[CSGibson]

I have one partner with whom I want to practice for open events with midchart conventions allowed. I asked the club owner for permission to use the MidChart convention, and he gave that permission for his open games, persuant to ACBL midchart regs (pre-alert, written description, written defenses if applicable). Clubs, and even districts are allowed to permit mid-chart agreements to GCC events if they desire. I'm not sure whether the allowances include STAC games and such, but I know that in District 20 Suction is GCC legal, and that doesn't change for our STAC week, FWIW.

[uday]

maybe your clubs are tougher than the ones in NYC where constructive auctions like


1n 2d
2h 3h
p

seem to be the norm ( 15 opposite 14, if you're curious, and no one had a 6 card suit )


or

... ..
.. 4C
.. ..

"sorry partner, I couldn't remember the Gerber responses"

is all in a days play


I don't think I could bring myself to bring Multi to this party

[barmar]

 mdduke, on 2010-October-22, 16:56, said:

There are a few "natural conventions" like Reverses, but in general methods which are not natural are considered to be conventional.

There are three categories of calls: natural, artificial, and conventional. A call is either natural (in the case of a bid, it suggests playing in that denomination) or artificial (it doesn't suggest playing in the denomination). In addition, it may also be conventional. All artificial bids are conventional; some natural bids are conventional (because they have specific meanings about other suits). For instance, in Capalletti, 2♣ and 2♦ are artificial and conventional, 2♥ and 2♠ are natural and conventional, and Double is natural.

[bluejak]

I do not think that your use of convention is midstream. In the ACBL there is a definition of conventional that does not accord with yours: in the rest of the world there was a definition under the last Law book that does not accord with yours.

It might or might not be a useful approach, but it is certainly not one that is generally understood.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2010-October-23, 17:59, said:

I do not think that your use of convention is midstream. In the ACBL there is a definition of conventional that does not accord with yours: in the rest of the world there was a definition under the last Law book that does not accord with yours.

It might or might not be a useful approach, but it is certainly not one that is generally understood.

From my "Oxford":
convention n. assembly; formal agreement; accepted custom.

Each of the possible 38 different calls in bridge is meaningless without some convention (i.e.agreement) on what meaning it shall express. Thus it is fair to say that all bridge calls are conventional; (most of) those who match the convention defined by Culbertson are natural, the others are artificial.

Dropping the words convention and conventional from the laws was a sound move.

[FrancesHinden]

 bluejak, on 2010-October-23, 17:59, said:

I do not think that your use of convention is midstream. In the ACBL there is a definition of conventional that does not accord with yours: in the rest of the world there was a definition under the last Law book that does not accord with yours.

It might or might not be a useful approach, but it is certainly not one that is generally understood.

This post and the one previous to it are an excellent explanation of why the Laws removed any use of the word "conventional" - because there is no good definition. "Artificial" is doable, "Natural" is defined (even if we don't all always agree with the definition), but "conventional" just isn't: it depends too much on the context and what 'historical norms' might be considered to be.

[Cascade]

 uday, on 2010-October-22, 19:22, said:

I don't think I could bring myself to bring Multi to this party

I don't understand why there is this attitudinal difference between North America and where I normally play. Others have written about their experiences in Australia where the LOLs not only accept Multi-2♦ and the like but they embrace them playing the multi and other more weird and wonderful things like unanchored two-suiters 2♥ - two the same colour - 2♠ - two the same rank - 2NT - two odd suits.

I am playing a tournament this weekend using transfer openings. The typical response after we prealert is "ok. you will alert won't you." or "we play a double showing the suit they bid and a cue-bid of the suit they have shown as takeout" etc and then we carry on without incident.

I don't have a transfer opening partner at my club but my partner for this weekend regularly plays transfer openings at his club with his regular partner and others. As far as I can tell this is generally without incident.

In New Zealand we use written bidding where all of the bids are written on a pad in the centre of the table. There is usually enough room for about 8 rounds of bidding on the sheet. Some sheets have room for 12 rounds. Years ago playing submarine symmetric in a low grade tournament my partner and I had an auction where every bid was alerted - partner alerts by drawing a circle around their partner's alertable bid - until the final contract was reached in some slam. Our auction went beyond the available space on the bidding slip so we tore of the top sheet and continued onto the second sheet. One LOL that we were playing against picked up the sheets after the hand was finished, folded them up neatly and placed them in her handbag for posterity. She was intrigued and delighted to have seen this sort of bidding that was not part of her normal game.

As I said at the top I am not sure why there would be such a different attitude about relatively unusual methods in North America.

