the great multi defeated

[Guest Jlall]

He may also have the equivalent of AKJxx x AKJxxx x, and bid the same way.

That is a very strong hand, I'm not sure if he'd just bid 3D. Although I guess he knows they will bid 3H over which he can try 4S. He might try X then 4H over the inevitable 3H by opps. Would 4D over 2S be leaping michaels? This might be relevant, but I will assume not since it wasn't specified. Anyways, over a free 3N by us I do think partner is worth more than 4S with this hand. He doesn't need much for slam, unfortunately he'd either have to give up on spades (and bid 4H) or force to slam (and bid 5S) none of which is obvious. So my real question is how slowly did he bid 4S? (just kidding). This hand is a perfecta and he would have had 2 chances to bid differently (although if he did bid this way it would be perfectly reasonable). Even without the jacks slam isn't that great (although your point about spades breaking is valid, the opening preempter would have to have 4 spades). We still need diamonds though. I still feel fairly confident that there are a myriad of other 6-5 hands he can have where the 5 level is not safe.

 

Even KJxxx x AJxxxx x is possible. This may be horrifying to some but I am sure with this hand I just wouldn't allow myself to be shut out. The hands I need for slam to be good are very specific.

[Gerben42]

I am with Justin on this one and Pass. Partner did not bid Leaping Michael's, remember?

 

A typical hand:

 

KJxxx

x

AKxxxx

x

 

or possibly even less.

 

Anyway, if I had passed as in my previous post, partner bids 3♠ and I raise to 4. One overtrick, next board please.

[mikeh]

I did remember that partner did not make a leaping michaels :)

 

Did you remember that a jump to 4♦ would leave 3 of the players guessing as to which major North held? :P

 

Thus, unless we are told differently by the original poster, the lack of a leaping michael's call is irrelevant.

[Guest Jlall]

Thus, unless we are told differently by the original poster, the lack of a leaping michael's call is irrelevant.

Agree with this.

 

On a purely unrelated note, I think it would be useful for leaping michaels to apply here with 4M by partner being pass or correct. The problem is if we have a slam and partner can't evaluate correctly since he doesn't know our major, but I think that will always be a problem since if we don't play leaping michaels bidding a major/minor 2 suiter will be difficult. Plus a natural 4D isn't that useful.

 

But again, I agree that it is wrong to assume a non standard convention if not specified.

[luis]

Pass, it's not a good idea to look for miracles when you are under pressure. Pass simplifies the bidding a lot.

[han]

OK, I am convinced, pass.

[Blofeld]

Pass seems to make sense.

[akhare]

Pass -- pard may have seven semi-solid ♦s and partial ♥ stop, it's crap shoot to bet on it and bid 3N...

 

Atul

[SteelWheel]

As a related note, my view on the weakness of the multi is that it's susceptible to natural overcalls in a minor (which I play roughly as 10-13 with a decent suit). Responder is now apprehensive to make a call if he doesn't have both majors and they may miss an easy game or sometimes a slam. I've seen it happen.

 

This is the essence of my defense to multi 2♦, which I insist on playing in any partnership:

 

X=I have a good overcall in a major and will clarify later in the auction (or I have such a good hand that I can handle whatever comes our way)

 

2♥=A good 3♣ overcall, usually a good 13+ HCP with a good suit

2♠=A good 3♦ overcall, usually a good 13+ HCP with a good suit

2NT=15-18 balanced, hopefully with some reasonable holdings in the majors

3♣/3♦=natural, with an approximate HCP count in the area of 8-12

 

Main idea here is that if they're going to try to hurt you, you must try to hurt them back. If you can overcall their multi open with what is essentially a good weak-two, but showing it at three-level, you will often shut out your LHO who is sitting there with his 5-1 in the majors, and no longer has an economical "pass or correct" call available. You can often steal the pot with your 3♣ overcall, while their 9 or 10 card fit in one of the majors remains undisclosed.

