[Free]

whereagles, on Mar 21 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Mar 21 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

I have discovered a beautiful defense but this post is not large enough to contain it.

An overkill? Mine is like 3 lines long Ok, add 5 more to explain follow-ups

Either give your silly defense, or stop whining about it. Apparently you're just too afraid that people will critique it, otherwise you'd already given it, just to brag... Nobody cares for your 1-liner replies with no real content anyway, we all pretty much "know" that it won't work in at least 50% of the situations, but until you give it, it will still be "pretty much know". So unless you're ready to post your "perfect defense" of 3+5 lines long, better stop making these nonsense posts...

[whereagles]

Dude, if I couldn't handle criticism, I would have been out of this forum A LONG TIME AGO. I haven't posted it because some people only seem interested in flaming it and I can't be bothered to engage in another exercise of redundancy.

For your information, I did send it to someone who asked for it in a polite and serious way.

[1eyedjack]

Gerben42, on Mar 21 2007, 01:33 AM, said:

I have discovered a beautiful defense but this post is not large enough to contain it.

Fermat lives! Like it

[marcD]

I think the main issue with that opening is that it may be sometimes too effective to be honest (see Hamman's book on this very topic). I have not met too many people who play this but each time it was very clear they were very far from FD especially on competitive auctions (or may be it's just they did not know what they were doing)

[Free]

whereagles, on Mar 21 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

Dude, if I couldn't handle criticism, I would have been out of this forum A LONG TIME AGO. I haven't posted it because some people only seem interested in flaming it and I can't be bothered to engage in another exercise of redundancy.

For your information, I did send it to someone who asked for it in a polite and serious way.

Congratulations...

[Gerben42]

Quote

I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US remember that the ACBL's general chart rules allow any defense you want to "conventional calls," in particular to an artificial 1♣ or 1♦ opening. So while you can't play 2♥ multi in ACBL Superchart events, you can use it as a weak jump overcall if your opponents play Precision, Polish Club, 1♣ "could be short" (2 or fewer), or even over a standard strong 2

Correct. In Europe you can and I do (okay slightly different). Against strong opening bids I use my golden rule, which says that any suit overcall should either

* promise the bid suit
OR
* not guarantee any suit, but include the bid suit as a possibility

PS what DOES Hamman say about the "too good to be honest"?

[glen]

Btw see Chip Martel's discussion on page 3 of Chip Martel Interview

I believe that partnerships who have played 2♥ as a "weak two in either major" for a bit, need to disclose if their partnership style makes it:
1) "a weak two in ♠s or a really good weak two in ♥s or a poor three bid in ♥s"
or
2) "a weak two in ♠s or a really good weak two in ♥s or a good three bid in ♥s"
or
3) "any weak two in ♥s or any weak two in ♠s, but we upgrade some weak twos in ♠s to another opening"

As Chip notes, what responder is to do if a vulnerable 3-2-4-4 11-count makes a big difference, and if the partnership knows this (e.g. they bid on styles 1 and 2 above, they pass on style 3), then the defenders should know it too.

[zasanya]

How about a set match of say 16 boards where at least 25% deals would be 2♥ multi variety.One team plays the gadget; other doesnt and then compare the results?Some senior forum member can form the teams.Should be fun to watch if nothing else.

[Free]

Imo better to compare a mini multi 2♦ with a multi 2♥. At least you'll get some of the advantages from a mini multi (like passing 2♦) that a 2♥ opening won't have...

[mikeh]

officeglen, on Mar 21 2007, 06:42 AM, said:

Btw see Chip Martel's discussion on page 3 of Chip Martel Interview

I believe that partnerships who have played 2♥ as a "weak two in either major" for a bit, need to disclose if their partnership style makes it:
1) "a weak two in ♠s or a really good weak two in ♥s or a poor three bid in ♥s"
or
2) "a weak two in ♠s or a really good weak two in ♥s or a good three bid in ♥s"
or
3) "any weak two in ♥s or any weak two in ♠s, but we upgrade some weak twos in ♠s to another opening"

As Chip notes, what responder is to do if a vulnerable 3-2-4-4 11-count makes a big difference, and if the partnership knows this (e.g. they bid on styles 1 and 2 above, they pass on style 3), then the defenders should know it too.

