Non-Natural Systems

[32519]

How does a person determine the level of acceptance for any new system/gadget designed?

 

Enter what I hear referred to as the “Secret Bridge Olympics.” Apparently the “Secret Bridge Olympics” takes place once every four years. The last one took place in France in November 2009. New inventions/gadgets etc get tested by experts. Participation in the “Secret Bridge Olympics” is upon invite only. All people who are invited must have some form of material to be published and willing to share it with those present. All new systems/gadgets etc are then put through the test and if accepted, get published and a name is then giving to the system/gadget. This is where Michael’s, Splinters, Smolen, Staymen etc were tested and accepted.

 

Your contribution (new system/gadget etc) must be handed in on the first day on arrival. Then commences a 3 day tournament played with pre-dealt hands which meet the requirements of each new system/gadget that was submitted. Usually around 250 boards are dealt. New systems/gadget notes are handed out to each player and every time a player chooses to use one of the new systems/gadgets a note is made and the player then rates the system/gadget on a scale of 1 to 3 –

1 = no good, scrap, dump

2 = may work but needs more thought

3 = system/gadget works, no need to make any changes

The more points your new system/gadget receives from the invitees to the tournament, naturally the better.

 

Upon arrival the new system/gadget notes must already be translated into in 4 different languages. It saves translation time during the event. Languages of preference = English, German, Chinese, Turkish, Italian, Polish and Spanish in that order.

 

The problem however is receiving an invitation to this tournament. Can anybody supply more detail? These BBO forums are crammed with some fantastic ideas. One of the posters here may quite easily be sitting on the next best seller.

 

CC Wei’s Precision only rocketed to stardom after his team’s phenomenal success at the 1969 16th World Team Championships (Bermuda Bowl). They ended 2nd. Two years later they again made it to the last four. Precision’s popularity grew when the famous Italian Blue Team started developing their own version of Precision.

 

A lot of money can be made from books/royalties if your unique system/gadget gains enough acceptance amongst other players. The problem however facing most system/gadget designers is being able to showcase your invention before the world’s best players.

 

Polish Club by Krzysztof Jassem is another good example of a system which found sufficient support for the designer to publish an updated version roughly every 5 years. We had WJ2000, then WJ2005, and now WJ2010 (Polish: Wspólny Język, literally "Common Language"). WJ2010 is apparently not available in English. Jassem has no plans to translate it as insufficient interest was shown for WJ2005. These forums had a thread on it http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/41287-wj-2010/

[hrothgar]

 

CC Wei’s Precision only rocketed to stardom after his team’s phenomenal success at the 1969 16th World Team Championships (Bermuda Bowl). They ended 2nd. Two years later they again made it to the last four. Precision’s popularity grew when the famous Italian Blue Team started developing their own version of Precision.

 

A lot of money can be made from books/royalties if your unique system/gadget gains enough acceptance amongst other players. The problem however facing most system/gadget designers is being able to showcase your invention before the world’s best players.

 

 

CC Wei started with a lot of money

He used this money to bribe good players to adopt his preferred methods (including members of the Blue Team)

 

George Rosenkranz started with a lot of money

He used to this money to bribe good players to adopt his preferred methods

 

There are plenty of reasons to write bridge books...

I'd be surprised if making "a lot of money" is one of them.

[the hog]

Very few people make money from writing Bridge books. Secret Olympics? What a load of crap!

[Siegmund]

When I first started playing a homegrown Polish Club variant in 1996, I used to go through the hand records after every session I played at a regional and identify hands where I got a different result than I would have playing standard. I concluded the system change was worth about 2% per session.

 

I freely admit that I could probably have achieved a similar benefit by tuning my standard methods. (I didn't feel like I LOST 2% per session when I went back to standard a few years later) But I've always had a fondness for system development, and it was an interesting and fun path to improving my bidding, even if it wasn't the most direct path. As hrothgar said, thinking is better for your game than memorizing rules is. A lot of thinking goes into making up and testing new toys.

 

When I experiment with new system ideas now, it is only rarely to solve a sticky bidding situation (most all the common problems I have had a favorite solution to for years) and is much more often a hobby.

[Vampyr]

How does a person determine the level of acceptance for any new system/gadget designed?

