652 up to you

[pescetom]

MP

[hv=pc=n&w=sa2haj864dakqt74c&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d(weak 6M or 22+)]150|225[/hv]

 

An enticing hand, but RHO takes the wind out of your sails.

How do you proceed, with or without your conventional defence to Multi?

[Cyberyeti]

x - Weak no trump or really big.

[mw64ahw]

A clear X followed by ♦ if partner doesn't show ♥

[nullve]

P

[LBengtsson]

I would like to pass than bid 4♦ to be interpreted by partner as Leaping Michael's. ♦ + assumed other major ♥ Whether I can do this against the Multi I am not sure lol

 

In the absence of clever bids, X seems a good start. Far too strong for 3♦ imo, when a 4♥ contract would race in with very little from partner.

[mikeh]

The first call is easy. I don’t understand any action other than double. While passing then acting seems superficially attractive, it’s important to remember that we have a partner. We might think that passing then bidding (whatever we bid) ‘should’ show this hand. Bitter experience of my own and lots of experience reading tournament reports has convinced me that partners very, very rarely work out our brilliant plan.

 

By doubling we announce strength….a common defence is that double is about 13-15 balanced or any very strong hand. By doubling and then bidding, even without a specific agreement, we show a good hand…just as if we doubled a natural opening bid then cuebid or bid a new suit.

 

So when in doubt, think about how our actions may appear to partner.

 

Our later actions may not be as understandable as we like, after double, but they’re almost always going to be easier to understand if we start by taking action rather than by passing.

 

As to what I do next time, that depends on how the auction goes before it gets back to me.

 

Btw, it’s common, when x could be 13-15 balanced, to play lebensohl by advancer over any of pass, 2H or 2S. We do not need to worry about 5C by partner…and if he did bid it, we bid 5D.

[mw64ahw]

I would like to pass than bid 4♦ to be interpreted by partner as Leaping Michael's. ♦ + assumed other major ♥ Whether I can do this against the Multi I am not sure lol

 

In the absence of clever bids, X seems a good start. Far too strong for 3♦ imo, when a 4♥ contract would race in with very little from partner.

Good point on the Leaping Michaels. Chris Ryall's Multi vs Multi suggests a direct 3♥ to show this with 8/8.5 playing tricks and at least 54.

[DavidKok]

4♦ leaping Michaels showing diamonds + hearts. Delayed Leaping Michaels shows diamonds + spades. You could double then take action, but that comes with more risks. Most of those actions show a different hand type. We might have a slam on but I'm not sure how to get there. Maybe we should rebid 5♦ over partner's potential 4♥ preference over our LM.

 

Maybe double is safe after all. North doesn't know that South holds spades, so they can't raise the preempt even with a good fit without also having hearts. With our hand that's not very likely. So double, then 3♦, then later 4♥ might show something like this? Having the Leaping Michaels on the first round excludes most hand of this type from auctions starting with double, so maybe we're just torturing partner.

 

I thought multi versus multi was just a tool to 'punish' players for playing the multi, attempting to frustrate your opponents to the point they give up the convention.

[pescetom]

The first call is easy. I don’t understand any action other than double. While passing then acting seems superficially attractive, it’s important to remember that we have a partner. We might think that passing then bidding (whatever we bid) ‘should’ show this hand. Bitter experience of my own and lots of experience reading tournament reports has convinced me that partners very, very rarely work out our brilliant plan.

 

By doubling we announce strength….a common defence is that double is about 13-15 balanced or any very strong hand. By doubling and then bidding, even without a specific agreement, we show a good hand…just as if we doubled a natural opening bid then cuebid or bid a new suit.

In my usual defence against Multi, Double is a takeout of weak spades or any hand too strong for other responses.

My first thought was that 4♦ should probably be Leaping Michaels here (the bids above 3NT are undefined anyway).

My second thought was that with this partner I have no agreement about defence against Multi, so not the moment to fret about that.

I doubled.

 

 

 

Good point on the Leaping Michaels. Chris Ryall's Multi vs Multi suggests a direct 3♥ to show this with 8/8.5 playing tricks and at least 54.

In this excellent pamphlet he lists a direct Leaping Michaels as a fashionable adjunct (or feature?) of the standard ACBL defence (the whole defence is better than I remember from when I first read it in two slightly different variants: has it changed, or was I just a beginner?).

 

 

4♦ leaping Michaels showing diamonds + hearts. Delayed Leaping Michaels shows diamonds + spades.

To be compared with the "ACBL" idea that direct leaping Michaels shows diamonds + undefined major (Advancer's 4♥ can be corrected to 4♠). Needs thought.

[pescetom]

MP

[hv=pc=n&w=sa2haj864dakqt74c&e=sqt3hkt5d82cakj95&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d(weak 6M or 22+)xp?]225|200[/hv]

 

How do things proceed for both now?

[mw64ahw]

MP

[hv=pc=n&w=sa2haj864dakqt74c&e=sqt3hkt5d82cakj95&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d(weak 6M or 22+)xp?]225|200[/hv]

 

How do things proceed for both now?

