[the hog]

32519, on 2014-January-29, 11:23, said:

Here is another hand from a club game incorporating my version of the Multi. The final contract was all over the place -
When N/S declared:
2/18 in 2NT
2/18 in 3♦
4/18 in 3NT
1/18 in 4NT
1/18 in 5♦
2/18 in 5♦X
1/18 in 6♦
When E/W declared:
2/18 in 3♠X
3/18 in 4♠X
All E/W made 9 tricks. According to the hand records, E/W can make 8 tricks in ♠, N/S can make 11 tricks in ♦.

---

Notes on the bidding:
1. West's 2♦ was Multi, but promising one of the following hand patterns -
(a) 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP
(b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP
© Big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP
(d) Big 2-suiter in the minors, 14+ HCP
2. When North overcalled 2NT, East figured that West either held a) a natural ♦ suit, or b) 6-4 in the majors. 3♦ was pre-emptive for 3 suits knowing of a) a 10-card fit in ♦, or b) a 9-card fit in either ♥ or ♠.

Was south asleep during the auction or was he called away to the phone and the wine waiter passed throughout?
By the way, the first slam is awful! A D to lose and then you need to pick up both Majors.

[manudude03]

What the last few posters have been saying is that defending against a weak 2 in diamonds can be potentially awkward (what do you do with 4225 hands and the like), but having the opening as forcing gives the defense a lot more options. There are other rather large flaws in your opening (without even 1 guaranteed suit* with your good hands, constructive bidding is difficult to say the least).

* I'm just after looking up the definition of brown sticker conventions and your opening may well be one, since your weak options are diamonds and both majors which doesn't seem to be allowed. You can't pass off the both majors option as a strong option since it doesn't promise a king about an average hand. The exception for multi is the second one below:

WBF Systems Policy 2.4 a ii said:

ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.
EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a
known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four
card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average
strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at
least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings
show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is
not a Brown Sticker Convention.)
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 containing 16 high card points or more, or with
equivalent values. Defensive measures are permitted for
opponents as in 6 below.

emphasis mine.

[32519]

This hand comes from a club game last night. How do you plan to cope with this bidding sequence?

---

The 2♦ bid promises one of the following hand patterns -
1. 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP
2. 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP
3. A big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP
4. A big 5-5 hand in the minors, 14+ HCP

[manudude03]

I make sure to agree with all my partners to assume that they've hit whatever option they are bidding, so I double here, won't work well if partner is 4333, but even then, there's a decent chance of getting rescued by the opps.

[Fluffy]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-30, 11:49, said:

This is where I find myself wondering once again whether I should really take part in your system discussions.

Hehe, I made the right decision long ago, you gotta have a lot of spare time . Did I mention I have a webpage where you can play?

[gwnn]

For the benefit of 32519, I looked it up (http://www.sabf.co.z...sabfcc2013a.pdf):

SOUTH AFRICAN BRIDGE FEDERATION Congress 2013 said:

OPENING suit bids at the 2 level or higher may indicate ONE of the following:
a) a weak single-suited hand with a minimum of 5 cards in the suit, the minimum point
count and range must be specified;
b) A two-suiter where at least one of the suits is designated, the minimum point count
and range must be specified;
c) a three-suited hand where at least one of the suits is designated;
d) a hand containing at least 16HCP;
e) a hand that guarantees 8 playing tricks, if played in that suit.

2D: ARTIFICIAL opening bid indication ONE OR MORE of the following:
a) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, forcing for at
least one round. Suit need not be specified;
b) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, game-force.
Suit need not be specified;
c) A three-suiter, minimum point count and range to be specified;
d) Both majors, minimum point count and range to be specified;
e) A 5-card major, the minimum point count and range must be specified;
f) As in a) above, but with Diamonds as the suit denomination.
g) Multi showing a weak opening in a major, combined or not with strong
hands. Point count and ranges must be specified.

So you can play it EITHER as a natural preempt, OR artificial but you can't play it as both. So it looks like your side will gain 100% of the time out of the 0 boards that you are allowed to play it legally

[32519]

manudude03, on 2014-January-31, 00:59, said:

I make sure to agree with all my partners to assume that they've hit whatever option they are bidding, so I double here, won't work well if partner is 4333, but even then, there's a decent chance of getting rescued by the opps.

I have given this reply of yours the thumbs up. If you only had 2-minutes to agree on a defence beforehand, this is good.
After your double this is how the bidding continued –

---

Because of the vulnerability, I do not know how aggressive your side is. Will South bid or not over 2♠? You have a known 4-4 fit in ♣ after the t/o double.

[Wackojack]

32519, on 2014-January-26, 00:22, said:

Where do you play bridge? Since when is a slam bid and made, disgusting? Slams bid and made on distributional fits low in HCP are all part of the game.

I confess that I voted to finesse. I now realise the error of my ways. The OP is playing against beginners and they have been taught (possibly by the OP himself in his inimitable way) that they MUST cover an honour with an honour despite of course that this can never gain when declarer is known to have a 6 card suit. Now we can see that the play of the ace to drop the king increases the odds to about 65%. Moreover it is now a certainty that I can play the spades without losing a trick. I just play the Jack from hand and if not covered I finesse on the way back. So it is a good slam. The chances of making are about 65%.

[gwnn]

edited out, sorry.

[RunemPard]

I don't even use a weak 2 in diamonds...I just open 3 in a minor if it feels worth the risk...quite effective actually.

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on 2014-January-31, 03:29, said:

For the benefit of 32519, I looked it up (http://www.sabf.co.z...sabfcc2013a.pdf):

So you can play it EITHER as a natural preempt, OR artificial but you can't play it as both. So it looks like your side will gain 100% of the time out of the 0 boards that you are allowed to play it legally

In the EBU clubs have the freedom to have whatever regulations they choose. So it is only in club bridge that you can play, for example, forcing pass. Perhaps the situation is similar in SA.

