Multi again

[plum_tree]

You play Multi with strong options. Sitting South you see this bidding sequence -

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7h865dkq854c974&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p2d(Multi%20with%20strong%20options)3d(Michael%27s)]133|200[/hv]

Both vul - your bid as south?

[karlson]

3♦ really showed both majors? I would pass anyway. If double showed diamonds, that would be ok, but for most people double shows a good balanced hand of our own. And if 3♦ was natural, we don't want to double them anyway.

[Codo]

3 ♦ showed what? Nonleaping michaels- diamonds with a major? Both majors? Clubs and a major? Everything looks weird to me.... How can your partner ever find your major at the right level?

 

 

I may double 3 ♦ if this is simply lead directing, but pass in most cases.

[plum_tree]

Let me pose a different question. This should give you a clue as to the type of hand North was holding. This time you're sitting East:

[hv=pc=n&e=saqt64hkqt942d96c&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p2d(Multi%20with%20strong%20options)]133|200[/hv]

What would you bid as East here? The opponents bid the unexpected and scored an excellent result.

[wank]

noone's complaining about bidding michael's on this hand. they're just surprised that anyone would actually have that agreement available. i presume you were playing against chimps who never play against multi.

[Lord Molyb]

Obviously partner has something very close to ♠ K9xxxx ♥ Jx ♦ Axx ♣ xx

[Codo]

I would pass. Despite my 5 card suit, the most likely scenario is that the bidding will continue with 2♥ pass 2 ♠ and now I will jump to 4 ♥.

If rho bids 2 NT , I will try 3♥, if rho bids a minor, I will cuebid to show both majors...

 

Not too convincing, but I would never ever give up a natural 3 ♦ for the ability to show both majors over a multi. These hands just do not happen...

[plum_tree]

The full deal:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7h865dkq854c974&w=s53hj73dj7cqjt863&n=sk982hadat32cak52&e=saqt64hkqt942d96c&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p2d(Multi%20with%20strong%20options)3d(Michael%27s)p(East%20has%20screwed%20me)3hp(East%20screwed%20me%20too%21)pp]399|300[/hv]

E/W make 3♥ easy.

N/S can make 5♦ played by N; 4♦ played by S.

The chimps (quote) scored well with the unexpected bid. The traveller score sheet showed a dogfight at all tables with the following contracts: 3NT going down, 4♥ going down, 5♥ going down (probably bid over 5♦). Only 1 table played in 5♦.

[plum_tree]

What Codo posted would be more expected.

[gwnn]

Yes wank, how dare you compare the inventors of this great convention to chimps. I think I can extend it to other non-multi sequences too.

 

You can play this chimpmichaels also in the following sequences:

 

(2H)-3D

(2S)-3D

 

Or play bids like

(2D natural)-2H/2S as both minors; perhaps 2H as a competitive bid and 2S as forward going.

[Zelandakh]

If you play 3-suiters as your strong option then double of 3♥ should show this hand almost exactly, no? Including them into a multi is often fraught with problems but here it seems to have worked out perfectly. Got to laugh that you were playing against opps without a clue over your Multi and they still knew their agreements better than you did yours.

[wank]

so basically north forgot to double 3♥ and this thread is trying to transfer some of the blame for that onto south.

[MrAce]

The full deal:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7h865dkq854c974&w=s53hj73dj7cqjt863&n=sk982hadat32cak52&e=saqt64hkqt942d96c&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p2d(Multi%20with%20strong%20options)3d(Michael%27s)p(East%20has%20screwed%20me)3hp(East%20screwed%20me%20too%21)pp]399|300[/hv]

E/W make 3♥ easy.

N/S can make 5♦ played by N; 4♦ played by S.

The chimps (quote) scored well with the unexpected bid. The traveller score sheet showed a dogfight at all tables with the following contracts: 3NT going down, 4♥ going down, 5♥ going down (probably bid over 5♦). Only 1 table played in 5♦.

 

 

I am against playing Multi with too many strong options and i remember i had a huge debate with someone else in the past about this.

 

North's pass over 3♥ is an evidence that North is not ready to play this convention with strong options in it. Period.

 

I mean...Jesus! You wait long long time for a strong option to come, meanwhile you can not preempt effectively due to those strong options and being scared you might be preempting your pd, finally it comes just to see a couple of chimps chalks up their huge score from us. Who would guess ?

 

Ironic as it is, a std 1♦ opening would do the job perfectly for happy ending.

[cherdano]

I blame South 100%, for agreeing to play multi with strong options without discussing interference.

[ahydra]

Aren't the usual "strong options" in a multi a bit better than what North has? Yes, he has a clear TOX of 3H, but perhaps starting with 1C/1D (depending on agreement) would have served him much better.

 

ahydra

[Free]

Many people play multi with strong options, but for some reason they always forget a strong option is actually possible after intervention. Some people for example play 2♦-2♠ as invite for ♥, however, they don't have a way to show a GF singlesuiter ♥ anymore.

 

NS should learn takeout doubles, which basically solves many problems for strong hands. The chance of opps playing in a 7 card fit with trumps splitting 6-0 in our hands is extremely small, and even if they happen to end up there, the player with a void can still double to let it convert by partner. And when opener has a 4441 or 4432 he can still fight for a part score or game when opps interfere.

