Multi 2D - how do you play a 2M opening?

[jillybean]

Just what the title says, if you are playing Multi 2♦ how are your 2♥ and 2♠ openings defined?

[DavidKok]

I don't play multi but the combination of multi 2♦ with Muiderberg 2M (showing exactly 5M4(+)m and no 4oM, approximately 6-10 HCP) openings is very popular here. I've also got several ideas on what I would like to try to play at the 2-level, but most of those structures don't have a multi 2♦.

[mikeh]

I do play multi, and have for many years (although until recently only in team trials or international events since it wasn’t allowed in most ACBL events)

 

I’ve played 2M as weak 2 values, with 5M and 5(sometimes 4 esp nv) another suit.

 

If 5S then the other suit is a minor

 

If 5H, may have spades

 

Also played where 2M is always 5M, 4+ minor

 

A third approach I’ve played is 2D is a weak weak 2Mand 2M is 8-10/11. I really don’t like that except at favourable in first and second seat

 

Currently I play a fourth style, on which the jury is out until we get more samples. 2D is a weak 2M, 5-10 and 2M is 6M 10-13 (the overlap is to allow judgement)

[DavidKok]

I've wondered about that style, shouldn't the weak hands have the direct bid and the strong hands the multi bid?

[sfi]

A third approach I’ve played is 2D is a weak weak 2Mand 2M is 8-10/11. I really don’t like that except at favourable in first and second seat

This is trendy amongst the top players in Australia at the moment. I liked it better once I started thinking of 2M as an aggressive opening bid rather than a preempt - it meant I could better assess what to do as responder, and it impacts the range for auctions like 1M - 1x; 2M. It's basically the same as your fourth option but with shifted ranges. I am still lukewarm on the entire concept though. It feels more valuable to use 2M to show some sort of two-suited hand if you have 2D as multi.

 

At the moment, I'm playing 2M as 8-11 with exactly 5 cards in the major. I've only had two days experience with this, but it has come up 3 times and we've done ok thus far.

[sfi]

I've wondered about that style, shouldn't the weak hands have the direct bid and the strong hands the multi bid?

If you do that you're more likely to miss game in your suit. When 2D shows the weak option, responder needs a real hand and is more likely to be able to look for game over interference.

[helene_t]

I've wondered about that style, shouldn't the weak hands have the direct bid and the strong hands the multi bid?

Playing junk multi, responder can often pass the 2♦ opening to confuse opps, and also to be able to scramble, for example if you have a 5-1 fit in spades you may be able to show a H+m 2-suiter by redoubling 2♦.

 

Also, you can play Ogust or Feature Ask or w/e after a natural 2M, and you are more likely to need it after a sound 2M opening.

[mw64ahw]

I play a Multi 2♦ with one partner

2♦

-- 6+♥

-- 5♠4+m

2♥ 4/5♥♠ occasionally 6

2♠

--6+♠ or 4♠5+♣

[mikeh]

I've wondered about that style, shouldn't the weak hands have the direct bid and the strong hands the multi bid?

Our thinking was akin to Helene’s comments. When 2D is truly weak, responder can be quite a bit more creative than when opener may have sound values. This includes passing with long diamonds even with tolerance for both majors, which can cause some ambiguity for the opps on occasion. Meanwhile, when opener is known to have values, it is, we think, beneficial to force an overcaller to bid at the 3-level as much as possible, and of course responder is able to apply the axe somewhat more freely than usual, given the opener rates to have a little defence

 

As I said, I don’t play this treatment. If I did, I’d want it only when at favourable. The weak weak 2D is relatively easy to defend against (even when one is being creative) and their declarer play is usually aided by knowing opener is light. Plus it’s easier to take 2M for a number than when opener could have sound values.

 

These impressions aren’t based on a huge sample size. I played this for about a year, and the opportunities to play were limited. Practice matches and then our team trials.

[jillybean]

What do you open with a weak2 5422 hand?

[mikeh]

What do you open with a weak2 5422 hand?

With 5=4 or 4=5 majors, less than opening values,I pass. With 5M4m weak two values, I might open 2D white v red in first or third, but I’d need to look at suit quality rather than merely hcp.

 

Passing is not always a bad call😀

[paulg]

I play Multi 2♦.

 

Non-vulnerable, 2♥ is weak with both majors: vulnerable 2♥ is weak with 5+ hearts and a minor.

