[jillybean]

1. Will Multi 2D ever be permitted in ACBL club games events? "Multi" is widely played in the rest of the Bridge World.
How did this treatment become forbidden in the ACBL, and what is needed for it to become General Chart?

2. Will the ACBL ever produce an American version of EBU's Blue Book?

[blackshoe]

1. Doubtful. I don't know. A lot more people to lobby for it.
2. Even more doubtful.

[Shugart23]

 blackshoe, on 2025-February-22, 22:48, said:

1. Doubtful. I don't know. A lot more people to lobby for it.
2. Even more doubtful.

Is any multi-bid opening allowed under ACBL rules? I know 2D is not. Oliver Clarke has a multi-2NT bid (which I am told is not allowed in ACBL). Could a 3C bid be 'multi' , defined however one wants even to he extent one of the possibilities is showing a void in Clubs?

This is a theoretical question, btw

[jillybean]

In the ACBL Multi is only legal in matches of 6 boards+, Open+ chart events.

I don't know if 3C multi would be allowed, or if you'd want it.

[mycroft]

...which means that it would be legal in the 2025 version of my University of Waterloo Bridge Club (as it was - and was regularly played, including by me) in the 199x version. And, IIRC from MikeH's posts, it was and is allowed in at least one club in Vancouver on their Shark Tank night, provided the opponents get to say "no, thanks" (which effectively nobody did).

Clubs are absolutely entitled to make their own rules. They are *encouraged* to use one of the ACBL's charts, and the ACBL recommends using the equivalent chart to what the game would be at a Sectional (so, Open for unlimited games, Basic+ or Basic for MP limited or "mostly inexperienced" games, Open+ for occasional, experimental nights or in a "all flight A" game). But they can do what they wish. I don't even think there's a "max out at" level the way there (technically) was with the Superchart back in the day.

(technically): The U(W)BC was officially Superchart, before the defanging of the Mid+Charts with "minimum boardlength" (not that we'd have cared about those), because we weren't officially allowed to be any more liberal. With a "let the novices off the hook if they ask" caveat (which I do not remember ever being asked, and by "novices" we meant "still in Club Series Lessons"). But if nobody called the TD...I remember a player being told (in the bar, after the session) about an auction that started pass-1♦ (NAT, 8-12) and finding out they didn't have slam so stopping in 4NT. Of course, the director for the game had scored up and left the building an hour ago, and anyone who saw a resemblance between the director and that player was *clearly* too drunk to be a reliable witness:-).

[mycroft]

Re: when will it be common? When History Passes (crossing the threads).

When will we get a Blue Book? We (to all intents and purposes) have one; the Bidding Box Regulations, Alert Procedures and Convention Charts. (Yes, I'd love to have Chapter 2 equivalent in a form players were expected to read. Perhaps we could ask the EBU if we could lift it root and branch? But really, it's just "expanding on the Laws so you don't have to".)

When will we get a White Book, is the question I would like an answer to. I'm sure 90% of things are there *somewhere*, but as blackshoe says "how many of them can club directors get their hands on immediately?" and "how many of them can actually be found?" A book where everything is, that is regularly updated, would be a dream. Having club directors actually know it exists and read the thing would *also* be a dream.

[jillybean]

Sorry, my OP was incorrect. It should read, Will Muti ever be permitted in ACBL events (Sectionals+)?
Club games are as you say, free to do what they want.

Re; Blue Book. It is clear that the Bidding Box Regs, Alert Procedures and Convention Cards are not working well.
The EBU method of providing players with one clear and comprehensible publication seems to be a better approach.

I'll check back in 5 years, I fear nothing will have changed.

[akwoo]

To be precise, what's outlawed under the Open Chart are artificial preempts (except for 2N showing two know suits). In Open+, what's illegal are artificial preempts that don't show at least one known suit. The usual 2D Multi doesn't show any known suits - hence illegal.

I think the trend will be towards regulations getting more, not less, restrictive, as the player base becomes tilted more and more towards retirees who can't or don't want to learn the more complicated aspects of the game. Good players have avoided club games for decades now, and these days many are avoiding Sectionals as well, because the level of competition is just not worth it. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years we get a new Basic- Chart, forbidding all Artificial 1-level openings and 1N openings on less than 14. It's what the average player really wants. Sectionals will be allowed to use it, and many of the smaller Sectionals in places without good players to object will.

We had 6 tables in the Sectional Swiss a few weeks back - only 1 pair didn't play 2/1, and they played 10-12 1N, coded minors (i.e. 1D was diamonds or 12-14 balanced; 1C was clubs or 15-19 balanced), and transfers over 1C openings. I'm fairly sure that, if it were up to a secret ballot of the room, they wouldn't have been allowed to play that by a pretty wide margin. Despite being a known local pair, no one bothered to have agreements against it, and the only pair that could've come up with agreements against that on the fly after the pre-alert were their teammates. (Well, I know what I'd want to play against the transfers, but I wouldn't have trusted my partner to remember what I would have told him; we were at the other table.)

[jillybean]

6 table sectional Obviously, this is unsustainable.

More restrictions? Sadly, you may be right. Club bridge and Sectionals will cater for the social player, playing one, perhaps two days. It's already here if you think of a BCD section in your local Sectional.

In my limited experience of playing overseas, I see nice club bridge and tournament bridge with minimal restriction thriving. Perhaps it's time we looked outside North America to see what is working. Smaller, local events, a few regionals and one 'bridge week'


This looks like fun.
'they played 10-12 1N, coded minors (i.e. 1D was diamonds or 12-14 balanced; 1C was clubs or 15-19 balanced), and transfers over 1C openings.'

