Is the Multi 2 Worth it?

[gwnn]

Take it up with the authors.

I just wanted to point out that the thing you quoted is false. I thought it might be useful for you or for other people. No thanks, I will not take it up with the authors.

[whereagles]

My limited personal experience is that it's easy to defend against, similar like a 3♦ opening but with more space to bid.

 

Weak 2s in the minors are far more bothersome than you credit them for. The reason is they preempt BOTH majors, not just one. Take out dbls over a weak 2m (or 3m) are made on 43 in the majors on a regular basis, over which the risk of ending up in a 4-3 fit is considerable.

 

If you don't believe me, just check the number of threads on 1♣-2♦ and 1♦-2♣, comparable auctions which show the load of trouble the overcall creates.

[fromageGB]

I have played a multi for years, but have now dropped it in preference for a natural weak 2 in diamonds (together with natural weak 2s in majors) or (depending on partnership) 4+/4+ in both majors and natural weak 2s in the majors.

 

I'd say it is worthwhile, especially if you need 2M bids to plug a gap elsewhere in the system, or need 2♦ to show 3 suited-hands, but I do like the other uses, and natural 2Ms make preemptive support possible, which is a hidden plus point.

 

While incorporating a weak 2 in diamonds into the 2♣ open is very good if you play multi, a problem here is the national authority rates it as "level 4", so a number of local clubs don't allow it.

 

Another problem is that the EBU handcuffs prevent you having a weak only version of the multi. And you can't say the strong option is exactly 30 points in 0067 shape !

[blackshoe]

I just wanted to point out that the thing you quoted is false. I thought it might be useful for you or for other people. No thanks, I will not take it up with the authors.

 

I think you mean that the authors are mistaken — and perhaps they are. Keep in mind though that the book was written a couple of decades ago, and what is not true now may have been true then. Or... well, no matter. I don't necessarily agree with them myself. I think that the "best" use of 2♦ in any particular system depends on the system. In Romex, for example, you need 2♦ to show certain balanced hands, and to take GF hands with diamonds out of 2♣. Otherwise, the system doesn't do what it was intended to do. I was going to mention Precision 2♦, but that's a little different. If the regulators allow it, opening 2♥ with those hands actually works better.

[mycroft]

A to Z: given that one is no longer with us, and the other doesn't use that name any more...

 

I'm adding to the chorus though, in general:

- Multi 2 is weaker than majors weak 2

- the 2M bids made available by throwing the weak 2s into 2D are, or at least can be, strong; strong enough to make the package stronger than 3 weak 2s.

- 2D is stronger than it looks as a preempt, especially when your opponents at the other table have it available and you have to pass;

- the advantage of mini-multi 2, besides making simpler your sequences (at the cost of making simpler *their* sequences) is that you don't completely lose the weak 2 in diamonds; not when partner passes, at least. It never has to happen in real life, either; just the threat of it means that an entire class of "pass and act" defences have to change to handle the possibility.

 

I played, when I played it (benefits of playing in the ACBL here):

- mini-multi 2, bid very aggressively;

- 2H both majors, at least 4-4, again, very aggressive;

- 2S bad preempt in a minor (again, a loss to bidding those hands at the 3 level, but in theory gained back by:)

- 3m "if you bid 3NT, you won't be disappointed, pard."

 

Whether the package was better than "standard" I don't know - not enough experience to determine, really; but we played it more for the joy of it and the learning, than "better system".

[Vampyr]

Didn't we have a huge thread about this 1 or 2 months back where we compared the weak two's vs multi.

 

We did have that. I remember making the point that a lot of people are making here, that the multi itself is no great shakes but the freeing up of the 2M openers is very useful.

 

I prefer to play 2♦ weak, so have not given the matter much thought and don't know whether this question is absurd:

 

Does anyone play or have ever considered using the multi for constructive or intermediate 2♦ and opening 2M with a weaker hand, to allow responder to continue the pre-empt when it might be most useful?

[mgoetze]

I played, when I played it (benefits of playing in the ACBL here):

- mini-multi 2, bid very aggressively;

- 2H both majors, at least 4-4, again, very aggressive;

- 2S bad preempt in a minor

 

Huh? I thought these so-called "destructive" methods are expressly prohibited in the ACBL...

[gwnn]

Don't we have a huge thread about this every 1 or 2 months all the time where we compare the weak two's vs multi.

Yes we do.

[mycroft]

Huh? I thought these so-called "destructive" methods are expressly prohibited in the ACBL...

It's been a while...

 

When we played this, they were straight-up Mid-Chart legal (with defences). Now, 2H needs 5-4 (at 6 boards; 5-5 for 2 boards); multi needs 6-boards; 2S "bad minor" is also 6 boards.

