[shevek]

P_Marlowe, on May 15 2009, 02:21 AM, said:

kfay, on May 14 2009, 09:15 AM, said:

I've never played multi in a partnership but to my understanding 2♠ does not invite a heart game.  It just says, I'd be happy to play 3♥.

If partner bids 3♥ you can always re-evaluate whether or not to bid game, so I don't see why opener should just jump to 4♥.

Bidding 3m just seems to help the defense/offense too, imo.

No.

2S asks partner to 4H, if he happens to have a max.
weak two in heart.
And yes, it also says, that you be happy to play 3H,
i.e. you would have raised preemptivly 2H to 3H.

Hence 2S may also include hands, which would have
liked to raise 2H to 4H (to make or to sac.), ... but have
no spade support.

With kind regards
Marlowe

This approach seems a hangover from Multis that included strong unbalanced hands.
If 2♠ shows a hand that might have raised preemptively to 3♥, then allowing opener to bid 4♥ with a maximum is akin to allowing
2♥ - 3♥ - 4♥.

Having 2♠ as preemptive or better is playable with sensible continuations

If you are devious, a possible hand for it is something like
♠AKJx   ♥Kx   ♦xxxx   ♣xxx

[3for3]

None of the above schemes make much sense to me. I prefer to have the weak hand be dummy as often as possible. It is also logical to include both preemptive and invitational hands to bid 2 spades.

Therefore, 2n-min, 3c-med, 3d-max. If responder was preempting, he simply signs off, if not he can evaluate for game. Also logical would be to play that 2nt shows a min, and 3 minor a max with stuff in the suit shown.

One of the biggest advantages for multi is the transfer element. If you play Multi, making sure the weak hand the dummy is critical.

[Free]

I prefer 2♠ to be just P/C. Opener can clarify his holding showing a shortness is he's max (2N and 3m are available for that) in which case responder can still go to game. I don't like partner to jump to 4♥ just because I bid 2♠, I might just want to preempt opps.

[Old York]

Free, on May 15 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

I don't like partner to jump to 4♥ just because I bid 2♠, I might just want to preempt opps

In the original version, way back in the swinging sixties, 2♠ was invitational to 4♥. Like most things it has been greatly diluted and other treatments have been introduced to show a genuine invite.

The idea that you are using 2♠ to "preempt oppo" seems odd to me. In what sense is this a pre-empt? The 2♠ bid seems to deny Spade support if partner is allowed to pass. The bid is not forcing (unlike 2NT). Your oppo should be able to take any action without difficulty, and you are allowing them an additional bid...double. I have seen many players mis-use this bid with xx in both majors (and fail to alert their partnership understandings)

Your partner should be full entitled to jump to 4♥ after this bid

Tony

[helene_t]

It does preempt a little bit. If opener has spades, responder's LHO get's only one turn instead of two. If opener has hearts, opener will something in the range 2NT-3♥ instead of passing a 2♥ response, so responder's RHO can't bid 2♠ and sometimes not 3m either.

[Old York]

I dunno. The more I read, the more I believe that Multi should be banned in all low-level events
It just seems totally impossible to find a cohesive defense against this plethora of private treatments
If Multi is "standardised" to allow normal defense methods, then it will quickly lose it's appeal, but if these private treatments are allowed then oppo have no opportunity to agree a system of defensive bids

I give up

Tony

[Free]

Why do you want to ban it? Do you have a system that can handle 100% of the hands against a 3♠ opener? I'm sure you don't, so should we ban 3♠ openings as well?

I mean, here in Belgium almost everybody plays multi, even beginners, and nobody complains... In the beginning some found it rather difficult, but we learned to cope with it. Stop banning!

[Old York]

In a perfect world, oppo would be given full disclosure about these treatments. In practice, many partnership agreements are left undisclosed. The negative inferences can be very subtle, easy for opener to understand, but impossible for oppo
The use of 2♠ is often semi-psychic, and opener fields the psych by failing to bid 4♥. Is this 100% ethical?
These special treatments and continuations work best if oppo are uninformed and confused. This worries me greatly, especially if oppo are less experienced
Using Multi against advanced, experienced oppo is good fun, and can easily gain or lose, so it is perfectly fair and ethical. Using Multi against inexperienced oppo is almost always bound to gain an unfair advantage. Using Multi against BI with special partnership tweaks just seems to convey a win-at-all-costs attitude

I wish I could see a way out without banning

Tony

Edit: I will kib some Benelux tournies... I am genuinely interested in learning

[Wackojack]

At the my local club (UK) evenings, normally at least 4 pairs at 15-20 tables are playing the multi. Interestingly some of them are old fashioned steam acol players who when young in the 70's took to retaining strong major suit 2's when weak 2's became the vogue, and instead opted for the multi. (Rather than the more popular Benji) I have never heard of any complaints about its use and players just get on with it. It does not take too much working out to conclude that the multi is less of a weapon than the weak 2 in the major.

