BBO Discussion Forums: Multi v Multi - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Multi v Multi

#1 User is offline   phoenix214 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 2011-December-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Riga
  • Interests:Bridge; Chess; Boardgames; Physics; Math; Problem solving; and anything that makes my brain thinking.

Posted 2013-February-10, 08:12

Chris Ryall said, that sometime a good method for defense against a method is to use the method itself, and he shows a version of "Multi v Multi"
where against a "Multi" opening a double shows "Multi" itself - that is opening with a 5 card major or strong balanced or strong 4441.

I was wondering if this method is good and is it possible to use a similar method against other artificial openings and defenses?
http://chrisryall.ne...-v-multi-2d.htm - link to his article
0

#2 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2013-February-10, 08:37

It's not bad. You can play either
(2D)-2H=takeout of hearts, 2S=takeout of spades
or
(2D)-2H=takeout of spades, 2S=takeout of hearts.

However, I still prefer to simply bid 2M as natural, that way you can bid hearts over spades on the 2-level.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#3 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2013-February-10, 08:50

I've played multi-vs-multi for many years with very good success. In fact, I have posted on it many times in these forums, always giving Chris credit for my understanding of it. I use several other ideas from his webpages as well.
--Ben--

#4 User is offline   phoenix214 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 2011-December-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Riga
  • Interests:Bridge; Chess; Boardgames; Physics; Math; Problem solving; and anything that makes my brain thinking.

Posted 2013-February-10, 09:11

@inquriy. Well i have had only one hand when we have used this defense so i don`t know it that good. I was more interested if the theory can be used against some other types of bids as well, like defending against crash and other presumed fit type of bids,
0

#5 User is offline   Free 

  • mmm Duvel
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,728
  • Joined: 2003-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Duvel, Whisky

Posted 2013-February-11, 09:25

I used to play it, it's quite ok and especially funny if you explain it as "also some sort of multi".

These days I prefer to consider the opening as a 2 opening in direct seat. Works great (except perhaps against mini multi).
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
0

#6 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,679
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2013-February-12, 07:48

I've played the X as this for years without the 3-suiter option, and it works well. I don't see it as a method for other artificial bids, though. It works only because opener usually has a long major, and you have a paradox advance where 2 X 2 X shows values and spade support. If opener has "anything", such as a strong 1 or 2, it would be a disaster.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users