Multi at pairs

[awm]

I wonder how this will effect BAM events.

 

Will we ban multi in the Reisinger?

[matmat]

You know, I've always thought that teams is more fun than pairs. Since the ACBL seems determined to limit pairs games to whatever the current novice flavor of the month system is, I conclude that I was right.

heh. this reminds me a lot of school... teachers always catering to the slowest kids in the class...

[helene_t]

Not really. Beginners (including "eternal beginners") have little problems with opps playing weird conventions since they just bid their own cards. Who cares if a cuebid is available if we haven't agreed to play unassuming cuebid in the first place?

[hrothgar]

What I find most frustrating about this is that the ACBL continues to drift further and further away from International Standards...

 

In all seriousness: How many locations outside North America ban the Multi 2♦ opening in anything other than novice only "no fear" type events? In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

 

Here in North America, its too complicated for our most advanced players to handle.

 

Moreover, we get to listen to our international representative whining how they need protection because they don't get to practice against nefarious systems like "Polish Club". Its like shooting yourself in the foot prior to a track meet and then complaining that none of the other runners aren't dumb enough to do the same...

[rbforster]

"<Banning Multi at pairs> Effective August 1, 2008. Carried 22-2."

Any word on exactly who the 24 voters are in this? I'd be happy to contact mine (if I knew who they were) and put in my 2 cents worth.

[helene_t]

In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

I don't think so. In the Netherlands, everybody plays multi, yet I have not discussed defense against Multi in any partnership, and when it comes up in bidding panels of the magazines, the moderator just notes that different partnerships seem to have different ideas about the meaning of

(2♦)-x-(2M)-x

and

(2♦)-3m-(pass)-3M

etc.

The "Van start to finish" books describe a defense based on transfer overcalls, I think less than 1% of the readers of the books bothered to read that chapter. As for the Berry Westra books, I don't know what (if any) defense they describe and I doubt that many readers of the books know much more about that issue than I do.

 

This may sound weird but the fact is that defense against multi is not important. The vast majority of multi-auctions are dealt with by means of common sense. And besides, when the auction starts

(2♦)-x-(2M)-?

and opps are unable to explain what 2M means (some play it as p/c, some as natural, some have more exotic ideas, but above all many don't seem to play the same as partner does) any defense agreements that depend on the meaning of 2M won't work.

[the hog]

In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

I don't think so. In the Netherlands, everybody plays multi, yet I have not discussed defense against Multi in any partnership, and when it comes up in bidding panels of the magazines, the moderator just notes that different partnerships seem to have different ideas about the meaning of

(2♦)-x-(2M)-x

and

(2♦)-3m-(pass)-3M

etc.

The "Van start to finish" books describe a defense based on transfer overcalls, I think less than 1% of the readers of the books bothered to read that chapter. As for the Berry Westra books, I don't know what (if any) defense they describe and I doubt that many readers of the books know much more about that issue than I do.

 

This may sound weird but the fact is that defense against multi is not important. The vast majority of multi-auctions are dealt with by means of common sense. And besides, when the auction starts

(2♦)-x-(2M)-?

and opps are unable to explain what 2M means (some play it as p/c, some as natural, some have more exotic ideas, but above all many don't seem to play the same as partner does) any defense agreements that depend on the meaning of 2M won't work.

Au contraire. Richard did say "in most parts of the world." Clearly I can't comment on the Netherlands as I have never played Bridge there, but I guarantee that here and in European countries in which I have played, players DO have an idea of how to defend against the multi. Granted, it may well not be the most optimal defence, but they HAVE discussed it.

 

If the Netherlands is so different as you suggest I am curious to know why that might be the case. Very odd.

[helene_t]

If the Netherlands is so different as you suggest I am curious to know why that might be the case. Very odd.

lol, it has nothing to do with NL versus other multi-countries. It depends on the level at which you play. Players at the national sub-top and above obviously do have agreements about defense against multi. But Richard said "standard part of learning how to play bridge". Sounds to me as if one could expect ordinary club players and players in minor regional tournaments to have agreements about defense against multi. Maybe that was not intended.

