[jillybean]

---

Lead ♥A, feeling a little nervous after partner passed and before I saw dummy.

Pass explained as forces XX
Partner will bid 2♣ showing clubs and a major (2 suiter)
2♦ showing diamonds and spades
or pass, if he has values and think I will make 1nt

[smerriman]

If x and follow-ups are undiscussed, this seems a bit like psyching against robots.. you get great scores because they don't understand your system, but it doesn't feel very rewarding..

[jillybean]

I don't psych or play against robots but I understand what you mean. I think this is just a learning curve players go through, both for myself and East/West.

[jillybean]

I wonder why our 10-13nt is allowed in a Club game but Multi is banned from all but the top level events (ACBL)

[paulg]

smerriman, on 2025-March-13, 18:19, said:

If x and follow-ups are undiscussed, this seems a bit like psyching against robots.. you get great scores because they don't understand your system, but it doesn't feel very rewarding..

A mini no trump is not in the same class as more complex or obscure methods. It is reasonable to expect a pair to have discussed what a double of 1NT means, although few club players will have discussed the follow ups and sit there just hoping it never comes up.

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2025-March-14, 03:38, said:

I wonder why our 10-13nt is allowed in a Club game but Multi is banned from all but the top level events (ACBL)

Because Multi is more obscure, there is no natural meaning for a double (that is, no known suit for a takeout double) and the disclosure of it (and continuations) is far worse.

The biggest reason is that no-one likes change.

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2025-March-14, 04:10, said:

Because Multi is more obscure, there is no natural meaning for a double (that is, no known suit for a takeout double) and the disclosure of it (and continuations) is far worse.

The biggest reason is that no-one likes change.

I would ask the question why a 2 card club that is nearly forcing is considered natural but a multi is not allowed, just US methods vs non US methods.

[jillybean]

I disagree, it's not North American methods, it is ACBL Policies.
The players who are content to play kitchen bridge at ACBL sanctioned games have a louder voice than others.

Although, this pair had no problem with our 10-13nt

[jdiana]

I, personally, have no problem with the ACBL restricting the methods that are allowed under the Basic Chart (unless clubbing baby seals is your thing). But I wish they'd approve the beloved Multi 2♦ (and everything else) beginning with the Open Chart, just so people would stop whining about it.

[mycroft]

oh, but the 10-13 NT is perfectly reasonable for players in the under 100 MP game. No, seriously. Even though 9-11 is too hard for world champions with weeks to prepare.

The NAian panic about the Multi 2♦ (defences too complicated to memorize, but anything less is insufficient)(1); "not common" for a 60-year-old convention(2); badly explained (unspoken: "and unexplainable" or "deliberately") followups(3); "protect the average club player"(4); and all the rest) is overblown. But the convention *is* difficult to defend against(1*); it isn't common here(2*); implications on the pass or psychic "pass or correct" responses *are* badly defined by most pairs who play it, and even more poorly explained to the opponents who ask(3*); ...

And frankly(5), the biggest benefit of Multi is what you do with the 2M openers. Which, I would easily believe, is *another reason* (unspoken, because (most of) they are actually legal, and we wouldn't want to badmouth legal agreements would we?) the NAian panickers are against it.

But my response to most "non-standard" "I didn't get it"s are "they don't have to bid the same way you were taught. Just because there is One True Bidding System in North America doesn't mean it's a requirement to bid that way; and you are expected to be able to defend against it. And you know, it's not like you've been playing against us twice a week for 6 years, the weak NT shouldn't be a surprise by now."

And my standard response to the rest are "take it up with the committee. But know that until more History Passes, your battle will be Sisyphean."

Footnotes in spoilers for what should be obvious reasons.
1.

Spoiler

For the current Satanic Panic, see this article on the Other Site.
* unlike, say, 1♣ "clubs or balanced with transfer responses", which is so difficult to defend against there "isn't" a good defence to it, so just pick one of these two meanings for double and resign yourself to being behind. Oh, there is a defence we haven't plotted out? Make it illegal...

2.

Spoiler

Hmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe because you have spent the last 20 years making sure that all but the top flight of players never see it, and even them, only one game a regional?
* inlike, say, 1NT overcall for takeout, which is Basic+ legal if it promises 8 HCP, without "preAlerts", "written defences", or any of the rest of it. Because everybody plays that...

3.

Spoiler

And yeah, they have a point, even at WC level. And that's harder to defend against when it's a preempt (and these tendencies usually happen when responder is also weak).
* Unlike, say, disclosure on "third seat 1♦ '10-15' openers", or what percentage of 13s are opened a "14-16" NT, or how "weak" a "weak overcall" could be, or...

4.

Spoiler

I think the "average club player" would, in 4 months or so, be just as annoyed at the Multi players as they are against the Precision players or the K/S players, or anything else that "why do only you play that?" But, also, just as resigned to "okay, it's them, they're weird" too. Again, see 2. But the outrage in those 4 months...! You'd think they were psyching!

