[shevek]

A partner reckons that 2♦ - 2♠ is invitational in hearts, so opener chooses between 3♥ & 4♥.

This implies that a weakish hand with preference for hearts (say 1-3 majors) takes the low road with 2♥.

I like to bid 2♠ on these weakish hands. A good treatment is for opener to bid 3♥ over this with a minimum, 3♣/♦ with a maximum. This assumes that you don't throw other strong hands in with 2♦, which we don't.

What do people do?

Nick

[kfay]

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.

[helene_t]

Sounds very sensible to me.

It's a long time since I have played multi including strong variants, I don't remember what we would have done with a strong hand if partner responds 2♠, afraid we forgot to discuss it. I would suggest
3♦: Max weak two in hearts.

A strong hand that would have rebid 3♦ or 3♥ over a 2♥ response would have bid something that would have been undefined after a 2♥ response. For us that would have been 3NT or 4♣, respectively. Of course the auction would be a little clumsy, then.

[Old York]

I wish that I knew the answer to this one, it has always been a problem for me - mainly because of lack of alerts.
After 2♦-(p)-2♠ (unalerted) many players call TD and try to claim a Psych

My understanding was that a 2♠ response shows a strong preference for Heats, but not a strong hand?

We really do need to learn more about this topic. Is anyone prepared to set up a teaching table?

Tony

[helene_t]

lol, did I get that one right? Responder bids 2♠, opener forgets to alert it, when the TD comes opener says he didn't alert 2♠ because it's supposed to show spades so apparently it was a psyche?

[joker_gib]

kfay, on May 14 2009, 03:15 PM, 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♥.

I agree with this, 2♠ is just pass/correct

We include GF hands in multi so for us : 3m = GF natural

[Old York]

You would be amazed how often the TD is called after a 2♦ opener, it is getting really silly

[barryallen]

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.

I suppose this depends what your multi consists of, but I would go direct to game with a good ♥ suit, bidding 3♥ with a poor ♥ suit.
2NT showing an opening 2NT hand and the 3 level suits being roman.
This has the 2NT response from partner being Ogust and subsequent 3 level rebids defining the strength and suit for a weak 2. All strong bids being now elevated to the 3NT + level over a 2NT enquiry.

Is there a more common place for psyches, then when responding to a multi?

[thebiker]

In the only partnership in which I play the Multi we play that a 2S response shows non serious / serious interest in hearts. Continuations are as follows

2D 2S
3C Shows a Weak 2H's
Now 3D shows "non serious" interest in hearts (which opener converts to 3H)
and 3H shows "serious" interest in hearts (which opener can convert to 4H with a suitable hand)

We are threrefore able to both attempt to confuse the opposition, and make game tries. We also benefit after "serious" sequences of right siding the final contract so that the stronger hand plays any heart games we reach.

regards

Brian Keable

alias thebiker

[manudude03]

I prefer to play that 2♦-2♠ is a hand that just wants to compete to 3H. Helps in interference when the opps overcall 3m since now the suit can be determined (3H= ♥, pass=♠). The only time opener will bid 4♥ over 2♠ is if they opened a bad hand with 7 hearts.

A 2NT rebid by opener shows the equivalent of a natural 2NT opener.
3 level rebids (exc. 3H) shows a strong 4441 (bid suit below stiff) with relays (3NT=1444)

[kgr]

We also have GF minor in our 2♦ opening.
So:
2♦-2♠ (2♠ is preempt or invite with ♥'s)
=>
3♥: minimum weak 2♥
3♦: GF in ♦ or good weak 2♥
---
After
2♦-2♠
3♦-??
- 3♥: preempt ♥
- Other bids: invite ♥, taking into account that partner can have GF ♦

[Trinidad]

Dutch top player Jan Jansma states that you shouldn't respond 2♠ to often to a multi 2♦ opening. His logic: If the bidding starts 2♦-Pass-2♠-Pass; 4♥, you have pretty much told the opponents that they should bid 4♠.

Thus, with a weak hand, short spades and 3♥, Jan would respond 2♥. He claims that he gets to play that quite often, since no one knows that there is a fit.

I think Jan has a good point.

Rik

This post has been edited by Trinidad: 2009-May-15, 01:50

[gnasher]

I think 2♦-2♠ should ask opener to bid 4♥ on any weak two in hearts (or perhaps whenever he's not really filthy). That's a good way to discourage people from playing a defence that involves passing over 2♦ on a good hand.

With 1-3 in the majors, too weak to want to play in 4♥, I think you should pass 2♦ and leave them to guess what opener's suit is.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on May 14 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Dutch top player Jan Jansma states that you shouldn't respond 2♠ to often to a multi 2♦ opening. His logic: If the bidding starts 2♦-Pass-2♠-Pass; 4♥, you have pretty much told the opponents that they should bid 4♠.
...
When Jan reposnds 2♠, it basically tells his partner that he is willing to double 4♠ if the opponents dare to bid it.

I think Jan has a good point.

I don't, if he really takes it to such an extreme.

Playing that 2♦-2♠ promises enough to beat 4♠ is as bad as using it to deny enough to beat 4♠. You should bid 2♠ on both hand-types, and also on hands where you don't know whether 4♠ is making or not.

