Multi at pairs

[TimG]

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

In my experience, the process is very slow and requires regular requests for updates on progress.

[blackshoe]

My reading of the charts is that a 3NT opener to show a good preempt in either major, but not necessarily a solid suit, is legal on the Super Chart.

 

I confess it does seem silly not to allow it on the Mid Chart, at least. ;)

[awm]

Yeah it seems clear that this convention is not mid-chart. It's either general chart or super chart. This is why I haven't really pursued trying to get an official defense.

 

The reason it might be general chart is that you can call it a strong bid, and strong bids are allowed. It does typically show eight tricks in hand, and people (okay mostly bad players) have been known to open 2♣ strong on similar hands (maybe bad bridge, but not a psych). ACBL has repeatedly ruled that you don't need 15+ hcp for something to be a strong bid (even though it kind of looks that way from a loose reading of the general chart), and that opening 2♣ on:

 

♠AQJTxxxx

♥Axx

♦x

♣x

 

and the like is okay (eight and a half tricks). So I guess an opening 3NT that shows this sort of hand should be okay too?

[skjaeran]

I can't believe what I'm reading in a couple of posts here.

 

Does someone seriously mean that it's harder to defend against 2♦ showing a weak hand with 5c♠ and an unknown 5c sidesuit than against 2♠ showing the same?

 

And the same for 2♣ as a multi compared to 2♦ as a multi?

 

If you haven't got any idea what you should use the extra possible bids to show, just defend just like you would over 2♠ and 2♦ respectively. And don't give any meaning to the 2♥ overcall and 2♠ cuebid (over 2♦) nor 2♦ overcall (over 2♣). (Yeah, I know that's stupid, but compared to the suggestions about harder to defend it's pretty genious.)

[jdonn]

"harder" just means "more confusing for bad bridge players".

[skjaeran]

"harder" just means "more confusing for bad bridge players".

Well, in ACBL-land those ones probably haven't got a clue about defences to the 2♠ opening or multi anyway..... ;)

[Echognome]

I can't believe what I'm reading in a couple of posts here.

 

Does someone seriously mean that it's harder to defend against 2♦ showing a weak hand with 5c♠ and an unknown 5c sidesuit than against 2♠ showing the same?

 

And the same for 2♣ as a multi compared to 2♦ as a multi?

 

If you haven't got any idea what you should use the extra possible bids to show, just defend just like you would over 2♠ and 2♦ respectively. And don't give any meaning to the 2♥ overcall and 2♠ cuebid (over 2♦) nor 2♦ overcall (over 2♣). (Yeah, I know that's stupid, but compared to the suggestions about harder to defend it's pretty genious.)

Compare:

 

1♥ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

 

with

 

1♦ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

 

First one is GCC, second one is super chart.

 

That extra space for the defense makes it banned pretty much everywhere in the acbl, much to the chagrin of Richard I might add.

 

Ironically, the transfer openings lead to much more constructive auctions, but such is life in acbl-land.

[awm]

Defending the cheaper bid isn't necessarily easier. It seems clear that:

 

(1) 2♦ opening showing a weak hand with either red suit is very hard to defend.

(2) 2♦ opening showing a weak hand with 4♠ and 5+ in an unspecified red suit is similarly pretty hard to defend.

(3) 2♠ showing a weak hand with 4♠ and 5+ in a red suit is not particularly hard to defend.

 

The point is that bids which may or may not have substantial length in the suit opened tend to be hard to defend, because it very frequently gets passed out by responder and such a passout doesn't imply any real length in the suit. In comparison, bids that guarantee substantial length in the suit opened are normally easy to defend (even if there are additional distributional inferences). Bids that deny substantial length in the suit opened are a bit harder but at least you usually get another chance to call (i.e. 2♦ showing weak two in a major).

[jtfanclub]

I can't believe what I'm reading in a couple of posts here.

 

Does someone seriously mean that it's harder to defend against 2♦ showing a weak hand with 5c♠ and an unknown 5c sidesuit than against 2♠ showing the same?

Yes, absolutely. This is especially true if the default bid white or red/red without a spade fit is to pass.

 

How would you define 2♦ P P X, where 2♦ might or might not have a diamond suit? Takeout of diamonds? Takeout of spades? Penalty of diamonds? Penalty of spades? None of the above? How about if the Xer is a passed hand?

 

The ACBL has a clear rule on this- you cannot have an nonforcing opening higher than 1♦ which might or might not be natural unless it's SuperChart. And I, for one, am absolutely in favor of it.

 

Edit- I didn't see awm's reply before I started mine. Sorry!

I don't think a bid denying a suit is hard to defend because a pass almost always shows length in the suit. 2♦ Flannery P P X should be takeout of diamonds, because who passes their partner's Flannery bid without diamond length?

