCEPTION: a two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major[...]", but I'm not a bridge lawyer. I'm not sure 2D is mostly invitational, but let's assume it is. I've thought about it (likely reason: I've toyed with two-under preempts before), but only superficially, and I must admit it now looks like a reasonable alternative, especially if the 2C opening has a very wide range. I'll defintitely have to think about this possibility again. I've thought about that, too, but I think it's inferior. Reason: Quite often, Responder will have something like 6 M or 5M1OM(43) and now his best bet (I think) is to play in 2M, hopefully on a 7-card or better fit, instead of 3m on a likely 4-3 fit. In my method he can do that after 2C-2D; 2M-P. Ditto, I think. (With something like 1633, Responder would want to play 2H, not 3m, opposite 5S4+m.) I know. :) I was trying to do that in my previous post. That doesn't mean I haven't failed.

As I've been trying to explain, when you just look at how the 2C opening is defined, Multi Squared is basically a semi-disciplined version of (Garbage) Multi 2D, in the sense that Opener can only have 6 M or 5M4+m if weak, not 5M(332). Some of you have pointed to an obvious theoretical disadvantage, which is that the 2C opening makes it easier for opps to compete than after a similarly defined 2D opening. But that disadvantage should be balanced against the theoretical advantages, some of which I'm going to list below. (Main) advantages: 1) With inv+ values Responder can relay with 2D instead of 2N as in most versions of Multi 2D. (Obvious advantage.) 2) with < inv values and potentially misfitting hand (i.e. with a singleton or void in a major), Responder will tend to bid 2D first, after which there is a mechanism, or trick (using the "Multi" 2M rebid), for finding out whether Opener has 6 M or 5M4+m, in most cases allowing the partnership to play 2M when Opener has 6 M and to avoid playing 2M when Opener has 5M4+m opposite 1- M. Obviously, Multi 2D lacks an equivalent mechanism, so there is a greater price to paid for lumping 6 M and 5M4+m hands together in the 2D opening. 3) with < inv values and tolerance for both majors, Responder will usually make the same P/C-type of bid that he would playing Multi 2D, but since 2S doesn't promise inv or better values, it's probably easier to bid to the Law level now than after after a similarly defined (Garbage) Multi 2D opening. I don't think Multi Squared has a huge advantage here, but it might still be worth mentioning, particularly since one poster seemed to think that Responder has fewer P/C-type of responses available here than after Multi 2D.) To give you a better idea of the mechanism in 2), consider a somewhat idealised situation where Responder has 13 hcp and 1M444 shape. Then he will happily play 2M opposite 6 M, but rather play 3m on a 4-4 fit than 2M on a 5-1 fit opposite 5M4+m. So instead of responding, say, 2S (still P/C, but now virtually never done without doubleton spades), he starts by relaying 2D. Then, if Opener rebids 2M, showing 6 M or 5OM4+m, Responder will assume 6 M and pass, but if Opener rebids 2OM, Responder will bid 3C, P/C, allowing Opener to pass with 5M4+C, bid 3D with 5M4+D and to bid 3OM with 6 OM. To gwnn: Even if we forget about the WBF legal issues with Multi-type 2M openings (relevant where I live, but maybe not so much in, say, Sweden or Australia, where the observation might be of greater interest), the trick just described wouldn't work as smoothly if either a) all 6M and 5M4+m hands were all lumped together in the 2H opening. (As hard to figure out whether partner has 6 M or 5M4+m as after Multi 2D.) b) both "Multi" 2M rebids were opening bids instead. (Impossible to play 2H opposite 2+ H when Opener has 5H4+m.) c) both "Multi" 2M rebids were opening bids instead, but with the meanings of 2H and 2S interchanged. (Impossible to play 2H when Opener has 6 H.)

I don't doubt that. Unfortunately it doesn't have the same WBF legal status as a Multi 2C or 2D opening showing either H or S. (Yes, Multi 2D is technically a brown sticker, but WBF makes an exception for it and a similarly defined Multi 2C, as you all know.) It seems to me that you are comparing Multi Squared to Multi 2H, not Multi 2D.

I have reflected on that. Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that it's widely unknown among BBF posters, although I'm sure not every BBF poster knows about it. Besides, I was just taking a guess at what you found most "horrible" so I could focus my reply for your benefit.

My intention has always been to use the exact same P/C bids as Multi 2D. So the 2H and 2S responses are P/C, and in a weak-only version I would also use 3H and 3S as P/C. The 2D response does not even exist in Multi 2D. In Multi Squared it not only wholly replaces the inv+ 2N relay in Multi 2D but is also used on potentially misfitting hands as an aid to better partscore bidding.