 

I see no reason to continue the "what's the Mid-Chart for" discussion here; I'm sure that a quick forum history search will find my opinions on it.

[Vampyr]

While incorporating a weak 2 in diamonds into the 2♣ open is very good if you play multi, a problem here is the national authority rates it as "level 4", so a number of local clubs don't allow it.

 

Clubs that are more restrictive than level 4 are not for serious competition; play somewhere else. At the YC in London, the restriction is that you have to submit your forcing pass system in advance...

 

 

Another problem is that the EBU handcuffs prevent you having a weak only version of the multi. And you can't say the strong option is exactly 30 points in 0067 shape !

 

Again, find a club that plays level 4. Or go to more congresses, which are all level 4 or higher.

[Free]

And I thought EBU or ACBL regulations weren't applicable in South Africa... :rolleyes:

 

Stop hijacking threads by uselessly mentioning ACBL and/or EBU please!

[shevek]

In their excellent book Preempts from A to Z, Anderson and Zenkel suggest that while there are many possible uses of the 2♦ bid, most experts have tried them all, and gone back to the simple weak two. Paraphrasing, "It's kind of like toothpaste", they say. "You might try a new one once in a while, but you almost always go back to the one you grew up with".

 

 

That said, I've recently switched from the toothpaste I grew up with and used for many years to the one my dentist recommends. I'd tried it before, and switched back, but I think this time I'm going to stick with it. OTOH, I didn't have to convince anybody to go along with the change, whereas most of my bridge partners don't like changing the bidding system. :P

 

The 1993 A to Z book may reflect the ACBL jurisdiction at the time. Little has changed there.

Having 40 minutes to spare, I looked at the BBowl cards for Holland

 

22 teams x 3 = 66. We find

 

Weak 2D = 17 (26%) majorities of India, Chile, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, USA2

Multi = 25 (38%) didn't split mini-multi

strong = 5

18-19 bal = 5

Flannery = 5

intermediate Ds = 1

short Ds = 2

weak majors = 5

S & m = 1

[chasetb]

Two of the three USA 1 pairs played Flannery (Fleisher-Kamil didn't). My two cents on the matter is that I hate the weak 2♦ - it always gives me a bad result whether I use it or play against it. I would like to play Flannery in my casual (SA or 2/1) partnerships, but nobody I know understands it. I have also only had good results playing against it, because the opponents tend not to know it!

 

What I really would want to play if I couldn't play Precision or Polish is 2♦ being one of 3 strong hand types; 2♥ would be forced with 99% of hands. The 3 types are either GF bal (2NT, use Romex Stayman), Strong with ♦ (2♠), or a GF 4441 or 5440 hand (one below). Weak with both Majors might be fun, since you can probably swing it knowing nothing about responses (I would learn the responses, I'm just talking about a pickup partner).

 

I've also thought about using 2♦ as a Multi with a GF option, but that isn't ACBL GCC legal. The reasoning is then I can make 2M (9)10-14 with 6M and not have to fake a 3-card minor after 1M-1NT.

[32519]

SUMMARY OF THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON THE MULTI 2♦ (from this thread and other similar threads)

 

ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE

1.) The loss of a natural Weak 2♦ bid.

Weak 2s in the minors are far more bothersome than many credit them for. The reason is they preempt BOTH majors, not just one. Take-out doubles over a weak 2m (or 3m) are made on 4-3 in the Majors on a regular basis, over which the risk of ending up in a 4-3 fit is considerable.

2.) 2♦ is stronger than it looks as a preempt, especially when your opponents at the other table have it available and you have to pass.

3.) The Multi should be more geared towards constructive bidding, because it has less preemptive effect than a natural Weak 2♥ or 2♠ bid.

4.) Multi isn't that great a convention. You're often left in the dark yourself what major partner has when the auction goes say 2♦-(2NT)-P-(3NT).

5.) Natural preempts are more valuable; opponents only get one chance to bid over them. They get two over transfer and artificial preempts!

6.) The majority of Multi’s is a weak 2 in either major. When your major is ♠ LHO can still bid ♥ on level 2. The preemptive effect of the weak 2♠ bid is lost.

7.) The loss of partners ability to lift the preempt immediately is a big weakness of the Multi.

More often partner than not, partner is able to support only one of the majors. Not knowing which one you are holding restricts his ability to lift the preempt immediately.

8.) A Multi 2♦ is often much weaker than a Weak 2♥ or ♠ bid.

9.) Many say that it is much easier to defend against than a natural Weak 2 bid. It allows for 3/4 overcall tempos.

