2[di]

[luke warm]

sorry, only two choices... if you had to choose one of those, which one?

[Winstonm]

Prefer multi over weak 2D, just not THIS multi. :D

 

Winstonm

[Double !]

weak 2, but truth be told, like neither.

 

has someone been reading the "eric rodwell interview"?

[kenberg]

I voted for 2D but my vote should perhaps not be countred since I have never played the multi. I have played aganst it of course, and on the BBO Vugraph I have had many opportunities to watch it.

 

Here is an example from, I believe, the Venice Cup:

 

Table 1: 2S-3H-P-P-P

 

Table 2: 2D-3H-P-4H-All Pass.

 

 

Making 4 at both tables.

 

Judgement, perhaps, but consider: At table 2, second seat could have passed and bid an eventual 3H over 2S (presumably 2H over 2D would have been a take out). At table 1 second seat had to cope with 2S immediately. Fourth hand had a close decision, and had to consider that her partner may have held a hand that was of lesser strength. Whatever you think the strength is for 3H over 3D, and 3H over 2S, clearly the fact that there is an extra option over 2D allows for more clarity.

 

I have seen similar Vugraph results since then where the 2D bid rather than 2M increases the clarity (and improves the result) of the opponent's bidding.

 

My conclusion: The Multi earns its keep, if it does, by freeing up the 2H/S bid for other uses. If those new uses produce enough good results, then the Multi may well be worth it. Otherwise, except for the confusion it sows with those who have not discussed a defense, it isn't worth it.

 

Here in the US it has only been recently that I have seen much of the Multi and I assume that my observations are still in the naive stage, so I will be checking back to see what others say.

 

k

[luke warm]

weak 2, but truth be told, like neither.

 

has someone been reading the "eric rodwell interview"?

nah, was watching vugraph today with a fellow poster and the subject came up... he's of the opinion that 2d used for a diamond preempt is better than it being used for something else.. just trying to see how many felt same way, and used the multi i use to compare

 

Table 1: 2S-3H-P-P-P

 

Table 2: 2D-3H-P-4H-All Pass.

 

 

Making 4 at both tables.

 

Judgement, perhaps, but consider: At table 2, second seat could have passed and bid an eventual 3H over 2S (presumably 2H over 2D would have been a take out). At table 1 second seat had to cope with 2S immediately. Fourth hand had a close decision, and had to consider that her partner may have held a hand that was of lesser strength. Whatever you think the strength is for 3H over 3D, and 3H over 2S, clearly the fact that there is an extra option over 2D allows for more clarity.

 

was the multi you speak of only a weak 2 in a major? adding something to it can make a difference, though maybe not this time (i didn't see the hand)

 

Prefer multi over weak 2D, just not THIS multi.

 

which do you prefer? using the one in the poll frees up 2h, 2s, and also (if you use a strong club) the 1c opening, 1nt rebid, 2nt rebid, and even 3nt rebid.. in standard you can even add the 2nt opening in there

[keylime]

weak two in diamonds by far.

 

the multi is too easily defensed with proper prep work. no wonder it's losing influence in the game.

[luke warm]

i don't quite understand that, dwayne... assume it's true, that the multi is "too" easily defensed... why is the same not true about a weak 2 in diamonds? in other words, is the multi more easily defended than a weak 2D?

[kgr]

I agree with Kenberg here, but:

 

- I play multi and use 2H/2S as muiderberg (weak with 5cM and 4+m). It gives you additional hands to preempt: you will preempt more often. (In third hand the 4 card minor is less important)

 

- If I open 2D then :

-- my partner will bid 3H if he has a 3 card H and a 3 card S. If I have a 6-card S then I correct to 3S.

-- my partner will bis 2S if he has a 3 card H

=> I agree that my LHO can wait a round to bid 3H/2S over my 2D opening, but it can well be he will have to bid 4H/3S when it comes back to him. Certainly if LHO wants to bid H, he should be careful to wait. It could get more difficult to come in later.

[bearmum]

I voted for weak 2♦ BUT to tell the truth I wish there had been a "neither of above" available :) :)

[cherdano]

i don't quite understand that, dwayne... assume it's true, that the multi is "too" easily defensed... why is the same not true about a weak 2 in diamonds? in other words, is the multi more easily defended than a weak 2D?

That's not so difficult to see, Jimmy. After weak 2 in ♦, you get one and only one chance to bid. After multi 2♦, opps will have to bid at least once more. You don't need to be very creative to turn this to your advantage. E.g. you can use X = weak NT or strong hand, so direct overcalls are limited to 13-17ish. If you pass partner is not under much pressure to compete, because he knows you have denied sound opening values, and you still have a chance to bid again with a borderline shapish hand.

 

Arend

[MickyB]

In addition to the points Arend makes - If you make a preempt showing hearts, opps can gear their bidding around finding a spade fit. If you have four spades, you'll often make a takeout double; If you have five, you'll usually bid them. If you make a preempt showing diamonds, opps need to look for fits in *either* major - what do they do with 5-4 majors, 4-2 majors?

 

Of course, asking what 2♦ should be doesn't make too much sense without knowing what the rest of your structure is. Is this for your strong club sys? If so, knowing that you don't have the 2M openers available to be weak twos might sway people's opinions, after all weak twos in the majors may be less destructive but they are more likely to lead you to a making game.

