Two multi bids

[effervesce]

Whereby in 1st/2nd seats 2♦ is either a 4-7 wk two in hearts, OR 8-11 wk two in spades, and 2♥ is a 8-11 wk two in hearts OR a 4-7 weak two in spades.

 

I've seen quite a few pairs (at least in Aus) play 2♦ as the 4-7 weak twos and 2M as the 8-11. This would compress 3 bids into two.

 

Also, this is designed for use in a MOSCITO bidding system.

In the many moscito relays i've seen so far, for example after 1♦-1♥, one relay set puts the singlesuiter rebids starting from 2♠ upwards. If the singlesuiter minimums are not possible, then this would avoid going too high when responder has only an invitational hand. By removing the minimum single-suiters from the 1♦/1♥ hand this avoids such a problem.

 

Another side benefit is that it allows the 2♠ bid to be freed up for another purpose-for example 5+/5+ minors, weak (so 2NT is the strong response), which would in turn allow the 2NT opening to be a weak preempt in a minor.

 

There are also some bidding benefits-after a traditional 2♦ multi 2♦-2♠-3♥-4♥ sequence, the opps know you have a huge fit and may decide to bid 4♠, or similarly sac after 2♦-2♥-2♠-4♠.

After a 2♥-2♠-3♥-4♥ sequence or 2♦-2♥-2♠-4♠, you may or may not have a big fit using this two-multi system.

 

Anyway-what do people think? :-)

[helene_t]

Whereby in 1st/2nd seats 2♦ is either a 4-7 wk two in hearts, OR 8-11 wk two in spades, and 2♥ is a 8-11 wk two in hearts OR a 8-11 weak two in spades.

The last one (boldfaced) should probably read 4-7.

 

Note that the 2♥ opening is a BSC and also not allowed in most events in the UK.

[effervesce]

Whereby in 1st/2nd seats 2♦ is either a 4-7 wk two in hearts, OR 8-11 wk two in spades, and 2♥ is a 8-11 wk two in hearts OR a 8-11 weak two in spades.

The last one (boldfaced) should probably read 4-7.

 

Note that the 2♥ opening is a BSC and also not allowed in most events in the UK.

Thanks-it's been fixed. I live in Australia, so the fact that it's BSC isn't that important here.

[pclayton]

Depending on whats allowed in your area, you could even extend 2♠ to be a sound spade preempt or a weak club preempt, 2N = good club / weak diamond, etc.. It seems to me you won't lose too much since responder can still bounce, except you may be in a position where you have to guess with a good hand with the higher ranking suit.

 

Matt and I have even discussed your variation on the different ranges, but we haven't implemented it.

 

Multiple 'multi' calls are part of our the strong club defense I play with my partners where at 2♦ and higher, the bid is either that suit or the suit higher. In a KO in Las Vegas, we played a pair from India who said that this is played over there (and many variants) and it is called 'anthrax'.

 

I can't comment on the impacts this has on Moscito.

[SoTired]

Basically, you use 2D and 2H for weak 2's in H & S, but the "multi" part is the subdividing the range 4-7 and 8-11.

 

I am not sure this is an improvement. First, it uses 2 bids for 2 weak-2 bids, so it does not appear to free up any other bids for other uses. Second, it tells the opps the strength range of opener without being asked. During the bidding, that information may help the opps more than responder. Unless the bidder is dummy, if the opps defend or declare, that information may assist them during the play.

[hrothgar]

Hi there

 

Last time I checked Paul Marston use the following structure for his weak 2 bids:

 

2♦ = weak only multi in Hearts or Spades

2♥ = constructive weak two (often a 5332 pattern)

2♠ = constructive weak two (often a 5332 pattern)

 

The 2♥ and 2♠ openings are designed to offload minimum strength single suited hands from the corresponding one level openers. (If I open 1♦ and then show a single sutied hand with Hearts I'm showing 11+ HCPs). As you note, the relay structures works a bit better if you don;t need to worry about a minimum strength single suited hand.

 

I haven't seen any suggestion like the two multi scheme that you're suggesting. The main drawback is going to be licensing. You're going to have a hard tme finding venues to play this opening. The advantage will (largely) depend on the expexted value of your 2♠ opening.

 

My first instinct is to invert the 2♦ and 2♥ bids. Use

 

2♦ = a constructive preempt in either Hearts or Spades

2♥ = a weak (4-7 HCP) preempt in either Hearts or Spades

 

The two heartopening is a real wildcard. It forces partner to guess whether you have Hearts or Spades. I would personally prefer that this crops up with a less frequent hand type.

