[Zelandakh]

At a relatively recent foray to a live bridge club, our opps managed to spring upon us (unannounced) a 2♦ opening showing either a weak hand with 4+ diamonds and an undisclosed 5 card major, or a standard 2NT opener. I was wondering how other posters would a) have defended this without prior discussion; and b) draw up a more optimised defence for future play against the pair in question. In particular, I find it interesting as to the mentality of whether to treat this as a diamond-based opening or whether to think of it as really just a special form of multi, or just using a generic "all unknown weak openings" meta defence such as "shape-strength-blood".

In the actual case, the table was not helped by the opps being obviously not as forthcoming with information as they should have been, although I put that down largely to ignorance rather than any malice. We ended up beating par by taking them off 3 but since every other pair in the other direction messed up the defence, it turned out to be a frustratingly bad board. More importantly though, the pair in question are regulars so we will surely meet them again and I would like to be slightly better prepared for them next time.

[pescetom]

Not optimal but I would just defend as if it was a normal 6 card major multi. Probably better than a generic meta defence and we have more urgent things to work on as a partnership

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: This method does not seem sound. The "value" of assumed fit type methods where you open in your "real" suit is that the bid is non forcing and places enormous pressure on the opponents. Here I would expect that the 2!D opening has to be forcing and therefore you're giving the opponents a whole lot of whacks at a very juicy looking apple. So, first thing that I would do is find out if 2♦ is forcing or not.

Comment 2: To some extent you can ignore the strong 2NT options when devising your defense. If you have a hand that is worth getting involved in the auction immediately, the conditional probability that opener has the strong hand is going to drop immediately.

Comment 3: At MP, you want to be playing penalty oriented methods. You want to be able to hit them at the two level / three level as often as is practical

In direct seat, I'd play

X = Balanced, 12+ or so
2M = Natural
2NT = 5+ Clubs and a 4 card major, sound overcall
3♣ = Clubs, single suited
3♦ = 5+ Clubs and a 5+ card major
3M = strong

After

(2♦) - P - (2M)

X is takeout (recall, partner couldn't take action)
2NT is strong
3♣ is natural
3♦ is 5+ Clubs and a 5 card major

After

(2♦) - P - (2M) - P
(P)

Double is takeout for the major

[Cyberyeti]

When defending a multi it's a pretty standard method to play 2♦-P-2M-P-P-3♣ and 2♦-P-2♥-P-2♠-3♣ as clubs and the other major, if 2♦ is forcing, you can do this here.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2020-March-12, 08:12, said:

Comment 1: This method does not seem sound. The "value" of assumed fit type methods where you open in your "real" suit is that the bid is non forcing and places enormous pressure on the opponents. Here I would expect that the 2!D opening has to be forcing and therefore you're giving the opponents a whole lot of whacks at a very juicy looking apple. So, first thing that I would do is find out if 2♦ is forcing or not.

As far as I could tell (as I wrote they were not models of full disclosure) the opening is not forcing but I would assume it could only safely be passed with a very weak hand with some diamonds. Your critique of the method actually pairs up fairly well with the actual auction we had: (2♦) - P - (2♠) - P; (3♦) - P - (P) - X; AP. I suspect the origin of this is to get around anchor-suit regulations so as to be able to play a Muiderberg-style Multi-2♦ opening. If the minor were unknown, the opening would not be legal.

hrothgar, on 2020-March-12, 08:12, said:

Comment 2: To some extent you can ignore the strong 2NT options when devising your defense. If you have a hand that is worth getting involved in the auction immediately, the conditional probability that opener has the strong hand is going to drop immediately.

Agreed!

hrothgar, on 2020-March-12, 08:12, said:

Comment 3: At MP, you want to be playing penalty oriented methods. You want to be able to hit them at the two level / three level as often as is practical

This one intrigues me because on the surface one might think that MP favours being able to compete more and taking the safe money will happen more at IMPs. I tend to like methods that are primarily designed to be constructive but with an understanding that borderline cases can often convert to penalties, meaning that the mentality rather than the methods are penalty-oriented.

hrothgar, on 2020-March-12, 08:12, said:

In direct seat, I'd play

X = Balanced, 12+ or so
2M = Natural
2NT = 5+ Clubs and a 4 card major, sound overcall
3♣ = Clubs, single suited
3♦ = 5+ Clubs and a 5+ card major
3M = strong

After

(2♦) - P - (2M)

X is takeout (recall, partner couldn't take action)
2NT is strong
3♣ is natural
3♦ is 5+ Clubs and a 5 card major

After

(2♦) - P - (2M) - P
(P)

Double is takeout for the major

Thank you for this Richard. I do have some worries about the 2NT overcall being forgotten though. Do you think it could also work using a Dixon-style Double of "12-15- bal or 19+" and covering the 4M+5♣ hands with CY's suggestion? I think my partner might be more comfortable with that approach. In essence this would boil down to "Treat it as a Multi-2♦ opening but be willing to penalise slightly more often".

