WBF - Written Defense to Multi

[the hog]

in before mrdct defends troll status. i still lol and ainec.

 

edit: LOL the_hog

IN what language did you post? It is not English. Can you translate please?

[jjbrr]

excellent contribution to these forums.

[the hog]

excellent contribution to these forums.

And you seriously think your goobleygook makes sense in any known language?

[jjbrr]

excellent contribution to these forums.

And you seriously think your goobleygook makes sense in any known language?

lol

 

Edit: don't feed the trolls :(

[sathyab]

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

A few lines ? The ACBL recommended defense vs multi-2D, option 2 is 3 pages long.

[Vampyr]

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

A few lines ? The ACBL recommended defense vs multi-2D, option 2 is 3 pages long.

In Britain defenses (especially in casual or pick-up partnerships) can be explained in a couple of sentences.

 

And when something a bit more complex is played, such as all 2-level suit openings multi-style (a method that is gaining a bit of popularity here), blanket rules will take you most of the way. I wonder, Frances, if your excellent articles on this issue are available online?

[Vampyr]

If written defenses are permitted at WBF events, does this mean that events held under the aegis of the WBF (EBL or EBU, for example) must allow them as well?

[peachy]

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table. You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

Similarly, what self-respecting person needs a phone book, just memorize the darn numbers. It is possible, you know... But if there is a list of phone numbers or a phone book readily available, why should one strain one's memory, just look it up.

[paulg]

If written defenses are permitted at WBF events, does this mean that events held under the aegis of the WBF (EBL or EBU, for example) must allow them as well?

The EBL Systems Policy is the same and written defences were permitted at the European Championships in Ostend and will be at the European Open in Poland next summer.

 

Bridge Great Britain, who run the Home Internationals, should have permitted them at the last Camrose event as the regulations said that it was being run as a WBF Category 1 event. However no-one at BGB had read the regulations, specifically the Systems Policy, that they had specified and there were some problems. These were not helped by the general apathy and disdain for those who needed a written defence 'at this level'.

 

Of course, whoever sets the conditions of contest can replace, revoke or enhance this regulation.

[Free]

Is it allowed? I don't know.

Do I know if it's allowed? No.

 

So I voted no... :unsure:

[helene_t]

I didn't know this.

 

I see that it is adopted in the Dutch CoC for federation-level teams events.

 

AFAICS it is not adopted in the EBU Orange book.

 

Now that the thread has already been hijacked I will add my own GBP 0.02: IMHO it doesn't matter. Pairs who have made the effort to agree on a defense against a multi and write it down will know their defense by heart. I realize this may be different in an environment where multi is less common.

 

I think the rule is OK. Personally I think written defenses are a little silly but if there is controversy about whether a particular convention should be allowed or not, I can see that allowing written defenses may be a compromise both parties can live with.

 

I can think of one situation in which I might use written defenses myself. Suppose I was asked with short notice to sub for a player who had very elaborate agreements with his p, and I agreed to play their system. Now we were going to play a long team match against a team that had tons of bizarre conventions each of which were not particularly likely to come up during the match.

[the hog]

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

Similarly, what self-respecting person needs a phone book, just memorize the darn numbers. It is possible, you know... But if there is a list of phone numbers or a phone book readily available, why should one strain one's memory, just look it up.

What a stupid analogy!

Am I allowed to have a written defence to a sayc 1C opening? Why not?

 

I notice that you are good at making fatuous comments but not so good when it comes to providing logical reasons therefore.

[mrdct]

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

A few lines ? The ACBL recommended defense vs multi-2D, option 2 is 3 pages long.

That sounds about 2.9 pages longer than it needs to be.

 

A cynic might suggest that the ACBL put forward such a convoluted defence to make a point about how difficult it is to defend against the evil multi 2♦. Of course one could probably write a 10-page defence to some of the tricky American inventions such as stayman, so just because somebody came up with a 3-page defence doesn't mean that a convention is hard to defend against.

 

In any case, isn't there a one-page limitation for written defences?

[mrdct]

This is totally new to me.  We've just been discussing how our "memorized defenses" for Philly will differ from our "written defenses" used in ACBL land.  Does this apply to any other conventions, such as 2D or 2H showing both majors?

Without any disrespect to Debbie, who I admire as a person and a top class bridge player, I find it really interesting that she would have the "memorized defenses" to use in events where you can't use written defences and a separate set of "written defenses", which I presume are more complex, to use where written defenses are allowed.

 

I would have thought that the intent of written defenses isn't to allow bridge theorists to efficiently tweak the meanings of every possible competitive continuation after an unusual bid, but is to allow players who don't frequently encounter such bids to have a practical and robust defense similar to that used by players who do come across it more frequently in their jurisdiction.

[helene_t]

Does this apply to any other conventions, such as 2D or 2H showing both majors?

No, an opening bid that has an anchor suit (let alone two anchor suits) of length 4+ is not a BSC.

[paulg]

In any case, isn't there a one-page limitation for written defences?

I've never seen this anywhere and it would be a surprising restriction, given that the description of the (2♦) method may stretch to a few pages.

[the hog]

In any case, isn't there a one-page limitation for written defences?

I've never seen this anywhere and it would be a surprising restriction, given that the description of the (2♦) method may stretch to a few pages.

Only if you use a 25 point font, Paul.

[Free]

In any case, isn't there a one-page limitation for written defences?

I've never seen this anywhere and it would be a surprising restriction, given that the description of the (2♦) method may stretch to a few pages.

Only if you use a 25 point font, Paul.

You can always include interference handling against 3-page-defenses... :(

[helene_t]

Are we talking A4 or Letter paper size?

[manudude03]

3 standard sized playing cards would be enough :(. For some reason I've been misreading that part and reading it to mean that Multi is an exception to the BS rule and hence no written defence was required..... I also have never seen a written defence to it at the table. I did see 1 pair once with a written defence at the venue though (but not at the table).

[Cascade]

In any case, isn't there a one-page limitation for written defences?

It seems odd that there is no limitation.

 

The one page limitation is an Australian and New Zealand regulation. As far as I can see there is no such WBF regulation.

[paulg]

I think it is worth emphasising, particularly for ACBL members who are more used to written defences, that the written defence is only permitted for those 2♣ or 2♦ openers that may contain a weak two bid in either major.

 

So no written defence for 2♣ opener that is either weak in diamonds or any strong hand; nor for a multi weak 2♦ that is either weak in hearts or strong options.

[gnasher]

I knew I should have made this hand weaker :(, but I wanted to be honest about what the dealing program had produced. What would you bid on the auction if the hand was something like x,x,Kxxxx,Qxxxxx ?

Pass. I'd just assume that redouble shows a good hand without much of a fit and 2NT is natural.

 

I'm sure that there are better uses for one or both of these calls, but there are many sequences where complex agreements would give a theoretical edge. In all such sequences there is a tradeoff between efficacy and ease of memory.

 

By allowing a written defence you allow people to play more effective methods than they would otherwise, but that doesn't make it necessary to allow it.

 

Having said that, if the rules allow you to have a written defence, I don't see anything wrong with taking advantage.

[ahh]

even Meckwell need written defences to the multi. Has everyone forgotten the fate of the Singapore team v them ?

[paulg]

even Meckwell need written defences to the multi. Has everyone forgotten the fate of the Singapore team v them ?

Did Meckwell use them? Or did they just insist that they were provided in printed form?