Declining the multi defense

[bluejak]

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.

This is interesting. Whether or not it is legal for people to choose their defences after the auction starts, at least this seems to suggest it is not permitted.

 

Where can I see this written please?

[mycroft]

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.

Actually, on the system card it's just fine - after all, you can just check off Drury, et al. Of course, after 1NT-X-p!, when they ask, you can't just say "Guoba". And, of course, yes, if they ask for "all options partner has", you have to be able to rattle them off (and I bet much fewer than half the players think opponents are allowed to know, never mind know that it's required. It's only been 20 years...)

 

Unfortunately, with the card as it is, there isn't enough room to do anything but put on names of conventions for the battery of weird stuff one plays (I admit, I have tweaked the card for my Precision partnership to put in all our responses to 1C-P, but if I hadn't, there wouldn't be enough room for anything else).

[ddrankin]

This is interesting. Whether or not it is legal for people to choose their defences after the auction starts, at least this seems to suggest it is not permitted.

 

Where can I see this written please?

If you mean the part I quoted, the codification section of the ACBL web site <http://www.acbl.org/about/codification.html> Chapter 12, section A has the text. I am still searching for the notice from management to which I referred.

[bluejak]

I cannot find it. Please confirm where it is.

[ddrankin]

I cannot find it. Please confirm where it is.

If you cut and paste that URL into your browser, you should get the index for the ACBL Codification. Then scroll down to Chapter 12, section A and select it. Towards the end of that section is the text I quoted.

 

Or you can go to ACBL.org and search for "codification conditions of contest", and you should get this page located.

[blackshoe]

hm. This is what you quoted, I think:

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 went to the link you provided, downloaded the Chapter 12, Section A pdf, and searched it for that text. It ain't there. Then I looked at Chapter 14, Section A (Conditions of Contest). It ain't there either. Of course, the full text of the various CoC isn't there either. There is a statement that "the 2011 Conditions of Contest are approved". So then I went to the "Charts, Rules and Regulations" page, downloaded the "general conditions of contest for all events" and looked in there. It ain't in that one either.

 

The first pdf (Chapter 12, Section A) makes at least one reference to the 1997 laws. One thing seems clear: the ACBL needs to clean up their site, and not have stuff that is no longer applicable mixed in with stuff that is. The former should rather be put somewhere and clearly marked "historical" or some such. Either that, or get it off the site altogether — but I get the impression the ACBL doesn't want to do that. :blink:

 

I would add that without an explanation of what the numbers in the "codification" pdfs ((913-124) (963-171)) mean, they're pretty much useless. I know they have something to do with minutes of BoD meetings, or perhaps agenda items, but I have no idea how they correlate to meeting dates or what have you.

 

tl;dr: the Codification book is a mess.

[ddrankin]

hm. This is what you quoted, I think:

 

I went to the link you provided, downloaded the Chapter 12, Section A pdf, and searched it for that text. It ain't there. Then I looked at Chapter 14, Section A (Conditions of Contest). It ain't there either. Of course, the full text of the various CoC isn't there either. There is a statement that "the 2011 Conditions of Contest are approved". So then I went to the "Charts, Rules and Regulations" page, downloaded the "general conditions of contest for all events" and looked in there. It ain't in that one either.

 

The first pdf (Chapter 12, Section A) makes at least one reference to the 1997 laws. One thing seems clear: the ACBL needs to clean up their site, and not have stuff that is no longer applicable mixed in with stuff that is. The former should rather be put somewhere and clearly marked "historical" or some such. Either that, or get it off the site altogether — but I get the impression the ACBL doesn't want to do that. :blink:

 

I would add that without an explanation of what the numbers in the "codification" pdfs ((913-124) (963-171)) mean, they're pretty much useless. I know they have something to do with minutes of BoD meetings, or perhaps agenda items, but I have no idea how they correlate to meeting dates or what have you.

Here is the link: Codification

 

The text is at the bottom of page 4, continuing to page 5.

[blackshoe]

Ah! That section lists the ACBL's elections wrt the 1997 laws. It is therefore obsolete. However, reference to the ACBL version of the 2008 (what the rest of the world calls the 2007) laws shows that the same statement is listed as an election wrt law 40B2{a} of the current laws (bottom of page 136, continuing to 137). Oh, there is one difference: where in the old (1997) version was used "conventional calls" it now says "special understandings". So, just to be clear, the current law in the ACBL says

At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review its opponents’ convention card and alter its defenses against the opponents’ special understandings and preemptive bids. This must be announced to its opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these defensive alterations.

Also, at the top of page 137 of the law book is the election wrt Law 40B2{b}, which says

Defenses to methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-chart and/or Superchart may be referred to by any player whenever it would be appropriate to refer to an opponent’s convention card.

 

I confess I've forgotten why we were talking about this. :D

[bluejak]

If you cut and paste that URL into your browser, you should get the index for the ACBL Codification.

I did that.

 

Then scroll down to Chapter 12, section A and select it. Towards the end of that section is the text I quoted.

I did that.

 

But I could not find it.

 

The text is at the bottom of page 4, continuing to page 5.

Now that is helpful. Thanks.

[Vampyr]

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).

Well, this is what I would have to do (with the exception of having the booklet to refer to), since I don't live in a jurisdiction where written defenses are permitted. I don't think it is that big a deal. I have to be able to defend against a lot more than the Mid-Chart users already, and it's not really as onerous as the ACBL seem to think. And in any case, highly destructive methods are not permitted on the Mid-Chart.