Quote;"The use of 2♠ is often semi-psychic, and opener fields the psych by failing to bid 4♥. Is this 100% ethical?"

If in 2nd seat you choose to pass and the bidding goes:
2♦-p-2♠-p-3♥-p-p then surely it does not take too much to work out that this is the same as 2♥-p-3♥-p-p. The problem it gives to the defence is the same. Most of us have learned that a 2♣ response to 1NT is not a psyche when you find out that she does not have clubs. In the same way after a multi bid, 4th seat must know that 2♠ means I have support for hearts and says nothing about spades.

[hrothgar]

Old York, on May 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

In a perfect world, oppo would be given full disclosure about these treatments. In practice, many partnership agreements are left undisclosed. The negative inferences can be very subtle, easy for opener to understand, but impossible for oppo
The use of 2♠ is often semi-psychic, and opener fields the psych by failing to bid 4♥. Is this 100% ethical?
These special treatments and continuations work best if oppo are uninformed and confused. This worries me greatly, especially if oppo are less experienced
Using Multi against advanced, experienced oppo is good fun, and can easily gain or lose, so it is perfectly fair and ethical. Using Multi against inexperienced oppo is almost always bound to gain an unfair advantage. Using Multi against BI with special partnership tweaks just seems to convey a win-at-all-costs attitude

I wish I could see a way out without banning

Tony

Edit: I will kib some Benelux tournies... I am genuinely interested in learning

Methinks that you are barking up the wrong tree

1. I agree that different partnerships play radically different response structures over a multi 2♦ opening. Some players prefer a style in which a 2♠ response shows (Hearts + values). Some players prefer a style in which a 2♠ response shows (Heart preference but doesn't promise values).

It strikes me as completely bizzarre to describe the latter agreement as a "semi-psychic".

2. Further, I will agree that some partnerships don't do a particularly good job explaining what their 2♠ response shows. I put them in precisely the same category as all those people who can't describe:

What a 1♠ overcall of my strong club opening shows
What they're "could" be short 1♣ opening does/does not show
When precisely they respond 1♦ to a 1♣ opening
How often they upgrade / downgrade a 1NT opening
Whether a 2♥ rebid after a 1♦ and a 2♣ response promises extra shape
What their 2NT response to partner's 1♣ opening shows

I think you get the picture... In case you don't: Perfect disclosure is a wonderful idea which, all too often, fails in practice. Fixating on this specific auction strikes me as rather bizzarre. As a practical example:

I've played against a fair number of pairs who play a multi 2♦
I've played against a lot of pairs who overcalled 1♠ over my strong club opening.

Want to hazard a guess when I get better disclosure?

[JanM]

Just to muddy the waters further, my preferred response to multi includes using the 2M responses to sign off in 3m. We respond 2 of our longer Major with a long minor (more often clubs, but sometimes diamonds if we prefer to get to the 3 level). Over 2♥ opener bids 2♠ with spades and responder's 3m shows a desire to play there (2NT is Ogust as after a natural 2♠ opening). Over 2♠ opener bids 2NT with hearts and a minimum and 3♣ with hearts and a maximum. Responder can then either bid 3m to play or pass 3♣ to play there or bid the appropriate number of hearts. If opener happens to have responder's longer Major, we play there, which works out fine.

Of course we alert 2M and explain that it is Pass or Correct and may include a sign off in a minor, but the 2M...3m auction often confuses the opponents.

Before someone asks, we use the freed up 3m bids to show real length in a Major - 3♣ shows hearts, 3♦ shows spades; opener then shows how many cards s/he has in the Major responder has shown - since we open Multi with pretty random hands, sometimes the other Major is where we belong.

