[Jinksy]

We're thinking of taking up a weak only multi 2D, but I've looked at half a dozen pages via Google and hit nothing designed for the weak only option (and the stuff for the normal multi doesn't seem terribly convincing). Is there an expert standard here?

In particular, does responder have any sensible way of showing a long major of his own without gameforcing in the process?

[sfi]

A big advantage of the weak-only version is you get to jump around more freely with support for both majors. You normally still don't have the option of getting out in a partscore in your own major after partner opens 2D though.

Standard in this part of the world is that:
- all major bids are pass/correct
- 2NT is an asking bid, with 3C/3D showing a good opening and 3H/3S showing a bad one
- new suits are forcing for a round

About the only time we get to play our long major is if we bid and rebid it, so can generally play 3 of the major. This isn't as standard though.

The other fairly common thing is after 2D is doubled. Now:
- bids are as above
- pass shows diamonds and suggests partner consider playing there
- redouble shows a long suit and asks partner to bid 2 of the major they don't have

You could steal a bit of complexity from Wilkosz 2D:
- 4H/S is to play, showing a long suit
- 4C asks partner to transfer to their major
- 4D asks partner to bid their major
- 3D shows an invitational hand with both majors
- 3H has no invitational overtones

You do need to decide whether to keep any of this over interference though.

[wank]

bidding and rebidding a major is natural and nf. it should be at least mildly invitational.

[nige1]

FWIW, after our Multi 2♦ (P)...

• Pass = Any. Often but not necessarily ♦s.
• 2♥ = N/F. P/C. Might be real 6+ ♥s -- but if partner passes then opponents are quite likely to bid
• 2♠ = NAT.. F1. 6+ ♠s. (Some good players think this is less leaky than 2♠ to show that you would raise ♥).
• 2N = ART. REL. Then 3♣/3♠ = MIN/MAX with ♥s. 3♦/3♥ = MIN/MAX with ♠s (These act as a transfers).
• 3♣/3♦ = NAT. F1.
• 3♥/3♠ = PRE. Better M with both Ms.
• 3N = NAT. S/O. To play.
• 4♣ = ASK: Please transfer to your M.
• 4♦ = RKC. (half-key) for your major (Q or worse. 1 Key, 1 Key + Q, 2 Key, 2 Key + Q).
• 4♥/4♠ = NAT. To play. Not P/C..

After 2♦ (Pass) 2♠ (Pass)...

• 2N = MAX. Missfit.
• 3♣ = MIN. Missfit.
• 3♦ = NAT MIN Missfit.
• 3♥ = NAT. 6♥s. 2 ♠s.
• 3♠ = NAT. MIN. 3 ♠s.
• 3N = ART. 3+ ♠s. Serious.
• 4♣/♦ = SPL. 3+ ♠s.
• 4♥ = FIT. 3+ ♠s. Good ♥s.
• 4♠ = NAT. 3+ ♠s.

After 2♦ (Double)

• Pass = NAT. 6+ ♦s
• Redouble = ART. 6+ ♣s
• Others = Normal

After 2♦ (2M)

• Pass = NAT.
• Double = P/C.
• Others = NAT.

After 2♦ (3m)

• Pass = NAT.
• Double = PEN.

[Jinksy]

Thanks all. What about slower auctions, eg:

2♦ 2♥
2♠ 2N

Or similar, but instead of 2N, 3m (or 3M)?

Also

2♦ 2N
3♣ 3♦/♠

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-12, 04:33, said:

Thanks all. What about slower auctions, eg:

2♦ 2♥
2♠ 2N

Most play this as an asking bid, whether it be ogust, feature or shortage. Whether these really make sense in the context is another question.

Jinksy, on 2016-October-12, 04:33, said:

Or similar, but instead of 2N, 3m (or 3M)?

3m should be a 2-suiter with real hearts and 3♥ is obviously natural, presumably invitational or we would either pass 2♠ or have responded something other than 2♥. 3♠ could conceivably be preemptive I suppose but I think everyone plays this as invitational given how many times the opps have already passed.