 

The Mid-Chart is surprising in that there are a lot of pretty basic things on it -- written defense to Lucas Twos?!?! There are also a lot of pretty basic things that aren't allowed -- apparently only the minors are permitted to be opened Multi-style, for example. (It is legal to ban the psyching of artificial opening bids and responses -- but is it reasonable, and can they possibly mean ALL artificial opening bids?) Anyway the ACBL has a duty to please its members, and if they prefer their extremely restrictive system regulations, it's not my business even if I am an ABCL member, since I rarely play in the US.

 

On the other hand, I think that a lot of us in this thread are very uncomfortable with the idea of written defenses that you can consult. I find it astounding that this is actually legal (though I don't wonder how it got to be that way!).

[suprgrover]

One thing seems clear: the ACBL needs to clean up their site, and not have stuff that is no longer applicable mixed in with stuff that is. The former should rather be put somewhere and clearly marked "historical" or some such. Either that, or get it off the site altogether — but I get the impression the ACBL doesn't want to do that. :blink:

 

I pointed out over two years ago to the ACBL Webmaster that the very helpful HTML-formatted laws were the 1997 laws and ought to be replaced or at least relegated. The reply informed me that the ACBL had no intention of replacing them. They're still there, and they still have a very high Google search ranking.

[mrdct]

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.

You have to give full disclosure about your system, including defences to conventions and other treatments, whenever your opponents want and in many case before they even ask and well before it actually comes up. If your defence to strong club is something about which your opponents might need to discuss the implications (such as twerb) you would be cheating if you didn't pre-alert. Yes - cheating.

[Vampyr]

If your defence to strong club is something about which your opponents might need to discuss the implications (such as twerb) you would be cheating if you didn't pre-alert. Yes - cheating.

Is this in the ACBL? Is there really all this pre-alerting going on? Is there time to play cards?

[blackshoe]

ACBL avoids many problems with pre-alerts by simply not having many games in which the Mid-chart is allowed. It varies by region, of course, but I'd have to go pretty far from here to find a game where Mid-chart can be played. Of course, there may be some situations where even under the GCC a pre-alert would be required, but that's pretty rare too. I did have one club owner here tell me I could play Dynamic Notrump (a GCC legal convention) if I treated it as mid-chart (pre-alert and provide a written defense). Another club director told me I couldn't play it at all — and that in the middle of a session, after my partner and I had actually been playing it for about three months (it rarely came up).

[blackshoe]

ACBL avoids many problems with pre-alerts by simply not having many games in which the Mid-chart is allowed. It varies by region, of course, but I'd have to go pretty far from here to find a game where Mid-chart can be played. Of course, there may be some situations where even under the GCC a pre-alert would be required, but that's pretty rare too. I did have one club owner here tell me I could play Dynamic Notrump (a GCC legal convention) if I treated it as mid-chart (pre-alert and provide a written defense). Another club director told me I couldn't play it at all — and that in the middle of a session, after my partner and I had actually been playing it for about three months (it rarely came up).

 

As for time to play cards, I find it amusing to recall that when I first started playing here, one of our local directors used to vociferously complain about slow players - when she allowed players the "standard" 7.5 minutes per board. Now that we have a round timer, and in an effort to cram more boards into a three hour session, she's allowing somewhere between 6 and 6.5 minutes per board, and still complaining about slow players. Still, we manage to get through the day. :ph34r:

[mycroft]

In the ACBL:

 

1) PreAlerts are required for four classes of calls: non-GCC conventions, "Two-System" methods (explicitly not including variable NT ranges - we're talking "2/1 when you're NV, Precision when you are", or "K/S in 1 and 2, sound opening 2/1 in 3/4"), Very Light openings or preempts (VLP going away soon, replaced by Alert at time of call), and "systems fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents" (i.e. canape, strong diamond, truly unfamiliar stuff). There is also one PreAlertable defensive agreement; leading small from xx.

 

2) Defences are explicitly Not Required for GCC-legal conventions. If the system or convention is fundamentally unfamiliar, then the PreAlert will allow the opponents to discuss a defence; but even then a defence need not be provided.

 

Having played a strong Club in the ACBL for years, I can guarantee that any legal defence to strong 1C is not considered "fundamentally unfamiliar" and does not require a PreAlert (hard to do so, anyway, after all, as the Strong Club is itself not PreAlertable). There's a reason my "defence to defences" notes are almost as long as my "first round responses" notes after 1C.

 

mrdct, you are correct that if they fail to PreAlert something PreAlertable, and as a result we are not allowed to create/use a defence, then they're cheating. You are not correct, however, at least in the ACBL, about what classifies as PreAlertable, nor about what is considered "you should know your defence to this."

[blackshoe]

I would define cheating as "deliberately violating the rules in search of an advantage". By that definition, it's not cheating if they're not aware they're supposed to pre-alert.

 

I wonder if Romex is pre-alertable. It's certainly GCC legal, and

Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table.

OTOH, the only one I've seen play Romex around here is me - with a partner who is no longer with us.

 

Of course, given clubs can do what they like, we have two (so far as I know) rules here wrt Romex: one club flat out bans it, another requires the Dynamic NT opening to be treated as if it were a mid-chart convention, pre-alerted and a defense provided. Neither, of course, follows the ACBL regulations.