[jillybean]

Such as this?
https://www.bridgeba...__1#entry379925

2009. 2005, I don't know if I can search earlier posts.

This?


https://www.bridgeba...em-definitions/

[mycroft]

You can definitely search earlier - I regularly (well, maybe once a year, when I'm bored or looking for one post in particular) search all my posts. It stops after 1000 or so, but you can set the dates from 200x to the last date shown in the previous history to get the next 1000. To get the calendar to go back past 2018, select the earliest year you can in the dropdown, then select the dropdown again to get more "previous years".

My guess is the great Mid-Chart and written defences debate (Note, you'll need to get 40 or so posts in before it drifts into the meat. I will note that hrothgar - made it clear he has no patience left even in 2008. The other side - well, read it.) where my response was "I trust Fred to be doing what he thinks is right for the game. I don't think I trust all the people Fred trusts. I know I don't trust all the people *they* trust. But my trust doesn't matter. The skeptics have their case, and the visuals support that case. If the committee wants to silence the skeptics, they have to take *active steps* to change the visuals"(*). Or the previous "all-purpose openers" thread (you think the current charts are hard to read and understand? At least they are precise, and minimize using terms that mean, well, something at least. Maybe even the same thing to some people).

There might even be information in those threads that, having read them, may colour your reading of my previous responses.

(*) And I stand by that. I still trust Fred to have done, and to do, what he thinks is best for bridge. I still am not completely trusting. I still thing that the C&CC need to proactively work to change the optics - although the new Convention Charts are a *big* active work, and are *head and shoulders* above the old charts in both clarity and permissiveness (at least in the open game). I even discussed with my contact on the committee that a new defence needs to be approved under the new procedures and rules, even if it has to be created by a co-opted party, just to show it can be done. Not all of my suggestions were accepted :-).

[jillybean]

So, 15 years later and no one has been able to come up with a defence to satisfy the Conventions Committee ?

We've taken Multi off our list of things to try, it seems very unfair to play it at the club.

[mycroft]

You can check (through the Internet Archive) the defence pamphlet (Yellow book, originally, then just "online to print out") from back then and now.

The response I got to my statement was (very paraphrased, do NOT assume the other person, whoever he or she is, actually said this, or even that it's true) "Since we put out the charts, nobody's submitted one."

You could, I guess.

But if you want to take Multi to the club, I would suggest:

• The extra strong game that's willing to experiment, if your area has one; or
  
• NZ, or UK, or wherever in the world it's allowed. Replace Flannery with it, though, or they'll look at you funny - and probably you will get complaints that "it's too difficult to defend against".

Or play online, in games that aren't run by "ACBL" or "VACB". Maybe even an open room table.

(You will note that this is almost exactly the advice I gave the pair that played "basically Acol" (by which they meant 1♣ "clubs or balanced" with transfer responses, Multi and Muiderberg) who wanted to take it to the Acol Club (read: Acol Refugees Club) to get practise for their tournaments.)

[jillybean]

I wouldn't be surprised if players have given up on the CCC, or perhaps it is true - no defence submitted.
I could ask the "C" players for a defence next time I'm in NZ.

I would have no problem playing Multi along with the Fantunes etc players at the main club here, but unfortunately I get to play there once, twice a year.