Declining the multi defense

[gnasher]

I fancy it is legal under Law 40B, which gives an RA very wide powers in this area.

Which part of Law 40B allows the RA to permit players to discuss their methods after the auction has started?

 

Nothing to suggest it is not [allowed by the regulations], either. You have to make both defences available, and there is no regulation that they have to choose one or the other or either or neither.

Yes, of course the ACBL regulations allow the defenders to choose neither. What they don't allow is for the defender to wait until the auction is started and then agree what their methods are.

 

Suppose that the RA really did have the authority to override Law 73. For the ACBL to actually allow that, they would have to say something like "The defenders may agree their defence after the auction has started". Since they don't say that, Law 73 is not overridden, and Law 73 applies.

[lamford]

This smacks of Christmas party bridge where you decide your system and your opening bid on each deal, based on your hand.

Sounds a bit tame. At our Christmas parties, the dealer is not allowed to look at his hand before deciding on a opening bid.

[pran]

Sounds a bit tame. At our Christmas parties, the dealer is not allowed to look at his hand before deciding on a opening bid.

Really?

What about Law 7B2: Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.

[mjj29]

Really?

What about Law 7B2: Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.

You think Christmas parties follow the laws? Ours certainly violates law 6.

[bluejak]

I fancy it is legal under Law 40B, which gives an RA very wide powers in this area.

 

Which part of Law 40B allows the RA to permit players to discuss their methods after the auction has started?

None, of course, which is why you asked this irrelevant question. But it does give the RA th right to allow the player to choose a defence whenever he wishes, eg during the auction.

 

Yes, of course the ACBL regulations allow the defenders to choose neither. What they don't allow is for the defender to wait until the auction is started and then agree what their methods are.

 

Suppose that the RA really did have the authority to override Law 73. For the ACBL to actually allow that, they would have to say something like "The defenders may agree their defence after the auction has started". Since they don't say that, Law 73 is not overridden, and Law 73 applies.

So you say. But the evidence does not support you. It is considered normal to ask for the defences only after the bid is made, and nothing in the Regulations suggest anything wrong with this. Sure, you say it is a breach of Law 73, but I do not think the ACBL agrees with you.

 

Players may not discuss which defence - or whether to use a defence. But they may choose.

[Vampyr]

Players may not discuss which defence - or whether to use a defence. But they may choose.

If, as seems to be the case, the ACBL allow the defences to be chosen during the auction, they should regulate how this is done. If a partnership have an exchange like, "Let's use #1", "No, let's use 2", the UI implications are enormous.

[wyman]

You think Christmas parties follow the laws? Ours certainly violates law 6.

 

Haha. Our "unsanctioned" games violate quite a number of laws, proprieties, and policies also, most notably zero tolerance. :)

[gnasher]

None, of course, which is why you asked this irrelevant question. But it does give the RA th right to allow the player to choose a defence whenever he wishes, eg during the auction.

...

Players may not discuss which defence - or whether to use a defence. But they may choose.

Sorry about the careless wording of my earlier question. (I can't imagine why you think I would intentionally ask an irrelevant question.)

 

Does Law 40B allow the RA to permit one membership of the partnership, after the auction has started, to choose a defence and communicate that choice to his partner? If so, which part of Law 40B says that?

[Vampyr]

Does Law 40B allow the RA to permit one membership of the partnership, after the auction has started, to choose a defence and communicate that choice to his partner? If so, which part of Law 40B says that?

 

Honestly, Andy, does it really matter what the Laws say? We are talking about the ACBL...

[blackshoe]

LOL.

[bluejak]

Does Law 40B allow the RA to permit one membership of the partnership, after the auction has started, to choose a defence and communicate that choice to his partner? If so, which part of Law 40B says that?

The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. It may prescribe a System Card with or without

supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.

Notes:

"without restriction" gives the RA complete powers in this matter.

"allow conditionally" says the RA can apply conditions, for example allowing a player to choose the defence for the partnership after the auction has started.

"may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets ..." allows the RA to make arrangements about supplementary sheets for SCs, which the ACBL considers covers these defences.

"... regulate its use" allows the RA to make rules about these supplementary sheets, for example choosing to use them or not, and make the decisions for the partnership after the auction has started.

[peachy]

Honestly, Andy, does it really matter what the Laws say? We are talking about the ACBL...

 

No need to make "meta-ridicule" of ACBL, really. Read what bluejak wrote, downthread.

[gnasher]

"without restriction" gives the RA complete powers in this matter.