[gwnn]

Reading fail again, sorry

[Codo]

Many people play multi with strong options, but for some reason they always forget a strong option is actually possible after intervention. Some people for example play 2♦-2♠ as invite for ♥, however, they don't have a way to show a GF singlesuiter ♥ anymore.

 

NS should learn takeout doubles, which basically solves many problems for strong hands. The chance of opps playing in a 7 card fit with trumps splitting 6-0 in our hands is extremely small, and even if they happen to end up there, the player with a void can still double to let it convert by partner. And when opener has a 4441 or 4432 he can still fight for a part score or game when opps interfere.

 

Do you know many players who have a gf in hearts in the multi? Looks like one of the worst treatments ever, because you make the weak hand declarer as often as possible and 2 ♦ 2 ♥ 3♥ is a worse way to set up a GF compared with 2 ♣ 2♦ 2♥....

 

But I agree that mayn people have not much experience with showing their strong multi hands over interference.

[uhhlv]

1st) If you mix strong and weak hands in one bid (here 2K multi, but there are much more examples), you mustn´t pass at your next bid if you have the strong hand.

2nd) It is always a risk to open a strong undefined hand. The bidding might be at very high level, when you have the first chance to describe your hand. So you should really think about the kind of strong hands you want to involve in your multi.

3rd) One reason not to open strong hands on 1st level is that you fear a pass out when game is cold.

Such a hand has a realistic game chance against a 3 to 5 points partner.

 

At this board your broke each of this 3 little rules.

[Zelandakh]

1st) If you mix strong and weak hands in one bid (here 2K multi, but there are much more examples), you mustn´t pass at your next bid if you have the strong hand.

This depends entirely on what constitutes "strong" in the context of the call. For example, a common runout method after our 1NT opening gets doubled is for a pass to force a XX from partner, either to play 1NTXX (strong) or with some weak hand that wants to run. If the opponents subsequently bid it is often right to pass at your next turn when holding the "strong" hand. Similarly, what would be your choice of call as North holding an Acol 2 type hand with both major suits? How about if we were white against red? Your rules are entirely too rigid.

[Free]

Do you know many players who have a gf in hearts in the multi? Looks like one of the worst treatments ever, because you make the weak hand declarer as often as possible and 2 ♦ 2 ♥ 3♥ is a worse way to set up a GF compared with 2 ♣ 2♦ 2♥....

 

But I agree that mayn people have not much experience with showing their strong multi hands over interference.

In my country most people play multi as a weak two or any GF hand (some exclude extreme 2-suiters though), because it's 'easy': after 2♦-2♥ you just pass or bid 2♠ with the weak two, 2NT with a 24+ balanced hand, and 3X with a GF single- or 2-suiter. For the same reason many play 2♣ as some weak hand or a semi GF hand, and use the same principles here. I've played them for many years, and in many cases you land on your feet, but slam auctions are a disaster.

 

So yeah, I know many players who have a GF in ♥ in their multi. ;)

[uhhlv]

In my country most people play multi as a weak two or any GF hand (some exclude extreme 2-suiters though), because it's 'easy': after 2♦-2♥ you just pass or bid 2♠ with the weak two, 2NT with a 24+ balanced hand, and 3X with a GF single- or 2-suiter. For the same reason many play 2♣ as some weak hand or a semi GF hand, and use the same principles here. I've played them for many years, and in many cases you land on your feet, but slam auctions are a disaster.

 

So yeah, I know many players who have a GF in ♥ in their multi. ;)

Interesting multi. I think you can get trouble if partner wants to bid something different than 2 hearts.

But maybe it s not a good idea to barrage with Kxxx,Dxxx,xxx,xxx after partners 2K multi, when partner can have many different strong hands.

[uhhlv]

This depends entirely on what constitutes "strong" in the context of the call. For example, a common runout method after our 1NT opening gets doubled is for a pass to force a XX from partner, either to play 1NTXX (strong) or with some weak hand that wants to run. If the opponents subsequently bid it is often right to pass at your next turn when holding the "strong" hand. Similarly, what would be your choice of call as North holding an Acol 2 type hand with both major suits? How about if we were white against red? Your rules are entirely too rigid.

 

OK, rule 1 is not guilty if partner described his hand exactly. But I think it is a bad idea to pass with a strong hand if partner is nearly unlimited like here.

In this situation South acts on the assumption that North has the weak alternative. So South pass after 3 diamonds shows a hand between 0 and more than 12 points.

 

This shows the problem of your agreement. If you pass with the strong hand you can miss a game or either slam or grand slam. But bidding with the north hand might be a fiasco, too, if south has nothing. Sometimes you re in such a situation after opponents barrage. But here it is you re own barrage that makes your life difficult.

 

So I appeal to you to bid with strong hands in these situations if partner is nearly unlimited. And your strong alternatives in your multi should be strong enough that you have no problem to bid once more.

That s the reason why it is for example a good idea to put only weak and strong alternatives to a micheals cue and not intermediate ones, too.