The 2C convention you describe - and you're probably right about its advantages/disadvantages - is just one just one of several conventions sometimes referred to as 'Multi 2C'. But it's not in any way just a 2C version of Multi 2D, and this is why I thought I had to come up with a different name for my own gadget, although it's both similarly defined and has the same status according to WBF regulations as Multi 2D. Just to repeat: 2C = 6 M or 5M4+m [6-card major or (5-card major and 4-card or longer minor)] / [zero or more] strong options according to taste If you just look at the definition, there's really nothing special about it, except that the opening is 2C, not 2D. If you think it's too loosely defined (compared with tradtional Multi), please have in mind that some pairs even open Multi 2D with 5M(332) as well as with 6M or 5M4+m. So Multi Squared is a kind of "semi-disciplined" Multi, and will also behave like one in competition. (And if opps overcall 2H or higher, it will no longer matter if the opening was 2C or 2D.) Again, the key ingredient is the 2M rebid, not the 2C opening itself.

It's not easy to answer your question, because I've only played the 2C opening at the table. I could still describe what I perceive to be the practical advantages of Multi Squared over a similarly defined Garbage Multi 2D, but I strongly suspect you find the "Multi" 2M rebid, which is in fact the key ingredient of Multi Squared, particularly revolting. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm not completely inventing the wheel, though, because a similar 2H bid was used as an opening preempt by e.g. Helgemo-Helness (http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems/2003bermudabowl-monaco/norway/tor-geir%20+%20Notes%20+%20BS%20Forms.pdf) and Versace-Lauria (http://info.ecatsbridge.com/Systems%5C2003bermudabowl-monaco%5Citaly/lauria-versace%20+%20notes%20+%20bs%20forms.pdf) in the 2003 Bermuda Bowl. Multi-like 2M opening bids are also part of other (brown sticker) conventions described on Chris Ryall's homepage (http://www.chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/brown.htm).

Multi Squared 2C = Multi: 6M or 5M4+m / strong options according to taste 2C-?: 2D = relay, usually with inv+ values or a potentially misfitting hand 2M = Multi*: 6 M or 5OM4+m P = allowed, usually with 1- M (assuming p has 6 M) or (5)6+ M (assuming p has 5OM4+m) 2S = P/C 2N = inv+ relay 3m = non-max, 5OM4+m 3M = min, 6 M 3OM = max, 6 M 3N = max, 5OM4+m 3C = P/C 2N+ = strong options, if desired2H = P/C, usually 2+S2H or 3+S3H 2S = P/C, usually 2S3+H 2N+ = possibly depending on whether 2C is "weak-only" or not. If strong balanced hands are included, I like to play 2N = PRE w/ long minor or inv w/ long major 3C+ = P/C3C = < inv opposite weak hands, GF opposite bal hands, 5+M4+OM 3D = strong balanced, relay 3H+ = Smolen3D = < inv opposite weak hands, GF opposite bal hands, 4S4H 3M = nat PRE (not P/C!) * and Multi followed by Multi is Multi^2 MuSHroom (1N)-?: X = cards 2C = Multi Squared 2D = S anchor suit, uknown canapé (4-4 possible, especially with 44(41) shape) 2H = P/C 2S = to play 2N = inv+ relay 3m = non-max, 5+ m 3H = non-max, 5+ H 3S = max, 5+ H 3N = max, 5+ m 3C = P/C 3S = PRE2H = H anchor suit, uknown canapé 2S = P/C 2N = inv+ relay 3m = non-max, 5+ m 3H = non-max, 5+ S 3S = max, 5+ S 3N = max, 5+ m 3C = P/C 3H = PRE2S+ = room for something else Preempt-Preparatory Pass (1st seat NV only) P = less than opening strength, no singleton or void, unsuitable for preemption I call this pass 'preempt-preparatory' because it prepares the ground for wild-looking but still reasonably safe preempts by 3rd hand. The idea is to play it in conjunction with a MuSHroom-like scheme of preempts that takes care of all hands with less than opening strength that contain a singleton or void. E.g. P = preempt-prepartory 2C+ = MuSHroom-like preempts (2C and 2D possibly containing strong options) where e.g. 2S = 5+m4+Om (as in Big Bang) 2N = whatever 3C+ = normal aggressive preempts (but 3m is mandatory with 6m(331)) Added, starting 20 January 2017:

