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

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

It has always boggled my mind that such notices are not provided to club TDs (I asked specifically for that some time ago, and was told unequivocally "no").

Is the requirement to provide one's own defense to a mid-chart convention a requirement to do so in writing? I can see this scenario:

Player: Director, please!
TD wanders leisurely over to the table.
TD: How can I help?
Player: I require a blank sheet of paper.
TD: what for?
Player: I have to write down for opponents our preferred defense to their Mid-Chart convention.
TD: OKay.
TD goes back to his station, pokes around looking for scrap paper, doesn't find any, finally pulls a sheet out of the printer. Five minutes later:
TD: Here you go.
Player: Thanks. We're gonna need a time extension to get all these boards in.

gnasher, on 2011-February-03, 17:48, said:

Poorly worded by me. What I meant is that, if you choose a defense, it must be done when the opponents pre-alert. You don't have to choose one, though. (I can't think there is any rule that requires you to have a defense to everything.)
If you use your own defense, and it takes more than a few sentences to explain it, you are expected (not required as far as I know) to have it written down. (In the ACBL, when it is allowed, Multi can only be used in events in which you play at least 6 boards against each opponent that you meet, which means team games.)

That seems odd, (and Hello D!) They don't have to know my defence to Flannery, or have access to it, or my defence to a strong Club; provided I can give full disclosure when it happens. What makes mid-chart conventions different?

I would understand that if I do have a defence, I am allowed to have it in writing and consult it at the table, and barring the opponents from reading it would be unusual in the extreme. But if J and I play Dixon, and know it well because we've spent the last 4 months playing in England and using it every week, why should we have to have it available to the opponents any more than "Dixon defence to Multi" on the CC (same as Guoba Rescues after 1NT-X)?

mycroft, on 2011-February-03, 19:38, said:

Michael, I think it is just an extension of the text on the Mid-Chart that requires players that play Mid-Chart conventions to have copies of the approved defences in writing. Sort of "if I have to do it, so do you". But, as I said, I don't think it is required. At least, I can't find anything that says it is.

mycroft, on 2011-February-03, 19:38, said:

Surely you are not saying that if you use your own defense instead of one of the approved ones, you are allowed to consult it during the auction?

Vampyr, on 2011-February-04, 02:34, said:

From the ACBL Mid-Chart Convention defense database:
"This database contains approved defenses to methods permitted under the ACBL Mid-Chart. When playing in an event governed by the ACBL Mid-Chart, you may refer, during the bidding and/or play, to any defense contained herein to a Mid-Chart method being used by your opponents (you may also refer to your own defensive method)."

So yes, you may refer to your own defense.

Vampyr, on 2011-February-04, 02:34, said:

I think that you are a little biased by the fact that for you it is common to defend against multi 2♦.

But think of it like this: You are going to play In a tournament next month. One of the pairs is using the Pluri Scrapheap convention. This convention is only allowed in certain tournaments because it is destructive and complicated to defend against. You get the booklet with approved defenses and you see that those defenses do not really fit your philosophy in dealing with destructive conventions. So, you invest some time and come up with something that suits you better. You memorize everything and... it turns out that the Pluri Scrapheap pair sits out when you play against them (they have a six member team).

Now imagine that you are going to a tournament where there are 12 pairs playing something funny. It is still doable to prepare written defenses, but memorizing them is a different thing. That is why you are allowed to consult your own written defense.

The same is true at WBF events: You can consult your own defense to Brown Sticker Conventions and Multi 2♦ (which is not Brown Sticker, but is treated as if it were one, except for the fact that you are allowed to play it when BSCs are barred).

Rik

gnasher, on 2011-February-03, 17:48, said:

You download it from the web and provide it on a separate sheet. At least this is legible unlike the early days.

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

gnasher, on 2011-February-03, 14:58, said:

So it doesn't. But it allows the RA to allow a convention to be played with regulations it makes up, which may include the right to choose a defence for the partnership after the auction has started.

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

gnasher, on 2011-February-03, 14:58, said:

Perhaps, perhaps not. We have the old problem of Laws that are inconsistent. But if the player is allowed to choose for the partnership, why should such a choice, binding on partner though it is, not be known to partner?

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

gnasher, on 2011-February-03, 14:58, said:

Very true. But once a partnership has made a decision it should know it.

mycroft, on 2011-February-03, 19:38, said:

Putting "Guoba rescues after 1NT -X" on the SC is inadequate disclosure in the ACBL, since it is the name of a convention. Same thus for Dixon.

It is a delicate area, but it is difficult to see the justification for opponents not having full access to your defences to various things. The problem is that it may be impractical.

