[kenrexford]

A discussion with GWNN inspired a sick possible new structure, one that could be called "Double-Barreled Multi."

2♣ = Multi #1 = One of the following hand types:

1. Weak with both majors (Responder usually picks preference, 2♦ for spades, 2♥ for hearts, and Opener then places the contract)

2. Weak with hearts and a minor (Muiderberg?) (If Responder picks hearts, pass. If spades -- bids 2♦ -- then bid 2♥)

3. Weak with spades and a minor (Muid.) (If Responder picks spades -- bids 2♦ -- place in 2♠. If hearts (2♥) bid 2♠.)

4. Strong hand (maybe strong with one or both majors?)



2♦ = Multi #2 = One of the following hand types:

1. Weak with either major, or

2. Strong with a hand not covered by 2♣ openings.



This might be fun to play around with.

[olien]

So 2♣ is basically wilkosz or a strong 2♣ opening?

Seems like fun and what a demented mind you have to think of this

[Free]

Fun? Probably.
BSC? Yes.
Good for preemptive purposes? Not really.
Good for constructive purposes? No.

[whereagles]

You're gonna commit self-preemption with this thing, but ok

[gwnn]

I'm lazy to look up BSC's but I think 2♣ multi as well as 2♦ multi are non-BSC. But maybe it specifically required a "1-suiter".

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on 2012-April-20, 02:48, said:

I'm lazy to look up BSC's but I think 2♣ multi as well as 2♦ multi are non-BSC. But maybe it specifically required a "1-suiter".

No, the only exemption is for a 2♦ opening where the weak options are specifically (a) weak 2 in hearts or (b) weak 2 in spades.

[benlessard]

A delayed 5M+5m bid simply cannot be right. These hand are riskier than a traditionnal weak 2, so removing some of the preemptive effect and give more opportunity to opps to double you is simply really wrong.

[paulg]

gwnn, on 2012-April-20, 02:48, said:

I'm lazy to look up BSC's but I think 2♣ multi as well as 2♦ multi are non-BSC. But maybe it specifically required a "1-suiter".

You need to guarantee a known 4+ suit with the weak options, otherwise 2♣ is BS.

[gwnn]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-20, 04:45, said:

No, the only exemption is for a 2♦ opening where the weak options are specifically (a) weak 2 in hearts or (b) weak 2 in spades.

EXCEPTION: A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below.

So we were both right (or both wrong).

[kenrexford]

If you are allowed to open a weak 2S or 2H with five cards, and if you are not forbidden to have a second suit, then a 2C opening when weak should be ok, as you are not promising a tso suited hand. You in fact do have a weak two in either major. You just might happen to have both.

The 2D treatment might be a problem, which is dumb. Promising a second suit, when the first must be 5, seems more of a treatment than a convention.

[whereagles]

The 2C opener seems allowable were the multi is too. After all, it's nothing but a 5-card multi with side suit.

Now that I think twice about it, it seems geeky enough to make it worth a try

[kenrexford]

Yeah, it is not the theoretical soundness that explains it. It is the novelty. Plus then you can also add canape muiderberg for all that weak hands with a 4-card major and a longer minor by opening 2H or 2S, and who does that? LOL

[MickyB]

whereagles, on 2012-April-20, 12:50, said:

The 2C opener seems allowable were the multi is too. After all, it's nothing but a 5-card multi with side suit.

No chance. If it promises a side-suit, it's no longer a multi.

[whereagles]

kenrexford, on 2012-April-20, 16:07, said:

Plus then you can also add canape muiderberg for all that weak hands with a 4-card major and a longer minor by opening 2H or 2S, and who does that? LOL

Hey, I used to play that. We called it "homo-twosuiters" (as opposed to standard, hetero-twosuiters). Later on I learned someone else named it "velociraptor".

The preempt was surprisingly effective. I don't recall one single disaster in like 4 years playing it. We didn't dare to do it vulnerable, though.

[whereagles]

MickyB, on 2012-April-20, 16:16, said:

No chance. If it promises a side-suit, it's no longer a multi.

You could argue a 4-card side suit which can be xxxx isn't really a "suit". But then again, systems legislators care more for the laws themselves rather than bridge logics, so you wouldn't get far

[glen]

kenrexford, on 2012-April-13, 10:55, said:

Double-Barreled Multi

2♣ = Multi #1 = One of the following hand types:

1. Weak with both majors (Responder usually picks preference, 2♦ for spades, 2♥ for hearts, and Opener then places the contract)

2. Weak with hearts and a minor (Muiderberg?) (If Responder picks hearts, pass. If spades -- bids 2♦ -- then bid 2♥)

3. Weak with spades and a minor (Muid.) (If Responder picks spades -- bids 2♦ -- place in 2♠. If hearts (2♥) bid 2♠.)

4. Strong hand (maybe strong with one or both majors?)

2♦ = Multi #2 = One of the following hand types:

1. Weak with either major, or

2. Strong with a hand not covered by 2♣ openings.

In the March 2012 The Bridge World*, Steve Parker's article Multi Two Clubs essentially proposes the same thing:

2♣: strong, or weak two suiter with at least one major
2♦: multi (weak two in major), or, if strong hands covered, then types not covered by the 2♣ opening

The article does not mention the concern that the 2♣ opening is not legal in most competitive events

* if you are offering bridge bidding books, you should invest some of the profits in a TBW subscription

[kenrexford]

glen, on 2012-April-21, 08:09, said:

In the March 2012 The Bridge World*, Steve Parker's article Multi Two Clubs essentially proposes the same thing:

2♣: strong, or weak two suiter with at least one major
2♦: multi (weak two in major), or, if strong hands covered, then types not covered by the 2♣ opening

The article does not mention the concern that the 2♣ opening is not legal in most competitive events

* if you are offering bridge bidding books, you should invest some of the profits in a TBW subscription

I also mention the idea of a Multi 2♣ in my book, "Overcalling Opponent's 1NT," strangely. The focus of the book is on a tool of bidding two under with one or both of two specific suits. This happens to have great application for overcalling 1NT, but it also has many other potential applications, which I also discuss. One of these is the Multi concept.

However, in my book, I only started with the idea of 2♣ as a different multi to add in the option of both majors. The latter development of 2♦ as also Multi for Muiderberg hands to be added into 2♣ is what gwnn and I came up with in a discussion and seems to be where Steve Parker also ended up.

Kind of funny. I wonder if Steve came up with this on his own or if I might have somehow inspired him to come to the same conclusion that gwnn and I reached!