Is the Multi 2 Worth it?

[Finch]

The Multi remains the topic of much controversy. In response to this thread and other similar threads, Han started a new thread titled “Multi Data Project.” The aim being to gather new data on the effectiveness of the Multi. You can find han's thread here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49266-multi-data-project/ The response below has been copied in from Han's thread.

 

There is a much quicker way to gather first class data for those interested in burying this topic forever.

 

Find the Convention Cards for the players currently ranked from e.g. 1 to 100 in the world (rankings available on the World Bridge Federation website). Starting from number 1, work through their CC's until you have identified enough players who play the Multi 2♦. Now go to the Vugraph Project page http://www.bridgetoe.../index.php/home and do a search for the players name. The search option is under the PBN tag. Looking for all the hands they opened 2♦ with will speed up your quest for finding reliable data.

 

Some food for thought:

There is a possibility that the higher the ranking of the player the less likely you are to find the Multi on their CC's (I don't know what the answer is myself). If this turns out to be the case, don't even bother crunching the numbers. Undoubtedly these guys would at some stage all have experimented with the Multi before discarding it in favour of something else.

 

None of this actually helps that much.

(i) in the US, you can only play the multi in midchart events, and then only with a lot of hassle. It's possible that pairs who want to play the multi can't be bothered to have a different system for GCC events.

(ii) Simply looking for hands on which people opened a multi doesn't tell you if it's a good convention or not. You need first to compare against pairs playing natural weak twos on these boards, and then you have to find all the boards where other pairs opened 2D (meaning whatever) and the multi pairs couldn't, and then you have to find all the boards where the multi pairs opened 2M meaning something esle, and compare that to the weak two pairs.

[Trinidad]

Using this defense, can you find 3NT with a weak NT opposite a weak NT?

Just as easy as the defense where the meaning of double and 2♥ are switched :P (which is what the discussion was about).

 

But I assume that you want me to compare to defenses where double shows any weak NT. The short answer is: Yes, you can, but it is more difficult. That however, is offset by the ability to stay out of 3NT contracts that don't make. ;)

On the other hand, it is extremely easy to find 3NT contracts of 24(34) opposite 42(43) (2♥-3NT) or 42(34) opposite 24(43) (Dbl-3NT). Similarly, it is very easy to stay out of bad 3NT contracts and get to games (or slams!) in trumps. One big advantage of a defense where the overcaller identifies opener's major is that you have a cue bid available.

 

I suppose you don't want me to compare with doubles that show at least (34) in the majors (also popular, and probably better than doubling on any weak NT). After all, those who play that method will also pass with a 2344 or 33(34) weak NT. (But they, and I, know that the bidding isn't over yet.)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

None of this actually helps that much.

(ii) Simply looking for hands on which people opened a multi doesn't tell you if it's a good convention or not. You need first to compare against pairs playing natural weak twos on these boards, and then you have to find all the boards where other pairs opened 2D (meaning whatever) and the multi pairs couldn't, and then you have to find all the boards where the multi pairs opened 2M meaning something esle, and compare that to the weak two pairs.

Maybe it would be possible to organize a "Multi tourney series" on BBO?

Pairs would have to choose between four systems: Something natural (SAYC, 2/1, Acol) with

1) 2♦♥♠ as weak two

2) 2♦ 18-19 NT, 2♥♠ as weak two

3) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Acol strong two

4) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Lucas (a) or Muiderberg (b)

 

I realize that it is very hard to draw any scientific conclusions from the results of these tourneys since there is a correlation between the strength of a pair and the system that they choose (where the system played is not actually the cause of the pair's ability). But it could be fun to have a modern variation of 'Scientists v Naturalists'.

 

Rik

[32519]

Maybe it would be possible to organize a "Multi tourney series" on BBO?

Pairs would have to choose between four systems: Something natural (SAYC, 2/1, Acol) with

1) 2♦♥♠ as weak two

2) 2♦ 18-19 NT, 2♥♠ as weak two

3) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Acol strong two

4) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Lucas (a) or Muiderberg (b)

 

I realize that it is very hard to draw any scientific conclusions from the results of these tourneys since there is a correlation between the strength of a pair and the system that they choose (where the system played is not actually the cause of the pair's ability). But it could be fun to have a modern variation of 'Scientists v Naturalists'.

 

Rik

 

There is a quicker (easier) way to draw your conclusions. Below is an extract from David Berkowitz and Brent Manley’s book “Precision Today”.

