[helene_t]

I think this whole issue of defense against diabolic methods is over-rated.

I remember when I was a beginner (half a year of duplicate experience) and I was exposed to multi for the first time, it made me very nervous. I usually passed in first round in order to find out which one of the five variants it was this time. Some partners thought it was obvious that a double of 2♦ showed diamonds (a very green one thought it was t/o on diamonds). Some pairs would scarcely pursui major suit contracts becuase one of the opps might have six trumps in the defense. Some would say that a double of the 2♥ relay was lead-directing.

I got the impression that most multi-players played it because opps had no good defense against it. For that reason, I developped a strong aversion against it.

But now that I've reached a slightly higher level (3rd regional level) multi and other funny destructive methods doesn't keep me awake at night. Common sense defense works most of the time. Of course, if you haven't specific agreements, situations could occur where you wonder if a bid in a major suit shows length or if it shows a stop. But I think it's a minor issue compared to all the other things that can go wrong during the auction.

[han]

helene_t, on Jul 8 2006, 11:57 AM, said:

I think this whole issue of defense against diabolic methods is over-rated.

I remember when I was a beginner (half a year of duplicate experience) and I was exposed to multi for the first time, it made me very nervous. I usually passed in first round in order to find out which one of the five variants it was this time. Some partners thought it was obvious that a double of 2♦ showed diamonds (a very green one thought it was t/o on diamonds). Some pairs would scarcely pursui major suit contracts becuase one of the opps might have six trumps in the defense. Some would say that a double of the 2♥ relay was lead-directing.

I got the impression that most multi-players played it because opps had no good defense against it. For that reason, I developped a strong aversion against it.

But now that I've reached a slightly higher level (3rd regional level) multi and other funny destructive methods doesn't keep me awake at night. Common sense defense works most of the time. Of course, if you haven't specific agreements, situations could occur where you wonder if a bid in a major suit shows length or if it shows a stop. But I think it's a minor issue compared to all the other things that can go wrong during the auction.

I wouldn't call multi a destructive method. It frees up 2H and 2S (which may be used for constructive purposes) and you can also put in some strong hands (for instance to distinguish the ranges for strong balanced hands).

[Gerben42]

Quote

If you want to find out, why not take a look in one of the countries where multi is legal (even at the lowest levels). I would expect that all pairs that play in the highest British or Dutch league have detailed agreements about their defense against multi. How many of those pairs still use multi?

I don't have a complete set but I just checked a few Dutch top pairs CCs:

Brink - Drijver: NV Multi, V Weak Two
Bakkeren - Bertens: Weak ♥ or strong
Hoogweg - v Zwol: Multi
Jansma - Verhees: NV Multi, V Weak Two
Klaver - Ramer: Multi 2♦
Muller - de Wijs: 3-suited short ♦ (Relay Precision)
Nab - Paulissen: Weak ♥ or strong
Versluis - Vis: Multi
Westra - Ramondt: Multi

Let's try Poland (only weak variations in 2♦ here). From VG experience I know that 2♦ natural is really rare in Poland even if there is no argument against that (all opening strength or better hands are opened 2♣ or lower in Polish Club).

Balicki - Zmudzinski: Multi
Bizon - Kowalski: Weak nat.
Brewiak - Sarniak: Multi
Buras - Araszkiewicz: Multi
Gawrys - Jassem: Multi
Jagniewski - Pazur: Multi
Jassem - Martens: NV 4+♥ 4+♠, Vul. Multi
Kowalski - Tuszynski: Multi

All pairs are used to playing against other pairs who know what they are doing. Apparently they believe that Multi 2♦ is not "out". In fact in WJ2005 they changed TO Multi (from Wilkosz) in Poland's standard system.

[inquiry]

helene_t, on Jul 8 2006, 11:57 AM, said:

I think this whole issue of defense against diabolic methods is over-rated.

I remember when I was a beginner (half a year of duplicate experience) and I was exposed to multi for the first time, it made me very nervous. I usually passed in first round in order to find out which one of the five variants it was this time.

Just a note, the HomeBase club publishes a couple of newsletters. The most recent PressBox (our clubs main newsletter) includes a lead article about what multi-2D is and list a number of possible defenses strategies for dealing with it. The article is really aimed towards people who might face multi 2D and not be familiar with it.

The article starts on page one. You can download the newsletter at:
http://www.homebasec...tter/july06.pdf, note you will need acrobat reader to read this newsletter. Our other newsletters can be found at http://www.homebaseclub.com/newsletter

[JanM]

Hannie, on Jul 8 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

JanM, on Jul 6 2006, 12:51 AM, said:

You may be right that people wouldn't stop playing multi if most of their opponents used better defenses. We probably won't find out.

If you want to find out, why not take a look in one of the countries where multi is legal (even at the lowest levels). I would expect that all pairs that play in the highest British or Dutch league have detailed agreements about their defense against multi. How many of those pairs still use multi?

I'm not nearly so sure as you are. And I have the advantage of having reviewed the defenses set forth on several of the British and Dutch pairs' convention cards and supplemental sheets vs Multi. It really is tough to come up with an adequate defense to multi (Chip and Eric spent conservatively 100 hours working on it 6 years ago; we've been adding whenever anything comes up since; it's still not very good); if the defense has to be memorized, it's even harder. I suspect that a very large number of people, even from countries in which multi is common, choose not to bother.

hrothgar, on Jul 8 2006, 07:49 AM, said:

For kicks and giggles (and because I have 30 minutes to kill while the keema reduces), I  compiled a listing of of all registered systems in Verona, along with their definition for a 2♦ opening.  (Please note:  Its quite possible that "Registered systems" are biased in one direction or another)

Since the only systems that were supposed to be registered for Verona were "Red" systems, I think that would be a pretty strong bias. I know that some of the people who registered systems weren't playing "Red" systems. I'm not sure whether an inability to read the requirements for registering systems represents any sort of bias