Same Song, Different Key

[kfay]

I never thought I'd find myself arguing along the lines of the Richards of these fora, but something happened today while kibbitzing the weekly Tuesday Junior Tournament that left me rather chagrined.

 

The final hand was one where several partnerships opened a multi-2♦, with the laughable (or so I thought) result at the table I was kibbitzing of a past US national champion (imo) whining about how the multi wasn't allowed per the CoC.

I was surprised to find, however, that he was correct. Apparently multi isn't allowed because the juniors haven't yet been taught to deal with it.

 

This is interesting. It seems obvious to me that the majority of players who participate in Juniors BBO hail from countries where multi-2♦ is not only legal, but standard! To suggest that the same players aren't equipped to handle such a common convention is a rather severe oversight. In the case of the ACBL midchart, disallowing multi caters to the majority. Here, I'm sure most participants in the tournament and these fora would agree that disallowing multi is babying the minority.

 

Let's assume for the moment, however, that it's true the aspiring young players in these junior events aren't capable of handling a preempt. Where in the agenda of this club is this issue addressed? For an organization whose purported goal is to advance the skill of junior players, not just youthful ACBL members, I would think this was a relatively important task.

 

However, I can hardly say I find this surprising. I am a big fan of the Juniors program; nevertheless, I've been rather jaded by the continuing weekly themes at the teaching table of how so-and-so's hand isn't good enough to preempt, or what a takeout double actually looks like. It's true, many juniors need to learn the basics, but the most consistent participants in these events are beyond that. Yet, I still haven't seen any discussion at the teaching tables about the mechanics of a squeeze or, apparently, how to defend against one of more common conventions in the world! Instead, regarding these topics I've only observed private coaching and, quite honestly, favoratism in who gets to learn what.

 

I guarantee you, if there is any group that would be receptive to lessons such as how to defend against multi, this is it! There is a great opportunity for Juniors BBO to prepare the brightest junior players lead bridge governance and teaching in the future to make the game more diverse, let alone play at the highest level. These young players want to and are capable of learning about these things, but little has been done to push anyone participating past the advancing level and into the expert ranks. I realize that such lessons are harder to organize, but very likely someone is willing to do at least one of them!

 

In the case in question, that partnership that was admonished was a regular partnership. I would think that the organizers of this tournament would be delighted that a qualified junior partnership would use the event as a chance to practice and possibly discuss their results with expert to world-class players/kibbitzers who are familiar with hands where disaster struck or opportunities were missed. It seems backward to deny such a partnership the opportunity to discuss a very common aspect of their CC in the manner which this club should want to foster.

 

Whether or not Juniors BBO should be responsible for teaching expert strategy or ideas is a question left for its moderators. However, disallowing multi in a situation where people want to practice and have fun - and every junior would still have fun whether they know how to defend multi or not - is, I believe, contrary to the environment the club set out to create.

[mtvesuvius]

Me and My Partner (jakob_r) were the two who had opened Multi and were told at the end that we were unable to play multi in the tournement.

 

I had a discussion with Valerie Westheimer after the tournement, and what she told me was that the Juniors were "not prepared" and trained to handle multi. By the same reasoning, they could ban people playing precision, since some juniors are "not prepared" to defend against it... And precision is a whole system, as opposed to just a single bid.

 

JuniorsBBO is made up of players from around the world, and in most NBOs other than ACBL, multi is allowed. I think that to cater to the 6 ACBL players who are playing in the tournement is extreme favoritism. In most parts of the world, multi is as common as Bergen Raises or Inverted Minors. I really dislike their attitude toward this, and I think that Kevin said it perfectly. I also view JuniorsBBO tournements as an opportunity to practice against other juniors with a regular partner for a trials or international competition. If we use multi in our system, we should be able to play it here, since our system has been built with multi in it. To remove multi, would mean completely changing our system, and I don't think that we should have to play basic bridge to baby the few people who do not know how to defend against it. I don't care, I'll even provide a defense, but it needs to be legalized.