[TimG]

Compare:

 

1♥ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

 

with

 

1♦ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

 

First one is GCC, second one is super chart.

 

That extra space for the defense makes it banned pretty much everywhere in the acbl, much to the chagrin of Richard I might add.

I can tell you from personal experience that the primary reason that the former is allowed and the latter is not is that the transfer opening is not forcing. I spent a lot of time (with Richard) trying to get the transfer opening approved. I did manage to get a defense approved for a single transfer opening. You can find it here. Notice that in the description of the method it says that "The 1♥ transfer opening is forcing to 1♠; it may not be passed." That was a necessary requirement imposed by the C&C Committee without which a defense would not have been approved.

 

Also of note, is that this method, which should be trivial to defend against, is limited to events 12+ board segments/rounds.

 

]Does someone seriously mean that it's harder to defend against 2♦ showing a weak hand with 5c♠ and an unknown 5c sidesuit than against 2♠ showing the same?

 

And the same for 2♣ as a multi compared to 2♦ as a multi?

Jan Martel is the one who told me that 2♣ Multi is harder to defend than 2♦ Multi, and when she told me this, she had recently spent considerable time with her husband preparing defenses for a World Championship. Whether or not we agree, it would seem an opinion that should not be dismissed out of hand.

[olegru]

"harder" just means "more confusing for bad bridge players".

Just curious, what bad bridge players are you talking about? :P

Seriously, it is not a convention for limited chart of I/N games, not even for General chart. It is mid chart convention. If any player is decided to play in Mid chart tournament, does't he/she at least pretend to be an expert. It is not always the case, of cause, but if someone decided to play on level he does not belong to, I see no reason to limit everybody else.

I believe if we are talking about mid chart convention (and convention is in the mid chart) all arguments about possible problems of bad players should be completely out.

[rbforster]

I felt like I should clarify several mis-statements regarding the convention charts that came up recently.

 

1♥ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

1♦ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

 

First one is GCC, second one is super chart.

I like to bash on the ACBL for overly restrictive convention rules as much as next guy, but that's just wrong. You absolutely can open 1♦ showing 10-15 and anything you want under the sun! Forcing, non-forcing, 4+♥, whatever is fine and it's all GCC straight from the chart -

 

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

Now maybe this rains a bit on your parade since you wanted 1♦ 4+♥ 8-15 (not 10-15), but you'll just have to deal with that. Options for conventional continuations after this transfer style 1♦ are limited under GCC, but 1♥ is could be an artificial game forcing and 2♥ is ok as a jump raise. The real problem comes from finding a good GCC legal use for your now available 1♥ opening (besides hearts).

 

This ought to be less of an issue under Midchart where any constructive opening promising 4+ cards in a known suit is legal, like 1♠=4+♦ 10-15. Unfortunately there is only one opening one level bid in the ACBL Midchart Defense Database (1♥=Std American 1♠), so it's kind of moot that 1♠ is a legal opening showing some other suit since you can't actually play them (and you can't play 1♥ as anything else besides that one thing). I will point out that under Midchart you can also play lots of special responses to your 1♦ under the "generally constructive responses and rebids" rule. You don't have to go to Superchart to play this 1♦ opening - it's just the rest of the system you probably want isn't approved.

 

The ACBL has a clear rule...

hahaha - the ACBL clear on convention rules?! I was sure this must be the start of something inaccurate and it turns out to be the case.

 

The ACBL has a clear rule on this - you cannot have an nonforcing opening higher than 1♦ which might or might not be natural unless it's SuperChart.  And I, for one, am absolutely in favor of it.

Well that's a nice sentiment and all, but it's just not true. You can play 2♣ or 2♦ as mini-Roman - any 3 suiter with 10+ points. Neither of these will promise the suit opened, although they will have it 75% of the time so pass will be often a reasonable option by responder. These aren't exactly weak like 6-10, but if you played them as 10-12 they would still be fairly preemptive and 100% GCC legal. The rule you are alluding to shows up under Midchart Disallowed #8, saying approximately that weak openings with an unknown suit must either promise or deny the suit opened. Forcing vs non-forcing is not relevant.

 

In fact, even Superchart most of those weak bids are not allowed. Take 2♥ multi (weak with either major) - this is not allowed at any ACBL level! The requirement for Superchart weak preempts is that they must either have 1) a known suit, or 2) up to 2 suits, neither of which is the suit opened. Another example is the very popular Polish "Wilkosz 2♦" which shows a two-suiter with at least one major. This lacks a known suit and also might have diamonds and hence doesn't meet this test.

[pclayton]

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 clearly sanction 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?

Had some dialog with Beye. He hasn't presented it to C and C, but said there's no way he would allow something so 'complicated' for GCC :(

 

I'm working thorough our District Director.

 

Met Steve Weinstein in SF and I forgot to ask him. Damn! If anyone has his email, please PM me.

