multi question

[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]

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 :blink:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Old York]

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

I honestly think that this is the crux of the problem, the vocal minority who hate to be de-railed by unusual bids and cannot be bothered to do any research. They will immediately complain loudly to the Host and try to get these "new-fangled" bids banned. In my own BBO Tournies I am guilty of being persuaded by the minority, Sorry all

Good news from bbo-juniors, they have lifted their ban on Multi

 

Anyway, here is the ACBL "permitted" defenses to Multi:

 

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/3b.htm

 

Trying to keep an open mind

Tony ;)

[helene_t]

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

Well you would have to bid it with a hand than would invite opp hearts but hasn't 3-level safety opp spades. Maybe (void)-KJx-Axxxx-KQxxx would qualify.

 

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.

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

[hrothgar]

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

If these folks weren't bitching about a multi 2♦, they'd be bitching about something else

[helene_t]

OK, that's quite possible.

[NickRW]

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

If these folks weren't bitching about a multi 2♦, they'd be bitching about something else

I have to confirm that is, sadly, true.

 

In the club where I usually play, the multi is not commonly employed, but the players are familiar with it to some extent - and it doesn't get queried. However, when we first joined, we had elected to play, over 1NT:

 

2♣ = often a weak take out in ♦, ♥ or ♠, or maybe a flat invitational hand planning to rebid 2NT, or maybe an invitational hand with 6+ cards planning to rebid at the 3 level. Opener mostly relays with 2♦ and waits to hear which it is.

 

2♦ = Staymanic with inv+ values

 

2♥/2♠ = inv, but passable, with 5 cards exactly.

 

2NT = transfer to clubs.

 

Well, regardless of whether you think this is a good idea or not, it seems to work OK. But everyone else is playing 2♣ = Stayman and at least red suit transfers. Our 2♥ and 2♠ they can understand, the 2NT transfer - well they've seen things like that, and we got only a raised eyebrow about 2♦, but the 2♣ bid was met with "Is that legal?". Yeah, it is legal even at level 2 (novice and holiday bridge level) in England - but a few didn't like it even so. They've got used to it now, fortunately, but it took a while.

 

If some folks are going to query even simple things like this, then you're on a rocky road with anything else unfamiliar too.

 

Nick

[CSGibson]

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.

Is it really worth it to play a convention that requires a written defense and also pisses off a significant number of the players?

yes. Our system, while ostensibly 2/1, has a lot of nuance made available by our use of 2 hearts & 2 spades as 9-14 with a 6+ card suit (we use judgment on which to use with 9 point hands). The use of multi for hands with 4-9 & a preempt in one major is a better treatment than our fall-back of 9-14 with diamonds. We are practicing this system in the clubs with the intent of playing it in events where multi is legal, so it is worth it to us.

 

The other thing is that I am 29 years old, and still being exposed to new conventions and responses. I love playing different NT ranges and conventions that you don't see in this part of the US (like Multi) because it will allow me to either decide to play them with people if they are effective later, or be able to defend against them intelligently later. I am fairly ambitious bridge-wise, and believe that I will be playing at a top level before I'm done, so this exposure will be useful if I can make that happen.

[the hog]

Like Richard says, they would bitch about something else.

I remember one pair bitching about others claiming. They stated that they paid money and wanted to play every card and could not be bothered looking at the opps' cards to see if the claim was correct.

 

What do you do? I actually tried to claim even more often against them, but this was in my younger more hot headed days.

[hanp]

This is why you are now known as a mild old man.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't go out of my way to claim against people who bitch about claiming. Nor would I go out of my way to avoid claiming against them. We're all entitled to enjoy the game in our own way, within the limits of the law.

[JanM]

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

Yes, of course. The response in the longer Major as a way to get to the minor is only in the fairly rare situations where responder wants to sign off in a minor. It's used mainly to free up 3m for good hands with a long Major, but does have the side advantage that if by chance opener has responder's longer Major we can play there. On the majority of hands, we bid as high as we're willing to get in our shorter/worse Major.