2♥ multi is far more effective white than it is red, precisely because of the issues identified by Martel. In fact, no matter what responder's shape is, unless he has long ♥s, he will always be pressured to pull 2♥ to 2♠, since playing a 3-3 (or worse) ♥ fit rather than a 6-1 ♠ fit may throw away a lot of imps when the opps can't make game.

But when white, the worst likely result, when the opps can't make a game, is going to be -150 or -200. Not great, if we have a partscore our way, but close to even if the partscore is their way and a big gain when they can make a game.

In my favourite incident, against a very good pair (multiple Canadian Champions) we were -250 in 2♥ while their teammates did well to save for -500 over 4♥, and there was very little that could realistically have been done at our table to avoid the result.

Responder passes 2♥ as a default move on ALL hands on which he suspects that the opps could make a major suit game. He passes on most other hands with no game interest. He usually advances the bid only if interested in game or with a fit for both majors and a desire to preempt the auction.

So the most common sequence is 2♥ [P] P.....

I read your suggested approach and I think I understand the concepts, and they may be as good as one can devise. But the thought of having to bid, say, 3♥ over 2♥ red v white with KJxx x AJxx KJxx scares the living daylights out of me, whether this be in direct or passout seat. And, if I understand the concept, I do have to make these kinds of cue-bids anytime I want to show some kind of takeout with shortness. What about AKx x KJxxx Kxxx? Again, if I read your methods correctly, this is a cue-bid... ugh.

I may misunderstand, and even if I don't, I am not trying to dump on your suggestions: I would only do that if I felt that I had a clearly better scheme, and I don't.

My suggestion, which I acknowledge is flawed, is:

direct:

double is either balanced or short in ♥s or very strong
2♠ is short in ♠s
2N natural
3♣/♦/♥/♠ natural

After 2♥ P P : same

After 2♥ P 2♠, double is either penalty or takeout: partner to look at hand and guess

[glen]

mikeh said:

I read your suggested approach and I think I understand the concepts, and they may be as good as one can devise. But the thought of having to bid, say, 3♥ over 2♥ red v white with KJxx x AJxx KJxx scares the living daylights out of me, whether this be in direct or passout seat. And, if I understand the concept, I do have to make these kinds of cue-bids anytime I want to show some kind of takeout with shortness. What about AKx x KJxxx Kxxx? Again, if I read your methods correctly, this is a cue-bid... ugh.

I may misunderstand, and even if I don't, I am not trying to dump on your suggestions: I would only do that if I felt that I had a clearly better scheme, and I don't.

The direct bidding over 2♥ weak in either major is described in detail in the section "When Double is PVS or PTO but no known suit" - I'll repeat the example part of it here:

Over 2♥ which could be weak in either major:

Double: PTO (or PVS in balance)

2♠: Natural

2NT: Natural

3♣: ♣s or very short in ♥s (the suit opened), non-forcing. This will always have some ♣s so responder can pass. Now 3♦ will ask hand type, with 3♥ showing very short ♥s and rest of the bids descriptive with ♣s.

3♦: Natural

3♥: Natural and some extra values, since otherwise pass 2♥ and await a balancing double by partner.

3♠: Natural with values/length to jump to 3♠.

4♣: ♣s with considerable extra values/length or very short in ♥s and considerable extras (18+). 4♦ asks hand type, with 4♥ showing very short ♥s.

Rest: Natural, including 4♥.

- - -

So KJxx x AJxx KJxx overcalls 3♣, not 3♥ which is natural with extras. Or this hand could make a PTO double, since a singleton without much distribution is okay. The hand is borderline between a PTO double and 3♣ - with any more points a PTO double would be clear. With 4=1=5=3 one would opt for a PTO double instead of 3♣.

I should note the counter vex methods are a "generic defensive framework" – if one encounters a particular type of bid a lot (such as Multi) one can use a specific defense tailored just to it.

[hrothgar]

I ahve a few spare cycles right now and I'm vaguely tempted play arround with a defense to this beastie.