Like you, I have toyed with a Precision-or-natural 1C opening. My version was designed to allow continuations in the spirit of 1993 Viking Club: Basic idea: 1C: like a Precision 1C, 2C or 2D opening, possibly excluding 10-15 with 4414 1C-?: 1D = 0-7, any (as in Viking Club) / 8+, 4441 1H = strong relay, as in Viking Club 1S+ = as in Viking Club, except that 3H+: available to show 8+, 4441, so e.g.: 3H = 8-10 3S = 11-13 3N = 14-16 4C = 17+ 1S+: I don't have very strong opinions here, but maybe 1S = min 1C opener, unbal., 4+ M 1N = relay 2C+: e.g. some NT defense such as Asptro 1N = 17-19 bal., or min 1C and no other good bid (e.g. with 6m(331) or (31)(54)). Then something like 2C = 5+ H 2D = 1- H 2H = 6+ H, to play 2H+ = same as 2H+ over a Jacoby 2D transfer 2D = 5+ S 2H = 1- S 2S = 6+ S, to play 2S+ = same as 2S+ over a Jacoby 2H transfer 2H = 4+S4+H, weak 2N = Puppet Stayman NOTE: Responder has no way to invite with a 4c major. 2C = Precision 2C opener, maybe guaranteeing 6+ C, as when 2D = 10-15, 4S5C 2H = 10-15, 3-S4H5C 2S+: something like 2S = min 1C opener, 6+m4Om 2N = min 1C opener, 5+D5+C 3m = min 1C opener, 3-S3-H7+m3-Om1H = 8+, 5+ S / 11+ bal. (as in Viking Club ("latest changes" on p. 187), but with balanced hands starting at 11 instead of 15) 1S = 16+, relay 1N = 11+ bal. 2C = relay 2D+: as in Viking Club over 1C-1N, but with 11+ (think 11-16) instead of (8)9-14 2C+ = as in Viking Club 1N = Precision 2C opener, 3+ S No strong opinions, but maybe 2C = 11-12 bal., NF 2D = ART GF 2H+ = same as 2H+ over 2C-2D in Precision, except that Opener has already shown 3+ S 2H = 5+ S, inv+ 2S = 5+ S, < inv 3N = to play 2C = Precision 2C opener, 2- S1S = 8+, 5+ H (as in Viking Club ("latest changes")) 1N = 16+, relay (as in Viking Club) 2C = Precision 2C opener, 2- H 2D+: some of these bids describe a Precision 2C opener with 3+ H, e.g.: 2D = Precision 2C opener, good H raise 2H = Precision 2C opener, min H raise1N = 8+, 5+ D, unbal., not 5D4C, may have 5D5C 2C = Precision 2C opener 2D = 16+, relay 2H+: as 2H+ over 1C-2C; 2D in vanilla Viking Club, but with minors reversed2C = 8-10, bal. P = allowed 2D = 16+ relay 2H+ = same as 2H+ over 1C-1N; 2C in Viking Club (but with 8-10 instead of (8)9-11) 2H+: some of these bids describe a (max?) Precision 2C opener 2D = 8+, 5+ C, unbal., not 4D5C (as in Viking Club ("latest changes")) 2H = 16+, relay 2S+: same as 2S+ over 1C-2D; 2H in vanilla Viking Club, but with minors reversed 2M-3C: these bids describe a Precision 2C opener2H = 8+, 5m4Om (as in Viking Club) 2S = 16+, relay (as in Viking Club) 2N+: some of these bids describe a Precision 2C opener2S+: some of these bids describe (4441)-hands with 8+ hcp, as in Viking Club. But the standard scheme doesn't work opposite a Precision 2C opener, so I suggest the following: 2S = 8+, 1444 2N = relay 3C = 8-10 3D = 11-13 3H = 14+ 3C = NF2N = 8-10, 8-10, 4144 3C = relay3C = 11-13. 4144 3D = 14+, 4144 3H = 14+, 4414 Further note on (4441) hands: Neither of the two schemes described in the 1993 book (Norwegian version) works opposite a Precision 2C opener, but I'm struggling to find an elegant alternative. At least I've concluded that 8-12 counts with 4441 should respond 1D in the hope of staying low opposite the wrong kind of Precision 2C opener. (E.g. playing 3C on a 6-1 fit is obviously something to be avoided.) 8-12 counts with 4414 should be treated as balanced (and so should either respond 1H or 2C), because the alternative of responding 2S+ directly just makes it too difficult to sort things out opposite a Precision 2C opener. So the only 8-12 counts (in fact, the only 8-13 counts, in the above scheme) that should respond 2S+ directly are those with (41)44. So in the mess above, hands with * 8+, 4441 always respond 1D * 8-13, 4414 are treated as balanced, but Responder will show both majors, then bid a third step (=3N) to show 4414 * 14+, 4414 respond 3H * 8+, 1444 always respond 2S * 8+, 4144 respond 2N-3D. DISCLAIMER: This is not necessarily a system I would play, except for fun.