5,

Spoiler

For those who have *also* watched Hellsing Ultimate Abridged, you're wincing right along with me. For those who haven't, remain comfortable with your innocence, It's better that way. If you're going to challenge my belief - I mean, it's *really really good* fanart, despite the warnings(*) - at least you get lots of time to decide you were wrong, and will only have to whimper in my corner if you're really, truly, a HUA type. It's in the last episode.
* As in, I've been looking to change my .sig quote for a while, and wanted to use a funny HUA one. I'm finding it *almost impossible* to get a good one that would pass the BBO filters...Oddly enough, the one I'm referencing here would (which is in itself disturbing).

[jillybean]

https://bridgewinner...-in-wbf-events/

Good News , the start of the process to allow that dreaded convention in Sectionals?

I happily play against fantunes in my local Sectional, for heaven's sake.

[smerriman]

Before things get too heated, I didn't meant to imply you shouldn't be playing it or they shouldn't be able to handle it Just that depending on your level there will be a decent proportion who can't, and it's a bit of a letdown for everyone involved every time that happens.

A 1nt xx opposite decent opponents would definitely be exciting.

[akwoo]

The way to understand convention regulations in the ACBL is that it's written by pros to protect their clients. Meckstroth wants it so that I paying him can beat mikeh - that way people like me have more incentive to pay him. So Multi is banned because playing against it requires good judgement from both sides of the table; Meckstroth's superior judgement won't make up for my lack thereof.

Also - in pairs (and I mean pairs, not MPs) there is an inherent unfairness because so much of your score depends not on how well you do against your competitors but rather on how well you do against the hopeless. I don't mind winning by a third of a board if the folks in second gave that to me by being confused against Multi - it doesn't feel so great winning by a third of a board because 2 of the pairs who are dead last gave that to me by being confused against Multi. (Then again, there are pros who basically make their living by operating against the weaker half of the field - just watch Itabashi pull out the 2 level 4 card overcalls playing with a mediocre client at regional open pairs.)

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2025-March-14, 15:41, said:

The way to understand convention regulations in the ACBL is that it's written by pros to protect their clients. Meckstroth wants it so that I paying him can beat mikeh - that way people like me have more incentive to pay him. So Multi is banned because playing against it requires good judgement from both sides of the table; Meckstroth's superior judgement won't make up for my lack thereof.

I am aware of the history of Multi and why it is banned in ACBL.
I added Multi, and played against it in NZ during my 8 month hiatus from Covid, it's a lot of fun. It really isn't any more difficult than playing against weak 2's, weak nt's, Flannery, Transfers over 1♣ and so on, and certainly simpler than playing against a fatunes pair.

akwoo, on 2025-March-14, 15:41, said:

Also - in pairs (and I mean pairs, not MPs) there is an inherent unfairness because so much of your score depends not on how well you do against your competitors but rather on how well you do against the hopeless. I don't mind winning by a third of a board if the folks in second gave that to me by being confused against Multi - it doesn't feel so great winning by a third of a board because 2 of the pairs who are dead last gave that to me by being confused against Multi. (Then again, there are pros who basically make their living by operating against the weaker half of the field - just watch Itabashi pull out the 2 level 4 card overcalls playing with a mediocre client at regional open pairs.)

We are going to get our tops against the hopeless regardless of what we play. No, it wouldn't feel great winning by a third of a board because I pulled the Multi 2D against the hopeless but we are playing and taking our knocks in the Open, not bunny bashing in the Gold Rush.

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2025-March-14, 13:10, said:

Before things get too heated, I didn't meant to imply you shouldn't be playing it or they shouldn't be able to handle it Just that depending on your level there will be a decent proportion who can't, and it's a bit of a letdown for everyone involved every time that happens.

A 1nt xx opposite decent opponents would definitely be exciting.

Sometimes we need to light a fire get things moving.

I will be sure to post my first 1nt xx -? vulnerable result. I haven't been playing it long enough, or against strong opponents to come to any great harm.
Those gargantuan negative scores and resulting lessons stay with me.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-March-14, 16:12, said:

I am aware of the history of Multi and why it is banned in ACBL.
I added Multi, and played against it in NZ during my 8 month hiatus from Covid, it's a lot of fun. It really isn't any more difficult than playing against weak 2's, weak nt's, Flannery, Transfers over 1♣ and so on, and certainly simpler than playing against a fatunes pair.

You're not appreciating the nuances of what I wrote.

I would much rather play Precision against two players at my level than against one good player and one beginner. The disruption caused by one good player causes us much more damage than the confusion of the beginner causes them.

On the other hand, I would much rather play Multi against one good player and one beginner than against two players at my level. The two players at my level can coordinate a defense; no amount of brilliance from the good player can make up for the lack of cooperation he or she will get from the beginner.

Quote

We are going to get our tops against the hopeless regardless of what we play. No, it wouldn't feel great winning by a third of a board because I pulled the Multi 2D against the hopeless but we are playing and taking our knocks in the Open, not bunny bashing in the Gold Rush.

Hopelessness is relative. In an open national event, I'm the bunny against whom all the pros are trying ways to steal tricks they know would backfire against a peer.

As for playing the mini-NT - one of the first sessions I played it we got a top for 1N down 4 vulnerable. They had 13 each and couldn't find a way to come in. The field played 3N their way with an overtrick for 430 rather than 400.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the explanation

[jillybean]

If you want to take a look at another system we may never see in ACBL land, Ware/McManus are playing some sort of Forcing Pass system on VuGraph NZ Teams Trials.
And the card play is brilliant.