Multi checkup

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=s942haj8653d64cjt&w=skq3h42d753cak762&n=sj8765hkqtdt8c854&e=sath97dakqj92cq93&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d3c3h(happy%20to%20compete%3F)5c5hppdppp]399|300|multi[/hv]

 

We only had the agreement that double shows 14+, I thought 3♥ willing to compete in your major sounded logical.

We now have the agreement.

[mikeh]

[hv=pc=n&s=s942haj8653d64cjt&w=skq3h42d753cak762&n=sj8765hkqtdt8c854&e=sath97dakqj92cq93&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d3c3h(happy%20to%20compete%3F)5c5hppdppp]399|300|multi[/hv]

 

We only had the agreement that double shows 14+, I thought 3♥ willing to compete in your major sounded logical.

We now have the agreement.

I suggest ditching that agreement that double shows 14+. It’s of no use to opener at all.

 

Opener can’t know what to do based solely on hcp.

 

Say opener has 6 hearts and 6 points. 2D (3C) x (P). Does opener pass or bid?

 

On many hands the answer is: it doesn’t matter, we’re getting a bad board anyway because 3C is cold and we are going for 150 or more in 3H.

 

On other hands, the answer is that we should pass because 3C is failing and either 3H fails or scores worse than passing

 

On other hands, the answer is that we should bid because 3H scores better than 3C making or down one (if they are nv)

 

Points don’t take tricks!

 

Points are a tool that is used with the other important tool, distribution, to assess the likely trick taking potential of the two hands being described. Neither tool is of much use by itself outside of quantitative notrump bidding, where (to a reasonable approximation) hcp is dominant most of the time.

 

They are not the only tools. Honour location, suit texture, controls are other tools.

 

Having an agreement as simplistic as ‘over our weak bid, a double of an overcall shows 14+ points’ is, imo, not a good idea.

 

Over our weak only multi, if they overcall 2M, double says ‘pass if they’ve bid your major (it does happen) but if not, I want to compete in yours’.

 

If they overcall 3m, double says they’re going down.

 

Obviously doubler has strength, but the most salient points about his hand are:

 

He thinks defending, and beating, 3m will score better than declaring. He will usually be short in at least one major, and will assume (usually but not always correctly) that that is your suit. He also thinks that he can handle any run out by 4th seat, but he expects opener to feel free to double such runout if holding a useful hand in context.

[jillybean]

Thanks

I'll talk with my partner, and start moving in the 'weak only' direction.

I'm beginning to think I have a good understanding of how to use and work with Multi.

[pescetom]

[hv=pc=n&s=s942haj8653d64cjt&w=skq3h42d753cak762&n=sj8765hkqtdt8c854&e=sath97dakqj92cq93&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2d3c3h(happy%20to%20compete%3F)5c5hppdppp]399|300|multi[/hv]

 

We only had the agreement that double shows 14+, I thought 3♥ willing to compete in your major sounded logical.

We now have the agreement.

 

If the agreement survived this battering, you must be convinced :)

 

Of course partner being willing to compete does not necessarily extend to 5 level.

[jillybean]

If the agreement survived this battering, you must be convinced :)

 

Of course partner being willing to compete does not necessarily extend to 5 level.

I don't understand your comment, the only agreement we had prior to this hand is that X would have shown 14+

With only that agreement, bidding 3♥ to say I am willing to compete to 3♥ or 3♠ if that is your suit, seemed logical to me, obviously not to the 5 level.

Since this hand, we now have that agreement and are discussing what X should mean, as discussed above.

[pescetom]

I don't understand your comment, the only agreement we had prior to this hand is that X would have shown 14+

With only that agreement, bidding 3♥ to say I am willing to compete to 3♥ or 3♠ if that is your suit, seemed logical to me, obviously not to the 5 level.

Since this hand, we now have that agreement and are discussing what X should mean, as discussed above.

The comment expressed amusement and admiration that you sealed a new agreement with a probable hiding of -800/1100 vs -600 :)

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

I approve of the agreement.

I'm just not so sure that your partner should take 3♥ as green light to show his suit at 5 level, even at this vulnerability.

Maybe you should also discuss what pass, X and (perhaps) 5♥ would mean over their jump to game (in minor or spades).

[shyams]

South knows partner does not have a serious game-type hand. South also has nothing special (3622 is probably the worst shape).

