Passing the Multi

[helene_t]

The convention that causes most misunderstandings by opps at our club is of course the weak notrump opening, which more than 95% of pairs play.

 

But also the short minor suit openings should be mentioned. Opps often don't know whether a direct cuebid is natural or Michael's.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I was going to say it's "Michaels" not "Michael's", but I suppose it could be either - his name was Michael Michaels. :rolleyes:

[campboy]

I was thinking of things like Ekren 2♥, as well as 1NT defences and runouts. 1♦=either minor is also allowed at level 2, and has the potential to cause confusion.

[hotShot]

I think the people running the simulations are missing the point,....

Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener’s Multi 2♦.

 

The simulations were done to investigate, if holding 12 HCP is enough to justify not to explore game because your are not opposite the stronger options of opener’s Multi 2♦.

 

What to do once you decide that partner can't have the strong option, is a different question.

[jdonn]

I think the people running the simulations are missing the point, is partner not allowed to have ♠ QJ10xxx, ♥xxx, ♦KQxx, ♣ None. Admittedly you'll probably get rescued by the oppos, but 2♦+5 is a suitably embarrassing result.

 

What are the chances of partner having 6 spades on this hand, as if he does, game also figures to be pretty good. I don't think the chances of this are vanishingly poor enough to pass, now if you have 5 spades and 6 diamonds ...

Instead of making up your own opinions arbitrarily about what you think the likelihood of partner having such and such is, you could run a simulation.

 

It's funny to say people who are running simulations are missing the point and then base that on the possibility of exactly one hand. It's like saying people who calculate the expected value of a lottery ticket are missing the point because you are allowed to have the winning numbers.

[hotShot]

Just a little statistic:

 

A balanced 22-24 count has a probability of 0.2%.

The probability of a a 3-11 HCP 6+ card major hand is 6.5%.

 

So 1 in 32.5 Multi-openings is the strong hand.

Opposite the strong hand the probability to have 12 HCP is 1.5%.

 

So you hold 12 HCP opposite a strong Multi-Opener one time in 2167 cases partner opens 2♦.

I re-run the simulation using a smaller HCP range for a weak 2 bid.

 

A balanced 22-24 count has a probability of 0.2%.

The probability of a 6-10 HCP 6+ card major hand is 4.4%.

 

So 1 in 21.5 Multi-openings is the strong hand.

Opposite the strong hand the probability to have 12 HCP is 1.5%.

 

So you hold 12 HCP opposite a strong Multi-Opener one time in 1441 cases partner opens 2♦.

 

I would think that holding 12 HCP more than demonstrably suggests that partner is not likely not have the strong option.

[bluejak]

While the regulation is from before my time on the EBU L&EC, I think part of its effect is psychological. It does not really matter what the percentages are, a pair that plays a 22-23 NT opening as part of the Multi expects it to occur occasionally: a pair that plays a 32-33 NT opening as part of the Multi does not expect it to occur. It is the expectation that matters, not the actual figures.

[nige1]

The weak-only Multi is allowed in Denmark without it causing any trouble (as far as I know).

The weak-only Multi is allowed in England too, at Level 4 (which basically means any event that isn't aimed at beginners).  The rule about strong options only covers what you have to do if there is a strong option; it doesn't require that there actually be a strong option.

"The term 'Multi' without qualification means a traditional Multi, i.e. it is a 2♦ opening that shows one of these three possibilities:

1. 
    
    
    
    
   
2. a weak hand with ♥;
    
    
   
3. a weak hand with ♠;
    
    
   
4. a strong hand of one or more types.
    
    
   

A 2♦ opening that does not follow this rule should not be described as a Multi unless an appropriate qualification is included."

I believe that this means that as far as this EBU regulation is concerned, a multi 2♦ includes a weak two in a major and must also have at least one strong option. Anyway, in the case under discussion, there was a strong option.