 

Enter what I hear referred to as the “Secret Bridge Olympics.” Apparently the “Secret Bridge Olympics” takes place once every four years. The last one took place in France in November 2009. New inventions/gadgets etc get tested by experts. Participation in the “Secret Bridge Olympics” is upon invite only. All people who are invited must have some form of material to be published and willing to share it with those present. All new systems/gadgets etc are then put through the test and if accepted, get published and a name is then giving to the system/gadget. This is where Michael’s, Splinters, Smolen, Staymen etc were tested and accepted.

 

Love it!

[fred]

Contrary to some of the opinions expressed in this thread, the actual fact of the matter is that a clear majority of full time high-level bridge pros in the USA play most or all of their sessions with other pros (and not with "weak clients") as their partners.

 

I am a typical example - whenever I play professionally (rare these days) my partner is always another professional player.

 

Most of the full time pros who are good enough to represent the USA in World Championships play most of their professional bridge in ACBL Regional tournaments. The vast majority of sessions they tend to play in these tournaments are in team events where the typical professional team consists of one sponsor and anywhere between three and five pros. On such teams with four pros, the pro who plays with the sponsor will also play with another pro half the time.

 

Even for pros who play only or primarily with sponsors, I feel strongly that it is wrong to discount this experience as essentially worthless (as some posters seem to be implying) for several reasons:

 

1) Many sponsors are reasonable players. Some are excellent players.

 

2) Some of the pros who play with sponsors in minor events also play with sponsors in events like the USA Team Trials (and the World Championships if they qualify).

 

3) (Most important) Playing bridge full time, regardless of who your partner happens to be, is massively beneficial to your game in my view. Young players may not appreciate this so much, but my experience strongly suggests that the older you get the harder it is to stay sharp and play your best, especially if you go for long periods of time between tournaments.

 

Probably from the above it is obvious that I agree with those who offered the opinion that the prevalence of opportunities for top players to play professionally in the USA is indeed one of the main reasons why the USA has a long history of success in international bridge.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

I couldn't care less about this discussion, but...

2. The US has a much deeper pool of talent than any other country. In any given decade, Norway or where ever will have a "Helgemo", however, the US is able to fields teams with multiple players with similar talent

...I can't let this one go. There is only one Helgemo.

[Gerben42]

So on the question of "what do you gain from your non-natural system?" I would like to change the question to non-standard system. Fantunes IS a natural system, although completely different from standard style as the forcing 2-level opening bid is missing.

 

What do I hope to gain from this?

 

* 2-level openings are a bit unsound but lets opponents guess more than we do

* 1-level opening bids are more sound than standard, so lets us guess less than the field

 

And the same is true for gadgets like multi reverse bids, they are there to solve problems that natural pairs have.

[JLOGIC]

I only skimmed but the reason I don't play multi is that I think it is a bad convention. I think multi is allowed in flight A regional KOs which is where I play most of my bridge. Maybe that changed, but it was for a long time at least. As Fred says, I play most of my bridge with other pros against very strong competition (check out the rosters of any Florida or New York or mid atlantic regional if you want to know).

 

Another reason is that I almost always play precision. I spent a few years playing 2H as a precision 2D opener, and 2D as multi though (precision 2H is much worse though than precision 2D if you include (34)15s as I like to).

 

I think most conventions that people complain are barred in USA are not actually barred in bracket 1 KO competitions so there is definitely a disconnect in how I feel system regulations are compared to an average player who has few masterpoints and can't play in those events.

 

Nothing tilted me more when playing multi than having my opps overcall 2H over my multi 2D when I had a 2S opener lol.

[JLOGIC]

 

Probably from the above it is obvious that I agree with those who offered the opinion that the prevalence of opportunities for top players to play professionally in the USA is indeed one of the main reasons why the USA has a long history of success in international bridge.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

Of course. Playing all the time is a key element to being one of the best players in the world. A key element to being able to play all the time is to be able to support yourself by playing. There are far more opportunities for this in america, even for most foreigners.

[RunemPard]

Irregular systems tend to help out more when finding that hard to reach game bid or that hidden slam. Of course any natural system can find a 27 point 8 card spades fit for 4S=. But, many using that very same system may have trouble finding a great 23 point 8 card spades fit that goes for 4S+1.

 

The point of most irregular bids is to find the things that others cannot while at the same time not disturbing your own bidding. Many times these systems may turn around and bite you, but, with practice using these bids it becomes just as easy as 1H->3H.

 

I play bridge to have fun. One of the things I enjoy doing is trying new systems/bids. I also can play rather well.

