[aguahombre]

After reading, most recently, the thread "withdrawn ruling..." questions about Multi come to mind.

Certainly it has some advantages, such as being able to use an opening 2M to show a different weak-two range or an additional suit. But when strong variants (as weak as 17 pts) are possible with far different distributions ---doesn't this hamstring partner and prevent him/her from cooperating in the preemption when others, who know their pard's hand type at the outset are not as restricted?

It guess it is a matter of frequency of occurence, plus the degree of importance of getting the strong variants out of other auctions. But even if there were no other possibilities than "very weak two in either major", it seems that not knowing which major prevents a lot of immediate preemption by pard of the opener.

I would like to hear from the practioners of multi, who have obviously considered the above questions; and learn why they decided to use it and whether multi is better in conjunction with some overall bidding systems than with others.

Also, when most opponents get their act together and are less confused by Multi, will the allure of it fade away?

The title of this thread refers to you folks "weighing in" on the subject. Me? I just have the questions.

[manudude03]

With 1 partner, I used to play that 2♦ was a weak 2 in a major, 20-22 balanced or 18+ any 4441. We did find that the 4441 option did cramp a lot of the pre-emptive power (after 2D-3H, we would have to bid 4H to show a 1444 18+ hand- yuck). After a while, we did drop the 4441 option and now just play it as a weak 2 in a major or 20-22 balanced. The balanced hand doesn't really do much to mess with pre-emption, partner almost certainly has some points if he jumps and if you end in a 20-3 3N, good luck .

As for pre-empting when the only consideration is weak hands, it is hampered a little bit (partner with 1-5 in the majors would love to jump if you have hearts, but has to bid 2S because thats almost certainly what you have). I find it doesn't have too much of an effect, since very often either opps don't know their own agreements or they would have acted over 2H-4H anyway. I have posted a couple of times of a hand or 2 where we've been in an 11 card fit and got to play 2S doubled because the opps were foolish enough to play either/or doubles.

When the opps are good enough to know what they're doing, then multi is probably going to lose imps, but I find that playing muiderberg 2M (5/4 kind) makes up for it. I've noticed a few pairs in Ireland are playing Strong 2 openers and multi in order to relieve the pressure off partner to respond.

[hrothgar]

Two quick observations:

First

Over the years, a number of individuals (myself included) have posted summaries describing the preemptive opening styles used in major tournaments.
Traditional "weak two" openings, where a two level preempt shows a single suited hand are definitely a popular method.
However, various other treatments (two suited openings, assumed fit methods, etc) seem to be as popular, if not more so.

Said statistics were taken from events like the European Teams championships where the teams (presumable) are very experienced and have had plenty of time to work on defenses to the multi 2D opening. I think that experience shows that the multi is here to stay...

Second

>> it seems that not knowing which major prevents a lot of immediate preemption by pard of the opener.

This is definitely true.

Balanced against this: Traditional weak two opening bids are incredible rare compared to assumed fit methods like Ekrens. They are also considerable less rare than opening bids like Muiderberg. It really doesn't make much sense to look at a single auction in isolation, especially when you're measuring a weak point of one system against a strength of another.

It's much more effective to compare preemptive structures as a whole.

Look at each of the opening bids.

Look at the information given about suit X, Y, and Z.
Calculate the frequency with which responder is able to advance a suit to level X, and then factor in the frequency of the opening bid.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-February-07, 11:07, said:

it seems that not knowing which major prevents a lot of immediate preemption by pard of the opener.

Yes, and this is why I don't play Multi. I think that the main advantage is not the strong variants* per se, but alternative uses of the bids that are freed up. I have seen some wonderful theft perpetrated by those who open "Lucas Twos" (5 + 4m). And destructive 2NT openers can be very hard to defend against.

Quote

Also, when most opponents get their act together and are less confused by Multi, will the allure of it fade away?

I don't think many people are confused by Multi here, but it is still very popular. Some people are starting to play all of the their opening two-bids in suits Multi-stle. I find this idea intriguing, and an advantage of it is that partner knows what suit the (most commonly) pre-empt is in.


*I once played against a pair that had two strong ranges for their Multi - 29-30 and 31-32 balanced. While I was dummy I was flipping though their card and found that they had another way to bid these balanced monsters by starting with a strong club. I feel that if you are going to play weak only, fine; but I am uncomfortable about a "fake" strong variant. Apparently it is permitted, though.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-07, 11:51, said:

I feel that if you are going to play weak only, fine; but I am uncomfortable about a "fake" strong variant. Apparently it is permitted, though.

Not in England it isn't! The strong variant(s) for a multi have to occur with a reasonable frequency and hands that are opened a different way are not included in the frequency assessment. 29-32 balanced is already a very rare set of hands - if they were further sub-dividing then I daresay their method was illegal at whatever Level 3 has become in the new rules.

