[Joe de Balliol]

North
96
-
KQT7543
KQ76





W N E S
2♦ ?




2 is your standard 3 way multi. You are at favourable vulnerability. Your call.

[mike777]

Joe de Balliol, on Dec 29 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

North
96
-
KQT7543
KQ76





W N E S
2♦ ?




2 is your standard 3 way multi. You are at favourable vulnerability. Your call.

5D

Will leave the genius bidding to others.

[FrancesHinden]

I recognise this hand - I don't know if I know Joe but I know the event!

Anyway, if I am confident in my agreements I bid 4D, pre-emptive (ish).
If I am not confident I either bid a slightly light 3D, or pass planning to compete in diamonds later. I'm not madly keen on that because I may then have to decide unilaterally whether to save over 4M on the next round.

I don't like 5D at once, it makes it tough for partner to do the right thing (and I think partner will do the wrong thing on the actual hand if you overcall 5D).

[mikeh]

I bid 3♦.

I don't like it (I agree with Frances that it is a trifle light: not in playing strength if ♦ are trump, but in overall strength if partner elects to double the opps or try a thin 3N missing the ♦A).

However, I dislike it less than the alternatives:

Pass is out, for the reason, again advanced by Frances, that you will be very uncomfortable if, as seems likely, the opps are in a major suit game by your next turn.

5♦ is just too much, or, rather, too committal.

4♦ is intriguing if it shows this hand. I only get to play against multi a few times a year: it is banned at most levels of the ACBL and even at those levels where it is legal, relatively few play it. So while I have firm defensivve agreements on double, and all overcalls through 3♠, I don't have an agreement on 4 of a minor. if I learn nothing else from this thread, I have learned both of a hole in my agreements and a possible fix. Thanks, Frances!

But since I didn't have this tool, I can't use it.. I would not pull it on a partner with whom I had no agreement.

[Kalvan14]

at fav vulnerability, I'll go for 5♦: let the oppos decide which is the contract they want to play, but at 5-level.

[Free]

Playing multi vs multi, this is a 2NT bid, showing opening values and the ♦ suit.

I have mixed feelings about 5♦: on the one hand you make it very hard for opps to find their Major, on the other hand if partner is strong you might miss slam...

[Codo]

Most aof the multi hands are weak twos, so I disagree with any weak bidding against this opening. I would bid a simple 3 Diamond, which leaves everything open. 4 Diamond looks like a kind of leaping michaels wsith an unkonwn major to me....

[Winstonm]

Free, on Dec 30 2005, 06:32 AM, said:

Playing multi vs multi, this is a 2NT bid, showing opening values and the ♦ suit.

I have mixed feelings about 5♦: on the one hand you make it very hard for opps to find their Major, on the other hand if partner is strong you might miss slam...

I have read that playing multi against multi is so successful that many who play multi abandoned it. Is there truth to this or is it just a story?

Winston

[kenberg]

I think 3D. My main concern is that after my 3D they will bid 4M and partner will double expecting more defense from me. I think I will pull it, probably with 4NT providing that the auction after 3D is clear enough that 4nt won't sound like ace asking. I hope partner doubles in tempo.

This seems to me like a hand where I can't really tell who needs to be preempting against whom but since often we can play in 5m, I'll try for clarity rather than preemption. I doubt the auction will continue 3D-pass-3NT-pass but if it does, I will pass. I may rethink that if 3N gets doubled.

My experience against the multi is limited, and I look forward to finding out if this is right.

I also saw this statement about the multi versus multi driving out the mullti. Sounds like an urban legend to me. At least I would like it to be, since learning multi vs multi looks like a lot of work for something I encounter somewhat infrequently and can usually cope with in simpler ways.

Ken

[FrancesHinden]

Winstonm, on Jan 1 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

Free, on Dec 30 2005, 06:32 AM, said:

Playing multi vs multi, this is a 2NT bid, showing opening values and the ♦ suit.

I have mixed feelings about 5♦: on the one hand you make it very hard for opps to find their Major, on the other hand if partner is strong you might miss slam...

I have read that playing multi against multi is so successful that many who play multi abandoned it. Is there truth to this or is it just a story?

Winston

I believe it's just a story.

The multi is a trade-off: it is not as effective a pre-empt as a simple weak two, because responder cannot raise as quickly not knowing what opener's suit is. Against that, it is sometimes effective at favourable vulnerability in some amusing ways (passing the 2D opening, passing the 2H response holding spades....) and it frees up the 2M openings for something else.

Also, the multi is generally more effective against pairs who haven't discussed their defence to it in detail. I think there is some truth in it being less common now that a few years ago, as people have become more experienced at defending against it.

p.s. as for whether passing partner's 3NT bid having overcalled 3D is right or not, or whether 4D or 5D is the winning action, I feel I should leave it to the original poster to tell you.

[Fluffy]

I lack of defensive values for a 3♦ overcall, pass and 5♦ seem more appelaing, I woudl take 4♦ as a 2 suiter.

[joker_gib]

I'm afraid this will come back in 4M so If I don't bid my ♦ now ....

I know it is a bit light but I have a 7-4 shape and I'll try 3♦

Alain

[bearmum]

Joe de Balliol, on Dec 30 2005, 10:32 AM, said:

North
96
-
KQT7543
KQ76





W N E S
2♦ ?




2 is your standard 3 way multi. You are at favourable vulnerability. Your call.

I bid what I WOULD have opened before the mulit 2♦ that is 3♦

[mila85]

I agree with 5♦.
It's your advantage that opps opened multi not normal weak two.
Your LHO must guess which suit opener has.

e.g with ♠5♥3♦4♣1 he can bid 3♥ over 3♦ and if opener has spades he will compete with 5♠ over 5♦. But it's too dangerous bid 5♥ over 5♦ in first round.

I think that 5♦ is very descriptive.
3♦ bid shows some values for defence. I will be in bad position if partner doubles their contract.