[ArdnaXur]

Is Contract Bridge a game of creativity?

Why is 2D opening prohibited for Multi (weak)?
Why is 1NT-2C responding allowed for 0-6 HCP?

***

Este Contract Bridge un joc de creativitate?

De ce este interzisă deschiderea 2D pentru Multi (slab)?
De ce este permis răspunsul 1NT-2C pentru 0-6 HCP?

[jillybean]

ArdnaXur, on 2024-March-08, 01:58, said:

Is Contract Bridge a game of creativity?

Yes, within the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (if you opt to follow the Laws)

ArdnaXur, on 2024-March-08, 01:58, said:

Why is 2D opening prohibited for Multi (weak)?
Why is 1NT-2C responding allowed for 0-6 HCP?

Multi 2♦ is alive and well in New Zealand and Australian Bridge, and I'm sure many other countries.
Why did the ACBL disallow the use of Multi? I don't know, I hear that someone had the idea that it was a destructive bid and players needed to be protected from it,
Why is this draconian Regulation still in place? Perhaps because the actual players have little say in how the game is run.

Why has the USA overturned Roe vs. Wade?

[ArdnaXur]

jillybean, on 2024-March-10, 00:27, said:

Yes, within the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (if you opt to follow the Laws)


Multi 2♦ is alive and well in New Zealand and Australian Bridge, and I'm sure many other countries.
Why did the ACBL disallow the use of Multi? I don't know, I hear that someone had the idea that it was a destructive bid and players needed to be protected from it,
Why is this draconian Regulation still in place? Perhaps because the actual players have little say in how the game is run.

Why has the USA overturned Roe vs. Wade?

Many thanks for the reply

The laws against creations and the laws protecting traditions!?
Weak 2/3 opening also destructive bid? Why allowed? Because Traditional?
Can I have the link to the laws of the WBF, the ACBL and the EBL, please??

P.S. There are many creative biddings against Multi 2D, those are development of bridge?

[jillybean]

I think they all follow the same WBF Laws. Regulations and allowed methods etc may be different.

WBF
http://www.worldbrid...ohighlights.pdf

ACBL
https://web2.acbl.or...cate-bridge.pdf

EBL
http://www.eurobridg...gulations/laws/

[Douglas43]

The Laws are the same everywhere. National organisations set their own regulations. For the EBU's permitted conventions, see the Blue Book, linked from this page. Laws & Ethics Publications | English Bridge Union (ebu.co.uk) Most games are played at "Level 4"

Multi 2♦ is common in England, but as I recall it has to include a strong option.

Stayman on a 0 count has been common since at least 1948 (it features in an S J Simon book of that date).

[mycroft]

It's okay, it plays very well with 1♠ "0-7 any hand" (*). Creative? Destructive? Do you want to require people to play against all the variants of forcing pass systems, or crypto-signalling, or systems so difficult to play that they natively cause (or require, to play effectively) unauthorized information to be passed to partner (which they would never use, of course)?

If so, great (and yes, there are places where you can play FP or crypto-systems. Go ahead.) But most players - even expert players - say that that's over the line, and too much "winning by confusion" or "requires too much defence against the one pair" (who changes it up slightly next event, requiring a fairly complete re-defence work.

So the Laws allow regulatory authorities (like the ACBL) to create restrictions on meanings you can apply to calls (and events where more or fewer restrictions apply). And they do. Frequently those restrictions are on bids that are very weak *initial* actions that also are ambiguous about [which] suit[s have] length - hence the world-wide fight over the Multi 2♦ opener (okay, mostly NA vs the world, but still). Garbage Stayman isn't as difficult an issue because the bidder's partner has already shown strength (but there's a thread here where I was somewhat excoriated for my 2♣ "want to play 2♦" call opposite a 12-14 NT because I only had 3 diamonds (but it was still my best hope for getting out for < 800 in a team game).

Like any competitive game, the object is to score better than your opponents while playing within the (absolutely artificial) restrictions set by the game organizers. The separate, political game of "getting your game organizers to allow what you want to play" is also fun (for particular kinds of people. OTOH, those kinds of people are usually at least as interested in "getting your game organizers to ban what you don't want to play (against)").

Of course, one of the joys of BBO is that not only is it a worldwide platform, you can set up games where *you* are the RA. I will note, however, that from experience playing Precision in the Main Club, it can be difficult to keep opponents if you get *too* creative.


