Multi Squared, MuSHroom and Preempt-Preparatory Pass (meme-sized descriptions only)

[nullve]

The point of 2♥ Multi was to confuse opponents and to deny them an anchor suit to double. In this case you are just confusing yourself. Why not play it as simple 2H=H, 2S=S? Maybe you addressed this somewhere already but this just seems incredibly bad to me.

The point of my 2M rebid is certainly not to confuse the opponents, but rather to enable Responder to figure out whether Opener has 6 M or 5M4+m on partscore deals. That's very hard to do after Multi 2D.

[fromageGB]

Preempt-Preparatory Pass (1st seat NV only)

 

P = less than opening strength, no singleton or void, unsuitable for preemption

I play a variation on this, at any vulnerability, and the shortage criterion is relaxed. My version : P (any vulnerability) = less than opening strength, unsuitable for preemption.

 

This seems to work OK.

[gwnn]

When you have like 1-4 in the majors and partner promises 5H or 6S you will assume he has spades and pass. Even ignoring the fact that a 9-card fit is not something that unusual so sometimes you'll play in your opps' 9-card fit instead of yours, you don't always have a 3-card disparity in the majors and will just guess. That is the confusion I'm talking about. The less the disparity in your major suits, the bigger your headaches and the stupider your contracts. In regular 2H Multi this confusion will be counterbalanced by the similar or bigger amount of confusion you are causing your opps so an occasional -250 will be often compared to -620, still giving you a nice swing. Here, not so much as your opps will have let each other know about their points or perhaps also major suit length (if they play X after 2C as short spades say).

[Zelandakh]

This seems to work OK.

You are missing out on the opportunity to open hands such as 5432 5432 5432 A or K KQJ 5432 65432 - in a few years time we will laugh about how naïve we were passing these.

[helene_t]

But Csaba, responder doesn't have to bid 2♦. If he can tolerate either major he just responds 2♥ (P/C).

 

If he has 5-1 or more extreme disparity he can respond 2♦, to play in his own major if opener has 5 and to play in opener's major if opener has 6.

[nullve]

I play a variation on this, at any vulnerability, and the shortage criterion is relaxed. My version : P (any vulnerability) = less than opening strength, unsuitable for preemption.

 

This seems to work OK.

A Pass opening (1st seat NV only) that denies a singleton or void does indeed look ridiculous. But

 

1) opps are entitled to know about it, which is another thing that makes it different from your kind of Pass opening, which is (still) not alertable.

2) the opening might affect one's choice of preemptive structure in 3rd seat NV, and this is the part I find interesting.

[Vampyr]

Special or not, it also denies a singleton or void. I think it's an interesting idea which I haven't heard about before, that's why I decided to share it on BBF.

 

Maybe the reason you haven't heard about it is that it is probably illegal in most jurisdictions. You will be opening Yarboroughs with a singleton or void and passing balanced hands that are much stronger.

[helene_t]

Oh you can easily play a system in which a 1st/2nd hand pass promises a balanced hand. Just play all the 2-openings as 0-7 points, 4+ cards in the suit bid. And open at the 1-level with 8+ points. Legal almost everywhere.

[Zelandakh]

Maybe the reason you haven't heard about it is that it is probably illegal in most jurisdictions. You will be opening Yarboroughs with a singleton or void and passing balanced hands that are much stronger.

All you need is a 3-suited preempt opening to add to the usual 1 and 2-suiters and not to care at all about suit quality or ODR.

[gwnn]

But Csaba, responder doesn't have to bid 2♦. If he can tolerate either major he just responds 2♥ (P/C).

 

If he has 5-1 or more extreme disparity he can respond 2♦, to play in his own major if opener has 5 and to play in opener's major if opener has 6.

So with 3-1 or 4-1 we still bid 2H (or 2S with 1-3/1-4) and we are back to square one where we're playing 2M in a 5-1? Or we still bid 2D with 3-1/4-1 and then we're gonna have to guess almost blindly.

[nullve]

When you have like 1-4 in the majors and partner promises 5H or 6S you will assume he has spades and pass. Even ignoring the fact that a 9-card fit is not something that unusual so sometimes you'll play in your opps' 9-card fit instead of yours, you don't always have a 3-card disparity in the majors and will just guess.

Agree.

The less the disparity in your major suits, the bigger your headaches and the stupider your contracts. In regular 2H Multi this confusion will be counterbalanced by the similar or bigger amount of confusion you are causing your opps so an occasional -250 will be often compared to -620, still giving you a nice swing. Here, not so much as your opps will have let each other know about their points or perhaps also major suit length (if they play X after 2C as short spades say).

