[jillybean]

If we have a spade fit, I would like to find it at the 2 level. Over 1H 2D, finding a spade fit isn’t going to be easy unless partner had moderate extras. I don’t “reverse” after a 2/1 without a good hand. I open all 12 and some 11s

(I’m going to be told to read my signature again)

[smerriman]

Why isn't it easy if they don't have extras? Whatever they bid, your next bid is spades, and you've found your fit while also describing both of your hands.

[mike777]

Ty Kathryn for your response.
Here is another viewpoint.
1. With 5h and 4s. Minimum I would rebid 2H after 2D..

2. 6H And 4 or 5 spades, vast majority of time,perhaps always?,
I will make a "high reverse"
And rebid 2 spades to simplify auction.

[nullve]

 jillybean, on 2024-November-22, 23:11, said:

If we have a spade fit, I would like to find it at the 2 level. Over 1H 2D, finding a spade fit isn’t going to be easy unless partner had moderate extras. I don’t “reverse” after a 2/1 without a good hand.

I don't understand why it's so important to find the spade fit at the 2-level after 2♦ has established the GF. But actually, after

1♥-2♦
2♥*-2♠

* 4+ spades still possible if minimum

Opener will have found the spade fit at the 2-level if he has four spades himself; and after

1♥-2♦
2♠*

* 4+ spades, extras

Responder will have found the spade fit at the 2-level if he has four spades himself.

Raising 2♠ to 3♠ would set the trump suit in both cases.

[DavidKok]

With a GF hand with 5(+)m4♠ over partner's 1♥ opening I prefer starting with the 2/1, even if it means a spade fit will only be confirmed at the 3-level. On the sequence 1♥-1♠; 2♠-? not only can the raise be a 3-card suit (at least for me) which I'd have to untangle, also a new bid by responder is primarily a game investigation rather than a slam try. We will lose some space at the 3-level to sorting that out, so we don't gain all that much on the slam investigation. By contrast, starting with the 2/1 has a number of benefits if we do not have a spade fit - the biggest one being that we are ahead on looking for a possible minor suit slam (it is our longest suit, after all).

Nullve, by your argument opener knows about the spade fit at the 1-level on the 1♥-1♠ sequence, so Kathryn's approach still saves a level (though I think your approach is only distracting from the actual question).

[helene_t]

Quote

But the bidding that stood out was (with opps passing) 3NT*-5C*-5H-5S - I've no idea what this is.

3NT was meant as both majors but North thought it was a solid minor, and wanted to play 5♣ opposite that.
South's 5♥ was hopefully not based on UI ....
Anyway, 5♥ woke up North.

[nullve]

 jillybean, on 2024-November-22, 21:04, said:

How does this work playing Multi? I don't play it since it is forbidden here, but always interested in the auction.
2♦. 2N force
3♥ 3nt?

You can't systemically find the spade fit playing any common version of Multi here. But over, say,

2♦(1)-2N(2)
3♣(3)-3N(4)

(1) Multi
(2) INV+ relay
(3) MAX with long hearts (as per very old-fashioned responses to the 2N relay)
(4) to play

Opener could try 4♠, a bid that is undefined within Multi (at least after Opener has shown hearts) but will likely end the auction regardless.

I'm pretty sure you're allowed to play Multi 2♦ in the ACBL if it promises at least "average strength", which they define. So instead of playing

2♦ = Multi (Weak Two strength if weak option)
2M = Intermediate Twos

which is played at the highest level in Sweden and elsewhere (and by mikeh!), you could play

2♦ = Multi (Intermediate Two strength if weakest option)
2M = Weak Twos

.

[jillybean]

 nullve, on 2024-November-23, 07:15, said:

You can't systemically find the spade fit playing any common version of Multi here. But over, say,

2♦(1)-2N(2)
3♣(3)-3N(4)

(1) Multi
(2) INV+ relay
(3) MAX with long hearts (as per very old-fashioned responses to the 2N relay)
(4) to play

Opener could try 4♠, a bid that is undefined within Multi (at least after Opener has shown hearts) but will likely end the auction regardless.

