[mikeh]

 mycroft, on 2024-August-08, 15:43, said:

...if you have 15K MPs like "we do".

Paraphrasing the Charts, Open+ is allowed in:
Bracket 1 of unlimited Bracketed events;
Any other bracket where the lowest team has 12000 MPs;
The A flight of Flighted Swiss events at Regionals.
(and two day events with no masterpoint limit that aren't Bracketed. Are there any left?)


So: no events at Sectionals.
No in the Sunday Swiss, in a small regional where it's all stratified.
No in Bracket 2(!) in Penticton.
Oh, and no two-session IMP pairs (for the 6+board reason :-)

Not saying "wrong!" to MikeH; just pointing out that for us rabble, that "always" don't necessarily apply, before we do something we shouldn't.

We have (several times at several tournaments) been told by the head director that we can play multi in ANY team game with 6+ boards per match….including 5 different sectionals.

I’m planning on playing another one this weekend….and we played multi there last time. So I’ll double check.

[mycroft]

I absolutely want to be on your side on this one.

But because of who I am (and I mean the nickname rather than the part-time job) were I your opponent, I'd have them show me. And when they do show me that my reading of the convention charts is wrong, I would accept it (and probably learn to play it at least in one partnership).

But to me, the reading is clear (bolds and [comments] mine, solely for clarity):

ACBL Convention Charts, April 15, 2024,'Chart Usage' said:

Open Chart:
At a Sectional: Applies in any event with no masterpoint limit, and any event with a masterpoint limit above 3000.
At a Regional (including regional events at an NABC): [irrelevant]
Nationally Rated Events: [irrelevant]

Open+ Chart:
[no mention of Sectionals at all]
At a Regional (including regional events at an NABC):
● applies in any 3+-session event with no masterpoint limit;
● applies in any 2-session event with no masterpoint limit as long as there is a 2-session event of the same type with a masterpoint limit on the same day.
Nationally Rated Events: Applies in any NABC event with no masterpoint limit, and any NABC event with an upper masterpoint limit above 6000.

Open Chart, same document said:

Disallowed Opening Bids:
[...]
7. An Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT; except, 2NT may be used to show two known suits.

Open+ Chart, same document said:

Disallowed Opening Bids:
[...]
7. In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT that does not show at least one known suit.

Please check. As I said, I would be very happy to be shown wrong - especially by MattK - but I'd want to know exactly what applies and why what I quoted here doesn't say "Sectionals are Open Chart, and Multi is only Open+".

Again, as I frequently say, I sometimes work for the ACBL - but I never speak for them here. ICBW, I have been before.

[mikeh]

Turns out mycroft was correct. Despite having had several TD’s tell us (over the past 2+ years) that multi was legal in sectional team games, we just found out, from a TD I respect, that we should never have been allowed to use it in those events.

[jillybean]

That interesting and good to know, if I ever play in Open +.
This raises the issue that those who know, and abide by, the rules, can be at a disadvantage. This obviously extends to the Directors and not only the players.

Btw
Is Moscito permitted in Sectional Pairs?

[DavidKok]

Forcing pass is not legal, nor are transfer openings. If you take those out though there are legal versions of Moscito left, notably 'Terrorist Moscito'. You would have to prealert the canapé openings. I personally think you can do a lot better than that system (in particular, I'm rather fond of a different approach to strong club 4cM canapé), but it is legal and is called Moscito.

[jillybean]

David, I am not considering playing Moscito but have come up against it at clubs and Sectionals. I personally don't care that it may not be legal.
When some local pairs started playing Moscito at the club they offered a session to help players understand and defend against the system. They couldn't have been more helpful, they pre alert, alert and clearly explain everything. It would be great to have a similar session on Multi.

My partner and I have been discussing trying Mult. When I told him it was only legal in Open + his response was
"That's definitely too bad. I would very much like to have experience with that convention. We came up against it numerous times in Toronto and it was always baffling!"