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

This is interesting. Whether or not it is legal for people to choose their defences after the auction starts, at least this seems to suggest it is not permitted.

Where can I see this written please?

bluejak, on 2011-February-04, 09:40, said:

Actually, on the system card it's just fine - after all, you can just check off Drury, et al. Of course, after 1NT-X-p!, when they ask, you can't just say "Guoba". And, of course, yes, if they ask for "all options partner has", you have to be able to rattle them off (and I bet much fewer than half the players think opponents are allowed to know, never mind know that it's required. It's only been 20 years...)

Unfortunately, with the card as it is, there isn't enough room to do anything but put on names of conventions for the battery of weird stuff one plays (I admit, I have tweaked the card for my Precision partnership to put in all our responses to 1C-P, but if I hadn't, there wouldn't be enough room for anything else).

bluejak, on 2011-February-04, 09:44, said:

If you mean the part I quoted, the codification section of the ACBL web site <http://www.acbl.org/about/codification.html> Chapter 12, section A has the text. I am still searching for the notice from management to which I referred.

I cannot find it. Please confirm where it is.

bluejak, on 2011-February-04, 14:04, said:

If you cut and paste that URL into your browser, you should get the index for the ACBL Codification. Then scroll down to Chapter 12, section A and select it. Towards the end of that section is the text I quoted.

Or you can go to ACBL.org and search for "codification conditions of contest", and you should get this page located.

hm. This is what you quoted, I think:

Quote

I went to the link you provided, downloaded the Chapter 12, Section A pdf, and searched it for that text. It ain't there. Then I looked at Chapter 14, Section A (Conditions of Contest). It ain't there either. Of course, the full text of the various CoC isn't there either. There is a statement that "the 2011 Conditions of Contest are approved". So then I went to the "Charts, Rules and Regulations" page, downloaded the "general conditions of contest for all events" and looked in there. It ain't in that one either.

The first pdf (Chapter 12, Section A) makes at least one reference to the 1997 laws. One thing seems clear: the ACBL needs to clean up their site, and not have stuff that is no longer applicable mixed in with stuff that is. The former should rather be put somewhere and clearly marked "historical" or some such. Either that, or get it off the site altogether — but I get the impression the ACBL doesn't want to do that.

I would add that without an explanation of what the numbers in the "codification" pdfs ((913-124) (963-171)) mean, they're pretty much useless. I know they have something to do with minutes of BoD meetings, or perhaps agenda items, but I have no idea how they correlate to meeting dates or what have you.

tl;dr: the Codification book is a mess.

blackshoe, on 2011-February-04, 14:50, said:

Here is the link: Codification

The text is at the bottom of page 4, continuing to page 5.

Ah! That section lists the ACBL's elections wrt the 1997 laws. It is therefore obsolete. However, reference to the ACBL version of the 2008 (what the rest of the world calls the 2007) laws shows that the same statement is listed as an election wrt law 40B2{a} of the current laws (bottom of page 136, continuing to 137). Oh, there is one difference: where in the old (1997) version was used "conventional calls" it now says "special understandings". So, just to be clear, the current law in the ACBL says

Quote

Also, at the top of page 137 of the law book is the election wrt Law 40B2{b}, which says

Quote

I confess I've forgotten why we were talking about this.

ddrankin, on 2011-February-04, 14:21, said:

I did that.

ddrankin, on 2011-February-04, 14:21, said:

I did that.

But I could not find it.

ddrankin, on 2011-February-04, 14:57, said:

Now that is helpful. Thanks.

Trinidad, on 2011-February-04, 08:37, said:

Well, this is what I would have to do (with the exception of having the booklet to refer to), since I don't live in a jurisdiction where written defenses are permitted. I don't think it is that big a deal. I have to be able to defend against a lot more than the Mid-Chart users already, and it's not really as onerous as the ACBL seem to think. And in any case, highly destructive methods are not permitted on the Mid-Chart.

The Mid-Chart is surprising in that there are a lot of pretty basic things on it -- written defense to Lucas Twos?!?! There are also a lot of pretty basic things that aren't allowed -- apparently only the minors are permitted to be opened Multi-style, for example. (It is legal to ban the psyching of artificial opening bids and responses -- but is it reasonable, and can they possibly mean ALL artificial opening bids?) Anyway the ACBL has a duty to please its members, and if they prefer their extremely restrictive system regulations, it's not my business even if I am an ABCL member, since I rarely play in the US.

On the other hand, I think that a lot of us in this thread are very uncomfortable with the idea of written defenses that you can consult. I find it astounding that this is actually legal (though I don't wonder how it got to be that way!).