[marmot101]

I see multi-2D is very popular, yet I am confused about --

2D could 17-24 4-4-4-1 or weak 2

Then, is it a overlap with weak 2H/2S?

Can someone give a systematic explaination or recommend some link?

Best,

marmot101

[hrothgar]

Quote

I see multi-2D is very popular, yet I am confused about --

2D could 17-24 4-4-4-1 or weak 2

Then, is it a overlap with weak 2H/2S?

Can someone give a systematic explaination or recommend some link?

Best,

marmot101

A "Multi" 2D opening shows one of the following hand types:

a weak 2 bid in Hearts or
a weak 2 bid in Spades or
one or more strong adjuncts.

The most popular strong hand types are 4441 hands with 17-24 HCP and strong NT hands with 22+ HCP.

There are a variety of systemic reasons to use a multi-2D opening.
In some cases, players adopt a 2D opening to "plug" some hole in their system. For example, Blue Club doesn't have a good bidding sequence to show 4441 hands with 17-24 HCP. The strong Roman Opening [and later, the multi 2D opening is a hack to solv this problem]

In other cases, players adopt a multi-2D because they want to use a 2H/2S opening bid to show other hand types. The most obvious example is using 2D to show a weak 2 bid and an immediate 2M opening to show an Acol 2.

Alternatively, standard MOSCITO uses a 2D opening to show disciplined preempts. An immediate 2M opening shows some type of flawed preempt [a 5 card suit or a two suited hand pattern]. Another popular combination is using 2D to show a weak 2 bid in a major and 2H/2S to show some type of two suited hand pattern.

[inquiry]

Quote

I see multi-2D is very popular, yet I am confused about --

2D could 17-24 4-4-4-1 or weak 2

Then, is it a overlap with weak 2H/2S?

Can someone give a systematic explaination or recommend some link?

Best,

marmot101

Hi marmot,

I adopted Multi2D about 4 years ago, and have never regretted it. The version I play have evolved over time. I now play my multi-2D almost exactly as described by Dr. Chris Rydal on his web page (link below)

http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/tw...wo/diamonds.htm

Note that his multi-2D has some differences in the responses. Also his version doesn't include the 4-4-4-1 distributions and good hand (he opens those 2C.. that is another story), but it does include the balanced hand with 22-24 as well as ACOL 2-bids in either MINOR.

This frees up 2H and 2S bids for me to use as Dutch two's.

Ben

[the hog]

Few today play that the strong 3 suiter can be included in a 2D opening. This option tended to be unwieldy and the hand type is relatively rare. Weak 2 in the Ms or flat 20(?) to 22(?) is common.

Some players have abandoned any strong option in the multi. The reason for this is that 2D is now no longer forcing. This puts more pressure on the opponents as they are now forced to take immediate action over 2D with a decent hand.

Of course, this means that 2NT cannot now be used as an artifical bid nad has to retain its strong meaning.

[Laird]

Thanks Marmot 101 for asking that question as oponents who use multi 2 are a constant source of frustration to me.

How many points or what type of hand pattern do you need to compete against it effectively?

Do you wait for clarification of their bids? Get in quick and double so partner can respond with best suit?
Is there a convention - that can be written on the back of a cigarette packet - that is useful against it?

That cavendish link is indeed impressive....muiderberg two level bidding and paradox advances....Oh! dear! :-

John

[Yzerman]

Just a quick comment on multi, IT SUCKS! I dont say that because the multi structure is not effective, I say that because it is the MOST abused convention in bridge history (with Bergen a close 2nd).

For some reason, players that would otherwise play along the lines of "disciplined" find that now that they have a "destructive" bidding tool at their disposal have a license to bid like an idiot. Furthermore, the 2H/2S/2N bids get abused to the point that sometimes I dont even recognize what is being played, Bridge or Go-Fish.

I will play Multi with some partners, but inevitably my blood pressure reaches about 500/250 because of the non-stop abuse of all the bids from 2D to 2N.

[hrothgar]

Quote

Just a quick comment on multi, IT SUCKS! I dont say that because the multi structure is not effective, I say that because it is the MOST abused convention in bridge history (with Bergen a close 2nd).

