BBO Discussion Forums: Declining the multi defense - BBO Discussion Forums

RMB1, on 2011-January-31, 15:19, said:

I fully agree with this. But I actually witnessed exactly this during the 1996 Reisinger in San Francisco (which was at Thanksgiving rather than Christmas ). We were kibitzing Meckwell and all players had picked up their cards. Meckstroth was dealer and called the TD. When the TD came he asked him for two copies of "the yellow booklet" (containing the approved defenses to a Multi 2♦).

When the TD came back, Meckstroth opened one of the booklets and turned it so the opponents could read it. He said: "I am about to open 2♦. We have three defenses that you can choose from." and he proceeded by pointing out the features of the defenses. One of the opponents suggested a pick to his partner. The partner agreed. Meckstroth thanked the TD. Play continued.

To me this was one of the weirder things I have seen at the bridge table, but the players seem to think that it was entirely normal.

Rik

mrdct, on 2011-February-01, 01:01, said:

Not "surely" at all. It is a club.

Vampyr, on 2011-January-31, 23:32, said:

It may not be uncommon, but I don't think it's permitted. It's obviously a breach of Law 73.

There's also nothing in the relevant ACBL regulations to suggest that this is allowed.

When I played multi in ACBL-land, we never forced the opponents to decide on a defense at pre-alert time, though I'm virtually certain that we could have according to the rules. Nobody wants to waste time on discussing something that may not come up only to prevent the opponents from gaining a tiny edge. This seems pretty common, and I've never heard of multi players complaining about the opponents choosing a defense after seeing their hands. I think it's because they're already so demonized for playing multi.

RMB1, on 2011-January-31, 15:19, said:

Vampyr, on 2011-January-31, 23:32, said:

gnasher, on 2011-February-01, 18:19, said:

I am not convinced of that. While I think it a fairly manic idea, in fact I consider the whole approach childish in the extreme, I fancy it is legal under Law 40B, which gives an RA very wide powers in this area.

We had beautiful approved defences on laminated sheets in Orlando. When we played on the third day of the National Swiss Teams, most of our opponents, especially the Europeans, seemed fairly insulted at being offered them!

gnasher, on 2011-February-01, 18:19, said:

Nothing to suggest it is not, either. You have to make both defences available, and there is no regulation that they have to choose one or the other or either or neither.

karlson, on 2011-February-01, 18:22, said:

I think approved defences are a reasonable idea, and should be allowed in novice games, and 0-20 games. But if they are going to be used at top level, I can see no excuse for not doing it properly. A simple regulation that players are required to say whether they will use the defences when they are pre-alerted [and which one in the case of the Multi] would make sense.

The current arrangement allows you to double a Multi three times in one match. When you hold a long diamond suit, you decline the defences. When you hold a takeout double of spades, you announce that you will use Option One. When you hold a balanced 14 count you announce that you will use Option Two.

Pshaw!

bluejak, on 2011-February-01, 20:50, said:

Which part of Law 40B allows the RA to permit players to discuss their methods after the auction has started?

Quote

Yes, of course the ACBL regulations allow the defenders to choose neither. What they don't allow is for the defender to wait until the auction is started and then agree what their methods are.

Suppose that the RA really did have the authority to override Law 73. For the ACBL to actually allow that, they would have to say something like "The defenders may agree their defence after the auction has started". Since they don't say that, Law 73 is not overridden, and Law 73 applies.

RMB1, on 2011-January-31, 15:19, said:

Sounds a bit tame. At our Christmas parties, the dealer is not allowed to look at his hand before deciding on a opening bid.

lamford, on 2011-February-02, 03:44, said:

Really?
What about Law 7B2: Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.

pran, on 2011-February-02, 03:58, said:

You think Christmas parties follow the laws? Ours certainly violates law 6.

bluejak, on 2011-February-01, 20:50, said:

gnasher, on 2011-February-02, 02:59, said:

None, of course, which is why you asked this irrelevant question. But it does give the RA th right to allow the player to choose a defence whenever he wishes, eg during the auction.

gnasher, on 2011-February-02, 02:59, said:

So you say. But the evidence does not support you. It is considered normal to ask for the defences only after the bid is made, and nothing in the Regulations suggest anything wrong with this. Sure, you say it is a breach of Law 73, but I do not think the ACBL agrees with you.

Players may not discuss which defence - or whether to use a defence. But they may choose.

bluejak, on 2011-February-02, 07:19, said:

If, as seems to be the case, the ACBL allow the defences to be chosen during the auction, they should regulate how this is done. If a partnership have an exchange like, "Let's use #1", "No, let's use 2", the UI implications are enormous.

mjj29, on 2011-February-02, 05:52, said:

Haha. Our "unsanctioned" games violate quite a number of laws, proprieties, and policies also, most notably zero tolerance.

bluejak, on 2011-February-02, 07:19, said:

Sorry about the careless wording of my earlier question. (I can't imagine why you think I would intentionally ask an irrelevant question.)

Does Law 40B allow the RA to permit one membership of the partnership, after the auction has started, to choose a defence and communicate that choice to his partner? If so, which part of Law 40B says that?

gnasher, on 2011-February-02, 11:15, said:

Honestly, Andy, does it really matter what the Laws say? We are talking about the ACBL...

LOL.

gnasher, on 2011-February-02, 11:15, said:

Quote

Notes:
"without restriction" gives the RA complete powers in this matter.
"allow conditionally" says the RA can apply conditions, for example allowing a player to choose the defence for the partnership after the auction has started.
"may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets ..." allows the RA to make arrangements about supplementary sheets for SCs, which the ACBL considers covers these defences.
"... regulate its use" allows the RA to make rules about these supplementary sheets, for example choosing to use them or not, and make the decisions for the partnership after the auction has started.

Vampyr, on 2011-February-02, 11:21, said:

No need to make "meta-ridicule" of ACBL, really. Read what bluejak wrote, downthread.

bluejak, on 2011-February-02, 19:40, said:

The sentence from which you quoted this gives the RA complete powers with respect to allowing or disallowing a special partnership understanding. It does not give the RA any powers with respect to allowing communcation between the partners.

Quote

To allow something conditionally is to allow it provided that some other conditions are met. The RA cannot say "you may play a Multi only if you allow the opponents to communicate during the auction", because the Multi-openers do not have the authority to give such permission.

Quote

Perhaps, but making a decision is not the same as communciating a decision.

At ACBL tournaments (not necessarily clubs), players are not allowed to select a defense to Multi after looking at their hands. The ACBL codification conditions of contest state that "At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents’ convention card and alter their defenses against the opponent’s conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. Defenses to methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart and/or SuperChart are designated as “unusual methods” and may be referred to during the auction."

I can't find the notice to TD's from management, but we were told that this meant the players must choose a defense when pre-alerted, if more than one was available, or state that they were using their own, and provide it to the opponents if requested.

ddrankin, on 2011-February-03, 17:00, said:

Good

Quote

Less good. Can't we decide not to agree any defence?

Does "provide it to the opponents" mean that I have to have my defence to a Multi written down? That also seems unreasonable, since the ACBL convention card doesn't provide anywhere to write it.