[jdonn]

I hate how "complicated" is being used so interchangeably by the powers that be with "unfamiliar" as though they mean anything like the same thing :(

[Echognome]

The point is that bids which may or may not have substantial length in the suit opened tend to be hard to defend, because it very frequently gets passed out by responder and such a passout doesn't imply any real length in the suit. In comparison, bids that guarantee substantial length in the suit opened are normally easy to defend (even if there are additional distributional inferences). Bids that deny substantial length in the suit opened are a bit harder but at least you usually get another chance to call (i.e. 2♦ showing weak two in a major).

I simply think this is untrue for transfer openings. Requiring me to bid on ALL hands might make things tougher for the opponents as they now will have no clue if I hold any values. Yeah it might be tough if we get into a cat and mouse. I pass when we're NV and I have no values and I don't have length in the one-under suit, nor in partner's suit. Say partner opens 1♥ showing ♠ and I hold x xxx xxxx xxxxx, so I choose to pass and now opponent with both heart and spade length don't know what to do. So instead you require me to make some bid. So i bid 1NT (say it's NF) and now p passes or bids. And I could have anything up to less than a GF. So opponents have no clue whether to bid or not as my 1NT range might be 0 to 12. So now you say "aha. that is the problem with this one-under business." But now I hold the same hand and partner opens 1♠ showing the same thing. And hey, I no longer have that nice bid of 1♠ showing an artificial game force. So I bid 1NT trying to find a better fit. And opponents are in the same boat.

 

Now, what about the Precision 2♦? Is that a forcing bid?

 

Am I allowed to pass it with say xx xx KJT98xx xx?

 

All this business is pretty futile anyway, since all they have to do is keep restrictions on what 1♥ and 1♠ can show and system designers will be plenty frustrated anyway.

[rbforster]

The general arguments about "hard bids to defend" relating to having or not having the suit you bid really only apply to weak preemptive bids and relate the case responder will pass without necessarily having the suit opened. I think there's no good reason to restrict bids like this that show constructive values, especially if they do so at the one level. This is because -

 

1. The opening side is very likely to bid on, even if they could pass the artificial bid. Not only are we talking about a value-showing opening rather than a weak one (which suggests bidding on), but at a low level there's still space for a weak responder to safely explore for a better contract by responding.

 

2. If the responder does pass (say 1♦(!♥)-P-P-?), the defenders are will have an easy time. The bidding is quite low so there is room for many different overcalls, double and then bid, cuebid, etc, all while staying at the one or maybe two level. If you can't deal with this I don't think I have much sympathy.

 

I'll go one step farther and say I think there's no excuse for not allowing arbitrary conventional bids at the one level (since you can't go below 8 points, these aren't going to be really weak). The defenses should be pretty easy to come up with, even if the bid is somewhat unusual. Maybe some clever person will suggest something that really is hard to defend at the one level (and not a completely awful idea), but for now I'll wait until I see it. I think Midchart should really be what it was intended to be, a place for people to explore new bids if they want, rather than the current status where almost all Midchart-allowed methods are unplayable because the Committee refuses to approved any defenses.

[hrothgar]

The ACBL has a clear rule on this- you cannot have an nonforcing opening higher than 1♦ which might or might not be natural unless it's SuperChart. And I, for one, am absolutely in favor of it.

I have a passing familiarity with the ACBL's convention regulations.

I'd love to see where this "clear rule" can be found.

 

The closest regulation that I am aware of is the following from the ACBL Midchart

 

Any weak opening bid which promises an unknown suit may not include

as the unknown suit the suit named (the suit opened)

 

Its worth noting that said rule

 

1. Makes no mention of a boundary at 1♦

2. Makes no mention of might or might not be natural. (I'm not even sure what this means. It seems equivalent to a "little bit pregnant")

[goodwintr]

You absolutely can open 1♦ showing 10-15 and anything you want under the sun!  Forcing, non-forcing, 4+♥, whatever is fine and it's all GCC straight from the chart -

 

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

 

Does "all-purpose opening bid" really mean "anything you want under the sun"? I'm just asking, because I really don't know what the answer is. The drafters could have been clearer. (Have you heard that sentiment before?) I suspect that they thought they were referring to opening bids like "nebulous one diamond," which means something like, "I open the bidding, and my hand doesn't qualify for another opening bid in the system;" or, "one club, could be short." But who really knows?

 

It does seem to me that if the bidding police meant, "you can play that one club or one diamond means whatever you want it to mean," they could have said so.

 

I would like to use the 1C opening bid to show exactly four spades, but I have been told (informally, not formally) that I can't do that in ACBL-land. Anybody have an opinion about that (about its legality, that is, not about its wisdom)?

[TimG]

I felt like I should clarify several mis-statements regarding the convention charts that came up recently.