Our option seems to be to play it freely at the club. Play it at sectionals+, don't call it Multi, fly under the radar and join the masses of players who don't follow the rules. Of course this does not sit well with me, I haven't done it but it is becoming more palatable as I tire of trying to follow the rules.

[nullve]

https://bridgewinner...t-2-jeapmq49qq/

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2024-August-12, 12:19, said:

Our option seems to be to play it freely at the club. Play it at sectionals+, don't call it Multi, fly under the radar and join the masses of players who don't follow the rules. Of course this does not sit well with me, I haven't done it but it is becoming more palatable as I tire of trying to follow the rules.

I hope you were joking. Just one opponent calling the TD on you could result in massive problems. Now, you may not be asked whether you knew you were breaking the rules or (worse) you may lie, claiming ignorance. You might get away with no penalty other than having to stop playing it, but if either the TD or the opp is a visitor here, or you’re asked and are honest, you could be in serious trouble. It just isn’t worth it, all to (a) gain an unfair advantage over the field and/or (b) practice. Want to practice? Get the bid72 app….there’s at least one other good bidding practice app out there beside bid72 but I use bid72 and forget the name of the other app. Don’t cheat…which is what intentionally playing an illegal method amounts to being.

As I said, we played it several times thinking, mistakenly, that it was legal, based on explicit permission from the TD. Imo, tge calibre of directing staff is far less than it was 20+ years ago….which is unsurprising. TDs come from the pool of players, which is shrinking. They are (or used to be) drawn from the younger players. It’s not something many 70+ year old players will suddenly think ‘oh, this is a career or a way to supplement my income. So we have a thinner pool of wannabe TDs and thus (imo) a generally weaker group….the good ones are as good as ever, and the TD who told me this past weekend that multi is illegal in sectional Swiss is, imo, one of the good ones.

[DavidKok]

You might be thinking of Cuebids, a free alternative to Bid72.

jillybean, on 2024-August-12, 12:19, said:

My partner and I have been discussing trying Mult. When I told him it was only legal in Open + his response was
"That's definitely too bad. I would very much like to have experience with that convention. We came up against it numerous times in Toronto and it was always baffling!"

Over here the multi is played mostly at the (weaker) club level. At higher level people gravitate more towards natural weak 2's, though there's plenty of variety at all levels. I'd be happy to share some thoughts on the multi or on defending against the multi. Personally I consider it a fun but inferior preempt, and I do not know of sufficiently good uses for the 2M bids to compensate for the losses of using 2♦ rather than 2M as a weak hand, not to mention the cost of losing the valuable natural weak 2♦. This includes the constructive or 'minimum opening' 2Ms - I will happily play them for fun if partner wants, but I do not think they give an advantage.


As for legality of conventions: I think the ACBL has got a lot of things wrong, and it is painful to see how it is limiting players. A lot of things are legal here, and we sometimes waive it if people want to play something that is not. That being said I do at the same time think that there is a lot of legal exciting stuff that is not being explored, and Moscito in particular is in my opinion more a way to protest than a bidding system. There are legal systems that do most of what Moscito does, so why not take a tiny step to the legal side of the line?

[jillybean]

nullve, on 2024-August-12, 13:07, said:

https://bridgewinner...t-2-jeapmq49qq/

2018 - we haven't progressed far have we.

So if we switch the 2D/2M meaning it becomes legal?

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2024-August-12, 13:09, said:

I hope you were joking. Just one opponent calling the TD on you could result in massive problems. Now, you may not be asked whether you knew you were breaking the rules or (worse) you may lie, claiming ignorance. You might get away with no penalty other than having to stop playing it, but if either the TD or the opp is a visitor here, or you’re asked and are honest, you could be in serious trouble. It just isn’t worth it, all to (a) gain an unfair advantage over the field and/or (b) practice. Want to practice? Get the bid72 app….there’s at least one other good bidding practice app out there beside bid72 but I use bid72 and forget the name of the other app. Don’t cheat…which is what intentionally playing an illegal method amounts to being.