My initial thought is to go in a very different direction than most of the suggestions that I have seen to date: If the opponents want to play chicken, lets up the stakes and adopt a forcing pass. If the auction starts (2♥) - P -(X) - partner is forced to double:

The idea behind the forcing pass is threefold:

1. It allows us to regain a lot of valuable bidding space which we desperately need against this critter

2. The opponents might be happy to go down 5 NV in a 3-2 Heart fit. These strategies are suddenly going to be a lot more risky

3. I suspect that a forcing pass is going to screw with their methods

Here's a quick thought about a more comprehensive set of methods (i'm going to need to spend a lot of time playing with this. I'm really not usre how sound the core theory might be, but it certainly has some amusement value)

4D = Diamonds
4C = Clubs
3N = NAYMATS type
3S = natural, sound
3H = natural, sound
3D = Multi (weak 3 level preempt in either major)
3C = Weak (6+ cards in either minor)
2NT = good overcall in either minor or a strong 5-5 with one major
2S = Spades or 11 - 13 balanced
Double = Takeout of Spades
Pass = Forcing, shows a variety of hands including

A "fert"
A strong NT oriented hand
A takeout double of Hearts
Both minors

[gwnn]

btw, what's wrong with

X=takeout of spades or 19+ bal
2♠=takeout of hearts

rest natural

?

[mikeh]

gwnn, on Mar 22 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

btw, what's wrong with

X=takeout of spades or 19+ bal
2♠=takeout of hearts

rest natural

?

2♠ takeout of ♥s doesn't work.

Let's say you, as partner of the doubler, hold Qxxx xxx Kxx Qxx.

Partner makes a takeout double of a natural weak 2♥ and you bid 2♠.

Now the doubler can pass with a minium, but with significant extras, can raise.

In other words, doubler, who has a wide strength range for the double, is assured of another cahnce to bid when he holds extras.

But if he will bid 2♠, t.o. of the artificial 2♥ on a 4=1=4=4 17 count and a 4=2=4=3 14 count (or, to be really difficult, a 3=2=4=4 or 3=1=5=4, etc), what is advancer to do with a hand that should stop in 2♠ opposite a minimum and be in game opposite a top-of-range bid?

In addition, you have no apparent bid for 13-15 flat hands (some 15's will be bid via 2N, but not all are suitable for that).

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Mar 23 2007, 03:17 AM, said:

gwnn, on Mar 22 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

btw, what's wrong with

X=takeout of spades or 19+ bal
2♠=takeout of hearts

rest natural

?

2♠ takeout of ♥s doesn't work.

Let's say you, as partner of the doubler, hold Qxxx xxx Kxx Qxx.

Partner makes a takeout double of a natural weak 2♥ and you bid 2♠.

Now the doubler can pass with a minium, but with significant extras, can raise.

In other words, doubler, who has a wide strength range for the double, is assured of another cahnce to bid when he holds extras.

But if he will bid 2♠, t.o. of the artificial 2♥ on a 4=1=4=4 17 count and a 4=2=4=3 14 count (or, to be really difficult, a 3=2=4=4 or 3=1=5=4, etc), what is advancer to do with a hand that should stop in 2♠ opposite a minimum and be in game opposite a top-of-range bid?

In addition, you have no apparent bid for 13-15 flat hands (some 15's will be bid via 2N, but not all are suitable for that).

Personally, I think that 2♠ as a takeout of hearts is playable, so long as you have some other bid to show the strong hand type. Even if you don't have a bid to show the strong hand type, there are a lot of benefits to a scheme in which a double of 2♥ shows hearts and a 2♠ bid shows some spade length. As we've all noted, this bid is a pain inthe butt to defend against. You aren't going to get a perfect defense.

As for the lack of a bid showing 13-15 balanced.... Most folks are content to pass 13-15 balanced over a "normal" weak 2♥. You can't show everything, and this seems like a natural hand type to drop.

[Free]

After a 2♦ multi I like to play like it's a 2♠ opening, and by passing first you bid like it's after a 2♥ bidding (unless opps end up in 2♠ obviously, then you have penalty doubles )

I think this approach works equally well after a 2♥ multi, but you better consider it a natural 2♥ opening. This makes sure that after 2♥-p-2♠-p;p-? you still have some constructive options and a takeout double.

[Gerben42]

Quote

As Chip notes, what responder is to do if a vulnerable 3-2-4-4 11-count makes a big difference, and if the partnership knows this (e.g. they bid on styles 1 and 2 above, they pass on style 3), then the defenders should know it too.

So why didn't they tell their opps? They should go stand in the corner.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Mar 23 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

Quote

As Chip notes, what responder is to do if a vulnerable 3-2-4-4 11-count makes a big difference, and if the partnership knows this (e.g. they bid on styles 1 and 2 above, they pass on style 3), then the defenders should know it too.

