multi vs weak 2s

[Fluffy]

Sorry if your option is vulnerability/position depending. Try to do an average between all positions/vulnerabilities then.

[Cyberyeti]

I used to play 0-10 5 card suit on my multis when allowed to.

 

I now play 0-10 4 card suit weak 2s which you've never been allowed to do in the multi.

 

Not quite sure how this fits with the poll, or how useful it is to anybody else.

[helene_t]

I answered based on what I would play if I were to play multi with some kind of two-suited 2M openings. I believe multi should be more geared towards constructive bidding, then, because it has less preemptive effect than a natural 2M. Also, most of the hands with which I would be inclined to open a natural 2M on a five-card suit would then go into the 2M two-suited openings.

 

With Ant590 I play junk multi in combination with sounds natural 2M openings so based on that I would have given different answers.

[Free]

HCP strength is basically the same for me. Suit length is more restricted when opening a multi, for me this is because opening multi with a 5 card M is BSC and isn't always allowed. So multi shows 6(+)M while a weak 2 is frequently done on a 5 card suit (specially in 3rd seat and/or when NV). For the same reasons, my average multi is stronger than a weak two.

[helene_t]

I don't think opening a multi with 5 is a BSC. Maybe if you have the requirement that you don't open with 5332 since then there could be an inference that you have a second suit. But even so ... you still open a multi with 6322 and 6331 so it's not like you promise a second suit. So my guess would be that most directors would be ok with it. I realize that the BSC definition is subject to multiple interpretations, though.

[Free]

I don't think opening a multi with 5 is a BSC. Maybe if you have the requirement that you don't open with 5332 since then there could be an inference that you have a second suit. But even so ... you still open a multi with 6322 and 6331 so it's not like you promise a second suit. So my guess would be that most directors would be ok with it. I realize that the BSC definition is subject to multiple interpretations, though.

The problem is that multi is an exception on BSC's, and the exception is defined as a classical weak two M or something strong (strong option is not obligated). In Belgium this means a 6 card suit exactly, although poor 7 card suits are also allowed.

[helene_t]

Well I haven't seen the expression "classical weak two" anywhere in the BSC definitions. They all make a reference to the WBF convention booklet so presumably it is specified there what "weak two" means in this context. Is that document available somewhere? It is supposed to be bundled with the WBF CCE (convention card editor) but it isn't.

 

Edit: found it here: http://blakjak.org/wbf_cnbk.htm#multi

 

It just says "weak two in a major". So I suppose directors and appeal committees can just interpret that expression as they see fit.

Edited September 5, 2011 by helene_t

[gwnn]

no discernible difference.

[manudude03]

I was also under the impression that 5 card multi's were a BSC. Though upon reading the convention booklet, it highly implies on page 10 that 5 card weak 2s are allowed (also page 58)

[campboy]

I was also under the impression that 5 card multi's were a BSC. Though upon reading the convention booklet, it highly implies on page 10 that 5 card weak 2s are allowed (also page 58)

I'm pretty sure you are allowed a multi which can be a 5- or 6-card suit. I haven't heard anything specifically about exactly five being disallowed, but if you also don't open on 5332s then you will always have a second suit; this makes it a BSC (ruled on at the 2000 Olympiad in Maastricht).

[MickyB]

no discernible difference.

 

Agreed, I am fairly sure it has never made a difference for me, and I'm not generally regarded as someone to underthink such matters. I am sure you can make a reasonable theoretical case for a small difference (tending to avoid opening a multi on marginal weak 2S hands but not marginal weak 2Hs), but really, it's never going to matter.

[gnasher]

A Multi 2♦ gains from its ambiguity, and from the possibility of passing it. Those gains are enhanced if opener often has a five-card suit or a bad hand.

 

A weak two gains because responder can premept immediately. This gain is greater if opener tends to have a six-card suit or a pure hand, because responder can premept more often and higher.

 

Hence I think that in order to maximise the benefits of your methods you should play a different style when playing a Multi than when playing weak twos. Obviously, though, it also depends on what you use 2M for when you play a Multi.

[whereagles]

I don't like the multi for two reasons:

 

1. It allows opps two tempos for entering the bidding.

2. It uses up the 2D opener, which is VERY useful as a weak 2.

 

In my opinion, multi isn't a tool you use because you want to. Rather, you use the multi if you need it so that the rest of the opening structure works ok.

 

Point 2 above is not to be taken lightly. Minor suit preempts are usually more troublesome than major suit ones because they preempt BOTH majors. In fact, one should give serious thought freeing up the 2C for a natural preempt and dump the strong 2C opener into some other opening (like e.g. 1C, making it two-way). Doing this is technically and theoretically correct, so you have that to back you up.

 

All this being said, if I were to play the multi, I think it would be easier for responder if the opening style were relatively disciplined. Otherwise it's just too much guesswork.

[Free]

I was also under the impression that 5 card multi's were a BSC. Though upon reading the convention booklet, it highly implies on page 10 that 5 card weak 2s are allowed (also page 58)

Probably the full meaning got lost in translation for the Belgian authorities. I specifically asked about this 2 years ago before competition started, and the answer was clear that multi with only 5 card M is considered BSC in my country... <_<

[phil_20686]

I have only ever thought about using a multi when in a disciplined opeing style, then it is more about protecting the integrity of the 2/1 openers so that our GF sequences are ok, so I tended to play it as 7-11, 8-12 ish. I think you lose enough on the preempts that you should find a gain elsewhere and for me that is in the one level openers. Then you can open your light 5-5 one level openers 2M/2N and be sure that a one level opener is up to strength.