 

Believe it or not, there are a lot of players, even some decent card players that manage alright in regional tournaments, who are not interested in bidding theory much beyond negative doubles, Jacoby transfers and a few other essential gadgets. For those players, a specific defense against multi (other than generic principles such as "low-level doubles are t/o and jumps over enemy preempts are strong") is not high on the priority list.

[hrothgar]

If the Netherlands is so different as you suggest I am curious to know why that might be the case. Very odd.

lol, it has nothing to do with NL versus other multi-countries. It depends on the level at which you play. Players at the national sub-top and above obviously do have agreements about defense against multi. But Richard said "standard part of learning how to play bridge". Sounds to me as if one could expect ordinary club players and players in minor regional tournaments to have agreements about defense against multi. Maybe that was not intended.

I think that people are getting all worked up over semantic distinctions

 

I originally stated the following

 

In most parts of the world being able to defend against a multi 2♦ opening is a standard part of learning how to play bridge.

 

Helene seems to have assumed that I meant that all partnerships have highly sophisticated artificial defenses to a multi 2♦. I didn't say any such thing. I simply noted, that players seem able to defend against a multi 2♦. Helene says precisely the same thing when she says

 

In the Netherlands, everybody plays multi

 

In a similar vein, I don't think that most pairs here in the US have perfect defenses versus the opponents Jacoby transfers, yet they somehow seem able to play bridge...

[helene_t]

OK, we probably agree. If what you say is at the level of

(2♦)-pass-(2♥)-X*

is take-out of hearts rather than a lead-director for hearts then yes, most players you encounter in minor tournaments or in the A-line of ordinary clubs will understand that.

 

Wouldn't the same be true in ACBL-land?

[hrothgar]

OK, we probably agree. If what you say is at the level of

(2♦)-pass-(2♥)-X*

is take-out of hearts rather than a lead-director for hearts then yes, most players you encounter in minor tournaments or in the A-line of ordinary clubs will understand that.

 

Wouldn't the same be true in ACBL-land?

I hesitate to make general comments about the competancies of typical ACBL players. I'm especially leery to speculate about a convention like the Multi which is (essentially) banned in North America.

 

The only time you get to use the multi is in

 

1. Mid Chart level events (soon to be Midchart level team events with 7+ Board rounds)

 

2. The occasional local club

 

Midchart team events are few and far between - many districts don't run any. Furthermore, few pairs like to switch methods back and forth and make significant system modifications for 3-4 tournaments a year.

 

I'd hazard that 95% of ACBL players have never even seen a multi 2♦ opening. Hell, I bet a goodly portion of them haven't ever seen a pass or correct bid...

 

But don't take my word for it... Look what the ACBL Conventions Comimitte has decided: The Conventions Committee decided to ban the multi in all pairs events. We're not talking about novices here: We're talking about the top level players using written defenses...

 

(Of course, many folks have said for years that the ACBL's recommended defenses to the multi 2♦ are cryptic at best)

[TimG]

What I find most frustrating about this is that the ACBL continues to drift further and further away from International Standards...

While their cell phone policy is drifting towards international standards.

[hrothgar]

What I find most frustrating about this is that the ACBL continues to drift further and further away from International Standards...

While their cell phone policy is drifting towards international standards.

Hi Tim:

 

I'd like to have more complete information regarding cell phone policies at international tournaments:

 

In particular, I'd be interested in knowing how many locations have implemented a blanket ban without providing some mechanism by which players can check their phones at the door?

 

I'm highly skeptical about the ban. However, many of my concerns would disappear if I believed that the ACBL were capable of creating/managing the equivalent of a coat check for cell phones.

 

It might be worth inquiring whether the District 25 organizing committee might consider something like this for Boston in 2008...

[ASkolnick]

You see the whole convention ban is a CATCH-22 in itself:

 

The reason people in the ACBL are uncomfortable with Multi is because they don't get the practice to defend against it. The reason they don't get to defend against it is because you are not allowed to play it.

