[jillybean]

It is a travesty that I can't play Multi 2D, how did this ever get into the Charts?

After telling my partner this, he is worried that he may be running afoul of the CC playing treatments such as mini NT, transfers over 1♣, unbalanced diamond.

How can we be sure we are adhering the the CC?
Asking the Director may not be enough.

[mycroft]

Why no Multi? Because it's "so hard" to defend against (by people who want to play a 10-page defence to gain 1% over the 1-page defence. Funny how that doesn't apply to Flannery, or Psychic Opener Check Drury, or other conventions Invented Here™.) And some of those people got to positions in the ACBL where their opinions could be made regulation.

There was a change made in 2002 to the Mid-Chart, where certain conventions that were allowed carte blanche were first regulated to require pre-approved defences (and there's a story around that, too. But I'll let hrothgar tell it, or suggest you search the forums for his previous tellings), and then (2005) restricted by round length (2, 6, or 12-boards without a change of opponents) Well, the defences were approved for a specified length, but if there was no approved defence "easy enough" for 2-board rounds,...

Similarly, around the same time (I think before, around 1998; I was still in grad school) a few allowed conventions were removed from the GCC (Kaplan Inversion, certain defences to 1NT) and were only available in Mid-Chart games.

And Mid-Chart legal games, in many areas of the ACBL, were a phantom that you kept hearing about existing somewhere just over the horizon, or was available "in bracket 1 of KOs" because sometimes pros-that-played-multi showed up to those tournaments, and their clients would raise a stink (and not pay for 4 hotel rooms, and 16 session entries, and probably a party or two to which the tournament committee chairs among others were invited) if they couldn't do their thing. But you and I couldn't play Mid-Chart without the magic 15 000 points...

So, the boogeyman that is the Multi-coloured 2♦ opener (among others, like Ekren 2♥ and 2♠ "bad preempt in a minor". Yes, before the changes I played all three of those) remains a boogeyman, because it never saw the light of day (or at least the open pairs), and so it is still "too scary for normal players to defend". Which, of course, means that "normal players" still need to be protected from it, so...

And yes, when they liberalized (seriously! Compare the Open (no +) Chart to the GCC! See the many many things not disallowed that were not allowed before! In fact, when I first saw the draft of (what became) the Open Chart, I responded "looks great. Now show me the chart I'm actually going to be *playing* under, because this is obviously the replacement for the Mid-Chart." I was told "no, this is what we expect Stratified Open games to play" - and they stuck to their guns. And they were right, it has been basically okay) with the new charts, there were some barriers they felt they couldn't cross. So there are still conventions that are locked behind "6-board round" barriers, and ones locked behind "written defences required", and ones locked behind "yeah, we really don't want Lifetime Cs that come out every week to have to deal with these" (and are therefore only allowed Open+). One of them was the dreaded Multi 2♦.

Of course, another was the "15-17, could contain a singleton" 1NT opener, ubiquitous in the EBU. Like the Multi, this is Open+ only, and not pair games. Unlike the Multi, there's no exception for the Platinum Pairs or the Reisinger.

Or the Wilkosz 2♦, which is so scary it isn't even legal Open+. Now, granted, effectively the entire world (except Poland) believes this one is too difficult to defend against to live, so even most Poles have moved to Multi and Polish (5M-5m) 2M openings - but still.

My favourite was "we think 10-14 1NTs are easy enough to play against that they should be allowed in the 199er game. We also think that 9-12 is so scary that even full-time pros playing 60-board matches in the Spingold can't handle them." (The wider range, such as 12-17 or "10-12 or 15-17" 1NTs I believe are disallowed as the regulators think it is impossible to play without "help", rather than too difficult to defend. ICBW there, only my guess.)

There are reasons they felt they couldn't cross those lines. I wouldn't dream of speculating what those reasons are.

[mycroft]

To answer more than the first line of your post: RTFR. To quote a phrase from a different game, "Reading the card explains the card."

I am surprised (and a little disappointed) that Mike had the issue he had with the sectional directors for two years. And you should (even as a lawyer used to reading regulations) be allowed to ask the person whose job it is to enforce the regulations and get an answer you can rely on as correct, instead of trusting your own reading.

But your first protection is to Read the Regulation yourself. Yes, they are legalistic. Yes, they rely on 4 pages of Definitions, but the definitions are very carefully worded (*), and any defined terms in the numbered allowed (/disallowed, on the Open charts) classes of calls in the charts are Capitalized so you remember. Yes, they have carefully written things to minimize duplication of allow/disallowed calls, and that can be hard to clearly distinguish, especially in the disallowed opening calls on the Open/+ charts. But they can be read, and they can be understood, and (at least when the relevant rule is pointed out by someone else) it is almost always obvious if your call is allowed/disallowed by a class rule.

And frankly, so can the "Chart Usage" page. Hence my disappointment.

