[inquiry]

I am *relatively new to multi 2♦, learning it from my dutch friend papathgreek some 8 years ago or so. In experimenting with it and searching rgb for comments on it, I ran across a defense to it that I have come t really like. It is written up on the Chris Rydal's webpage, if anyone wants a full write up.

First, if you don't play Multi=2♦ yourself, forget this defense. It is not for you. But if you play multi-2♦, you may find this as much fun as I do.

What is multi 2♦? An opening bid of a weak two in either major. Then others add other possiblities, like big balanced hand, or acol 2 in either minor, or strong 4441 pattern with any singleton. Different people have different theories, like making it always weak two in a major (only), so that 2♦ is passable....

Ok, here the system I found and like. It is called multi-versus-multi, the following link will open Chris Rydal's descripton of this defense.

multi-vs-multi


So they open 2♦, most likley they have a major. Since ther bid shows potentially a lot of hands, this system does too. A double is an overcall in either major, or a big balanced hand, say 19-22 or 20-23, or three suiter with 19+ (with weaker three suites, pass first).

So here after a double, they don't know what your hand type is and you don't know their suit. But if partner can pass 2♦X you will find out thier suit real quick... now both you and your partner use Takeout Doubles of their suit...This is also true if responder bids a major over your double...

LEt's look...
(2♦)-X-(2♥)-X here, your partner's double is "negative" kind of thng showing ♠'s. IF you have ♥'s or huge balanced hand they are opener are in some trouble. IF you have ♠'s you are ok, too, you can simply show your suit and relative stregnth wth your bid.

Ok, if 2♥ and 2♠ are no longer needed over 2♦ to show your suit when you ahve a major? Waht are they? Well.... here is rest of structure...

• 2♥ = balanced hand, say 15-18 or so. Partner with ♥ can pass, or can correct to 2♠, also to play
  
• 2♠ and 2NT = minor suit transfers, with super type accepts by partner to show some values. You might play something like this over your own 1NT openings.
  
• 3♣ and 3♦ = preemptive type bids, not forcing. And here they don't know if they have a fit or not and what opener's major is.
  
• 3♠/3♥ = michaels, showing like 5-5 in bid major and a minor
  
• 3NT = big balanced hand, bigger than the immediate double, obviously need stoppers in both majors

Anyway this is fun to play. Take a look at Chris's webpage (link above) for more examples and a great write up.

Ben

[Rado]

Hi Ben

I'm sure you will be not surprised that I've played multi vs multi defence. I works good. The only problem is to find non-lazy partner who to learn it and to see the follow-ups of the bids, which most of them are just common sence.

Will be fun to arrange partnership bidding against multi

Regards
Rado

[Free]

I usually play a bit 'wait and see'. Usually pass and wait 1 round to see if they have the weak opening or not (when it's weak, we use good-bad stuff). I know it's not the best way, but it's easy to rememeber, and it never gave me a bad result so far...

[Gerben47]

Against many players, if you wait and see, you see:
2♦ - pass - 3♥ - pass - pass - ???

It's best to ignore the strong variant. If you have a good hand, the already low probability of the strong hand is even lower. Unless you can handle showing both good and bad hands, which I think is unlikely when the bidding starts at the 2-level.

[inquiry]

Free, on Apr 5 2004, 11:59 AM, said:

I usually play a bit 'wait and see'.  Usually pass and wait 1 round to see if they have the weak opening or not (when it's weak, we use good-bad stuff).  I know it's not the best way, but it's easy to rememeber, and it never gave me a bad result so far...

Waiting is not a great idea, as Gerben so correctly pointed out. And in addition, sometimes the responder will fake a strong hand with 2NT just to keep you out.

Ben

[1eyedjack]

Defence to Multi v Multi
===============
In partnerships in which I open multi 2D we agree that
N E S
2D X P = 4+ Diamonds. Opener is invited to pass with 3+ Diamonds

It is true that my 2D opener includes an intermediate 4-1-4-4, as well as stronger 4441 hands (any 1) but that is still only 17+, so there is perhaps a better chance of Diamond fit. But also if opener has weak 2 with 3+ Diamond support he would also accept Diamonds as trumps. True, you may have only 7 card Diamond fit. But it may be more. Responder may have 5+. It is not unheard of for the weak 2 to contain a 4 card Diamond suit. Opponents simply do not know.

I find that in most defences to the Multi (and here Multi v Multi is no exception) the hand that doubles in second seat makes no commitment as to length or shortage in the suit being doubled, namely Diamonds. So when responder passes to show interest in playing in Diamonds advancer is poorly placed to judge whether to pass and risk defending 2DX unless he has Diamond length himself.

I think that many multi players nowadays adopt this technique, so to counter this I play that double of 2D is a take-out of Diamonds. Pass and Double with a take-out of that major, immediate 2N for the minors, and with strong balanced either pass and bid 2N or double (which partner will initially read as D short) and then bid 2N to split the ranges.

