[card_judge]

Does not matter if we wanted to pre alert or not. We are precluded from playing 2♦ multi in any GC governed event be it club, sectional, NAP or GNT. So we do not even place it on the convention card nor do we bring it up since we are barred from playing it.

[helene_t]

card_judge, on Sep 28 2005, 08:26 PM, said:

[...] I asked a local club director why we could not play it and his response "because I don't like it and in any club game I direct I will not allow it".  In turn that to me equalled "I don't understand it and do not want to take invest the time to figure out how to defend it."

It is unfortunate that we have politicos with tiny xxxxs and brains.

Exactly. They disallow fertilizer openings for the same reasons.

Where I play (much lower level than most posters here), most players play Multi without really knowing what it is (when are doubles over major suit interference p/c? Few partnerships have discussed this, and several other crucial issues), let alone having any agreements about defense against it. While many top players have abandoned multi mainly because it's too easy to defend against, players at low levels tend to play it because they believe it's difficult to defend against. Which is true, given that most partnership have no agreements about defense against it.

For what it's worth, I think tournament organizers should choose between either allowing everything or allowing "nothing" (in terms of preempts not showing an ancor suit). It's true that multi was popular before (other) BSCs were banned, but since it's not an essential part of any bidding system it would do little harm to ban it.

Given that multi is allowed, it has little merrit to ban BSCs. It's hardly more difficult to make generic agreements about BSC defense than to agree on a specific defense against multi. Besides, there is enough room in the current regulations for diabolic methods (psycho suction against short club, apstro-preempts, apstro-overcalls etc) and the fact that few pairs develop such methods (I've only met apstro-preempts once, it was in a quarter final of national championschips) indicates that a lift of the BSC ban would make little diference.

As for Cappeletti: I agree it's inconsistent to allow Cappeletti and not allowing multi. But responder is in an easier position after his partner opened 1NT. Then again, why not allow Woolsey-over-1NT? But the GCC is based on a positive list rather than a negative list. This implies that there is no "logic" in the GCC regulations, conventions are be allowed or not for historical reasons.

[david_c]

helene_t, on Sep 29 2005, 12:56 PM, said:

As for Cappeletti: I agree it's inconsistent to allow Cappeletti and not allowing multi. But responder is in an easier position after his partner opened 1NT.

That's the point, of course - multi is an opening bid, whereas Capp is a defence to 1NT. Those are two completely different situations, and they require completely different defences, so there is no reason why the regulations should be the same. In fact, here in England, until the rules were changed we were allowed to play multi as an opening bid (at L3) but we weren't allowed multi as a defence to 1NT.

[kenberg]

LH2650, on Sep 28 2005, 07:51 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 28 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

In our unit games (for non-locals: ACBL divides into districts and subdivides into units. Units hold a unit game.) the Multi is allowed.

Do you just hit the unsuspecting with your Multi, or do you follow ACBL regulation, pre-alerting that you play it, giving the opponents copies of the approved defenses, and allowing them several minutes to discuss and choose one?

Neither. I have never used the multi. I may someday, but it is not on my short list. I merely mean that I enjoy playing in a game where being prepared to deal with the Multi is one of the expectations. I also enjoy playing in games (online acbl tourney for example) where I can pick up a pard and hope to be ready to play after brief discussion. Probably we all agree that someone playing in highly advanced settings (late rounds of a national championship, for example) must be prepared to cope with conventions that a club player need not concern himself with. Exactly how to work this out is a matter of dispute, but I am fine with the multi at the unit game level.

Ken

[mikestar]

helene_t, on Sep 29 2005, 11:56 AM, said:

As for Cappeletti: I agree it's inconsistent to allow Cappeletti and not allowing multi. But responder is in an easier position after his partner opened 1NT. Then again, why not allow Woolsey-over-1NT? But the GCC is based on a positive list rather than a negative list. This implies that there is no "logic" in the GCC regulations, conventions are be allowed or not for historical reasons.

Largely true but not quite correct with respect to defenses to 1NT. Here everthing is allowed except for calls hgier than 2C which do not promise a known suit, hence this portions of the GCC is a negative list.