I'm pretty sure you're allowed to play Multi 2♦ in the ACBL if it promises at least "average strength", which they define. So instead of playing

2♦ = Multi (Weak Two strength if weak option)
2M = Intermediate Twos

which is played at the highest level in Sweden and elsewhere (and by mikeh!), you could play

2♦ = Multi (Intermediate Two strength if weakest option)
2M = Weak Twos

.

Thanks. Can someone from NA confirm this, Mycroft?

[mw64ahw]

 nullve, on 2024-November-23, 07:15, said:

You can't systemically find the spade fit playing any common version of Multi here. But over, say,

2♦(1)-2N(2)
3♣(3)-3N(4)

(1) Multi
(2) INV+ relay
(3) MAX with long hearts (as per very old-fashioned responses to the 2N relay)
(4) to play

Opener could try 4♠, a bid that is undefined within Multi (at least after Opener has shown hearts) but will likely end the auction regardless.

I'm pretty sure you're allowed to play Multi 2♦ in the ACBL if it promises at least "average strength", which they define. So instead of playing

2♦ = Multi (Weak Two strength if weak option)
2M = Intermediate Twos

which is played at the highest level in Sweden and elsewhere (and by mikeh!), you could play

2♦ = Multi (Intermediate Two strength if weakest option)
2M = Weak Twos

.

Perhaps 2♦ wasn't a Multi, but the original Ekren Weak 2 in the Majors?

[nullve]

 DavidKok, on 2024-November-23, 06:00, said:

Nullve, by your argument opener knows about the spade fit at the 1-level on the 1♥-1♠ sequence, so Kathryn's approach still saves a level (though I think your approach is only distracting from the actual question).

It's hard to imagine that you disagree with anything I wrote, since I was commenting on

 jillybean, on 2024-November-22, 23:11, said:

If we have a spade fit, I would like to find it at the 2 level. Over 1H 2D, finding a spade fit isn’t going to be easy unless partner had moderate extras. I don’t “reverse” after a 2/1 without a good hand.

where Kathryn seems (to me, at least) to suggest that locating a spade fit after 1♥-2♦ is somehow not trivial unless Opener has the extras to bid 2♠ instead of 2♥.

Btw, what is my approach in this context? I was just trying to use Kathryn's own approach where 1♥-2♦; 2♠ shows extras. And what is the question I'm distracting from? There are literally no questions in the quote I gave. At most a number of implied questions, like

1) Is there a way to find the spade fit at the 2-level? (Answer: Yes)
2) Is it trivial to find the spade fit after 1♥-2♦; 2♥? (Answer: Yes)

[helene_t]

I have seen a multi (i.e. NOT Ekren or Wilkosz) 2♦ on hands like this a few times. I think what is going on is that people have just learned a new toy and want to make use of any opportunity to practice it.

Opening multi on such a hand is, imho, much worse than opening a natural preempt:
1: Multi is a relatively ineffective preempt (at least if we don't allow for opps messing up their defence against multi, and we don't do evil stuff like frequently passing the opening), so multi should be used with more discipline than natural preempts
2: If we open this hand with a natural 2♥ or 3♠ or whatever, we may choose to introduce our second suit later. It is more risky (and creates more UI issues) to do this with multi, because p may get confused about what we are trying to say (e.g. first passing partner's hearts and later bid spades could also mean that we took partner's bid as natural, or that we psyched), and bidding voluntarily as multi-opener may even be seen as showing a strong multi option.

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2024-November-23, 07:42, said:

Thanks. Can someone from NA confirm this, Mycroft?

Multi is disallowed, in 95% or more of acbl games….and 100% of club and sectional tournament games….because it is defined as a preempt and artificial preempts are disallowed. It’s not considered a preempt if it promises at least 10 hcp, the lower bound of ‘average strength’. I had been unaware of that until I read this thread.

