[gnasher]

I think that any single meaning for a fourth-seat double can cause problems. That's why I play it as two-way.

[Codo]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

I think that any single meaning for a fourth-seat double can cause problems. That's why I play it as two-way.

Against you double cannot open safetly pass with any hand? Your partner will guess that your spades will be in his hand and I doubt that he will sit with a 10 point count and four spades. So nothing in life is riskfree....

[gwnn]

Yes but opener will never pass the other major suit doubled in real life.

[Ant590]

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2010, 12:01 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 27 2010, 01:43 AM, said:

I overcalled 2N then bid 4S over partner's X of 4H, thought that was pretty normal. Don't understand passing 2S with such a good hand and Axx of hearts when they are very likely to have 9 hearts. If I could have Xed 2S to show spades I would have obv.

For whats its worth, we replicated the same auction

+1

[tgoodwinsr]

We believe that defensive methods vs. Multi should give priority to catching them for a penalty. If that is right, 2D-P-2M-Dbl. as a takeout double of OM is better than 2D-P-2M-Dbl. as a takeout double of M, because the first version is also a penalty double of M.

The contest hand, with KJxxx of spades and Axx of hearts, is perhaps a questionable takeout double of 2S (meaning a takeout double of hearts), but I think I'd chance it anyway because of the prospect of punishing them in spades.

[Crowhurst played the 4th-hand double this way as long ago as 1980 -- Acol in Competition. Maybe it hasn't stood the test of time.]

[gwnn]

and what do you do if you have a 4144 13 count over 2D-p-2H-?

[cherdanno]

I think you absolutely need to be able to show a takeout of spades after (2D) (2S). 2way double may work. Maybe X=spades, 2N = takeout can work. But how can you live without a takeout double when most likely they are about to pass out 2S in their 6-2 fit?

[tgoodwinsr]

Regarding our proposal that 2D-P-2M-Dbl. is takeout of OM (and therefore penalty-oriented toward M), not takeout of M:

After 2D-P-2H, you could agree (as we have) that 2S is "takeout of hearts" -- that is, it doesn't imply long spades, only four. We are more or less stuck if it goes 2D-P-2S and we have a normal takeout double of spades. We have to pass, at least if near minimum for a takeout double of spades. If 2S gets passed around to No. 2, he will have to be aware of this possibility.

Our guiding principle is that we want to maximize chances to penalize the 2D side. We concede that this may cause problems when we should be on offense. We can only hope that we get some profits from defending (doubled) to make up for whatever losses we incur from offensive inefficiency.

[tgoodwinsr]

A detail omitted from my last post: If it does 2D-P-2S and you have a normal long-suit overcall of spades, it is reasonably safe to pass for now. If it goes all P, that means opener has spades behind you and you are well out of the bidding. Otherwise opener will convert to hearts, and you can reconsider the matter on the next round.

[Ant590]

tgoodwinsr, on Jul 27 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

A detail omitted from my last post: If it does 2D-P-2S and you have a normal long-suit overcall of spades, it is reasonably safe to pass for now. If it goes all P, that means opener has spades behind you and you are well out of the bidding. Otherwise opener will convert to hearts, and you can reconsider the matter on the next round.

That doesn't seem to fit in with your general aim of penalising them when it's right to do so.

My perspective is that a system that is geared towards penalties of what is usually a standard 2M opener is not as sound as one which is geared to taking-out into our fit(s). Of course against an assumed fit preempt like the Ekrens, a penalty oriented scheme seems prudent.

[inquiry]

When I first saw this problem hand i hated it. Why? Because i play multi and the 2♠ would never have occurred to me (in my understanding, this shows hearts and at least game invitational values).

But the more I looked at it, and the vulnerability, the more I thought, this will be very difficult to deal with for EAST WEST.

I think the 2NT bidders on EAST hand are glossing over a huge problem, in theory the 2♠ bidder has game invite values opposite a weak two, in which case 2NT is in a lot of trouble. The 3♠ bidders over 2♠ might be bidding his LHO suit (since his RHO likes hearts beter than spades in theory). Really this is a near insolvable problem, yet here, nearly everyone solved it easily. I think we should outlaw multi 2♦ opening bids for everyone but me....

[Codo]

gwnn, on Jul 27 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

Yes but opener will never pass the other major suit doubled in real life.

... because?

[bluecalm]

I was 2NT bidder and I wouldn't duplicate this action now..
I think dbl should be t/o to spades as 2♠ will often be the final contract so we can't afford to pass those hands.
What is left is pass or 3♠. I guess passing is right choice.

[gnasher]

Codo, on Jul 28 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jul 27 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

Yes but opener will never pass the other major suit doubled in real life.

... because?

Here are two reasons for opener not to do this:
- LHO may be about to pass the double, even though he thinks it's a takeout double. For example, on this deal LHO might have had Q109x xx KJxx Axx.
- Responder be planning to bid game opposite hearts.

But you're right that this might cause us problems. In my experience, though, gwnn is also right: I've never seen anyone do it.

[Ant590]

inquiry, on Jul 27 2010, 06:39 PM, said:

I think the 2NT bidders on EAST hand are glossing over a huge problem, in theory the 2♠ bidder has game invite values opposite a weak two, in which case 2NT is in a lot of trouble.

In my experience, only ~20% of multi players play that responder's 2♠ is invitational in hearts, the majority play that it is a preemptive raise to 3♥ (to play opposite a weak 2♠ bid), with most invites starting with a 2NT bid from responder.

[Codo]

Ant590, on Jul 28 2010, 05:43 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jul 27 2010, 06:39 PM, said:

I think the 2NT bidders on EAST hand are glossing over a huge problem, in theory the 2♠ bidder has game invite values opposite a weak two, in which case 2NT is in a lot of trouble.

In my experience, only ~20% of multi players play that responder's 2♠ is invitational in hearts, the majority play that it is a preemptive raise to 3♥ (to play opposite a weak 2♠ bid), with most invites starting with a 2NT bid from responder.

Here it is the other way round. At least 80 % play it as invitational..

[bluecalm]

Quote

Here it is the other way round. At least 80 % play it as invitational..

I don't know. It's split here in Poland where everybody plays multi.
Some people play it as invitational, some as preemptive+ (so you bid 2NT or side values with hearts). Some plays 2♠ as game forcing relay/ask having only 2♥ available for weak hands.

I don't think any option is standard. I would say about 50% of people play the first one, 40% the second one and 10% the third

[gnasher]

I don't see why 2♦-2♠ has to make any statement about strength or objectives. If opener has hearts, he can use 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥ to say how good his hand is, and leave it to responder to decide what to do.

Having said that, if I played a Multi I would play that 2♦-2♠ more or less demands 4♥ whenever opener has six of them. That's the best way to teach people not to play a defence that involves passing on the first round with a good hand.

[inquiry]

Hearing no complaints about the scoring, it will stand as given.

This hand inspired some interesting discussions, which is the point. Maybe someday, Multi will become allowed in the ACBL (yes I know it is allowed in some upper level events).

There will be no more multi's in future rounds... however, in challenge the champs that follow, multi will obviously be allowed.. if for no other reason to help develop good understandings of how to defend against it.