[jillybean]

 Tramticket, on 2023-March-29, 11:11, said:

2D-2NT needs to be strong enough to play in game opposite the upper end of the range for your weak options. It will depend on your range of course, but 14+ sounds too low. You then need to discuss your response to the 2NT inquiry. A simple scheme is that 3C/3D show upper range in hearts/spades respectively and you bid the suit with lower range.

Our weak range is 6-10 so 14 is low, 15 would be better. We are playing 3C/3D response to 2NT to show upper range.

 Tramticket, on 2023-March-29, 11:11, said:

You can actually divide the range into three if you prefer, so 3C/3D show either top of range or bottom of range with 3H/S showing the middle of the range. Then bidding the intermediate suit over 3CD asks again whether top or bottom.

2D-2S can be any hand where you are prepared to compete to 3H, but not 3S, so likely only a doubleton spade. With 3-3 in the majors, bid 3H (pass or correct)

I like these. David's system is far superior but too complex for me.

[AL78]

 the hog, on 2023-March-29, 18:12, said:

MikeH: "If his side suit is always a minor, we bid 2N because 3m is probably better than 2H plus, importantly, 2N has preemptive value." This is by far not optimal. 2NT should always show values, not ask for the minor. With the minors as here, bid 3C/3D pass or correct. Who knows you may even pick up their suit .
Jilly after playing 2D Multi for a long time, I have come to the conclusion a 2D opening whould always be some weak 2 and include no strong option. This puts a lot of pressure on the opponents as 2D might even be passed.
2H = H and another is a very poor bid. We gave this up after analysing results as it was a loser.. Play 2H = H and a minor. If you want a bid to show Majors, play 2D as Ekrens.

With one partner I used to play 2♥ as 5-5 ♥+minor or Acol strong 2♥ or strong balanced, 2♠ was 5-5 spades+other or Acol strong 2♠.

[DavidKok]

 jillybean, on 2023-March-29, 19:11, said:

Playing Multi weak+strong, 2NT becomes 55 minors, we play 2C as 23+ (not my favorite)
If we drop the strong hand from Multi do you use 2NT for 20-21(22) hands ? Thus leaving 3C/3D our only method for weak minors.

I play 2NT 20-21, 2♣ is either 22-23 BAL or GF (24+ is GF in my book, no splitting hairs with a 1-count opposite).

Something that I found interesting is that 2NT as weak with 5-5 (or longer) minors is typically not a great winner. The downsides are:

• The bid is (virtually) forcing, giving LHO two bites at the apple.
  
• The bid is low frequency - 0.45% of all hands (with a 4-10 range), compared to 0.59% for 20-21 (semi)balanced.
  
• You are shouting to the table that the hand is a misfit or the opponents can compete in a major suit, perhaps making game. As an example defence, 'X = 13-15 (semi)bal with tolerance for the majors OR very strong, Unusual over Unusual' works well enough against the bid. Majors still outrank the minors.
  
• With modern aggressive opening tendencies, especially with a reasonable major suit, the bid is even lower frequency in second and third hand.

The treatment also has upsides, including:

• If partner has a good minor fit you might be able to get to 5m before they get to 4M.
  
• If you can open the 20-21 balanced hands low, say with a strong 1♣, you get to have better constructive auctions with that hand type.

I think playing 2NT as something artificial and weak makes sense in a strong club system, where there are significant gains to opening 1♣ with strong balanced hands. The same goes for other systems where you have an artificial or semi-artificial way to open strong hands at the 1-level. In those systems 2NT is idle, and you may as well add something preemptive (although I think there might be more interesting options than 'weak, both minors'). However, I'm not a fan of moving 20-21 (or 20-22) strong into an artificial 2-level opening, especially not a multi-meaning weak-or-strong bid. That style has worse constructive auctions facing the strong balanced hand, if anything, while also sacrificing effectiveness of the preemptive opening bids. And all that for a 2NT opening that rarely comes up, and doesn't win big when it does.

[jillybean]

---

I want to compete here and bid 3♥ to say I am happy to play in your suit at the 3 level.
We play X here as 14+

[DavidKok]

3♥, pass or correct seems fine. There is an argument for a bid at the 4-level instead - if partner has 6 weak hearts we will probably survive while the opponents may make a vulnerable minor suit game, and if partner has spades we will always do well to compete to the 4-level. If partner can have a (by inference, lousy) 5-card heart suit we have to be more cautious and only bid 3♥. If that is not your partnership style I think 4♥ has a lot going for it.

[jillybean]

multi

---

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]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-05, 09:43, said:

multi

---

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]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-05, 09:43, said:

multi

---

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]

 pescetom, on 2023-April-07, 10:36, said:

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]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-07, 10:46, said:

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]

 pescetom, on 2023-April-07, 12:23, said:

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]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-07, 13:24, said:

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:

 jillybean, on 2023-April-07, 10:46, said:

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.

 jillybean, on 2023-April-07, 13:24, said:

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).

 jillybean, on 2023-April-07, 10:46, said:

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]

 pescetom, on 2023-April-08, 08:42, said:

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.

 pescetom, on 2023-April-08, 08:42, said:

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

---

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]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-09, 08:45, said:

Here's a quick one, Teams

---

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 😩