[gwnn]

One possibkr explanation, Free: People are not perfectly rational creatures (arguably closer to perfectly irrational). Not saying, though, that Multi is evil or impossible. Just saying that there are millions of clearly Clearly suboptimal treatments used by people and "why isn't everyone playing (...) if it's so good?" is not a good argument.

[helene_t]

Free, on Sep 23 2010, 08:35 AM, said:

And if it's really that hard to defend against, if it causes so many disasters, why isn't everyone playing it?

It could be (purely hypothetical ) that it is inherently easy to defend against but that opps lose that advantage due to their lack of agreements against it.

Anyway, agree with Ulven. But maybe this looks different from an American perspective. After all, written defenses to be used at the table is something alien to most Europeans.

[paulg]

Free, on Sep 23 2010, 08:35 AM, said:

I agree with Ulven, people are scared for no good reason.  And if it's really that hard to defend against, if it causes so many disasters, why isn't everyone playing it?

In the last two European Team Championships approximately 50% of the Open pairs were playing Multi 2♦ in one form or another. In the Women's event, more pairs were playing some form of Multi 2♦ than a pure 15-17 1NT in every seat.

Now this is not everyone, but I think it is a surprisingly high percentage.

[hotShot]

A few weeks after learning the basics of bridge, we went to join a local club.
The first club night we encountered that there are more ways of Acol than we knew and that there are Precision, Polish Club, Mosquito and several flavors of 5 card Majors around.
After a few boards we had to play against a Multi-opening and had no idea what to do.
So while waiting for the new round to begin we came up with a defense:

"We assume opener has a weak 2 in ♥."

Obviously this works, if opener has a weak 2 in ♥.
It works if opener has a strong balanced hand since we are unlikely to be strong enough to bid something anyway.
If could fail if opener has a weak 2 in ♠. It does not matter much if we want to play in a minor, but if would be a problem if we would want to overcall with a 5 card ♠ suit. The suit distribution would have be something like 6-5-1-1 or 6-5-2-0. The probability for such a break is less than 2% and partner will hardly stop bidding in a 5-1 or 5-0 fit.

We never felt the need to look up a better defense.

[gwnn]

well "assume he has a weak two in spades" is superior already

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Sep 23 2010, 11:03 AM, said:

well "assume he has a weak two in spades" is superior already

No it's not.

If he has a weak two in hearts and you assume he has spades, it may go
  2♦ pass 2♠ pass
  4♥

If he has a weak two in spades and you assume he has hearts, the worst that is likely to happen is
  2♦ pass 2♥ pass
  2♠

[TimG]

Free, on Sep 23 2010, 02:35 AM, said:

I agree with Ulven, people are scared for no good reason. And if it's really that hard to defend against, if it causes so many disasters, why isn't everyone playing it?

In some cases the answer is because regulations prevent it.

[gwnn]

@gnasher: This is based on the idea that opener is allowed to bid higher than 3♥ if his partner bids 2♠; I know some people do that but is it really common?

[Free]

gwnn, on Sep 23 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

@gnasher: This is based on the idea that opener is allowed to bid higher than 3♥ if his partner bids 2♠; I know some people do that but is it really common?

The defense to consider the multi as a 2♥ opener or a 2♠ opener (whatever you prefer) is imo very easy, handles most cases, and works whenever the multi is forcing. You even have penalty Doubles and a cuebid available.
Even if it's NF it might work, but it's not as sound anymore. Still, usually it doesn't get passed out, especially at MP's.

Now, for the choice between considering it a 2♥ or 2♠ opening. Even if opener is not allowed to rebid higher than 3♥, it's much better to consider the multi a 2♥ opening imo. Lets compare the most usual cases.

Suppose you have a takeout Dbl of ♠.
- Considering 2♠ opening the auction can go 2♦-Dbl-...
- Considering 2♥ opening the auction can go 2♦-pass-2♥-pass-2♠-Dbl-... or 2♦-pass-2♠-pass-pass-Dbl-...
This is pretty much the same, as you start at 2-level describing your hand.

Now suppose you have a takeout Dbl of ♥.
- Considering 2♥ opening the auction can go 2♦-Dbl-...
- Considering 2♠ opening the auction can go 2♦-pass-2♥-pass-pass-Dbl-... but it can also go 2♦-pass-2♠-pass-3/4♥-Dbl-...
There's a big difference here: when opener has a ♥ preempt, you're even worse off than after a natural 2♥ opening if they have a fit, because you can only start your auction at 3-level!

With these differences in mind, I'd say considering the multi as a 2♥ opening is better than considering it a 2♠ opening. So why do you claim that considering the multi as a 2♠ opening is superior? (not because Fantunes play it that way I hope )

[gwnn]

I'm afraid I said so because I knew Fantunes play it that way and because of the general principle that when they have spades and we have hearts it's a good idea to show it immediately. Will think about it a little more, it's not yet clear to me.

Anyway I wouldn't consider either defence because they may (should) pass 2♦. Maybe I'm biased here because I like playing 2♦ nonforcing and passing it often and because I don't like letting opener bid higher than 3♥.

[fred]

FWIW I think the concept of allowing players to bring written defenses to the table for *some* conventions is a good compromise between these two very reasonable attitudes, both of which many players seem to have:

1) We want to be able to innovate in our system design.

2) It is not fair or realistic to expect us to prepare and memorize effective defenses to the many unfamiliar innovations we might face, especially in pairs events and short team matches.