Having doubled as my standard with one partner I'm now stuck with a 4♣ response (no Lebensohl) and as West I will need to take it out to 5♦

Bidding 3♥ as Leaping Michael's style leads to 4♥ and if I believe that the slam is on then 4♠+ is key carding given that the other non-♥ bids would have certain non-applicable meanings for me.

[DavidKok]

To be compared with the "ACBL" idea that direct leaping Michaels shows diamonds + undefined major (Advancer's 4♥ can be corrected to 4♠). Needs thought.

I'm not sure which is more modern. The idea is that with the boss suit we are more comfortable taking it slow, while ambiguity about the major is possibly expensive. Also with a minor suit + hearts we might prevent the third hand from finding a profitable 4♠ call.

The story starts to crack when third hand takes some action other than the 2♥/2♠ "pass or correct". Over a simple pass, 2NT or something else it is difficult to convince partner that we intended to show a Leaping Michaels minor+spades.

 

For what it's worth, my preferred defence against multi is the simple Dixon, although I require a 5-card major for an overcall and all my ranges seem to be one or two points different from Chris Ryall's page.

 

MP

[hv=pc=n&w=sa2haj864dakqt74c&e=sqt3hkt5d82cakj95&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d(weak 6M or 22+)xp?]225|200[/hv]

 

How do things proceed for both now?

3NT by East, the Nespresso convention. Then West should find a 4♦ bid, and it's a pure guess from there but East might find it in them to cue the king of hearts, after which West can try 4NT ace-ask (there's never ambiguity with 4 key cards and a void). I'd settle for 6♦ on the auction, but you might try for 7. Placing the king of spades in South's hand on the bidding 6NT by East looks very good.

[mikeh]

MP

[hv=pc=n&w=sa2haj864dakqt74c&e=sqt3hkt5d82cakj95&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d(weak 6M or 22+)xp?]225|200[/hv]

 

How do things proceed for both now?

3N looks obvious. Wests most common hand-type, by a wide margin, is the 13-15 balanced. His holding 18+, when we have 13, is unlikely and he’ll take a call when he has that, since you’ve bid game opposite a possible flat 13 count.

 

What west bids is debatable. I think that 4D is forcing…west would pass with a ‘normal’ hand so 4D shows the big hand.

 

East has a good hand but better as declarer than as dummy due to the major holdings. Since he has a good hand, but could be off the AK of spades (west maybe xx AQxx AKQJxx Qx?) so it’s not 100% clear to bid slam.

 

Btw, my meta-rule is that if a player bids 3N as an offer to play, 4M on his next turn is regressive. This, imo, is far more useful, on a frequency basis, than using 4N as keycard. Maybe on this specific sequence that isn’t true, but this is a rare sequence and imo not worth trying to remember an exception to the rule.

 

So east is sort of stuck. If we believe that partner has shown 18+ (the standard acbl option 2 defence, which I play in one partnership), I think 6N is a reasonable gamble. But I may be influenced by seeing both hands.

[Cyberyeti]

Since we play lebensohl over the double and 2N then 3N shows the stops, we have a more interesting auction.

 

2♦-X-P-2N

P-3♦(too good to allow partner to play 3♣ natural, too good for 3♦ overcall)-

 

and now it's anybody's guess what happens, but I'd suggest 4N(too good for 3N)-5♥-6♥

[nullve]

What did North's pass over 2♦-(X) mean?

[pescetom]

What did North's pass over 2♦-(X) mean?

Good question, I don't know the agreement.

The actual hand was weak with 3 spades and 2 hearts, as I recall.

[pescetom]

I'm not sure which is more modern. The idea is that with the boss suit we are more comfortable taking it slow, while ambiguity about the major is possibly expensive. Also with a minor suit + hearts we might prevent the third hand from finding a profitable 4♠ call.

The story starts to crack when third hand takes some action other than the 2♥/2♠ "pass or correct". Over a simple pass, 2NT or something else it is difficult to convince partner that we intended to show a Leaping Michaels minor+spades.

 

For what it's worth, my preferred defence against multi is the simple Dixon, although I require a 5-card major for an overcall and all my ranges seem to be one or two points different from Chris Ryall's page.

I thought about it and decided I prefer your approach, ambiguity about the major makes for some awkward and cramped auctions while the developments with a known major are already there and work well. I'm just not sure what you do on the first round with minor + spades, do you pass or double?

 

Our defence against Multi is not that different from ACBL, but does not have the exotic feature of 2H as a takeout of hearts: we use it as natural 5 cards (as opposed to 4 cards implicit in Double). I would be curious to know people's thoughts about which is the better choice.

[DavidKok]

If my dear opponents are so kind as to let me show my heart suit at the 2-level over their weak two in spades, who am I to reject this gift? I prefer (2♦)-2♥/2♠ natural and 5(+), where hearts can be a so-so opening and spades needs to be a sound opening.

Personally I wouldn't tie a double to a Multi to any particular major suit holding at all. For me it is just a generic "partner, I have values and no bid, back to you!".

 

If Leaping Michaels shows a minor + hearts the hands with spades and a minor are supposed to pass, or opt for a 2♠ overcall (or double if all of those seem to be high risk). The latter two options give up on describing the hand in a single bid.