Jinksy, on 2016-October-12, 04:33, said:

Also

2♦ 2N
3♣ 3♦/♠

3♦ is generally played as a second asking bid, either further defining the range (giving you 3 strength ranges) or as mini-ogust. 3♠ on the second round after 2NT would be natural and GF.

On the initial responses there are some options for 3NT and 4m so these usually need to be discussed. The most common is probably what sfi posted, with 3NT natural and 4m used to reach Opener's major from one side or the other. An alternative one sometimes sees is for all 3 of these to be preempt extensions with 3NT wanting to play in Opener's major and 4m showing extra length in the corresponding major to suggest a possible 5 level dive.

I have never seen Nigel's scheme before with 4♦ being modified RKCB. Not having a way to get partner to bid 4 of their major directly seems to be a big flaw, enough that I might even prefer 4♦ as "bid your major" and 4♣ to be the keycard ask.

In any case, the difference in responding schemes between weak-only and mixed is not really very much, perhaps not surprising as most methods work on the principle of assuming Opener is weak. The difference comes more in the form that Responder can afford to be more aggressive occasionally and obviously Opener is not put into a difficult position from this as sometimes happens with a big hand in the classic Multi.

Finally, sfi brought up the subject of 2♦ being doubled. This is another area that needs to be discussed as some play system on with XX showing an own suit (as sfi mentions) while others prefer XX as a relay for Opener's major and new suits to be natural and non-forcing. I would recommend using the same rules as your partnership does for other similar situations if you have any as the theoretical difference is minimal. If you do not have any similar situations to draw from, system on is probably simpler for most partnerships.

[Jinksy]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-12, 06:11, said:

In any case, the difference in responding schemes between weak-only and mixed is not really very much, perhaps not surprising as most methods work on the principle of assuming Opener is weak. The difference comes more in the form that Responder can afford to be more aggressive occasionally and obviously Opener is not put into a difficult position from this as sometimes happens with a big hand in the classic Multi.

Why is this? Surely 90% of the time you'd prefer responder to declare?

(the rest I'll digest later)

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-12, 08:05, said:

Why is this? Surely 90% of the time you'd prefer responder to declare?

Let's take a classic example. It starts 2♦ - 4♦ (bid your major) and Opener has the big balanced hand but without a 4 card major. What do they do? Expert partnerships sometimes get messed up here and it only gets worse if the 4441 hand type is included. If Opener's course is to bid 4NT there then it affects the hands that can afford to bid 4♦. This kind of dilemma is actually the origin of the 4m bids to show 5 of the linked major, to enable the big hand to make an informed decision but it turns out that the information is also useful to a weak Opener.

Similarly, while you might want Responder to declare in an ideal world, to do so gives the opponents at least an extra half round, which increases the chance of their finding the correct antidote once you get above a certain level, so it is often not worth it against going more directly to the correct contract. Or in simple terms, right-siding is nice to have but putting pressure on the opponents is so much more important that you should not worry too much about it unless you have a completely spare call left over for that purpose.

[Kungsgeten]

We used to play the following, based on the Meckwell structure found in the book "The Mysterious Multi" and on Polish methods (I can't remember where I found them, but perhaps WJ2005?).

Pass = I'm fine with playing 2D undoubled. Does not promise diamonds, but may have them. If fourth hand doubles I may escape. In case second hand double 2D we played that pass showed diamonds, redouble was a puppet to 2H (a suit of my own I want to play) and 2H+ sys-on. I think this is the biggest upside with the weak only multi, since it makes it harder to "wait and see". When I think the opponents have game and we're non-vul I usually pass, unless a preemptive bid seems better. Down 6 in 2D is usually a good score.

2HS = Pass/correct. Bidding 2S instead of 2H does not promise extras, it just suggests 3+ hearts and guessing that partner has spades. Bidding 2HS kan also be an invite with the suit bid (if you have 6+ hearts and invitational values, you bid 2H and then (hopefully) rebid 3H). It can also be an invitational+ hand if partner doesn't pass (say you have void hearts and 3 spades, so if partner bids 2S after your 2H bid you'll invite/bid game).

