[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-15, 02:13, said:

Our weak 2♠ is actually a multi, and could be xxxxx, xx, xxx, xxx which is why opening this a weak 2 for us is bad, it means partner has to invite on some hands we really don't want him to if we're not going to miss games.

We stand more chance of getting to good games by not opening it and letting partner bid his hand if he has one, and overcalling if he doesn't to compete, there must be a decent chance of 1m-P-1red and we get to overcall 1♠. If we open 1♠ we will get to a load of bad games.

What is the rest of your Multi?

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on 2024-August-14, 13:28, said:

P_Marlowe

Your treatment of 3S being a trick better than 2S seems, at least to me, to be contrary to virtually all modern thinking about weak/preemptive bidding, at least if not vulnerable. Indeed, in my partnerships we sometimes open at the 3 level, at favourable, precisely because we’re too weak for a weak two….even a multi 2D.
<snip>

I can understand, but disagree with, 1S. I just don’t understand 3S.

At any other vul., I would open with 2S, but at this vul. the hands is too strong, we reg. open 5 cards in this situation, ..., I dont like the 1S opening,
I can understand it, and if I cant bring myself to pass, I would go with 3S, but most likely I would pass.
And I dont claim, that a 3S bid is a bid of beauty, as I said, if we make it hearts, it has a bit more to gain.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 06:15, said:

What is the rest of your Multi?

Weak only, weak 2 in either major

[jillybean]

We are not even close to a consensus of how this hand (KQ9854, QT, Q5, J96) should be treated.
1S, Pass, 2S, 3S and for those permitted to play Multi, you can have the best of both worlds.

I believe most club players would open this 2S so I won't get any more complicated, and I'll continue
playing around with multi with my 'systems' partner, at the club of course.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 10:40, said:

We are not even close to a consensus of how this hand (KQ9854, QT, Q5, J96) should be treated.
1S, Pass, 2S, 3S and for those permitted to play Multi, you can have the best of both worlds.

I believe most club players would open this 2S so I won't get any more complicated, and I'll continue
playing around with multi with my 'systems' partner, at the club of course.

You need to decide your preempting philosophy as a partnership, and our preempts in first seat are destructive. If you play 6-10 constructive, then you might open this one.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-15, 11:03, said:

You need to decide your preempting philosophy as a partnership, and our preempts in first seat are destructive. If you play 6-10 constructive, then you might open this one.

Why restrict your partnership to only one version, we can use 2D destructive, 2M constructive.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 12:00, said:

Why restrict your partnership to only one version, we can use 2D destructive, 2M constructive.

True, and that is a reasonable way to play, but we found a destructive natural 2♦ to be useful - What do you do over it with a (42)34 either out of range for 2N or with 3 small diamonds.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-15, 12:16, said:

True, and that is a reasonable way to play, but we found a destructive natural 2♦ to be useful - What do you do over it with a (42)34 either out of range for 2N or with 3 small diamonds.

I may not be understanding your question. If you use 2N as 20-21 then you can use 2♦ destructive OR 18-19 balanced.
I would not let 3 small diamonds stop me from opening 2NT 20-21

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 14:37, said:

I may not be understanding your question. If you use 2N as 20-21 then you can use 2♦ destructive OR 18-19 balanced.
I would not let 3 small diamonds stop me from opening 2NT 20-21

No I meean as the hand doubling or overcalling a natural destructive 2♦

[pescetom]

Sometimes the best way to defend is to attack.
I can't stomach the idead of 1♠ or Pass here, so a heavy 2♠ it is.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 12:00, said:

Why restrict your partnership to only one version, we can use 2D destructive, 2M constructive.

If you disclose that honestly it looses a lot of its sting.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-15, 14:42, said:

No I meean as the hand doubling or overcalling a natural destructive 2♦

Duh, thanks that makes sense. It certainly makes things difficult for your opponents, I don't know how much you lose not having that bid available.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-August-15, 14:46, said:

If you disclose that honestly it looses a lot of its sting.

Doesn't everyone use Full Disclosure.

Then 2D destructive only, as Cyberyeti describes, has more sting - why?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 14:51, said:

Doesn't everyone use Full Disclosure.

No, to be blunt.

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 14:51, said:

Then 2D destructive only, as Cyberyeti describes, has more sting - why?

If you mean, why does "2D destructive only and 2M about something else" have more sting than "2D destructive only, 2M constructive", then I don't pretend to have an answer, although I imagine those who play this stuff will have one.
I strongly suspect it is a misplaced question.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-August-15, 15:11, said:

No, to be blunt.

I was being flippant. I have made many rants regarding lack of convention cards and disclosure.

pescetom, on 2024-August-15, 15:11, said:

If you mean, why does "2D destructive only and 2M about something else" have more sting than "2D destructive only, 2M constructive", then I don't pretend to have an answer, although I imagine those who play this stuff will have one.
I strongly suspect it is a misplaced question.

Yes, that was my question. It appears you were not comparing destructive/constructive to only destructive.
Of course it has more sting if we fail to disclose fully. “It’s multi”, but I am wondering why you would suggest that.

[Cyberyeti]

You can play 2♦ natural and destructive (or wide ranging as we used to), with whatever sort of natural weak 2s in the majors you like. Some people play a multi with the destructive weak 2s in it, and classical weak 2s in the majors. Another approach is a multi and the weak 2s as 5 of that suit and a 4+m.

[mw64ahw]

I'm not sure I get this constructive versus destructive discussion. Preempts by nature are destructive as they remove a level of bidding from the opponents. In practice you describe 2 (sometimes 3) ranges over an enquiry nominally called min. and max. Yes you can put a load of crap into your min. which won't stand up after an enquiry, but this can be self-destrcuting and self-defeating.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-August-15, 16:14, said:

It appears you were not comparing destructive/constructive to only destructive.
Of course it has more sting if we fail to disclose fully. “It’s multi”, but I am wondering why you would suggest that.

My "reduced sting" comment was about the idea of splitting destructive and constructive: as Reese observed, a closely defined preempt is a blunt sword.

As for disclosure, I don't think Multi is better or (even) worse disclosed than other conventions typically are. But certainly many people obtain undue advantage by disclosing it with reticence. I do think making the related System Notes available at the table should be effectively enforced.

[nullve]

pescetom, on 2024-August-16, 02:39, said:

I do think making the related System Notes available at the table should be effectively enforced.

That would give a huge advantage to those who are bad at writing system notes.

Btw, those who believe in full disclosure should try the exercise of describing accurately what e.g. a 1♠ opening in 1st seat NV vs. V shows in their system, so that an opponent would be able to tell with absolute certainty whether a given hand is such a 1♠ opener or not.

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2024-August-16, 02:28, said:

I'm not sure I get this constructive versus destructive discussion. Preempts by nature are destructive as they remove a level of bidding from the opponents. In practice you describe 2 (sometimes 3) ranges over an enquiry nominally called min. and max. Yes you can put a load of crap into your min. which won't stand up after an enquiry, but this can be self-destrcuting and self-defeating.

Not true, an opener at the 2 level is preemptive in that it cuts out a load of bids for the opponents. It can also be constructive (say you played 8-11).

We used to use 4 ranges over our multi