Passing the Multi

[hotShot]

Just a little statistic:

 

A balanced 22-24 count has a probability of 0.2%.

The probability of a a 3-11 HCP 6+ card major hand is 6.5%.

 

So 1 in 32.5 Multi-openings is the strong hand.

Opposite the strong hand the probability to have 12 HCP is 1.5%.

 

So you hold 12 HCP opposite a strong Multi-Opener one time in 2167 cases partner opens 2♦.

 

So imagine you play a tourney with 26 boards every day for 6 years and 10 month, your side should be in first seat on about 32343 boards leading to an average of 2167 Multi-openings.

 

Just to give you an idea how often it makes sense to explore game.

 

Edit: And I didn't use responders shape as restriction yet.

[jdonn]

Just a little statistic:

 

A balanced 22-24 count has a probability of 0.2%.

The probability of a a 3-11 HCP 6+ card major hand is 6.5%.

 

So 1 in 32.5 Multi-openings is the strong hand.

Opposite the strong hand the probability to have 12 HCP is 1.5%.

 

So you hold 12 HCP opposite a strong Multi-Opener one time in 2167 cases partner opens 2♦.

 

So imagine you play a tourney with 26 boards every day for 6 years and 10 month, your side should be in first seat on about 32343 boards leading to an average of 2167 Multi-openings.

 

Just to give you an idea how often it makes sense to explore game.

What shapes did you include in 22-24 balanced, only since you apparently got half as many as Pavlicek.

 

And 3-11 seems way too wide to me.

[hotShot]

What shapes did you include in 22-24 balanced, only since you apparently got half as many as Pavlicek.

 

And 3-11 seems way too wide to me.

Any shape that has 2-4 cards in each major and 2-5 cards in each minor.

 

 

Edit: On http://www.rpbridge.net/7z76.htm the number 0.377849809933 % is for all shapes with 22-24 HCP not only balanced ones.

 

I didn't want to pick a range that was to small.

[mjj29]

What shapes did you include in 22-24 balanced, only since you apparently got half as many as Pavlicek.

 

And 3-11 seems way too wide to me.

Any shape that has 2-4 cards in each major and 2-5 cards in each minor.

I'll open a 'balanced' 20-something bid in the appropriate range with all 5332s, quite a lot of 5422s and some 6322s

[mich-b]

I think the regulation was intended to disallow "random" passes of the 2♦ opening, the purpose of which is to prevent opps from reaching their best contract.

 

I mean "random" here to mean - not trying to reach a playable contract, just hoping that going down a lot undoubled would be ok.

 

The PASS in the OP's hand is different - it is responder'd best effort to play a makable contract.

 

While I accept the original intent of the regulation - to prevent the "destructive" kind of PASS , I think it should be changed so it will allow the "constructive" purpose - moderate hands , with ♦ length , and shortage in one major.

This would go well with a general policy of disallowing destructive conventions, while allowing various preempts where the preempting side does take measures to ensure they end up in a contract with a reasonable number of trumps, and on a reasonable level.

[duschek]

Why the regulation applies at Level 4 I am not entirely sure, but I think the reason is historical because of abuses.  Perhaps it should be re-considered.

The weak-only Multi is allowed in Denmark without it causing any trouble (as far as I know). In fact, these years most league players using Multi have no strong options included, probably because it allows responder to preempt whenever he has suitable major suit lengths without fearing a strong hand opposite.

 

There are those who argue that Multi is only allowed for historical reasons, but I believe most players above the beginner's level have little more difficulty defending against Multi than defending against natural weak twos. The issue certainly has not raised any sort of heated debate.

[gnasher]

The weak-only Multi is allowed in Denmark without it causing any trouble (as far as I know).

The weak-only Multi is allowed in England too, at Level 4 (which basically means any event that isn't aimed at beginners). The rule about strong options only covers what you have to do if there is a strong option; it doesn't require that there actually be a strong option.

[lamford]

The rule about strong options only covers what you have to do if there is a strong option; it doesn't require that there actually be a strong option.

And, unlike level 2-3, the strong option does not have to be of reasonable frequency at level 4. I presume therefore that the methods employed by one pair where the multi was weak with either major or a balanced 36-37 would be allowed at level 4, but their explanation "two-way multi - weak two in a major or strong balanced" still fell short of full disclosure.

[helene_t]

While I accept the original intent of the regulation - to prevent the "destructive" kind of PASS , I think it should be changed so it will allow the "constructive" purpose - moderate hands , with ♦ length , and shortage in one major.

Agree in principle but this is gonna be complicated (if it is to be spelled out concisely).