[nikos59]

X=I have a good overcall in a major and will clarify later in the auction (or I have such a good hand that I can handle whatever comes our way)

 

What is partner to do over your double (if the other oppo. passes)? Just relay?

[Echognome]

One variant of defense is Multi over Multi. The irony is that although the multi is often restricted in meanings, the defensive multi is often unrestricted. So, for example, I could play:

 

X = Either a weak 2 in a major, a strong 2 in a minor, a 3-suited strong hand, a balanced strong hand, etc...

 

I'm not saying it is optimal, just that it is less restrictive.

 

Now over the double, partner can act as though you opened a multi with a similar structure to your own multi.

 

A similar structure to a double of a weak NT. Suppose partner doubles a weak NT showing 15+ and RHO makes a natural or conventional bid. I play with most partners that I will treat my actions as though partner opened a strong NT and RHO bid. Of course partner may have a different hand type to a strong NT, but it is the most common. Thus we use Lebensohl or Rubensohl (depending on the partnership).

 

Over a multi, I personally prefer the Dixon idea that you double with 13-15 balanced OR various strong hands. The reason is that you would not normally be able to compete as easily with 13-15 balanced, EXCEPT that it is impossible for the opponents to judge when to leave 2♦X in. Thus, direct seat can compete on some hands that might be difficult over a natural weak 2.

 

Because of that and the vulnerability to natural overcalls in a minor, I find the multi less effective than natural weak 2's. However, as a positive, it is a space saving bid and I do like being able to sort out my various strong hand types in case there is competition.

 

As an extreme consider:

 

2♣ = Weak with both majors OR bal 22+ OR a strong single-suiter

2♦ = Weak 2 with a single-major OR bal 20-21 or a strong 3-suiter

2♥/2♠ = Lucas or Dutch or whatever you fancy preempt

2NT+ = Weak preempt or strong 2-suiter (a la Misiry)

 

Now when you open 2♣ and there is competition, opener can pass with the weak hand, double with the strong balanced hand, and bid his suit with the single-suiter.

 

When you open 2♦ and there is competition, opener can pass with the weak hand and double with the strong hands (which are of a similar type). Although I usually agree that you do not double immediately if your shortness is their suit.

 

It makes competition flow much smoother.

 

All that being said, I still prefer a strong club. Go figure.

[Walddk]

One variant of defense is Multi over Multi. The irony is that although the multi is often restricted in meanings, the defensive multi is often unrestricted. So, for example, I could play:

 

X = Either a weak 2 in a major, a strong 2 in a minor, a 3-suited strong hand, a balanced strong hand, etc...

The 2♦ Multi opening is only as restricted as you want it to be. You can effortlessly include all of this in the opening too. 4 or 5-legged Multi is not unusual where I come from.

 

Roland

[Echognome]

Ah. Thanks for the reminder Roland. It's easy to get caught up with your own regulations. In England you are restricted as to the number of meanings, but I am sure that is not true elsewhere. :lol:

[Free]

At the table something really nice happened. South didn't bid 3NT, he bid 3♠! The reasoning was (like Gerben started, but failed in the end) that the ♠ must be somewhere. West had bid 2♠ so he's short (otherwise he might as well bid 3♥), and East can't have 4♠s, this gives 5♠s with partner almost certain! Now North liked his hand (obviously) and bid to 6♠.

 

The entire auction at the table:

2♦ - pass - 2♠ - 3♦

3♥ - 3♠! - pass - 4NT

pass - 5♦ - pass - 5♥

pass - 6♠ - all pass

 

LHO leads ♥8 (1/3/5 leads). How do you plan the play from here (especially trumps)?

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=skt976hdakj762ckj&s=sq52hq93dq5cat964]133|200|Scoring: IMP

6♠ by south, lead ♥8[/hv]

[Gerben42]

I think 3♠ is a very nice bid but it depends a bit on who my opponent is.

