Is the Multi 2 Worth it?

[Mbodell]

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.

 

I don't fully understand why, but I think a fair number of people play multi and natural weak 2, but just have narrower ranges. Like 2M is a good 7-11 while multi is 4 - bad 7 or what not (or the reverse or direct 2♥ is the "good" range but direct 2♠ is the "bad" range and multi covers the other range or the reverse). So I think some would think it still has value.

[Cthulhu D]

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.

 

Plenty of stuff to consider. As Mdodell comments even just a trash mini multi + solid weak 2s (or visa versa) has something to recommend it because you can better judge preempt extension. Alternatively, 2S intermediate, 2H flannery and 2D multi?

[blackshoe]

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.

I would put myself in the "stuck with it" group, but I think the "vast majority" of ACBL players don't have a clue even that there are allowable conventions beyond those with which they're familiar. As I mentioned in another thread, recently I asked the Tournament Chair for our upcoming Regional about Mid-Chart conventions, and I had to explain to her what the Mid-Chart is! And she is a relatively experienced tournament player. :blink: :ph34r:

[han]

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.

 

Dhondy gives several good arguments against playing multi, but then gives such bad examples that make you want to play multi after all.

[32519]

I see more and more players playing a "Destructive Only" Multi i.e. holding 4-7 HCP and as little as KJxxxx in either major. Their weak 2♥ and 2♠ now become constructive, promising 8-11 HCP and a decent suit.

 

Why would you want to waste the 2♦ bid for "Destructive Only" purposes? You've told the opponents you have crap (both in suit and HCP). When they declare the hand and your suit is known, your partner is going to be finessed for EVERY missing HCP outside your suit. So to repeat the question: What do you gain from using a "Destructive Only" Multi?

[gwnn]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DFYmn5FbL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[lowerline]

I see more and more players playing a "Destructive Only" Multi i.e. holding 4-7 HCP and as little as KJxxxx in either major. Their weak 2♥ and 2♠ now become constructive, promising 8-11 HCP and a decent suit.

 

Why would you want to waste the 2♦ bid for "Destructive Only" purposes? You've told the opponents you have crap (both in suit and HCP). When they declare the hand and your suit is known, your partner is going to be finessed for EVERY missing HCP outside your suit. So to repeat the question: What do you gain from using a "Destructive Only" Multi?

 

Because it can destroy opponents bidding? If you are going to play this way, I think it is better to use 2♥/♠ as the destructive W2B, because it is easier for the opponents to penalize you after a 2♦ opening.

 

Steven

[Vampyr]

Because it can destroy opponents bidding? If you are going to play this way, I think it is better to use 2♥/♠ as the destructive W2B, because it is easier for the opponents to penalize you after a 2♦ opening.

 

That's interesting, but there must be other considerations that are deemed more important, because all the pairs I know of who play weak-only multi and weak twos play the latter as constructive. Perhaps because it is more important to get your suit in when there is a better chance of safely raising the preempt or competing for the partscore, or because with the weaker hand it is more useful to take away the opponents' bidding space, or even because 2♦ may be passed when it is right (and now 4th hand doesn't know your major), or...

 

Anyway, is it really easier to penalise the opponents after they have opened 2♦? It is certainly less straightforward, since 2nd hand does not have available a takeout double which might be converted, and 4th hand will often be in a similar position after 2♥ pass-or-correct.

[lowerline]

That's interesting, but there must be other considerations that are deemed more important, because all the pairs I know of who play weak-only multi and weak twos play the latter as constructive. Perhaps because it is more important to get your suit in when there is a better chance of safely raising the preempt or competing for the partscore, or because with the weaker hand it is more useful to take away the opponents' bidding space, or even because 2♦ may be passed when it is right (and now 4th hand doesn't know your major), or...

 

Anyway, is it really easier to penalise the opponents after they have opened 2♦? It is certainly less straightforward, since 2nd hand does not have available a takeout double which might be converted, and 4th hand will often be in a similar position after 2♥ pass-or-correct.

 

 

Responder cannot raise nearly as often after a 2♦ opening than after a 2M opening because of the uncertainty of the major. Also it is the constructive W2B you want to raise as often as possible. That's probably the reason why it is played that way.

