[peachy]

The_Hog, on Sep 20 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

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.

Logical reason for what?

[the hog]

peachy, on Sep 24 2010, 11:25 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 20 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

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.

Logical reason for what?

You obviously don't reread answers to posts you make in other threads.

[JanM]

aguahombre, on Sep 23 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

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?

Well, I did get a much larger number of votes than off-topic comments, so okay, I guess. I was expecting a large number of "no" answers, although not as many as there are. There are now statements on the USBF website and the ECATS website explaining that written defenses to Multi are permitted. There will also be mention in the first Daily Bulletin. Even though this thread has gone somewhat far afield (and there have been some, to me, strange opinions expressed), hopefully it has also helped to educate people about the fact that written defenses are allowed.

[Free]

awm, on Sep 23 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

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.

Well, if you have a normal ♥ overcall you can just overcall 2♥ immediately, you don't have to wait until opps bid 2♠. That's pretty much the only exception as to considering the multi as a 2♥ opening.

[FrancesHinden]

JanM, on Sep 19 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

I am interested in whether most players know that they can bring a written defense to multi with them and refer to it during a multi auction.

Maybe I am reading different systems regulations, or I'm just being stupid, but I don't see why what you say is true.

All events in Philly are designated as Category 3 events (that's in the supplemental conditions of contest):

The defensive measures referred to in section 6 (as quoted) are, in full:

Quote

6.  DEFENCE AGAINST YELLOW (HUM) SYSTEMS AND BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS

For Team events in Category 1....

For Teams events in Category 1 and Category 2, the following regulations will apply in re­la­tion to defensive measures against Brown Sticker Conventions:

A pair may prepare written defences against the Brown Sticker elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Con­di­tions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents' system card.

Nothing about Category 3 events.
(Note that careful reading of the regs does tell you that the multi is allowed)

Also, there is nothing in the CoC about how and when to provide your written defence sas specified.

So unless someone has re-written the system regulations recently, I think you, and ECATS, and the ACBL are wrong. Or there's been a last minute change (as has happened before).

Now explain how I've misunderstood this...

[kfay]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 27 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

JanM, on Sep 19 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

I am interested in whether most players know that they can bring a written defense to multi with them and refer to it during a multi auction.

Maybe I am reading different systems regulations, or I'm just being stupid, but I don't see why what you say is true.

All events in Philly are designated as Category 3 events (that's in the supplemental conditions of contest):

The defensive measures referred to in section 6 (as quoted) are, in full:

Quote

6.  DEFENCE AGAINST YELLOW (HUM) SYSTEMS AND BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS

For Team events in Category 1....

For Teams events in Category 1 and Category 2, the following regulations will apply in re­la­tion to defensive measures against Brown Sticker Conventions:

A pair may prepare written defences against the Brown Sticker elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Con­di­tions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents' system card.

Nothing about Category 3 events.
(Note that careful reading of the regs does tell you that the multi is allowed)

Also, there is nothing in the CoC about how and when to provide your written defence sas specified.

So unless someone has re-written the system regulations recently, I think you, and ECATS, and the ACBL are wrong. Or there's been a last minute change (as has happened before).

Now explain how I've misunderstood this...

LOL

Yeah Frances, you're right and the world is wrong.

Try section 2.4

[hrothgar]

kfay, on Sep 28 2010, 01:47 AM, said:

Yeah Frances, you're right and the world is wrong.

Try section 2.4

Section 2.4 references the clause that Frances is quoting.

If we're being pedantic, I think this is a case where Frances is right and the world (myself included) was wrong...

On a more practical note, I suspect that the WBF wrote section 6 under the assumption that HUM methods would only be in play during team games, hence overly restrictive wording.

The WBF probably intended that section 2.4 sanctioned the use of defenses, without imposing additional restrictions, however, that doesn't appear to be what's written...

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Sep 23 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

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.

Why not play without looking at your cards? Any good result you acheive would have huge psychological benefits and it's equally as logical a strategy.

