[paulg]

mrdct, on Sep 20 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

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

I've never seen this anywhere and it would be a surprising restriction, given that the description of the (2♦) method may stretch to a few pages.

[the hog]

cardsharp, on Sep 20 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 20 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

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

I've never seen this anywhere and it would be a surprising restriction, given that the description of the (2♦) method may stretch to a few pages.

Only if you use a 25 point font, Paul.

[Free]

The_Hog, on Sep 20 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Sep 20 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 20 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

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

I've never seen this anywhere and it would be a surprising restriction, given that the description of the (2♦) method may stretch to a few pages.

Only if you use a 25 point font, Paul.

You can always include interference handling against 3-page-defenses...

[helene_t]

Are we talking A4 or Letter paper size?

[manudude03]

3 standard sized playing cards would be enough . For some reason I've been misreading that part and reading it to mean that Multi is an exception to the BS rule and hence no written defence was required..... I also have never seen a written defence to it at the table. I did see 1 pair once with a written defence at the venue though (but not at the table).

[Cascade]

mrdct, on Sep 20 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

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

It seems odd that there is no limitation.

The one page limitation is an Australian and New Zealand regulation. As far as I can see there is no such WBF regulation.

[paulg]

I think it is worth emphasising, particularly for ACBL members who are more used to written defences, that the written defence is only permitted for those 2♣ or 2♦ openers that may contain a weak two bid in either major.

So no written defence for 2♣ opener that is either weak in diamonds or any strong hand; nor for a multi weak 2♦ that is either weak in hearts or strong options.

[gnasher]

JanM, on Sep 19 2010, 11:55 PM, said:

I knew I should have made this hand weaker , but I wanted to be honest about what the dealing program had produced. What would you bid on the auction if the hand was something like x,x,Kxxxx,Qxxxxx ?

Pass. I'd just assume that redouble shows a good hand without much of a fit and 2NT is natural.

I'm sure that there are better uses for one or both of these calls, but there are many sequences where complex agreements would give a theoretical edge. In all such sequences there is a tradeoff between efficacy and ease of memory.

By allowing a written defence you allow people to play more effective methods than they would otherwise, but that doesn't make it necessary to allow it.

Having said that, if the rules allow you to have a written defence, I don't see anything wrong with taking advantage.

[ahh]

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

[paulg]

ahh, on Sep 20 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

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

Did Meckwell use them? Or did they just insist that they were provided in printed form?

[TimG]

mrdct, on Sep 20 2010, 03:45 AM, said:

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.

I think you would be wrong. Those who are responsible for approving written defenses do want to see every possibility considered. I don't think the objective is to put players unfamiliar with the method on even ground with those that are familiar with the method, but rather to put those who are facing the method on even ground with those who do not face the method.

Blanket rules are not permitted in ACBL approved defenses.

As an example, I once got approved a defense for a 1H opening which showed 5+ spades and 11-21 HCP (a standard American 1S opening). The first page and a quarter includes a description of the method, including responses in and out of competition.

The next page includes the suggested defense. It was not enough to suggest: treat as you treat a standard 1S opening except... And, outline methods for those situations that do not parallel a standard defense to a standard 1S opening. I was required to go through all possible actions, things like (1H)-1N = 16-18 HCP, use same methods as after a Standard American (1S)-1N; and (1H)-2D = natural and limited, treat as a Standard American (1S)-2D. What if a pair normally uses a different range for a 1N overcall or uses a conventional 1N overcall and confusion ensues? Don't know. But, I'd be willing to bet that the director and/or committee would adjust in their favor.

This method was approved for events with 12+ board segments. When I later submitted a defense to a 1D opening which showed hearts, the defense was eventually rejected. At the same time, the C&C Committee determined that the already approved defense to a 1H transfer opening would no longer be allowed. (That was over a year ago, yet the method remains in the Defense Database, and yes, I have pointed this out to those in charge.)

Anyway, you probably already knew that the ACBL's approach to these things was sort of silly, but I thought I'd take this opportunity to point it out to those that might not be aware!

[Gerben42]

Quote

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

There is "need" and need. No doubt they can defend Multi without a written defense, but if they can write it down it'll be more detailed.

I don't mind allowing written defenses if the goal is beef up attendance in Philly, but it does seem unfair because if you have a part of your system that you can refer to at the table, you can make it more complex than the rest of your system because you don't need to memorize it.

Memorizing your agreements is part of Bridge, and here you put players who play a system that is legal in all WBF events at a disadvantage, as:

* if you open Multi, you must remember continuations
* if your opponents opens Multi, you can refer to your defense

It gets worse: Suppose your defense sheet says (2♦) 2♠ (Pass) 4NT = RKC 1430. Now you can refer to it when you have forgotten if you play 1430 or 3014. And that is where for me the biggest problem is.

[NickRW]

General comment. Any set of sequences, defensive or otherwise, is not trivial. Many seem trivial because you're experienced and come up against them often enough and because the various bids and meanings have stood the test of time.

Americans seem hell bent on largely banning a convention that the rest of the world uses with at least some frequency. Thus defending against it will not be trivial for many of them. Whether this is a sensible policy on the part of Americans - hmm - well I leave people to form their own opinion.

Nick

[Free]

Personally I'm against written defenses. It slows down the game unnecessarily. People can just prepare for certain openings. Why should one get a written defense against a multi, but not against a strong 1♣ opening? I guess pretty much everyone playing at a certain level has encountered that evil multi. You know it can come up, so why not prepare a defense?

[awm]

JanM, on Sep 19 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

gnasher, on Sep 19 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

JanM, on Sep 19 2010, 10:44 PM, said:

By the way, for all of you who think Multi is trivial to defend against, what would you bid after 2♦-2♠-DBL (P/C) with:

x, x, KQJxx, QJ9xxx ?

