Multi in the ACBL

[glen]

I'm told that the ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee is considering some changes in the Mid-Chart. In particular Multi could be slated to be moved to 6 board segments.

 

Imo, this shows that ACBL remains totally focused on their primary market, one that will mostly disappear over the next two decades. I always felt that the Mid-Chart represented a decent compromise between the GCC stagnation and the need to free things up, but with the recent seemingly refusal to approve any more mid-chart defenses, and now this, I guess that compromise is off the table.

[david_c]

I dunno, it wouldn't be the worst decision they've ever made. I'd say that in general, pre-empts which don't show a specified suit shouldn't be allowed in events with short rounds. Multi is often an exception (it's not "Brown Sticker") because it has historically been a popular convention, but in the ACBL where it's never been popular there's no particular need for it to be an exception.

[the hog]

I dunno, it wouldn't be the worst decision they've ever made. I'd say that in general, pre-empts which don't show a specified suit shouldn't be allowed in events with short rounds. Multi is often an exception (it's not "Brown Sticker") because it has historically been a popular convention, but in the ACBL where it's never been popular there's no particular need for it to be an exception.

roflmao. Where on earth do you play? In Oz even lols, (seriously), use these openings and that is at MPs and no one has a problem against them. Are you playing bridge or tiddleywinks?

 

Your implication that something should be disallowed because it is not popular is unbelievable. Stayman wasn't popular when it was first conceived.

[pbleighton]

Well, to start with I'd like the ACBL to allow what the GCC allows. I was playing a system where:

1. Two clubs as showing at least 15 points (no exceptions for distribution,

it will always be at least 15), and at least 5 hearts. It doesn't say

anything about club length.

2. Two diamonds as showing at least 15 points (no exceptions for

distribution, it will always be at least 15), and at least 5 spades. It

doesn't say anything about diamond length.

 

Falling under GCC 3a and 5b

3. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

a) a strong hand.

:) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:

a) both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.

B) a strong hand.

c) a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

 

The chief TD of BBO ACBL disallowed it. Her reasoning was that the provisions required the bid to be completely artificial, though it said nothing of the kind.

 

OK, this is what the ACBL headquarters are for:

 

I wrote to rulings@acbl.org, and Mike Flader wrote back and said

"According to our regulations, what you wish to play would be legal."

 

I sent BBO ACBL this ruling. The upshot is that Rick Beye got involved, and he said:

 

"In reading both the GCC and the MC it is clear that the intent

of the writers is to allow both 2C and 2D to show a strong

hand, not a specific strong hand (which I believe is allowed on

the MC #8). The proposed convention below is essentially a

transfer opening bid, something not included on the GCC. I do

not think we can allow these agreements in GCC events."

 

In other words, the Mid Chart exception for any bid showing 4 cards in a known suit means that the GCC doesn't mean what it says in English, which is that a 2m opening bid that is both artificial and strong is allowed. Artificial can obviously mean a bid that has specific distributional meaning, see 3b, 5a, and 5c.

 

No, the "intent of the framers" is obvious. They MEANT to write "a strong hand which doesn't give any distributional information" instead of "a strong hand". What an incredible oversight! But how obvious to an ACBL official who hates transfer openings. Somehow he didn't get around to mentioning that they won't let you play transfer openings in Mid Chart by virtue of banning the defenses.

 

Lovely stuff indeed.

 

Peter

[david_c]

Your implication that something should be disallowed because it is not popular is unbelievable. Stayman wasn't popular when it was first conceived.

Whether it "should" be the case or not, it is a fact that many events that do not generally allow artificial pre-empts make an exception for Multi because it is a well-known convention.

 

e.g. In the EBU, "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." [OB 11 G 6]

[Free]

Multi is often an exception (it's not "Brown Sticker") because it has historically been a popular convention, but in the ACBL where it's never been popular there's no particular need for it to be an exception.

How can a convention become popular if you never allow it? Vicious circle don't you think? :)

[rbforster]

<snip>... The upshot is that Rick Beye got involved, and he said:

"In reading both the GCC and the MC it is clear that the intent of the writers is to allow both 2C and 2D to show a strong hand, not a specific strong hand (which I believe is allowed on the MC #8).  The proposed convention below is essentially a transfer opening bid, something not included on the GCC.  I do not think we can allow these agreements in GCC events."

Completely ridiculous. It is arbritrary and clearly incorrect rulings like this that give ACBL regulations (and regulators) their well-deserved bad name.

