2D Multi

[card_judge]

This has probably been asked here to for but I am not privileged to the answer. Why would ACBL not allow the 2♦ multi bid be part of the General Convention Chart?

 

I go to the trouble of learning (or at least a good try of learning) just to find out that I am banned from using it whenever the General Convention Chart governs the game.

 

After all there are several defenses published on it and it just requires some time to learn and discuss them with your partner.

[Guest Jlall]

Politics. The ACBL views multi as mainly destructive, which is silly. It is actually WORSE for preempting, and has gains of freeing up the 2H and 2S openings for other meanings, which is a constructive thing. Anyways...basically they're protecting the masses from this evil multi so they won't have to learn how to defend against it. While I agree with convention regulation and protecting the more average player, I think multi is easy to defend against GIVEN SOME PRACTICE and should be allowed. I'm not sure why multi has such a stigma attached to it over here in the states. For more on this await Hrothgars post :D

[han]

In the Netherlands many similar conventions are banned, but not multi, because it was already so popular that there was made an exception. It is very common, and every pair knows what defense they play.

[tysen2k]

It's popularity is probably the only reason the ACBL made it Mid Chart instead of Super Chart...

[Echognome]

From my understanding a similar situation in England. For the club level, the multi would have been banned (in terms of consistency with other regulations), had it not been so popular. I also agree that it is less effective for preempting (although probably slighty better when you have hearts and worse when you have spades), but it is a space saving bid freeing up 2♥ and 2♠.

[hrothgar]

This has probably been asked here to for but I am not privileged to the answer. Why would ACBL not allow the 2♦ multi bid be part of the General Convention Chart?

The ACBL's primary goal is protecting its existing membership from anything that might threaten to remove them from their comfort Zone.

[Chamaco]

In Italy Multi is allowed for similar reasons than in the Netherlands, provided the weak option of the multi has at least 6 hcp; with less than 6 you cannot even psyche a Multi, you'll be automatically punished.

(of corse, this does not apply for toplevel events)

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not agreeing with that... :D

[Guest Jlall]

This has probably been asked here to for but I am not privileged to the answer.  Why would ACBL not allow the 2♦ multi bid be part of the General Convention Chart?

The ACBL's primary goal is protecting its existing membership from anything that might threaten to remove them from their comfort Zone.

BAM. I knew it was coming :D Good, concise answer though :)

[bigmax]

What is the logic of banning Multi and allowing Cappelletti 2C - which is basically 3 suited multi?

[hrothgar]

What is the logic of banning Multi and allowing Cappelletti 2C - which is basically 3 suited multi?

"Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no"

[awm]

Keep in mind that ACBL doesn't base their policies on what's popular in Europe (or anywhere else in the world). The basic point of disallowing multi is a view that "weak bids that do not promise cards in the suit bid are potentially difficult to defend against." Honestly I think that the policies of many European sanctioning organizations are more difficult to justify. For example:

 

(1) If Multi is permitted, even when the major-suit preempts can be five cards, why is Wilkosz 2♦ not allowed? After all, this bid also shows a weak hand including a five card major...

 

(2) If Multi is permitted, why are suction preempts (2♦ opening showing weak with hearts or weak 5-5 in spades and clubs) not allowed? Again, this bid shows a weak hand including a five card major...

 

(3) Why have some organizations banned Multi when it is always weak while permitting it when it contains a strong option?

 

It seems to me that if a conventional bid showing one of a certain set of hand types is allowed, using the same bid to show a subset of the same hand types should also be allowed. After all, you could just claim to play the first type of bid and never actually bid it with the removed hands, right?

 

Surely some people will argue that virtually all conventions should be allowed (including Wilkosz, suction preempts, etc). This position is laudable for its consistency, but probably not politically feasible in any jurisdiction. If Europe (and the WBF) refuses to bow to what's "popular in Poland" by allowing Wilkosz, I don't see why ACBL should have to bow to what's "popular in the rest of the world" and allow Multi.

[Al_U_Card]

Add a healthy dose of good old Xenophobia to things that invade the sacred soil.

[han]

I wouldn't worry about that Adam. Nobody here would dare to suggest that a US organization should base their policies on what is happening in the rest of the world. Of course, I'm only talking about bridge here :D.

[david_c]

Keep in mind that ACBL doesn't base their policies on what's popular in Europe (or anywhere else in the world). The basic point of disallowing multi is a view that "weak bids that do not promise cards in the suit bid are potentially difficult to defend against."

Exactly. If you accept that there should be some regulation of artificial pre-empts, then there is no particular reason why multi should be allowed.

[card_judge]

You nailed it Justin with respect to hrothgar! Unfortunately I assumed the exact answer to be what he stated.

 

I say this because I asked a local club director why we could not play it and his response "because I don't like it and in any club game I direct I will not allow it". In turn that to me equalled "I don't understand it and do not want to take invest the time to figure out how to defend it."

 

It is unfortunate that we have politicos with tiny xxxxs and brains.

[han]

Keep in mind that ACBL doesn't base their policies on what's popular in Europe (or anywhere else in the world). The basic point of disallowing multi is a view that "weak bids that do not promise cards in the suit bid are potentially difficult to defend against."

Exactly. If you accept that there should be some regulation of artificial pre-empts, then there is no particular reason why multi should be allowed.

Yes there is a reason for allowing multi even if it is not entirely consistent with the rest of your rules. If a large portion of your members want to play multi or already play multi then that is an excellent reason to allow it. What better reason could there be?

 

I don't think that a large portion of ACBL members wants to play multi. Of course, this depends on what you mean by "large".