[Vampyr]

I think most conventions that people complain are barred in USA are not actually barred in bracket 1 KO competitions so there is definitely a disconnect in how I feel system regulations are compared to an average player who has few masterpoints and can't play in those events.

 

 

Can't one insist on the top bracket?

[JLOGIC]

Can't one insist on the top bracket?

 

People talk about this, but I don't see how it'd work. To insist on the top bracket, you would kick someone else out of the top bracket (depending on how many teams there are, but obviously there can't be an odd number of teams and it has to be able to work in the amount of sessions allotted). On top of that, if a very bad team wants to play in the top bracket, it would make the top bracket weaker, and even though it might make the team playing up happy, it might make the other teams who want to play against top flight competition unhappy. It would also make the event less fair as drawing that team would be like getting a bye, making it much easier for some teams to win than others.

 

I have seen instances of people playing up but they were always known good players with few masterpoints, and it was perhaps somewhat of a correction of the unfairness of those teams being in a low bracket despite being very good (for foreign players they are given enough MP to play the top bracket when they come over, but for rubber bridge players or young players from USA/canada this doesn't happen, so playing up is the only option). It also was made possible by the amount of teams entered into the event, and how close the bottom team in bracket 1 was to bracket 2. I don't think it's as simple as anyone can just ask to play up and be accommodated for a knockout.

[mycroft]

The regulation is that people can *ask* to move up to the top bracket (only), and *if feasible*, *in the TD's judgement*, it'll happen. I think that's odd - I think we should be able to ask for a higher bracket (any higher bracket), and then if possible, the TD will do whatever.

 

I think it's a little silly that my "highly underrated team" (and I've been on a few) either gets to play in Bracket 7 of 9 (which is an "if we don't win each match by 40+, we played horribly") or Bracket 1 (where we have no hope, and are effectively a "paid bye" for the one team lucky enough to catch us). We're a bracket 4 team; shouldn't we be allowed to move up at least a couple of brackets without going all the way to 1 (which isn't fair, so they won't)?

 

I do realize that working those things out for 150 teams is a nightmare :-).

 

I do also realize that our current Mid-Chart default rule (allowed in any bracket where the designator is 1000+ points) effectively means that "if you want to play a mid-chart *system*, rather than just the odd bolt-ons (i.e. say I want to play transfers after 1♣), either you're a pro, or you have no idea whether you'll be allowed to play it in *this* event, so better be able to switch on the fly". I have no idea what to do about that either.

[gnasher]

I do also realize that our current Mid-Chart default rule (allowed in any bracket where the designator is 1000+ points) effectively means that "if you want to play a mid-chart *system*, rather than just the odd bolt-ons (i.e. say I want to play transfers after 1♣), either you're a pro, or you have no idea whether you'll be allowed to play it in *this* event, so better be able to switch on the fly". I have no idea what to do about that either.

Run a mid-chart knockout and a muppetgeneral-chart knockout in parallel. The brackets might be wider, but I expect everyone would find the company more to their liking.

[Vampyr]

Run a mid-chart knockout and a muppetgeneral-chart knockout in parallel. The brackets might be wider, but I expect everyone would find the company more to their liking.

 

That seems like a good idea.

 

Once my partner and I were visiting in New Jersey, and went to a New York regional for the day. The following day was a bracketed event, and we found some teammates, but I was ill and couldn't go. Anyway, it was something I had been thinking about for a long time -- the top bracket was open to all. Perhaps the format for this bracket would have to be changed. Maybe the top bracket would have to be broken into sections, or maybe a Swiss or multiple teams could be played and then the top bracket could be broken up according to performance.

 

Of course, for people who want masterpoints (I assume that all brackets get the same amount), playing in lower brackets is attractive. But for others, myself included, travelling to an event and finding I couldn't play in the top flight would be totally unacceptable.

[JLOGIC]

Vampyr, I am pretty sure the event you are talking about was a bracketed swiss/round robin (the NY regional runs this event). In that event, anyone can enter the top bracket and its run as a swiss, while the lower brackets are run as a round robin. I agree that this is a good event. In knockouts I still think it would be impossible without changes like the ones suggested here.

[JLOGIC]

Amusing side note, I was in Orlando for a regional recently and they ran a bracketed round robin where the top bracket was NOT open to everyone. I was surprised to see I was assigned bracket 2 on a team with 3 people who were grand life masters/had more masterpoints than me four handed. Eventually they let a team that reported the same masterpoints as us play in bracket 2 and us in bracket 1...but the other team contained Gavin Wolpert and 2 young polish stars who are on their open team lol. Tough tournament.