[pbleighton]

"Completely ridiculous. It is arbritrary and clearly incorrect rulings like this that give ACBL regulations (and regulators) their well-deserved bad name."

 

I used to think Richard was too harsh on the regulators. I still think he's too personal, but....

 

Peter

[rbforster]

The General Chart fairly clearly refers to strong hands as 15+ HCP, and further that 2C and 2D openings are specially allowed to show a strong hand. There's nothing about how you can't show different kinds of strong hands, that you may only have one bid in your system for strong hands, etc. Heck, following the logic you received, you'd think a 15+ version of Namytas would be banned because it was a transfer opening (even though it has it's own specific exception). I think we can all agree that the ruling you received was not correct in light of what the GCC clearly says is allowed.

 

"Completely ridiculous. It is arbritrary and clearly incorrect rulings like this that give ACBL regulations (and regulators) their well-deserved bad name."

 

I used to think Richard was too harsh on the regulators. I still think he's too personal, but....

It's certainly nothing personal for me. What Richard wants (in terms of defenses to his Midchart methods being approved, etc) is a complicated issue involving possibly considerable effort on the part of someone knowledgeable to handle well. Perhaps one could understand, if not forgive, the ACBL for not prioritizing this when 99% of all games are played at a GCC level.

 

On the other hand, the General Chart is as much part of the rules governing a GCC event as are the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. I would be as appalled that a TD denied your methods in a GCC event as I would if they gave my opponents two more tricks than they deserved due to some irregularity. The rules are very specific about what is allowed/required in that case, and any competent TD would either know the rules or where to look them up. Likewise, the GCC says that certain things are specifically allowed and so they should be, without any need for "interpretation" or "intent" by the TD. To have a TD (or worse, an ACBL official acting in his professional capacity) issue a mis-ruling that egregious is at best an example of incompetence and at worst a capricious misuse of their position.

 

Follow the rules, that's why they're there. If some official thinks the GCC "intended" something other than what it says, they should argue for the wording to be changed or clarified. Until then, what they think shouldn't matter in the least for their rulings.

[helene_t]

roflmao. Where on earth do you play? In Oz even lols, (seriously), use these openings and that is at MPs and no one has a problem against them. Are you playing bridge or tiddleywinks?

 

Your implication that something should be disallowed because it is not popular is unbelievable. Stayman wasn't popular when it was first conceived.

Stayman probably wouldn't be GCC-allowed if it was invented today.

 

GCC does not allow relays. Stayman is an expetion. This is because it was popular before the GCC was described.

 

EBU (and other regulators that basically use BSC definitions) do not allow preempts without an anchor suit. Multi is an exception in EBU-land. This is because it was popular in EBU-land before the EBU regulations were made.

 

GCC does not allow preempts without an anchor suit. Multi is no exeption. This is because Multi was never popular among ACBL-land players at the level now associated with GCC events.

 

Ron, what's you problem with this? Don't you think what I've described above shows consistency in GCC and EBU regulations? Don't you think that consistency is, other things being equal, a good thing?

 

If your only complaint is that banning conventions is always bad, then your recommendation should be to get rid of the GCC regulations, not to mess them up with arbitrary exceptions.

 

For what it's worth, I don't like exeptions, even when justified by an old custom. I think the EBU should either ban multi, or allow any preempt without an anchor suit. I've heard that they moved in that direction by allowing any preempt that either promises or denies length in the bid suit, i.e. Wilcozc is banned but multi allowed. I think that's a step in the right direction.

 

By the same argument, I think GCC should either ban Stayman or allow all relays. Clearly the better of those two options is to allow all relays. This would make a lot of things easier. TDs would not have to memorize some silly technical definition of what the word "relay" exactly means. And it would not harm anyone. Obviously GCC partnerships are expected to have some defense against Stayman. I suppose they would be able to generalize that to a generic defense against relays.

[the hog]

Helene t, as always your logic is impeccable. I suggest you take up a petition and send it to Mike Flader and Rick Beye asking that Stayman be banned. I will be the first to sign it.

[whereagles]

Multi is often an exception (it's not "Brown Sticker") because it has historically been a popular convention, but in the ACBL where it's never been popular there's no particular need for it to be an exception.

How can a convention become popular if you never allow it? Vicious circle don't you think? <_<

doh! That's precisely the point :)

 

It's a catch 22 ;)

[whereagles]

Helene t, as always your logic is impeccable. I suggest you take up a petition and send it to Mike Flader and Rick Beye asking that Stayman be banned. I will be the first to sign it.