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2020-March-12, 08:50, said:

Thank you for this Richard. I do have some worries about the 2NT overcall being forgotten though. Do you think it could also work using a Dixon-style Double of "12-15- bal or 19+" and covering the 4M+5♣ hands with CY's suggestion? I think my partner might be more comfortable with that approach. In essence this would boil down to "Treat it as a Multi-2♦ opening but be willing to penalise slightly more often".

Doesn't sound unreasonable

[KingCovert]

As an idea, sometimes X can be used to show natural hearts, and 2♥ can be used to show natural spades. A transfer sequence, not that your partner is forced to accept, might help you find games when it's simply a weak two-suiter. Major suit game is often going to make, and your opponents have given you valuable information about how every suit is splitting before you've seen dummy.

Not sure what the complete defense could be, I don't have the time to think about it now, but this occurred to me almost immediately and I wanted to share.

[pescetom]

KingCovert, on 2020-March-12, 12:35, said:

As an idea, sometimes X can be used to show natural hearts, and 2♥ can be used to show natural spades. A transfer sequence, not that your partner is forced to accept, might help you find games when it's simply a weak two-suiter.

Against normal Multi, in second seat we bid as if it is known that opener has weak spades:
Pass 4+ Spades, or no bid below possible
Double 12+ HCP and 4 Hearts
2H 5+ Natural, 11-15 HCP
2S Cue-bid: opening strength, minors 5-4
2NT 16-18 HCP, stopper in Spades
3C Natural, opening strength, 5++ Clubs
3NT Stoppers in majors and a solid 6+ minor

Maybe not the best agreement (Kit Woolsey argues that it is crazy to give up a natural 2S) but it works ok.
Some variation could work better against this convention, if we had the luxury to remember it.

[sfi]

Zelandakh, on 2020-March-12, 06:57, said:

At a relatively recent foray to a live bridge club, our opps managed to spring upon us (unannounced) a 2♦ opening showing either a weak hand with 4+ diamonds and an undisclosed 5 card major, or a standard 2NT opener. I was wondering how other posters would a) have defended this without prior discussion; and b) draw up a more optimised defence for future play against the pair in question. In particular, I find it interesting as to the mentality of whether to treat this as a diamond-based opening or whether to think of it as really just a special form of multi, or just using a generic "all unknown weak openings" meta defence such as "shape-strength-blood".

I would just treat it as a natural diamond bid and ignore the possibility of the 2NT opener. Double is takeout, bids are natural and 3D is however you normally play it. You could make 3D natural, but what hand can you have that wants to overcall a weak hand knowing about a 4-card suit on your right, but only wants to bid 3D if opener has the 2NT bid instead?

Your normal multi defence may work well, but you need to be aware that 2Dx is a real option for them. So X needs to have reasonable expectations that your side can find a fit at the 2-level or 3C.

[nullve]

hrothgar, on 2020-March-12, 08:12, said:

Comment 1: This method does not seem sound. The "value" of assumed fit type methods where you open in your "real" suit is that the bid is non forcing and places enormous pressure on the opponents. Here I would expect that the 2!D opening has to be forcing and therefore you're giving the opponents a whole lot of whacks at a very juicy looking apple. So, first thing that I would do is find out if 2♦ is forcing or not.

Why would opps agree to pass on the same set of hands over 2♦-(P) regardless of what (P) means?

hrothgar, on 2020-March-12, 08:12, said:

Comment 2: To some extent you can ignore the strong 2NT options when devising your defense. If you have a hand that is worth getting involved in the auction immediately, the conditional probability that opener has the strong hand is going to drop immediately.

The conditional probability that Opener has the strong hand might also drop, this time from Responder's perspective, if the intervening pass is not normal but some variant of "waiting, could be strong".

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2020-March-12, 16:26, said:

Your normal multi defence may work well, but you need to be aware that 2Dx is a real option for them. So X needs to have reasonable expectations that your side can find a fit at the 2-level or 3C.

