[Crunch3nt]

One of the poster's to hanp's thread regarding responses to a Multi, notes that the response to multi scheme below is the standard universal approach by good players. (And I agree, it is):

3♣ = any minimum
3♦ = max with hearts
3♥ = max with spades
or reversed structure (where 3♣ is any max).

After 3♣ bidding 3♦ ask partner to show the suit he doesn't have (so strong hand declarer)

I don't agree with this, and this post has motivated me to explore my own minority theory that overall, having a weak, but distributional hand be declarer ie concealing the shape, number of a side suit for defence to cash etc, is overall, actually greater than the positional advantage etc of the strong hand being declarer.

Having, in the multi situation, the weak two as dummy, I find usually makes the defence very easy.

Votes, explanations and thoughts please.

[bluecalm]

Haha, actually when I was writing down system notes with one partner some time ago (we played polish club with multi) I also one sidely decided that in sequence:

2♦ (multi) 2NT (ask)
3♣ (min) 3♦ (ask)

3♥/3♠

will be natural. My main argument was a bit different than yours. I didn't like ♠ cuebid being lost after 3♠ response. I agree with your "theory" though. I think that strong hand declaring is one of the most overrated things in bridge. In general the most important thing is that the hand which is better known from the bidding should be dummy. So for example 2♦ precision opening is better than 2♥ precision opening (because 4♥ puts opener's hand in dummy), 2♦ majors is probably better than 2♥ majors and so on.

Anyway, my partner after reviewing the notes said I must have made a mistake and he wanted to play the same way most people play here (with 3♥/3♠ showing the other suit)...

[JLOGIC]

I think that your theory sucks!

[Crunch3nt]

Nicely reasoned. :-)

[awm]

I suspect it depends a bit on the skill level of your opponents.

Double-dummy, letting the lead come to the strong hand is a substantial advantage. There are many hands where you can make more tricks from one side than the other on best play and defense. Single-dummy, making a blind lead into the strong hand is even more likely to help the declaring side.

The main advantage of concealing the weak hand is that it can make it hard for opponents to figure out how many tricks to cash in various suits. However, good players usually can get this right based on partner's count signals, spot card leads, and declarer's line of play. Note that this never helps the declaring side double-dummy, and it rarely matters on the opening lead... it's more an issue of, late in the hand, how many tricks can the defenders cash in some side suit before they try to promote a trick somewhere else, without losing a tempo to declarer's ruff.

With all that said, the double-dummy advantage does depend on the location of particular honor cards, and there are certainly (rare) cases where the weak hand has more tenaces to protect. For this reason it does make sense to offer a choice of declarership in cases where it cannot otherwise cost.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Double-dummy, letting the lead come to the strong hand is a substantial advantage.

Interesting. I am simulation addict but I neglected this issue so far, gotta make some research. Did you make simulations to know it or it's just your intuition ?

[tgoodwinsr]

Somebody (Reese, maybe?) used to advocate playing 1NT-4H and 1NT-4C both to "sign off" in four hearts, and the same for 1NT-4S and 1NT-4D to sign off in four spades. The argument was that usually you want the 1NT opener to declare (thus the 4m transfer) to protect his presumed tenace(s) from the opening lead; but with extremely distributional hands, perhaps with a seven-card suit and a void, perhaps with a second suit (such as 6-5), you want to declare yourself and conceal your distributional surprises from the enemy. There were other advantages to the method, such as being able to continue toward slam after 1NT-4m, but the main one asserted was positional. You could even play that opener bids 1NT-4C; 4D instead of taking the transfer when he doesn't have anything that needs to be protected from the opening lead.

[mycroft]

However, I think the NT question and the multi-2D question are different beasts.

After I open NT, I have a limited distribution set, with few possible "surprises". Responder, however, is totally undescribed (save the 5 or 6 known cards in the transfer suit). If there's going to be any distributional surprises, it's going to be in responder's hand.

After a multi-2D, neither hand is really distributionally limited. Responder's "surprises" are only somewhat less likely to exist than opener's (we know he's not flat, responder can be, but may not be). So in that case, there's no guaranteed "strong or distributional" choice to make. In other words, is it better for the strong, possibly distributional hand to be declarer, or the weak, more likely distributional hand?

If there's a way to design the system so that it's capable of getting to the contract from either side, without sacrificing effectiveness, great. If (as is more likely) this is a decision that has to be made at system design time, it's a different question than the 1NT one.