[TimG]

 Cascade, on 2010-October-24, 12:50, said:

I don't understand why there is this attitudinal difference between North America and where I normally play. Others have written about their experiences in Australia where the LOLs not only accept Multi-2♦ and the like but they embrace them playing the multi and other more weird and wonderful things like unanchored two-suiters 2♥ - two the same colour - 2♠ - two the same rank - 2NT - two odd suits.

In North America, I do not think it is the average club player who is opposed to Multi but rather the top experts. They have a few concerns, but a couple are: 1) the average player won't be able to defend against Multi well and will thus hand out random tops to those who employ multi; and 2) it is often difficult to get adequate disclosure from those who use multi, particularly about when they might pass 2D.

[Cascade]

 TimG, on 2010-October-25, 14:05, said:

In North America, I do not think it is the average club player who is opposed to Multi but rather the top experts. They have a few concerns, but a couple are: 1) the average player won't be able to defend against Multi well and will thus hand out random tops to those who employ multi; and 2) it is often difficult to get adequate disclosure from those who use multi, particularly about when they might pass 2D.

1) They will learn as they get experience

2) In my experience passing 2♦ is rare.

Humorous story ...

In a teams match at our table the opponents were playing a Multi-2♣. They opened 2♣ and the bidding proceeded Pass Pass! Pass. He caught partner with the strong balanced hand and they made +190.

Our teammates were playing a multi-2♦ and their bidding proceeded 2♦ Pass Pass! Pass also +190.

Responder had a very weak six-six minor hand.

[pran]

 Cascade, on 2010-October-25, 14:45, said:

1) They will learn as they get experience

2) In my experience passing 2♦ is rare.

Humorous story ...

In a teams match at our table the opponents were playing a Multi-2♣. They opened 2♣ and the bidding proceeded Pass Pass! Pass. He caught partner with the strong balanced hand and they made +190.

Our teammates were playing a multi-2♦ and their bidding proceeded 2♦ Pass Pass! Pass also +190.

Responder had a very weak six-six minor hand.

This is the very reason I believe that a strong variant should be compulsory with Multi. I play Multi 2♦, and the obvious danger of passing out 2♦ with a very weak hand (with Diamonds) is just the probability of finding partner with 20-21 2NT opening values.

[TimG]

 Cascade, on 2010-October-25, 14:45, said:

1) They will learn as they get experience

It is thought that Multi will always add a random element.

Quote

2) In my experience passing 2♦ is rare.

So?

[Cascade]

 TimG, on 2010-October-25, 16:19, said:

 Cascade, on 2010-October-25, 14:45, said:

2) In my experience passing 2♦ is rare.

So?

In practice this is not a major problem.

I have seen or perpetrated a Pass of a multi only a handful of times at the table. Only a subset of those caused any problems for the opponents at the table.

And anyway if there is a disclosure problem that should be settled by applying the perfectly reasonable disclosure laws and regulations not by regulating against certain methods.

My experience is that "Standard" players are many times reluctant to give full disclosure about the subtle nuances of their particular style - would the regulators therefore think it was sensible to regulate against "Standard"?

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2010-October-25, 15:06, said:

This is the very reason I believe that a strong variant should be compulsory with Multi. I play Multi 2♦, and the obvious danger of passing out 2♦ with a very weak hand (with Diamonds) is just the probability of finding partner with 20-21 2NT opening values.

Why should it be compulsory to have a strong variant? So it gets passed: big deal. I just do not understand the fear from it getting passed. It is possible that if a Multi is passed the earth will still rotate about the sun.

[bluejak]

 TimG, on 2010-October-25, 14:05, said:

In North America, I do not think it is the average club player who is opposed to Multi but rather the top experts. They have a few concerns, but a couple are: 1) the average player won't be able to defend against Multi well and will thus hand out random tops to those who employ multi; and 2) it is often difficult to get adequate disclosure from those who use multi, particularly about when they might pass 2D.

It makes so little sense. I have played against the Multi on a fairly frequent basis for what? 25 years? And no-one has passed one against me yet, and when they do the game of bridge will probably continue.

Let me ask you a question: do you allow a defence of 2D over 1NT to show both majors? Did you say "Of course"? What happens if partner passes it?

Well, nothing, I suppose. What is the difference?

But if that is the worry the solution is simple: allow the Multi at GCC subject to it not being passed.

As for spraying tops around, that's a joke, right? The average player does not spray tops around when defending to natural weak threes, no?

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2010-October-25, 17:39, said:

Why should it be compulsory to have a strong variant? So it gets passed: big deal. I just do not understand the fear from it getting passed. It is possible that if a Multi is passed the earth will still rotate about the sun.

We do not have any such requirement with multi 2m in Norway and I think it puts opener's LHO at an unjust disadvantage. If opener's partner knows that the opener is weak (because there is no strong variant included in the 2m opening bid) then it is much easier for him to pass with a weak hand and correspondingly more difficult to defend for LHO who otherwise often favourably can delay his action until his next call.