At least in ACBLand, where few know how to defend against a weaker multi….because they almost never encounter it….my take is that the weak multi is a clear winner when it comes up in regionally rated open or A flight team games even though we have to provide written defences. Option 1 of the two approved ACBL defences is theoretically bad and option two is far too complex for a pair to use effectively if they’ve not studied it before.

The rest of the world has few problems with multi…it carries a reputation for being difficult to pay play against (in the acbl) primarily because it was ‘too complex’ to be allowed. At the recent WC in Buenos Aires we had our written defences at the table but literally nobody wanted to see them…every pair we encountered had their own defences.

Whether swapping the strengths of our 2M for that of our multi would make sense is an interesting idea. However, I doubt we’ll even try it. We’re happy with our current arrangement and, in my main partnership, we don’t play a lot of events where multi is disallowed. In my other ‘multi’ partnership, my partner is acutely conscious of trying to avoid intimidating local players (I agree with him but confess that I don’t feel quite as strongly about it….we’re talking about using ‘unusual conventions’, not behaviour at the table) so I’m morally sure he’d not play any form of multi even if we structured it to require 10+ hcp.

Actually, I think that would be a bad idea. 10-13 hcp hands offer more game and slam potential than do 5-8, which is our multi range. Concealing, initially, the suit held makes slam bidding, more than game bidding, more difficult than when the suit is known immediately….you have to use at least a round of bidding to identify the suit, using up bidding space. We have bid slams after the weak 2D but the bidding was inelegant compared to most of our auctions.

[jillybean]

 mike777, on 2024-November-22, 22:52, said:

what makes you believe 1 spade is a routine response?

You're right. I don;t have the confidence that my (pickup) partner would show me spade support over bidding NT
after 1H 2D 2H 2S.

[smerriman]

 nullve, on 2024-November-23, 08:05, said:

1) Is there a way to find the spade fit at the 2-level? (Answer: Yes)

jillybean's comment that you were replying to was that she liked being able to find the fit at the 2 level via the auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠. Clearly, it is impossible to find the fit at the 2 level after 1♥ - 2♦, unless you're talking about from one person's perspective, which she definitely can't have been, as otherwise her auction finds the fit for opener at the 1 level.

[nullve]

smerriman, on 2024-November-23, 18:26, said:

jillybean's comment that you were replying to was that she liked being able to find the fit at the 2 level via the auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠.

I missed that. Now I understand what DavidKok was referring to.

[mycroft]

Sorry, I didn't notice this.

As Mike said, on the Open chart, almost any 2-level opening that promises at least 10 HCP or Rule of 19 is allowed. The following are disallowed:

ACBL Open Chart, disallowed opening bids said:

7. An Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT; except, 2NT may be used to show two known suits.
8. An Artificial opening bid showing two suits, neither of which is known.
9. An Artificial Three-Suited opening bid (with or without known shortness) that does not show at least Average Strength.
10. A 2-level or higher opening bid that could contain less than Average Strength showing a known suit and an unknown suit, where the unknown suit could be the suit opened.
11. A non-Forcing 2-level opening bid in first or second seat that has a Range of greater than 9 HCP and could show less than Average Strength.

(It does also mention no "Purely Destructive Opening Bids", but since one category to get out of PDIA is "Average strength", it doesn't matter to this discussion)

Where:

ACBL Convention Charts, Definitions said:

22. “Preempt”: A jump bid by Opener or Overcaller that does not promise at least Average strength.
1c. “Average Strength”: A hand that has at least 10 HCP or meets the “Rule of 19”.
27. “Rule of N”: A method of determining hand strength computed by adding the High Card Points of the hand to the number of cards in the two longest suits. To meet the “Rule of N”, this total must be at least N.

So, yeah, unless it's "11-15, majors or minors", you're good.