Agree.

[nullve]

Maybe the reason you haven't heard about it is that it is probably illegal in most jurisdictions. You will be opening Yarboroughs with a singleton or void and passing balanced hands that are much stronger.

I will be opening yarboroughs with a singleton or void, but only at the 2-level or higher.

[nullve]

So with 3-1 or 4-1 we still bid 2H (or 2S with 1-3/1-4) and we are back to square one where we're playing 2M in a 5-1? Or we still bid 2D with 3-1/4-1 and then we're gonna have to guess almost blindly.

2D is the correct response. As for the guessing, I think it's an exaggeration to say that it will be 'almost blind', but I see what you mean. Probability calculations might throw some light on this issue.

 

EDIT: I think our guesses will be a bit luckier than rough probility calculations would indicate, for the simple reason that opps have chosen not to overcall, either directly over 2C, over 2C-2D or over 2C-2D; 2M.

[Vampyr]

I will be opening yarboroughs with a singleton or void, but only at the 2-level or higher.

 

I see, that is of course OK. Well, it is not OK bridge, but it is legal.

[nullve]

You are missing out on the opportunity to open hands such as 5432 5432 5432 A or K KQJ 5432 65432 - in a few years time we will laugh about how naïve we were passing these.

Another example: weak hands with (41)44 shape. Using the proposed scheme of openings I would have to choose the least lie among Pass (denying a singleton/void), 2D/H (promising 5+ m unless unless 4+H/5+S) and 2S (5+m4+Om). Yuck.

[straube]

Another example: weak hands with (41)44 shape. Using the proposed scheme of openings I would have to choose the least lie among Pass (denying a singleton/void), 2D/H (promising 5+ m unless unless 4+H/5+S) and 2S (5+m4+Om). Yuck.

 

Not sure how to read this. Hopefully you are agreeing with Zelandakh's criticism of your structure. I sure do.

 

Rather than try to destroy the opponents' bidding or enable 3rd hand to more freely preempt, I think it's better to open or preempt hands that are likely to produce tricks. Those are plenty enough.

 

I think you've done a fine job explaining your idea and I think it's fine to promote and defend an idea as well as solicit criticism or help. At this point, however, maybe take stock and see how many folks agree with your design goals. I.e. there will be more interest in better ways to describe hands that we want to describe than ones that we don't.

[Free]

2♣ is definitely a BSC! Yes, the weak two's are included, but a 5M-4m hand is included as well and that is NOT a weak two (it's a Muiderberg). So there are weak versions without an anchor suit other than standard weak two's (= weak with a 6 card suit), which make it BSC. Saying 20 times that you're not a bridge lawyer is fine, and many people playing natural weak two's might open 5M-4m hands from time to time, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't bend the rules... Accept it: the 2♣ opening is BSC

 

I think the 2♣ opening is overloaded and you just can't handle competition very well. Do you really think opponents will just let you bid 2♣-2♦-2M all the time? Including strong options will only make it worse because you lose too much preemptive options. When having weak versions only, and since you always promise a Major, you can do so much more with 2NT+ responses.

 

Note: having cool names for conventions doesn't make the convention cool ;)

[nullve]

Not sure how to read this. Hopefully you are agreeing with Zelandakh's criticism of your structure. I sure do.

Yes, I agree with him in the sense that I wouldn't be happy to open, say, 2S (or whatever) with K-KQJ-xxxx-xxxxx. In fact, I would pass, pretending to be balanced. Of course, if that's a tendency of mine on hands like this (singleton king, low ODR), I really shouldn't say that Pass denies a singleton or void. But in a "meme-sized" (i.e. rough, easily remembered) description of P-P P, that seems (or seemed) accurate enough.

Rather than try to destroy the opponents' bidding or enable 3rd hand to more freely preempt, I think it's better to open or preempt hands that are likely to produce tricks. Those are plenty enough.

Maybe it is, but isn't that at least debatable?

maybe take stock and see how many folks agree with your design goals. I.e. there will be more interest in better ways to describe hands that we want to describe than ones that we don't.

I've presented three ideas/conventions that are related in the way that

 

Multi Squared = rubbish => MuSHroom = rubbish => P-P P (with 2C+ = MuSHroom) = rubbish

 

Fortunately, the opposite implications don't hold, so there is no reason to buy the whole package. My own view is that Multi Squared and MuSHroom are sound conventions while P-P P may be nothing more than an interesting (i.e. not obviuosly bad) idea.

