[johnu]

 32519, on 2014-February-01, 12:25, said:

If there are already about 500 variants of Multi, I fail to understand why mine would be called illegal.

Maybe 490 out of the 500 variants are also illegal. Your version is illegal because it doesn't meet the requirements defined by your country's bridge organization.

[32519]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-01, 13:33, said:

Pointing out that your 2♦ bid is illegal is hardly mocking it or criticising it on its merits.

What concerns me is your disclosure, since your opponents never seem to be prepared.

This guy disagrees with you as does all those who upvoted his post, not to mention the scorn higher up in this thread as well. This is what he said -

 Fluffy, on 2014-January-31, 02:31, said:

I oversaw a discussion where a bad player was explaining his artificial methods, while a very good player was taking the patience to explain the flaws on the convention or how he calculated odds or whatever, the bad player then started to say some gibberish about how it works, and ended up with this gem: "Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%. "

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2014-February-01, 22:45, said:

This guy disagrees with you as does all those who upvoted his post, not to mention the scorn higher up in this thread as well. This is what he said -

This is not relevant. I was talking only about someone (helpfully, I might add) looking up your country's regulations. It's true that few think that your convention is good bridge, but that is unrelated to the fact that it is apparently illegal in your NBO (although your local club might have its own regulations).

Why so cagey when asked what you do In terms of disclosure?

[32519]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-01, 22:59, said:

Your local club might have its own regulations.

Why so cagey when asked what you do In terms of disclosure?

Club games are not nearly as restrictive. All unusual bids must be alerted when then occur, and then LHO can ask for an explanation until he is happy before bidding. RHO needs to wait for his turn to ask further questions.

Alert as Multi, but with these 4 possible hand patterns and HCP ranges...

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2014-February-02, 01:12, said:

Club games are not nearly as restrictive. All unusual bids must be alerted when then occur, and then LHO can ask for an explanation until he is happy before bidding. RHO needs to wait for his turn to ask further questions.

Alert as Multi, but with these 4 possible hand patterns and HCP ranges...

So you don't mention this when describing your basic system?

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2014-February-02, 01:12, said:

Club games are not nearly as restrictive. All unusual bids must be alerted when then occur, and then LHO can ask for an explanation until he is happy before bidding. RHO needs to wait for his turn to ask further questions.

Alert as Multi, but with these 4 possible hand patterns and HCP ranges...

So you don't mention this when describing your basic system?

[32519]

A couple of questions and remarks for all of you –
The probability of me ever playing against any of you in a F2F tournament must be almost zero, if not in fact zero. So why would it bother you, even in the tiniest little bit if I “get a kick” out of developing some of these crazy ideas. All of you (with Fluffy on top of the list), have condemned it as useless and awful. If it is so bad you should all be rubbing your hands in glee if someone sat down as your opponents and said they play my version of Multi. The huge smile beaming across your faces will say it all, “here’s three top boards for our side, partner,” should the bridge dealer have dealt your opponents three hands which meet the requirement for the bid. Getting three top boards will boost your chances of winning the evenings bridge. So what’s all the fuss about?

Gwnn keeps on hammering on the fact that it (might) not be allowed by the SABF in any tournament run by them. The SABF runs on average four tournaments annually sponsored by them, Congress being the biggest. Then there is also an interclub and an inter-provincial tournament. Then there are also qualifying tournaments to represent the country internationally. I’m not good enough as a player for the last one, so there are three other tournaments on our calendar where I might be prevented from using it. Club games and Red Point events shouldn’t pose any problem whatsoever.

[the hog]

you are quite right. If you want to make a nonsensical bid, it should not worry anyone here.

[gwnn]

 johnu, on 2014-February-01, 20:12, said:

Maybe 490 out of the 500 variants are also illegal. Your version is illegal because it doesn't meet the requirements defined by your country's bridge organization.

I was using a simple formula of 2^7 but that is in fact 128, not 512, plus many of the 128 variations would be identical, e.g. g) apparently already includes strong hands. Still I'd guess that there are about 50 variants that are allowed by the regulations and 32519's is clearly illegal. The rules seem clear that clubs may enforce [b]stricter[\b] regulations than those prescribed by them but says nothing about less strict regulations. There's also another relevant section where they explicitly ban brown sticker bids.

As to why I'm posting about this, I'm having fun. Isn't everyone? What would be the point otherwise? Incidentally I would very much appreciate it if someone else told me that my system is illegal and would try to devise a modification thereof to make it legal again. You are saying your club is more permissive about this than other clubs or the SABF. That may well be true but I would advise you to go to your director, show him:
a) the description of your modified 2D bid (that you insist on calling Multi despite Vampyr's patient and my rude explanations that it will confuse your opponents)
b) the rules from the SABF apparently banning your 2D bid
and ask him if you can still play the convention. Speeding is illegal despite the millions of people every day who do it and not get caught.

[gwnn]

This is also from the SABF rules, emphasis mine:

Quote

The following CONVENTIONAL bids are acceptable at all levels of duplicate events, provided
that individual clubs may restrict the use of these conventional bids at their own club,
however, such restrictions may lead to these events not being eligible for master points. All
artificial bids are alertable, other than Standard Stayman as defined, Ace-asking bids above
the 3NT level and cue-bids after suit agreement. The last two conventional sequence must,
however, be alerted at the end of the auction and explained on request, if the bidders are
declarer and dummy, but only after the end of the hand if they are defenders.

