Multi v Multi

[phoenix214]

Chris Ryall said, that sometime a good method for defense against a method is to use the method itself, and he shows a version of "Multi v Multi"

where against a "Multi" opening a double shows "Multi" itself - that is opening with a 5 card major or strong balanced or strong 4441.

 

I was wondering if this method is good and is it possible to use a similar method against other artificial openings and defenses?

http://chrisryall.net/bridge/multi-v-multi-2d.htm - link to his article

[gwnn]

It's not bad. You can play either

(2D)-2H=takeout of hearts, 2S=takeout of spades

or

(2D)-2H=takeout of spades, 2S=takeout of hearts.

 

However, I still prefer to simply bid 2M as natural, that way you can bid hearts over spades on the 2-level.

[inquiry]

I've played multi-vs-multi for many years with very good success. In fact, I have posted on it many times in these forums, always giving Chris credit for my understanding of it. I use several other ideas from his webpages as well.

[phoenix214]

@inquriy. Well i have had only one hand when we have used this defense so i don`t know it that good. I was more interested if the theory can be used against some other types of bids as well, like defending against crash and other presumed fit type of bids,

[Free]

I used to play it, it's quite ok and especially funny if you explain it as "also some sort of multi".

 

These days I prefer to consider the opening as a 2♥ opening in direct seat. Works great (except perhaps against mini multi).

[fromageGB]

I've played the X as this for years without the 3-suiter option, and it works well. I don't see it as a method for other artificial bids, though. It works only because opener usually has a long major, and you have a paradox advance where 2♦ X 2♥ X shows values and spade support. If opener has "anything", such as a strong 1♣ or 2♣, it would be a disaster.