(*)even if they define some terms in ways that nobody else uses the word. They seem to have fixed "Preempt", for which I give thanks (before the change, a Mixed Raise, a call that half the time would get opener to bid game, was a Preempt), but note that now, a "preemptive raise to game" isn't a Preempt either.

[jillybean]

https://web2.acbl.or...Charts-2024.pdf

My head is spinning.

The definitions refer to several “Rules of …”. Where are these rules defined?

[mycroft]

Strangely enough, it's a Capitalized Term, which as I said before probably means it's in the definitions. And look here, there it is:

Quote

27. *** “Rule of N”: A method of determining hand strength computed by adding the High Card Points of the hand to the number of cards in the two longest suits. To meet the “Rule of N”, this total must be at least N.

I grant, it's on the fourth page of the definitions, but that's just because after the Big 4: Burns, Cross, Lane, and MacLean(*) Hand Strength (including Average, Near Average, Strong and Very Strong), Natural, Quasi-Natural (ugh, but reasonable), and PDIA, they're in alphabetical order, and R is near the back.

(*) it's a Calgary joke. I don't expect anyone else to get it.

[pilowsky]

And now you know why so many people prefer to play chess.

[jillybean]

I can see why it’s not working.

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2024-August-14, 23:51, said:

And now you know why so many people prefer to play chess.

Chess is an inherently simpler game, at least in terms of the mechanics. But the Laws of Chess are 24 pages long, I'll bet most casual players don't know them all, either.

[pilowsky]

barmar, on 2024-August-15, 16:03, said:

Chess is an inherently simpler game, at least in terms of the mechanics. But the Laws of Chess are 24 pages long, I'll bet most casual players don't know them all, either.

The only area where chess players have a slight knowledge deficit is in relation to the clock; ironically the one thing that would clear up many of the problems discussed on this forum.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 19:53, said:

After telling my partner this, he is worried that he may be running afoul of the CC playing treatments such as mini NT, transfers over 1♣, unbalanced diamond.

How can we be sure we are adhering the the CC?

If you're playing in Open events you start with the assumption that whatever it is it's legal. Then you look for line items in the "Open" part of the charts that would make it illegal.

1. mini NT: legal so long as fewer than 10 high card points is not possible per your agreements^* and the range is not more than 5 high card points.
2. transfers over 1♣: After an opening bid, only two responses are disallowed: a psychic artificial response below 2NT, and "psychic controls", defined as "any bid that conveys that a prior bid was a psych". Whatever that means.
3. Not sure what "unbalanced diamond" means but if all it does is "promise" an unbalanced hand, it's legal as long as in 1st/2nd seat it shows at least near average strength if natural, or at least average strength if artificial.

^* In practice you are not permitted to open 1NT with less than 10 HCP, even if the 9 is so spectacular it "evaluates" as 12. Just don't do it.

[mycroft]

Yeah, and you can't look at your stiff Jack and say "it's basically a Queen, and my 16 count is almost 18 even with that". And you can't open Flannery with 3 spades, even if they're AKQ.

And you will notice that "10 Miltons for 1NT" was one of the hard lines I mentioned above as being a little odd. And there might be a reason for that (but I would never deign to speculate).

As I have said many many times, you want to use judgment to upgrade, don't play right to the "we don't want anything weaker than this" line. Then you can use all the judgement you want. After 60+ years of fighting "judgment" where it actually was "we want to play this thing that isn't technically allowed, so we will anyway, and claim 'judgement' whenever it comes up", the C&CC decided to say "yeah, hard lines here." Technically, "you can have these agreements provided you agree also not to use 'judgement' to upgrade a hand that, was it really your agreement (and your judgement says it meets your agreement, right?), would not be legal."

Those who have a problem with that can contact the C&CC and make their case. Or they can campaign to get appointed to the C&CC and make their case.

And yeah, another one of those "hard lines" is "Multi is too complicated for regular players to play against." Again, if you believe that is incorrect (and most of the world think that is incorrect), I warn you it is a quixotic struggle to take on. But go ahead, if That's Your Windmill.

Having said that, today in the regional, a player opened 1NT with a stiff ♣6, and there was no problem. Well, okay, there were lots of problems, but not with the bid. Of course, it helped the player's case that the director (not me) saw the player move the "♣K" out of the clubs and into the spades...

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-August-16, 19:20, said:

And yeah, another one of those "hard lines" is "Multi is too complicated for regular players to play against." Again, if you believe that is incorrect (and most of the world think that is incorrect), I warn you it is a quixotic struggle to take on. But go ahead, if That's Your Windmill.

We are in a very sad state if most of the world think the restrictions are incorrect

[sanst]

I agree with you that the multi should be allowed. In the Netherlands you're even allowed to consult a written defence as opponents, but I've never seen anybody doing that. That having said, where do you draw the line? Would you allow openings that don't give any information, alerted and explained as "My partner has thirteen cards"? Would you allow an opening bid of 1 in a suit that denies length in that suit, but doesn't give information about in which suit(s) the opener has length or strength? A 1NT with less than 8 HCP? An opening pass that means 'I've at least 13 HCP'? The aim of these bids is usually to make the bidding for the opponents extremely difficult, not to reach a good contract yourselves.