If you don't see any potentional problem here then maybe there is none. Personally I have never (that I can remember) experienced a passed out multi 2m opening bid, not within my own partnerships nor by opponents.

[TimG]

 Cascade, on 2010-October-25, 14:45, said:

2) In my experience passing 2♦ is rare.

 TimG, on 2010-October-25, 16:19, said:

So?

 Cascade, on 2010-October-25, 16:28, said:

In practice this is not a major problem.

A major problem is not required in order to hinder the approval of a method, often minor problems will suffice. Especially when there is a bias against the method.

In the case of "unusual" methods, there is an extra burden on the user for proper disclosure. I agree with you that this should be addressed through application of disclosure rules, but the reality is that this sort of consideration is used by the C&C Committee when making decisions about allowing methods.

 Cascade, on 2010-October-25, 16:28, said:

My experience is that "Standard" players are many times reluctant to give full disclosure about the subtle nuances of their particular style - would the regulators therefore think it was sensible to regulate against "Standard"?

Standard should be part of "general bridge knowledge". Where there are subtle nuances involved, the practitioners of the method often are not aware of them. How can they disclose things of which they are unaware? Perhaps the same can be said of Multi when it is in common use, but again, in ACBL, the practitioners of special methods have an added burden of understanding and disclosure.

I believe that some players would like to regulate against any method, even standard methods, which the practitioners cannot adequately disclose. Unfortunately for them, that would leave some pairs playing no methods.

I do not mean to argue the merits of such positions. My original point was that when someone says "LOLs [here] deal with Multi all the time, it is beyond me why they can't in the ACBL" or similar, they are not really addressing the issues that are important to those with the power to allow Multi in more events.

[bluejak]

Reminds me of one of my early ACBL experiences in a National competition. LHO opened 2♦ [weak], partner passed, RHO raised to 3♦. I asked what 3♦ showed. LHO was just about to answer when her partner shut her up, called the TD, and objected to me asking the meaning of 3♦. The TD without speaking to either myself or my partner gave me a short sharp lecture on not asking unnecessary questions.

I am afraid to say that my behaviour probably should have got me a DP. I told the TD that where I came form competent TDs did not rule without asking the other side for their views: competent TDs did not rule against the Laws of bridge: competent TDs did not assume because a player called them in a loud and hectoring tone and used that tone in his complaints that he was in the right. I explained my rights under the Law, and asked him to either allow me to ask a question or to fetch his superior.

My LHO - who never seemed to have any problem with the question - now told me "pre-emptive" and my only problem now, with both RHO and TD in total silence and shock, was trying to stop my partner laughing.

[Chris L]

My then partner & I started playing the Multi about 25 years ago. It showed a weak 2 in either major, a strong 2 in either minor or a strong balanced hand. There was something in the Orange Book (may still be there but I don't have it readily to hand as I type) about responder being expected to explore game opposite a possible strong hand. We were playing in some local Swiss Teams tournament. Partner opened 2♦. I had looked at our opponents' c c before the round started and noticed that their defence to the multi was to pass initially. I alerted partner's bid and RHO proceeded to subject me to a cross examination of which the late George Carman QC would have been proud. Having established to his satisfaction that our agreements didn't include "Pass" as one of my options, he passed. I was looking at ♦AKxxxx and out. I was as certain as I could be that partner had a weak two in ♥ or ♠ and that RHO was looking at The Tate Gallery so I passed. LHO was already in possession of a wheelbarrow full of U.I. but RHO put the matter beyond all doubt when he said "What? I thought you said you couldn't pass?" and called the TD who ruled that I was perfectly entitled to pass in the circumstances. Partner made 2♦ exactly with the oppo cold for 7♣. Team-mates came to score up having stopped in 5♣, the more expert of the two blaming the other for this apparent disaster and were surprised to gain 12 IMPs on the board.

A couple of years later we encountered the same oppo in a KO teams match. They were still playing the same defence. Early in the match, partner opened 2♦; I looked at RHO and their card and we all fell about laughing.

[bluejak]

After I first joined the newsgroup rec.games.bridge one of the longest threads in the early days came from a Welsh match between two poor teams. You hold:

---

So, what do you bid?

The South player passed, as did West. East was not amused, accusing North/South of cheating.

Why did South pass? Because, before passing, East had asked him about twenty different questions, thought for several minutes, and then passed with a cunning look!

This is actually better than Chris who had ♦ AK but the opponents could make a grand. In this case you have two aces yet the opponents are cold for 7♠! All it needed was the heart finesse through the 2♦ opening!

RHO was 8=5=0=0.