[JmBrPotter]

The BBO Forums are littered with all sorts of systems. Some deal with improvements on existing already widely recognised systems. Others deal with the development of new systems. The Non-Natural System Forum in particular is crammed with all sorts of interesting ideas for building new systems around. However at the end of the day, how much of your results at the table can be ascribed to the system you are playing?

 

Consider the following –

1.) In top flight tournaments you have to provide your opponents with a copy of your CC. They normally are given sufficient time to study it before the commencement of the actual match itself.

2.) Top flight players inevitably have agreements on how to deal with strange systems or they are able to reach agreement quickly after studying their opponents CC’s.

3.) During play all artificial bids still need to be alerted. So how much was the gain for using a fancy system? Inevitably a huge amount of effort was dispensed in developing a new system.

4.) There was a thread recently where the majority seemed to agree that good declarer play and good defensive play will ensure above average results in any tournament.

5.) Bidding wasn’t regarded as important as point 4 above.

6.) Many controlling bodies e.g. ACBL outlaw many of these fancy systems anyway.

 

Which brings me back to this threads primary question: How much did you gain from developing your own unique Non-Natural System?

 

Bill Gregg (in Michigan) and I have taken the system outlined below to BBO and five ACBL regional tournaments (4 times the New Years Regional alternating between Charleston, SC and Myrtle Beach, SC). It conforms to the ACBL GCC. Much of it needs alerting, but none of it is so off the wall that it will shock experienced opponents. Thus, I concede your points #1 and #2. You do not even need "top flight" opponents for you to be correct on these points. Most players in the class with ACBL Silver Lifemasters or better can handle nearly anything a system compliant with the ACBL GCC could throw at them. If the system design considers regulatory authority, point #6 is moot.

 

#3: Opening hands (especially, preemptively) that were passed at the other table(s) will present your opponents with challenges others in their seat do not face. If you can do so without facing excess risks, this can work in your favor by forcing opponents to make decisions others with their cards did not face. Each unusual decision is an opportunity to make a mistake. Even very strong pairs will sometimes stumble.

 

#4: Better defense—especially, partnership defense—always tells, no doubt. Better declarer play also tells, but usually less so. Bidding an unusual system designed to steal hands may sometimes dull those advantages. If I'm declaring 1NT undoubled on a hand where my opponents have a vulnerable game, I really do not care if they put me down four or five rather than only the two or three tricks by which my partner and I may have defeated them if we switched seats after the auction. Since our teammates got to open rather than deciding what to do over my 10-14 HCP 1NT opening (or weak 2♣ opening), we'll come out even or ahead more often than not.

 

#5: This is surely true when bidding methods are similar and you are talking about ability to bid sound yet difficult to bid games and slams (while being better at avoiding unsound ones). With unusual systems, very light openings and increased preemption create obstructions that may have opponents defending when they SHOULD be declaring (or declaring the wrong contract when they SHOULD have swung the ax before defending). Every "in your face" auction forces unusual choices absent from the other table(s). Pairs CAN win hands in the auction. Systems that threaten to win hands in the auction by stealing (or just bidding to the limit, quickly) put intense pressure on the opponents. Pressured opponents facing unusual decisions on limited information are more likely to choose a sensible (but wrong) option than similarly capable players operating inside their comfort zones.

 

Remember how effective Bergen-Cohen were just by opening lighter, preempting more, and applying fast arrival more extremely than most of their opponents? A system DESIGNED to create MORE "in you face" auctions exploits those same advantages to an even greater extent.

 

Here's an example of an unusual GCC compliant bidding system that achieves the above competitive advantages while retaining effective constructive bidding. The natural 10-14 HCP 1NT opening is particularly frequent AND particularly difficult to defend. The weak 2♣ opening is similarly difficult—much more difficult to bid over than "Pass". Opponents should probably compete aggressively over both the 1♣ (especially) and 1♦ openings. Both are near their bottom limits MUCH more often that they are strong. Yet, entering a live auction over 1♣ (alerted as 11-37 HCP, Conventional, Forcing for one round, likely to be a minimum range minor suit one-suiter [suit unknown] or a major-minor two-suiter with greater length in the major [both suits unknown]) does not give most folks a warm, fuzzy feeling without good shape and useful tickets. On the other hand, passing may thrust your partner into the balancing seat at the two level unaware that YOU hold a 13 count with 4-card support for his 5-card suit. I'm glad that most (OK, all) of my opponents do not bid like Bill and I do.