 

In a survey of the nation’s top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

 

You can limit the tourney to a bidding tourney: Multi versus other methods. It will need to take place as an Open Room / Closed Room tourney. That way it is easy to compare the final contract reached in both rooms. If the final contract is the same, obviously no gain has been made using Multi versus other methods. Where the final contract differs the four players at each table can simply agree if the contract is makeable or not (without actually playing each hand). After the opening lead is made declarer can claim exposing all four hands. Now everybody can see all the cards. The players can simply agree amongst themselves if the final contract is makeable or not. This way you completely eliminate both declarer's ability to play the hand as well as the defensive ability of the opponents. Keep a hand written summary next to you containing those hands where a different final contract was reached and whether it was makeable or not. Record which method was used to reach the final contract.

 

Easy!

[gwnn]

That is interesting because just about everyone on BBF said they think cardplay is by far more important than bidding.

[glen]

In a survey of the nation’s top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

The problem is that this is misinterpreted into the search for the holy grail of opening bid framework. This is like somebody saying the most important part of building is the construction itself, and then just focusing on the foundation as the key success factor.

[32519]

The problem is that this is misinterpreted into the search for the holy grail of opening bid framework. This is like somebody saying the most important part of building is the construction itself, and then just focusing on the foundation as the key success factor.

 

Not entirely sure if I understand what is meant here. The foundation of any building (the opening bid identifying into which category the hand falls) needs to be layed first before the walls can be added (the continuation bidding in the auction) before the roof can be added (the final contract).

 

The foundation of any building is probably the most important part. A poorly constructed foundation will lead to the premature collapse of the entire building (the final contract failing).

[glen]

Not entirely sure if I understand what is meant here. The foundation of any building (the opening bid identifying into which category the hand falls) needs to be layed first before the walls can be added (the continuation bidding in the auction) before the roof can be added (the final contract).

 

The foundation of any building is probably the most important part. A poorly constructed foundation will lead to the premature collapse of the entire building (the final contract failing).

For example, and related to this thread, Meckwell played Multi for many years, and now do not.

 

Having, or not having Multi, by itself, has made almost no impact on Meckwell success.

 

Deciding which hands to open a weak two in a major, with Multi when available, or 2♥/♠ when not playing Multi, has had an impact on Meckwell success.

 

Having a response structure, to whatever opens a weak two in major, that can find out opener's hand type, and that adapts to seat and vulnerability, has had an impact on Meckwell success.

 

Thus a success factor has not been Multi vs. not (opening bid framework question), but how to handle and when to use a weak two in the majors.

[hotShot]

There is a quicker (easier) way to draw your conclusions. Below is an extract from David Berkowitz and Brent Manley's book "Precision Today".

 

In a survey of the nation's top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

 

That should be understood as:

Among experts - most of them almost perfect card player - bidding is what makes 80% of the difference.

[Cyberyeti]

That should be understood as:

Among experts - most of them almost perfect card player - bidding is what makes 80% of the difference.

You forgot the "and good defenders". Overbidding a bit is easier to get away with when you're likely to get help from the defence.

[hotShot]

You forgot the "and good defenders". Overbidding a bit is easier to get away with when you're likely to get help from the defence.

 

You are right of cause.

I thought that card play was defense and declarer play.

[Vampyr]

I suppose you don't want me to compare with doubles that show at least (34) in the majors (also popular, and probably better than doubling on any weak NT). After all, those who play that method will also pass with a 2344 or 33(34) weak NT. (But they, and I, know that the bidding isn't over yet.)

 

What worries me is the increasing popularity of the weak-only Multi, where the bidding may well be over.

[Free]

Maybe it would be possible to organize a "Multi tourney series" on BBO?

Pairs would have to choose between four systems: Something natural (SAYC, 2/1, Acol) with

1) 2♦♥♠ as weak two

2) 2♦ 18-19 NT, 2♥♠ as weak two

3) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Acol strong two

4) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Lucas (a) or Muiderberg (b)

 

I realize that it is very hard to draw any scientific conclusions from the results of these tourneys since there is a correlation between the strength of a pair and the system that they choose (where the system played is not actually the cause of the pair's ability). But it could be fun to have a modern variation of 'Scientists v Naturalists'.

 

Rik

I'm sure Richard would be willing to participate if you include Frelling two's to that list :)

[Free]

In a survey of the nation’s top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

This quote is outdated. A few weeks/months ago we had the same survey on the forums. The conclusion was the exact opposite. Main reasons were that many hands just bid themselves, and impossible contract can sometimes be braught home by a skillful declarer. If you bid to a perfect slam on an exotic squeeze, but you can't play your cards, then you'll go down and lose a lot more than if you'd bid to a lower contract and make it.