The sentence from which you quoted this gives the RA complete powers with respect to allowing or disallowing a special partnership understanding. It does not give the RA any powers with respect to allowing communcation between the partners.

 

"allow conditionally" says the RA can apply conditions, for example allowing a player to choose the defence for the partnership after the auction has started.

To allow something conditionally is to allow it provided that some other conditions are met. The RA cannot say "you may play a Multi only if you allow the opponents to communicate during the auction", because the Multi-openers do not have the authority to give such permission.

 

"... regulate its use" allows the RA to make rules about these supplementary sheets, for example choosing to use them or not, and make the decisions for the partnership after the auction has started.

Perhaps, but making a decision is not the same as communciating a decision.

[ddrankin]

At ACBL tournaments (not necessarily clubs), players are not allowed to select a defense to Multi after looking at their hands. The ACBL codification conditions of contest state that "At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents’ convention card and alter their defenses against the opponent’s conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. Defenses to methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart and/or SuperChart are designated as “unusual methods” and may be referred to during the auction."

 

I can't find the notice to TD's from management, but we were told that this meant the players must choose a defense when pre-alerted, if more than one was available, or state that they were using their own, and provide it to the opponents if requested.

[gnasher]

At ACBL tournaments (not necessarily clubs), players are not allowed to select a defense to Multi after looking at their hands. The ACBL codification conditions of contest state that "At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the opponent's conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. Defenses to methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart and/or SuperChart are designated as "unusual methods" and may be referred to during the auction."

Good

 

I can't find the notice to TD's from management, but we were told that this meant the players must choose a defense when pre-alerted, if more than one was available, or state that they were using their own, and provide it to the opponents if requested.

Less good. Can't we decide not to agree any defence?

 

Does "provide it to the opponents" mean that I have to have my defence to a Multi written down? That also seems unreasonable, since the ACBL convention card doesn't provide anywhere to write it.

[blackshoe]

I can't find the notice to TD's from management, but we were told that this meant the players must choose a defense when pre-alerted, if more than one was available, or state that they were using their own, and provide it to the opponents if requested.

 

It has always boggled my mind that such notices are not provided to club TDs (I asked specifically for that some time ago, and was told unequivocally "no").

 

Is the requirement to provide one's own defense to a mid-chart convention a requirement to do so in writing? I can see this scenario:

 

Player: Director, please!

TD wanders leisurely over to the table.

TD: How can I help?

Player: I require a blank sheet of paper.

TD: what for?

Player: I have to write down for opponents our preferred defense to their Mid-Chart convention.

TD: OKay.

TD goes back to his station, pokes around looking for scrap paper, doesn't find any, finally pulls a sheet out of the printer. Five minutes later:

TD: Here you go.

Player: Thanks. We're gonna need a time extension to get all these boards in.

:o

[ddrankin]

Good

 

 

Less good. Can't we decide not to agree any defence?

 

Does "provide it to the opponents" mean that I have to have my defence to a Multi written down? That also seems unreasonable, since the ACBL convention card doesn't provide anywhere to write it.

 

Poorly worded by me. What I meant is that, if you choose a defense, it must be done when the opponents pre-alert. You don't have to choose one, though. (I can't think there is any rule that requires you to have a defense to everything.)

If you use your own defense, and it takes more than a few sentences to explain it, you are expected (not required as far as I know) to have it written down. (In the ACBL, when it is allowed, Multi can only be used in events in which you play at least 6 boards against each opponent that you meet, which means team games.)

[mycroft]

That seems odd, (and Hello D!) They don't have to know my defence to Flannery, or have access to it, or my defence to a strong Club; provided I can give full disclosure when it happens. What makes mid-chart conventions different?

 

I would understand that if I do have a defence, I am allowed to have it in writing and consult it at the table, and barring the opponents from reading it would be unusual in the extreme. But if J and I play Dixon, and know it well because we've spent the last 4 months playing in England and using it every week, why should we have to have it available to the opponents any more than "Dixon defence to Multi" on the CC (same as Guoba Rescues after 1NT-X)?

[ddrankin]

That seems odd, (and Hello D!) They don't have to know my defence to Flannery, or have access to it, or my defence to a strong Club; provided I can give full disclosure when it happens. What makes mid-chart conventions different?