 

MoTown Minors System Sketch:

 

- 1NT opening: 10-14 HCP balanced

- 1♣ openings: Conv., 1RF, 11+ HCP, 19+ HCP if balanced

- 1♦ openings: Conv., 1RF, 15+ HCP, 15+ HCP if balanced

- 1♥ & 1♠ openings:11-20- HCP 4-card suit, one-suited or two-suited

- 2-suit openings: 5-11 HCP 5-6 card suit, one-suited or two-suited

- 2NT opening: 11-15 HCP, minor suit two-suited

- 3NT opening: solid 7-card suit, no side suit entry

- 3♣-5♦ natural suit openings preemptive

- Other openings: special case slam tries

- All 3-suited hands open either . . .

. 1♣ (11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 HCP) or . . .

. 1♦ (15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 HCP)

. Sort them out from each other and the big balanced hands in the rebidding

- Notrump ranges are . . .

. 10-14 (open 1NT)

. 15-18 (open 1♦ and rebid 1NT)

. 19-22 (open 1♣ and rebid 1NT)

.. Same systems on over all three 1NT bids

. 23-24 (open 1♦ and rebid 2NT)

. 25-26 (open 1♣ and rebid 2NT)

. 27-28 (open 1♦, first rebid 2C [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT)

. 29-37 (open 1♣, first rebid 1S [nominally 3-suited], and second rebid 2NT)

.. Same systems on over all four 2NT rebids

.. Opener may make "impossible" responses to Stayman or Jacoby with 31+HCP

 

Problems encountered:

- 1♣ opening vulnerable to preemption when responder has about 8-12 HCP

- 1♦ opening vulnerable to preemption . . . about 4-8 HCP

- 11-14 HCP 3-suiters often preempted before opener's 1S "3 suits" rebid

- 1♦ openings on 15-18 HCP balanced sometimes get preempted before the 1NT rebid

- We sometimes reach good contracts I do not make because I too often don't count

- Doubling 3-level preemption over 1♣ or 1♦ can create big (+ or –) IMP swings

 

Successes:

- The 10-14 HCP 1NT opening is difficult to defend

. Defenders need to be in the auction against frequent 10-11 HCP openings

. Defenders should respect 13-14 HCP openings

. 12 HCP openings may fall into either of the above camps

.. By the time defenders know what's happening, we've found a spot or . . .

. . defenders have entered the auction and they (one or more of) . . .

. .. are unsure how high to go when they own the hand

. .. have rescued a 10 HCP opener while concealing its weakness

. .. have stepped into a trap when responder is almost invitational

. . defenders have clobbered 1NT undoubled and missed their game

. . we've slipped into two of a suit (down a trick or two) versus . . .

. .. the defenders' missed game . . . or . . .

. .. the defenders' partscore that would score better

. .. defenders play game making slam

. .. defenders bid past a sound game seeking slam and go down

. .. defenders wrong side a contract and make one less

. .. defenders find their spot and there's a par result

- The weak 2♣ opening often creates favorable swings in team matches

. Especially effective with 5 clubs and 4 cards in a major suit

- Showing 18-22 HCP balanced hands with 1NT helps invitational range responders

- Showing all 23+ balanced hands at the 2-level is an advantage in slam auctions

- 1♥ or 1♠ openings with a primary suit elsewhere can yield big swings

. Opener plans a canapé rebid into the primary suit

. There is a misfit

. A defender overcalls 1♥ or 1♠ with two (or more) of opener's primary suit

. Opener converts responder's positive double to penalty

. It gets worse for the opponents if they try to run

- Three-suited hands do not clutter and complicate other bidding sequences

 

We play test on BBO, but usually in ACBL Speedball tournaments to get reliable opponents.

 

We want steady play test opponents. Our BBO IDs are JmBrPotter (me) and WGregg (Bill Gregg). We're on US Eastern Time (same as Atlanta, DC, New York and Totonto). Contact me via e-mail to "ClioBridgeGuy>at<att>dot<net" for a system book copy or to arrange BBO matches.

[JmBrPotter]

The regulation is that people can *ask* to move up to the top bracket (only), and *if feasible*, *in the TD's judgement*, it'll happen. I think that's odd - I think we should be able to ask for a higher bracket (any higher bracket), and then if possible, the TD will do whatever.

