Continuations after a multi

[Tramticket]

Part 1

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk3h87dakj74cajt3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(Multi%20-%20Weak%202%20in%20M%20or%2021-22%20Bal)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Pairs

 

Partner opens a multi - either a weak-2 (5-9) in a major or 21-22 balanced. At this vulnerability, partner tends to view suit quality as an optional extra.

 

Responses include 2M as pass or correct, 3m natural, 2NT is an inquiry asking for clarification, including strength of weak-2 if applicable. Do you have enough inquire?

 

 

 

Part 2

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk3h87dakj74cajt3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(Multi%20-%20Weak%202%20in%20M%20or%2021-22%20Bal)p2hp2spp3hpp]133|200[/hv]

 

If you choose the pass/correct option, partner shows a weak-two in spades, This goes round to North, who protects with 3♥ (Maybe you should ask what 2♥ would have meant at the previous turn, but the question didn't occur to you).

 

Double now is penalties. Are you worth a (pairs) double?

[Cyberyeti]

Would have bid 2N second time (I'm worth an enquiry opposite spades but not hearts). AQxxxx and a minor suit Q would seem to give more than decent play for 4♠, even AQxxxx, xx, xx, xxx is OK.

[mikeh]

One question posed was whether we should have asked what 2H would have meant on the first round, but I think we know the answer to that since we were the player who bid 2H! North wasn't permitted by the rules to make the same call we did, even though the game is called 'duplicate'. We could, I suppose, ask South whether they have an agreement about the difference, if any, between 3H over our 2H or the delayed 3H, but I suspect that the answer would be 'no agreement' or 'undiscussed'.

 

Btw, I would have bid 2N as an enquiry.

 

If partner has a weak 2 in spades, then I want to be in game opposite a maximum, and I want to preempt them out of 3H is he has a minimum.

 

If partner has a weak 2 in hearts, I am not bidding game (at pairs) even opposite a maximum, but my 2N may well keep North from bidding 2S.

 

Having decided that my hand isn't worth forcing to the 3-level I stay with my view. It is rarely right to take a position early and then change one's mind later. Yes, I know that I may be collecting 100 against my 110 or 140, but I took the low road earlier and am not about to jump across to a horse on the high road.

[nullve]

Do you have enough inquire?

I think so. I want to be in game even opposite MAX with hearts.

 

Are you worth a (pairs) double?

Yes. I expect 16-17 total trumps and at least 9 tricks in spades, so by LoTT there should be at most 8 tricks in hearts.

[Tramticket]

Yes, I was wanting to take my pass back, almost as soon as I had made it. I feel that the risks of missing a spade game opposite a maximum weak-two in spades are significantly higher than the risks of only making 78 tricks opposite a minimum weak-two in spades. I'm not so happy trying for a heart game, but I think that Mike's point about the preemptive effect of bidding 2NT is important.

 

Having chosen (rightly or wrongly) to settle for a part-score, I chose to double the three heart bid. Again I thought that this was a close decision ...

 

Having decided that my hand isn't worth forcing to the 3-level I stay with my view. It is rarely right to take a position early and then change one's mind later. Yes, I know that I may be collecting 100 against my 110 or 140, but I took the low road earlier and am not about to jump across to a horse on the high road.

 

I agree with Mike about not changing your mind after taking an early position and I was not going to compete to 3♠ holding only two trumps. But if you think that you may be "collecting 100 against our 110, 140" there is always the option to try for 200.

 

On this occasion it was a happy ending as five of partner's seven points were in hearts and we collected 800. Four spades shouldn't make (but did at two tables) and partner would have declined an invite.

[Cyberyeti]

If double was cards, I'd happily make it, double penalties deserves AQJxxx, xx, Qxx, xx with 4♠ and 3♥X both potentially making

[The_Badger]

I think both decisions (enquiring further via 2NT and/or doubling 3♥) are better than borderline at pairs though you're the only one that knows what partner opens the multi on in 1st position at favourable vulnerability :)

 

What you want to avoid is a complete bottom by doubling the opponents into game if the multi wasn't employed and the balancing fit they may have found wouldn't have been possible, or could have been fraught with danger, for example, partner not opening and you opening 1NT in 3rd position showing 14-16/15-17 if that's how you play it. Though I am sure everyone is aware +200 is a good score for you, and -200 is bad score for the opponents at pairs.

 

If partner has a habit of opening 2♦ with ♠Qxxxxx ♥Qx ♦Qxx ♣xx or a 5-4-x-x shaped hand (as one of my previous partners had an annoying habit of doing when playing the multi) then you have to err on the side of caution.

[helene_t]

1. This is a borderline between 2♥ and 2NT. I prefer 2NT.

 

2. I wouldn't be in this situation since I would not have passed 2♠. If I take the view that the hand is not an invite opposite hearts, then I suppose that it is only an invite opposite spades. But when partner appears to have spades, I think I want to give 4♠ a try even opposite a minimum.

 

Anyway, I can't pass now at pairs. Maybe if I bid 3♠ I can get lucky that they double me? Double is also reasonable.