WBF - Written Defense to Multi

[nige1]

I very much prefer a system in which the written rules actually have some meaning and we don't just make shite up as we go along.  If the rules are written improperly, change the written rules.  However, until these such changes are officially made and promulgated the written conditions of contest should take precedence.

Agree

[nige1]

The regulations permit the use of the Multi 2 Diamond convention. This shows a weak two in either major. It may have additional meanings, all of which must be strong. Players are permitted to bring their written defences to the table.

[paulg]

I have just been kibitzing Meckwell playing Brian Senior and Dave Kendrick.

 

The English opened a multi 2♦ twice, and this saw the ACBL-approved defense (sic) being passed under the screen with the tray (Meckwell only having the single copy). The second auction was

 

(2♦) Dbl="13-15 bal or strong hand" (2♥=p/c) 2NT="transfer to 3C; signoff or FG w/minor"

(Pass) 3♣ (Pass) 3♦

 

Meckstroth now spent about 5 minutes trying to work out whether this meant sign-off in diamonds or was the game forcing hand. Eventually he just passed and said he hoped that it was right. It was this time.

 

I guess most players experienced in dealing with multi would use 2NT in this sequence as if a weak 2M had been opened and doubled.

 

As the ACBL defense is clearly inadequate, perhaps we shall see a rewrite or is a ban of the multi next for the ACBL Mid Chart? That would be short-sighted of course, as the Americans really need to ban it at Super Chart to make a difference for the top players and protect them from the Europeans.

 

Paul

[MickyB]

I would have thought it more logical for 2NT on that auction to be as 1NT (2H) 2NT.

 

Our teammates opened a multi vs a top US pair who were using a written defence. The final contract was 3♣, which was intended as game-forcing Stayman.

[helene_t]

I thought Meckwell stopped playing multi because it is too easy to defend?

[hrothgar]

I have just been kibitzing Meckwell playing Brian Senior and Dave Kendrick.

 

The English opened a multi 2♦ twice, and this saw the ACBL-approved defense (sic) being passed under the screen with the tray (Meckwell only having the single copy). The second auction was

 

(2♦) Dbl="13-15 bal or strong hand" (2♥=p/c) 2NT="transfer to 3C; signoff or FG w/minor"

(Pass) 3♣ (Pass) 3♦

 

Meckstroth now spent about 5 minutes trying to work out whether this meant sign-off in diamonds or was the game forcing hand. Eventually he just passed and said he hoped that it was right. It was this time.

Hard to know whether to laugh or cry

 

1. Mechstroth is on the committee response for approving defense

2. This is one of the defenses that the committee itself authored

 

Even they can't figure out how to interpret the crap that they spew...

 

Hoist by their own petard

[hrothgar]

I thought Meckwell stopped playing multi because it is too easy to defend?

There's often a significant difference between the writings of Meckstroth and whats actually going on...

 

Alternatively, it could simply be that its too easy for non ACBL members to defense against multi.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Yeah. The defense clearly states that on this auction, 3♦ is to play. Of course, you have to read almost all the way to the end of it. :P

[paulg]

Heh. Yeah. The defense clearly states that on this auction, 3♦ is to play. Of course, you have to read almost all the way to the end of it. :P

So it does. Certain that Meck did not see this as it is pretty clear.

[peachy]

I have just been kibitzing Meckwell playing Brian Senior and Dave Kendrick.

 

The English opened a multi 2♦ twice, and this saw the ACBL-approved defense (sic) being passed under the screen with the tray (Meckwell only having the single copy). The second auction was

 

(2♦) Dbl="13-15 bal or strong hand" (2♥=p/c) 2NT="transfer to 3C; signoff or FG w/minor"

(Pass) 3♣ (Pass) 3♦

 

Meckstroth now spent about 5 minutes trying to work out whether this meant sign-off in diamonds or was the game forcing hand. Eventually he just passed and said he hoped that it was right. It was this time.

 

I guess most players experienced in dealing with multi would use 2NT in this sequence as if a weak 2M had been opened and doubled.

 

As the ACBL defense is clearly inadequate, perhaps we shall see a rewrite or is a ban of the multi next for the ACBL Mid Chart? That would be short-sighted of course, as the Americans really need to ban it at Super Chart to make a difference for the top players and protect them from the Europeans.

 

Paul

Whether the defenses published by ACBL are adequate or not, is a subject for discussion, in another thread. I see no real purpose for your posting this table occurrence except to somehow cast an unfavorable light on Meckstroth-Rodwell. Also, FYI, ACBL covers more than just USA (Bermuda, Mexico, USA, Canada) .

 

This thread is about WBF events and as far as I understand, was intended to inform people about what the WBF CoC say because the regulations may not have been known in general. And the poll shows that the majority actually did not know about them.

[the hog]

I think that Paul's post was entirely appropriate and informative for this thread.

[blackshoe]

Bermuda is in Zone 5 now, although they still hold ACBL games.

[qwery_hi]

I have just been kibitzing Meckwell playing Brian Senior and Dave Kendrick.

 

The English opened a multi 2♦ twice, and this saw the ACBL-approved defense (sic) being passed under the screen with the tray (Meckwell only having the single copy). The second auction was

 

(2♦) Dbl="13-15 bal or strong hand" (2♥=p/c) 2NT="transfer to 3C; signoff or FG w/minor"

(Pass) 3♣ (Pass) 3♦

 

Meckstroth now spent about 5 minutes trying to work out whether this meant sign-off in diamonds or was the game forcing hand. Eventually he just passed and said he hoped that it was right. It was this time.