 

With pure takeout shape (and 12-17hcp) you can pass 2♦ knowing you will get another chance. An immediate double shows a balanced hand of 12-15hcp or a hand too strong to do anything else (18+hcp).

 

(2♦)-p-(2♥)-p-(p)-dbl is a takeout double that is easier to convert because doubler is known to be limited

(2♦)-dbl-(3♥)-p-(p)-dbl is 18+ (3suited or balanced)

(2♦)-dbl-(2♥)-dbl-(2♠) the next double is penalty by both sides

 

Steven

 

 

 

[gwnn]

With pure takeout shape (and 12-17hcp) you can pass 2♦ knowing you will get another chance.

;)

[Zelandakh]

With pure takeout shape (and 12-17hcp) you can pass 2♦ knowing you will get another chance.

I am guessing you do not play against a weak-only multi very often. When I put this into an FD CC for example, I specifically choose the "Non-forcing" option for bid type.

[lowerline]

I am guessing you do not play against a weak-only multi very often. When I put this into an FD CC for example, I specifically choose the "Non-forcing" option for bid type.

 

Ah... I see now I made a mistake... Where I play, Multi is allowed on all levels. If there is no strong option in your Multi, you are not allowed to call it Multi and you are only allowed to play it on the highest levels.

 

Steven

[f0rdy]

That's interesting, but there must be other considerations that are deemed more important, because all the pairs I know of who play weak-only multi and weak twos play the latter as constructive. Perhaps because it is more important to get your suit in when there is a better chance of safely raising the preempt or competing for the partscore, or because with the weaker hand it is more useful to take away the opponents' bidding space, or even because 2♦ may be passed when it is right (and now 4th hand doesn't know your major), or...

 

Anyway, is it really easier to penalise the opponents after they have opened 2♦? It is certainly less straightforward, since 2nd hand does not have available a takeout double which might be converted, and 4th hand will often be in a similar position after 2♥ pass-or-correct.

 

I'm only 90% sure I've got this the right way round, but those I've come across have:

2D = bad wk2 in ♥ or good wk2 in ♠

2H = good wk2 in ♥

2S = bad wk2 in ♠

 

This does mean you should probably pass 2♦ less often than opposite an "all-bad" multi, but takes note of the asymmetry between the majors:

Assuming "good" means "pure", the good option will be less frequent, so playing this allows you to start 2♠ P 4♠ more often, which is by far the harder start to the auction of the two 2M p 4M ? possibilities.

It also allows/forces responder to make more considered decisions opposite the better ♠ hand; an invitational responder will usually want to play in 2♥ opposite the bad ♥ hand.

[32519]

If you're still playing Multi, fromageGB has just given you another reason to dump it. The posts below have been copied in from a different thread.

 

If you're still playing Multi then your legs are chopped off on what to use. Multi forces you to use good/bad type responses over the 2NT asking bid. Feature Ask or Shortness Ask do not exist for you.

Let's take the suggestion below and extend it to ♦ and ♥ as well.

 

This means that a shortage ask is certainly to be considered, and can be useful. However, I believe it pales into insignificance compared with the trick taking difference effect of a wide point range, particularly a vast range such as 5 to 11. What might be useful is a combined method, where the 2NT inquiry commits to game opposite a top end, but depends on the right shortage opposite bottom end.

E.g. 2♠ 2NT :

3♣/♦/♥ = shortage 5-8 hcp

3♠ = no shortage 5-8

3NT = AKQxxx no shortage

4♣/♦/♥ = shortage 9-11

4♠ = no shortage 9-11

Over 2♥ we employ "Step Shortage/Range Ask" as suggested by Barry. Now we have -

2♥-2♠ (the asking bid)

2NT = ♠ shortage 5-8

3♣/♦ = shortage 5-8

3♥ = no shortage 5-8

3NT = AKQxxx no shortage

 

Over 2♦

2♥/♠ = No fit for ♦, non-forcing (scores better than 2♦)

2NT = Direct invite to 3NT when opener is max or holds the top 3 honours, non-forcing

3♣ = No fit for ♦, natural, non-forcing

[Free]

2♦-2♥-2♠-2NT asks shortage:

3m = 0-1m

3♥ = 0-1m

3♠ = no shortage

 

2♦-2♠-?