 

The Orange book is long enough already. I appreciate EBU's effort to describe their regulations in a concise way (something which cannot be said about other bridge organizations that I know of), but it would be better if the rules were simpler so they could be described in a shorter document.

 

Off-topic rant: Dear EBU, why don't you reduce the number of levels to 2 or 3 instead of 5. Multi could be banned at the lowest level. But whenever Multi is allowed, I think responder should be allowed to pass it for any reason. As should opener be allowed to pass the 2♥ relay when he has spades.

[RMB1]

... But whenever Multi is allowed, I think responder should be allowed to pass it for any reason. As should opener be allowed to pass the 2♥ relay when he has spades.

I think 2♦-2♥-Pass = "weak two in a major" is a permitted agreement.

 

Certainly, a successful pair at national level do play

2♦-(Pass)-3♥-(Pass)-Pass = "weak two in either major"

 

Robin

[campboy]

There are those who argue that Multi is only allowed for historical reasons, but I believe most players above the beginner's level have little more difficulty defending against Multi than defending against natural weak twos.

The problem with multi -- at least in England where natural weak twos are much more common -- is that pairs who aren't established partnerships are frequently not on the same page when defending against it. Even if they know what 2nd hand's actions mean, they can easily get confused about 4th hand's options when it starts (2D) pass (bid) or (2D) dbl (any). This can be an issue in club bridge where you often have unfamiliar partnerships playing 2-board rounds, although to be fair it applies equally well to plenty of methods which are allowed at level 2.

[Ant590]

I realize that the strong option in the original post was strong balanced, so the following is an aside.

 

I have asked many EBU directors whether it is allowed to play the following as part of a multi at level 3:

(1) Weak two in major

(2) Acol two in diamonds

 

all agree that (2) is frequent enough for legality at level 3, and I believe this is almost close enough to a mini-multi (in terms of the hands which would want to pass it) as you can get. The odd favourable poker pass is disallowed, but most of the tactical passes with long diamonds are safe enough. Sure you may miss 6♦ sometimes...

 

For me this is evidence of a clear loophole in the way the clause of the orange book was worded.

[mjj29]

Off-topic rant: Dear EBU, why don't you reduce the number of levels to 2 or 3 instead of 5. Multi could be banned at the lowest level. But whenever Multi is allowed, I think responder should be allowed to pass it for any reason. As should opener be allowed to pass the 2♥ relay when he has spades.

The EBU defines "simple systems" (basically, everyone plays a standard system), Levels 2, 3 and 4 and "unusual systems" (anything else).

 

Simple systems and unusual systems are just monikers used for specific events for which you don't want to use the normal levels, so in practice there are only 3 levels. The EBU is trying to phase out level 3 as well, since they only run level 4 or 2 competitions (and not many level 2, only the C flight at a couple of congresses), but lots of club- and county-organised events are still level 3 (but the EBU doesn't control those, they can make any systems restrictions they like).

[suprgrover]

The weak-only Multi is allowed in Denmark without it causing any trouble (as far as I know).

The weak-only Multi is allowed in England too, at Level 4 (which basically means any event that isn't aimed at beginners). The rule about strong options only covers what you have to do if there is a strong option; it doesn't require that there actually be a strong option.

Really? Why does the Orange Book (see here) require at least one strong option "of reasonable frequency" at Level 3 and 4 (11G6)?

[helene_t]

The weak-only Multi is allowed in Denmark without it causing any trouble (as far as I know).

The weak-only Multi is allowed in England too, at Level 4 (which basically means any event that isn't aimed at beginners). The rule about strong options only covers what you have to do if there is a strong option; it doesn't require that there actually be a strong option.

Really? Why does the Orange Book (see here) require at least one strong option "of reasonable frequency" at Level 3 and 4 (11G6)?

It is a little confusing that "At least one strong option must be of reasonable frequency" is under "at levels 3 and 4", but the note says

"Since the Multi 2♦ has only continued to be allowed at Level 3 because it was a popular agreement long before the present approach to permitted agreements was adopted, the following restrictions have been imposed upon its use:"

and further, under level 4 only:

"Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or two of the following:" ..... "(2) has a specification which does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid, and does not include two-suiters where the suit bid is the longer suit."