[Walddk]

Agree with both. This is pure ACBL Multi paranoia and should be avoided at (almost) all costs.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

It would probably be reasonable to allow everything except HUM, BSC and coded signals, since that is approximately the regulation which most are exposed to where they normally play.

[Tola18]

There is an easy solution. In Sweden we use an orange declaration card for players who wish to play a natural, basic system, and who wish to be opposed by natural, basic systems, and opps being extra friendly. These pairs are of course usually beginners or almost beginners.

I suspect it is the same in other countries as well...

 

So. Pairs who dont want to play against multi may declare: we play sayc as in the yellow card. (or Acol as in "yellow card"). Or even: we use a basic sayc. We use a basic Acol. please play basic against us...

 

And opps use only rather basic system, say SAYC, or at the very most, a basic strong club. (It is of course difficult to change system in 30 seconds, if not discussed! I HAD a partner who played a rather complicated strong club, but didnt knew how to bid a normal, natural standard system. But that is next question).

 

They using a basic system is a must. It sounds ridiculous and verry unfair if they use advanced 2/1 and perhaps also a lot of allowed whistles, but refuse to meet multi - only becuse it is legally not allowed in some country. AND taking advantage of opps who must change their system in 30 seconds, while they are perhaps a steady pair.

 

But I understand beginners and lower intermediates shall be spared of the multi, especielly if the wish it (they perhaps want to learn?). I really do. The mechanics of multi are beyond the capacity of many lower intermediaries.

Or at the very least; be given extra explanations practically revealing the hand. (example: answer 2H isnt simply "relay", but "relay, usually weak hand" Against our worried beginner: Relay; I do have a weak hand and hope we play it cheaply. Or: Relay, but I do have support for spades if partner has spades.

Something like that.

 

I and my partner on several tuesdays, we use a modernized classical Acol, which means Acol 2 in majors, and multi 2D for the weak twos (=only 1 of the majors). Today we used this thrice I think. Nobody said anything about it.

[NickRW]

...In most parts of the world, multi is as common as Bergen Raises or Inverted Minors...

In some parts, the multi is commoner. Bergen raises might be met with "what's that?" from a lot where I am ;)

[Mbodell]

IME the younger the players the *less* they want restrictive system regulations and the *more* they want to experiment with different systems. So it is a bit surprising to have a junior event ban multi.

[vdoubleu]

Well, after all this hullabaloo, I really feel I must weigh in here. First of all, MtV took my comment a bit out of context, wihtout all the other parts to it.

 

HWG:

 

They did not allow Multi at the Cavendish Invitational Tournament and there was an article in one of the Daily Bulletins by Leckie excoriating it.

 

They do not allow Multi at most ACBL events or the Trials. When they have allowed Multi they let us bring 20 pages of Defenses to the table that we can look at during the auction!

 

We have been back & forth w/this more times than you all know &, quite frankly, this is a no-brainer for us. Just because a few players (pairs) wld like to use Multi, we do not want to be shouted down by the (vocal) minority, when we are trying to help the majority. We are trying to get young people interested in the game, not discourage them from playing due to arcane & tedious systems to prepare against.

 

We are attempting to teach them bridge: how to think, how to count a hand, the logic behind bidding, etc.

 

KFay's reference to our Teaching Table I do not quite understand. If he means that Fulvio, Benito, Curtis, Bob Hamman as well as a panoply of our distinguished other Hall-of-Famers & World Champions do not want to teach the Juniors Multi out of ignorance, well that is silly.

 

When Juniorsbbo was started, there were rules that were set down & 1 of them was that we did not allow Multi, Therefore, we did not think it necessary to keep repeating it.

 

 

Valerie Westheimer

Paula Mittleman

;)

B)

[Cascade]

We are trying to get young people interested in the game, not discourage them from playing due to arcane & tedious systems to prepare against.

Like SAYC and 2/1?