2NT = ♥, 0-1♠

3m = ♥, 0-1m

3♥ = ♥, no shortage

 

After 2♦-2NT-... responder can ask for shortness. It's higher, but quite acceptable.

 

That said, you can't compare multi with a weak two and ignore the different consequences of playing multi and weak two's. I think that's been said like 50 times in this topic.

[campboy]

I'm only 90% sure I've got this the right way round, but those I've come across have:

2D = bad wk2 in ♥ or good wk2 in ♠

2H = good wk2 in ♥

2S = bad wk2 in ♠

I assume I'm one of the people you've seen playing it, and that is the right way round. nmock suggested this to me and I think it was his idea (though others may have come up with it independently, of course).

[kael chi]

I quite agree that in precision system, 2♦opening bid is used so rarly(4441 or 5440, ♦is single or void).

[manudude03]

I still don't get all the hate towards multi, if you know how to play it, it can be a great convention, but if you don't, only then can it turn into utter tripe. But then again, that can be said for everything, including transfers, so hey, let's drop that too :) I was in Dublin in the weekend, and the following hand came up (pips approximate).

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj84h5dk85cjt63&w=st92hq4daqj6caq98&n=s63hkt9763d743ck7&e=sa75haj82dt92c542]399|300[/hv].

 

If South can open a muiderberg 2S, it's going to be difficult for either hand to get into the auction, yet 3NT makes easily, yet I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anyone play muiderberg without multi (and before anyone opens 2S anyway, it was N/S vul)

[1eyedjack]

I quite agree that in precision system, 2♦opening bid is used so rarly(4441 or 5440, ♦is single or void).

 

That is a pretty ancient version of Precision. Back to C C Wei days. I don't think that many serious precision players use 2D for these hands nowadays. I could be mistaken, or maybe I move in odd circles.

[Free]

That is a pretty ancient version of Precision. Back to C C Wei days. I don't think that many serious precision players use 2D for these hands nowadays. I could be mistaken, or maybe I move in odd circles.

These days it includes 4-3-1-5 and 3-4-1-5. As for serious partnerships, I believe Meckwell is quite serious ;)

[sfi]

If South can open a muiderberg 2S, it's going to be difficult for either hand to get into the auction, yet 3NT makes easily

 

Not that I disagree with the general point you are trying to make, but '3NT makes easily' is rather an overstatement. Declarer can come to 9 tricks on the layout, sure, but it's not at all clear how to do so when dummy hits.

 

For example, if the North-South cards are swapped declarer is simply down on a spade lead and in trouble anyway.

[32519]

In spite of all the noise made by others in various threads/posts in these forums, I stick to my guns - 5M4m Muiderberg does not exist. Every Muiderberger I have thus far encountered has upgraded the minor suit to 5.

 

Now look at the frequency of occurrence that you are losing out on in favour of Multi 2♦ versus a natural Weak 2♦:

Weak 2♦: 5-11 HCP = 2.16%

Weak 2♦: 8-11 HCP = 1.41%

Muiderberg 5M5m: 5-10 HCP = 0.45% X 2 = 0.90%

Muiderberg 5M5m: 8-10 HCP = 0.27% X 2 = 0.54%

 

I used BBOs deal generator with the following constraints:

Number of ♦ = 6-6

Number of ♣/♥/♠ = 0-4

 

If you open Muiderberg in 3rd seat or red, I bet you a Coke and a hamburger that it is 5M5m and 8-10 HCP, the upper end of the range.

[helene_t]

These days it includes 4-3-1-5 and 3-4-1-5. As for serious partnerships, I believe Meckwell is quite serious ;)

I believe that's 1eyedjack's point: the strict 4414/4405 definition is not frequent enough to be a good reason for not playing multi, but if you include 4315/3415 it may be.

[Free]

5M4m Muiderberg does not exist

LOL

[hrothgar]

In spite of all the noise made by others in various threads/posts in these forums, I stick to my guns - 5M4m Muiderberg does not exist. Every Muiderberger I have thus far encountered has upgraded the minor suit to 5.

 

Good for you!

 

Never let facts get in the way of whatever weird ass opinions you've developed out in the bush...