[mwalimu02]

is the

Is the Multi 2 worth it?

worth it?

 

Yes it is!

[32519]

This quote is outdated. A few weeks/months ago we had the same survey on the forums. The conclusion was the exact opposite. Main reasons were that many hands just bid themselves, an impossible contract can sometimes be brought home by a skillful declarer. If you bid to a perfect slam on an exotic squeeze, but you can't play your cards, then you'll go down and lose a lot more than if you'd bid to a lower contract and make it.

 

The threads you are referring to are:

Bidding is 80% of bridge http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44497-bidding-is-80-of-bridge

What’s the best way to improve your play? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46705-whats-the-best-way-to-improve-your-play/

Developing Bidding Judgement http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46344-developing-bidding-judgement/

 

I am not arguing against any of this. At Match Points an overtrick can be the difference between an above average board or an average board. At IMPs an overtrick gains 1 IMP. However a missed game or slam substantially increases the lost IMPs.

 

Board 19 Round 4_21 from the recent 2011 Bermuda Bowl I kibitzed the players from my home country, South Africa, landing in inferior contracts (or having to defend after failing to enter the auction). Here is an example http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=20560

In the open room either a bidding error or a partnership misunderstanding led to an inferior contract. In the closed room the South player chose not to open the bidding. Nobody knows how the auction would have continued in the closed room if South had opened the bidding. However in the open room East could have saved the board by bidding 5♠ over 5♥. Had E/W bid the excellent ♠ slam instead of the ♣ slam the 13 IMPS lost on the deal would in fact have been a 13 IMP gain. An inferior contract resulted in a double IMP swing.

 

The Bermuda Bowl showcases the top players from their respective countries. Yet even at this level the gap between the teams who made the quarter finals and the rest quickly opened up. The hand above is an example of how the gap opened so quickly. Landing in the right contract is the first step to progressing further in the tournament.

 

These forums have plenty of ATB threads (assign the blame) and How Do You Bid This threads. They all have to do with bidding. Berkowitz and Manley didn’t do their survey in the BBO Forums. Most likely they surveyed USA’s top players.

 

Conclusion: Maybe Berkowitz and Manley’s survey wasn’t wrong after all.

[bluecalm]

Conclusion: Maybe Berkowitz and Manley’s survey wasn’t wrong after all.

 

There is a difference between what part of swings is due to bidding and what part of edge is due to it.

Surely bidding is a cause of most swings but they are very often random (comes from system, close calls etc.)

I remember I did calculations how elite pairs perform vs par on defense, declarer play and bidding.

My conclusion was that cardplay (anything after 1st lead) contributes more to skill difference than bidding ( comparison vs par obviously isn't the essence of bridge but still it says something).

[Mbodell]

There is a quicker (easier) way to draw your conclusions. Below is an extract from David Berkowitz and Brent Manley’s book “Precision Today”.

 

In a survey of the nation’s top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

 

You can limit the tourney to a bidding tourney: Multi versus other methods. It will need to take place as an Open Room / Closed Room tourney. That way it is easy to compare the final contract reached in both rooms. If the final contract is the same, obviously no gain has been made using Multi versus other methods. Where the final contract differs the four players at each table can simply agree if the contract is makeable or not (without actually playing each hand). After the opening lead is made declarer can claim exposing all four hands. Now everybody can see all the cards. The players can simply agree amongst themselves if the final contract is makeable or not. This way you completely eliminate both declarer's ability to play the hand as well as the defensive ability of the opponents. Keep a hand written summary next to you containing those hands where a different final contract was reached and whether it was makeable or not. Record which method was used to reach the final contract.

 

Easy!

 

This also doesn't work because there is more to the bidding then just arriving at the right contract from the right side. There's also how much information the defense has. A fun experiment might be to see how well expert players defend versus normal bidding to a contract compared to the same board (different experts) where the declaring side just opened with the final contract, leaking no other information. 1nt-2nt-3nt is much easier to defend against then a 3nt opening that could have been 1nt-3nt or 1c-1d-2nt-3nt or 1h-1s-2d-3c-3nt or many other auctions.

[Free]

The threads you are referring to are:

Bidding is 80% of bridge http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44497-bidding-is-80-of-bridge

What’s the best way to improve your play? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46705-whats-the-best-way-to-improve-your-play/

Developing Bidding Judgement http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46344-developing-bidding-judgement/

 

I am not arguing against any of this. At Match Points an overtrick can be the difference between an above average board or an average board. At IMPs an overtrick gains 1 IMP. However a missed game or slam substantially increases the lost IMPs.