Disagree. Sam Stayman was stinking rich but only got famous for his contribution to bridge. It should be upheld as an example of how a person's work matters more than his money <_<

[helene_t]

How can a convention become popular if you never allow it? Vicious circle don't you think? <_<

For the same reason as why most countries ban marihuana while few ban alcohol:

 

In a perfect World, all conventions, carding methods etc. would be banned. It's just that some methods are so popular that you can't eradiate them.

[pbleighton]

Helene:

 

Would you also ban the infamous "Standard" 1C and 1D openers, which may be as short as 3 cards?

 

The horror, the horror!

 

Peter

[Free]

How can a convention become popular if you never allow it?  Vicious circle don't you think?  :rolleyes:

For the same reason as why most countries ban marihuana while few ban alcohol:

 

In a perfect World, all conventions, carding methods etc. would be banned. It's just that some methods are so popular that you can't eradiate them.

In a perfect world there wouldn't be regulations because these conventions don't get you killed. Driving under influence does, so only alcohol, drugs and sigarettes would be banned.

[david_c]

Multi is often an exception (it's not "Brown Sticker") because it has historically been a popular convention, but in the ACBL where it's never been popular there's no particular need for it to be an exception.

How can a convention become popular if you never allow it? Vicious circle don't you think? :rolleyes:

Yes, there is a certain amount of "inertia" in system regulations.

 

I would say that if continuing to allow the Multi would mean it quickly became a popular convention, then the ACBL should allow it. On the other hand, if the Multi would not become a popular convention then the ACBL should not allow it (not in short matches, anyway).

 

This is on the general principle that a convention should be allowed if and only if opponents can be expected to know how to defend against it. (I wrote about this on my blog.) The defence to a convention like Multi is not obvious to someone who has not come across it before, so allowing Multi is only justified if people would come across it often enough that they learn how to defend against it.

 

The ACBL may believe that the Multi will not achieve the level of popularity needed to justify allowing it. I'm not sure whether that's the right decision (I don't know enough about bridge in the ACBL) but if they get this wrong it's still nowhere near as bad as some of the other mistakes they have made. If I was an ACBL member I would be very annoyed, not at the fact that they consider banning Multi, but at the fact that they've spent their time worrying about this when they fail to do anything about the serious ambiguities in the GCC like the one Peter pointed out.

[helene_t]

Helene:

 

Would you also ban the infamous "Standard" 1C and 1D openers, which may be as short as 3 cards?

 

The horror, the horror!

Absolutely. Opening in a suit with less than 5 cards only serves to prevent opps from finding their fit in that suit. It should not be tolerated.

 

Also, opening preemptively (i.e. higher than 1♣) with less than 16 points (i.e. opps can still have 25) only serves to destroy the opps constructive bidding. Disgusting.

 

In due course, system regulations will force 90% of all boards to be passed out. Think of all the wonderful implications of this: if you only play two or three boards in an evening, you have much more time for the important social stuff like gossiping about your teammates sex life.

 

The future is bright.

[pbleighton]

Absolutely. Opening in a suit with less than 5 cards only serves to prevent opps from finding their fit in that suit. It should not be tolerated.

 

Also, opening preemptively (i.e. higher than 1♣) with less than 16 points (i.e. opps can still have 25) only serves to destroy the opps constructive bidding. Disgusting.

 

In due course, system regulations will force 90% of all boards to be passed out. Think of all the wonderful implications of this: if you only play two or three boards in an evening, you have much more time for the important social stuff like gossiping about your teammates sex life.

 

The future is bright. 

 

Well, I'll have to defend a lot less. That IS good news.

 

Peter

[awm]

The biggest problem with system regulations is that they need to be clear and easily understood, and applied fairly. There's nothing more frustrating than the current state of affairs at ACBL headquarters, where different officials will give different "official" interpretations of the charts, leaving players at the mercy of individual directors and committees who can basically decide whatever they want about what is or isn't legal.

 

After putting some thought into the matter, it seems that the vast majority of regulations that people want can actually be stated in a fairly simple way. Essentially bids can be classified in the following way:

 

(1) Strong bids. These are bids that legitimately show a good hand. There is not much need for opponents to bid constructively over these, making them relatively easy to defend against.

 

(2) Natural bids on decent hands. These are the bread and butter of bridge, bids that show the suit named and a reasonably good hand. Everyone better be able to defend against these.

