[Vampyr]

32519, on 2011-November-05, 23:19, said:

THE FINAL PIECE OF ADVICE FROM MANY PARTICIPANTS TO THIS POLE IS THIS: DON'T PLAY MULTI 2♦ JUST TO BE PLAYING IT. YOU NEED A SYSTEMIC REASON FOR DOING SO. YOU SHOULD USE THE MULTI ONLY IF IT FITS THE REST OF YOUR SYSTEM AND IS USED TO FIX A BUG ELSEWHERE. OTHER THAN THAT, STANDARD WEAK 2s ARE PROBABLY SUPERIOR!

This is not very accurate. Is the inability to play "muiderberg" or constructive weak 2s or Lucas Twos etc a "bug"? Even if it is, it is certainly not "elsewhere". It is a matter of wanting a different meaning for 2♥/2♠ openings, and doesn't really have an impact on the "rest of your system".

[32519]

Analysing the convention cards of the 22 countries that participated in the 2011 Bermuda Bowl to see what they used the 2♦ bid for (22 countries X 3 cards per country = 66 cards) makes some interesting reading. This is another look at shevek's analysis above.

Nr. Hand Type Description
25 Multi (predominantly the "weak only" version)
17 Standard Weak 2♦
15 Value showing bid (11+ HCP)
*5 Ekren's (or similar)
*4 Other
66 Total

The value showing bids included:
5 Strong (ACOL 2 type of hand)
5 Mexican 2♦ (18-19 HCP balanced)
2 Precision 2♦
3 Flannery 2♦
15 Total

Excluding the Multi from what the 2♦ bid was used for, we get:
41,5% Natural Weak 2♦
36,5% Value showing
78,0% Sub Total
*9,8% Ekren's (or similar)
12,2% Other
100% Total

The Convention Cards of the 25 pairs who did include the Multi shows interesting reading for what the 2♥ and 2♠ bids were subsequently used for:
15 Muiderberg 2s / Lukas 2s
10 Depending on seat and vulnerability the meaning of these bids also had a multi option; Muiderberg, Standard 6-card weak 2♥ or 2♠ bid or a constructive 2♥ or 2♠ bid (8-13 HCP)

[Raff90]

I prefer 2♦ as 18-19 balanced. Lauria Versace style...

But if i play 2♦ multi with my regular partner we only use it for a weak two in either major.
2♥ is both majors and 2♠ shows ♠+ Minor.
But anyways if you play multi you have to have lots of agreements for every situation...

[32519]

The Multi remains the topic of much controversy. In response to this thread and other similar threads, Han started a new thread titled “Multi Data Project.” The aim being to gather new data on the effectiveness of the Multi. You can find han's thread here http://www.bridgebas...i-data-project/ The response below has been copied in from Han's thread.

There is a much quicker way to gather first class data for those interested in burying this topic forever.

Find the Convention Cards for the players currently ranked from e.g. 1 to 100 in the world (rankings available on the World Bridge Federation website). Starting from number 1, work through their CC's until you have identified enough players who play the Multi 2♦. Now go to the Vugraph Project page http://www.bridgetoe.../index.php/home and do a search for the players name. The search option is under the PBN tag. Looking for all the hands they opened 2♦ with will speed up your quest for finding reliable data.

Some food for thought:
There is a possibility that the higher the ranking of the player the less likely you are to find the Multi on their CC's (I don't know what the answer is myself). If this turns out to be the case, don't even bother crunching the numbers. Undoubtedly these guys would at some stage all have experimented with the Multi before discarding it in favour of something else.

[shevek]

It's worth noting (maybe somebody has) that opening a Multi with 6 ♥s CAN be more preemptive than a natural weak 2♥.

Some would pass over a 2♦ multi with

♠KTxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣Qxxx

when they would surely double a weak 2♥ for takeout.
The auction will often go

(2♦) - no - (2♠) - no
(3♥) - ?

Or

(2♦) - no - (3♥) - no
(no) - ?

Now they can double for tko but this can work out badly.

I prefer showing shape over 2♦ via the simple X = tko of ♠s, 2♥ = tko of ♥s.
This gives up a natural 2♥ overcall but at least you are in the same boat as those defending natural weak 2s.
Some gains come in being able to pass then double as a penalty suggestion.

[Zelandakh]

shevek, on 2011-November-16, 05:26, said:

I prefer showing shape over 2♦ via the simple X = tko of ♠s, 2♥ = tko of ♥s.
This gives up a natural 2♥ overcall but at least you are in the same boat as those defending natural weak 2s.
Some gains come in being able to pass then double as a penalty suggestion.

I still do not understand the logic of this defence versus the simple X = t/o of hearts or very strong; 2H = limited t/o of spades.

[32519]

Weighing up the pros and cons of using the Multi, it appears as though there are more cons. Yet it is pretty obvious that the Multi is here to stay. So why not re-invent it into something new where the pros outweigh the cons?