 

I think it's a little silly that my "highly underrated team" (and I've been on a few) either gets to play in Bracket 7 of 9 (which is an "if we don't win each match by 40+, we played horribly") or Bracket 1 (where we have no hope, and are effectively a "paid bye" for the one team lucky enough to catch us). We're a bracket 4 team; shouldn't we be allowed to move up at least a couple of brackets without going all the way to 1 (which isn't fair, so they won't)?

 

. . .

 

 

In most bracketed KOs your team can "play up" a bracket or two by simply overstating your combined masterpoint holdings. As long as the overstatement is not so bold as to put you in a class where "everyone knows your name" (but the TDs don't), the bracket assignments will get made based on the reported (rather then actual) masterpoint holdings. Checking for underreported masterpoint holdings happens during the first round matches and teams who underreport get disqualified during the first round.

 

A team I was on "won" a first round match this way because our opponents made an addition mistake underreporting their masterpoints by a hundred plus some players' forgotten recent winnings. The difference of a couple of hundred or so WOULD have moved them from the "strongest team" in our bracket to the "weakest team" one bracket up. We'd played about three boards at each table when a TD informed the opposing captain that they were disqualified. It was unpleasant for all concerned. The TD had to deliver the bad news, the other team had to leave, and we did not get to play cards.

 

For apparently accidental underreports like this one, it might be better to handicap the team that underreported. Add, for example, the square root of the amount of the underreport to the opposing team's IMP total. Then, double the handicap for each successive round. Thus, a team that underreported by 25MP would have to win its first match by more than 5IMPs, second by more than 10, third by more than 20 and fourth by more than 40IMPs. A team that made a possibly deliberate underreport of 1600MP would face a more difficult challenge. They'd need to win the first match by more than 40IMPs, the second by more than 80, the third by more than 160, and the final by more than 320IMPs. In each case, the team that underreported its masterpoint holdings faces a steep uphill climb to even advance in the event, much less win it. Small (probably accidental) underreports yield a significant (but potentially surmountable) advantage to the opponents. Large (thus, potentially fraudulent) underreports yield a very large (probably insurmountable) advantage to the opponents. Perhaps, a handicap should be a smaller number but on an IMPs per board basis so as to be independent of match length.

 

When I'm the team captain, I round all team member's masterpoints up by about a typical month's winnings and then bump the team total up to the nearest round hundred or so. This assures that we will not get disqualified for underreporting our masterpoints and sometimes we play up a bracket. Since we'd rather be the "weakest team" in a higher bracket than the "strongest team" in a lower bracket, his works fine for us.

 

A team captain who grossly overstated the team's masterpoint holdings for a team that gets blitzed in its first match might earn a discussion with a TD about reasons for honestly reporting the team's masterpoints. However, if the team performs well enough to demonstrate that it "belongs" in the bracket, I cannot imagine why a TD would care about the misrepresentation.

[Scarabin]

[Scarabin]

When I was young there was a saying "bid to win and play for fun". It was probably never true and arose because the Italian bidding systems won them far more than their fair share of world championships. I seem to remember also that when Reese's Little Major was first introduced England won the European Championship without losing a match and with a record number of victory points. When the Dallas Aces won back the World Championship they had adopted pretty artificial bidding systems. It may be that any system which makes limited bids at the earliest possible stage has the potential to be a winner? Here's a thought, could the way bidding and play is taught be a factor: most bidding books implicitly promise that if you study the system you will be a winner; a lot of books on play manage to convey that of course you'll never be able to play properly but their book will dispel some of your appalling ignorance? I exaggerate of course and there are many exceptions.

[mgoetze]

I only skimmed but the reason I don't play multi is that I think it is a bad convention.

 

Multi isn't particularily good on it's own, no, the reason to play Multi is simply to free up other opening bids for conventions which actually are good.

[Charlie Yu]

Multi isn't particularily good on it's own, no, the reason to play Multi is simply to free up other opening bids for conventions which actually are good.

And Wilkosz+weak 2M is far superior to Multi+Muiderberg. Which is one of the reasons that I'm frown by reglating authorities. Why I'm not allowed to open my 2-suited weak 2 if I find there is merit doing so?

[Vampyr]

Why I'm not allowed to open my 2-suited weak 2 if I find there is merit doing so?

 

You are allowed. Unless you are in the ACBL; you didn't specify.