Multi at pairs

[joshs]

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.

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage.

 

Bridge is a combination of skills. Memory. Understanding of bidding logic. Of system development. Of Table feel. Of card combinations.

 

Different people have different skills. For instance, playing a GCC only event merely improves some players chances (say Michael Rosenberg or Geir Helgemo) and hurts others (say Meckwell).

 

For newer players in national events, who for some reason havn't seen the Multi or an intrafinesse, you are at a disadvantage until you become familiar with them. And you only become familiar with them if you become exposed to them. And quite frankly that occurs pretty quickly.

 

I also am pretty sure, even in day 1 of national events, the multi does not outperform natural weak 2 bids on weak 2 hands. The reason people play multi, is that it uses only 1 bid for both weak 2's, and thus frees the 2M bids for something else which is where your gain comes from.

 

You talk about accidents when the opps end up in the weak 2 bidders suit. Well the weak 2's side missing game, or making the wrong opening lead has to be a much more common event then the opps playing in a blatantly wrong strain.

[jdonn]

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.

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage.

Come on, I think you know that is not analogous. A beginner is no more disadvantaged if their opponent intrafinesses them than you or I are, whether they know what happened to them or not.

[joshs]

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.

Well maybe. I think intra finesses and other not so well known card combinations should be illegal since it gives players familiar with them an unfair advantage.

Come on, I think you know that is not analogous. A beginner is no more disadvantaged if their opponent intrafinesses them than you or I are, whether they know what happened to them or not.

Really?

 

Ok, here is my bet. Take a pair playing in a national event for the first time. (We are talking about nationals, not about begginer events).

 

In event A they face the multi every round.

In event B they have to deal with a technical card combination, like intrafinesses.

 

In which event do you think they get a better score?

[JanM]

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

[helene_t]

Yesterday I played the BIL jackpot with a novice p (I think her total of IRL bridge is 150 boards until now plus a similar number of boards online).

 

Helene_t: Hi opps, we play Precision 14-16, 1♦ can be short, wjs, no transfers, lo=enc

 

LHO: I think Precision should be banned in the BIL. Most BILs don't know Precision

 

Helene_t: You don't have to play it :)

 

LHO: No but we have to play against it. At least I hope you explain your bids better than what your CC says.

 

Helene_t: No problem, if there is anything that differs from SAYC I will message you.

 

LHO: Thanks.

 

Afterwards I regretted that I didn't ask him to provide full disclosure of his bids also. Ever tried to provide full disclosure of a SAYC 1♣ opening?

 

As I have stated earlier I think it's silly to have specific rules for Multi: preempts without a known suit are either allowed or not allowed, period. But more generally, I think advancing players would benefit for being exposed to a more varied environment with respect to bidding systems. At least it improves one's understanding of one's own bidding system if one learns that certain principles might as well have been different.

[joshs]

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

Why wasn't the change applied to everything that requires a pre-alert? (I would hate that but at least its consistant)

 

When I pre-alert Multi, transfers over 1C, and Kaplan Inversion, the majority of the discussion time is not on the multi. 1D could be very short also generates more discussion than multi ever did....

 

Actually, when I play 12-15 or 13-16 NT, that generates more discussion then any of the above.

 

In my case, I just can't play in these events with a number of partners. Multi is not just an add on. My canape system requires 2M as an opening bid, and you need weak 2 bids in the majors in pair events, so without the multi I am stuck....

[TimG]

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

This is a pretty bad argument, in my opinion, unless you are suggesting all mid-chart methods should be excluded from pair events. Many other mid-chart methods (and even some GCC methods) probably slow opponents down, but Multi seems targeted because it is gaining popularity -- more people are playing it, more opponents are taking extra time, and the game slows down more often as a result. Instead of slowing down the spread (and acceptance) of Multi by ushering it off to events with 7+ board rounds, let the process unfold. The more often players face the method, the more familiar they will become with it and the less time they will need to prepare at the table. By moving Multi to events with longer rounds, you are slowing down the acclimation period.