It's probably true that as played by many people 2♠ is more likely to be a weak hand than a good one.

[NickRW]

There is a bit about the multi specifically, and, more importantly, the theory behind "paradox" responses (that are typically used with the multi) on Chris Ryall's website Highly recommended reading.

For those who don't want to wade through all that the 4 commonest responses are:

2♥ = no support for hearts, may or may not have support for spades, typically weak. Opener passes with ♥, corrects to ♠ with spades and bids something else to show whatever strong options you've agreed to put into the multi.

2♠ = support for hearts (often as little as xxx) and a desire to push the preempt if partner has hearts, no support for spades, typically weak.

2NT = asking - usually a decent opening (about 14hcp) - can be a bit less with some sort of support for both majors (but opps be warned, this bid can be psyched and actually be weak)

3♥ = support for both majors and a desire to push the preempt.

Responses to 2NT are by agreement, but might be something like:
3♣ = strong preempt in ♥
3♦ = strong preempt in ♠
3♥ = weak preempt in ♥
3♠ = weak preempt in ♠
other bids show whatever strong options you've agreed to bundle into the multi

As to the strong options, people often bundle a strong NT range (whatever suits your system) and "Acol two" types in a minor (about 8.5 to 9 playing tricks). Personally I like to bundle a NT range and strong 4441 types into it - which is the old fashioned form - a tax on the memory because the sequences that come up are rare - but it gets rid of these irksome, difficult to bid hands out of the rest of your system

As to defences - far from optimum - but the idiotically simple dble shows diamonds gets us by against the one other pair that commonly deploys it at my local club - so this bid is NOT some sort of fearsome weapon - rather it is a way of finding a home for a lot of hand types that free up the rest of your system - I see it as a constructive tool as much as it is an obstructive one!

Nick

[Mbodell]

We play that a 2♠ response says to partner "I'd have raised 2♥(natural weak) to at least 3♥ and I'd have passed 2♠(natural weak)". The 2♦ bidder is expected to pass with spades and bid 3♥ with ♥.

Over the 2nt asking bid that NickRW asks about I like our version where:

3♣ - weak ♥ hand
3♦ - weak ♠ hand
3♥ - strong ♠ hand
3♠ - strong ♥ hand

The switching of the strong hands means the partner of the multi opener gets to declare the major games, which is a strong benefit IME.

In addition, we also have the 4 level where 4♣/2♦ asks partner to bid 1 below their suit and 4♦/2♦ asks partner to bid their suit.

[P_Marlowe]

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

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on May 14 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Trinidad, on May 14 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Dutch top player Jan Jansma states that you shouldn't respond 2♠ to often to a multi 2♦ opening. His logic: If the bidding starts 2♦-Pass-2♠-Pass; 4♥, you have pretty much told the opponents that they should bid 4♠.
...
When Jan reposnds 2♠, it basically tells his partner that he is willing to double 4♠ if the opponents dare to bid it.

I think Jan has a good point.

I don't, if he really takes it to such an extreme.

He doesn't. My sentence about willingness to double 4♠ was mine and certainly not Jan's. My apologies, I will edit it out.

Rik

[helene_t]

gnasher, on May 14 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

Trinidad, on May 14 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Dutch top player Jan Jansma states that you shouldn't respond 2♠ to often to a multi 2♦ opening. His logic: If the bidding starts 2♦-Pass-2♠-Pass; 4♥, you have pretty much told the opponents that they should bid 4♠.
...
When Jan reposnds 2♠, it basically tells his partner that he is willing to double 4♠ if the opponents dare to bid it.

I think Jan has a good point.

I don't, if he really takes it to such an extreme.

Playing that 2♦-2♠ promises enough to beat 4♠ is as bad as using it to deny enough to beat 4♠. You should bid 2♠ on both hand-types, and also on hands where you don't know whether 4♠ is making or not.

It's probably true that as played by many people 2♠ is more likely to be a weak hand than a good one.

I suppose what Jansma means is that the 2♠ response allows opener to double 4♠ if he has a defensive trick. Or something like that.

Having the agreement that "this call shows that my next call will be (...) and I am not involving my p in the decision" would be silly.

Just a guess.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on May 15 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

gnasher, on May 14 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

Trinidad, on May 14 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Dutch top player Jan Jansma states that you shouldn't respond 2♠ to often to a multi 2♦ opening. His logic: If the bidding starts 2♦-Pass-2♠-Pass; 4♥, you have pretty much told the opponents that they should bid 4♠.
...
When Jan reposnds 2♠, it basically tells his partner that he is willing to double 4♠ if the opponents dare to bid it.

I think Jan has a good point.

I don't, if he really takes it to such an extreme.

Playing that 2♦-2♠ promises enough to beat 4♠ is as bad as using it to deny enough to beat 4♠. You should bid 2♠ on both hand-types, and also on hands where you don't know whether 4♠ is making or not.

It's probably true that as played by many people 2♠ is more likely to be a weak hand than a good one.

I suppose what Jansma means is that the 2♠ response allows opener to double 4♠ if he has a defensive trick. Or something like that.

Having the agreement that "this call shows that my next call will be (...) and I am not involving my p in the decision" would be silly.

Just a guess.

Don't worry. Jan Jansma isn't that silly. It is just me who is silly. I edited my post.

Rik