Whether or not multi should fall into this category is another question. As usual, the hardest part about system regulation is knowing where to draw the (arbitrary) lines. If it were up to me, I might well put multi on the other side of this line, but I really don't think it is that big a deal - as long as most people agree that the line is close to being reasonably drawn (and as long as the regulations are relatively simple and clear), then that's just fine as far as I am concerned. Seeking to draw lines that everyone will 100% agree with is obviously not a realistic goal.

By and large, I agree with the sentiment that Ulven expresses at least as far as "things like Multi" are concerned - I don't expect to be bringing any notes to the table in Philadelphia. However, I suspect I would feel differently if the scope of what was allowed was extended to include systems/conventions that were more alien to me.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

The point of treating 2♦ as a spade opening is to try and obtain some advantage from the opponents choice to play multi instead of weak twos. We are substantially better placed than we would've been over a natural 2♠ bid because we get: (1) a natural 2♥ overcall (2) 2♠ to show 4♥-longer minor which is an annoying hand type (3) the ability to distinguish sound vs. marginal 3m overcalls by passing initially (4) the ability to double 2♠ for penalty by passing and then doubling.

It's true that we are slightly behind when the opponents have a 2♥ opening and we have a takeout double of hearts and they raise to three or beyond. However, this is a fairly unusual state of affairs.

The main point perhaps is that what we lose on the "takeout doubles" we get back at least partially on the overcalls, because we can bid two spades over 2♦-P-2♥-P-P but we can't bid 2♥ after 2♦-P-2♥-P-2♠ or 2♦-P-2♠-P-P.

[Vampyr]

TimG, on Sep 23 2010, 01:09 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 23 2010, 02:35 AM, said:

I agree with Ulven, people are scared for no good reason.  And if it's really that hard to defend against, if it causes so many disasters, why isn't everyone playing it?

In some cases the answer is because regulations prevent it.

Yeah. I think that these people were not really included in the people referred to in the question.

[aguahombre]

JanM, on Sep 19 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

I know that asking people to stay on topic may not be effective, but I'm posing this poll in an attempt to learn the answer to the simple question of whether people are aware of the rules, not to discuss whether the rules are sensible.

How did that work out for you, Jan?

[gnasher]

If Jan didn't want the thread to go off-topic, maybe it was unwise to publish a post that began

JanM said:

By the way, ...

[jdonn]

The disparaging comments about the people who would bring a written defense to the table when they are allowed to do so are hilarious. Not doing so is pretty foolish. And yes I would have my whole system notes at the table and refer to them at will if I were allowed to, why not? I'm not saying that's how I prefer things to be, but if that's how they are then take advantage.

I must admit I also find it amusing the a poster starts with a request to stay on topic, then soon after says "by the way here are some bidding problems", even if they are to demonstrate a point.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Sep 23 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

The disparaging comments about the people who would bring a written defense to the table when they are allowed to do so are hilarious. Not doing so is pretty foolish. And yes I would have my whole system notes at the table and refer to them at will if I were allowed to, why not? I'm not saying that's how I prefer things to be, but if that's how they are then take advantage.

Yep.

And as long as this thread as gotten so contentious....with smugness, trolling, etc., I will add:

At first I thought that the non-ACBL posts were repugnant and distracting to the issue at hand. When I got over that, I realized that ---if so lucky to be in an international competition --- I should take the time with my partner to talk about defenses to multi. It is a style used by much of the outside world, and worth preparing for.

If we did that, a written defense at the table would not be necessary. If we didn't I would expect that a published defense would be available; and if it didn't cover every little possibility, then our tough luck.

To clarify: if we discuss and choose a defense to multi, which is not one of the previously published versions, we should not be able to have something written by us and referred to by us, at the table.

[kenrexford]

Whether written defenses should or should not be allowed is one discussion.

Whether to use them when they are allowed is a different one.

[the hog]

Vampyr, on Sep 24 2010, 01:29 AM, said:

TimG, on Sep 23 2010, 01:09 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 23 2010, 02:35 AM, said:

I agree with Ulven, people are scared for no good reason.  And if it's really that hard to defend against, if it causes so many disasters, why isn't everyone playing it?

In some cases the answer is because regulations prevent it.

Yeah. I think that these people were not really included in the people referred to in the question.

I think Vampyr's point is probably true. I was looking at a very old rgb thread on Wilkosz a couple of days ago. One poster had analysed hands opened with a Wilkosz 2Ds at one of the BBs and found that on average the bid gained 1.5 Imps. Balicki was asked a while back why he no longer used it and the answer was due to system restrictions.

Quote JDonn: "The disparaging comments about the people who would bring a written defense to the table when they are allowed to do so are hilarious. Not doing so is pretty foolish."

If you have discussed defence to a Multi with your partner, I would imagine it is to your advantage not to bring a written defence to the table. Psychologically it shows the opponents that the bid holds no fear for you.

Quote Fred on the views expressed by some players:
"It is not fair or realistic to expect us to prepare and memorize effective defenses to the many unfamiliar innovations we might face, especially in pairs events and short team matches."

If a casual player made this comment, I could accept the logic behind it, even though I still disagree if you are planning on playing in premier events.
If a professional player used this reasoning, I would find it extremely odd. Surely this preparation is part of your "job", just as others need to do preparation and homework to do well at their jobs.

[peachy]

ahh, on Sep 20 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

even Meckwell need written defences to the multi. Has everyone forgotten the fate of the Singapore team v them ?

Thread hijack again.