As I said, we played it several times thinking, mistakenly, that it was legal, based on explicit permission from the TD. Imo, tge calibre of directing staff is far less than it was 20+ years ago….which is unsurprising. TDs come from the pool of players, which is shrinking. They are (or used to be) drawn from the younger players. It’s not something many 70+ year old players will suddenly think ‘oh, this is a career or a way to supplement my income. So we have a thinner pool of wannabe TDs and thus (imo) a generally weaker group….the good ones are as good as ever, and the TD who told me this past weekend that multi is illegal in sectional Swiss is, imo, one of the good ones.

I'm not going to intentionally cheat. After this conversation, I expect that I would be in serious trouble if caught playing Multi at a tournament. You've played it for 2+ years, undetected. I can't see how the laws are working when they restrict those that follow them and give a beneficial freedom to those who are unaware, or worse, ignore them.

We should have fully completed convention cards, available to the opponents who can ask about our systems, we can pre alert. Who cares if their opponents play Multi?
Make it "legal" and it will become as common as Weak 2's and as easy to defend against.

DavidKok, on 2024-August-12, 13:19, said:

You might be thinking of Cuebids, a free alternative to Bid72.

Over here the multi is played mostly at the (weaker) club level. At higher level people gravitate more towards natural weak 2's, though there's plenty of variety at all levels. I'd be happy to share some thoughts on the multi or on defending against the multi. Personally I consider it a fun but inferior preempt, and I do not know of sufficiently good uses for the 2M bids to compensate for the losses of using 2♦ rather than 2M as a weak hand, not to mention the cost of losing the valuable natural weak 2♦. This includes the constructive or 'minimum opening' 2Ms - I will happily play them for fun if partner wants, but I do not think they give an advantage.


As for legality of conventions: I think the ACBL has got a lot of things wrong, and it is painful to see how it is limiting players. A lot of things are legal here, and we sometimes waive it if people want to play something that is not. That being said I do at the same time think that there is a lot of legal exciting stuff that is not being explored, and Moscito in particular is in my opinion more a way to protest than a bidding system. There are legal systems that do most of what Moscito does, so why not take a tiny step to the legal side of the line?

Is the weak, natural 2♦ bid really so valuable? The opponents have an easy 2M bid over it.
It is completely standard to open weak club hands 3C, why not raise the bar for the diamond preempt and put more pressure on your opponents?

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2024-August-12, 14:12, said:

Is the weak, natural 2♦ bid really so valuable? The opponents have an easy 2M bid over it.
It is completely standard to open weak club hands 3C, why not raise the bar for the diamond preempt and put more pressure on your opponents?

It really is that valuable. I've said it elsewhere but in terms of weak 2-level openings the effectiveness is 2♠ > 2♦ > 2♥. With both majors in play the opponents have much more trouble finding the right strain. When they overcall we are off the hook and likely profit from their lack of ability to explore strain and level, and their takeout doubles, cue bids and (artificial, typically) 2NT responses have to take on more roles. There is simply more to investigate, and the extra step compared to 2♥ is not enough compensation.
As for why not open 3♦ - because there are many hands that I would automatically open 2♦ on, but think 3♦ is too much. In fact, this is far more common than the converse, where I am spoilt for choice since the hand meets the criteria for both. As a cute example I opened 2♦ today, everybody vulnerable, second seat, on ♠J7, ♥62, ♦AJ652, ♣8762. In my opinion this is not suitable for 3♦, but is decidedly profitable to stick in a 2♦ opening with. I'm sure with a more conservative style you can find an example for yourself - move the club 8 to the diamonds, for example.

To me the multi is a double loss - I lose my highly effective 2♠ preempt, and my highly effective 2♦ preempt. The multi 2♦ is not as effective as a natural 2M opening, so I need to gain a lot on whatever I now put in the 2M openings to get back to even. We simply cannot beat "2♠ - weak two in spades, frequently only five" for competitive purposes. That being said it is a fun convention and I played some very sophisticated followups. I will happily play it for fun if a new or substitute partner wants me to.