[jakob_r]

Dearest Val and Paula,

 

When I played with Adam (mtvesuvius) tonight was the first time we were ever informed that multi was disallowed in junior tourneys. I was told by one of the opponents - after the board had been played- that it was prohibitied and that this was announced at the beginning of the tourney. I've checked my log files and it was not and it has, in fact, never been announced at any time while I've played in any of those tourneys for the past two years or so.

 

I totally agree with what Kevin and Adam have said already in this thread and I'm not really impressed that multi was disallowed at the Cavendish tourney. When i read that my first thought was: but ofc, how should all those beginner-types playing in the Cavendish deal with such complicated stuff that's only been around and defended against for a mere 40 years!

 

I think what Kevin meant about the TT was not about the super-stars that we are granted the fantastic opportunity to play with or against, but the other TT's where it's more down to basic principles of the game. And in that context I also agree that the focus is catering to a relatively small minority of the juniors that are playing more casually than most of the regular juniors participating in those events.

 

The only last thing i'd like to add it this: multi is not essential as a method, but it's nice to have - especially when most of your pre-empt methods and other systemic agreements are based around it. And I wouldn't mind for a second if my opps consulted their 30+ pages of defensive methods while we were playing. As little as I would mind them consulting anything else they'd like to know more about as the game was going on.

 

Without wanting to be un-american or atheistic: ACBL is not God nor flawless. And banning multi for decades is a joke that juniorsBBO shoulda never made itself part of. imo

 

love and peace :)

 

JZR

[JanM]

They do not allow Multi at most ACBL events or the Trials.  When they have allowed Multi they let us bring 20 pages of Defenses to the table that we can look at during the auction!

Not that it's particularly relevant to this thread, but multi is allowed at the US Team Trials and at ACBL MidChart events with rounds of 6 boards or longer. Written defenses against Multi are now allowed at WBF events also (or at least were last year).

[hanp]

The juniorBBO tournaments could provide a great opportunity for the North American juniors to encounter some of the methods that are used in international events that they might hope to play in.

 

For junior pairs from other countries it could be nice to play the same system as they play elsewhere.

 

Having said that, I don't want to tell the organizers how they should run their tournaments. They do a fantastic job already.

[nickf]

I dont get it.

 

We have a captive audience of young enthusiastic adolescents who are interested in pursing a past time that is in decline, and they are actively discouraged from playing particular conventions?

 

Cut these people some slack. They love playing conventions (and on the weirdo convention scale of 1-10, Multi rates about a minus 3) and most of the time they dont care if it leads to +790 or -670. They laugh it off, and try it again three boards later. I've yet to see them pissed off that they were caught out by some obscure treatment - in all likelihood they'll applaud the bidder and add it to their own repertoire.

 

Young people will be driven away from bridge if they cant play stuff. My personal opinion is that too much system is bad for their bridge development but I think we need to be resigned to the fact that system is of great appeal to young people.

 

nickf

sydney

[Walddk]

Dear Val & Paula,

 

I have a lot of respect for all the work you do and have been doing from the start of JuniorsBBO. However, one should always be sympathetic to constructive criticism (rest assured that I, as the vugraph coordinator, get my fair share).

 

Some of us think that barring the Multi is a bad idea, and I echo Nick's sentiments completely. If we want to attract youngsters to the game, the way forward is not to impose restrictions; to the contrary. In my and other people's views it is much better to encourage them by allowing them to play all the fancy stuff they like.

 

Eventually, they will be able to figure out which conventions are good and which are not. They are smart young people who want to try everything before they settle down and select one or two oddities.

 

Do not spoil their enjoyment by telling them that Multi is a no-no.

 

And finally, you do not need 20 pages of defence against the Multi. If no-one else volunteers, I can offer a simple defence in a couple of minutes. You don't need pages for it. It can be written on the back of a stamp ;)

 

Roland

[david_c]

Yeah. Just about anywhere in the world outside ACBL-land, defending against a multi is part of the game: everyone has to learn to cope with it. And even the ACBL members will come across it frequently if they play online. Surely the junior tourneys would be an ideal place to gain this sort of experience.