By the way, many tournament organizers stipulate "GCC with any NT defense" in their conditions of contest, which would indicate that not everone is happy with this particular provison of the GCC even among players who are in general OK with the GCC.

[mycroft]

GCC + NT defence = California.
GCC, Midchart for separate Flight A = District 2 and upper NY.
2-session Swisses 7x8 instead of 8x7 - SouthWest USA.

It's a regional thing, as are many things in such a vast place as North America (I remember playing with someone from Ontario, and being grateful that I could bid what I was used to, instead of Western Canada 2/1).

As for "If Multi is allowed, why isn't..." people - that's why nothing like Multi will be allowed in those places. People get one thing that's borderline (to the regulators) and then say, if that's okay, this, this, and this should be okay. And if anything out of that list is allowed, well then...

I am firmly in the "fewer regulations" camp - as a quick search will, I am sure, show. When I ran a club (and it was a University club, so most people were like me if not more so) we were officially ACBL Superchart, but if I didn't hear about it...and I never did. My favourite was still the 4C invitational preempt: it asked LHO what they were doing after the game. Not sure if it was ever used, of course.

But most places where the Multi 2D is allowed, it has been grandfathered in for hysterical raisins; "if it weren't legal, we wouldn't allow it if someone asked to play it now, but since so many people have played it and still play it, we're letting it stay" usually with additional restrictions. And they make this fact very clear - read the WBF exception and the reasoning for it, and the EBU Orange Book's exception and the reasoning for it.

Frankly, there are some things on the ACBL GCC that are equal in idea - the passed-hand "did you psych, partner" query, the mini-Multi 3NT, the "I have a sort of a strong hand, partner" 1NT opener are the ones that come to mind off the top. Comes of moving from a "you can play these conventions by name" to a "you can play anything that fits this description" format - sometimes allowing a convention you used to allow lets in a lot more stuff, sometimes it just grandfathers in an old exemption played by many (or influential) people.

Whatever I may think of the rules and regulations, they do have some sensible people behind them and there are reasons. And trying to use a "we'll be nice because" exemption to kick the regulatory door in just makes them more ornery - and I don't blame them for it.

Me, I don't care what people play, except that forcing pass systems with a fert higher than 1C are fundamentally different - in that even when the opponents get to open, they don't get to use their system. What to do about that is a question I don't plan on answering.

Michael.

[bestguru]

Quote

forcing pass systems with a fert higher than 1C are fundamentally different - in that even when the opponents get to open, they don't get to use their system.

true, unless opps are playing notional club

[LH2650]

kenberg, on Sep 29 2005, 09:54 AM, said:

LH2650, on Sep 28 2005, 07:51 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 28 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

In our unit games (for non-locals: ACBL divides into districts and subdivides into units. Units hold a unit game.) the Multi is allowed.

Do you just hit the unsuspecting with your Multi, or do you follow ACBL regulation, pre-alerting that you play it, giving the opponents copies of the approved defenses, and allowing them several minutes to discuss and choose one?

Neither. I have never used the multi.

Sorry, I was referring to the practices of your Unit, not you personally.

[kenberg]

LH2650, on Sep 30 2005, 02:20 AM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 29 2005, 09:54 AM, said:

LH2650, on Sep 28 2005, 07:51 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 28 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

In our unit games (for non-locals: ACBL divides into districts and subdivides into units. Units hold a unit game.) the Multi is allowed.

Do you just hit the unsuspecting with your Multi, or do you follow ACBL regulation, pre-alerting that you play it, giving the opponents copies of the approved defenses, and allowing them several minutes to discuss and choose one?

Neither. I have never used the multi.

Sorry, I was referring to the practices of your Unit, not you personally.

Speaking of my unit, at this time, I can say that the players who use the multi and/or methods of roughly that exotic level are all highly proper and make every effort not to take any one unawares. I realize that this may not be true in other places or other times, but bringing in some obscure method and saying as little about it as possible is a problem that goes far beyond the multi.

We use the ACBL defense (method 1) to defend the multi. By itself, it is not really adequate in that it only gets you off to, perhaps, the right start but can lead to ambiguous follow-up.

Last night, we encounterd a pair using transfer preempts (3H=spades, 3S= gambling NT). They prealerted, they had prepared and approved defenses, it didn't come up. Again, my guess is that it would be in my best interests to discuss with my partner a defense to this in some quiet setting. I doubt that what they provide is adequate.