The Bermuda Bowl CCs indicate the following:
25,8% of the participants used the 2♦ bid as a natural weak 2♦
22,7% of the participants used the 2♦ bid as value showing (Flannery, Mexican, Precision, Acol)

Some of the pairs who never used the Multi instead used a Multi type 2♥ and 2♠ bid where 2♥/2♠ showed a natural weak 2 in the suit or 5 cards in the suit and 4(5) cards in a lower ranking suit. Seat number sometimes also affected the meaning of the bid.

Amongst the current top 20 players ranked in the world, I found 3 who play the Multi: Helgemo ranked 12, Helness ranked 14 and Fredin ranked 20. Further down the rankings the number of players using the Multi 2♦ increases.

Finally: Would re-inventing the Multi into something new require it go through all the red tape once again to have it accepted in ACBL/other international tournaments?

[Charlie Yu]

Multi 2♦ is pretty much worse than weak 2 major, as responder can't preempt as effective as a weak 2M.

Though Multi frees up 2♥ and 2♠ for other purposes.

However, if allowed, I would rather play 2♦ Wilkosz + weak 2 major than Multi+Muiderberg.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-16, 08:50, said:

shevek, on 2011-November-16, 05:26, said:

It's worth noting (maybe somebody has) that opening a Multi I prefer showing shape over 2♦ via the simple X = tko of ♠s, 2♥ = tko of ♥s.
This gives up a natural 2♥ overcall but at least you are in the same boat as those defending natural weak 2s.
Some gains come in being able to pass then double as a penalty suggestion.

I still do not understand the logic of this defence versus the simple X = t/o of hearts or very strong; 2H = limited t/o of spades.

I agree. This is also my favorite defense. It is extremely simple and has the advantage that you can "hybridize" a little. 2♥ as limited take out also works well if you have something like a 15(34) or 2533 hand, since advancer will pass with many balanced hands with 3 hearts.

This means that you shouldn't use the bid for 2344 ditributions, but neither of these two defenses are made for those kinds of hands. After all, the idea is that overcaller tells advancer immediately what he thinks opener's major is. With a 2344 hand he will not have a clue what opener's major is.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-08, 06:03, said:

I agree. This is also my favorite defense. It is extremely simple and has the advantage that you can "hybridize" a little. 2♥ as limited take out also works well if you have something like a 15(34) or 2533 hand, since advancer will pass with many balanced hands with 3 hearts.

This means that you shouldn't use the bid for 2344 ditributions, but neither of these two defenses are made for those kinds of hands. After all, the idea is that overcaller tells advancer immediately what he thinks opener's major is. With a 2344 hand he will not have a clue what opener's major is.

Rik

Using this defense, can you find 3NT with a weak NT opposite a weak NT?

[FrancesHinden]

32519, on 2011-November-15, 23:01, said:

The Multi remains the topic of much controversy. In response to this thread and other similar threads, Han started a new thread titled “Multi Data Project.” The aim being to gather new data on the effectiveness of the Multi. You can find han's thread here http://www.bridgebas...i-data-project/ The response below has been copied in from Han's thread.

There is a much quicker way to gather first class data for those interested in burying this topic forever.

Find the Convention Cards for the players currently ranked from e.g. 1 to 100 in the world (rankings available on the World Bridge Federation website). Starting from number 1, work through their CC's until you have identified enough players who play the Multi 2♦. Now go to the Vugraph Project page http://www.bridgetoe.../index.php/home and do a search for the players name. The search option is under the PBN tag. Looking for all the hands they opened 2♦ with will speed up your quest for finding reliable data.

Some food for thought:
There is a possibility that the higher the ranking of the player the less likely you are to find the Multi on their CC's (I don't know what the answer is myself). If this turns out to be the case, don't even bother crunching the numbers. Undoubtedly these guys would at some stage all have experimented with the Multi before discarding it in favour of something else.

None of this actually helps that much.
(i) in the US, you can only play the multi in midchart events, and then only with a lot of hassle. It's possible that pairs who want to play the multi can't be bothered to have a different system for GCC events.
(ii) Simply looking for hands on which people opened a multi doesn't tell you if it's a good convention or not. You need first to compare against pairs playing natural weak twos on these boards, and then you have to find all the boards where other pairs opened 2D (meaning whatever) and the multi pairs couldn't, and then you have to find all the boards where the multi pairs opened 2M meaning something esle, and compare that to the weak two pairs.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-08, 12:51, said:

Using this defense, can you find 3NT with a weak NT opposite a weak NT?

Just as easy as the defense where the meaning of double and 2♥ are switched (which is what the discussion was about).

But I assume that you want me to compare to defenses where double shows any weak NT. The short answer is: Yes, you can, but it is more difficult. That however, is offset by the ability to stay out of 3NT contracts that don't make.
On the other hand, it is extremely easy to find 3NT contracts of 24(34) opposite 42(43) (2♥-3NT) or 42(34) opposite 24(43) (Dbl-3NT). Similarly, it is very easy to stay out of bad 3NT contracts and get to games (or slams!) in trumps. One big advantage of a defense where the overcaller identifies opener's major is that you have a cue bid available.

I suppose you don't want me to compare with doubles that show at least (34) in the majors (also popular, and probably better than doubling on any weak NT). After all, those who play that method will also pass with a 2344 or 33(34) weak NT. (But they, and I, know that the bidding isn't over yet.)