This part is a bit condescending but I think also honest, so my apologies in advance. I went through a phase where I got very excited with new competitive and preemptive tools, and tried to cram a lot of artificial preempts into my repertoire. I enjoyed opening them regardless of merit - they were simply fun to play. With repeated exposure I got more frustrated with the losses and the lack of gains, and at some point I was just going through the motions. By refocusing on what scored well I ended up at my current approach to preempting, and I am having a blast again. I suspect that the reason that quite a few players fear and/or adore the multi 2♦ in particular is a lack of familiarity. It is strange, it is new and it is exciting. Also it produces situations without parallel in bridge, and there are genuine new problems that you would not face on other auctions. But I think the multi is not that good, not in a field where people play with and against it frequently. The unique situations are rare, and even then you can often reason out what the percentage action is. Defenders may end up with a lousy score against a multi sometimes, but on balance I think they are in a better position than had their opponents opened a weak two.

[mw64ahw]

The following is fairly clean if you want to keep the basic Weak 2s

• 6 card weak 2Ms
• Weak 2♦ via 2♣
• 2♦ 5M, may have a side 4+ minor, a mild variation on the Rainbow 2♦, can have strong options

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2024-August-12, 14:12, said:

I'm not going to intentionally cheat. After this conversation, I expect that I would be in serious trouble if caught playing Multi at a tournament. You've played it for 2+ years, undetected. I can't see how the laws are working when they restrict those that follow them and give a beneficial freedom to those who are unaware, or worse, ignore them.

We should have fully completed convention cards, available to the opponents who can ask about our systems, we can pre alert. Who cares if their opponents play Multi?
Make it "legal" and it will become as common as Weak 2's and as easy to defend against.




Is the weak, natural 2♦ bid really so valuable? The opponents have an easy 2M bid over it.
It is completely standard to open weak club hands 3C, why not raise the bar for the diamond preempt and put more pressure on your opponents?

We didn’t play ‘undetected’. Undetected implies that we were hoping not to get caught.

We specifically asked whether we could play it. We were assured we could….we always pre-alerted it. We never once ‘snuck’ it into an event. We had the acbl defences at the table…once we each forgot to bring them so we took it off the card.

Against non-experts, we told them they could ask us questions about the options..not to tell their partner what they had but to clarify if they didn’t understand the options. For example, option one doesn’t say that double can include very strong hands….and a 2N overcall was limited to 18 hcp, so we suggested (one at least one occasion) that they could have double include 19+ hands.

Now that we know better, we wouldn’t dream of playing it other than in authorized events. Indeed, we only play sectionals together in order to practice our very complex methods (multi is far from the strangest stuff we play but everything else is legal…and much involves later round auctions which are unregulated).

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2024-August-12, 15:12, said:

This part is a bit condescending but I think also honest, so my apologies in advance. I went through a phase where I got very excited with new competitive and preemptive tools, and tried to cram a lot of artificial preempts into my repertoire. I enjoyed opening them regardless of merit - they were simply fun to play. With repeated exposure I got more frustrated with the losses and the lack of gains, and at some point I was just going through the motions. By refocusing on what scored well I ended up at my current approach to preempting, and I am having a blast again. I suspect that the reason that quite a few players fear and/or adore the multi 2♦ in particular is a lack of familiarity. It is strange, it is new and it is exciting. Also it produces situations without parallel in bridge, and there are genuine new problems that you would not face on other auctions. But I think the multi is not that good, not in a field where people play with and against it frequently. The unique situations are rare, and even then you can often reason out what the percentage action is. Defenders may end up with a lousy score against a multi sometimes, but on balance I think they are in a better position than had their opponents opened a weak two.