 

So 5♥ was simply not warranted.

[DavidKok]

3♥ denies a desire for partner to compete with 4♥, let alone 5♥. If North was willing to play in hearts at the 4-level the lowest available bid is 3♠. South's (lack of) extras are of secondary concern.

[jillybean]

The comment expressed amusement and admiration that you sealed a new agreement with a probable hiding of -800/1100 vs -600 :)

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

I approve of the agreement.

I'm just not so sure that your partner should take 3♥ as green light to show his suit at 5 level, even at this vulnerability.

Maybe you should also discuss what pass, X and (perhaps) 5♥ would mean over their jump to game (in minor or spades).

The message was clear enough, I'm just calling you on your sarcasm.

It's MP, only a bottom board and not unexpected in new partnership, trying out new systems. :) Despite this board, we still managed 3rd in the Open Game with 57.87%

 

As you know, I am totally new to Multi, never played it and rarely played against it, thanks for "protecting" me ACBL.   Since I am playing more frequently in NZ and want to establish a serious partnership, I am immersing myself in Multi.

As with many gadgets, up and coming players pickup treatments without fully understanding the system, and often only understand the first one or two bids. During my last stay in NZ I was seeing many club players play "1♣, could be as short as one". That's all they had and the rationale was that it meant any other opening was 5+, thus eliminating any confusion about 1♦. It became apparent that the actual "1♣ could be one" system, played by competent pairs was part of a transfer over 1♣ system.

 

So we are playing Multi without any in depth understanding of the system. My partner has been able to hobble along with it because it works well at the club. The good results are due to the intimidation factor or players not knowing how to defend against it. Not so in Open Games.

 

We haven't had the chance to sit down and go through the entire system, I doubt I would know where to start so as wrinkles come up I post them here. I am so grateful to have access to expert advice.

2♦ (3♣) 3♥ (P) 5♥?   20-22 with hearts, but once we play only weak multi I assume this will be a sacrifice NV vs. V

[pescetom]

The message was clear enough, I'm just calling you on your sarcasm.

 

If you thought the message was clear enough and wanted to complain about something then you could have avoided beating around the bush:

I don't understand your comment, the only agreement we had prior to this hand is that X would have shown 14+

With only that agreement, bidding 3♥ to say I am willing to compete to 3♥ or 3♠ if that is your suit, seemed logical to me, obviously not to the 5 level.

Since this hand, we now have that agreement and are discussing what X should mean, as discussed above.

 

As for the calling out: you've been on bridge forums longer than I have and will be well aware how easy it is to misunderstand others and how unlikely a serious bridge error is to escape comment. If something might be a friendly joke then it probably is, in my experience, but I leave others to judge.

 

 

It's MP, only a bottom board and not unexpected in new partnership, trying out new systems. :)

Sure :) I was just surprised and admiring that the disaster did not scare partner off any new agreements, which is what all too often happens (even when the disaster is due to a mistake in following the agreement rather than some inherent limitation).

 

As you know, I am totally new to Multi, never played it and rarely played against it, thanks for "protecting" me ACBL.   Since I am playing more frequently in NZ and want to establish a serious partnership, I am immersing myself in Multi.

As with many gadgets, up and coming players pickup treatments without fully understanding the system, and often only understand the first one or two bids. During my last stay in NZ I was seeing many club players play "1♣, could be as short as one". That's all they had and the rationale was that it meant any other opening was 5+, thus eliminating any confusion about 1♦. It became apparent that the actual "1♣ could be one" system, played by competent pairs was part of a transfer over 1♣ system.

That's true about any convention of course, even ones that "everybody" (more or less literally) plays. The manual of the most common system in our club has 13 pages of description of Stayman over 1NT, you could count on your hand the pairs where both have read beyond the first two pages or have any idea of developments after (say) 1NT-2♣; 2♦-2♠.

[jillybean]

If you thought the message was clear enough and wanted to complain about something then you could have avoided beating around the bush:

 

As for the calling out: you've been on bridge forums longer than I have and will be well aware how easy it is to misunderstand others and how unlikely a serious bridge error is to escape comment. If something might be a friendly joke then it probably is, in my experience, but I leave others to judge.

Yes, fair enough. I'm sensitive and perhaps hyper sensitive at the moment with the recent crap that has been going on here.