10.) Against well-prepared opponents, it causes fewer problems than natural Weak 2s would (as they have extra room, and an extra round of bidding).

11.) The strong balanced hand type can be shown with a natural 2NT opening.

12.) Freeing up the 2NT bid to show 5-5 in the minors and 5-10 HCP has also been questioned. All you have succeeded in doing is convey the hand layout and HCP distribution to the opponents. It now makes it easier for them to balance and/or the subsequent play of the hand. Partner is marked for any required finesse in the majors, opener for any required finesse in the minors.

13.) The 4441 hand pattern with 17-24 HCP is so rare that may players of the Multi don’t even bother including it into their Multi structure.

14.) The Multi 2♦. Does it Really Work? http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/multi2D.pdf In fairness, this article did attract some criticism.

 

ON THE POSITIVE SIDE

1.) Against poorly prepared opponents it will probably give you a few extra good scores! Multi is said to be a net win for your side against weaker opponents.

2.) The uncertainty of preemptor's suit cuts both ways. The opponents have no obvious cue-bid in openers suit available.

3.) With the appropriate hand, partner can become declarer keeping the stronger hand hidden. The contract has been "right-sided."

4.) The "big win" through using Multi comes from freeing up the 2♥ and 2♠ bids for something else, the most popular being Muiderberg 2s/Lukas 2s.

5.) Muiderberg 2s/Lukas 2s are said to be effective against good as well as weaker opponents.

6.) Freeing up the 2♥ and 2♠ bids allows you to open more weak hands with very descriptive bids.

7.) Raising the HCP count of your Multi to intermediate strength increases the pressure on the opponents to enter the bidding or not e.g. They must guess whether to come in with a strong NT overcall in an auction where they are a level higher than the rest of the field and extremely vulnerable to a penalty double.

8.) Every bid that you use to take away room from the opponents is good.

 

THE FINAL PIECE OF ADVICE FROM MANY PARTICIPANTS TO THIS POLE IS THIS: DON'T PLAY MULTI 2♦ JUST TO BE PLAYING IT. YOU NEED A SYSTEMIC REASON FOR DOING SO. YOU SHOULD USE THE MULTI ONLY IF IT FITS THE REST OF YOUR SYSTEM AND IS USED TO FIX A BUG ELSEWHERE. OTHER THAN THAT, STANDARD WEAK 2s ARE PROBABLY SUPERIOR!

 

A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL WHO REPLIED TO THIS THREAD. IT WAS MOST ENLIGHTENING.

[Free]

You forgot a big plus of multi: you can easily make distributional invite in 1 of the Majors, which you can't after a natural 2M opening.

 

2♦-2♠-... (Opener with ♥ can show shortage for example)

2♦-2♥-2♠-2NT-... (Opener can show shortage for example)

[Vampyr]

THE FINAL PIECE OF ADVICE FROM MANY PARTICIPANTS TO THIS POLE IS THIS: DON'T PLAY MULTI 2♦ JUST TO BE PLAYING IT. YOU NEED A SYSTEMIC REASON FOR DOING SO. YOU SHOULD USE THE MULTI ONLY IF IT FITS THE REST OF YOUR SYSTEM AND IS USED TO FIX A BUG ELSEWHERE. OTHER THAN THAT, STANDARD WEAK 2s ARE PROBABLY SUPERIOR!

 

This is not very accurate. Is the inability to play "muiderberg" or constructive weak 2s or Lucas Twos etc a "bug"? Even if it is, it is certainly not "elsewhere". It is a matter of wanting a different meaning for 2♥/2♠ openings, and doesn't really have an impact on the "rest of your system".

[32519]

Analysing the convention cards of the 22 countries that participated in the 2011 Bermuda Bowl to see what they used the 2♦ bid for (22 countries X 3 cards per country = 66 cards) makes some interesting reading. This is another look at shevek's analysis above.

 

Nr. Hand Type Description

25 Multi (predominantly the "weak only" version)

17 Standard Weak 2♦

15 Value showing bid (11+ HCP)

*5 Ekren's (or similar)

*4 Other

66 Total

 

The value showing bids included:

5 Strong (ACOL 2 type of hand)

5 Mexican 2♦ (18-19 HCP balanced)

2 Precision 2♦

3 Flannery 2♦

15 Total

 

Excluding the Multi from what the 2♦ bid was used for, we get:

41,5% Natural Weak 2♦

36,5% Value showing

78,0% Sub Total

*9,8% Ekren's (or similar)

12,2% Other

100% Total

 

The Convention Cards of the 25 pairs who did include the Multi shows interesting reading for what the 2♥ and 2♠ bids were subsequently used for:

15 Muiderberg 2s / Lukas 2s

10 Depending on seat and vulnerability the meaning of these bids also had a multi option; Muiderberg, Standard 6-card weak 2♥ or 2♠ bid or a constructive 2♥ or 2♠ bid (8-13 HCP)

[Raff90]

I prefer 2♦ as 18-19 balanced. Lauria Versace style...