 

If your opinion is that all mid-chart (experimental) methods ought to be restricted to events with 7+ board segments, you might as well make pair events GCC and restrict the use of mid-chart to team events. (This might be a good idea, but as I understand the current structure of convention charts, it is not the intended goal.)

[jdonn]

Ok, here is my bet. Take a pair playing in a national event for the first time. (We are talking about nationals, not about begginer events).

 

In event A they face the multi every round.

In event B they have to deal with a technical card combination, like intrafinesses.

 

In which event do you think they get a better score?

But that won't prove what you want it to. This would be an experiment designed to argue against multi being disallowed on the basis of being too difficult for inexperienced pairs to PLAY, but the rationale for it being disallowed is that it's too difficult for them to play AGAINST. The accurate experiment would be to give the OPPONENTS of an expert and an inexperienced pair some difficult card combinations but give our sample pairs themselves no decisions at all, and see who does better. And of course they will do the same, which just shows as I was saying that your analogy is bad.

 

By the way, I believe multi should be allowed. I was just pointing out your example was a poor way of arguing for it.

[hrothgar]

I think that most of you are missing the point of the change here, and as a multi player I welcome it. The problem isn't that players in pair events are any less able to deal with multi than players in team events, the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so. We can far better afford a few minutes of time wasted at the beginning of a 7 board Swiss match or a 12 board KO match than at the beginning of a 2-board round. I don't know about you, but I sometimes need the time allotted to decide how to bid or play a hand and I am unhappy to have had that time curtailed because either at my table or one ahead of me there was a slowdown to deal with the fact that a pair is playing multi.

Hi Jan:

 

I don't know about you, but when I am playing in midchart type pairs event, I pretty much assume that one (or more) pairs is going to be using a multi 2♦ opening.

 

On those occasions when I am playing in a serious partnership, its pretty much assumed that some discussions of defensive methods are required. It shouldn't be necessary to have any discussions between rounds.

 

I appreciate the fact that there are going to be some pickup pairs who haven't spent any time discussing multi defenses. And yes, on occasion, this could slow things down. However, as other folks have noted this same issue applieis to everything from a mini-NT to a Kaplan inversion. (I'll bet dollars to donuts that the mini-NT is much more of a time sink that a multi)

[awm]

Yeah, I've noticed that when people pre-alert multi, usually the response is "okay we play defense two" and that's the end of the story. When the multi actually comes up there is a bit of delay as people parse the defense.

 

When people pre-alert Kaplan Inversion, often a long discussion ensues over whether we play Hamish (double of 1♠ is spades, 1NT is takeout of hearts) or Reverse Hamish (double of 1♠ is takeout of hearts, 1NT is spades) or some other defense. In fact Hamish himself once had a huge accident against me because he didn't know which defense he was playing (despite the pre-alert and ensuing discussion with partner).

 

In general methods where there is an ACBL approved defense at the table often people just agree to play that defense, whereas methods where no ACBL defense is necessary (i.e. transfer responses to 1♣, kaplan inversion) often require a lot more discussion.

[rbforster]

In general methods where there is an ACBL approved defense at the table often people just agree to play that defense, whereas methods where no ACBL defense is necessary (i.e. transfer responses to 1♣, kaplan inversion) often require a lot more discussion.

I agree - why bother discussing special defenses if there's a good one you can reference if the rare bid actually comes up? ACBL could help in this way by approving some "standard" defenses to other midchart conventions so that those too don't need to slow things down.

[jtfanclub]

And selling them at cost.

 

I would also include IDAC and Mathe, to name two. I wouldn't mind Cap and Unusual over Unusual there either.