So why didn't they tell their opps? They should go stand in the corner.

I've had a few run ins with Chip on this very subject:

The short form answer is that the old "Chicken and the Egg" problem is rearing its ugly head once against.

Lets assume that my partnership has decided to adopt a multi 2♥ opening and partner opened 2♥. My choice of bids with a 3=2=4=4 11 count is going to depend on the definition that the opposing side assigns to a direct seat Pass / Double / 2♠ / 2NT / yada, yada, yada.

Lets use an extreme example. Assume that partnership "X" decides to treat a direct seat pass a weak bid. Partnership "B" decides to treat a direct seat pass as establishing a one round force as I suggested earlier. I suspect that responder's optimal advance structure would vary dramatically based on which of the two defenses is being used.

Unfortunately, the ideals surrounding "full disclosure" often need to take a back seat to practicality. It isn't practical to provide perfect predisclosure regarding all the different nuances for every concievable auction that might crop up. I will also note that none of this has anything to do with the multi 2♥ opening being discussed. These same problems crop up regardless of bidding system. (from my perspective, many of the worst offenders regarding disclosure are people playing simple natural systems who brish away any attempt to getf information with the claim that its "just bridge").

[awm]

There's a lot of justification for playing different ranges for the two meanings of the 2♥ opening. The issue is basically, suppose 2♥ was a weak two in either major with some range. Then there always exists a hand for responder where we are likely to have a slight majority of the values but we don't have a very good fit (or at least, we don't have a very good fit if opener has hearts). The issue is that playing in the "wrong major" with this hand will probably be a very poor result -- it works out great when opponents are likely to have game (or at least where the par result is probably plus for opponents) but it's lousy when it's our hand and we end in some 3-2 fit down five.

If the hearts meaning is "better" than the spades meaning:

(1) The "hearts" meaning shows a better hand. In this case if it's "our hand" opposite the spades meaning, we are very likely to have game opposite he hearts meaning. So we can feel free to bid 2♠ on this hand.

(2) The "hearts" meaning shows a longer suit. In this case if it's "our hand" we can bid 2♠, since many people will open 3♥ with the hearts hand anyway.

Of course, especially at NV I could see letting the two meanings be equal and just accepting the occasional lousy result when it's "our hand" and we get -200 instead of +140 for playing in the wrong spot, but this is obviously a very high variance approach to the game. If the ranges or tendencies for the two weak twos are different though, this really needs to be disclosed and may effect the best defense.

The funny thing about hrothgar's defense is, if we assume that responder normally won't pass 2♥ with a good hand (because playing in the wrong partial is not so good a result in this case) it makes a lot of sense for pass to be forcing. But then, if responder knows pass was forcing he will feel free to pass on a good hand.....

[effervesce]

Hmmm interesting 2H multi. Against the 2D multi I've always used 2H is heart takeout, 2S is spade takeout, X is opening hand with 5 card major. Unfortunately a 2H multi doesnt let me use that, so I'd have to use (in direct seat) X = heart takeout, pass if i've got a spade takeout or heart hand and use 2S as a genuine spade hand.

The problem with

Quote

X=takeout of spades or 19+ bal
2S =takeout of hearts

as suggested before is that it does not let the opponents play in a 3-2 fit (they can run) - of course this is probably counterbalanced possibly by missing game on hands we have a game in hearts and they play in 2H.

I like the idea of 2H as a multi - more preemptive as unlike 2D multi the opponents "know" the 2D opening partner will bid again and can pass with strong hands then double later. It'll also let me try out this idea i've had for a while for a system (polish club/moscito relay hybrid):

1C = 15+ any or 12-14 6+C/5+C 4M
     1D = game force 8+QP not 5440 type shape
     1H = 5-7QP balanced may have 5M/unbalanced no 5M
     1S = 0-4QP any
     1NT = 5-7QP 5+H 4+ another
     2C = 5-7QP 5+S 4+ minor
     2D = 5-7QP 5+S 4+H
     2H/2S = 5-7QP singlesuiter
     2NT+ = game forcing 8+QP 5440 shapes
1D = 10-14 2+D
1H/1S = 10-14 4+ suit
1NT = 15-17 bal
2C = weak, 5/5 blacks/reds/majors
2D = weak, 5/5 pointed/round
2H = multi (wk 2 in a major)
2S = weak, 5/5 minors

Wonder how this'll work out :-)