[Mbodell]

Old York, on May 15 2009, 07:22 AM, said:

In a perfect world, oppo would be given full disclosure about these treatments. In practice, many partnership agreements are left undisclosed. The negative inferences can be very subtle, easy for opener to understand, but impossible for oppo
The use of 2♠ is often semi-psychic, and opener fields the psych by failing to bid 4♥. Is this 100% ethical?

It is not ethical to not give full descriptions when asked. But it is not an ethical problem to make a bid that you would think of as semi-psychic because you don't ask what a bid means or assume that you know the one true meaning of 2♦ (multi) - P - 2♠. If my partner never, ever in thousands of such auctions bids 4♥ on his next turn that isn't fielding a psych because if you asked what the 2♠ bid meant you'd get an explanation of "pass or correct. He would pass a weak 2♠ opening bid and would raise a weak 2♥ opening bid to at least 3♥."

[shevek]

JanM, on May 15 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

Just to muddy the waters further, my preferred response to multi includes using the 2M responses to sign off in 3m. We respond 2 of our longer Major with a long minor (more often clubs, but sometimes diamonds if we prefer to get to the 3 level). Over 2♥ opener bids 2♠ with spades and responder's 3m shows a desire to play there (2NT is Ogust as after a natural 2♠ opening). Over 2♠ opener bids 2NT with hearts and a minimum and 3♣ with hearts and a maximum. Responder can then either bid 3m to play or pass 3♣ to play there or bid the appropriate number of hearts. If opener happens to have responder's longer Major, we play there, which works out fine.

Of course we alert 2M and explain that it is Pass or Correct and may include a sign off in a minor, but the 2M...3m auction often confuses the opponents.

Before someone asks, we use the freed up 3m bids to show real length in a Major - 3♣ shows hearts, 3♦ shows spades; opener then shows how many cards s/he has in the Major responder has shown - since we open Multi with pretty random hands, sometimes the other Major is where we belong.

Interesting method.

When you fly OS you can play it ........

[NickRW]

JanM, on May 15 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

Just to muddy the waters further, my preferred response to multi includes using the 2M responses to sign off in 3m. We respond 2 of our longer Major with a long minor (more often clubs, but sometimes diamonds if we prefer to get to the 3 level). Over 2♥ opener bids 2♠ with spades and responder's 3m shows a desire to play there (2NT is Ogust as after a natural 2♠ opening). Over 2♠ opener bids 2NT with hearts and a minimum and 3♣ with hearts and a maximum. Responder can then either bid 3m to play or pass 3♣ to play there or bid the appropriate number of hearts. If opener happens to have responder's longer Major, we play there, which works out fine.

Of course we alert 2M and explain that it is Pass or Correct and may include a sign off in a minor, but the 2M...3m auction often confuses the opponents.

Before someone asks, we use the freed up 3m bids to show real length in a Major - 3♣ shows hearts, 3♦ shows spades; opener then shows how many cards s/he has in the Major responder has shown - since we open Multi with pretty random hands, sometimes the other Major is where we belong.

So you use the multi to show a weak 2 in a major - or a 3 level minor preempt?

I don't think we can get away with that in England - not even at level 4 - in a bid with weak options you have to have an anchor suit - or a suit you specifically don't have - or some such wording I could dig out of the Orange book if anyone really cares...

Nick

[the hog]

Old York, on May 15 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

I dunno. The more I read, the more I believe that Multi should be banned in all low-level events
It just seems totally impossible to find a cohesive defense against this plethora of private treatments
If Multi is "standardised" to allow normal defense methods, then it will quickly lose it's appeal, but if these private treatments are allowed then oppo have no opportunity to agree a system of defensive bids

I give up

Tony

I don't understand why you want to ban it Tony. Provided everyone reveals their agreements wtp?

Fwiw I believe 2D 2S should be pass/correct to 3H only, not invit.

[JanM]

NickRW, on May 15 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

So you use the multi to show a weak 2 in a major - or a 3 level minor preempt?

No, the 2M response to 2♦ may be a weak hand with a minor.

[NickRW]

JanM, on May 16 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

NickRW, on May 15 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

So you use the multi to show a weak 2 in a major - or a 3 level minor preempt?

No, the 2M response to 2♦ may be a weak hand with a minor.

OK - got it now - I was confuzzled - must have missed the "We respond 2 of our longer Major with a long minor" bit - or more probably subconsciously rejected what I read - as it is the opposite of the (I believe more usual) paradox method (of responding in the major you don't have).