[cherdano]

I would lobby for multi 2♦ to be allowed in any event I play so get an edge compared to the field by my weak 2♦ ;)

[kenberg]

In our unit games (for non-locals: ACBL divides into districts and subdivides into units. Units hold a unit game.) the Multi is allowed. I like that. In the ACBL online tourneys, the Multi is disallowed. I also like that. Clubs are free to do as they wish, I also like that. One of the charms of bridge is that it may be played at various levels of seriousness, including by the same player at different times or in different venues. When I play online I typically pick up a partner who I have never or seldom played with before and I would prefer to just play. At the unit game I play with a steady partner (well, he may not be steady but you know what I mean) and I am happy, in fact I prefer, to take on what comes my way.

 

Generally speaking I think the ACBL is doing a better job than they used to do of making a coherent set of rules, but there is still considerable room for improvement.

 

Ken

[pbleighton]

"Nobody here would dare to suggest that a US organization should base their policies on what is happening in the rest of the world."

 

Of course they wouldn't. Why would we want to expose our players to a convention which is very popular internationally? International "bridge" competition is a game for deviants - the only real bridge is played in the U.S.A.

 

We have to keep up standards!

 

Peter

[LH2650]

In our unit games (for non-locals: ACBL divides into districts and subdivides into units. Units hold a unit game.) the Multi is allowed.

Do you just hit the unsuspecting with your Multi, or do you follow ACBL regulation, pre-alerting that you play it, giving the opponents copies of the approved defenses, and allowing them several minutes to discuss and choose one?

[card_judge]

Does not matter if we wanted to pre alert or not. We are precluded from playing 2♦ multi in any GC governed event be it club, sectional, NAP or GNT. So we do not even place it on the convention card nor do we bring it up since we are barred from playing it.

[helene_t]

[...] I asked a local club director why we could not play it and his response "because I don't like it and in any club game I direct I will not allow it".  In turn that to me equalled "I don't understand it and do not want to take invest the time to figure out how to defend it."

 

It is unfortunate that we have politicos with tiny xxxxs and brains.

Exactly. They disallow fertilizer openings for the same reasons.

 

Where I play (much lower level than most posters here), most players play Multi without really knowing what it is (when are doubles over major suit interference p/c? Few partnerships have discussed this, and several other crucial issues), let alone having any agreements about defense against it. While many top players have abandoned multi mainly because it's too easy to defend against, players at low levels tend to play it because they believe it's difficult to defend against. Which is true, given that most partnership have no agreements about defense against it.

 

For what it's worth, I think tournament organizers should choose between either allowing everything or allowing "nothing" (in terms of preempts not showing an ancor suit). It's true that multi was popular before (other) BSCs were banned, but since it's not an essential part of any bidding system it would do little harm to ban it.

 

Given that multi is allowed, it has little merrit to ban BSCs. It's hardly more difficult to make generic agreements about BSC defense than to agree on a specific defense against multi. Besides, there is enough room in the current regulations for diabolic methods (psycho suction against short club, apstro-preempts, apstro-overcalls etc) and the fact that few pairs develop such methods (I've only met apstro-preempts once, it was in a quarter final of national championschips) indicates that a lift of the BSC ban would make little diference.

 

As for Cappeletti: I agree it's inconsistent to allow Cappeletti and not allowing multi. But responder is in an easier position after his partner opened 1NT. Then again, why not allow Woolsey-over-1NT? But the GCC is based on a positive list rather than a negative list. This implies that there is no "logic" in the GCC regulations, conventions are be allowed or not for historical reasons.

[david_c]

As for Cappeletti: I agree it's inconsistent to allow Cappeletti and not allowing multi. But responder is in an easier position after his partner opened 1NT.

That's the point, of course - multi is an opening bid, whereas Capp is a defence to 1NT. Those are two completely different situations, and they require completely different defences, so there is no reason why the regulations should be the same. In fact, here in England, until the rules were changed we were allowed to play multi as an opening bid (at L3) but we weren't allowed multi as a defence to 1NT.

[kenberg]

In our unit games (for non-locals: ACBL divides into districts and subdivides into units. Units hold a unit game.) the Multi is allowed.

Do you just hit the unsuspecting with your Multi, or do you follow ACBL regulation, pre-alerting that you play it, giving the opponents copies of the approved defenses, and allowing them several minutes to discuss and choose one?

Neither. I have never used the multi. I may someday, but it is not on my short list. I merely mean that I enjoy playing in a game where being prepared to deal with the Multi is one of the expectations. I also enjoy playing in games (online acbl tourney for example) where I can pick up a pard and hope to be ready to play after brief discussion. Probably we all agree that someone playing in highly advanced settings (late rounds of a national championship, for example) must be prepared to cope with conventions that a club player need not concern himself with. Exactly how to work this out is a matter of dispute, but I am fine with the multi at the unit game level.

 

Ken

[mikestar]

As for Cappeletti: I agree it's inconsistent to allow Cappeletti and not allowing multi. But responder is in an easier position after his partner opened 1NT. Then again, why not allow Woolsey-over-1NT? But the GCC is based on a positive list rather than a negative list. This implies that there is no "logic" in the GCC regulations, conventions are be allowed or not for historical reasons.

Largely true but not quite correct with respect to defenses to 1NT. Here everthing is allowed except for calls hgier than 2C which do not promise a known suit, hence this portions of the GCC is a negative list.

 

By the way, many tournament organizers stipulate "GCC with any NT defense" in their conditions of contest, which would indicate that not everone is happy with this particular provison of the GCC even among players who are in general OK with the GCC.