 

2♠ is always weak with 5+ spades and a minor.

[jillybean]

Aren't we adding Multi so that I don't need to pass so often? (I'm a lot better at passing than when I started playing)

 

Thanks for the comments, I will post my results.

[mikeh]

Aren't we adding Multi so that I don't need to pass so often? (I'm a lot better at passing than when I started playing)

 

Thanks for the comments, I will post my results.

I don’t think that adding multi so as to be able to open more often should be the goal. Whether it’s a side effect is an interesting question.

 

However, imo, there are two reasons why one should adopt a convention.

 

One, and historically the main reason, is to enhance one’s constructive bidding ability, often by ‘fixing’ a problem within the system. A trivial example is stayman, without which (back in the day) finding a 4-4 major suit fit after partner opened 1N (back then, often 16-18) was very difficult.

 

Another example would be the strong Roman 2D….17+ some 4441. In the original Italian method within which it was invented, such hands were otherwise unbiddable.

 

More recently (as in over the past 40+ years) there has been increasing focus on the other main goal: being difficult to play against.

 

This is often accomplished by having bids that are ambiguous in meaning, and generally weak or obstructive. An example would be the use of defences to strong 1N openings. We play, as do many, that 2D shows a major…as in multi, and 2M shows a major and an unspecified minor. There are even more ambiguous methods out there these days.

 

Injecting uncertainty into hands where, on balance, the opps rate to have most of the strength degrades their ability to carry output an accurate constructive auction.

 

The multi 2D bid doesn’t, by itself, give you more ways to open….without multi, you’d bid 2M. It does, obviously, inject some uncertainty n hands where, usually, the opps will have the balance of the power, so it does or, more accurately, can make life more difficult for the opps than would a regular weak 2M.

 

Where it does allow for ‘opening more hands’ is in the making available the 2M bids now rolled into 2D. Of course it does this by eliminating any other meaning for 2D, so you lose one bid and gain two.

 

That doesn’t mean that you ‘should’ use the 2M calls for weak hands that you’d otherwise pass.

 

I’ve certainly done that. Either 5M plus a side suit, weak 2 values, or so,it ting the 2M into two ranges.

 

My experience playing and defending against the two suited openings has been that they rarely cause any real problems for the opps and even more rarely lead to good constructive auctions when partner has a big hand. Rare is not never, but my experience has persuaded me that opening weak hands on 5M and 4+ minor doesn’t show much gain. Bear in mind that you’ve painted a pretty good roadmap for a skilled declarer should you be on defence.

 

Meanwhile, by using 2M as 10-13, we have added some clarity to our 1M openings. Thus 1M 1N 2M is known to be 14-16, whereas in ‘standard’ it might be 10-15…or one might have to jump to 3M on a good 15….and go down when partner has a bad hand.

 

So in our view, we’ve chosen to use the extra bids made available by using multi to (we think) improve our bidding on ‘normal’ opening hands rather than to ‘open more weak hands

 

Each partnership has to choose where it’s priorities lie. Also, if you play mostly fairly weak matchpoint events, having more weak and ambiguous openings is probably good.

[DavidKok]

I think the uncertainty aspect is somewhat overstated. Freeing up the 2M openings, making the opponents guess on deals where it is their board and being difficult to play against are all good goals, but uncertainty per se isn't all that incredible. If it was we'd all be much more eager to play EHAA two bids. Rather I think modern preempts attempt to optimally leverage that certain information is much more important to partner than to the opponents, while other information is not as crucial for partner. As an example, if I open a 5(+) card weak two diamonds my partner will immediately 'know' (not with 100% certainty, but at least enough to build a bidding system around) that

1. With an average 15-count we don't have a game.
   
2. We don't need to look for 4-card support for a major.
   
3. With 2 or fewer cards in a major suit the opponents have a fit there.
   
4. (Somewhat less frequent, but part of my preemptive style) with 2 defensive tricks in hand the opponents likely have a game, and with 3 defensive tricks and some diamond support they still might.
   

Conversely, knowing whether I have a sixth diamond or not, whether I am minimum or maximum for my bidding, whether I have a 3-card fragment in a major or a 4-card side suit in clubs, are only important if partner is strong but likely important to the opponents nearly always. This allows us to sacrifice definition along these axes to increase the effectiveness and frequency of the preempt, with only limited damage to our own auctions. The multi does some of this but I consider the fact that it frees up the 2M openings the main benefit.