Multi is definitely not without real costs, but in NA most pairs…even most ‘experts’…have very little experience playing against it. Until recently it wasn’t allowed anywhere in the acbl. So players only got exposed to it if they played internationally. And most experts simply never get to do so. Canadian experts actually had an edge….the talent pool in Canada is a LOT smaller than in the US (exacerbated by the long history of our best young players moving to the US to play pro….Fred G, Geoff Hampson, Wolpert, Demuy are just four of a long list that goes back decades) so more of us (as a proportion of the pool of experts) have gained international experience than have our counterparts down south.

With multi now being permitted in lots of the events that attract NA experts (KO and Swiss teams at regionals and NABCs) I expect the very definite gains we have been getting from multi will diminish. However, for now I am confident that it wins us a heck of a lot of imps compared to the relatively infrequent losses. Plus using multi allows us to use 2M as 9+ - 13-, which itself can be a winner and makes our 1M openings, when we show 6+, much easier for constructive bidding. Were we to adopt a weak 2D, we’d either have to play normal weak twos or pass a lot of ‘obvious’ 2H or 2S openings…or really screw up our 3M bids.

[nullve]

As you can check here, Multi 2♦ was a much more popular choice than Weak 2♦ in this year's European Open Teams Championship.

[P_Marlowe]

 nullve, on 2024-August-12, 18:51, said:

As you can check here, Multi 2♦ was a much more popular choice than Weak 2♦ in this year's European Open Teams Championship.

#1 I dont think a weak 2 in diamond is very common in Europe.
#2 There are alternative usages for 2D like Erkren, but a common combo is 2d multi and 2H / 2S as 2-suited.
The variant MikeH uses differentiating between trash w2 and construct. w2 gains traction.

[jillybean]

 mikeh, on 2024-August-12, 18:15, said:

We didn’t play ‘undetected’. Undetected implies that we were hoping not to get caught.

We specifically asked whether we could play it. We were assured we could….we always pre-alerted it. We never once ‘snuck’ it into an event. We had the acbl defences at the table…once we each forgot to bring them so we took it off the card.

Against non-experts, we told them they could ask us questions about the options..not to tell their partner what they had but to clarify if they didn’t understand the options. For example, option one doesn’t say that double can include very strong hands….and a 2N overcall was limited to 18 hcp, so we suggested (one at least one occasion) that they could have double include 19+ hands.

Now that we know better, we wouldn’t dream of playing it other than in authorized events. Indeed, we only play sectionals together in order to practice our very complex methods (multi is far from the strangest stuff we play but everything else is legal…and much involves later round auctions which are unregulated).

You made it clear that you had asked and received approval to play Multi, I was not suggesting you or your team were doing anything unethical.
I used the word in an attempt to focus on the fact that you, your likely very experienced opponents, the Directors and observers were unaware that your methods were not permitted. I wonder how many other pairs are unknowingly, or knowingly, playing systems which are not permitted or only permitted with a pre alert and defences.

[DavidKok]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-August-12, 15:46, said:

The following is fairly clean if you want to keep the basic Weak 2s

• 6 card weak 2Ms
• Weak 2♦ via 2♣
• 2♦ 5M, may have a side 4+ minor, a mild variation on the Rainbow 2♦, can have strong options

I'm sure you were kidding, but just in case someone is not in on the joke: the Rainbow 2♦ (and also this mild variation) is not legal at any level under ACBL rules and is a Brown Sticker convention under WBF classification.


I've played the 2♦ multi with stronger 2M openings, and I found the losses on the more frequent multi to not compensate for the gains on the 2M openings. I've tried reversing them for a bit, but the constructive 2♦ is also not that great when we can open 1M and rebid 2M as well. All in all I felt that I lost more on the hands that I had to pass to make this set work than I gained on the hands where I opened it.

[mw64ahw]

I'm familiar with a previous post of yours and previous discussions of validity on Chris Stalls site.

https://www.bridgeba..._1#entry1049840

The version I propose can be 5M(332) so maybe OK if a Multi allowed. I note your comments above, but haven't encountered many issues apart from the usual misfits in simulation. I don't have local restrictions so it is something I can test in practice. I would also maintain a normal Weak 2M and openings.