[dake50]

I very much want the tenaced hand declaring. Get the lead toward AQ, KJ, Q10.

So, for example I have a NT bid and a NT xfer response to forcing opening.

Thus, the 6-suit signoff has KJx side when bid -- no tenace when xfer.

Why would into the stronger hand not be expected to gain? Jacoby transfers are 50 yo. Was this not seen forever?

[Phil]

Not even close. As a matter of fact those that voted for:

"Overall, Strong Hand concealed by a little bit"

are either being polite, or not very well informed.

[OleBerg]

Crude add-on:

2♦ - ???

4♣ = Bid the suit beneath your suit.
4♦ = Bid your suit.
4♥ = Forget about your suit.
4♠ = Forget about your suit.

[Free]

In case of multi, definitely the strong hand should be concealed. He has surprises in strength, shape and location of honours, while opener usually only has surprises in shape by that time.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Not even close. As a matter of fact those that voted for:

"Overall, Strong Hand concealed by a little bit"

are either being polite, or not very well informed.

You make it sound like it's matter of getting information.
I doubt there are is any research on the matter and if it is it's not public.
We can only rely on our intuition which proved to be wrong so many times.

After running some simulations I am pretty it almost doesn't matter double dummy if strong or weakish hand is declaring so I think the only interesting point is in which situation defenders are more likely to make mistakes. The answer to that is far from obvious to me.

[Fluffy]

The big advantage is receiving the lead and its not even close.

[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on Aug 27 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

Quote

Not even close. As a matter of fact those that voted for:

"Overall, Strong Hand concealed by a little bit"

are either being polite, or not very well informed.

You make it sound like it's matter of getting information.
I doubt there are is any research on the matter and if it is it's not public.
We can only rely on our intuition which proved to be wrong so many times.

After running some simulations I am pretty it almost doesn't matter double dummy if strong or weakish hand is declaring so I think the only interesting point is in which situation defenders are more likely to make mistakes. The answer to that is far from obvious to me.

Lol, you're allowed to use common sense. You can do all the double dummy simulations you want, but guess what, they're not going to lead into your tenaces in a double dummy simulation!

I'm sorry your intuition has proved you wrong so many times, but you are now trying to use double dummy simulations to prove that playing from the strong hand is irrelevant, that is just plain silly. Of course playing from the strong hand the opponents have more chance to blow a trick for themselves on the lead than leading through the strong hand. If you play bridge rather than simulate it, you will see this be true all the time in practice. Even when simulating you should try to use your head This is about the most useless time ever for a double dummy sim, and the most useful time to draw upon your bridge experience, or "intuition" if you prefer. Doing so does not require research, and the lack of research does not mean his statement has less credibility since obviously he is drawing upon his bridge experience.

Bluecalm, if you were not allowed to play SA transfers over 1N/2N, would you seriously play 4M natural and no texas? I really doubt it, and in that case your point is even better because the "weak hand" is stronger than a weak 2, and the "strong hand" is limited in shape and strength.

[Fluffy]

bluecalm if you want to do simulations, try with whatever contract but force to lead each suit from each side and look at the differences.

[Free]

We're looking for hidden surprises, either in strength or in shape. If you use DD analyses you don't have any surprises at all...

[Codo]

I understand your reasoning for concealing the distributional hand.

And I bet that there are hands where a distributional surprise makes it much harder for the defence to defend.

But Multi is the wrong playground for your idea. You are very well limited and you shape is already quite well known. So the downsides are much much bigger then the possible gains.

But lets say you play weak NT, then it often pays to be able to bid a simple 4 M and let them guess. But in this case the distributional hand is not much weaker then openers hand.

[OleBerg]

Slightly sidetracking;

Some of the strong Italians did this with their 12-14 NT:

1NT - 3♥/♠

simply showed a four card suit, and asked partner to bid 3NT or 4 of their suit.

Hides information about declarers hand, and inhibits a lot of lead directing interference. On a very frequent type of hands.

[bid_em_up]

bluecalm, on Aug 27 2010, 05:10 AM, said:

After running some simulations I am pretty it almost doesn't matter double dummy if strong or weakish hand is declaring so I think the only interesting point is in which situation defenders are more likely to make mistakes. The answer to that is far from obvious to me.

Double dummy simulations are worthless in evaluating this type of question.

Edit: Agree with Justin. Short version.