[nullve]

2♣ is definitely a BSC! Yes, the weak two's are included, but a 5M-4m hand is included as well and that is NOT a weak two (it's a Muiderberg). So there are weak versions without an anchor suit other than standard weak two's (= weak with a 6 card suit), which make it BSC. Saying 20 times that you're not a bridge lawyer is fine, and many people playing natural weak two's might open 5M-4m hands from time to time, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't bend the rules...

I actually include fewer patterns than many who play Garbage Multi. Where I live, they typically include 5M(332) as well as 6 M and 5M4+m That has never caused a problem for anyone here although we're trying to follow the WBF Systems Policy. As for the WBF definitions of '(standard) weak two's' and 'Muiderberg' you're impliclty referring to, I wasn't aware they existed.

I think the 2♣ opening is overloaded and you just can't handle competition very well.

Maybe, but then the same is true of an identically defined 2D opening.

Do you really think opponents will just let you bid 2♣-2♦-2M all the time?

I wouldn't even if they let me.

2D is not Including strong options will only make it worse because you lose too much preemptive options. When having weak versions only, and since you always promise a Major, you can do so much more with 2NT+ responses.

Agree. I think "strong options according to taste" has been misleading people into thinking that at least one strong option has to be included, although 'zero or more strong options' was what I intended. Sorry.

Note: having cool names for conventions doesn't make the convention cool ;)

Agree. I've always found it difficult to come up with good names for bits of bidding structure. But if the structure doesn't have a name, or if the name is too long, it becomes very cumbersome to talk about it. Also, if the name I give it isn't descriptive enough, it may be hard to remember what it's referring to. So I've tried to find catchy-but-descriptive names. 'Multi 2C' was unfortunatley taken, so I decided to go with 'Multi Squared' instead, which is sort of descriptive (to me, at least). 'MuSHroom' also serves its purpose, I think.

[nullve]

I thought I should say a bit more about the different scenarios after the "Multi" 2M rebid in the case that Responder has < inv values and a potentially misfitting hand, although it seems that people are beginning to get the basic idea now - hopelessly flawed or not.

 

Recall that if Opener is weak, he will always have one of the following hand types:

 

1) 6 H

2) 6 S

3) 5H4+m

4) 5S4+m

 

Now assume that Responder has one of the following (common) shapes:

 

a) 1444 or 13(54)

b) 4144 or 31(54)

c) 1-S6H or 15(43)

d) 6S1-H or 51(43)

 

The bidding for each combination:

 

1a) 2C-2D; 2H-3C; 3H-4H; P

1b) 2C-2D; 2H-P [assuming 6 H]

1c) 2C-2D; 2H-P [hoping for a 7-card or better H fit, hitting p with 6 H]

1d) 2C-2D; 2H-P [assuming 6 H]

2a) 2C-2D; 2S-P [assuming 6 S]

2b) 2C-2D; 2S-3C; 3S-4S; P

2c) 2C-2D; 2S-P [assuming 6 S]

2d) 2C-2D; 2S-P [hoping for a 7-card or better S fit, hitting p with 6 S]

3a) 2C-2D; 2S-P [assuming 6 S. Oops! 3-1 fit or worse]

3b) 2C-2D; 2S-3C; P/3D-P

3c) 2C-2D; 2S-P [assuming 6 S. Oops! 3-1 fit or worse]

3d) 2C-2D; 2S-P [hoping for a 7-card or better S fit]

4a) 2C-2D; 2H-3C; P/3D-P

4b) 2C-2D; 2H-P [assuming 6 H. Oops! 3-1 fit or worse]

4c) 2C-2D; 2H-P [hoping for a 7-card or better H fit]

4d) 2C-2D; 2H-P [assuming 6 H. Oops! 3-1 fit or worse]

 

As the spectacular accidents in 3a), 3c), 4b) and 4d) are bound to happen*, like giant earthquakes in California, Multi Squared will look like rubbish unless one is able to deal with it philosophically when they occur. That may depend on the (perceived) frequency of the accidents and the (perceived) size the damage, just as when playing structures like

 

* EHAA (Opener has no forcing opening bid available on strong unbal. hands)

* standard Precision 2C (inevitable accidents when Responder is weak, occasionally the size of a game swing)

* the Turbo convention (heightened risk of missing 2+ key cards compared with RKC)*

* assumed fit preempts (p may not have the assumed fit)

 

or even

 

* RKC (see http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05riccione/Bulletins/21ThuPg4.htm for an amusing example)

* preempts in general (p may have less support than hoped for)

* just about any bidding structure, really (bad trump breaks, finesses are off...)

 

In my (adimittedly subjective) experience, which you may have good (even mathematical) reason to distrust, accidents as in 3a), 3c), 4b) and 4d)) aren't nearly as frequent as some people might think. And although they tend to benefit the opponents, sometimes by more than game swing, they will occasionally benefit the bidding side, as when opps are cold for game in the same major suit.