[32519]

So now you’re saying that my defence to the opponents NT is also illegal?
When they open 1NT, a 2♦ overcall guarantees 1 of the 3 strong(er) hand patterns but with a proviso on the 4-4-4-1 hand pattern (obviously a natural weak 2 in ♦ falls away now) i.e.
The 2♦ overcall guarantees one of the following –
1. A 6-4 holding in the majors, 10-15 HCP
2. The big 4-4-4-1 16+ HCP hand, but with this proviso – it guarantees that the singleton is in either minor suit (with the singleton in either major suit, the 1NT opening bid will more often than not be passed and our side will then try and defeat the contact, after all between 2-hands you have already accounted for 31 HCP, and the 16+ hand is sitting behind opener)
3. The big 5-5 hand in the minors, 14+ HCP

With a major suit single-suiter, a direct overcall in the suit will be made.
With a minor suit single-suiter, the 1NT opening bid will be followed by a double. Partner is forced to bid 2♣ as P/C.
A direct 2♣ overcall shows an unspecified two-suiter, at least 5-4 with this proviso, the 5-card suit is guaranteed to be a major.

[gwnn]

No, I'm not saying that. There are different rules for openings and overcalls. In particular, overcalls over 1NT can be all sorts of stuff, especially 2C and 2D.

[32519]

 gwnn, on 2014-February-02, 04:48, said:

No, I'm not saying that. There are different rules for openings and overcalls. In particular, overcalls over 1NT can be all sorts of stuff, especially 2C and 2D.

With that being the case, if my 2♦ opening bid gets outlawed, I will go to the appeals committee and point out to them that the two bids are almost identical. Then I can get an official ruling on the bid once and for all with no further backlashes in any tournament, including those sanctioned by the SABF.

If you're still puzzling about this, I haven't lost the ♦ suit as part of my defence to 1NT. After the 2♦ overcall, partner is allowed to pass with a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. So effectively, I have retained all four options of my 2♦ opener as part of my NT defence.

I think I have a decent chance for a favourable ruling by the appeals committee.

[gwnn]

It is outlawed right now. It's just that no one apparently realised it and you can continue using it until you get caught. Good for you. I'm looking forward to hearing from your arguments with the appeals committee, I'm sure they will enjoy it as much as we have.

[manudude03]

 32519, on 2014-February-02, 05:44, said:

With that being the case, if my 2♦ opening bid gets outlawed, I will go to the appeals committee and point out to them that the two bids are almost identical. Then I can get an official ruling on the bid once and for all with no further backlashes in any tournament, including those sanctioned by the SABF.

If you're still puzzling about this, I haven't lost the ♦ suit as part of my defence to 1NT. After the 2♦ overcall, partner is allowed to pass with a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. So effectively, I have retained all four options of my 2♦ opener as part of my NT defence.

I think I have a decent chance for a favourable ruling by the appeals committee.

Not that it's relevant since as gwnn said, there are different rules for opening bids and overcalls, but you're simply not retaining all 4 options. An identical argument would be saying my 1NT opener could be a yarb because partner might have that. Your options must be constrained by what 13 cards might be in your own hand, partner's possible hands are irrelevant.

[hrothgar]

Quote

If there are already about 500 variants of Multi, I fail to understand why mine would be called illegal.

The fact that you chose to label your 2D opening as a "Multi 2♦" has no bearing on the regulations. (Said regulations are based on the hand patterns included in the opening). More specifically,

1. Your 2D opening matches the definition of a Brown Sticker Convention as defined in section 2.4.a in the following document http://www.google.co...4,d.cWc&cad=rja

2. Your 2D opening does not meet the "Exception" requirements in the same place in the document

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2014-February-02, 08:59, said:

The fact that you chose to label your 2D opening as a "Multi 2♦" has no bearing on the regulations. (Said regulations are based on the hand patterns included in the opening). More specifically,

1. Your 2D opening matches the definition of a Brown Sticker Convention as defined in section 2.4.a in the following document http://www.google.co...4,d.cWc&cad=rja

2. Your 2D opening does not meet the "Exception" requirements in the same place in the document

Convince me how the current Multi (with strong options) passes the Brown Sticker requirements.

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2014-February-02, 10:24, said:

Convince me how the current Multi (with strong options) passes the Brown Sticker requirements.

For starters, the Brown Sticker regulation contains the following item

Quote

EXCEPTION: a two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types containing 16 high card points or more, or with equivalent values.

If you prefer a more empirical approach,

1. Brown Stick Conventions are banned in Bermuda Bowl
2. Players in the Bermuda Bowl regularly use a 2D opening that shows a weak two bid in either major

This suggests that a 2D opening that shows a weak two bid in either major does not qualify as a Brown Sticker Convention

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2014-February-02, 02:20, said:

A couple of questions and remarks for all of you –
The probability of me ever playing against any of you in a F2F tournament must be almost zero, if not in fact zero. So why would it bother you, even in the tiniest little bit if I “get a kick” out of developing some of these crazy ideas.

But why would you post about these methods unless you wanted helpful critique? It is true that the tone of some posters is not really helpful, but this may be due to the fact that you have paid little heed in the past.

Anyway some of us are more concerned about the fact that you do not mention this bid when describing your system (apart from the misleading "we play Multi") thus relying on the element of surprise (and making your opponents deal with a convention that may not be permitted even in the clubs where you play). Do you feel good about this?

Anyway, as we all know, the only real proving ground for conventions is the Secret Bridge Olympics.

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2014-February-02, 10:26, said:

For starters, the Brown Sticker regulation contains the following item



If you prefer a more empirical approach,

1. Brown Stick Conventions are banned in Bermuda Bowl
2. Players in the Bermuda Bowl regularly use a 2D opening that shows a weak two bid in either major

This suggests that a 2D opening that shows a weak two bid in either major does not qualify as a Brown Sticker Convention

Richard, you are clutching at straws here and you know it just as well as I do.