multi question

[JanM]

Anyway, here is the ACBL "permitted" defenses to Multi:

It's a mistake to refer to the ACBL defenses as "permitted" - they're approved and a pair playing multi has done what it is required to do if it gives those defenses to its opponents, but they are definitely not the only defenses that may be used. Most serious competitors have their own defense to multi, which they are allowed to look at during the auction. The ACBL defenses are really very minimal.

[NickRW]

Yes, of course. The response in the longer Major as a way to get to the minor is only in the fairly rare situations...

Thanks for taking the time to explain. ;)

 

Nick

[barryallen]

This is why you are now known as a mild old man.

;) I often wondered how Henry Kissinger spent his formative years!

[Mbodell]

The ACBL defenses are really very minimal.

For a serious world class pair, maybe. For a typical bridge partnership, the written defenses (even the simple first one) is likely as good or better than their partnership understanding of agreements in competitive situations IME.

[helene_t]

I dunno. The more I read, the more I believe that Multi should be banned in all low-level events

It just seems totally impossible to find a cohesive defense against this plethora of private treatments

I don't think different agreements about the 2♠ response is much of a problem.

 

The most common examples of bad disclosure related to multi, as I encounter them on BBO and at clubs in various countries, are:

 

- 2♦ just being explained as "multi".

- 2♦ being explained as "weak for the majors or ....", suggesting it is weak with both majors, rather than weak with one major.

- A long story about details about the strong variants, thereby obscuring the fact that what matters to the defense is that it is weak with a major. (OK, in the very rare cases that it is nonforcing that should be explained as well).

- The 2♥ response not alerted and/or explained as "mandatory".

- People being totally unable to explain what the 2♠ response means and it is unclear whether they don't know or just don't have a good enough command of bridge jargon to explain it.

 

I suppose if I "everyone" played the 2♠ response as showing opening strength, I might agree with p that a 2NT overcall over the 2♠ response was artificial. And then when we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

[Old York]

...we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

This is the type of situation that I was thinking of.

If you are genuinely damaged by an unfamiliar or unusual 2♠ response, should the board be adjusted?

 

In a Swiss Tournie, I had a pair with identical profiles and similar names who refused to explain their methods in exactly this situation, so I booted them and got 30 mins of abuse. they seemed to think I had only booted them because they were on table one but I had not even noticed this

 

Tony

[helene_t]

No, unless the CoC specify that such an agreement needs a pre-alert.

 

If that doesn't seem fair it may be better to disallow Multi in the first place, but similar situations come up in relation to short 1♣ openings (how likely are they to be short?), light openings, unusual notrump ranges, unusual versions of Stayman etc. If people don't play multi, they will play the 2♦ opening as something else which is also "unusual", or they may play a natural weak 2♦ with some unusual follow-ups (say non-forcing shifts, constructive raise, whatever).

 

I can certainly see some reasons to ban multi but this 2♠ response just isn't one of them. After all you can't force people to play "standard" methods, since few people know any standard, let alone "the" standard. Except in a beginers-vs-experts show it might be a good idea to ask the experts to play a particular system.

[Codo]

...we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

This is the type of situation that I was thinking of.

If you are genuinely damaged by an unfamiliar or unusual 2♠ response, should the board be adjusted?

 

Tony

Why should a board be adjusted because of an unfamiliar or unusual bid?

 

And where do you see the borderline: In our club really anybody play 1 NT as 15-17 (or 16-18) NT without a five card major.

Is a weak NT unfamiliar enough?

Or that it may include a 5 card major?

 

Nobody over here play a 2 ♦ opening as a weak two in diamonds. So we shall ban this tool of the devil? Or at least adjust the score?

 

Sorry. I think a 2 ♠ answer to 2 ♦ should be fully explained and that's it.

[NickRW]

...we suddenly encounter a non-constructive 2♠ response, I might try to improvise a natural 2NT overcall, and p would think it was artificial.

This is the type of situation that I was thinking of.

If you are genuinely damaged by an unfamiliar or unusual 2♠ response, should the board be adjusted?

 

In a Swiss Tournie, I had a pair with identical profiles and similar names who refused to explain their methods in exactly this situation, so I booted them and got 30 mins of abuse. they seemed to think I had only booted them because they were on table one but I had not even noticed this

 

Tony

I don't think "unfamiliar" or "unusual" is, by itself, reason to adjust provided that it is within the regs for the event in question. If the bid was alerted, but then inadequately explained despite repeated questions and there was damage - then of course there is a case for adjustment - just the same as any other similar situation - the multi is no different to any other artificial sequence.

 

As for booting people - your tournie - your call - your thick skin that probably needed to get thicker too :)

 

Nick

[Codo]

The consensus about 2 ♦ 2♠ is that this is just pass or correct.

 

But why?

 

 

This bid gives the opponents one more possibility to act (pass and double instead of 2 Spade) and has no preemptive value. So where is the sense? Okay, you may face opps who cannot cope with this bid, but I would not like to make a bid just for this reason.

 

When you playing as invitational with hearts, you at least have a constructive value for a bid which gives the opponents more room to explore their chances.

 

So why do you like it as pass or correct?

[NickRW]

So why do you like it as pass or correct?

Coz you don't really think you belong any higher than 2 if opener has spades - but hearts is OK to go on.

 

Also, if you have strong options in your multi you have to worry about preempting your own partner too.

 

Nick

[helene_t]

So why do you like it as pass or correct?