[jillybean]

I do not know what the restrictions should be.
Leaving the protection of the 0-199s , 0-3000 and playing in the Open section is challenging and exciting but then you come up against this roadblock. Those without the opportunity to play in Open+ games have no exposure to, and no opportunity to test and develop their game past a certain level.

I understand Open+ may be too much for some players, there are already some who gripe about having to play in the Open. For these players, don’t play in Open. I think you always have the option to play down, forget the master points. If this isn’t the case the problem is just being compounded.

I believe that the desire and need to develop and advance both the game and players should be greater than the need to protect eternal C players.

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 19:53, said:

It is a travesty that I can't play Multi 2D, how did this ever get into the Charts?

At the most basic level, the convention charts are best viewed as a mechanism to protect pros and elite level players from chance.

Suppose that you're significantly better at declaring and defending than anyone else in the room...
You're going to do best in an environment in which everyone is declaring the same contract from the same direction.

Allowing a wide variety of bidding methods introduces variance.
Restricting bidding methods encourages conformity.

Mind you, the folks writing the charts won't ever admit that they're doing this. Some might not even be doing so consciously.
But it's what's driving behaviors.

I recall a thread 15 or so years back when folks were discussing the choice of convention charts for the US Team trials. I claimed that team trials should mirror the convention charts that get used for the actual events.

I recall Fred firmly arguing the opposite, citing the need to make sure that the "best" teams won the events and allowing a wider selection of methods would make the event more random. (This being the same Fred who was on the Convention Committee at the time)

[jillybean]

So this, “protecting players from unusual systems” is used to make it more palatable to the membership.

I don’t know the statistical or mathematical terms for representing membership but I imagine if you used a pyramid to represent ACBL, the pros would form the apex, 0-3000 the base and everyone else up from there. I’m sure these numbers are readily available.

So the ACBL is being controlled from the apex. The difference here, to some other countries RAs, is that the ACBL is a business model.

[pescetom]

I imagine that the scenario depicted here of a few top US players who strongly oppose Multi (perhaps only nominally to protect low level players) is accurate. Of course there must have been an equal and opposite few top European players who strongly wanted Multi, otherwise the WBF would never have made an exception to the Brown Sticker rules in the first place.

I dislike exceptions on principle, and this one in particular looks unjustified and poorly written too. I also think those rules were a valid start at drawing a line, more coherent with the Laws than the current ACBL "hard line" approach. So FWIW I would be in favour of putting the cat back in the bag at World level, although that is even more quixotic than the opposite battle in the US, and a little schizophrenic too (as in general and just like others here I would like to see people more open to different methods rather than vice versa).

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2024-August-17, 08:42, said:

So this, “protecting players from unusual systems” is used to make it more palatable to the membership.

https://preview.redd...mat=mp48100d4db

[fred]

hrothgar, on 2024-August-17, 04:56, said:

At the most basic level, the convention charts are best viewed as a mechanism to protect pros and elite level players from chance.

Suppose that you're significantly better at declaring and defending than anyone else in the room...
You're going to do best in an environment in which everyone is declaring the same contract from the same direction.

Allowing a wide variety of bidding methods introduces variance.
Restricting bidding methods encourages conformity.

Mind you, the folks writing the charts won't ever admit that they're doing this. Some might not even be doing so consciously.
But it's what's driving behaviors.

I recall a thread 15 or so years back when folks were discussing the choice of convention charts for the US Team trials. I claimed that team trials should mirror the convention charts that get used for the actual events.

I recall Fred firmly arguing the opposite, citing the need to make sure that the "best" teams won the events and allowing a wider selection of methods would make the event more random. (This being the same Fred who was on the Convention Committee at the time)

Your claimed psychic ability to understand the subconscious motivation of others fails in my case.

My motivation was to try to make the game more enjoyable and fairer for others. You are allowed to disagree with my opinions on what constituted an enjoyable and fair bridge experience for various groups of ACBL players 20 years ago, but claiming some nefarious and completely false intention without a shred of evidence (at least in my case) is beneath you.

I also question your recollection of my "firmly arguing the opposite". If you find a quote that proves me wrong I will apologize for both my faulty memory and my apparent stupidity at the time.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to apologize to me for the same insults and lies you have been vomiting forever.

[hrothgar]

fred, on 2024-August-17, 10:46, said:

I also question your recollection of my "firmly arguing the opposite". If you find a quote that proves me wrong I will apologize for both my faulty memory and my apparent stupidity at the time.

Regretfully, the BBO Forums don't seem to let me search on threads prior to 2021
Google search doesn't see much better

Perhaps some of the other old timers might recall the thread in question