For some reason, players that would otherwise play along the lines of "disciplined" find that now that they have a "destructive" bidding tool at their disposal have a license to bid like an idiot. Furthermore, the 2H/2S/2N bids get abused to the point that sometimes I dont even recognize what is being played, Bridge or Go-Fish.

This strikes me as a very parochial (and very North American) attiitude.
You seem to be working from a premise that there are "good" bids [which you define as disciplined] and some other class of "bad" bids.

Goods bids are bids that get good results. I'll play whatever opening structure I believe is going to provide me with the best outcome in the long run.

I don't care too much if this turns the game into a crap shoot, so long as the odds are weighted enough in my favor.

[inquiry]

Quote

Just a quick comment on multi, IT SUCKS! I dont say that because the multi structure is not effective, I say that because it is the MOST abused convention in bridge history (with Bergen a close 2nd).

For some reason, players that would otherwise play along the lines of "disciplined" find that now that they have a "destructive" bidding tool at their disposal have a license to bid like an idiot. Furthermore, the 2H/2S/2N bids get abused to the point that sometimes I dont even recognize what is being played, Bridge or Go-Fish.

Well, I certainly have seen a lot of awful bad bids playing multi 2D. But who hasn't seen their partner open a normal weak 2S on something like:
S-QTxxx
H-xx
D-KTxx
C-Jx

Yuck. So even weak twos are abused. Now with a disciplined partner, you have no fear of either multi 2D or this type of imaginative weak two. And with an undisciplined, well, hope they pick their times for wildness (don't we all occassionally just get the the inspiration for something more than slightly off-center?).

My problem with multi-2D has more to do with my partner's use of the 2H/2S bid. I use thes as weak 5M-4m+ (you could play 2H as flannery and 2S as very weak minor preempts or whatever you like if you play multi). One of my partner insist on open 2H with both

xx
Txxxx
AJxx
xx

and

xx
AJxxx
AJTxxx
void

Obviously there is no way to bid logically if your partner can have this range. I try to insist on a) fair five card major, less than a rule of 20 opening, and c) a minimum of something like good 7 or 8 points.

So while the multi 2D is working fine, the 2H/2S bids get abused. Making them something else (flannery 2H and something unusual with 2S) might bring them back into line. A use I saw for 2S is as 5-5 in the majors strong or very weak hand with one long minor. I still muiderberg 2H/2S but I am tempted to switch with a few partners due to the problem Yzerman is discussing.

Ben...

PS.. my partner just opened this crappy hand first seat vul versus not vul 2H....

S-52
H-A8543
D-QJT3
C-T4

He caught me with just to much for them to make anything but we went down a 2, and lost 5 IMPs. This is another example of what Yzerman is talking about.

[inquiry]

Quote

Goods bids are bids that get good results. I'll play whatever opening structure I believe is going to provide me with the best outcome in the long run.

I don't care too much if this turns the game into a crap shoot, so long as the odds are weighted enough in my favor.

I think the stronger player you are, the less likely you want to enter a "crap shoot". All things being equal, the stronger player will win in the long run. When playing with an inferior partner, say like me, bidding wildly in an effort to create a swings would be a logical stategy. Late in a matchpoint event where an average or normal result is no good, but a top or near top will do you good, then turning the game into a crap shoot is also a fine idea...who wants to come in 4th in an major event when a roll of the dice would give them a chance for a first?

But in the long run, crap shooters lose out. An expert should want to play carefully, and yes with great discipline, and PICK the time to roll the dice. Not do it all the time. And of course, experts hope their opponents play just normal bridge against them most of the time, as in the long run they will win against such a stategy...after all, they are experts because they are better than most players.

Ben

[Cave_Draco]

Read Bridgeguys on the Multi, http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/Mult...woDiamonds.html

The Weak 2H/S are just too valuable to give up & bundle in with awkward hands, .

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben, I think that you neglected a critical word in my posting.

I said "I don't care too much if this turns the game into a crap shoot, so long as the odds are weighted enough in my favor."