 

Me personally, never understood why it was so difficult. I don't play probably the most efficient system against it, but all I do is play natural with double being slightly stronger. 2N shows both minors.

 

People also seem to forget some of the drawbacks of multi:

 

1) You get to bid 2H over the "2S preempt" (If you play naturally). The times when it is 6-5-1-1 around the table, I lose. I'll take my chances.

2) They don't know the suit either. 2D-3D-(what does he do 4-2 in majors).

3) You usually can get back in the auction.

4) You get a cheap way to show the minors.

 

Will you lose out some of the time? Sure, but not really sure why it is so difficult.

[TimG]

It might be worth inquiring whether the District 25 organizing committee might consider something like this for Boston in 2008...

That's a very good idea.

 

I don't think ACBL should be responsible for handling cell phones during sessions. Sort of in the same way that they are not responsible for coats or cars during a session. Many organizers make allowances for coats and cars -- coat racks or a coat check and discounted or free parking -- but these are not, and should not be, requirements for organizers.

 

Cell phone checking could be a small source of revenue for organizers, either by manning a desk with volunteers and charging a small fee, or by renting desk space to an entrepreneur, similar to agreements with book sellers. (Either way, there ought to be a waiver of responsibility for lost items.)

[jtfanclub]

OK, so suppose next the ACBL decides to ban all wallets and purses from the playing area. After all, they might contain cheating devices too.

 

"Wallet and purse checking could be a small source of revenue for organizers, either by manning a desk with volunteers and charging a small fee, or by renting desk space to an entrepreneur, similar to agreements with book sellers. (Either way, there ought to be a waiver of responsibility for lost items.)"

 

You wouldn't have any problem with that, right?

 

Or is it merely that "if it's not an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for me, it must not be an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for anybody else", which seems to be the modus operandii on these forums?

 

EDIT: And yes, that applies to Multi defense as well.

 

(I say make every event at the Regionals or Nationals midchart except the 299er events, then give people the written generic Multi defense. I think most people can handle that).

[cherdano]

It might be worth inquiring whether the District 25 organizing committee might consider something like this for Boston in 2008...

That's a very good idea.

 

I don't think ACBL should be responsible for handling cell phones during sessions. Sort of in the same way that they are not responsible for coats or cars during a session. Many organizers make allowances for coats and cars -- coat racks or a coat check and discounted or free parking -- but these are not, and should not be, requirements for organizers.

 

Cell phone checking could be a small source of revenue for organizers, either by manning a desk with volunteers and charging a small fee, or by renting desk space to an entrepreneur, similar to agreements with book sellers. (Either way, there ought to be a waiver of responsibility for lost items.)

I am pretty sure the ACBL won't like to collect hundreds of cell phones for every session. There is a reason you are not supposed to leave valuables at the coat check, you know.

[TimG]

OK, so suppose next the ACBL decides to ban all wallets and purses from the playing area. After all, they might contain cheating devices too.

 

You wouldn't have any problem with that, right?

 

Or is it merely that "if it's not an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for me, it must not be an inconvenience/offensive/difficult for anybody else", which seems to be the modus operandii on these forums?

I don't carry a wallet or a purse...I do carry a money clip with my driver's license, one credit card, one debit card and (sometimes) a few notes of currency.

 

I do not think a wallet is in the same category as a cell phone because a wallet is not something that people typically use to communicate. The ban on cell phones (and other devices capable of sending or receiving electronic communication) is not arbitrary.

[pclayton]

From reading this thread and Jonathan Steinberg's comment does this mean ALL midchart is banned from pair events?

[hrothgar]

From reading this thread and Jonathan Steinberg's comment does this mean ALL midchart is banned from pair events?

I've always had issues with the way these sorts of regulations are passed:

 

As far as I understand matters, the local sponsors are the ones who get to determine which convention charts are used for what events.