 

Anyway the point of the hand is to not lose two trumps. Since West's ♥ are broken and it seems he can be trusted to have "something" for his preempt, I will guess he will have♠A.

 

I ruff the opening lead, cross in ♣ and lead a small ♠ planning to play the King if West plays low. This is better than finessing the J directly as West can have doubleton AJ.

[Free]

Indeed, West had ♠AJ so whenever you play for ♠A at your left side you win.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=skt976hdakj762ckj&w=sajhkt87d843cq732&e=s843haj6542dt9c85&s=sq52hq93dq5cat964]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

At our table I didn't open with the East hand and opps only got to 4♠ by North after I intervened with 1♥ and partner supported. I lead ♣8. Now declarer gave me a 3 card ♠ with the J and let the 10 run! 4♠+1 ;)

 

I thought it was a nice game to see how inferences can make a difference in both bidding and play. If you see all 4 hands it looks like a silly game, but when you only see 1 in the bidding and 2 during the play it becomes interesting. At one table you place ♠A correct tnx to the weak two opening, at the other table you place it wrong because of a constructive-looking overcall.

[joshs]

Top competition of your country.

 

You hold:

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sq52hq93dq5cat964]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The bidding goes (starting on your right):

2♦* - pass - 2♠* - 3♦

3♥ - ...

 

2♦ = multi: weak in a Major or strong hands

2♠ = interest in ♥, to play when it's ♠

 

What do you bid now?

 

*Will be continued*

Well now I make a responsive x. This auction is identical to 2H-3D-3H-? If partner bids 3 spades, I have a close call between 3N, 4C and 4D next. Hopefully if I bid 3N the slow way, partner will know to not pass with a small stiff....

[han]

I think the 3S bid is AWFUL!!! Nothing good can come of this. If partner really has 5 spades then she will bid them over 3NT (or over a responsive double), if she has 3 (unlikely, admitted) or 4 then you don't want to play in spades on this hand.

 

The problem with supporting partner in a suit that she hasn't bid yet is that partner is not in on the joke. She will play you for 5 spades, and you usually and up too high. You were lucky that partner had the nuts (I wonder where I picked up that expression...).

[Guest Jlall]

You were lucky that partner had the nuts (I wonder where I picked up that expression...).

Watching too much poker on TV han :P

[han]

I don't have a tv.. I must have been kibitzing a US junior player who constantly talks about the nuts. Who could it be??

[mikeh]

I think the 3S bid is AWFUL!!! Nothing good can come of this. If partner really has 5 spades then she will bid them over 3NT (or over a responsive double), if she has 3 (unlikely, admitted) or 4 then you don't want to play in spades on this hand.

I agree: 3♠ may seem like a master-bid, but it is a master-mind bid imho. Partnership bridge is about communication and trust: not about proving that one bidder is a superman/woman.

 

Bad bids sometimes work out. They remain bad bids.

 

Bad bids that work out are far more dangerous than those that fail, because we rationalize them as great strokes of deductive reasoning, and we will be ever more prone to make similar bad bids in the future. This leads competent partners and opps to form the (correct) opinion that we are undisciplined hero types who cannot be trusted to play sensibly. Our bad boards increase (as our 'master bids' fail) and we lament that we cannot get good games anymore.

 

One of my favourite bridge cartoons has a character saying to another: 'You're not good enough to be brilliant'. I always try to remember that when contemplating a master bid.

[benlessard]

3♠ bid will be punished once in a while like most unsound bid are so when its work its work that all .

 

On that deal we cant say 6s is a great contract. its was just a lucky deal

 

 

Ben

[EarlPurple]

Not sure 6♠ is such a great contract although it's probably better played by South as West is less likely to find a diamond lead from 4 small than East is from a singleton when West has the ace of spades (in which case 6♠ is beaten regardless of the position of the jack).

 

And if spades are 4-1 then you go down on a force.

 

So you need 3-2 spades and finding the jack, and diamonds 3-2 or if 4-1 then East to have ♠A