[wank]

deffo US/non US divide here - not just the ausies. i'd be red-faced if i felt the need to turn up with a written multi defence.

[JLOGIC]

jjbrr, on Sep 19 2010, 08:36 PM, said:

hi trolls

edit: I know this rule. In my experience everyone outside of America instantly flipped out when it was enforced. Lol.

lol post of the year

[jjbrr]

in before mrdct defends troll status. i still lol and ainec.

edit: LOL the_hog

[jjbrr]

lol seriously.

[debrose]

This is totally new to me. We've just been discussing how our "memorized defenses" for Philly will differ from our "written defenses" used in ACBL land. Does this apply to any other conventions, such as 2D or 2H showing both majors?

Edit: Never mind - I've just read the thread, including the relevant portion of the WBF rules, more thoroughly, and obviously it does not. Thanks for sharing the info Jan. If I'd known this before, we would have used your long defense when we played against you last month, to practice using it in Philly!

[the hog]

jjbrr, on Sep 20 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

in before mrdct defends troll status. i still lol and ainec.

edit: LOL the_hog

IN what language did you post? It is not English. Can you translate please?

[jjbrr]

excellent contribution to these forums.

[the hog]

jjbrr, on Sep 20 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

excellent contribution to these forums.

And you seriously think your goobleygook makes sense in any known language?

[jjbrr]

The_Hog, on Sep 19 2010, 08:58 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Sep 20 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

excellent contribution to these forums.

And you seriously think your goobleygook makes sense in any known language?

lol

Edit: don't feed the trolls

[sathyab]

mrdct, on Sep 19 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

A few lines ? The ACBL recommended defense vs multi-2D, option 2 is 3 pages long.

[Vampyr]

sathyab, on Sep 20 2010, 04:42 AM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 19 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

A few lines ? The ACBL recommended defense vs multi-2D, option 2 is 3 pages long.

In Britain defenses (especially in casual or pick-up partnerships) can be explained in a couple of sentences.

And when something a bit more complex is played, such as all 2-level suit openings multi-style (a method that is gaining a bit of popularity here), blanket rules will take you most of the way. I wonder, Frances, if your excellent articles on this issue are available online?

[Vampyr]

If written defenses are permitted at WBF events, does this mean that events held under the aegis of the WBF (EBL or EBU, for example) must allow them as well?

[peachy]

mrdct, on Sep 19 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table. You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

Similarly, what self-respecting person needs a phone book, just memorize the darn numbers. It is possible, you know... But if there is a list of phone numbers or a phone book readily available, why should one strain one's memory, just look it up.

[paulg]

Vampyr, on Sep 20 2010, 05:39 AM, said:

If written defenses are permitted at WBF events, does this mean that events held under the aegis of the WBF (EBL or EBU, for example) must allow them as well?

The EBL Systems Policy is the same and written defences were permitted at the European Championships in Ostend and will be at the European Open in Poland next summer.

Bridge Great Britain, who run the Home Internationals, should have permitted them at the last Camrose event as the regulations said that it was being run as a WBF Category 1 event. However no-one at BGB had read the regulations, specifically the Systems Policy, that they had specified and there were some problems. These were not helped by the general apathy and disdain for those who needed a written defence 'at this level'.

Of course, whoever sets the conditions of contest can replace, revoke or enhance this regulation.

[Free]

Is it allowed? I don't know.
Do I know if it's allowed? No.

So I voted no...

[helene_t]

I didn't know this.

I see that it is adopted in the Dutch CoC for federation-level teams events.

AFAICS it is not adopted in the EBU Orange book.

Now that the thread has already been hijacked I will add my own GBP 0.02: IMHO it doesn't matter. Pairs who have made the effort to agree on a defense against a multi and write it down will know their defense by heart. I realize this may be different in an environment where multi is less common.

I think the rule is OK. Personally I think written defenses are a little silly but if there is controversy about whether a particular convention should be allowed or not, I can see that allowing written defenses may be a compromise both parties can live with.

I can think of one situation in which I might use written defenses myself. Suppose I was asked with short notice to sub for a player who had very elaborate agreements with his p, and I agreed to play their system. Now we were going to play a long team match against a team that had tons of bizarre conventions each of which were not particularly likely to come up during the match.

[the hog]

peachy, on Sep 20 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 19 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

Similarly, what self-respecting person needs a phone book, just memorize the darn numbers. It is possible, you know... But if there is a list of phone numbers or a phone book readily available, why should one strain one's memory, just look it up.

What a stupid analogy!
Am I allowed to have a written defence to a sayc 1C opening? Why not?

I notice that you are good at making fatuous comments but not so good when it comes to providing logical reasons therefore.

[mrdct]

sathyab, on Sep 20 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 19 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

I can't imagine what self-respecting bridge player would avail themselves of the option of having a written defense to a multi at the table.  You would be sending a pretty strong message to your opponents that you are uncomfortable about their methods and aren't capable of memorising a few lines of system.

A few lines ? The ACBL recommended defense vs multi-2D, option 2 is 3 pages long.

That sounds about 2.9 pages longer than it needs to be.

A cynic might suggest that the ACBL put forward such a convoluted defence to make a point about how difficult it is to defend against the evil multi 2♦. Of course one could probably write a 10-page defence to some of the tricky American inventions such as stayman, so just because somebody came up with a 3-page defence doesn't mean that a convention is hard to defend against.

In any case, isn't there a one-page limitation for written defences?

[mrdct]

debrose, on Sep 20 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

This is totally new to me.  We've just been discussing how our "memorized defenses" for Philly will differ from our "written defenses" used in ACBL land.  Does this apply to any other conventions, such as 2D or 2H showing both majors?

Without any disrespect to Debbie, who I admire as a person and a top class bridge player, I find it really interesting that she would have the "memorized defenses" to use in events where you can't use written defences and a separate set of "written defenses", which I presume are more complex, to use where written defenses are allowed.

I would have thought that the intent of written defenses isn't to allow bridge theorists to efficiently tweak the meanings of every possible competitive continuation after an unusual bid, but is to allow players who don't frequently encounter such bids to have a practical and robust defense similar to that used by players who do come across it more frequently in their jurisdiction.

[helene_t]

debrose, on Sep 20 2010, 03:20 AM, said:

Does this apply to any other conventions, such as 2D or 2H showing both majors?

No, an opening bid that has an anchor suit (let alone two anchor suits) of length 4+ is not a BSC.