 

I guess most players experienced in dealing with multi would use 2NT in this sequence as if a weak 2M had been opened and doubled.

 

As the ACBL defense is clearly inadequate, perhaps we shall see a rewrite or is a ban of the multi next for the ACBL Mid Chart? That would be short-sighted of course, as the Americans really need to ban it at Super Chart to make a difference for the top players and protect them from the Europeans.

 

Paul

Whether the defenses published by ACBL are adequate or not, is a subject for discussion, in another thread. I see no real purpose for your posting this table occurrence except to somehow cast an unfavorable light on Meckstroth-Rodwell. Also, FYI, ACBL covers more than just USA (Bermuda, Mexico, USA, Canada) .

 

This thread is about WBF events and as far as I understand, was intended to inform people about what the WBF CoC say because the regulations may not have been known in general. And the poll shows that the majority actually did not know about them.

There is a conspiracy by the communists and socialists to cast Meckwell in an unfavorable light given half a chance. Fortunately for us, we have peachy to shine unfavorable lights on those who like to shine unfavorable light. Fred/Uday should see the light and make peachy a moderator of these forums pronto.

[NickRW]

Ja, und zen ze Americans can rule ze verld

[the hog]

Perhaps Peachy kibbitzes Meckwell and sings "Kumbaya".

[glen]

... 1. Mechstroth is on the committee response for approving defense

2. This is one of the defenses that the committee itself authored

...

Actually I believe that the committee did not author this defense, but Rodwell provided it years ago to the ACBL when the yellow booklet of defenses was made available. Thus it would be Meck trying to figure out Well.

[TimG]

2. This is one of the defenses that the committee itself authored

I'm pretty sure the multi defenses in the ACBL Defense Database are holdovers from the Yellow Book days. Who authored them originally, I do not know, but they did not go through the same approval process that is currently in effect.

[paulg]

I have just been kibitzing Meckwell playing Brian Senior and Dave Kendrick.

 

The English opened a multi 2♦ twice, and this saw the ACBL-approved defense (sic) being passed under the screen with the tray (Meckwell only having the single copy). The second auction was

 

(2♦) Dbl="13-15 bal or strong hand" (2♥=p/c) 2NT="transfer to 3C; signoff or FG w/minor"

(Pass) 3♣ (Pass) 3♦

 

Meckstroth now spent about 5 minutes trying to work out whether this meant sign-off in diamonds or was the game forcing hand. Eventually he just passed and said he hoped that it was right. It was this time.

 

I guess most players experienced in dealing with multi would use 2NT in this sequence as if a weak 2M had been opened and doubled.

 

As the ACBL defense is clearly inadequate, perhaps we shall see a rewrite or is a ban of the multi next for the ACBL Mid Chart? That would be short-sighted of course, as the Americans really need to ban it at Super Chart to make a difference for the top players and protect them from the Europeans.

 

Paul

Whether the defenses published by ACBL are adequate or not, is a subject for discussion, in another thread. I see no real purpose for your posting this table occurrence except to somehow cast an unfavorable light on Meckstroth-Rodwell. Also, FYI, ACBL covers more than just USA (Bermuda, Mexico, USA, Canada) .

 

This thread is about WBF events and as far as I understand, was intended to inform people about what the WBF CoC say because the regulations may not have been known in general. And the poll shows that the majority actually did not know about them.

I thought it was relevant to this thread that the world's best pair, despite knowing that written defences were permitted and having a team coach, seemed poorly prepared.

 

I should add that they scored well on both multi hands.

[Cascade]

It doesn't quite seem proper to me that a pair should be allowed to pass notes under the screen.

 

Is this really allowed?

[RMB1]

I thought the WBF regulation was that written defences were permitted but they were provided by the defenders. So the onus would be on Meckwell to have two copies of their chosen defence.

[qwery_hi]

So the onus would be on Meckwell to have two copies of their chosen defence.

Please don't go about casting unfavorable light on Meckwell. Clearly they were permitted to pass one copy back and forth, so I don't know what is this onus you're talking about.

[paulg]

It doesn't quite seem proper to me that a pair should be allowed to pass notes under the screen.

 

Is this really allowed?

There were passing the printed copy of the defense. They had one copy between them.

[TimG]

So the onus would be on Meckwell to have two copies of their chosen defence.

Please don't go about casting unfavorable light on Meckwell. Clearly they were permitted to pass one copy back and forth, so I don't know what is this onus you're talking about.

The onus would be on Meckwell if there is a policy that a pair must have two copies.

 

Does anybody know if there is such a policy?

 

I don't think is is "clear" that conditions of contest allow sharing of one copy just because a pair chose to do it that way. Even if it is against the rules, the opposing pair would likely have to object in order for the rule to be enforced.

[Cascade]

It doesn't quite seem proper to me that a pair should be allowed to pass notes under the screen.

 

Is this really allowed?

There were passing the printed copy of the defense. They had one copy between them.

I understand.

 

I am surprised that this is allowed.

 

Screens are designed to stop communication between partners except that based on the bids and plays.

 

Passing other information from one side of the screen to the other would seem to go against that principle.

[RMB1]

Please don't go about casting unfavorable light on Meckwell. Clearly they were permitted to pass one copy back and forth, so I don't know what is this onus you're talking about.

Sorry. I didn't realise some pairs were exempt from criticism.

 

The relevant regulations are.

A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below.

A pair may prepare written defences against the Brown Sticker elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Con­di­tions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents' system card.

To me that means that a pair that want to use written defences to multi 2D must have two copies.