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-February-24, 09:34, said:

6 table sectional Obviously, this is unsustainable.

More restrictions? Sadly, you may be right. Club bridge and Sectionals will cater for the social player, playing one, perhaps two days. It's already here if you think of a BCD section in your local Sectional.

What BCD section? With 6 tables, the team with 32K masterpoints including a Grand LM (who finished 3rd ) is playing against the team with less than 1K combined, some of whom can barely follow suit. (They lost track of high cards and miscounted trumps a couple times.)

Quote

In my limited experience of playing overseas, I see nice club bridge and tournament bridge with minimal restriction thriving. Perhaps it's time we looked outside North America to see what is working. Smaller, local events, a few regionals and one 'bridge week'

Only Australia has the same problem as North America, which is that, in the 2660 km between Seattle and Minneapolis, there are about the same number of bridge players as there are in Seattle alone, and there aren't a huge ton in Seattle. Here, if we don't play with the social players and make it possible for them to have fun, there simply aren't enough tables for a game. (Besides, while I wouldn't call myself a social player, there are also limits to how seriously I want to take my bridge. This is true of everyone, really - just a matter of where those limits are.)

Quote

This looks like fun.
'they played 10-12 1N, coded minors (i.e. 1D was diamonds or 12-14 balanced; 1C was clubs or 15-19 balanced), and transfers over 1C openings.'

Frankly, I understand their system better than at least one of them. I don't think it's my first choice of system but I'm happy to play it with anyone who wants to. The system over 1N openings is a little complicated but I'm happy to swap it out for simple 2-way stayman.

[hrothgar]

With respect to the Blue Book (or an equivalent to the Blue Book), I think that this one gets laid strictly at Kaplan's feet.

Kaplan want the ability to shape decisions according to his own personal whims. And, as such, having any kind of system of precedence was anathema to him. Don't get me wrong, I think that Kaplan was extremely talented and if all of the ACBL administrators had his level of a judgement, this sort of system would be fine. But, Kaplan has been dead for close to three decades and he didn't leave us with a functional system. Indeed, experience shows what happens when you have a system designed for the likes of Kaplan being used by folks like Bobby Wolff...

[jillybean]

Richard, I think you are saying that any incentives to allow currently disallowed systems, or permit new systems and incentives will be thwarted by the ACBL Structure.
I have no knowledge of the ACBL Convention Approval (General change/incentive) process but is it not governed by a panel of Bridge Players?

[barmar]

I've moved this thread to General Bridge Discussion. ACBL's convention regulation is not specific to online vs. offline environments, so Offline Bridge seemed to be the wrong forum.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-February-25, 14:53, said:

I have no knowledge of the ACBL Convention Approval (General change/incentive) process but is it not governed by a panel of Bridge Players?

There is a committee, the Competition and Conventions Committee, that makes recommendations that are approved by the Board of Directors. Its membership is public information.

IMHO, one of the weaknesses of this committee is that none of its members are social bridge players. They are all pretty much guessing at what weaker players want, although some of the members do talk to weaker players on occasion, and some of the members are pros who sometimes play with weaker clients.

Also IMHO, conventions are banned basically based on what pros don't want their clients to have to face.

[jillybean]

Thanks. The minutes of the CC committee meetings may make for some interesting, rainy day reading.
The details may be lacking, from July 2009 meeting “Transfers responses to natural 1C as GCC. Not seconded.”
I guess you had to be there.

I see that there are several of these committees, with multiple members, the only exception being the Membership Growth and Retention Committee of which has a grand total of 1 member.

I wonder what the future holds for bridge in NA

[blackshoe]

Well, according to Heinlein, after society collapses the only place you're likely to find bridge is at Farnham's Freehold. Be careful approaching, and stay on the path, as the area is mined.

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2025-February-25, 14:53, said:

Richard, I think you are saying that any incentives to allow currently disallowed systems, or permit new systems and incentives will be thwarted by the ACBL Structure.
I have no knowledge of the ACBL Convention Approval (General change/incentive) process but is it not governed by a panel of Bridge Players?

This wasn't so much a comment about the ACBL's convention regulation process as the lack of standardized references comparable to the Blue Book, the White Book, etc.

The Brits put the US to shame here...

[jillybean]

Why wait for the ACBL to create a version of the Blue Book?

I have written to the EBU for permission to copy and edit their publication.
We need someone with a word processor and editing skills and a TD to ensure the guidelines are in line with North American regulations.

Any takers?

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2025-February-26, 07:24, said:

This wasn't so much a comment about the ACBL's convention regulation process as the lack of standardized references comparable to the Blue Book, the White Book, etc.

The Brits put the US to shame here...

The impression I get is that the ACBL regulators believe that American players don't want comprehensive, detailed regulations like the colored books. They probably consider them too overwhelming and no one will read them.

ACBL regulations have generally been based more on establishing some general principles, and then applying them to specific cases. The problem has been that these principles are sometimes too vague; they made some improvements in the revisions of the convention charts and alert procedures a few years ago. But the general idea of keeping them short and general instead of long and detailed is still there.

I'm not sure they're wrong about what the majority of ACBL members want.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2025-February-27, 16:45, said:

But the general idea of keeping them short and general instead of long and detailed is still there.

I'm not sure they're wrong about what the majority of ACBL members want.

Some of the descriptions in the convention charts are ambiguous and/or obscure in their meanings.

When I had to read through IRS code and regulations for a living, even the IRS realized how obscure some of their regulations were so they added Q&A sections to the sections that could be misread or misinterpreted, or just needed clarification.

The current convention charts could use some strategic Q&A additions to clarify what they meant, and what they didn't mean.