(*)Actually Multi doesn't, it's quite awful with that kind of fert. But roll with me, okay?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-March-11, 10:13, said:

So the Laws allow regulatory authorities (like the ACBL) to create restrictions on meanings you can apply to calls (and events where more or fewer restrictions apply). And they do. Frequently those restrictions are on bids that are very weak *initial* actions that also are ambiguous about suit length - hence the world-wide fight over the Multi 2♦ opener (okay, mostly NA vs the world, but still).

Just a pre-dinner quibble, but the issue that got Multi and similar conventions restricted was the combination that they could be weak and did not promise a known suit - Multi is not ambiguous about suit length in the unknown major and WBF even dodged the possible 5/6 card issue by just mentioning a "weak two" in the exception for Multi.

[mycroft]

Apologies, that's what I meant - ambiguity as to what long suit was held. Clearly I had a braino there.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Bridge is a Gentleman Game, i.e. Bridge Ethics are an important part of the game,
you see this in the rules law of the game, one example is full disclosure.
Another area you see this, the law try to protect the innocent, in doubt ruling against
the offender, even if there is doubt.

The main problem with freestyle is, that full filling the full disclosure requirement
is hard, and to be clear:
Full disclosure means, you are expected to explain your agreement in a way, so that your
opponents understand what you are playing.
This means, just saying the technical boundaries for the bids are ... is not sufficient,
if the methods have a certain complexity level.
The explanation needs to take place in preallocated amount of time, and you still need to
play the boards, in a MP Event you have 15 min to play 2 bords, if you burn 5-10 min, you
dont need to start playing the bords.

Add to this, that some player, who like a play overcomplicate systems are not really trying
to full fill there full disclosure requirement, which had the effect that those methods got
a bad rap, 1 or 2 bad apples are enough.

=> This leads to restrictions with regards, what is allowed to be played.
And what is overly complex is depend on what is common / uncommon in various regions.
And if you come from a different place, you may discover, that explaining your common /
obvious agreement (you may not even conciously be aware of this) is uncommon, and the
language / culture barrier may add on top.

With kind regards
marlowe

[jillybean]

Don't get me started 😐

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-March-12, 11:23, said:

Don't get me started ��

You would have loved the TD in the BBOItalia tournament I played yesterday... threatening to penalize me because I waited 3 minutes until opponents finally explained an artificial 6♣ as politely requested (first via the BBO Explain mechanism, then by private chat, then by chat to table, then by Director call).

[thepossum]

I always used to love the joke about Rugby being a thugs game played by gentleman, and cricket a gentleman's game played by thugs. So what is Bridge

Reminds me of a bit of an education I had on BBO a few years ago, watching a friendly tournament between two very friendly sounding international teams - ended in a full sit in - a few beautiful international level insults followed by a silent strike and protest

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2024-March-12, 21:45, said:

I always used to love the joke about Rugby being a thugs game played by gentleman, and cricket a gentleman's game played by thugs. So what is Bridge

Bridge is to a regrettable extent a gentleman's game played by thugs, no question.
But with effective information screens it could become a fair game.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-March-14, 16:31, said:

Bridge is to a regrettable extent a gentleman's game played by thugs, no question.
But with effective information screens it could become a fair game.

I find it disheartening that this is what it would take to make the game fair as it will never happen while we play face to face with cards on the table.

Last night I am defending against a contract, dummy on my right is playing the low card from dummy to each trick.
When there is a choice to be made dummy of course pauses. I watched declarer who was obviously aware that dummy had not picked a card, pause and check LHO's card before calling for a higher card in dummy. "It's only a Club game"

[ArdnaXur]

Thanks all for the information.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-March-14, 21:26, said:

I watched declarer who was obviously aware that dummy had not picked a card, pause and check LHO's card before calling for a higher card in dummy. "It's only a Club game"

I think that as a sometimes TD you have little choice but to give them considerable rope when you are playing. That doesn't mean the other players should do the same, I always encourage them to stick up for their rights at any level of game.

On a more optimistic note, last week one of our club played out of turn, apologised and without any discussion or hesitation called the TD to find out what to do. That would never have occurred a few years ago.

[jillybean]

I was playing not playing/directing but unfortunately I've come to realize it's no good for me to call the Director unless I'm playing in the Vanderbilt.

It's good to hear that some players do call the TD.