Your entire analysis is focusing completely on the standard deviation, while ignoring the mean. I’ll simply note that Vegas does VERY well focusing on the mean rather than the standard deviation and that this advantage becomes more pronounced as the number of samples increases. Vegas rolls the dice over, and over, and over again. That’s why casinos do so well. You have to take an enormous number of nickels from little old ladies in order to build the Bellagio.

Case in point:

When possible I prefer to play a 2D opening where 2D promises a weak hand with 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major.

My experiences with this bid suggest that it has both an extremely high mean and a high variance. I expect to pick up 2-3 IMPs each time that the 2D opening comes up. However, I’m not surprised when I go for 800 opposite nothing.

I’m happiest if I get lots of 2D openings during a match [or the companion 2H/2S opening bids]. I need the high expected value to compensate for the occasional disaster.

It is possible to consider an extremely complex optimization that trade offs between the mean and the standard deviation for a given bid [or, for that matter, for a given bidding system.] As you note, this optimization will depend on declarer's skill level. Players with an intrinsic advantage declaring or defending have a vested interest in ensuring that everyone plays the same contract. Players with less innate talent should do whatever they can to neutralize this advantage.

It worth noting: Bridge is a unique game because the players are so irrational. The worst players adopt the most deterministic strategies. They all attempt to apply virtually identical, standardized bidding systems. The only variance in the “herd” comes about when a novice makes one of their inevitable mistakes. The ability of the expert to apply his skill is maximized because the herd strives for conformity. In actuality, the least able players have the greatest interest in maximizing the variance.

[Yzerman]

Just a few additonal comments/thoughts. The North American (acbl) approach for bridge play/bidding is explicity opposed to DESTRUCTIVE means of bidding, where destructive means systemic or agreements such that the other three (3) players at the table are in doubt as to what a bid means. Some examples of destructive bidding include (in the eyes of the acbl);

a) Multi 2D
Forcing Pass Systems
c) Frequent or Systemic Psyches
d) Defensive Bidding structures in which bids => 2D in which one suit is not known.

These apply to Mid-Chart and below tournaments/events. I have personally walked the fence on this issue and currently find myself more in favor of the current approach (disallowing these in Mid-Chart).

Why?

These do not promote the REAL strategy of bridge - CARD PLAY.

When I learned to play bridge, I learned EXACTLY what I just said, to play BRIDGE. I did not learn bridge under the guise of "decieve the opponents, and opps". I learned (a) how to count a hand, ( how to visualize hands (defensively and as declarer), © play inference and defensive inference, and (d) sportsmanship.

If a persons sole intent upon using these conventions is to injure/decieve the opposition and/or partner it is a gross violation of the game. The real "good" players do NOT need this stuff, they need 52 cards and a partner who they can TRUST (both bidding and defensively). Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolffe, Tommy Sanders, Charles Goren, Zia Mahmood, Eric Rodwell, Eric Greco, Geoff Hampson, and a host of other players who win regularly because of superior card play, not because of fancy bidding. Within their established partnerships sure they have sophisticated means of bidding, but they use it the context of parternship bridge.

For a casual bridge player to adopt some of these more "ambiguous" means of bidding will forever ruin the impression of REAL bridge upon these people. I know very many self-perceived expert bridge players on the basis of they know "more" bidding techniques then the population. Guess what, that is NOT winning bridge.

I may sound like I am concretely opposed to multi, that is NOT the case. Upon a person competing in and succeeding in organized tournament play, then that player can start researching means of "competitive advantage", but to congest the mind with the fallacy that sophisticated bidding = winning bridge is just to produce inferior bridge players for the future.

[pbleighton]

"These do not promote the REAL strategy of bridge - CARD PLAY."

Do you mean that bidding is not part of "real" bridge strategy? If so, I entirely disagree.

I will take the liberty of commenting on Richard's "a 2D opening where 2D promises a weak hand with 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major" (though Richard is really the one to speak on this)

This is a pretty well-defined bid, and I believe that it is more likely to make as a traditional weak two, and much more likely to make than an undisciplined weak two. It can be played with a narrower point count range than a traditional weak two, and still give you more opportunities to bid. Thus, it is both more constructive and more preemptive than a traditional weak two.