[Vampyr]

I'm pretty sure you are allowed a multi which can be a 5- or 6-card suit. I haven't heard anything specifically about exactly five being disallowed, but if you also don't open on 5332s then you will always have a second suit; this makes it a BSC (ruled on at the 2000 Olympiad in Maastricht).

 

See helene_t's first post above.

[mich-b]

A Multi 2♦ gains from its ambiguity, and from the possibility of passing it. Those gains are enhanced if opener often has a five-card suit or a bad hand.

 

 

Though Multi 2♦ could gain from the 2 reasons above, both occur quite rarely. Another big advantage of the Multi, is the ability to play the eventual 4M contract from responder's side which both conceals the unknown hand , and possibly protects honors on trick1. This advantage , which IMO should not be underestimated , is obviously more important when Multi is used in constructive sense, with buying the hand and playing 4M (or 3M) in mind.

[Free]

Though Multi 2♦ could gain from the 2 reasons above, both occur quite rarely. Another big advantage of the Multi, is the ability to play the eventual 4M contract from responder's side which both conceals the unknown hand , and possibly protects honors on trick1. This advantage , which IMO should not be underestimated , is obviously more important when Multi is used in constructive sense, with buying the hand and playing 4M (or 3M) in mind.

I've been playing multi without strong versions for a while and passing is a real problem for opponents. When you also include strong hands, then this advantage is compeletely gone and direct seat has 2 times to interfere. Opposite a NF multi, they have to intervene immediately because their partner may have no hand to overcall after 2♦-p-p.

Also in 3rd seat you can safely pass partner's P/C with the other suit if you're very weak and NV. This generates fun auctions. I even had a p-p-2♦-Dbl-3♥-p-p! come up when I had ♠s, LHO was not ammused. :D

Both of these occur now and then in my experience.

 

Rightsiding the 4M contract is much more frequent though, and indeed it's a very nice advantage.

[whereagles]

Rightsiding the 4M contract is much more frequent though, and indeed it's a very nice advantage.

 

I doubt that... if you go through many deals in a simulator with dbl dummy solver, you'll see that rightsiding makes a difference like 1 out of 30 hands, and even then that difference is often marginal (e.g. makes 3NT +1 from the good side, 3NT = from the other).

[mich-b]

I doubt that... if you go through many deals in a simulator with dbl dummy solver, you'll see that rightsiding makes a difference like 1 out of 30 hands, and even then that difference is often marginal (e.g. makes 3NT +1 from the good side, 3NT = from the other).

 

The specific case where one hand is a "weak 2" and the other hand is , hmm... Anything.... is much different than "rightsiding generally".

Mostly because the nature of the weak 2 hand is known , and the other hand can be anything (Balanced, side suit , side shortage, fit or no fit) which suggests a large advantage to concealing it, and making the defense harder - Should the defense play trumps to prevent ruffs? should they try to cash out? Of course all of this is not an issue for a dbl dummy solver.

[Free]

I doubt that... if you go through many deals in a simulator with dbl dummy solver, you'll see that rightsiding makes a difference like 1 out of 30 hands, and even then that difference is often marginal (e.g. makes 3NT +1 from the good side, 3NT = from the other).

Well, to be honest, my opps don't always know if I have a distributional hand with 12HCP, a balanced hand with 18HCP, a long side suit, ruffing value, and where all my honours are situated. Me and my partner have never played against a DD solver...

[MrAce]

I agree with Mich-b and Free about rightsiding.

 

In addition to what Andy and Mich-b said about the advantages of multi, i it is also important to not give opponents a suit to use as a cue. Of course opponents will agree how to cue one way or another, but as far as i read the suggestions it seems space consuming and definetely an advantage.

 

About the passable version of multi creating problems for opponents. It is true that most effective multi defenses keeps the "first pass later bid" options. And as i said this in another thread, some pairs solve this by simply not letting opponents play undoubled if one opens 2♦ and other one passes. They have to balance unless they can afford to let it go when passer's possible hands doesn't matter for balancer.

[whereagles]

The specific case where one hand is a "weak 2" and the other hand is , hmm... Anything.... is much different than "rightsiding generally".

Mostly because the nature of the weak 2 hand is known , and the other hand can be anything (Balanced, side suit , side shortage, fit or no fit) which suggests a large advantage to concealing it, and making the defense harder - Should the defense play trumps to prevent ruffs? should they try to cash out? Of course all of this is not an issue for a dbl dummy solver.

 

I agree with this in general. HOWEVER, it's not so clear-cut as it may seem. When dummy has the trump length, you know exactly how many cards to cash in each suit, so exposing the weak hand may actually be a double-edged sword.

 

But yeah, I agree the advantages of conceling the stronger hand are bigger in the specific case of the multi than in general. Trouble is this only happens like 1/3 of the time... the other time opps outgun us.

[Fluffy]

I left tone more question out: suit quality.

 

For example assume you have a mediocre suit such as ♠Q97654

 

Can you construct a full hand (not 6-5) a position and a vulnerability where you would want to use one opener, but not the other? (this is assuming your range/agresivity is the same for both)