Jonny_R Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 General Question just wondering which system you guys prefer and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny_R Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 That is supose to be prefer int eh question. Sorry I was typing quickly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old York Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Weak 2's in 3 suits are very popularWeak 2♠ openings are much more pre-emptive than 2♦ Multi The real benefit of Multi 2♦ is that you can asign other uses to 2♠/2♥ openings (weak or strong, single suiters or 2 suiters etc) Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Depends on a lot of issues, such as whether it is more convenient to have 2♦ or 2M available for particular constructive hands. If wilcoz is allowed I prefer that to multi/muiderberg. If wilcoz is not allowed I have no strong preference as to 2♦ natural weak vs multi/muiderberg. Sorry, maybe I am too old to participate in this poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich-b Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Some advantages of the Multi : 1. (Obvious) Frees 2M opening for something else - we play 5-5 M-m.2. Allows you (if you design your responses accordingly) to play 4-of-a-major declared by the strong hand. This has proven (for me) to be a big advantage , often overlooked by supporters of natural 2M openings.3. You usually (not always) will be able to play 2M with the long suit in dummy , and the unknown hand hidden , which makes it much more difficult to defend.4.Sometimes, when you may have been going for number if partner had opened 2M, you can escape by passing 2♦. The Multi also has drawbacks , the biggest of which , for me , is the ability of the opps to overcall 2♥ , when we open a Multi with ♠s.Other drawbacks are :Being unable to bid to the 4 level quickly, unless you have a fit for both majors.Having to guess which major to lead , when the Multi opener didnt get a chance to clarify which is his suit. I can not say which is better, but I think advantage (2) above should not be dismissed lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Other disadvantages of multi:- you have less bidding space available for game or slam exploration. After p opens 2♦ your cheapest forcing bid is 2NT and he needs to tell you which suit he has. If he opens 2♥, the cheapest forcing response if 2♠, and you know which suit he has so that bit can convey something else.- when opps double 2♦, doubler's p usually isn't "forced" to bid so they can bid more accurately, and they can escape without having to declare when our side has the balance of points and a misfit.- if LHO starts with a pass he usually gets a second shot. If we have spades, RHO usually gets two shots as well. Other advantage:- sometimes opps' bidding in impaired by the lack of a cuebid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaztaz Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I like multi. It lets me us 2H and 2S as either two suiter weak openings or as intermediate two bids, both of which are nice. I actually like the idea of 2D garbage multi to make the 2H and 2S bids more reliable and this means that even hands that don't usually get to be pre-empted on because of bad suit quality or general lack of hand strength can also be bid on. Any opportunity to get to open more hands is a good one as far as I'm concerned! Multi just gives you more options... It's true that the pre-emptive value of a good old weak two 2S call can't be beaten by multi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I don't think one can really answer this question. It depends on the meaning(s) assigned to the other calls. If my choice was either: (1) 2♦ multi and I am not allowed to open 2M.(2) 2M natural and I am not allowed to open 2♦. Then I would pick (2) and I don't think it's close. But normally people choose to play multi because they want or need to use other meanings for the 2M openings, and while they will lose a bit on the "weak two in the majors" style hands they think the wins from their alternative 2M openings will (more than) compensate. And when people choose not to play multi (unless it's for regulatory reasons) it's because they have some other meaning for 2♦ that they think gets them good results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny_R Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Thanks Guys and Girls i am really starting to understand Multi 2♦ and what advantages it has but also the disadvatages to it. Jonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 I play the multi and Adam is certainly right - if the choice is purely and simply between normal weak 2s in the majors and the multi - then the normal weak 2s are better and it is true - it isn't even vaguely close. What makes it an interesting decision is the effect it has on your overall system - 2H and 2S get freed for other duty - and, if you have strong options packed in there too - well - they don't overload some other part of your system either. People should think of the multi not as some obstructive