 

I would understand that if I do have a defence, I am allowed to have it in writing and consult it at the table, and barring the opponents from reading it would be unusual in the extreme. But if J and I play Dixon, and know it well because we've spent the last 4 months playing in England and using it every week, why should we have to have it available to the opponents any more than "Dixon defence to Multi" on the CC (same as Guoba Rescues after 1NT-X)?

Michael, I think it is just an extension of the text on the Mid-Chart that requires players that play Mid-Chart conventions to have copies of the approved defences in writing. Sort of "if I have to do it, so do you". But, as I said, I don't think it is required. At least, I can't find anything that says it is.

[Vampyr]

I would understand that if I do have a defence, I am allowed to have it in writing and consult it at the table, and barring the opponents from reading it would be unusual in the extreme.

Surely you are not saying that if you use your own defense instead of one of the approved ones, you are allowed to consult it during the auction?

[ddrankin]

Surely you are not saying that if you use your own defense instead of one of the approved ones, you are allowed to consult it during the auction?

From the ACBL Mid-Chart Convention defense database:

"This database contains approved defenses to methods permitted under the ACBL Mid-Chart. When playing in an event governed by the ACBL Mid-Chart, you may refer, during the bidding and/or play, to any defense contained herein to a Mid-Chart method being used by your opponents (you may also refer to your own defensive method)."

 

So yes, you may refer to your own defense.

[Trinidad]

Surely you are not saying that if you use your own defense instead of one of the approved ones, you are allowed to consult it during the auction?

I think that you are a little biased by the fact that for you it is common to defend against multi 2♦.

 

But think of it like this: You are going to play In a tournament next month. One of the pairs is using the Pluri Scrapheap convention. This convention is only allowed in certain tournaments because it is destructive and complicated to defend against. You get the booklet with approved defenses and you see that those defenses do not really fit your philosophy in dealing with destructive conventions. So, you invest some time and come up with something that suits you better. You memorize everything and... it turns out that the Pluri Scrapheap pair sits out when you play against them (they have a six member team).

 

Now imagine that you are going to a tournament where there are 12 pairs playing something funny. It is still doable to prepare written defenses, but memorizing them is a different thing. That is why you are allowed to consult your own written defense.

 

The same is true at WBF events: You can consult your own defense to Brown Sticker Conventions and Multi 2♦ (which is not Brown Sticker, but is treated as if it were one, except for the fact that you are allowed to play it when BSCs are barred).

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Does "provide it to the opponents" mean that I have to have my defence to a Multi written down? That also seems unreasonable, since the ACBL convention card doesn't provide anywhere to write it.

You download it from the web and provide it on a separate sheet. At least this is legible unlike the early days.

[bluejak]

"without restriction" gives the RA complete powers in this matter.

The sentence from which you quoted this gives the RA complete powers with respect to allowing or disallowing a special partnership understanding. It does not give the RA any powers with respect to allowing communcation between the partners.

So it doesn't. But it allows the RA to allow a convention to be played with regulations it makes up, which may include the right to choose a defence for the partnership after the auction has started.

 

"allow conditionally" says the RA can apply conditions, for example allowing a player to choose the defence for the partnership after the auction has started.

To allow something conditionally is to allow it provided that some other conditions are met. The RA cannot say "you may play a Multi only if you allow the opponents to communicate during the auction", because the Multi-openers do not have the authority to give such permission.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We have the old problem of Laws that are inconsistent. But if the player is allowed to choose for the partnership, why should such a choice, binding on partner though it is, not be known to partner?

 

"... regulate its use" allows the RA to make rules about these supplementary sheets, for example choosing to use them or not, and make the decisions for the partnership after the auction has started.

Perhaps, but making a decision is not the same as communciating a decision.

Very true. But once a partnership has made a decision it should know it.

[bluejak]

That seems odd, (and Hello D!) They don't have to know my defence to Flannery, or have access to it, or my defence to a strong Club; provided I can give full disclosure when it happens. What makes mid-chart conventions different?

 

I would understand that if I do have a defence, I am allowed to have it in writing and consult it at the table, and barring the opponents from reading it would be unusual in the extreme. But if J and I play Dixon, and know it well because we've spent the last 4 months playing in England and using it every week, why should we have to have it available to the opponents any more than "Dixon defence to Multi" on the CC (same as Guoba Rescues after 1NT-X)?

Putting "Guoba rescues after 1NT -X" on the SC is inadequate disclosure in the ACBL, since it is the name of a convention. Same thus for Dixon.

 

It is a delicate area, but it is difficult to see the justification for opponents not having full access to your defences to various things. The problem is that it may be impractical.