32519, on 2014-January-31, 03:35, said:

I have given this reply of yours the thumbs up. If you only had 2-minutes to agree on a defence beforehand, this is good.

Probably they do have a minute or two. Or do you not mention this when they ask about your system? Or do you just say "Multi"? This would be improper, since "Multi" does not mean any 2♦ opening with several different meanings.

[32519]

manudude03, on 2014-January-31, 00:59, said:

I make sure to agree with all my partners to assume that they've hit whatever option they are bidding, so I double here, won't work well if partner is 4333, but even then, there's a decent chance of getting rescued by the opps.

32519, on 2014-January-31, 03:35, said:

I have given this reply of yours the thumbs up. If you only had 2-minutes to agree on a defence beforehand, this is good.
After your double this is how the bidding continued –

---

Because of the vulnerability, I do not know how aggressive your side is. Will South bid or not over 2♠? You have a known 4-4 fit in ♣ after the t/o double.

Maybe I need to rephrase my question -
If South does enter the auction over 2♠, then -
1. What is the minimum number of HCP you would expect South to hold?
2. Dropping the number of HCP required on hands where South has extra length must certainly be a consideration because of cross-ruffing potential (doubler has shown a t/o of the majors). The lower the HCP, the longer the requirement of the suit bid.

[32519]

gwnn, on 2014-January-31, 03:29, said:

SOUTH AFRICAN BRIDGE FEDERATION Congress 2013 said:
OPENING suit bids at the 2 level or higher may indicate ONE of the following:
a) a weak single-suited hand with a minimum of 5 cards in the suit, the minimum point
count and range must be specified;
b) A two-suiter where at least one of the suits is designated, the minimum point count
and range must be specified;
c) a three-suited hand where at least one of the suits is designated;
d) a hand containing at least 16HCP;
e) a hand that guarantees 8 playing tricks, if played in that suit.

2D: ARTIFICIAL opening bid indication ONE OR MORE of the following:
a) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, forcing for at
least one round. Suit need not be specified;
b) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, game-force.
Suit need not be specified;
c) A three-suiter, minimum point count and range to be specified;
d) Both majors, minimum point count and range to be specified;
e) A 5-card major, the minimum point count and range must be specified;
f) As in a) above, but with Diamonds as the suit denomination.
g) Multi showing a weak opening in a major, combined or not with strong
hands. Point count and ranges must be specified.

This is actually interesting. Multi is allowed, but because no one has ever challenged it in its original form, the SABF simply doesn't know about any other form. This will need to be taken up with the committee.

[gwnn]

You do realise that their description covers about 500 variants, right? So accusing them of only using the "original form" seems factually challenged. Note that they do not use the misleading word Multi. You do, which is incredibly bad form. I hope you do a better job when you explain your illegal convention in real life.

[johnu]

gwnn, on 2014-February-01, 00:56, said:

Note that they do not use the misleading word Multi.

Actually, from your original post, they do:

g) Multi showing a weak opening in a major, combined or not with strong
hands. Point count and ranges must be specified.

[gwnn]

Thanks for that, I definitely missed that part. My (unclearly worded) point still stands, though: I meant that they do not refer to 2D that can be one or more things from the list as Multi.

[32519]

What’s it with you guys and my 2♦ bids? Back in 2012 hrothgar called my 2♦ bid insane while a defence to his Moscito system was being developed. The thread started out with completely laughable suggestions before it ended up by my 2♦ bid being called insane.

In this post I took his calling the bid insane as a compliment.

One thing I can confirm with you. I wanted to play hrothgar’s Moscito system at three of the biggest clubs in and around Johannesburg and Pretoria here is South Africa. All three clubs banned me from even thinking about doing so. So I took one final shot by asking the South African Bridge Federation where they would let me play it. Answer…no where. So I spent all that time developing a defence to Moscito for nothing.

gwnn, on 2014-February-01, 00:56, said:

You do realise that their description covers about 500 variants, right? So accusing them of only using the "original form" seems factually challenged. Note that they do not use the misleading word Multi. You do, which is incredibly bad form. I hope you do a better job when you explain your illegal convention in real life.

Now I got another of my 2♦ bids under fire here, this time by you calling it illegal. If there are already about 500 variants of Multi, I fail to understand why mine would be called illegal.

I doubt this version of Multi of mine will follow the same path as hrothgar's Moscito system.

[gwnn]

I didn't just call it illegal. I showed you why it's disallowed. You are welcome to read the rules that I posted upthread. You don't need to click on the link.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2014-February-01, 12:25, said:

Now I got another of my 2♦ bids under fire here, this time by you calling it illegal. If there are already about 500 variants of Multi, I fail to understand why mine would be called illegal.

Pointing out that your 2♦ bid is illegal is hardly mocking it or criticising it on its merits.

What concerns me is your disclosure, since your opponents never seem to be prepared.

[manudude03]

32519, on 2014-January-31, 22:42, said:

Maybe I need to rephrase my question -
If South does enter the auction over 2♠, then -
1. What is the minimum number of HCP you would expect South to hold?
2. Dropping the number of HCP required on hands where South has extra length must certainly be a consideration because of cross-ruffing potential (doubler has shown a t/o of the majors). The lower the HCP, the longer the requirement of the suit bid.

I misread it earlier and thought partner had replied 2S. Anyway, I'd expect a reasonable 6 or 7 count for a 3C bid, but I'd also assume that some judgement has been used regarding shape etc.