 

As I said in the other thread, I prefer a weak only multi - sometimes 2nd seat only gets one go at bidding when he expected two, and occasionally you can get away with them never finding out what your suit is at all! As Mark said, it is much easier to preempt opposite a weak only multi as well. Of course, Mark and I played it in a system with no problems with balanced ranges (strong club, 1C:1D, 1H = nat or big bal, if responder made a positive response then he was describing his hand for the rest of the auction).

[whereagles]

Exactly. Opening a weak 2♣ or 2♦ GREATLY complicates opps task in finding 44 or 53 major fits.

 

To double a weak 2M you only need 4 in the other major. To double a weak 2m you can have 44, 43, sometimes 53 in majors. Pard will have to do a lot more guesswork to land in the proper strain.

 

Which is why a weak 2♦ is a far better bid than multi. Especially if you open it on 5 cards.

[luke warm]

Of course, asking what 2♦ should be doesn't make too much sense without knowing what the rest of your structure is. Is this for your strong club sys? If so, knowing that you don't have the 2M openers available to be weak twos might sway people's opinions, after all weak twos in the majors may be less destructive but they are more likely to lead you to a making game.

right mike, using the multi helps me keep 1M as 2 suited 11-16 bid and 2M as the 11-16 one suited bid, while having 2d as a weak 2 in a major... watching vugraph today i was struck by the number of times a 11-16ish 6 card suit was opened at the one level, while had they been opened at the two level the auction would have gone differently... there's definitely (in my mind) something to be said for the opening bid showing shape and (limited) strength immediately

 

by also allowing 2d to show a 20-21 hand, it meant my nt rebids after a 1c opening could be better defined.. 16-18, 22-23, 24-26 (or just 24+)

 

if you noticed there's no bid for 19 hcp, you're right... either downgrade it or upgrade it

 

After multi 2♦, opps will have to bid at least once more. You don't need to be very creative to turn this to your advantage. E.g. you can use X = weak NT or strong hand

 

true arend, but that x also allows responder 2 extra bids... xx can say, i have a 6-9 balanced, pass can say i have a 10+ hand (or whatever, not suggesting, just an example)... and every once in awhile opener will have that big hand.. not often, maybe, but the possibility exists

 

anyway, i've historically been a weak 2 diamond man.. but i do know i feel more comfortable bidding over that than over a multi (even with the several good multi defenses available)

[MickyB]

true arend, but that x also allows responder 2 extra bids... xx can say, i have a 6-9 balanced, pass can say i have a 10+ hand (or whatever, not suggesting, just an example)... and every once in awhile opener will have that big hand.. not often, maybe, but the possibility exists

In that situation you expect pard to have the weak option, both on initial frequency and because RHO has values...better to do something like P = suggetion to play in 2D X, XX = bid your major, 2H and 2S nat

[Free]

Other, as usual... Give me some kind of rough two :)

[Guest Jlall]

Weak 2D. Contrary to popular belief multi is WORSE for preempting than normal weak 2s. What it gains is freeing up the 2M bids for other things (like 5M 5m). It also loses the weak 2D. I feel that the gains do not outweigh the rewards. If a multi 2D is opened, the opps have about a million ways to get into the auction. It loses alot of the effect of the preempt.

[hrothgar]

Of the choice provided, I prefer a weak 2♦ opening...

 

With this said and done, given the choice I prefer

 

1. Frelling 2♦

2. Weak only multi (if accompanied by decent 2♥/2♠) openings

3. Weak 2♦

4. Multi-2♦

 

In short, I think bundling weak and strong hand types into the 2♦ opening is a major mistake

[Fluffy]

Multi is not a good opening, but it lets you bif those not enough for GF balanced hands.

[pigpenz]

I like Mini Roman 10-13 hcp 4-4-4-1 or 0-4-4-5

[Free]

Wow, nobody want's flannery? :P :D :P

[mikestar]

Prefer weak 2♦ vs. anything (unless 2♦ is absolutely necessary to plug a hole in an otherwise good system. Note that the Precision 2♦ is not needed--the 1/4 of 1% of the time you are 4-4-1-4 you just open 1♥).

 

Garazzo refused to play multi as he was unwilling to give up the "best preempt in the game": the raise of a weak 2♠ to 3♠.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I prefer the very European multi (preferably without the strong option, although it is quite playable that way) to the very American weak two in diamonds. Of course, like others said, the acid test is how you play 2♥ and 2♠. (It may be of interest that Zia and Rosenberg, who have a long bridge playing experience on both sides of the Atlantic, have decided to retain both the multi (as a weaker option) and the natural weak two.)

IMO, the multi loses big to the natural weak two with spades (I completely agree with Garozzo's comment, and I think that even the Poles would benefit from opening 2♠ indifferently with AQ9542 632 K7 98 and with KJ652 4 87 KJT74), but gains (not as much) with hearts, and there is something to be said for playing 2♠ as weak, but 2♦ as either a weak two in hearts or one or two bothering hand types.

I also find interesting the 2♦ weak in diamonds or hearts played by Liggins and Fawcett as described in this month's Challenge the Champs, but I have no definitive opinion about it. It nevertheless seems wiser than the 2♥ weak in hearts or spades which is played (usually NV) by some European pairs. (True, a 2♥ which would be weak in hearts or weaker in spades may offer some protection when responder has to pass with a misfit for hearts and opener has in fact spades, and doesn't prevent you from opening 2♠ with a respectable hand.)

 

As for the 2♦ Precision opening, I'm sure it should cover other hand types, but I'm much less sure which.