[Cyberyeti]

If my dear opponents are so kind as to let me show my heart suit at the 2-level over their weak two in spades, who am I to reject this gift? I prefer (2♦)-2♥/2♠ natural and 5(+), where hearts can be a so-so opening and spades needs to be a sound opening.

Personally I wouldn't tie a double to a Multi to any particular major suit holding at all. For me it is just a generic "partner, I have values and no bid, back to you!".

 

If Leaping Michaels shows a minor + hearts the hands with spades and a minor are supposed to pass, or opt for a 2♠ overcall (or double if all of those seem to be high risk). The latter two options give up on describing the hand in a single bid.

 

If your system involves passing some hands with values, this is fine as long as the multi has a strong option, if it doesn't (and is thus much more frequently passed) this can be dangerous.

[DavidKok]

Even the can-be-strong option can be passed without major headaches. It hasn't come up often, but I agree that passing with a strong hand with spades + a minor is a risk. Doubling is relatively safe if you agree that a bid at the 4-level shows the Leaping Michaels option. That does mean that you might have a problem with a strong single-suited minor hand on an auction such as (2♦*)-X-(2♠*)-P; (3♥)-?, where 4m would show the LM option. I don't mind choosing between 3NT, double and 5m there but it can get confusing.

[pescetom]

Even the can-be-strong option can be passed without major headaches. It hasn't come up often, but I agree that passing with a strong hand with spades + a minor is a risk. Doubling is relatively safe if you agree that a bid at the 4-level shows the Leaping Michaels option. That does mean that you might have a problem with a strong single-suited minor hand on an auction such as (2♦*)-X-(2♠*)-P; (3♥)-?, where 4m would show the LM option. I don't mind choosing between 3NT, double and 5m there but it can get confusing.

This was precisely my doubt.

I think I can live with 4m after double as LM.

I guess we also gain the nuance that pass then 4m is a lesser type of LM (non forcing, or whatever).

Although one reason I was reflecting on 2H as hearts takeout is that 2H then 4m as LM would not be ambiguous (if Double then 4m shows the big single suit minor).

[nullve]

To those who play X of Multi as (13-15?) balanced or strong:

 

Suppose the bidding went

 

(2♦)*-X-(P)**

 

* Multi, frequently 5M4+m

** to play opposite 4+ diamonds

 

. Would Advancer's position be interestingly different from the one over

 

(2♦)*-X**-(P)

 

* Weak Two

* (13-15?) balanced or strong (I know, noone actually plays the double this way against Weak Twos)

 

?

 

It seems to me that he would have to worry about violating Burn's law on partscore deals in both cases.

[DavidKok]

Which is exactly why a multi like that is a brown sticker convention, and comes with its own set of restrictions. I think others have tried this before, in particular to smuggle in the Wilkosz ("it's just a weak only multi except we still play 6-card weak two's so it's almost always a 5-card major, and we like to have a 5-card minor on the side as backup. Don't punish us for wanting extra definition when it comes to minor suits!") but I don't think you get to do that freely.

 

I haven't tried this at all, but I think it is a solid idea to demand 3(+) diamonds for a 'balanced' double of a Wilkosz 2♦. This greatly alleviates the pressure on advancer. The downside is you have to pass with some classical takeout doubles of diamonds, but the opponents might be unwilling to pass out 2♦ without exploring the major suits.

[nullve]

Which is exactly why a multi like that is a brown sticker convention, and comes with its own set of restrictions. I think others have tried this before, in particular to smuggle in the Wilkosz ("it's just a weak only multi except we still play 6-card weak two's so it's almost always a 5-card major, and we like to have a 5-card minor on the side as backup. Don't punish us for wanting extra definition when it comes to minor suits!") but I don't think you get to do that freely.

Suppose someone's Garbage Multi in 1st seat NV is defined as

 

0-7 hcp and either 6M3-OM, 5M4+m3-OM or 5M(332),

 

which is what many Norwegians actually play when they say the play Garbage Multi, since they hardly ever use it with 7+ M or 5+M4+OM. Am I wrong to say, for the sake the of discussion, that the opening is frequently made with 5M4+m? (I'm making a statement about the opening as opposed to defining it.)

[DavidKok]

I don't understand the discussion in the first place. That opening would frequently have 5M4+m. It would also meet the WBF criteria of Brown Sticker, and I would play the defence that I found some Polish pairs recommend against the Wilkosz against it (it was surprisingly hard to find where I had read this, but this page has some information). I don't know if the Norwegian rules allow me to consult a printed copy of that defence at the table - in the Netherlands that would be legal. Incidentally that defence greatly helps relieve the pressure on advancer. I think this was constructed at least in part to combat a smooth pass by responder.

 

The issue isn't the fact that you can list out hands with a 5 card major (either 5(332) or 5M4(+)oM or 5M4(+)m) but that you fail to promise a 6-card suit, which is the only variant of the multi that got grandfathered in. Now if you wanted to insist on 6M4(+)m you could probably do that without any consequences.

 

Attempting to double your 2♦ opening without an accompanying note what partner may expect over a third hand pass is just poor bridge, I would not recommend that.