[JanM]

I play both multi and transfer responses to 1♣. Anyone with any sense having those two things pre-alerted would surely discuss the transfer responses, right? You need to know what DBL and Q-bid are. But they don't - they just sort of shrug at the transfer response, but they very often ask lots of questions about multi, even though I explain that I have the ACBL defenses and will give them whichever one they want. I'm not saying that's sensible, but it certainly has been my experience. And of course, the ACBL defense isn't really adequate, which is a whole other issue. By the way, I could live quite happily without a weak 2♥ bid if I really felt I needed to use only one bid as a weak 2M bid. I play multi because my partner likes it and I don't care. We keep changing around what we use 2♠ for (2♥ is Flannery which I'm sure you'll all tell me is a total waste, but takes a lot of pressure off many auctions, as well as working well when one opens it). So I really don't think taking multi away for pair games is a big deal.

And ACBL does have approved defenses to other MidChart methods. In fact, a method isn't really approved for use in MidChart events unless there's a recognized defense or it has an asterisk next to it on the list of Midchart methods (I can't seem to get the ACBL website to open and don't have a paper Midchart, but my recollection is the things with asterisks are constructive bids).

[olegru]

And ACBL does have approved defenses to other MidChart methods. In fact, a method isn't really approved for use in MidChart events unless there's a recognized defense or it has an asterisk next to it on the list of Midchart methods.

Sorry for off-top.

Very painul topic for me.

Starting 2004 I am trying to get ACBL approval for my favourite toy: 2 diamonds preempt showing 5 spades and 5 unknown. Last reply was:

The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment.  They have stated that they are  not adding any weak agreement at this time.  Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year.  Please be patient.

Forgot to say, it was February last year.

[pclayton]

... the problem is the wasted time on every single round when many opponents want to discuss their methods against multi even though it probably won't come up, and the even greater wasted time when it does come up and opponents unfamiliar with using a written defense try to do so.

And there's a sinister element that sometimes happens too.

 

At SF in the Blues, Gnome opened a garbage NV/NV multi and I held a scattered 18 with 3-1-5-4 and bid 2N. This hideous creature on my left starts in with, "where's your defense", "I can't find any defense to this sequence", "how am I supposed to defend against this convention if there isn't anything about what to do over 2N". This went on for two or three minutes.

 

This diatribe convinced me she had a good hand. She held a 5=1=2=5 with 3 quacks. +100 wasn't a good score.

 

:)

[jdonn]

Phil you should invest in Caro's Book of Tells :)

[hrothgar]

And ACBL does have approved defenses to other MidChart methods. In fact, a method isn't really approved for use in MidChart events unless there's a recognized defense or it has an asterisk next to it on the list of Midchart methods.

Sorry for off-top.

Very painul topic for me.

Starting 2004 I am trying to get ACBL approval for my favourite toy: 2 diamonds preempt showing 5 spades and 5 unknown. Last reply was:

The Committee has consistently rejected this conventional treatment.  They have stated that they are  not adding any weak agreement at this time.  Some changes in the ACBL MidChart may occur as early as next year.  Please be patient.

Forgot to say, it was February last year.

Another example why I so very much love the ACBL Conventions Committee

 

1. The bid in question is sanctioned at the Midchart level (The bid shows 4+ cards in a known suit). However, once again the defensive database is being used to neuter the Midchart

 

2. The bid in question is clearly analogous to other legal Midchart methods. (A 2♠ opening showing 5+ Spades and another suit). However, the decision to open this at a LOWER level makes the bid impossible to defend against

 

3. The Conventions Committee apparantly has had a new blanket policy that they are refusing to sanction any defenses for Midchart methods that could be weak. Of course, its FAR too difficult for them to actually communicate this policy to the membership at large any time during the last 14 monthes...

 

4. The Convention Committee has (apparantly) been reworking the Midchart for at least 14 monthes without bothering to communicate this to the membership at large (we already knew about this, but only because we have a back channel). Lord knows the Conventions Committee won't ever submit any of their proposals for any kind of external review prior to putting these new changes into effect.

 

Out of curiousity: Phil, were you ever able to get a straight answer from the Conventions Committee regarding that NAMYATS / 3NT question from four monthes ago?

[jdonn]

Out of curiousity: Phil, were you ever able to get a straight answer from the Conventions Committee regarding that NAMYATS / 3NT question from four monthes ago?

I sent them that same question about 2 years ago and never heard back.