 

Board 19 Round 4_21 from the recent 2011 Bermuda Bowl I kibitzed the players from my home country, South Africa, landing in inferior contracts (or having to defend after failing to enter the auction). Here is an example http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=20560

In the open room either a bidding error or a partnership misunderstanding led to an inferior contract. In the closed room the South player chose not to open the bidding. Nobody knows how the auction would have continued in the closed room if South had opened the bidding. However in the open room East could have saved the board by bidding 5♠ over 5♥. Had E/W bid the excellent ♠ slam instead of the ♣ slam the 13 IMPS lost on the deal would in fact have been a 13 IMP gain. An inferior contract resulted in a double IMP swing.

 

The Bermuda Bowl showcases the top players from their respective countries. Yet even at this level the gap between the teams who made the quarter finals and the rest quickly opened up. The hand above is an example of how the gap opened so quickly. Landing in the right contract is the first step to progressing further in the tournament.

 

These forums have plenty of ATB threads (assign the blame) and How Do You Bid This threads. They all have to do with bidding. Berkowitz and Manley didn’t do their survey in the BBO Forums. Most likely they surveyed USA’s top players.

 

Conclusion: Maybe Berkowitz and Manley’s survey wasn’t wrong after all.

You can't draw any conclusion from what you bring as "evidence". Berkowitz and Manley did a survey a couple of years before 2002 (but they didn't specify how many years - is it 2 or 20 years ago?) and their conclusion at that time apparently was that bidding is more important. But times change, bridge theory changes,... These days people/top players think declarer play and defense are much more important than bidding.

 

- on the forums we also have several top players, from different countries. Although we aren't all top players, I read the reactions from truly world class experts, and they all said declarer play is most important.

 

- Overtricks gain a lot in MP scoring, that's true. But when you're playing a sharp contract, you're not playing for overtricks, you're playing for contract or defeat. This particular 1 trick is then worth 5, 10, or even more imps (depending on the contract and vulnerability), while in MP it's only the difference between an average and a top/bottom.

 

- You can bring lots of examples where bidding created a huge swing, but you can do the same with declarer play or defensive play. In the latest BB final we got a great example, Simon De Wijs found the perfect defense in trick 1:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa932h6djt985c974&w=sk64h98432d42ckq6&n=sj875ht5daq7caj52&e=sqthakqj7dk63ct83&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1nd2ddp2hp4hppp&p=djd2]399|300[/hv]

He played the ♦Q, the other table did not. He never made his ♦A, but got his partner twice on lead to play ♣. Result: a vulnerable game swing.

 

- It's much easier to create an ATB thread or a bidding poll, because your options are very limited. If you give 2 hands and ask how people will play, usually they'll respond "I'll start with blablabla, what happens?". You'll have an endless thread going back and forth. OP can give 20 spoilers, but then how objective will the responses be? If one looks at all the spoilers first, he can almost recreate 4 hands and play DD.

[32519]

Multi is the other one I have been keeping an eye open for. I haven’t seen many in the USBC who play it although there certainly have been enough opportunities. Woolsey / Stewart were one of the pairs playing Multi but they seem to have been knocked out. Most of the other guys are opening the 6-card major directly. No Multi means no Muiderberg either.

[han]

It shouldn't be a surprise that only few ACBL pairs play multi.

[WellSpyder]

Multi is the other one I have been keeping an eye open for. I haven’t seen many in the USBC who play it although there certainly have been enough opportunities.

That's a bit odd, isn't it? How does it fit with your "theory" that the hands are rigged to test the conventions US players use rather than the ones they don't use?

[Statto]

That is interesting because just about everyone on BBF said they think cardplay is by far more important than bidding.

Cardplay is important of course, but if you're at the level where everyone will usually find the correct plays, then bidding becomes more important.

[32519]

Here is another article on the Multi that I stumbled across. I found it on the English Bridge Union website. Tom Townsend and Heather Dhondy debate whether or not the Multi is a good convention. Others may be interested in what was said in the document.

[mikestar13]

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario: the ACBL makes the multi GCC legal, but doesn't change the rest of the GCC. (This will never happen in the real world, but pretend it did.)

Would the multi be worth playing in a GCC event if no interesting uses for 2M are legal? By the way, I know the GCC is idiotic, but the vast majority of ACBL players are stuck with it whether they wish to be or not. I'd love to hear opinions on this scenario and I'm not totally sure which I think is best. Call it thread hijacking if you wish.