A number of reasons.

 

First, if opener has spades, I reduce the number of turns for opps from 2+1 to 1+1. For example, opener's RHO may have a t/o double of hearts, which gives opener's LHO a penalty double of spades. I may be wrong but I think the probability that we will be allowed to play 2♠ undoubled is slightly higher if responder bids 2♠.

 

Second, if p has hearts and my opener's LHO has a minor, opener's rebid may prevent the 3m bid.

 

Third, if opener has a strong balanced hand, the paradox response may rightside a 4♥ contract.

 

Fourth, if opener has hearts and opener's RHO bids 3m, responder's 2♠ bid allows opener to compete with 3♥. If responder bid 2♥ instead, we won't find our hearts fit.

[Old York]

I don't think "unfamiliar" or "unusual" is, by itself, reason to adjust provided that it is within the regs for the event in question

In any f2f event these players must have a cc, but continuations are often omitted.

Most bbo tournies demand that artificial bids are alerted and explained upon request

This pair had blatantly failed to alert on other hands and had been warned

They refused to alert, director was called and then they refused to explain

The 2♠ bid looked highly unusual with xx in both majors

 

I have very thick skin, we need to have thick skins to post on bbo forums :)

I am always happy to admit when I am wrong

 

Tony

[NickRW]

In any f2f event these players must have a cc, but continuations are often omitted.

Most bbo tournies demand that artificial bids are alerted and explained upon request

This pair had blatantly failed to alert on other hands and had been warned

They refused to alert, director was called and then they refused to explain

The 2♠ bid looked highly unusual with xx in both majors

 

I have very thick skin, we need to have thick skins to post on bbo forums :)

I am always happy to admit when I am wrong

 

Tony

Well convention cards are woefully short of space to explain it all - if we required that everything was written down we'd have people bringing whole books to each and every minor event - hardly very workable for casual players.

 

But with regard to the specific situation, I agree that 2♠ looks suspect without any explanation and if they failed to alert at all, and had repeatedly done it despite warnings, then the board in question may well need adjusting and you were justified in booting them IMO. I think, in a f2f club, if a similar situation were to arise you'd be well within your rights as the director to report such a pair to the owner/committee - which would be the equivalent.

 

Nick

[barryallen]

So why do you like it as pass or correct?

Coz you don't really think you belong any higher than 2 if opener has spades - but hearts is OK to go on.

 

Also, if you have strong options in your multi you have to worry about preempting your own partner too.

 

Nick

But if you have strong options in your Multi and your 2♠ bid represents a solid game try in ♥ or pass 2♠, how can you pre-empt partner, when you are representing an opening type hand? You can only be pre-empting partner when you represent a weak hand?

 

This is exactly catered for with all subsequent bids from 2NT to 3NT over a 2♠ response to the Multi 2♦ opening.

 

Apologies if I have completely misread your position, as I am likely to do.

[NickRW]

But if you have strong options in your Multi and your 2♠ bid represents a solid game try in ♥ or pass 2♠, how can you pre-empt partner,....

Well, the way I play it, 2NT is the strong response. 2♠ shows at least some willingness to push a preempt in hearts, but does not suggest wanting to be in game particularly (although with excellent heart support, you might still bid it if in the unlikely event partner shows hearts).

 

This whole business about 2♠ being some sort of strong bid in hearts is foreign to me.

 

I suppose it depends a bit on how permissive you are with your definition of what constitutes a weak two in the first place. In that case, if the auction that starts 2♦-2♠-3♥, opener could be quite wide ranging. I don't play particularly permissive at all, so this question doesn't worry me.

 

Nick

[barryallen]

But if you have strong options in your Multi and your 2♠ bid represents a solid game try in ♥ or pass 2♠, how can you pre-empt partner,....

Well, the way I play it, 2NT is the strong response. 2♠ shows at least some willingness to push a preempt in hearts, but does not suggest wanting to be in game particularly (although with excellent heart support, you might still bid it if in the unlikely event partner shows hearts).

 

This whole business about 2♠ being some sort of strong bid in hearts is foreign to me.

 

I suppose it depends a bit on how permissive you are with your definition of what constitutes a weak two in the first place. In that case, if the auction that starts 2♦-2♠-3♥, opener could be quite wide ranging. I don't play particularly permissive at all, so this question doesn't worry me.

 

Nick

The point being, if the 2♠ bid represents a game try in ♥, by the very nature is not a weak bid. Therefore it's difficult to lay the criticism that the 2♠ bid pre-empts opener, nest pas?

 

If the auction starts 2♦-2♠-3♥, it's very simple, opener is weak and the contract ends there.

[NickRW]

The point being, if the 2♠ bid represents a game try in ♥, by the very nature is not a weak bid. Therefore it's difficult to lay the criticism that the 2♠ bid pre-empts opener, nest pas?

 

If the auction starts 2♦-2♠-3♥, it's very simple, opener is weak and the contract ends there.

Yeah, but after 2♦-2♠, then 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♠ and further higher bids all mean some sort of strong option to me - there is only 1 bid to show a weak 2 in hearts - hence the problem does not arise - given that my idea of a weak 2 is not very permissive.

 

Like I've said elsewhere - the multi is not some hugely preemptive tool to me - it is a constructive tool. The thing that gets me exasperated about some people's attitude is that they think I am trying to be destructive with the multi - I agree it can be used in that way - I don't.

 

Nick