 

Personally I think that there is still a lot of room for improvement on the most common preemptive methods. In my opinion one of the key aspects of a good preemptive bid is that it is risky for the opponents to pass, while responder can easily (or at least, with high probability) identify what they should be doing. This can be achieved through uncertainty, but arbitrary "my bid can mean one of 7 things, good luck"-style uncertainty is not sufficient.

[jillybean]

I don’t think that adding multi so as to be able to open more often should be the goal. Whether it’s a side effect is an interesting question.

My comment regarding opening more often was in response to your earlier quip "Passing in not always a bad call". I must remember to add a :lol: to these comments.

 

However, the subsequent contributions by you and David are interesting and useful ,thanks.

I've not really considered why I'm adding it and it's likely only temporary while I'm in NZ and playing with partners who use it. And of course, it's fun and forces me to slow down and think about my hand.

[jillybean]

Some hands from tonight (62%) , not playing Multi but I was looking for hands where it would apply.

 

#1 NV 2nd seat K762,AQ542,983,4 - 2♥ or pass? If you pass, what sort of 45xx hand would you open 2♥?

How does partner ask for the second suit when you open 2M?

 

#13 Both V 2nd seat KQJ983,6,QJ95,75 - 2♦

 

#14 NV 3rd seat 72,AQ983,73,KQ73 - 2♥

[DavidKok]

I would pass board #1, open 2♦ board #13 and 1♥ board #14.

 

The standard structure over a Muiderberg 2M (5M4(+)m, 6-10) is:

• 2♠: (over 2♥ only): 5(+) spades and forcing.
  
• 2NT: asks for the minor suit. Depending on partnership agreement this promises values.
  
• 3♣: pass or correct (somewhat redundant in light of the above option).
  
• 3♦: a game try in partner's major.
  

2♠-3♥ is natural and forcing. Higher bids are natural and to play, i.e. barrage bids or slam bids. I don't think people play 'pass or correct' in the minor at higher levels than the 3-level (you may as well ask first with 2NT), but you could choose to do so.

 

 

I generally don't open 45xx hands 2♥. If I do I would probably have overwhelming compensation for it at the same time: first/third seat, favourable vulnerability, significant discrepancy in the quality of the two suits. Something like ♠xxxx, ♥KQT9x, ♦xx, ♣xx is a weak two in hearts in first seat (regardless of vulnerability) for me.

[Cyberyeti]

Some hands from tonight (62%) , not playing Multi but I was looking for hands where it would apply.

 

#1 NV 2nd seat K762,AQ542,983,4 - 2♥ or pass? If you pass, what sort of 45xx hand would you open 2♥?

How does partner ask for the second suit when you open 2M?

 

#13 Both V 2nd seat KQJ983,6,QJ95,75 - 2♦

 

#14 NV 3rd seat 72,AQ983,73,KQ73 - 2♥

 

We play multi, 2♥ Ekren 4+/4+ majors and a custom multi way weak 2♠.

 

Board one would not be in Ekren range for us but would for most people, I wouldn't multi it. In first or third I might open 1.

 

The other two are easy 1 openers for us.

 

Something you haven't said unless I missed it, what do you consider a weak 2 in your multi ? and what system of responses do you use to the 2N enquiry ?

[helene_t]

I do think that the primary goal of multi is to pass less. Or, to say it differently, to open more of those hands which you would like to open but where standard bidding unfortunately does not offer an opening bid.

 

If you play a strong 2♣ opening with a 2♦ relay it is not very costly to include a weak two in diamonds in the 2♣ opening, so 2♦ is freed for other uses. Playing multi 2♦ in combination with some other preempt for the 2M openings allows you to preempt more.

 

If you use 2M for something other than preempts, multi should actually make you pass more. This is because the multi 2♦ should be more disciplined than a natural 2M, for three reasons:

- 2M is more preemptive than 2♦ so more attractive to use

- 2M allows you to use Oghust or Feature Ask or w/e so it can be used with a wider range of hands

- 2M makes the weak hand declare so it is nice to have some unexpected feature to make the defence more difficult

 

But the most important reason for playing multi is that it is fun. This is true for most conventions. In terms of effectiveness it may not be worth the hassle to discuss all the follow ups unless you are in a 100-page-system-book partnership.