To put it another way, I stated I would absolutely have my own system notes available if it was allowed. If the opponents were to see that and decide to assume I hold fear for my own 1NT opening, that's their business I guess but it's a silly thing to assume.

[kenrexford]

I think I will bring my written defenses, and then when they open 2♦ start shaking, maybe even crying. I'll make SURE that they THINK I am scscscared to dddeath.

[gnasher]

Frances is plainly right about what the rules say. I imagine that it's just a matter of poor editing, though - it's unlikely that the WBF would interntionally allow a written defence to a Multi in the knock-out rounds of the Olympiad but not in the World Mixed Pairs.

[nige1]

IMO:

If opponents play a peculiar unfamiliar convention, the rules should allow you to consult a written-defence. It should be an officially-approved written-defence. If, as a result of your own investigation, you come up with a different defence, which you prefer to the official defence, you should still be allowed to use it; but you should then be forbidden to refer to your own written notes at the table.

This is because a home-grown written-defence could be as convoluted and sophisticated as you care to make it and would confer an advantage out of all proportion to the putative advantage that opponents derived from the original convention. (but, for official-defences, regulators can ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease).

What's so special about the multi? When I first encountered five-card majors in a club tournament, I complained in vain to the director that opponents' minor suit openings were poison-gas and should be alerted as Canapé. Given the chance, I would have asked for a written-defence

Law-makers should designate a system as standard and allow officially-approved written-defences against anything else peculiar. The standard system could be anything, however artificial (2/1 should be a candidate). Regulators should allow officially approved standard written-defences to many non-standard conventions and to all sophisticated new treatments.

The downside is the game would become even slower.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Sep 28 2010, 06:02 AM, said:

Why not play without looking at your cards? Any good result you acheive would have huge psychological benefits and it's equally as logical a strategy.

Josh, I don't mind a logical argument, but please....this comment is unbelievably stupid. In the light of day I am sure you will agree.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Sep 27 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 28 2010, 06:02 AM, said:

Why not play without looking at your cards? Any good result you acheive would have huge psychological benefits and it's equally as logical a strategy.

Josh, I don't mind a logical argument, but please....this comment is unbelievably stupid. In the light of day I am sure you will agree.

Intentionally so. There was a point to that. In the light of day I am sure you can figure out what it was.

[JanM]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 27 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

JanM, on Sep 19 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

I am interested in whether most players know that they can bring a written defense to multi with them and refer to it during a multi auction.

Maybe I am reading different systems regulations, or I'm just being stupid, but I don't see why what you say is true.

All events in Philly are designated as Category 3 events (that's in the supplemental conditions of contest):

The defensive measures referred to in section 6 (as quoted) are, in full:

Quote

6.  DEFENCE AGAINST YELLOW (HUM) SYSTEMS AND BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS

For Team events in Category 1....

For Teams events in Category 1 and Category 2, the following regulations will apply in re­la­tion to defensive measures against Brown Sticker Conventions:

A pair may prepare written defences against the Brown Sticker elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Con­di­tions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents' system card.

Nothing about Category 3 events.
(Note that careful reading of the regs does tell you that the multi is allowed)

Also, there is nothing in the CoC about how and when to provide your written defence sas specified.

So unless someone has re-written the system regulations recently, I think you, and ECATS, and the ACBL are wrong. Or there's been a last minute change (as has happened before).

Now explain how I've misunderstood this...

I think you're being too legalistic. Section 2.4 says that multi is allowed even in events where Brown Sticker bids aren't, but that "Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below." I am confident that "as in" means that despite the fact that this is not a category 1 or 2 event, written defenses to Multi are allowed. That sentence was added to Section 2.4 several years ago (my recollection is for Shanghai, but I could easily be wrong) when the Systems Committee decided to allow written defenses to Multi at the table in all events.
Before I, or Anna, posted the notes about the fact that written defenses are allowed at the table in Philadelphia, we verified that with the Chairman of the Systems Committee, so whether or not the language in the Systems Policy is clear, the rule is. How and when to provide the defense to your opponents is a problem, I agree. But then, there is (realistically) no advance notification of anything about systems for Philadelphia, so handing it to opponents at the table will be no different than handing your convention card to them.