As for the multi generally, I concur with the points already raises - it loses against weak 2s in majors but this is made up for by being able to use those 2M bids for something more useful than the weak 2 in diamonds (compared with 3 weaks) or against strong 2s. Whether the overall structure is a gain or a loss is a statistical question that I cannot answer although i have heard that the current statistics are not in the multi's favour. Personally I still like it though and it is certainly great at lower levels of competition.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2011-February-07, 12:08, said:

Not in England it isn't! The strong variant(s) for a multi have to occur with a reasonable frequency and hands that are opened a different way are not included in the frequency assessment.

This is not what I was told when I mentioned it to the DIC at the National Pairs Final. Maybe he can comment...

[NickToll]

aguahombre, on 2011-February-07, 11:07, said:

But even if there were no other possibilities than "very weak two in either major", it seems that not knowing which major prevents a lot of immediate preemption by pard of the opener.

This is true, but not entirely. A good responding system may allow you to preempt at a reasonable level when holding a fit in both majors: typically, 3♥ with three hearts and three or more spades, 3♠ with three spades and four hearts, 4♣ or 4♦ with four cards in both majors (4♣ asks for a transfer in the long suit). Of course you can't preempt when you have a major doubleton: but then opener's long suit rates to be responder's short one.

Something similar is also possible when 2♦ includes strong balanced hands. 3-level responses could be:

• 3♣: long unspecified minor, game forcing, guarantees a stopper in the other minor; follow-ups allow to land in 3NT or 4M when appropriate;
  
• 3♦: 3-3 in majors, game strength opposite a strong balanced hand;
  
• 3♥ or 3♠: 3-4 in majors, bid the 3card suit, game strength opposite a strong balanced hand;
  
• 3NT: 4-4 in majors, game strength opposite a strong balanced hand;
  
• 2NT is game invitational or better facing a weak two, slam invitational (usually) facing a strong balanced hand.

Should opener occur to be balanced, he/she will bid 3NT with no fit, 4♣ with a fit in hearts, 4♦ with a fit in spades. Not perfect, but playable: and you can still open 2♥, 2♠ or 2NT to show additional hand types.

[blackshoe]

One of the things my regular partner and I toyed with for a while when I was in England was Crowhurst's "Multi-Purpose" 2♦. This is a strong bid, either an Acol 2 in any suit, or a balanced hand (I forget the range, probably 20-22 or some such), or a strong 3 suiter. This preserves the 2M bids as weak 2s. That was a long time ago, and I don't remember whether it ever came up. If you can't or don't want to play Lucas or RCO twos or some such, this might be an option.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-07, 13:28, said:

This is not what I was told when I mentioned it to the DIC at the National Pairs Final. Maybe he can comment...

The rule described by Zelandakh applies only at Level 3. In Level 4 events, you aren't required to have any strong option, and if you do have a strong type the only constraint is that it be strong.

[awm]

See:
this recent thread or this older thread for prior discussion on this point.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-07, 15:12, said:

One of the things my regular partner and I toyed with for a while when I was in England was Crowhurst's "Multi-Purpose" 2♦. This is a strong bid, either an Acol 2 in any suit, or a balanced hand (I forget the range, probably 20-22 or some such), or a strong 3 suiter. This preserves the 2M bids as weak 2s. That was a long time ago, and I don't remember whether it ever came up. If you can't or don't want to play Lucas or RCO twos or some such, this might be an option.

This is not dis-similar to a normal "Reverse-Benji" 2D opening except that you usually can only contain either the 3-suited type or a balanced type below GF strength. I am not sure how you can get both in since all the calls up 3H are accounted for on opener's rebid.

[tolvyrj]

When i started to play bridge first and only meaning to 2♦opening was multi and later on after i have played other variants of 2♦opening i have come to following thoughts. The first reason to use multi is that it covers 2 variations; weak 2 in either major or 20-22 balanced hand, that r so far away from each other that it is virtually impossible to mix them during the bidding, and that leaves 3 other 2 level bids to be used other way. In Finland they r commonly used to show various weak 2-suiters.
There r cons in that aprroach of course, and the loss of prds ability to pre-empt directly is the most serious them. Its not all that big problem IMO but it is a problem. The loss of weak ♦bid is not a loss at all, 2 level pre-empt in minor is not a pre-empt in that sense that it seriously effects oppos bidding.
Defending MULTI is not hard, but u do have to have u agreements in condition, other wise u can end up in a very thin ice. We use MULTI according to vulnerability, in white vs. red and from 3rd hand its very often made with only 5 cards and is always destructive by nature aka. MULTI openers hand is far away from opening hand one way or another; that is of course if its weak 2 by nature.

[whereagles]

Multi has 2 advantages: it allows for wider variety of weak openings and you can dump some strong hands into it.

The downside is it's easier to defend against than a weak 2 (allows for 3/4 overcall tempos), tough only after you get the hang of it.

I stopped using tutti-fruti openings a couple years ago and never regreted it.