This all has to do with level of expectations. When I was fairly new at this game, and before ACBL limited carding agreements, I sat down at a table and the opponents informed me they were playing upside down revolving roman discards. I thanked them and we played the two boards. To this day I don't know what this meant.

I'm an advanced player, not an expert. I'm happy to take on pretty much anyone (as long as no money is involved) and I don't really want to restrict their methods as long as it doesn't produce an unreasonable delay in the game. There should be a place for those who prefer fewer demands, a place for experts, and a place for those of us who are not experts but who are fine with playing against them, with all their methods.

Ken

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Sep 29 2005, 01:56 PM, said:

Given that multi is allowed, it has little merrit to ban BSCs. It's hardly more difficult to make generic agreements about BSC defense than to agree on a specific defense against multi.

I don't think this is right. E.g. 2♥= weak two in a major must be harder to defend against.

Arend

[david_c]

cherdano, on Sep 30 2005, 02:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on Sep 29 2005, 01:56 PM, said:

Given that multi is allowed, it has little merrit to ban BSCs. It's hardly more difficult to make generic agreements about BSC defense than to agree on a specific defense against multi.

I don't think this is right. E.g. 2♥= weak two in a major must be harder to defend against.

In England next year we will have a sensible compromise - BSC pre-empts will be allowed at L4, as long as none of the options involves length in the suit bid. (So Wilkosz and the 2♥ multi will still be banned.) I like this idea - seems very logical.

[zasanya]

Can the following suggestion work?
'Controversial conventions like multi or Wilkosz or any other can be used if opponenets allow and cannot be used if opponents disallow.'
Put the onus on players and take it away from Director.
Two incidents from India which support my suggestion.
Incident 1:Our multi 2♦ which has 5 meanings (Weak in either major strong in either minor or 21-22 balanced) was allowed but our rco bids (2♥=6-11 5-5 minors or 5-5 majors, 2♠=6-11 both red 5-5 or both black 5-5, 2 nt= 6-11 5-5 non touching suits were disallowed.As per BFI rules I was told.
Incident 2:Our opponent was one of our most respected life master who knew that me and my P are fond of rco bids asked us hopefully whether we were playing rco
I told him no because Director says its illegal.
In the 1st incident we felt resentful because we felt we were deprived of an effective weapon and in the second incident my op was resentful because he thought rco would have harmed us and benefitted him!
If the above suggestion is implemented it will protect the weak and still allow others to enjoy as they want.

[mila85]

I remember on my first tournament opps opened multi.
I dint't hear about it before and they told me about 5 possible meanings. I didn't understand at all. I didn't know that it's from 90% weak two and what P/C is.
I don't remember my hand but I remember I passed. I didn't like the board. I didn't like opps, I didn't like bridge.

Today when opps open multi I like it. I know that I'm in better position than if they opened natural 2♠.

If multi is baned everybody is in the same position. Noone has an advantage. Where is the problem?
I think people don't like weak hands and passing. They want to play multi because they want open as much hands as it's possible.

[helene_t]

zasanya, on Oct 3 2005, 08:08 AM, said:

Can the following suggestion work?
'Controversial conventions like multi or Wilkosz or any other can be used if opponenets allow and cannot be used if opponents disallow.'
Put the onus on players and take it away from Director.

Sounds sympathic, but personally I would feel uncomfortable about asking the opps to be so kind not to play Multi against us. It's similar to asking people not to smoke - I strongly prefer events where smoking is simply not allowed.

For some time, I played at a club where some people (among them my own partnership) experienced with all kinds of mad methods while some weaker pairs did not like it. My partner and I decided allways to play the same two-openings as the opps in an attempt to avoid being accused of playing unfair methods. That was not appreciated. I think other players feld we were suggesting that their methods were inferior so that we must play with the same inferior weapons in the spirit of fair game, or that other players were too stupid to defend themselves against other methods than their own.

Also, I don't think Multi will remain popular for long if you can't play it all the time. In particular, if you have strong options in the Multi you will have to modify the 2♣ and/or minor suit openings when you can't play Multi.

[han]

Completely agree with Helene.