 

1♥ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

1♦ = 4+♥, 10-15 hcp

 

First one is GCC, second one is super chart.

I like to bash on the ACBL for overly restrictive convention rules as much as next guy, but that's just wrong. You absolutely can open 1♦ showing 10-15 and anything you want under the sun! Forcing, non-forcing, 4+♥, whatever is fine and it's all GCC straight from the chart - and also might have diamonds and hence doesn't meet this test.

It's not just about the point range. While you may be correct about the use of 1♦ to show this specific hand type (not quite an "all-purpose" opening), I believe it would be accurate to say that you can use a 1♠ opening to show 4+ spades and 10-15 HCP in a GCC event, but you cannot use a 1♥ opening to show the same 4+ spades and 10-15 HCP.

 

In my opinion, if your interpretation of the "all-purpose" clause is correct, this highlights a general problem with the convention charts, namely their inconsistency. Why would a 1♦ transfer opening be allowed in a GCC event while a 1♥ transfer opening is not? Nearly identical treatments ought to be treated in nearly identical ways. No arguments about familiarity should hold water -- can you say that you have run across 1♦ transfer opening in GCC events? Nor should any argument that one is easier to defend against than the other be taken seriously (they both appear trivially easy to defend against despite the C&C Committee's decision to limit the mid-chart approved 1♥ transfer opening to games with 12+ board segments).

[jtfanclub]

Both one club and one diamond are allowed to be 'general purpose' bids with 10+ hcp. I wasn't limiting to weak bids.

 

By might or might not be natural, I mean a bid that promises length in an unknown suit in which the suit may be the suit bid. So a 2♦ opening which has length in an unknown minor is disallowed. It doesn't matter what the range is. The rule isn't in one specific point in the charts...it's all over the place, in part because I'm sure people would try to weasel it in otherwise. It's the same with the 'may not be part of a relay system' which people are forever ignoring.

 

It is true that mini-Roman is grandfathered in, although I'm sure lots of people would like it removed.

 

I think such calls border on the destructive, when the default is pass. A 2♦ "single suited hand, unknown suit" bid which gets passed when partner is weak and balanced...well, let's just say I'm glad it's banned, and leave it at that.

[mycroft]

One issue with 1D showing hearts - which I would read if it shows 10+, as legal, is that all the further calls must also be legal. Of course, as many others have said, without 1H as spades, you're pretty much SOL. I ran into that pre-Defence database, when I was trying to get Piranha Club working for Mid-Chart - the 1D opening (catchall, promises at least one 4cM, yeah, it's more limited than that) was that the 1H "no hearts and weak, or (something else I can't remember at the moment)" response was a total no-go.

 

The problem with weakish bids that don't show the suit is that partner can pass - I have had several good experiences with (1NT)-2D (hearts) - p - p "what does the pass mean?" "His diamonds are better than my hearts", for instance. When the bid promises a two-suiter, the unknown suit of which could be the suit bid, now partner's pass means "I have diamonds; or I have neither suit and think partner's got the pointeds, and xx is better than x, and I'm not doubled yet; or I have a 3-count, and xxx in diamonds, but 2D-7 << 6D= at any vulnerability". Tell me that's easier to defend against than 2S showing a two-suiter with spades and an unknown suit.

 

Make it forcing, and you'll probably have more luck. But then it wouldn't be as effective, would it (as I say to the forcing pass players when I suggest the fert be 1C only)?

[Echognome]

Again, I pose a simple question.

 

Can one pass a Precision 2♦ opening?

Can one pass a Flannery 2♦ opening?

Can one pass a mini-Roman 2♦ opening?

 

If yes to any of the above, what is the difference, in particular with the last, which may or may not contain diamonds?

[hrothgar]

Again, I pose a simple question.

 

Can one pass a Precision 2♦ opening?

Can one pass a Flannery 2♦ opening?

Can one pass a mini-Roman 2♦ opening?

 

If yes to any of the above, what is the difference, in particular with the last, which may or may not contain diamonds?

the operative term is "weak"

[Echognome]

Again, I pose a simple question.

 

Can one pass a Precision 2♦ opening?

Can one pass a Flannery 2♦ opening?

Can one pass a mini-Roman 2♦ opening?

 

If yes to any of the above, what is the difference, in particular with the last, which may or may not contain diamonds?

the operative term is "weak"

Why then would we care if a 1♥ opening showing 4+♠ in the 10-15 range is forcing or not?

 

What about a 1♠ opening showing 4+♦?

[TimG]

Why then would we care if a 1♥ opening showing 4+♠ in the 10-15 range is forcing or not?

When the minimum gets to a certain point the non-forcing transfer opening is considered to be destructive or randomizing. ACBL (or those on the C&C Committee) do not want to risk crossing that point.