 

For what it's worth I only play multi with gwnn, and when agreeing "your card is ok" with a pick-up partner with WJ2005 on their profile. And in those partnerships I don't think that multi is a technical advantage. For example, I don't think I have ever discussed with anyone how we bid after they double our multi. My preference would be:

pass: to play, I have diamonds

redouble: I have a better suit than you have so please bid hearts even if you have spades

other: as without intervention

[DavidKok]

I think there is a significant difference between a weak two in diamonds and a 2♣ weak two in diamonds (that may also have some strong hands on occasion). The former exerts much more pressure. The latter frees up a bid for a multi, but it achieves different goals. At some point I was a big enthusiast of cramming more and more hand types into weak/strong bids, but at the table they just didn't seem to win as much. I'm now a big fan of weak bids where responder may frequently pass. The easiest way to do this is by including the suit bid into the description of the bid (although even a 4-card suit might be enough, on occasion) and I believe the weak-only multi players are trying to recover the same threat through different means.

Multi is a fun convention and certainly has multiple upsides, but it also comes with noticeable cost.

 

If you want to open more often, or preempt more often, I think multi is not at all a great way to do it. There are lots of interesting and aggressive preemptive schemes with higher frequency and, in my opinion, lower cost than multi + some weak uses for 2M.

[jillybean]

I'm thinking aloud here, one of the benefits I like of our disciplined (1&2 seat) weak 2's & feature ask is the ability for partner to bid 3nt with some certainty. I am obviously giving that up. I want to ask partner if 2♥ 2♠ is forcing, other than that I think Helene's advice about the 100 page system booklet is very pertinent and I'll just have fun trying it.

[pescetom]

I think there is a significant difference between a weak two in diamonds and a 2♣ weak two in diamonds (that may also have some strong hands on occasion). The former exerts much more pressure.

I'm also a bit perplexed about 2♣ strong or weak diamonds: when and how does responder break the marionette?

 

 

 

At some point I was a big enthusiast of cramming more and more hand types into weak/strong bids, but at the table they just didn't seem to win as much. I'm now a big fan of weak bids where responder may frequently pass. The easiest way to do this is by including the suit bid into the description of the bid (although even a 4-card suit might be enough, on occasion) and I believe the weak-only multi players are trying to recover the same threat through different means.

I do concede Multi is effective in bunny bashing (even when the bunnies are used to opponents opening Multi, they still fail to defend well).

But I've also had some decent mileage out of an honour strong 2♦ too.

If I were to play Multi, a least NV I would be tempted to play 2M as 4M+5m (like the X of MultiLandy) rather than 5M+4m: has anyone tried or thought about that?

[DavidKok]

I'm also a bit perplexed about 2♣ strong or weak diamonds: when and how does responder break the marionette?

Everybody, partner included, assumes the weak type until proven otherwise. You break the marionette whenever you feel you want to play something other than 2♦ opposite a weak hand with diamonds. If you yourself are weak with long diamonds (including, say, 10 points, balanced and a 3- or 4-card diamond suit) and partner has the strong variant you will preempt your own auction, tough luck. Some people instead give up on barrage raises of the weak version and only break the marionette when strong enough that game is likely opposite the weak version.

 

 

I do concede Multi is effective in bunny bashing (even when the bunnies are used to opponents opening Multi, they still fail to defend well).

But I've also had some decent mileage out of an honour strong 2♦ too.

If I were to play Multi, a least NV I would be tempted to play 2M as 4M+5m (like the X of MultiLandy) rather than 5M+4m: has anyone tried or thought about that?

Yes, I think these are part of Frelling two openings (and Chris Ryall's website also calls them 'Velociraptor' - after the Raptor 1NT overcall). One of the downsides is that 4M5m has far less law protection than 5M4m, since you will belong in the minor far more often (and that's a level higher). You also reduce the frequency with which partner can safely pass.

[nullve]

If I were to play Multi, a least NV I would be tempted to play 2M as 4M+5m (like the X of MultiLandy) rather than 5M+4m: has anyone tried or thought about that?

Yes, it's called 'Velociraptor'.

 

In one partnership I played

 

2♣ = Multi 2♦-like (with 6M3-OM or 5M4+m3-OM) or GF with primary hearts

2♦ = Ekren (with 4+S4+H) or GF with primary spades

2M = Velociraptor (with 4M5+m3-OM)

 

.