Yes there is a risk of 3H preemption if I start with pass. But I do not see that as significant. The 3H bid is fairly well defined, opposite a potentially strong opener, and both defenders have a reasonable guess at partner's strength and length. Not perfect, nothing is, but I have to say that I have not encountered in practice much of a problem with the 3H bounce. Memory is selective, of course.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Apr 5 2004, 04:25 PM, said:

Defence to Multi v Multi
===============
In partnerships in which I open multi 2D we agree that
N E S
2D X P = 4+ Diamonds. Opener is invited to pass with 3+ Diamonds

It is true that my 2D opener includes an intermediate 4-1-4-4, as well as stronger 4441 hands (any 1) but that is still only 17+, so there is perhaps a better chance of Diamond fit. But also if opener has weak 2 with 3+ Diamond support he would also accept Diamonds as trumps. True, you may have only 7 card Diamond fit. But it may be more. Responder may have 5+. It is not unheard of for the weak 2 to contain a 4 card Diamond suit. Opponents simply do not know.

I find that in most defences to the Multi (and here Multi v Multi is no exception) the hand that doubles in second seat makes no commitment as to length or shortage in the suit being doubled, namely Diamonds. So when responder passes to show interest in playing in Diamonds advancer is poorly placed to judge whether to pass and risk defending 2DX unless he has Diamond length himself.

I think that many multi players nowadays adopt this technique, so to counter this I play that double of 2D is a take-out of Diamonds. Pass and Double with a take-out of that major, immediate 2N for the minors, and with strong balanced either pass and bid 2N or double (which partner will initially read as D short) and then bid 2N to split the ranges.

Yes there is a risk of 3H preemption if I start with pass. But I do not see that as significant. The 3H bid is fairly well defined, opposite a potentially strong opener, and both defenders have a reasonable guess at partner's strength and length. Not perfect, nothing is, but I have to say that I have not encountered in practice much of a problem with the 3H bounce. Memory is selective, of course.

Hi,

In Multi-vs-Multi, the double of 2♦ is in effect a takeout. The doubler is showing either a huge balanced hand (19+), or a one suited hand in a major. So if the next hand PASSES, the responder most often bids. So the most common auctions are....

(2♦)-X-(pass)-2♥ <<--- passable, pass/correct for majors
(2♦)-X-(pass)-2♠ <<--- shows good ♥ and not forcing
(2♦)-X-(pass)-2NT <<-- game try asking for "explaination" of the DBL
(2♦)-X-(pass)-3 any <<--- natural and forcing

So you see, in multi-versus-multi, the double comes with the EXPECTATION partner will pull the double (just as you describe). That is the double most definetly ins not "I HAVE DIAMONDS". Your partner will only pass 2♦-X'ed, should it come to that, when HE HAS DIAMONDS. And remember, you will not be say, spade-club or heart - club two suiter for your double of 2♦, as you had jump to 3♠ or 3♥ availiable, which makes the pass more readily available should you your partner have a minor two suiter.

So in fact, multi-vs-multi is in agreement with how you like to play your doubles.

Ben

[1eyedjack]

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[mishovnbg]

Free, on Apr 5 2004, 06:59 PM, said:

I usually play a bit 'wait and see'.  Usually pass and wait 1 round to see if they have the weak opening or not (when it's weak, we use good-bad stuff).  I know it's not the best way, but it's easy to rememeber, and it never gave me a bad result so far...

Spoiler

-----------------------------------------------------

Hi Frederick!

Spoiler

---------

You can improve your "waiting" style, as did some of the top pairs in the world, they also like simplicity like you, hehe. The solution is dbl on 2♦ multi mean: Take out double on ♠. With take out on ♥ you pass (your style) and dbl later. Note possible pass of double. This solve most of problems vs multi bids like 2♦ multi or Wilkosz. If openinq contain master suit, you already give to p nessesary info. If they have ♥, even they preempt, you can bid take out dbl with less risk, because you have master suit and will play probably 1 level less then on other suits. It is nice idea to look what top pairs in the world play vs multi and think why they do so, at least imho

Spoiler

-------

Ben, I like multi vs multi, but imho making conventions vs specific bids is waste of time. Only because NBO limitations about same bids exists, but allow multi, discussion about such defense is sensible. Better way is to play some kind of meta defensive bidding imho, then changes in above regulations(hoped soon imo) will not cange your system or make your system to grow to 1024 pages .

Spoiler

------------------

Still human, not cyborg yet, Misho

[inquiry]

Dear not yet Cyborg....

One reason I like multi-versus-multi, is it allows pretty much the same responses we use when we open 2♦. The only differences are, 1) no acol 2 of a minor (since can bid the relay directly over 2♦). and added teh 4441 big old hands to fill in the slack. This 4441 hand has to be big in case partner passes the double of 2♦ with ♦'s when you are short there.

But, no one other than you will even try multi-versus-multi with me (well Rado has kindly offered and I will take him up on that). But I am willing to listen to any reasonable alternative, yes, even doulbe is takeout of ♠'s. That is logical approach too.. just not as much fun as doubling 2♦ and alerting as multi... heheehe, and this double as multi would also work against Wilkosz too, but I haven't given it much thought.

Ben