 

And, like others said, most juniors enjoy experimenting, and even the ones who don't aren't bothered by what their opponents play; so why spoil their fun? If it was a more serious competition I could understand it.

[Codo]

If it was a more serious competition I could understand it.

That surprises me. When you have a non serious event, you can make any rule you want if you belive that this will please many people.

 

When it is getting serious you should get serious and cope with reality.

 

Of course, when the junior birgde club is an US-junior bridge club (I am too old to know, but guessed it was not limited) there is a sense in having the ACBL rules as the guideline.

 

When it is an international place you should be as open to systems as the WBF in their championships.

[Tola18]

Multi not allowed at the Cavendish? It is of course not because the participants are beginners or intermediates. It is surely because many of the paying spectators, and some of the sponsors, are.

 

 

I did witnessed earlier many intermediates dont understand the mechanics of multi, and thus must have extra help, in one way or another.

Yes, but this experience is coming with playing with oldies, 40+.

It is much easier with juniors - they are usually grasping immediately - this being one of the reasons Im so happy to play with juniors on BBO...

 

So. I do agree in 100% those who wish to play basic and be met by basic should be protected. Preferably by extra friendly help, but in dire necessity - by prohibition.

 

But please, let all others who want to learn and develop - do so.

 

 

 

ps. Im NOT mocking these who want to play basic. It is entirely possible to play a basic system and still get very good results, if you play well enough.

I myself play a very basic system together with most of my f2f partners. It is quite OK! If we dont take prize-places it is not because the system is too basic, but because of faulty play of ours (and sometimes some unluck). But if we do both play well, there are always prizes, sometimes even top-prizes, waiting at the evenings end.

[hrothgar]

When Juniorsbbo was started, there were rules that were set down & 1 of them was that we did not allow Multi,  Therefore, we did not think it necessary to keep repeating it. 

 

 

Valerie Westheimer

Paula Mittleman

Quick history lesson:

 

The BBO Juniors program was active for quite some time before you two and Reisig got involved. It didn't exist in its current form and certainly didn't offer the world class players who currently lend their services.

 

What the Junior's program did offer was a very liberal set of systems regulations. Pairs could pretty much play whatever they wanted...

 

I have no problem if all y'all want to put a strict set of conventions regulations in effect. You're the ones doing the work, you get to set the rules.

 

I do, however, find the historical revisionism rather annoying....

[helene_t]

Out of curiosity: what were the system restrictions more generally? Midchart? GCC? "No BSC and no multi either"?

[mtvesuvius]

Out of curiosity: what were the system restrictions more generally? Midchart? GCC? "No BSC and no multi either"?

That's what I was wondering also... I think it would make sense to say no HUMs or BSCs allowed, and otherwise you can play whatever you want. But these sort of restrictions need to be announced at the beginning of the tournement, whatever they are. Not once have I seen them announce any system reguations at the beginning of a tournement, which was part of why this came as such a suprise to me when I was informed on the last board that I was not allowed to play multi.

 

Copied from my chat log:

dkgrab->Tournament: !H!H!H Hi everybody and welcome to your tourney.....We hope you all enjoy:) !H!H!H

dkgrab->Tournament: !S!H!D!C Paula and I are pleased to be your TDs for the next ten boards !H Good Luck and Good Connections :lol:

dkgrab->Tournament: !H!H!H Just a few rules....Announce system and carding at each round change.

dkgrab->Tournament: Alert and explain all unnatural bids. ALL Undos allowed so please accept them.

dkgrab->Tournament: English only at tables. This is a members only restricted tournament. Have fun!

JuniorsBBO->Tournament: Hi everybody and welcome......hope you all enjoy the tourney:)!H!H!H

 

Not once was there a mention of system regulations.

[helene_t]

"All undos accepted ...."

 

Sounds like a very informal tourney. Presumably that multi issue hadn't been thought about.