 

But if i play 2♦ multi with my regular partner we only use it for a weak two in either major.

2♥ is both majors and 2♠ shows ♠+ Minor.

But anyways if you play multi you have to have lots of agreements for every situation...

[32519]

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.

[shevek]

It's worth noting (maybe somebody has) that opening a Multi with 6 ♥s CAN be more preemptive than a natural weak 2♥.

 

Some would pass over a 2♦ multi with

 

♠KTxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣Qxxx

 

when they would surely double a weak 2♥ for takeout.

The auction will often go

 

(2♦) - no - (2♠) - no

(3♥) - ?

 

Or

 

(2♦) - no - (3♥) - no

(no) - ?

 

Now they can double for tko but this can work out badly.

 

I prefer showing shape over 2♦ via the simple X = tko of ♠s, 2♥ = tko of ♥s.

This gives up a natural 2♥ overcall but at least you are in the same boat as those defending natural weak 2s.

Some gains come in being able to pass then double as a penalty suggestion.

[Zelandakh]

I prefer showing shape over 2♦ via the simple X = tko of ♠s, 2♥ = tko of ♥s.

This gives up a natural 2♥ overcall but at least you are in the same boat as those defending natural weak 2s.

Some gains come in being able to pass then double as a penalty suggestion.

I still do not understand the logic of this defence versus the simple X = t/o of hearts or very strong; 2H = limited t/o of spades.

[32519]

Weighing up the pros and cons of using the Multi, it appears as though there are more cons. Yet it is pretty obvious that the Multi is here to stay. So why not re-invent it into something new where the pros outweigh the cons?

 

The Bermuda Bowl CCs indicate the following:

25,8% of the participants used the 2♦ bid as a natural weak 2♦

22,7% of the participants used the 2♦ bid as value showing (Flannery, Mexican, Precision, Acol)

 

Some of the pairs who never used the Multi instead used a Multi type 2♥ and 2♠ bid where 2♥/2♠ showed a natural weak 2 in the suit or 5 cards in the suit and 4(5) cards in a lower ranking suit. Seat number sometimes also affected the meaning of the bid.

 

Amongst the current top 20 players ranked in the world, I found 3 who play the Multi: Helgemo ranked 12, Helness ranked 14 and Fredin ranked 20. Further down the rankings the number of players using the Multi 2♦ increases.

 

Finally: Would re-inventing the Multi into something new require it go through all the red tape once again to have it accepted in ACBL/other international tournaments?

[Charlie Yu]

Multi 2♦ is pretty much worse than weak 2 major, as responder can't preempt as effective as a weak 2M.

 

Though Multi frees up 2♥ and 2♠ for other purposes.

 

However, if allowed, I would rather play 2♦ Wilkosz + weak 2 major than Multi+Muiderberg.

[Trinidad]

It's worth noting (maybe somebody has) that opening a Multi I prefer showing shape over 2♦ via the simple X = tko of ♠s, 2♥ = tko of ♥s.

This gives up a natural 2♥ overcall but at least you are in the same boat as those defending natural weak 2s.

Some gains come in being able to pass then double as a penalty suggestion.

I still do not understand the logic of this defence versus the simple X = t/o of hearts or very strong; 2H = limited t/o of spades.

I agree. This is also my favorite defense. It is extremely simple and has the advantage that you can "hybridize" a little. 2♥ as limited take out also works well if you have something like a 15(34) or 2533 hand, since advancer will pass with many balanced hands with 3 hearts.

 

This means that you shouldn't use the bid for 2344 ditributions, but neither of these two defenses are made for those kinds of hands. After all, the idea is that overcaller tells advancer immediately what he thinks opener's major is. With a 2344 hand he will not have a clue what opener's major is.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

I agree. This is also my favorite defense. It is extremely simple and has the advantage that you can "hybridize" a little. 2♥ as limited take out also works well if you have something like a 15(34) or 2533 hand, since advancer will pass with many balanced hands with 3 hearts.

 

This means that you shouldn't use the bid for 2344 ditributions, but neither of these two defenses are made for those kinds of hands. After all, the idea is that overcaller tells advancer immediately what he thinks opener's major is. With a 2344 hand he will not have a clue what opener's major is.

 

Rik

 

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