Rik

[Trinidad]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-08, 13:12, said:

None of this actually helps that much.
(ii) Simply looking for hands on which people opened a multi doesn't tell you if it's a good convention or not. You need first to compare against pairs playing natural weak twos on these boards, and then you have to find all the boards where other pairs opened 2D (meaning whatever) and the multi pairs couldn't, and then you have to find all the boards where the multi pairs opened 2M meaning something esle, and compare that to the weak two pairs.

Maybe it would be possible to organize a "Multi tourney series" on BBO?
Pairs would have to choose between four systems: Something natural (SAYC, 2/1, Acol) with
1) 2♦♥♠ as weak two
2) 2♦ 18-19 NT, 2♥♠ as weak two
3) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Acol strong two
4) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Lucas (a) or Muiderberg (b)

I realize that it is very hard to draw any scientific conclusions from the results of these tourneys since there is a correlation between the strength of a pair and the system that they choose (where the system played is not actually the cause of the pair's ability). But it could be fun to have a modern variation of 'Scientists v Naturalists'.

Rik

[32519]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-09, 03:18, said:

Maybe it would be possible to organize a "Multi tourney series" on BBO?
Pairs would have to choose between four systems: Something natural (SAYC, 2/1, Acol) with
1) 2♦♥♠ as weak two
2) 2♦ 18-19 NT, 2♥♠ as weak two
3) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Acol strong two
4) 2♦ Multi, 2♥♠ Lucas (a) or Muiderberg (b)

I realize that it is very hard to draw any scientific conclusions from the results of these tourneys since there is a correlation between the strength of a pair and the system that they choose (where the system played is not actually the cause of the pair's ability). But it could be fun to have a modern variation of 'Scientists v Naturalists'.

Rik

There is a quicker (easier) way to draw your conclusions. Below is an extract from David Berkowitz and Brent Manley’s book “Precision Today”.

In a survey of the nation’s top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

You can limit the tourney to a bidding tourney: Multi versus other methods. It will need to take place as an Open Room / Closed Room tourney. That way it is easy to compare the final contract reached in both rooms. If the final contract is the same, obviously no gain has been made using Multi versus other methods. Where the final contract differs the four players at each table can simply agree if the contract is makeable or not (without actually playing each hand). After the opening lead is made declarer can claim exposing all four hands. Now everybody can see all the cards. The players can simply agree amongst themselves if the final contract is makeable or not. This way you completely eliminate both declarer's ability to play the hand as well as the defensive ability of the opponents. Keep a hand written summary next to you containing those hands where a different final contract was reached and whether it was makeable or not. Record which method was used to reach the final contract.

Easy!

[gwnn]

That is interesting because just about everyone on BBF said they think cardplay is by far more important than bidding.

[glen]

32519, on 2011-December-09, 05:47, said:

In a survey of the nation’s top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

The problem is that this is misinterpreted into the search for the holy grail of opening bid framework. This is like somebody saying the most important part of building is the construction itself, and then just focusing on the foundation as the key success factor.

[32519]

glen, on 2011-December-09, 06:11, said:

The problem is that this is misinterpreted into the search for the holy grail of opening bid framework. This is like somebody saying the most important part of building is the construction itself, and then just focusing on the foundation as the key success factor.

Not entirely sure if I understand what is meant here. The foundation of any building (the opening bid identifying into which category the hand falls) needs to be layed first before the walls can be added (the continuation bidding in the auction) before the roof can be added (the final contract).

The foundation of any building is probably the most important part. A poorly constructed foundation will lead to the premature collapse of the entire building (the final contract failing).

[glen]

32519, on 2011-December-09, 06:59, said:

Not entirely sure if I understand what is meant here. The foundation of any building (the opening bid identifying into which category the hand falls) needs to be layed first before the walls can be added (the continuation bidding in the auction) before the roof can be added (the final contract).

The foundation of any building is probably the most important part. A poorly constructed foundation will lead to the premature collapse of the entire building (the final contract failing).

For example, and related to this thread, Meckwell played Multi for many years, and now do not.

Having, or not having Multi, by itself, has made almost no impact on Meckwell success.

Deciding which hands to open a weak two in a major, with Multi when available, or 2♥/♠ when not playing Multi, has had an impact on Meckwell success.

Having a response structure, to whatever opens a weak two in major, that can find out opener's hand type, and that adapts to seat and vulnerability, has had an impact on Meckwell success.

Thus a success factor has not been Multi vs. not (opening bid framework question), but how to handle and when to use a weak two in the majors.

[hotShot]

32519, on 2011-December-09, 05:47, said:

There is a quicker (easier) way to draw your conclusions. Below is an extract from David Berkowitz and Brent Manley's book "Precision Today".

In a survey of the nation's top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts.

That should be understood as:
Among experts - most of them almost perfect card player - bidding is what makes 80% of the difference.

[Cyberyeti]

hotShot, on 2011-December-09, 07:34, said:

That should be understood as:
Among experts - most of them almost perfect card player - bidding is what makes 80% of the difference.

You forgot the "and good defenders". Overbidding a bit is easier to get away with when you're likely to get help from the defence.