The "either major" part of this, which I am inferring from your post is what you disagree with, actually increases the likelihood of the contract making. It also maximizes risk for the opponent's interfering in your auction until you find your fit, but what is wrong with that?

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, why not ban all preemptive bids, since they interfere with "real bridge strategy"?

Your point about some players loading up on conventions and "fancy bidding" as a substitute for getting better on play is true: speaking for myself, I should certainly spend more time on improving my poor defense and less time studying and analyzing bidding systems (but it's what interests me the most, and what the heck!).

The point is true, but not relevant to whether certain bidding methods should be banned.

I am not even sure that you believe 100% in what you wrote. Your excellent posts in this forum on bidding show that you have thought a lot about bidding, and see it as more than an adjunct to play. If I remember correctly, you yourself aren't exactly averse to some "fancy bidding"

Regards,

Peter

[hrothgar]

First, if you are going to represent North American regulations, you should at least get them correct.

The ACBL maintains that certain types of bids are inherently destructive.
However, only one of the bids that you describe as destructive as defined that way by the ACBL. At the very least, please try to learn the difference between bids that are not sanctioned at a particular level of play and bids that are deemed inherently destructive.

Second:

When I learned how to play bridge, I learned from Europeans. That means that I learned that it is necessary and proper to design my bidding to confuse the opponents as much as possible. I learned that it is essential to minimize the opponent's ability to visualize a hand, and count everything out. On occasion, this has the unfortunately effect of confusing partner, but these things happen.

I will note that most top American pairs use this same style when they see fit. Look at all the discussion about the importance of "forcing the last guess" on the opponents during competitive bidding. However, like most people, those top American pairs are incredibly hypocritical, favoring the unusual methods that they themselves favor while seeking to ban anything that might threaten their hegemony. The sheer hypocrisy of Hamman who is extremely active in trying to ban unusual methods while playing his pet canapé system and Meckstroth [less said the better] is particular galling.

In your own case, you seem to define bridge as a very specific subset of the game. [From my perspective, it isn’t even a particular interesting subset.] If you’re that enamored with card play, why bother with bridge. Take up Hearts or Spades or some other game that is optimized around card play.

[the hog]

Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolffe, Tommy Sanders, Charles Goren, Zia Mahmood, Eric Rodwell, Eric Greco, Geoff Hampson, and a host of other players who win regularly because of superior card play, not because of fancy bidding. Within their established partnerships sure they have sophisticated means of bidding, but they use it the context of parternship bridge.


So are you saying that Meckwell's 800 pages of system are for naught? What about the fake cue bids frequently employed by Zia? Bridge is not just about card play. You can play the hands as well as you like, but if you are off the A of trumps in a grand, you won't make your contract. Bidding is an equally important part of the game.

[Yzerman]

Looks like a started a war (perhaps it because i am ill and being provocative). My point is not to degrade those that use Multi or similar conventions, my point is that before embarking on such things I think that bridge basics should be fully understood, including but not limited to the following;

a) What is purpose of 2 level preempt
What is purpose of systemic bidding agreements
c) To fully understand the risk/reward of introducing new bidding methods/conventions into a system

I have personally witnessed too many people who do not have much experience, or have not played bridge for very long try to compensate at a competitive level with bidding "gadgetry". Before substituting natural bids with totally artificial bids a player must understand the risk/reward of the replacement as well as a full understanding of what he/she is giving up.

My original argument was the abuse of the multi 2D that I have witnessed. It was cited that some people abuse normal 2H/2S preempts. Well that is fine, if they abuse those bids, guess what, if they are abusing natural bidding means they are not ready for abusing artificial bidding either.

My argument remains the same; artificial bidding conventions/methods for the purpose of making ones self more competitive are NOT constructive unless there is a full understanding of that artificial bid, and its counterpart natural bid.

And regarding the card play portion, you will NEVER be successful at bridge without an understanding of card play however if you are able to overcome that obstacle, you CAN win an event with or without fancy bidding (although your chances may not be as great). Sound understanding of card play (along with all the caveats of card play, (a) table feel, ( technical play, and © flexibility) AND good partnership skills will always be the cornerstones of good bridge.