 

(3) Natural bids on lousy hands. These are the normal preempts. For the most part this is okay, but there is some potential difficulty with bids that are at a fairly high level and don't show particularly many cards in the suit named (like Ekrens twos). There may be some desire to restrict such calls by requiring a minimum suit length that depends on the level.

 

(4) Artificial bids that show a decent hand with a particular suit. These are bids like transfer openings or flannery. Defending these calls may require a bit of discussion, but for the most part they are fairly innocuous. Again the particular length in the suit and the level may be slightly relevent (a transfer opening showing 5+ is easier to defend than one showing 4+). But the main point here is that these bids are an attempt to show some particular hand type and get to a makeable contract, not an attempt to preempt or confuse the opposition.

 

(5) Artificial bids that show a decent hand with no particular suit. These are basically "point showing" opening bids. The consensus is that they are okay at a low level (opening 1♣ or 1♦ or doubling the opponents bid) but become difficult to defend (and somewhat randomizing) when at a higher level.

 

(6) Artificial bids that show a lousy hand with a particular suit. These are the transfer preempts and the like. They require some discussion to deal with, but again provided reasonable length requirements in the suit shown (which might be five cards rather than four) they are potentially easier to defend against than natural weak bids.

 

(7) Artificial bids that show a lousy hand with no particular suit. These are perhaps the "bogeyman" of modern bridge, and are the bids that virtually all organizations restrict to some degree or another. This includes the multi, as well as calls like 2♥ multi, Wilcosz 2♦, or suction-style preempts. Perhaps the most nefarious of these are bids that may or may not include the suit named.

 

In trying to devise a set of restrictions on opening bids (which are necessary especially for events with short rounds) it seems reasonable to basically allow types 1-4 (perhaps with some provision about minimum length), allow type 5 provided the bid is at a fairly low level, either allow or disallow type 6 (or perhaps allow it provided some length requirement in the particular suit is satisfied, like 5+) and disallow type 7.

 

The issue is that certain very popular conventions fall afoul of such a simple set of rules. Typical examples are the multi (type 7), and 2♦ mini-roman (type 5 at the two-level). This causes the rules to sometimes get cluttered with exceptions, which in turn can create loop-holes for other exceptions that "were not meant to be exceptions," which then creates confusion based on whether one interprets the rules "by the letter" or according to the "spirit of the author" and so forth and so on.

 

If disallowing the multi somehow leads to a simpler and more universally understood set of rules, especially in the USA where the current set of rules is incredibly confusing and the multi is not particularly popular, then I think it will be a fair exchange. On the other hand, if this is just an attempt to "get rid of multi" and not an overall attempt to clean up and clarify the rules, then it seems like a poor idea, moving in the opposite direction of the rest of the bridge playing world.

[cherdano]

Adam, I agree that disallowing multi might make the rules more logical. But the ACBL isn't a planet on its own, and I think it is a little odd when the possibly most popular convention for the 2♦ opening is disallowed in unrestricted events at NABCs. I don't think this is desirable, given that they have become international events.

[the hog]

"This is on the general principle that a convention should be allowed if and only if opponents can be expected to know how to defend against it. (I wrote about this on my blog.) The defence to a convention like Multi is not obvious to someone who has not come across it before, so allowing Multi is only justified if people would come across it often enough that they learn how to defend against it."

 

david_c, this is the whole crux of the argument. How can it be obvious to someone if its use is actively discouraged.

 

Ok, if you and Adam want systems restrictions like this there is a very easy solution. Have two levels of events - the Open, where anything goes and which is regarded as the premier event, and a second event with heavily restricted conventions, perhaps even a common system. This point has been mentioned before, but no one has followed through on the argument presumably because people don't like the though of playing in a restricted field. Well tough! You are playing a serious competition - you should be prepared with generic defences if you are serious about the game.

 

We all KNOW why systems restrictions are in force. It is due to the fact that professionals who serve on administrative bodies don't wan't their clients to think too much. Without mentioning any specific names we all know about whom I am talking; this discussion has been posted many times before. We have all read about Richard's attempts to get some sensible reuling on Frelling Two bids.

[awm]

It is my opinion, and I believe that of most bridge players, that:

 

(1) Developing new and different bidding methods is a part of the game. Within reason, innovation should be allowed.

 

(2) Using bidding methods that are legitimately more effective should be advantageous, and allowed.

 

(3) A pair should not be allowed to obtain a substantial advantage simply because most people are unfamiliar with their methods and do not know how to defend against them well. Methods should be disclosed, and in the case of methods that are fundamentally dissimilar to what people have faced in the past, this disclosure needs to be substantially in advance of the bid occurring at the table. Simply opening with a bid and then disclosing its meaning is not sufficient.