 

All in all, I'm not claiming this is a risk free way of playing bridge (there isn't any), but it might still be good bridge.

 

* As gwnn pointed out, the risk is greater the lesser the suit length disparity in Responder's major suits is.

** The comparison with Turbo or RKC might be the most interesting, but I won't say more about it now.

[gwnn]

The point is that opponents are well equipped to avoid the disasters if they want to. You are not well equipped to avoid the disasters, and may be partially relying on your opps to rescue you from them, which is never a good policy to have. But I think we've been over this before and you clearly do not care too much about these considerations so good luck with your method.

[nullve]

The point is that opponents are well equipped to avoid the disasters if they want to.

To give you a counterexample, I'd need to know your defensive method, or else you could just choose or make up one ad hoc. But I'll be generous and assume you're right.

You are not well equipped to avoid the disasters, and may be partially relying on your opps to rescue you from them, which is never a good policy to have.

My previous post was largely about disasters I can't avoid even in principle - unless opps are doing something really unexpected to help me out, that is. So am I partly relying on opps to rescue me? Just barely, as I believe (based on my own imperfect experience) that disasters of this type would be quite rare even if opps were allowed to choose their defence ad hoc. In practice, opps - even you? - will continue overcalling on, say, good hands with a 6-card or longer major, thereby automatically rescuing me from at least some disastrous 3-1 or worse fits.

[gwnn]

I was talking about beginners or people who are uncomfortable around artificial systems who will pass on various hands that you and I consider automatic overcalls (yes they may even be scared by your methods and pass with something like AKxxxx xx Axx xx or what not). However it is kind of tough to know which category your opps belong to since on the other hand there will be opps who are happy to overcall on AQxxx xx xxx Axx and their passes will be more meaningful. Unfortunately you cannot really ask which kind they are since they might not even know themselves. I did not say I was such a beginner so yes you will likely be able to draw decent conclusions from my passes although now that I'm posting this I might just pass a few times for fun if we meet :P I hope you understand that giving two options for your opps before your big multi moment helps them a lot and that rebidding 2S with hearts hinders you a lot and that the randomness you create on yourself is significant. I think you do but you somehow cross your fingers and hope that it will not matter. Good luck with it anyway (I mean this only 10% sarcastically and 90% genuinely). But in the name of everything that is holy do not do it when you are vulnerable.

[nullve]

now that I'm posting this I might just pass a few times for fun if we meet :P

I know you're half joking, but you're touching a couple of interesting points.

 

To describe the uncontested responses to 2C is the same as describing Responder's options over 2C-(P), where P has the standard/expected meaning. If your meaning of P is non-standard*, in which case I'm entitled to know about it, I might adapt by using a different scheme of responses. For instance, in the extreme case that P is forcing, I might make heavy use of Pass, thereby gaining a lot of extra bidding space and maybe also putting pressure on Advancer. If the only difference between a standard P and yours is that you will occasionally pass on a good hand with 6+ M, I personally wouldn't change anything, because even though the 2C-2D; 2M-P accidents are now more likely to occur, your (tongue-in-cheek?) tactics may backfire. You said that opps are well equipped to avoid disasters (and I assumed you were right, for the sake of argument), but if you choose not to overcall on some good hands with 6+ M, how can you always avoid being stolen from when the bidding goes (2C)-P-(2D)-P; (2M)? After all, it's precisely when opps have good hands that the 2C-2D; 2M-P accidents have any chance of benefitting the bidding side. Ironically, you may have given me one of the advantages of a Multi 2H opening, even one you've been talking warmly about, for free.

 

* or frequently psyched, which effectively changes its meaning

[gwnn]

You're not really getting my point which I thought I made already, in fact I addressed your reply already preemptively. There will be oppoments who know what they are doing, in that case you can rely on their passes. There will also be opponents who are shell-shocked and will pass throughout and in that case you'll have a lot of problems drawing any inferences from their actions. There will not just be "the opponents" but two groups of them. Unfortunately it might be difficult for you to ascertain which group your opponents belong to so you might have a lot of problems in guessing. Statistically of course their passes are more meaningful than white noise but you will have another problem (identification of your opponents as well as identification of partner's suit) to worry about. My point was: In principle, your opponents can help themselves, partially helping you too, but in practice, some opponents will not help themselves or you. Actually this might be a good moment to think of full disclosure since I might want to know that your follow-ups have this 2H multi structure (something that a lot of people will not tell their opps, not pointing my finger at you), which may influence opps' decisions, for example passing more often than normal.