[Finch]

Because weak bids that show either the suit opened or a different suit are generally not allowed, I don't really have any experience of them, so it's hard to comment....

 

However, my feelings are that

 

- it is best to keep them destructive in nature. If you are opening (let's say) 2H that shows either hearts or spades, partner has to guess whether to bid over it or not. If he passes with spade shortage you may have a big heart fit and have missed game/allowed the opponents to get in early with their spades/he has to guess if you have a fit or not when they bid spades. If he bids 2S and you have hearts, he's now at the 3-level which may not be entirely what's desired.

 

- So I think you'd be better off playing 2D as a constructive weak 2 in a major and 2H as a destructive pre-empt in either major. Then partner just passes for a laugh whatever he has.

 

The BS pre-empts I have seen tend to be played NV only, which reinforces the idea that they are not really thought of as constructive weapons.

[Echognome]

I'm really not that big a fan of the multi. We like the variety where 2♦ is a bad weak 2 in a major and 2♥ and 2♠ are more constructive. We like it mainly because I find the 2♥ and 2♠ openings so effective. The 2♦ bid is ok in context because you will want to have some preempt with those hands, but I certainly don't find it that appealing. We at least do not have any strong hands in our multi, so responder can bounce the auction a bit easier.

 

Hence, part of my problem about your proposal. If you have a set defined range, then responder has a better idea of how high to preempt the auction. Suppose I have a reasonable 15 count with say 3-3 in the majors. I'll be content just bidding 2♥ in response knowing that the auction at the other table my hand might open a strong NT and partner will transfer and pass. However, if partner might have an 4 count or an 11 count, I'm going to be poorly placed. I'd much rather keep the ranges in line and not get arbitrarily too high because of my split ranges.

[awm]

This is a much better idea than people are indicating.

 

Suppose you are going to play 2♥ as a weak two in either major. This works very well when responder is weak, since if you land in the wrong suit you are probably stealing the opponents game. It also works fine when responder is strong enough to look for game opposite the weak two, and it works nicely if responder has a good fit for hearts and not spades (bids 2♠ and then get to game if opener bids on to show hearts).

 

The two hand types that are really a problem for this method are where responder has enough values that the opponents are unlikely to have anything but only a mild fit for either major and not enough for our side to have game, and when responder has game interest in spades but not in hearts. Both these hand types basically require forcing to the three-level, at least opposite the "hearts" hand, or passing and possibly playing in a ridiculous contract when opponents weren't on for much of anything.

 

Playing different ranges for the two options actually solves this problem completely. Responder's hands split into:

 

(1) Hand where we have roughly half the strength opposite the "hearts" option. Pass 2♥. If opener has hearts we're in the right spot; if opener has spades then there is a good chance opponents were on for something, since the "spades" option is so much weaker.

 

(2) Hand where we have roughly half the strength opposite the "spades" option. Bid 2♠. If opener has spades we are in the right spot. If opener has hearts, then we may well have game because the "hearts" option is so much stronger. In any case the three-level should be fairly safe.

 

(3) Hand where we have a good fit for spades and moderate values where we might make game in spades, but not a good fit for hearts. Feel free to bid 2NT asking. If opener has spades we have game on fit, but if opener has hearts than we may well have game on power since opener is an ace better.

 

Of course, I agree about the regulatory issues with this structure.

 

Maybe a clearer way to put this: It would be nice to only bid over 2♥ if it is possible that we might have game opposite the hearts option. Thus we could always play 2♥ when opener has hearts and game is impossible, rather than having to bid to 3♥. However, if the hearts and spades option have the same point range, then there will be hands where game is possible opposite spades but not hearts, or where game is impossible but we have enough values that playing the wrong partial is quite embarrassing. If the hearts option is substantially stronger than the spades option on the other hand, we can pass with any hand where game in hearts is impossible, assured that if opener has spades then our combined strength is so little that the opponents are defending 2♥ our way when they were almost certainly on for game (likely in hearts!).

[Apollo81]

Does this have any merit over normal weak twos in the majors, other than it is harder to defend against? Seems like freeing 2♦ would be more useful than freeing 2♠.

[SoTired]

Does this have any merit over normal weak twos in the majors, other than it is harder to defend against? Seems like freeing 2♦ would be more useful than freeing 2♠.

I agree. Rather than compare this to a multi-2H, why not compare it to natural weak 2's.

 

If you use any "multi" bid with an unknown major and responder holds xxx x or similar in majors, responder is prevented from extending the preempt, especially with the modern defense of Dbl showing a weak NT. In that case, when opener's suit is wrong, opps get a tasty penalty. When it is right, opps find their fit with less interference.