 

Now, it is reasonable to argue that in a long team event, methods can be disclosed in advance and each evening I can discuss with my partner how to defend against whatever weird preempt methods tomorrow's opponents happen to be playing. I'm fine with this, and it's how the Bermuda Bowl functions.

 

It is not reasonable to argue that in a multi-day pairs event, I can realistically discuss the methods of each of the twenty-six pairs I will face the next day's sessions, especially because the identities of these pairs may not even be known in advance (depending on how seeding is done for the second session).

 

Thus in a pairs event where "anything goes" substantial advantage will accrue to the pair that designs methods where the normal "generic defense" will work particularly poorly. This is one of the reasons that assumed fit preempts work well -- the standard generic defense against a bid "showing the bid suit" (double is takeout, suit bids natural NF, etc) is not a good defense against assumed fit. Too often your own side will have too many cards in the enemy suit for either partner to be able to act when acting requires shortage in the suit opened. This does not mean that assumed fit preempts are a good method and it could easily be possible to design a defense that rips them to shreds. One should not be able to obtain an advantage by simply designing a method where the normal "generic defense" is poor and then taking advantage of the fact that opponents do not have sufficient advance disclosure of the methods to come up with a more effective defense.

 

In how many countries is 2♥ multi allowed? How about a forcing pass with a 2♣ FERT? I do not think many countries would allow these things. I think there is a distinction between methods which are designed to reach makeable contracts in some constructive way (and I would include MOSCITO transfer openings for example) and methods which are designed primarily to interfere with the opponents (including various preempts). The issue is that while interfering with the opponents is definitely a legitimate part of bridge, taking advantage of the fact that opponents do not have an effective defense to the artificial methods you use to interfere with them should not be a part of bridge.

 

As for restricted methods vs. allowing anything, I have no problem with creating separate classes of events. The issue is that most people will want to play in the "mainstream" events that are considered most prestigious. If events that restrict conventions are advertised as "special, limited convention events" and events that don't are the "national championship" events everyone will play in the national championship. If events that restrict conventions are the "national championship" events and those that don't are the "special, weird systems, anything goes" events, then everyone will play in the national championship.

 

What I do not agree with, is the notion that an "any methods are okay" pairs event is in any way more true to the spirit of bridge. In my opinion such an event will quickly degenerate into "who can come up with really bizarre methods that none of the generic defenses work well against, then spring them on people with no advance disclosure and minimum at-the-table disclosure, and reap big rewards from the inevitable misunderstandings that result." This really is not bridge.

[Free]

As for restricted methods vs. allowing anything, I have no problem with creating separate classes of events. The issue is that most people will want to play in the "mainstream" events that are considered most prestigious. If events that restrict conventions are advertised as "special, limited convention events" and events that don't are the "national championship" events everyone will play in the national championship. If events that restrict conventions are the "national championship" events and those that don't are the "special, weird systems, anything goes" events, then everyone will play in the national championship.

This basically means that there aren't any system regulations necessary, since everyone will just play the prestigious events. So what is the problem??? :blink:

 

Useless discussion anyway... In "the land of the free" people want to be held by their hand to play some cards. :lol:

[pbleighton]

Thus in a pairs event where "anything goes" substantial advantage will accrue to the pair that designs methods where the normal "generic defense" will work particularly poorly. This is one of the reasons that assumed fit preempts work well -- the standard generic defense against a bid "showing the bid suit" (double is takeout, suit bids natural NF, etc) is not a good defense against assumed fit. Too often your own side will have too many cards in the enemy suit for either partner to be able to act when acting requires shortage in the suit opened. This does not mean that assumed fit preempts are a good method and it could easily be possible to design a defense that rips them to shreds.

 

Then, since they are popular and legal in many places, someone should already have done so. Can you point to this? If you can't, and can't explain why not, your statement is silly.

 

What I do not agree with, is the notion that an "any methods are okay" pairs event is in any way more true to the spirit of bridge. In my opinion such an event will quickly degenerate into "who can come up with really bizarre methods that none of the generic defenses work well against, then spring them on people with no advance disclosure and minimum at-the-table disclosure, and reap big rewards from the inevitable misunderstandings that result." This really is not bridge.

 

Do you have any evidence for this statement? If you can't, and can't explain why not, your statement is silly.

 

Adam, your posts are usually excellent. This one doesn't come close to measuring up to your standards.

 

Peter