3♣ (forcing)

I knew I should have made this hand weaker , but I wanted to be honest about what the dealing program had produced. What would you bid on the auction if the hand was something like x,x,Kxxxx,Qxxxxx ?

I'm not sure this is really the right question.

I mean, what would you bid with these hands after:

2♥ (NAT) - 2♠ - X (optional/cards)?

Obviously it's helpful to have an agreement about whether a new suit is forcing and whether redouble is "rescue" or something else after a double which shows general strength and is not necessarily t/o or penalty. But I wouldn't say this is so much a problem with the Multi itself being hard to defend. In general, especially in auctions after there has been a preempt, you often have too many hand types to easily describe them all and there will be some "problem hands" where it's not obvious what the right call is.

Some people seem to think that a suitable defense to a convention like multi must detail all possible sequences and cope reasonably with all possible "problem hands." This just isn't reasonable -- often over preempts you simply can't cope with all possible "problem hands" and for most of us our agreements over "standard" calls don't extend to enumerating all possible sequences.

Often the "right way" to construct a defense is to create parallels between the sequences over multi and sequences where you are more familiar. For example, in my defense to multi I have a 2♥ overcall as natural and follow-ups generally as if opponents had opened 1♠. It's true that we do not have a particular agreement about the meaning of all possible sequences after (1♠)-2♥, and it's also true that there are some hand types (like weakish hands with both minors) that are problematic for us after (1♠)-2♥. Of course the same issues will apply after (2♦!)-2♥. But we have a defense that's roughly "as good" as our competitive methods in other sequences and that seems perfectly sufficient to me.

[kenrexford]

Weird debate.

If Multi can be played without the need to allow written defenses, then you memorize your defenses.

If the rules for some reason allow Multi but only if written defenses can be used, then you use written defenses. Seems easy to me, and no slight on myself.

I mean, if the rules for some reason allowed me to use written notes for any slam auctions, boy could I come up with some great methods! No one could of course learn them without the notes, except a handful of nutcases like me, but why hand over to everyone else who uses written notes the ability to develop complicated defenses without the need for memory an advantage in these sequences? Why take a set limit to the maximum amount of memory practical in all areas of bidding and limit by the ability to also memorize Multi defense when I can save that brain space for remembering nuanced sequences in other areas.

If the game were a series of Multi openings only and then go, then sure, perhaps. But it is not. For anyone who thinks memorizing a multi defense is no big deal, I bet your base methods have some sacrifices somewhere due to memory load. Why not be embarassed for not playing better methods elsewhere simply because you are too weak of mind to remember more detail?

Well, the same thing here. If the rules allow a no-memory approach, then use a no-memory approach.

Again, if the rules allowed, for example, a written defense to stayman, I'd whip out a doozie there, too.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Sep 23 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

Weird debate.

If Multi can be played without the need to allow written defenses, then you memorize your defenses.

If the rules for some reason allow Multi but only if written defenses can be used, then you use written defenses. Seems easy to me, and no slight on myself.

I mean, if the rules for some reason allowed me to use written notes for any slam auctions, boy could I come up with some great methods! No one could of course learn them without the notes, except a handful of nutcases like me, but why hand over to everyone else who uses written notes the ability to develop complicated defenses without the need for memory an advantage in these sequences? Why take a set limit to the maximum amount of memory practical in all areas of bidding and limit by the ability to also memorize Multi defense when I can save that brain space for remembering nuanced sequences in other areas.

If the game were a series of Multi openings only and then go, then sure, perhaps. But it is not. For anyone who thinks memorizing a multi defense is no big deal, I bet your base methods have some sacrifices somewhere due to memory load. Why not be embarassed for not playing better methods elsewhere simply because you are too weak of mind to remember more detail?

Well, the same thing here. If the rules allow a no-memory approach, then use a no-memory approach.

Again, if the rules allowed, for example, a written defense to stayman, I'd whip out a doozie there, too.

In that case I suppose you see nothing wrong with being allowed to have and to refer to your full system notes at the table as well, Ken?

[Vampyr]

The_Hog, on Sep 23 2010, 12:42 AM, said:

In that case I suppose you see nothing wrong with being allowed to have and to refer to your full system notes at the table as well, Ken?

If it were allowed as part of the Conditions of Contest, anyone who did not bring and refer to their full system notes would be a fool. I do not see the implication that Ken would prefer such a form of the game.

[ulven]

As someone who played against Multi's for my whole bridge life (and played it myself a fair number of years) I must say that I think all this fear and need for detailed defences is an over reaction. Yes, you sometimes run into auctions where the multi gets you because the is no known suit. But this happens so infrequently at the table IRL that you shouldn't worry so much about it. And when it happens, it's not guaranteed that any amount of written defences would have helped you.

The whole attitude thing and written defences and all just takes you out of your comfort zone and will 'tense you up'. That is going to cost you more in the long run. Maybe just not as visibly as that one disaster result you had in some match.

When you send your kid off to school you know there's a chance s/he might get hit by a car or have some freak incident. The chance is small and it's too impractical to protect your children from all bad that can happen and you take some base measures to avoid danger (instructions, spell out the route, check traffic intensity at critical times etc) and move on.

With the multi (and any smilar), you should get some base agreements (which takes about 3 sentences in my own notes) and don't worry. Adopt the same practical attitude. Yes, you might get hit. You might get hit in the office too.

I can't even remember the last time I had a bad result against the Multi that could have been avoided if I could've brought a complex set of agreements to the table. (I do remember get a bad result vs Brogeland at the 2008 Europeans (on BBO vugraph to boot) but no amount of agreements would have made any difference.)

Just my [Euro] 2 cents.

[Free]

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?