[awm]

Seems like if you play "normal weak twos" with a range of 4-11 it might be tough to get to the right spot sometimes. This method's main benefit is halving the range; presumably when you open a weak two you will do much better with a four point range rather than an eight point range. Basically the comparisons are:

 

(1) This method.

 

(2) Multi 2♦ showing a "bad weak two" combined with natural "good weak two" in the majors.

 

(3) Natural weak two in the majors with a very wide range.

 

When comparing (1) to (2), you get 2♠ opening as a free bid. You lose a bit on the "good weak two" hands (especially in spades) because you will open multi bids which make it harder to raise the preempt and might let opponents get a cheap call in. You win a bit on the "bad weak two" hands (especially in spades) because the 2♥ multi is much harder to defend than the 2♦ multi.

 

When comparing (1) to (3), you get 2♠ as a free bid instead of 2♦ (obviously worse). You potentially gain on "weak two" hands because of the much more narrow range (which will have you at the three-level failing much less frequently). You also gain on the confusion value of the 2♥ opening (which is difficult to defend). But you lose sometimes on purely competitive fit hands, since you don't initially know which major was opened.

 

My feeling is that (1) is basically better than (2). Comparing (1) to (3) is more difficult, but plenty of expert partnerships have picked (2) over (3), so from their viewpoint (1) should be even better.

[rbforster]

I like it B). Maybe I'll have to visit Oz to play it some time. (stupid ACBL luddites)

 

If you wanted to continue along the lines Adam suggests of having a multi bid that's either

 

a ) a sound preempt in the suit bid, or

b ) a weak preempt in the next suit up

 

you could similarly have a whole set of preempts like this:

 

2♦ sound in diamonds, or weak in hearts

2♥ sound in hearts, or weak in spades

2♠ sound in spades, or weak (3 level preempt) in clubs

 

You could certainly continue this principle both higher (and lower) if you wanted, depending on your goals. For example, the creative thinkers might appreciate

 

1N some sort of weakish NT (10-12 or 12-14 or something), or weak in clubs (followed by 2♣ NF stayman)

2♣ sound in clubs, or weak in diamonds

...

2♠ sound in spades, or weak (3 level preempt) in clubs

2N any weak 5/5 2-suiter

3♣ sound 3 level bid in clubs, or bad (3 level) bid in diamonds

...

[Mbodell]

I've played against people who make the ranges even stronger but play two-way bids. That is a bid is even a sound, strong bid in the suit shown (and one other), or a weak preempt in the next suit. That way if they pass the "transfer" it was the preempt, and if they bid some new suit it shows some strong 2-suited hand in the suit opened and the suit bid. This way they usually get to declarer the strong hands correctly and get to be dummy on the preempts.

 

Having the two ranges be so close in value, and so precise is interesting, but I'm not sure if it is worth it. Personally I like the 2M bids to be preempts on major/minor two suits promising at least 5M4m and use the multi for the single suited major preempts. I'm not sure the ability to extend the preempt and clarify the ranges of the preempts would be enough to make up for the 2 suited preempts.

[glen]

2♦ sound in diamonds, or weak in hearts

2♥ sound in hearts, or weak in spades

2♠ sound in spades, or weak (3 level preempt) in clubs

This reminded me of this thing years ago:

2 Way 2s

 

It was:

 

2♦: either:

a.) decent weak two in ♦s, no four card major, 6-10, or

b.) anything goes preempt in a major, 0-7, not good six card suit if 6-7.

 

2♥: either:

a.) decent weak two in ♥s, 6-10, or

b.) anything goes preempt in ♣s, 0-5, at most one of top three honors in suit

 

2♠: either:

a.) decent weak two in ♠s, 6-10, or

b.) anything goes preempt in ♦s, 0-5, at most one of top three honors in suit

[Impact]

The basic idea of sound (or stronger anyway) in the suit opened or weak in the next suit up (or even weak 2-suiter in the remaining 2 suits) is the idea behind MYXO twos - which have been around for 30+ years.

 

As with all such methods the gain from being able to show different strengths is offset by the relative inability to raise the pre-empt quickly (and when you can raise the pre-empt just how much it tells about likely holdings in other suits).

 

All such bids are legitimate in Oz - and even LOLs will play them (and certainly have little difficulty defending against them!!)

 

Ming, I agree that your scheme is superior to the more frequently used mini and maxi differentiation.

 

regards

[glen]

The basic idea of sound (or stronger anyway) in the suit opened or weak in the next suit up (or even weak 2-suiter in the remaining 2 suits) is the idea behind MYXO twos - which have been around for 30+ years.