Traian may have published the videos on YouTube for our entertainment only, but thanks to them we are potentially in as good a position as anybody else to judge what W-E were doing on boards 1-2 and 5-16 in session 5 of the final. The only problem is that we may not know exactly what to look for. For instance, if the hypothesis was that W-E were signalling according to he following code, "Coughs at the beginning of auction indicate shortness i.e 1 cough is clubs, 2 coughs is diamonds etc. No cough is balanced hand or semi balanced hand Coughs at the end of auction indicate which suit to lead i.e 1 cough is clubs, 2 coughs, diamonds etc.", (From Exhibit B) we would like to know such things as * what an 'auction' is (Does it start when someone is having a first look at his cards? Or does it start with the first call?) * what the 'beginning' and 'end' of an auction are (Are there other stages of the auction as well, perhaps during which a number of coughs has no meaning?) * whether they were asumed to signal on EVERY board (If not, how could the hypothesis still be refutable? - Statisticians, help!) etc. or else our observations would likely disagree. To some extent we might also be able to "see what we want to see".

Have YOU watched the videos from Bali?

Were the coughing pattern in session 5 of the finals also predictable? And from what (testable and refutable?) hypothesis? I refer you to these YouTube videos (that I guess most of you have already at least skimmed through): "2013 Bali USA GER v2", featuring boards 1-2 "2013 Bali USA GER v4", featuring boards 5-10 and the first minutes of board 11 "2013 Bali USA GER v3", featuring boards 12-16 and roughly the remaining part of board 11

Ok. It just seemed to me that the posters in that thread had long since moved on from where I was (and am now!), so I decided to start my own. ... The general feeling seems to be that W-E were caught as a result of genuine scientific investigation. First, something resembling a scientific (hence testable and refutable) hypothesis was formulated: "Compton entered [Wold's convention card] markings into an excel sheet and compared opening leads and hand shapes to determine a potential coughing code. (see Exhibit B[*])" (From Compton's 'Formal Complaint', which can be found in 'excel-sheet.pdf' here: http://newinbridge.com/news/2014/mar/german-bridge-world-champs-banned-life) The hypothesis, which might have been nothing but the statement that W-E were using this coughing code, was then tested: "Based on this code, Compton has further analyzed the 16 hands in FD1S3 [= Finals Day 1, Set 3][...] and FD2S5 (with video) (Exhibit D[**]) [...]. It is also the understanding of USA II that additional evidence of inappropriate communication between Wladow and Elinescu will be provided by the WBF monitor from FD2S5 and FD2S6." (ibid.) So, supposing there was a hypothesis in place that could conceivably have been refuted during sessions 5-6, what do you think it was, and what is your verdict on it now that you have scrutinized the videos? *The coughing code described in Exhibit B: "Coughs at the beginning of auction indicate shortness i.e 1 cough is clubs, 2 coughs is diamonds etc. No cough is balanced hand or semi balanced hand Coughs at the end of auction indicate which suit to lead i.e 1 cough is clubs, 2 coughs, diamonds etc." **Exhibit D is a video recording of session 5 that used to be available at http://new.livestream.com/accounts/5339416/WBTC-Bali, but the three videos on YouTube, which I believe are all excerpts from that video, seem to be the closest thing to Exhibit D that is still publicly available.

The three relevant videos on YouTube are: "2013 Bali USA GER v2", featuring boards 1-2 "2013 Bali USA GER v4", featuring boards 5-10 and the first minutes of board 11 "2013 Bali USA GER v3", featuring boards 12-16 and the last minutes (roughly the remaining part) of board 11

To those of you who have actually endured watching the entire videos on YouTube featuring boards 1-2 and 5-16 from session 5 of the finals of the Bali d'Orsi Senior Bowl: 1) What specific cheating hypothesis do you think was being tested during session 5? 2) Having watched the videos carefully, how do you judge the hypothesis in 1)? Btw, I'm a newcomer to this forum. I guess it shows.