[blackshoe]

What was the question?

[jdonn]

About the legality of opening 3NT to show a (strong) preempt in either major, since it is already legal in either minor. Apparently it is not legal just based on unfamiliarity to inexperienced players, despite being no harder to defend against than if 3NT shows a minor, easier in fact since you are less likely to want to bid and since you don't need a bid to show both majors.

[awm]

What was the question?

Not to rehash the whole discussion, but it involved a 3NT opening showing a good 4M preempt. This is basically an inversion of namyats -- instead of 3NT being a 4m preempt and the 4m bids showing the respective majors, the 4m bids remain natural.

 

In principle this convention is probably easier to defend than a namyats 3NT. Both methods show a "preempt in an unknown suit" but this convention is in principle a better hand (less likely opponents want in) and it shows a major (so you don't particularly need a defensive method to show "both majors" and 3NT-Pass-Pass is also unlikely). The method was written up in The Bridge World quite a long time ago and is hardly some "newfangled convention."

 

The questions are: (1) Is this allowed on the General Chart? It does not seem to be specifically allowed, even though the easier-to-defend namyats 3NT is allowed; however one might be able to argue that this "is a strong bid" because it does show a pretty good hand and get it through that way. Certainly if it shows a "solid major" it's allowed and it's not clear why making it a "solid major" is easier to defend than "one loser suit with at least one side control" or something like that. (2) If it's not allowed on the General Chart, is it Mid Chart? Does it need a suggested defense? Will one be approved soon? Unfortunately there isn't much reason to think that this is mid chart based on actually reading the charts, even though most people's intuition is that it's unbelievable that this would not be allowed on the mid chart. (3) If it's Super Chart only, why? This is an established convention and easier to defend than something on the General Chart!

 

The point is not just that this convention is sort of mysterious as to its legality -- it's that a number of people have queried the various relevant people and no one can get a straight answer about it.

[jdonn]

And by the way people don't just ask to be difficult. It is IMO clearly superior to Namyats since I think opening 3NT to show a minor suit preempt is totally ineffective. This is a method I would want to play.

 

Also making the method simpler than regular Namyats is it involves one artificial opening instead of three.

[hrothgar]

The point is not just that this convention is sort of mysterious as to its legality -- it's that a number of people have queried the various relevant people and no one can get a straight answer about it.

I'm not sure if this is even a question of getting a straight answer:

 

Has anyone ever gotten ANY answer to this one? (other than random comments from local TDs)

[awm]

I did get a response from Rick Beye:

 

Your 3NT call is not a solid suit? What kind of sound 4M opening? Examples of what qualifies and what does not, please.

 

I replied with an explanation for the reasoning behind the method and a bunch of example hands. No further response from Rick Beye.

[TimG]

2. The bid in question is clearly analogous to other legal Midchart methods. (A 2♠ opening showing 5+ Spades and another suit). However, the decision to open this at a LOWER level makes the bid impossible to defend against

It is clearly not analogous because 2♠ showing spades and another shows the suit bid, while 2♦ showing spades and another may not show the suit bid.

 

I'm going to guess that the proposed 2♦ opening is not strictly forcing and it is this uncertainty which makes it more difficult to defend against. Also, by its very unfamiliarity, it will be more difficult for people to defend against. Yes, I am fully aware that by not approving a defense, and thus barring this and similar methods, they will never become familiar.

 

A few years ago, before the Defense Database, I was playing a Multi-type 2♣ opening bid. When we came to Jan Martel's table, she found the suggested defense unacceptable and commented that Multi 2♣ was more difficult to defend against than a Multi 2♦ and that a simple adoption (with minor modification) of the Multi 2♦ defense was insufficient. I'm still not exactly clear what the problem was and I do not remember the exact details. I believe we agreed not to play the method, and scrapped it for the entire tournament.

 

When the Defense Database came into being, I submitted a similar method for approval. There was a back and forth and a defense was eventually approved (and is still in the defense database). But, it was approved only for 12+ board segments.