By MYXOs you mean?

 

Chris Ryall's Weak Two Archive: Myxo

 

That is you don't mean a sound weak two, you mean quite a strong hand, and that these bids are forcing, artificial, openings?

 

The thing I like about the idea of the OP, and the idea of multiple weak hands, is that the opening bid is non-forcing, yet no suit is known, putting a lot of pressure on the opponents.

 

Likewise, though you can't play it much anywhere (in the link above, scroll down to the bottom to ""Wilkosz" -the Polish 2 diamond"), 2♦ as unknown major and unknown other suit, weak. That would be my first choice if allowed in Australian events.

[Impact]

Glen,

MYXOs were designed for different systems but in a strong Club context they are NEVER forcing:-

 

2C= 10-15 6+C single-suited OR weak in D OR weak 5+5+ H& S

2D= 10-15 6+D single-suited OR weak in H OR weak 5+5+ S&C

2H= max non-1C in H OR weak in S OR weak 5+5+ in minors

2S= max non-1C in S OR pre-empt in C OR weak 5+5+ reds OR (optional solid 7 card solid C suit with A/K on side)

 

THe 2H/S openings in the shown Major are to take out the hands that have extra playing strength but you don't want to upgrade to your strong opening.

 

None of these bids is forcing (you might pass as responder because you have too much length in the suit bid and game is unlikely or conversely because you guess this as the most likely option - or simply to make them guess....with potential psyche pass at favourable!!!)

 

regards

[effervesce]

The basic idea of sound (or stronger anyway) in the suit opened or weak in the next suit up (or even weak 2-suiter in the remaining 2 suits) is the idea behind MYXO twos - which have been around for 30+ years.

By MYXOs you mean?

 

Chris Ryall's Weak Two Archive: Myxo

 

That is you don't mean a sound weak two, you mean quite a strong hand, and that these bids are forcing, artificial, openings?

 

The thing I like about the idea of the OP, and the idea of multiple weak hands, is that the opening bid is non-forcing, yet no suit is known, putting a lot of pressure on the opponents.

 

Likewise, though you can't play it much anywhere (in the link above, scroll down to the bottom to ""Wilkosz" -the Polish 2 diamond"), 2♦ as unknown major and unknown other suit, weak. That would be my first choice if allowed in Australian events.

The Wilkosz 2♦ is allowed in most competitive events in Oz, however such 5+/5+ hands are relatively infrequent compared to weak twos. Thus, although I'd agree that the Wilkosz is very effective, it's relative infrequency may mean that other methods could be more effective overall.

[OleBerg]

In Denmark this opening-scheme has some following at the top-level:

 

2♦ = A bad weak two in either major, approx. 4-7.

2♥/2♠ = A good weak two in the bid suit, aprox 8-11.

 

This is quite focused on constructive bidding:

 

The gains:

 

Good accuracy in bidding marginal games.

 

When you open 2♥/2♠ opponents are under pressure, as oppeners partner is very well placed to make a good call (Preempt, bid to win, sacrifice or make a penalty double.)

 

The loses:

 

Loss of preemptive value. The 2♥/2♠ bids are infrequent, and some of them can be handled by a one-level opening.

 

The preemptive value of the ambigius 2♦ is low, as partner cannot bid on, unless he holds both majors. A well organized defence handles 2♦(multi) much easier than it handles a weak two bid.

 

It is worth noting, however, that even in Denmark, where multi-2♦ has enjoyed 25 years of continueos popularity, defences are seldomly well organized. So the last loss may not be big.

 

 

If I were to play this, I'd definately prefer to switch the meanings of 2♦ and 2♥/2♠, primarily on grounds of frequency.

[gwnn]

we will probably use the following structure in Reykjavik (sssh don't tell anyone):

 

2♣=strong any or 4-7 w/ diamonds

2♦=8-10 ♦ or 4-7 ♥

2♥=8-10 ♥ or 4-7 ♠

2♠=8-10 ♠

 

NV, 1-3 seats. maybe should only be NV 13 and fav 2 but why not have a little fun.

 

I'll let everyone know how it went.

[ulven]

A favorite structure I've played is:

2D = weak in D or weak in H

2H = weak in S or 7-10 55+ H & m

2S = 7-10 55+ S & m

 

Played this on-and-off for years (1993-1997) and it worked very well.

Stopped because Brown Sticker hazzle.

[Trinidad]

I used to play 2♦ as Multi (weak variation only) and 2♥ as 5M+5m, weak. I liked it quite a bit, but then I moved to another country with other regulations. :P

 

Rik

[effervesce]

Gwynn: Did you end up playing that system? How did it go?