To everyone who thinks that having a written defense is somehow an indication of weakness, I can only respond that not only do I find that laughable, but in my experience players feel much more confident at the table when they are able to look at a written defense, even if they know it very well. And anything that can improve my confidence at the table is, IMNSHO, a good thing.

As for Nigel's suggestion that only an "official" written defense should be allowed, I can only refer you to the great success of official approved defenses in ACBL.

[mikeh]

My partner and I are definitely going to use a written defence to Multi.

Frankly, if our opps consider us to be poor bridge players merely because we have a written defence, I am delighted. I suspect that our chances of getting good results on play just went up significantly. I love playing against players who are over-confident....they take chances because they don't respect their opps.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Sep 28 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

I think you're being too legalistic. Section 2.4 says that multi is allowed even in events where Brown Sticker bids aren't, but that "Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below." I am confident that "as in" means that despite the fact that this is not a category 1 or 2 event, written defenses to Multi are allowed. That sentence was added to Section 2.4 several years ago (my recollection is for Shanghai, but I could easily be wrong) when the Systems Committee decided to allow written defenses to Multi at the table in all events.
Before I, or Anna, posted the notes about the fact that written defenses are allowed at the table in Philadelphia, we verified that with the Chairman of the Systems Committee, so whether or not the language in the Systems Policy is clear, the rule is.

I know that this might sound ridiculous, but I think that its reasonable to be legalistic in interpreting the laws.

I very much prefer a system in which the written rules actually have some meaning and we don't just make shite up as we go along.

If the rules are written improperly, change the written rules. However, until these such changes are officially made and promulgated the written conditions of contest should take precedence.

[Cascade]

I agree with Richard.

The laws themselves use a very strong word on this matter. The state that the director is "bound" by the laws and announced regulations.

[Trinidad]

JanM, on Sep 28 2010, 04:35 PM, said:

To everyone who thinks that having a written defense is somehow an indication of weakness, I can only respond that not only do I find that laughable, but in my experience players feel much more confident at the table when they are able to look at a written defense, even if they know it very well. And anything that can improve my confidence at the table is, IMNSHO, a good thing.

I understand and agree with your point from an ACBL player's point of view. Yes, for ACBL players, it would certainly be wise to take their written defense with them.

But now look at it from the point of view from the top players from the rest of the world. These players defend against the multi continuously. They meet it 5 times a week at the local club or in the regular competitions. They are training on defending against the multi. And they know that they are never permitted to bring a written defense (except...). They know the defense to multi inside out for all the other competitions that they play in.

Let's say that you are going to play in a tournament where you would be allowed to bring a written defense against Michaels' cuebids or Bergen raises (which normally would never be allowed). Would you go through the trouble of actually making a photocopy of the relevant part of your system book? Would that really improve your confidence at the table? (I personnally would get distracted by the spelling error that I inevitably will find. )

I guess that for European players looking at a written defense against multi at the table is like browsing through a copy of the traffic laws while driving. For American players this is entirely different.

Rik

[Free]

Lets all play chess and have our opening books and all the different computer programs as aids just in case someone comes up with something new. Get serious...

[nige1]

Am I the only one in step? When you play a complex convention unfamiliar to opponents (Multi, Bergen or whatever) then regulators may allow opponents:

• To consult an officially-approved written-defence.
  
• To use their own defence -- but forbid them from consulting any written notes at the table.

To allow opponents to consult an unofficial written-defence, during a hand, is patently ridiculous. Since opponents wouldn't need to memorise their home-grown written-defence, it could be as ingenious, convoluted and sophisticated as they like: much more difficult to cope with than the convention that it counters; and each opposing pair could concoct a different kind of poison-gas.
In theory, regulators could allow written-defences to written-defences but that way even more madness lies. Regulators might have to allow computers to take over the bidding in order to complete the auction in real-time. QED