[helene_t]

The Migry (www.migry.com) site has some statistics about IMPs won and lost at European championships by users of Multi. That it wins a little bit when strong and balanced and that it loses a little bit when weak with one major is, I suppose, what most would have expected. But that the Muiderberg/Lucas/whatever 2s that frequently goes with it loses so much is intriguing. I wonder if it is real or some artifact, and in either case what the reason is, assuming that it is not just a statistical fluke.

My feeling is that Multi would theoretically be a good idea if one could come up with something useful for the 2M openings, but I never played any 2M openings that really appealed to me other than traditional weak twos. Which then begs the question what to do with the 2♦ opening if not playing Multi. If playing WJ you can always use it as a weak two in diamonds, but playing standard it isn't really required as you can put that one into the 2♣ opening, which has very little cost for players who like 2♦ as an almost-mandatory response to the 2♣ opening.

[whereagles]

well, play a polish style club and make all 2x into preempts, clubs included

[han]

I read the article about multi on migry's site with great interest. From a statistical point of view it is a very poor analysis. That does not mean that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, or that the given advice is bad, but I regret that of the few bridge players willing to do a statistical analysis and write about it, some seem to have a poor understanding of correlation.

In the Netherlands multi is pretty much standard. That means that if you sit down with a new partner and you don't have time to discuss your system, you play multi. Typically the pairs that do not play multi are pairs that are willing to spend considerable time discussing their system. All kinds of problems arise when you don't play multi, for example, how do you distinguish between a balanced 22-count and a balanced 25-count? Here the standard is to put one in the 2C opening and the other in the 2D opening. If you want to do it differently as a pair, it requires discussion.

So the pairs that do not play multi probably have more detailed agreements than those that do. In such a setting, I would expect those pairs that do not play multi to do better on average than those who don't.

In the Campanile article the 2D opening that shows just a weak 2 in one suit comes out as a winner. Apart from Meckwell, I don't know of any top pairs that have played this (although I am sure that there are more). Given that Meckwell have played a lot of world championship hands and tend to win a lot of IMPs on those hands, maybe the +0.28 IMPs per hand comes partly from them? And on how many hands did this 2D opening come up, 20, 100, 1000? The article does not say.

So I think the conclusions drawn in the article are a bit hasty. Also, the advice (just stick with regular weak 2's) does not hold when the default is multi. In fact, I play multi and I don't like it, maybe we'll get around to changing it at some point.

Here are a few things that I do like when playing multi:

- When vulnerable, we only open Muiderberg with 5-5's.
- The only 1-suiters that we put in our 2D opening are those with diamonds. For us 2D followed by a 3-level bid always shows diamonds.
- 2C is weak with diamonds or strong. If I did not play multi I would still like to use this 2C opening. The very popular "weak with majors or strong" is not good imo.

[helene_t]

Yes, I agree that the article on the Migry site doesn't offer an adequate statistical analysis. What they should have reported was the IMPs lost or gained when opening a multi relative to what that pair would be expected to win/gain per board against these particular opponents, based on some kind of regression analysis. That shouldn't be too difficult.

Still, if it is so that those who play Muiderberg are just bad players and/or irregular partnerships then I would expect them to do badly also when opening a multi, not only when opening a Muiderberg. Maybe there are a few very good partnerships that play multi in combination with something else, say 2♥ showing both majors and 2♠ showing both minors, or w/e. Doesn't sound very likely. Maybe more likely, Muiderberg loses half an IMP and multi gains half an IMP so if you play both you break even, but since multi/muiderberg pairs are half an IMP worse than those who play natural weak twos, it looks as if multi breaks even and Muiderberg loses one IMP. Or something like that.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Apart from Meckwell, I don't know of any top pairs that have played this (although I am sure that there are more)

Balicki - Zmudzinski and most other polish pairs play this version of multi.
I also don't like multi and I even less like 2suiter 2M openers (w/e they are called).
In Poland situation is similar to Netherlands: default is multi and you usually need a lot of convincing to change it.

[inquiry]

When I play my full system, I am glad to play multi 2D.

I use weak two in a major, strong balanced, or very strong minor one suiter (essentially 10.5 tricks).

• Having a strong balanced hand here is necessary, because my 2NT opening bid is misiry (very strong two suiter), and 2C-2x-2NT is a three suiter, so I need this addition.
• With such a strong minor one suiter in 2D opener, my minor one suiter opened 2C are 100% game force

I use ritong 2M, showing the bid major and clubs, limited opening bid (up to about 15 hcp).

• This allow me to play ritong 2C or what you might call gazilli.

So if you wanted to determine how successful 2D openings were for me, you would have to factor in the freedom it gives me for other auction, upto including such normal looking auctions as 1S-1N-2C or 1H-1S-2C where 2C is freed up to be artificial because of the 2M opening because of playing multi 2D.

Anyway, I like multi, but only in context of how it helps with my overall system.

[the hog]

I also like the Multi and I think limited 2 suited openings are a real winner. How many times do we have a post here saying what would you do with such and such. Very often if you have a 2 suited bid in your arsenal the problem is easier. It is no surprise that top Polish players like and play these bids.