Multi Landy and ML openings?

[jillybean]

I've just had a game with a pickup partner who wanted to play Multi Landy over the opps 1nt; 2♣ majors, 2♦ 6crd M, 2♥/♠ 5M/4m which is fine (it may be time to change my 1nt defence again :) ) but he also suggested we play these as our opening weak 2's, except 2♣ remains strong, gf. What do you think?

[Statto]

Seems like a common use of 2M openings in Multi. How does the poll relate to the question?

[Cthulhu D]

Awesomely bizarre poll, but yeah lots of people like those openings.

 

Note there is no loss in playing 2H as 5H + 4 Spades or a minor, though the responses are a bit more complex.

[jillybean]

Seems like a common use of 2M openings in Multi. How does the poll relate to the question?

Oh, I didn't realise that. But then Multi is not GCC legal so there is no use getting excited about it.

 

The poll has no relation what-so-ever to the question.

[mgoetze]

To rephrase your question: what do you think of Minimulti with Muiderberg openings?

 

The answer is not much, I think it stacks up very poorly compared to Wilkosz and Weak 2s. Of course most people play a Multi with strong options with Muiderberg. Whether playing a Multi with strong options is good depends, IMHO, on how much it helps the rest of your system. That said if I do play a Multi with strong options then I much prefer 2♥ to be Ekrens. 2♠ as Muiderberg is OK but I prefer promising 5-5 when vulnerable.

[Cthulhu D]

To rephrase your question: what do you think of Minimulti with Muiderberg openings?

 

The answer is not much, I think it stacks up very poorly compared to Wilkosz and Weak 2s. Of course most people play a Multi with strong options with Muiderberg. Whether playing a Multi with strong options is good depends, IMHO, on how much it helps the rest of your system. That said if I do play a Multi with strong options then I much prefer 2♥ to be Ekrens. 2♠ as Muiderberg is OK but I prefer promising 5-5 when vulnerable.

 

Wilkoz suffers from annoying regulation.

 

This does bring a question up though - if you're playing with regulations that ban brown sticker horribleness but let you play mini multi (and you are free to season with strong options), and any opening that includes a specified suit in it's weak options as well as any number of strong options, does anyone have any view on what's the best configuration of weak 2 openings, assuming your only systematic problem children hand types are the standard 2C openers?

 

 

My current casual partnership line-up is 2C as weak 2D or strong options, mini multi 2D (no obvious systematic case for strong inclusions), ekrens 2H (4/4 majors or better) and 2S as a totally rubbish/hilarious 4+ spades and 5+ in a minor gadget. We used to play Ekrens 2D and major weak 2s.

 

Wondering what other people's views on this is. There is only a limited amount of 'packing' you can do without attracting a brown sticker.

[mgoetze]

Wilkoz suffers from annoying regulation.

 

Yes, but of course from a GCC point of view Multi, Wilkosz and Ekrens are all equally illegal (the latter supposedly being "destructive" in a way that a regular 3♦ preempt isn't).

 

Anyway if BSC are banned I usually still prefer 3 weak 2s to Minimulti+Muiderberg. Minmulti+Ekrens sounds fine to me.

[Cthulhu D]

I gather you can play it if you're 5/4 because of Flannery? I try and avoid thinking about it.

 

I guess my basic question is, is there anything useful you can do with two spades in a minimulti and ekrens framework where BSC are banned (otherwise any 5/5 two suiter has some appeal).

 

Edit: Whoops, forgot the central part of the question.

[jillybean]

To rephrase your question: what do you think of Minimulti with Muiderberg openings?

 

The answer is not much, I think it stacks up very poorly compared to Wilkosz and Weak 2s. Of course most people play a Multi with strong options with Muiderberg. Whether playing a Multi with strong options is good depends, IMHO, on how much it helps the rest of your system. That said if I do play a Multi with strong options then I much prefer 2♥ to be Ekrens. 2♠ as Muiderberg is OK but I prefer promising 5-5 when vulnerable.

 

For anyone else who does not know these conventions..

 

Minimulti http://www.clairebridge.com/textes/minimulti.pdf 2♦ weak 2 in either major

 

Muiderberg http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/MuiderbergLucas.html 2M weak 5M+4m

 

Wilkosz 2D = unknown major and another suit

or Wilkosz-for-Dummies 2M = that major and another suit.

 

Ekrens http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/Ekrens/Ekrens2Hearts.pdf 2♥ 44 in M

[Cthulhu D]

For anyone else who does not know these conventions..

 

Sorry for not clarifying.

 

Additionally I recommend this: http://www.chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/index.htm it is a gold mine for anyone who enjoys having far to many ways to preempt like a lunatic.

[BunnyGo]

I've just had a game with a pickup partner who wanted to play Multi Landy over the opps 1nt; 2♣ majors, 2♦ 6crd M, 2♥/♠ 5M/4m which is fine (it may be time to change my 1nt defence again :) ) but he also suggested we play these as our opening weak 2's, except 2♣ remains strong, gf. What do you think?

 

I was just picturing this (yet to happen?) conversation, and it gave me a chuckle:

 

<2D><alert>

RHO: What is it, please?

PP(pickup partner): Multi Landy, it shows one of the majors with preemptive strength.

RHO: DIRECTOR!

Director: What's the problem?

RHO: They're playing a multi-2♦

PP: No it's multi-LANDY, not multi-2♦

Director: multi-Landy isn't GCC either.