tool, but as something that may (depending on your opinion and exact system preferences) allow you to make a better overall system. I think the cost is worth it - but there are many who wouldn't agree Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I play the multi and Adam is certainly right - if the choice is purely and simply between normal weak 2s in the majors and the multi - then the normal weak 2s are better and it is true - it isn't even vaguely close. snipped Nick I disagree strongly with this. I would much rather play a multi than weak 2s, and not just because the multi frees up2M for something else. And I don't think that is close either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I disagree strongly with this. I would much rather play a multi than weak 2s, and not just because the multi frees up2M for something else. And I don't think that is close either. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate... Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Shouldn't this entire forum just be renamed "Multi Discussion"? :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I disagree strongly with this. I would much rather play a multi than weak 2s, and not just because the multi frees up2M for something else. And I don't think that is close either. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate... Nick I can't elaborate for ron, but I can for myself. I use multi 2♦, which frees up 2♥ and 2♠ to be a two suiter with 5+ in teh major, and 4+ clubs and a minimum normal opening bid. Doing this allows my 2♣ rebid by opener to be a ritong 2♣ rebid showing extra values (not clubs). I also pack several several other bids inside 2♦. One is a huge balanced hand 22-to horrible 25 (yeah hard to have a bad 25), another is a 10 trick stong minor suited hand. Both of these ranges solve another problem in the way I like to bid. I will open 2♣ with three suiters and then the 2♣ opener rebids 2NT to show the three suiter (not a balanced hand). Thus, 2♦ multi fills the gap that allows my use of 2NT rebid by opener to show a three suiter. In addition, by adding the strong minor one suiter to 2♦, it allows 2C-blah-opener rebid in minor to be absolutely game forcing. So the entire system I prefer to play is built around the use of 2♦ to free up other bids. Others do similar things with 2♦, perhaps not the level that I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Yeah - I see your reasoning. I've made different choices - but I come at it from essentially the same angle - make other parts of the system more effective. ... Which is what I thought I was saying ... but that didn't seem to be agreed with by our apparently hat wearing friend who never the less still seems to like the multi anyway.... Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Sorry nick - away yesterday.No the argument is NOT that it frees up 2M in your system, though f course that is a bonus.With an opening of a weak 2H/S, the opps know exactly where they stand and can take action straight away., or pass with values and an unsuitable hand to take action.With a multi, the opps are in the dark as to whether the opener has H or S. They can take action, but cues etc are non existent. This is why I recommend a multi without a strong option. If pd can pass 2D, that makes it even more difficult. Btw, did you read Mikeh's post about the 2H multi - 2H is a weak 2 in EITHER M? Now, that bid is even more difficult to defend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Ah yes, I see that - same sort of thing as an Ekren 2H as opposed to 2D. One is a little hampered in England if you want to play a weak only multi - you have to have at least one reasonably frequent strong option for general competition (though the EBU has, in the past, seemed quite generous in their interpretation of "reasonably" here according to what I've read) and similarly only a multi 2D is allowed at that level. The regs are a quite a bit more loose for serious competition though and level 4 games are generally not too hard to find. I am not sure I am too convinced by the "difficult to defend" argument in favour of the multi. It is true that one has no cue or take out in the normal sense. However, in the direct overcalling seat, you usually get a second bite at the cherry when you do have cues and normal takeouts. And, also, if either seat can find an overcall, it is then the opening side that may be guessing their fit - so its swings and roundabouts. Also, I think the difficult to defend argument has been given too much weight. This only contributes towards antagonising the more conservative minded about how bad it all is, whereas it might be better simply to educate. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant590 Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 One is a little hampered in England if you want to play a weak only multi - you have to have at least one reasonably frequent strong option for general competition (though the EBU has, in the past, seemed quite generous in their interpretation of "reasonably" here according to what I've read) That's only in "level 3" events, which are being phased out. I think there is little harm if forced to include a strong option to include an Acol 2 in diamonds, because the chances of the combination of that and a hand that wishes to pass a multi are incredibly rare. Of course if they were to come up you may have grand on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Yeah - not much level 3 in EBU or county organised events - but it is still the default standard for the clubs (even though most don't explicitly state what level they play at). But I think a lot of people can find a level 4 club game anyway if they want to look for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adriaantje Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 With my normal partner i play both multi and the weak twos, so you can see a difference between a good weak two bid and a bad weak two bid.A bad weak two bid (usually 3-6 HCP) such as:[hv=s=sat8642h83d75c84]133|100|[/hv]is in our system opened with 2♠A good weak two bid (usually 7-10 HCP) such as: [hv=s=sat8642h83d75c84]133|100|[/hv]Is opened with a Multi 2♦. What do you think of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 With my normal partner i play both multi and the weak twos, so you can see a difference between a good weak two bid and a bad weak two bid.A bad weak two bid (usually 3-6 HCP) such as:[hv=s=sat8642h83d75c84]133|100|[/hv]is in our system opened with 2♠A good weak two bid (usually 7-10 HCP) such as: [hv=s=sat8642h83d75c84]133|100|[/hv]Is opened with a Multi 2♦. What do you think of this? Well, to my mind, the main strength of the multi is that you give up 2♦, but gain 2 other bids (2♥ and 2♠) for other uses. Your scheme is one that has merit. Personally I prefer Polish 2s - but I guess it is mainly personal choice. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 With my normal partner i play both multi and the weak twos, so you can see a difference between a good weak two bid and a bad weak two bid.A bad weak two bid (usually 3-6 HCP) such as:[hv=s=sat8642h83d75c84]133|100|[/hv]is in our system opened with 2♠A good weak two bid (usually 7-10 HCP) such as: [hv=s=sat8642h83d75c84]133|100|[/hv]Is opened with a Multi 2♦. What do you think of this? I would prefer the constructive weak twos with 2♥/♠ and the multi to hide the bad weak twos. There are ambiguities that will cause problems for your side by having a multi. Since we are more likely to have a game or a slam after a good weak two then I would rather the ambiguity is resolved immediately in those cases than when I have a bad weak two. I played this sort of method for some years and liked it. There are a few other pairs playing similar methods around here now. If you wish to be even more aggressive you can add some five-card suits into your bad weak twos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 I personally do not like playing multi at all. I played it in one partnership for about three years. The reasons I didn't like it were,- You can find out much less information about the weak two bids themselves with your 2NT ask.- Responder can guess wrong which major opener holds in competition. While there are two opponents who can guess wrong and one partner, I think it's much more damanging for partner to guess wrong since opponents can land on their feet anyway if they belong in a minor or 3NT.- I like the weak 2♦ opening, I rarely hear criticism from people who have actually played it a lot, it's usually by people who have rarely or never played it.- I really do not miss having weak 2-suited openings. I think they are more unsafe and more infrequent than I want to bother with. My results with it simply weren't good, so I gave it up. Practically speaking it's also annoying to play it in the ACBL, you often can't play it and you need the written defenses and lots of time is wasted, etc. I wouldn't want to play it anyway, but that is certainly some added annoyance. I certainly don't mind playing against it, since in my mind it's a negative for the side playing it and even simple or inferior defenses (ACBL database) get you by on most hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 - I like the weak 2♦ opening, I rarely hear criticism from people who have actually played it a lot, it's usually by people who have rarely or never played it. Yeah - there is something to that. Some people go, "oh, who wants to play a weak 2 in diamonds, it isn't very preemptive at all". But it is arguably, in some ways, a more slippery customer to deal with than a weak 2 in hearts. Over the weak 2 in hearts opps will be thinking, "we want to be in spades - er - we don't have spades - oh well - at least we know where we stand". Over 2 diamonds opps go "er - we want to be in a major - but which one - ooh - there isn't a lot of room to sort it out". That kinda overstates the case for the the weak 2 in diamonds - but it is definitley more effective than some people give it credit. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ovncylmz Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 2C: any weak in D/H/S, 2D: majors, 2H-2S: long minor, 4M is good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.