 

In theory, District 25 could decide to use

 

1. The Super Chart for the 0-20 Novice pairs

2. The Limited Convention chart for the Flight A KOs

 

I don't expect that this would be popular, but it is permitted (In much the same way, note that many districts selectively modify individual aspects of the Convention Chart)

 

Personally, I would prefer to see the Conventions Committee focus on developing different convention charts, while recognizing that the local sponsors are the ones who decide whether or not to use them. For example, if the Conventions Committee might decide that a Conventions Chart suitable for a 0-6 Board team event should look very different that a chart suitable for a 12+ board team event.

 

I have no problem with the Conventions Committee producing two different convention charts. They can even suggest that one chart is intended for 0-6 board rounds, while the other is intended for 12+ board rounds. But the committee shouldn't pretend that they can mandate what chart will be used by individual sponsors.

[mycroft]

I actually don't think very many would complain about your suggestion, Richard: at least here, it's the FltA KO players who grumble about having to play against Precision and the like, and the Limited CC probably would contain all of their agreements; whereas the novices wouldn't play anything else anyway, and the few 0-20 who play in that event that play weird stuff would get a "what's that? How do I deal with that?" rather than "you can't do that!"

 

We train OTBS (B=bidding, here) into players at around the 50-100 point. It takes a fair bit to untrain them later. 0-20, *everything* is new and confusing.

 

Michael.

[inquiry]

To get back on topic....

 

Multi 2♦ gives an unfair advantage to too many partnerships when playing in an ACBL environment. If justin and kevin who know about multi can end up playing 4♥ instead of 4♠ when exposed to multi, what is the normal club players to do if someone springs it upon them?

 

Now I understand this is just a matter of experience. If the ACBL players ran into multi 2♦ two or three times a session, they would soon handle it as well as those globally who see it. But in the short term, those of us who play multi 2♦ (I admit I do) would have an unfair advantage.

 

Eventually, I think multi 2♦ will be allowed.... but I surely see why it is not.

[awm]

It's true that a lot of acbl players have trouble with Multi. And it makes sense to gradually allow it, starting at the "top levels" and slowly moving down.

 

The concern is that this decision seems to be retrograde -- we are removing the multi from top flight pairs events where it had been allowed for quite some time. This is different from a decision like "the rank and file is not yet ready for multi, we will not introduce it into regional level events."

 

I still want to know whether this applies to BAM events, which have short rounds and a pairs-like movement. The Reisinger is supposed to be one of the most prestigious bridge events in the world. Can we (Americans) expect the international bridge community to continue taking the Reisinger seriously if we disallow a convention that is virtually standard bridge in most of the world?

[helene_t]

I'd hazard that 95% of ACBL players have never even seen a multi 2♦ opening.  Hell, I bet a goodly portion of them haven't ever seen a pass or correct bid...

If they have been exposed to SAYC they have also been exposed to

(1NT)-pass-(2♠)-pass

(3♣*)

and maybe they have also been exposed to Lebensohl.

 

Actually this is more tricky than Multi because it's not obvious (at least not to me) whether a double on 3♣ shows clubs or whether it's t/o of clubs. If a natural 2♣ overcall was not available I suppose it makes sense to play it as showing clubs, and also the fact than one opp has shown 15-17 points plus the fact that we are at the 3-level suggest that it should show clubs.

 

Not that I'm making a point here since the need to be able to defend opp's weak 2-openings is obviously bigger than the need to be able to defend their minor suit transfers.

[jdonn]

I'd hazard that 95% of ACBL players have never even seen a multi 2♦ opening.  Hell, I bet a goodly portion of them haven't ever seen a pass or correct bid...

If they have been exposed to SAYC they have also been exposed to

(1NT)-pass-(2♠)-pass

(3♣*)

and maybe they have also been exposed to Lebensohl.

It's not the same when the player ALWAYS makes the same bid, in multi they can bid 2♠ for example to show a good heart fit. If responder had to bid 2♥ 100% of the time I bet that would solve a lot of confusion for the n00bs who haven't seen it before.