[mgoetze]

I guess my basic question is, is there anything useful you can do with two spades in a minimulti and ekrens framework where BSC are banned (otherwise any 5/5 two suiter has some appeal).

Not that I know of. You can play 2♠ = both minors, or 2♠ = club preempt (possibly with strong options) and 3♣ = both minors, but I think 5♠5m is problably more useful than either of these.

 

For anyone else who does not know these conventions..

Gotta learn sometime. ;) Eventually it might spare you from asking questions about well-known conventions which have been discussed often. ;)

[jillybean]

Director: multi-Landy isn't GCC either.

Really? :( Because the 2♦ bid does not promise a specific suit?

I bet I could play it for months before anyone catches on.

[kreivi68]

Anybody willing to play Multi 2[diamonds (or two-suited 2-openings) should read

the following article by Pietro Campanile. It gives something to think about.

This guy has done statistical analysis of Bermuda Bowl, European Championships

and Olympics and laid down the question: does Multi really work against weak two's?

 

http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/multi2D.pdf

[the hog]

Nardin and Lodge, two English internationals quite a number of years ago, played 2H = 4H and a long clubs 10-14, and 2S = 4S and long Cs 10-14. I played this for a while and it was ok. It got rid of the dreadful precision 2C opening and limited that to Cs only or Cs and Ds.

[mgoetze]

Anybody willing to play Multi 2[diamonds (or two-suited 2-openings) should read

the following article by Pietro Campanile. It gives something to think about.

This guy has done statistical analysis of Bermuda Bowl, European Championships

and Olympics and laid down the question: does Multi really work against weak two's?

 

http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/multi2D.pdf

The obvious conclusion would be to play a Minimulti, 2♥ as a strong balanced hand, and never open 2♠. Doesn't sound right to me.

[BunnyGo]

Really? :( Because the 2♦ bid does not promise a specific suit?

I bet I could play it for months before anyone catches on.

 

That's my understanding, but I didn't double check the chart before posting. I just thought the whole conversation was amusing...when PP just "knows" this isn't multi-2♦ and so it must be GCC ok.

 

Edit: just double checked. See "competitive #7(b) Overcalls of NT" and note that one suit must be known if the bid is above 2♣

Edited March 26, 2012 by BunnyGo

[Cthulhu D]

Analysis is interesting but why does the minimulti do well and the multi does not? As it is bad even when it is the weak inclusion, I'm guessing it's because you can pass the minimulti in a fix, but there has to be something to it.

[mgoetze]

Analysis is interesting but why does the minimulti do well and the multi does not? As it is bad even when it is the weak inclusion, I'm guessing it's because you can pass the minimulti in a fix, but there has to be something to it.

 

I think the theory is that if you have support for both majors you can bid 3M or 4whatever more freely after minimulti or multi w/strong. Personally I think that means people are misplaying multi w/strong or using too common strong options.

 

Also I don't see why you can't pass multi w/strong. ;)

[Vampyr]

Analysis is interesting but why does the minimulti do well and the multi does not? As it is bad even when it is the weak inclusion, I'm guessing it's because you can pass the minimulti in a fix, but there has to be something to it.

 

The fact that the mini-multi can be passed out makes a huge difference IMO. There is a lot of pressure on the opponents since it might be passed out. Don't most of our defences to Multi include things like: Pass and then double is... double and then double is... It's nice to know there is going to be a second chance.

[mgoetze]

Don't most of our defences to Multi include things like: Pass and then double is... double and then double is... It's nice to know there is going to be a second chance.

I don't know what your defences include but they sound pretty bad to me.

[helene_t]

Director: multi-Landy isn't GCC either.

Yes but in some places (California?), the regulations are "GCC + any NT defense". So you can play your favorite NT defense (be it ML or w/e) in some places where other non-GCC stuff is banned.

[jillybean]

Edit: just double checked. See "competitive #7(b) Overcalls of NT" and note that one suit must be known if the bid is above 2♣

That is disappointing, I would have liked to have tried it. I wonder how many players if any, are playing this kind of system without the typical club player knowing that the treatment is illegal. I'm not suggesting I'm going to do it, just wondering.

[apjames]

I have played this, both as a defence to 1NT and as openings.

 

I don't really like it as either, especially here in NZ where everyone plays a weak NT, and you would like to have constructive auctions when they open 1NT.

 

I do quite like the weak multi opening though, especially when the auction goes 2♦ pass pass and third hand has no idea what is going on. The M+m two suiters seem to preempt partner lots.

[Zelandakh]

I've just had a game with a pickup partner who wanted to play Multi Landy over the opps 1nt; 2♣ majors, 2♦ 6crd M, 2♥/♠ 5M/4m which is fine (it may be time to change my 1nt defence again :) ) but he also suggested we play these as our opening weak 2's, except 2♣ remains strong, gf. What do you think?

Multi-Landy is a pretty decent defence against 1NT and is played by several world class pairs. the last time I checked it is not legal in most American tournaments (since 2♦ does not have an anchor suit). It is a big improvement on Cappeletti.

 

As openings this is, as others have pointed out, simply a mini-multi in combination with Muiderberg. This combination is extremely good against intermediate level opponents, somewhat less good (but not bad) against experts. My personal experience has been that overall the gains versus 3 weak twos are higher than the losses. Naturally your mileage may vary. For most American players this approach is simply not worth experimenting with though.