 

Sure :) I was just surprised and admiring that the disaster did not scare partner off any new agreements, which is what all too often happens (even when the disaster is due to a mistake in following the agreement rather than some inherent limitation).

:) I think I've learned that I will have total disasters, bottom boards, specially when we are trying new gadgets, which is something I love to do. It is nice to have a partner who has the same approach, we don't focus on the mistake. Perhaps I should use that same thick skin here on forums.

[jillybean]

Here's a quick, but never ending question, Teams

 

[hv=pc=n&e=shaqj73d942cqjt87&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p?]133|200[/hv]

 

Is this a Muiderberg 2♥ in your system or does it just squeak in as 1♥? Perhaps it's an obvious 1♥ opening for you, LTC=6?, but not 3 controls

[AL78]

Here's a quick one, Teams

 

[hv=pc=n&e=shaqj73d942cqjt87&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p?]133|200[/hv]

 

Is this a Muiderberg 2♥ in your system or does it just squeak in as 1♥? Perhaps it's an obvious 1♥ opening for you, LTC=6?, but not 3 controls

 

That is a comfortable 1♥ opener for me.

[DavidKok]

I think this is fine as either option, though I lean towards opening a Muiderberg if you play it, especially second seat unfavourable. Someone has got spades, and regardless of whether it is partner or the LHO we would do well to discourage them to bid those at a high level.

The hand is more than strong enough to open 1♥, but it is also offensively oriented.

 

If you play weak two bids (can be five) or some other 2-level gadgets other than Muiderberg I think 1♥ might be better.

[jillybean]

Multi is not allowed in online ACBL games 😩

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=saj97643hq987d94c&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=?]133|200[/hv]

 

Is this a 2♦ Multi for you? (edited)

Mudinberg 2♠?

Or?

[apollo1201]

Green vs red, with this hand structure and features, you are closer to 4S than to a weak 2.

 

The 4-cd H would prevent a lot to open were you 6-4, but with the 7th S…

 

In all cases, to answer your question, it is *not* a multi - unless one of the options is 7-4 majors, less than opening values

[DavidKok]

I'm scared of weak hands with both majors. They're never as good for preempting as I hope they are. It's not so much that we might belong in hearts, but that the opponents likely can't make anything. So I'm tempted to go low with 3♠, even though we are over strength for that opening.

It is not a multi.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk2h64dajt8cajt82&w=sqt5hat3d32c97653&n=saj97643hq987d94c&e=s8hkj52dkq765ckq4&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2s(S%2Bother)d3c(P%2FC)p3hp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Here's our auction. I'm South and with something in hearts I would have responded 2NT showing 14+

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk3hat4dkqtcjt984&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2d(2way%20multi)3h?]133|200[/hv]

 

Partner has 6 spades

pass, double or raise spades?

[DavidKok]

Pass looks fine. They're unlikely to make 4♥, and I don't fancy bidding 3-over-3 on what is likely a 16 trumps deal. Also LHO might be about to do something stupid.

[jillybean]

Since we can't play Multi in ACBL Online games, we have kept playing the NZ online games.

The Auckland Bridge Club have a great online program. The games are scored online, club and across both online and club games which makes for a much more interesting game and analysis of results, the analysis tools are excellent too.

 

 

http://www.auckland.nzbridgeclub.org/resultsbm.asp?id=493271&umbid=0

[mikeh]

Pass looks fine. They're unlikely to make 4♥, and I don't fancy bidding 3-over-3 on what is likely a 16 trumps deal. Also LHO might be about to do something stupid.

You sure you can beat 4H? Partner was first seat at favourable. In my multi partnerships, that’s a warning sign QJ9xxx x xxx Qxx is an easy 2D and while 4H may fail, it may be cold. I entirely agree with the rest of your post but, if they bid 4H,I’m not yet prepared to say that they’ve done something stupid

 

xx Jxx AJxxx Kx. Opposite Axx KQxxx xx Axx. Better not double 4H😀

[DavidKok]

I'm never doubling 4♥. I was only suggesting that I don't mind passing this out.

 

♠QJ9xxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Qxx at favourable first seat is a 3♠ opening, and I don't think it's particularly close.

[jillybean]

Here's the hand

http://www.auckland.nzbridgeclub.org/showtraveller.asp?id=492065&board=25&pair=3