[bluejak]

If you want to play something at Level 3 then it must appear under

 

Permitted at Levels 2 and 3

 

or

 

Permitted at Level 3

 

 

If you want to play something at Level 4 then it must appear under

 

Permitted at Levels 2, 3 and 4

 

or

 

Permitted at Levels 2 and 3

 

or

 

Permitted at Level 4

 

 

At Level 4 it is permitted to play a weak-only Multi, or a Multi with a strong option that does not have a strong option of reasonable frequency because it appears under

 

Permitted at Level 4

 

 

I have been told many times [many many many many many times :) ] that the way the Orange book is set out is not best. But none of the suggested alternatives are better, most are wholly impractical, and the majority o4e1` [qqq] of complaints come with no suggested alternative.

 

:)

 

[qqq] I have no idea what o4e1` means: Nanki Poo put that in.

[suprgrover]

At Level 4 it is permitted to play a weak-only Multi, or a Multi with a strong option that does not have a strong option of reasonable frequency because it appears under

 

Permitted at Level 4

I really don't have a horse in this race, but it took me four readings to figure out that a weak-only Multi was included in 11G10. (The OB defines a weak-only Multi early on, then never refers to it again.)

[gnasher]

I have been told many times [many many many many many times :) ] that the way the Orange book is set out is not best. But none of the suggested alternatives are better, most are wholly impractical, and the majority o4e1` [qqq] of complaints come with no suggested alternative.

It's undoubtedly better than how it was before the last major rewrite.

 

The problem is that the rules are of the form "You can play x at level y or higher", but the questions people ask are either "What am I allowed to play at Level y?" or "Am I allowed to play x at level y?". That seems to call for a piece of software.

[RMB1]

... That seems to call for a piece of software.

I am sure that is the way we are going: regulations (e.g. EBU Orange Book and White Book) only available online and not necessary as linear documents; with a simplified summary available as a printed document (c.f. the "Tangerine Book"). It is impossible to capture the regulatory requirements/contraints on (say) passing a multi-way bid (or asking questions during the auction) accurately and concisely. Too many people (in England) who play, direct or regulate the game need precise, detailed statements of regulations: statements which the remaining players do not want to read (or even know about). The cost of maintenance, (re-)printing and (re-)distribution of complicated regulations as printed documents is becoming prohibitive.

 

Robin

[jeremy69]

I suspect that at some future review the bit about a strong option of "reasonably common frequency" will bite the dust because it comes from a time when players would put in the balanced 36-37 count in an attempt to make it legal but he licensing of a weak only multi made this device unnecessary and if anyone played that now you would, of course, ignore the strong option anyway.

At level 3 the strong option of reasonable frequency must be there but why you can't play weak only is a bit puzzling as it is simpler than having to cater for the rock crusher hand. Level 3, of course only remains as an anachronistic courtesy to clubs and is unused by the EBU for tournaments so it is unlikely much work will be done on it in the future.

[jallerton]

At level 3 the strong option of reasonable frequency must be there but why you can't play weak only is a bit puzzling as it is simpler than having to cater for the rock crusher hand. Level 3, of course only remains as an anachronistic courtesy to clubs and is unused by the EBU for tournaments so it is unlikely much work will be done on it in the future.

Simpler for whom, Jeremy?

 

I expect that the idea was to make the Multi easier to defend against by ensuring that the opening side could rarely, if ever, pass out 2♦. The 'wait and see' defence is still popular in some quarters.

[jeremy69]

Simpler if there are fewer options. I agree it is not uncommon to adopt the wait and see defence in clubs where the auction almost never starts 2D No 3H.

[bluejak]

The Level 3 Multi is a compromise after a very hard-fought and bitter battle between two factions, those who felt that since it was well-known and frequently played it should stay available in the newly redesigned General Licence, and those who felt [correctly] that it did not fit in with what was generally allowed at General Licence. As a result it has rather more rules around it than almost anything else that is permitted.

 

But I am surprised that the rule about not passing it even exists at Level 4.

[Cyberyeti]

I think the people running the simulations are missing the point, is partner not allowed to have ♠ QJ10xxx, ♥xxx, ♦KQxx, ♣ None. Admittedly you'll probably get rescued by the oppos, but 2♦+5 is a suitably embarrassing result.

 

What are the chances of partner having 6 spades on this hand, as if he does, game also figures to be pretty good. I don't think the chances of this are vanishingly poor enough to pass, now if you have 5 spades and 6 diamonds ...

[Vampyr]

The problem with multi -- at least in England where natural weak twos are much more common -- is that pairs who aren't established partnerships are frequently not on the same page when defending against it. Even if they know what 2nd hand's actions mean, they can easily get confused about 4th hand's options when it starts (2D) pass (bid) or (2D) dbl (any). This can be an issue in club bridge where you often have unfamiliar partnerships playing 2-board rounds, although to be fair it applies equally well to plenty of methods which are allowed at level 2.

Such as?