 

I could understand if some people from ACBL land would like not to have multi if BSCs are not allowed in general - after all it is hard to see the logic in allowing a 2♦ showing either hearts or spades if one cannot play, say, a 2♣ opening showing either hearts or diamonds.

 

Anyway, sounds weird that "Just a few rules....Announce system and carding at each round change" implicitly means "no multi" - I would take it as "anything goes". In some countries one can assume a particular set of restrictions to apply by default, but in an international setting it is not the case. And on BBO, the default is "anything goes" if nothing else is anounced.

[shaztaz]

Multi isn't even hard to defend against. Please don't insult the intelligence of average juniiors by assuming we can't deal with it. =)

 

Plus, have mercy on us poor ACBL members who can't ever get to play or practice defending against multi in most of our tournaments! Don't disallow it in even MORE places! I never get to defend against it since hardly anyone plays it, even in the events where it is permitted. This is not surprising since most people don't enjoy having to practice two different methods to play in different events and so they just go with the one that is permitted everywhere. Or alternatively, so few people in the regular events ever get exposed to multi that they often haven't got an informed opinion on the issue. I figure maybe more ACBL members would be playing multi if it was allowed and if they were more exposed to it and knew of it as an alternative. But that's beside the point of this thread and I apologise for the digression.

 

However, the same is true for aspiring juniors. Maybe by getting exposed to this convention they will become interested in learning and playing it themselves. Shielding people from a method is no way to go about stuff. Playing a convention yourself gives you valuable insight into defending against it so even if afterwards you decide against continuing to play it, you'll be better prepared to deal with it if it is used against you.

 

I really don't think we juniors need to be shielded from a commonly used convention in most of the world by the authorities. The restrictions detract from the amount of fun everyone could be having!

 

A question for those who live in countries where multi is commonly played. I'm actually curious what the usual way to deal with multi is. Is there a common defensc or some generally known method that a, say reasonably experienced European player, can expect a pick-up partner of similar skill to know and play with little to no discussion? It seems reasonably likely that this would be the case. A pick-up partnership in north america who will be playing a duplicate with minimal prior discussion can agree to say Lebensohl as a defence to interferences over their notrump auctions and little else usually needs to be say about this. There is a basic common denominator that will be assumed and both players can easily work from there. So I'm guessing a similar treatment must exist for dealing with multi in any area where the method is commonly used and I truly fail to see why this is eemed too complicated for juniors. Is Lebensohl something you'll want to shield us from as well? =)

[helene_t]

I'm actually curious what the usual way to deal with multi is. Is there a common defensc or some generally known method that a, say reasonably experienced European player, can expect a pick-up partner of similar skill to know and play with little to no discussion?

I believe in Poland it is common to play x = t/o of spades. If you have a t/o of hearts you wait, expecting to double 2♥.

 

Otherwise standard is something like

x=13-15 or any strong hand that can't make a jump overcall.

(2♦)-x or pass-(2M*)-x is t/o on M.

After our 3m overcall, 3M shows a stop in that suit, no necessarily length.

Leaping Michaels does not apply unless discussed.

 

This isn't 100% misunderstanding-proof but having played in multi-land for seven years I don't recall ever having had problems with it.

 

I know some partnerships have sophisticated agreements that allow them to distinguish between length and a stopper in a suit which opps may or may not have, and increase the opportunities for penalizing opps. It wouldn't be among the first hundred things I would discuss with a new partner.

[Old York]

In my experience as a bbo td, the biggest reason for resistance to Multi (and wj, prec etc) is the total failure to alert correctly

Quite frankly, I got sick of repeated director calls from tables where Multi was un-alerted or alerted as "multi"

Many regular players were much happier after I banned Multi, and I received very few complaints

 

However..... I would much prefer to be able to allow any licensed systems (and psyches)

 

Tony (Duke of York)

p.s. are juniors allowed to psyche?

p.p.s Multi is allowed in bbo BIL tournies which seems to blast a big hole in the arguments against it's use by bbo-juniors

[hanp]

Juniors don't psyche, period.