Gives you an option of stopping in responder's preferred major - or - if it turns out that opener has the wrong one, then you can stop in the minor.

What do you do if responder doesn't have a minor? Presumably revert to paradox style responses...

Hmm - to paradox or not to paradox - that is the question.

Nick

[NickRW]

Old York, on May 15 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

I dunno. The more I read, the more I believe that Multi should be banned in all low-level events
It just seems totally impossible to find a cohesive defense against this plethora of private treatments
If Multi is "standardised" to allow normal defense methods, then it will quickly lose it's appeal, but if these private treatments are allowed then oppo have no opportunity to agree a system of defensive bids

I give up

Tony

Don't give up. It really isn't that difficult to defend against.

I taught 4 of my kids to play the summer before last - they were home from University or off school or whatever and I had some time on my hands - it was pretty intensive and we covered quite a lot of ground and got into the multi. We've never have had so much time since (mainly coz we're playing the game now rather than teaching/learning) - and we never got time to cover a defense to the multi - all we had was the simple agreement that double of opps artificial bid shows the suit called - i.e. the beginner version. It works reasonably well even though it is far from optimum.

One thing with the multi is overcall it if you reasonably can - it is often the opening side then that is put in the position of not knowing what is going on!!

Nick

[CSGibson]

This is regarding the reaction to American club pairs when confronted with multi.

My partner and I have been using a multi 2 diamonds at a club open game for about a month and a half now (with permission of the club owner, obviously). We pre-alert, have a write-up of our system, and provide our opponents two copies of both ACBL approved defenses. Whatever competitive reason for playing multi, it's been interesting hearing other people's reaction:

The good players tend to take it in stride. They look at the defense sheet and pick a defense, then don't bother unless it comes up. Occasionally we'll get a question about why we decided to make it part of our system, since it's use is very limited.

Some of the up & coming players are genuinely curious about it. They want to know why we decided to play multi, and how it fits in our system. That grouping tends to be less interested in looking at the defenses, mostly because they don't want to read a 3 page document, not realizing that the basis of both defenses is 6 lines or so.

About half of the rest of the players just want to make sure we alert it correctly, don't want to be bothered with the defense, and tolerate the bids. The other half either has displayed some hostility or outright anger at our "ruining their fun" because they just want to play bridge, they don't want to "have to read a book" on the off chance our bid comes up. One pair has stopped coming to the game altogether, though I can't confirm that it was because of our multi, but I do know that it's being talked about, and not in a good manner.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think the ACBL defense option 1 is very easy, and makes sense to play against multi: X as takeout of spades or a hand too strong to act normally, 2H as take-out of hearts, everything else fairly natural (except leaping michaels).

[barryallen]

CSGibson, on May 15 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

This is regarding the reaction to American club pairs when confronted with multi.

My partner and I have been using a multi 2 diamonds at a club open game for about a month and a half now (with permission of the club owner, obviously). We pre-alert, have a write-up of our system, and provide our opponents two copies of both ACBL approved defenses. Whatever competitive reason for playing multi, it's been interesting hearing other people's reaction:

The good players tend to take it in stride. They look at the defense sheet and pick a defense, then don't bother unless it comes up. Occasionally we'll get a question about why we decided to make it part of our system, since it's use is very limited.

Some of the up & coming players are genuinely curious about it. They want to know why we decided to play multi, and how it fits in our system. That grouping tends to be less interested in looking at the defenses, mostly because they don't want to read a 3 page document, not realizing that the basis of both defenses is 6 lines or so.

About half of the rest of the players just want to make sure we alert it correctly, don't want to be bothered with the defense, and tolerate the bids. The other half either has displayed some hostility or outright anger at our "ruining their fun" because they just want to play bridge, they don't want to "have to read a book" on the off chance our bid comes up. One pair has stopped coming to the game altogether, though I can't confirm that it was because of our multi, but I do know that it's being talked about, and not in a good manner.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think the ACBL defense option 1 is very easy, and makes sense to play against multi: X as takeout of spades or a hand too strong to act normally, 2H as take-out of hearts, everything else fairly natural (except leaping michaels).

In that sort of environment, I would more than likely not play multi. Even when you go to the trouble of explaining all the negative inferences from any bid as well as the positive, you still get the mumbles and the grumbles. Just for the sake of the host, who get far more levelled at them, than you ever get to hear.