[easy]

I'm not a multi 2d lover either...but not because of abuse of the convention but because i hate the fact that as the responder to a multi opening i cant always further partners preempt effectively.

Lets say pard opens 2d and i hold

Qxxx x Qxxx Jxxx If pard has wk 2 in spades i want to get to 4s immediately, if pard has hearts i pass , and if pard has the balanced 22-24 then we'll play game somewhere. It seems to me with all of the various hands pard can have we lose the preemptive effect of our major suit wk 2's. Im not sure that that loss is offset by the fact that the bid allows us to open 2h/s with 5/4 major minor hands.


I like taking away bidding space from the opponents and multi puts a real cramp in my preempting style!


Comments anyone??

[the hog]

Yes, I agree with this, but with
x
Qxxx
Qxxx
Jxxx
you bid 2S. Now if pd does have H, unlikely I know, but.... the opps have to unravel this

[hrothgar]

Quote

I'm not a multi 2d lover either...but not because of abuse of the convention but because i hate the fact that as the responder to a multi opening i cant always further partners preempt effectively.

Lets say pard opens 2d and i hold

Qxxx x Qxxx Jxxx If pard has wk 2 in spades i want to get to 4s immediately, if pard has hearts i pass , and if pard has the balanced 22-24 then we'll play game somewhere. It seems to me with all of the various hands pard can have we lose the preemptive effect of our major suit wk 2's. Im not sure that that loss is offset by the fact that the bid allows us to open 2h/s with 5/4 major minor hands.

I like taking away bidding space from the opponents and multi puts a real cramp in my preempting style!

Comments anyone??

I agree that the Multi-2D opening has a number of flaws.

As you note, the lack of a known anchor suit prevents responder from bouncing the preempt.

Multiplexing weak and strong hand types also prevents partner from bouncing the hand.

Opening in a suit other than a known anchor makes the multi much easier to defend against. LHO can often afford to pass with certain weak hands types.

None-the-less, I think that the multi is a pretty decent use for 2D simple because "standard" weak 2 openings are so very rare.

Consider the following

6322 hands make up about 5.64% of all hands.
6331 make up about 3.45% of all hands.

In contrast, 5431 patterns make up 12.93%
and 5521's make up 3.17%

---------

The major minor 2 suiters are at least as good at constructive bidding as single suited hand patterns, they are almost as safe, and they are four times as frequent as the bid they displace [we lose a natural, eak 2D opening, we gain 2 major mino 2 suiters]

There are a number of opening structures that I prefer, however, I think that the multi wins out over traditional methods

[Yzerman]

Quote

Quote

---------

The major minor 2 suiters are at least as good at constructive bidding as single suited hand patterns, they are almost as safe, and they are four times as frequent as the bid they displace [we lose a natural, eak 2D opening, we gain 2 major mino 2 suiters]

There are a number of opening structures that I prefer, however, I think that the multi wins out over traditional methods

I dont think one can base this argument solely on "frequency". You must also consider (a) risk, ( reward, © utility.

I have prepared my own Multi 2D risk/reward matrix (I have assigned a value for risk, reward, and utility on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being worse and 10 being best);

Rewards (I rate multi 2D a reward factor of 7/10)
a) Frequency
Ability to open hands not otherwise opened
c) Gain in security of having a second suit for 2H/2S preempt (alternate place to play)

Risk (I rate multi 2D a risk factor of 4/10)
a) Ambiguity of preempt (eg 2D=H or 2D=S or 2D=20-21?)
Lack of security of six card suit with 2H/2S level
c) Difficulties after opponents overcall

Utility (I rate multi 2D a utility factor of 5/10)
a) Multi vs weak 2D
Multi vs Flannery (* My preference)
c) Multi vs Roman/Mini-Roman
d) Multi vs 4/4 major preempt (dont know name)

Above is my analysis of Multi 2D for risk/reward/utility. Obviously I believe that Multi 2D is a more liberal convention with a high reward with a rather high amount of risk (although I think the reward outweighs the risk). My personal approach to the game is that I prefer to have a lower amount of risk with not so much emphasis on reward, but rather an emphasis on utility.

Please feel free to add your own thoughts/analysis on the above, and remember this is just my personal analysis.[/[/size]quote]