This is something to be aware of, but at first sight I don't see it changing that much - our X is takeout of spades and the odds that they find a diamonds fit are the same as those that we find a hearts fit. We just have to be a bit more serious about our clubs it would seem.

[msjennifer]

Sir,
What does one bid with 15-17 balanced hand when RHO opens this peculiar 2D ?

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2020-March-14, 07:48, said:

This is something to be aware of, but at first sight I don't see it changing that much - our X is takeout of spades and the odds that they find a diamonds fit are the same as those that we find a hearts fit.

That's fine for you. But if you play that double of a multi-style bid includes a 12-15 balanced hand, you might want to rethink that here. That's all I was trying to suggest.

[Cyberyeti]

msjennifer, on 2020-March-24, 23:55, said:

Sir,
What does one bid with 15-17 balanced hand when RHO opens this peculiar 2D ?

2N in most systems, if you're using 2N artificially then it's an issue.

[msjennifer]

pescetom, on 2020-March-12, 15:23, said:

Against normal Multi, in second seat we bid as if it is known that opener has weak spades:
Pass 4+ Spades, or no bid below possible
Double 12+ HCP and 4 Hearts
2H 5+ Natural, 11-15 HCP
2S Cue-bid: opening strength, minors 5-4
2NT 16-18 HCP, stopper in Spades
3C Natural, opening strength, 5++ Clubs
3NT Stoppers in majors and a solid 6+ minor

Maybe not the best agreement (Kit Woolsey argues that it is crazy to give up a natural 2S) but it works ok.
Some variation could work better against this convention, if we had the luxury to remember it.

Sir,KINDLY allow me to ask you something.How do you propose to show a hand with say about 15/16 HCP and BOTH but only 4 card majors eg 4414 or 4441 or 44 with 3/2 in either minor.?.(I feel it will certainly not be 3D) .Pass will convey as per your methods either 4S or no bid hand. Or does one Double and miss a Spade fit ? The scheme is one to be given a thought but i am afraid one may hardly ever come across opponents who play this peculiar 2D bid.I tend to agree with Mr.Kit Woolsey (but certainly shall not use the word "crazy.").Thanks in anticipation.

[hrothgar]

msjennifer, on 2020-March-24, 23:55, said:

Sir,
What does one bid with 15-17 balanced hand when RHO opens this peculiar 2D ?

Who are you asking?

Me, I'd double, but what do I know...

[msjennifer]

hrothgar, on 2020-March-26, 12:19, said:

Who are you asking?

Me, I'd double, but what do I know...

Sir,My query was meant for the method devised by Pescetom and no one else.

[Zelandakh]

msjennifer, on 2020-March-27, 02:30, said:

Sir,My query was meant for the method devised by Pescetom and no one else.

The Italian standard Multi defence treats the 2♦ opener initially as a Weak 2 in spades and takes action accordingly. If you have a normal takeout double of hearts you pass on the first round and double when it comes back to you on the second round. If you have a 2NT overcall of a Weak 2 in either major, which appears to be the case (for the 16+ at least) in your specific question, then you simply bid that. It is a good method that usually plays quite simply.

This is just one of a whole family of Multi defences that use an initial double as "takeout of spades", including the old recommended ACBL defence

X = takeout of spades
2♥ = takeout of hearts
2♠ = natural
2NT = 16-18 bal
3suit = nat
3NT = to play (long minor with major suit stops)
4m = Leaping Michaels

When I look at these options I sometimes wonder if a combination of them, with 2♥ natural and 2♠ as a limited takeout of hearts would not be a good idea but somehow this combination never seems to come up together in a standard defence. Probably it has though and I just have not read the appropriate article - it is not an area of bidding I have focused on .

In a way this comes down to the question: after a sequence like, (2♦) - P - (3♠/4♦) - P; (4♥), is it more important to have gotten off your chest:-
1. 13-15 balanced
2. an opening hand with 5+ spades
3. an opening hand with short hearts and support for the other 3 suits; or
4. an opening and with both minors?

Tom's defence presumably has to back in here with some hands that we might have preferred to show at a lower level. Is that a problem? The Italians obviously do not think so! Against that I have seen some US experts argue that any defence that does not get Hand type 1 into the auction with a Double immediately is worthless, so there are certainly different opinions floating around. Perhaps we should have another Multi 2♦ thread to throw some ideas around. Combining the discussion on general defences with this half-multi opening is probably just going to confuse matters.