2D--2S;
2NT = Min with hearts
3C = Medium with hearts
3D = Max with hearts

2D--2H; 2S--2NT = Ogust or whatever.

2NT = Asking for suit and strength, INV+. We had three ranges: minimum, medium and maximum.
...3C = Any minimum. Now 3D asks partner to bid the major he DOESN'T have, while 3M is pass/correct.
...3D = Medium with hearts.
...3H = Medium with spades.
...3S = Maximum with hearts.
...3NT = Maximum with spades.

3C = GF with a suit of my own. Partner asks with 3D. Rebidding 3NT is gambling with a solid minor.

3D = INV with support for both majors.
...3HS = Natural min.
...4CD = South African Texas, max. Now we can decide who declares.
...4HS = Forgot about SAT.

3HS = Pass/correct

3NT = To play

4C = Transfer to your major

4D = Bid your major

4HS = To play

5CD = To play

[Jinksy]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-12, 08:34, said:

Let's take a classic example. It starts 2♦ - 4♦ (bid your major) and Opener has the big balanced hand but without a 4 card major. What do they do? Expert partnerships sometimes get messed up here and it only gets worse if the 4441 hand type is included. If Opener's course is to bid 4NT there then it affects the hands that can afford to bid 4♦. This kind of dilemma is actually the origin of the 4m bids to show 5 of the linked major, to enable the big hand to make an informed decision but it turns out that the information is also useful to a weak Opener.

But we're playing weak only multi, so this sounds irrelevant.

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-12, 10:15, said:

But we're playing weak only multi, so this sounds irrelevant.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your question. You quoted the portion of my post where I was comparing responding schemes between a weak-only or mixed (weak + strong) Multi in answer to the part of the OP in which you mentioned that you had not found very much online specifically for the mini-multi. I illustrated the difference by pointing out one way in which having a strong hand included might make a difference and your answer is that that is irrelevant to a weak-only multi. Well yes in a way, but in that case we can close that entire part of the thread down as it relates directly to a mixed multi and that is not what you are playing!

[olien]

Depending on your preempting style, you may find the structure that I played with Adam Kaplan and Marius Agica to be helpful. We played an aggressive preempting style. Our structure looked like:

Initial Responses:
2♥ / ♠ = pass or correct
2NT = forcing ask
3♣ = game force, 5+♥, no interest in ♠
3♦ = game force, 5+♠, no interest in ♥
3♥ / ♠ = pass or correct
3NT = to play
4♣ = asks opener to transfer to their major
4♦ = asks opener to bid their major
4♥ / ♠ = natural, to play

-------

2♦ - 2♥:
2♠ = weak 2 in spades --> 2NT = game try in ♠; 3m/♥ = natural NF, own suit; 3♠ = weak raise

2♦ - 2♠:
2NT = good weak 2 in ♥ --> 3♣ = game try in ♥; 3♦ / ♠ = natural NF, own suit; 3♥ = to play
3m = 4+m, good weak 2 in ♥
3♥ = worst

-------

2♦ - 2♠ // 2NT - 3♣ (game try in ♥)
3♦ = last train
3♥ = decline
3NT = accept, good suit, choice of games
4♣ = accept, gives either player the chance to declare (4♦ over this = transfer)

-------

2♦ - 2NT:
3♣ = absolute worst --> 3♦ = asks short major; 3♥ / ♠ = pass or correct; 4♣ / ♦ = same as direct responses
3♦ / ♥ = medium hand with ♥ / ♠ respectively
3♠ = best possible with ♥
3NT = best possible with ♠
4m = 6♥ - 5m
4♥ = 6♠ - 5♣
4♠ = 6♠ - 5♦

-------

2♦ - 3♣:
3♦ = 6+♠, 2♥ (natural continuations)
3♥ = 6+♠, 0-1♥
3♠ = 6=3=2=2
3NT = surprise! - we have same suit
4m = 6+♠ - 3+♥, shortness

2♦ - 3♦:
3♥ = 6+♥ 2♠ (natural continuations)
3♠ = 6+♥ 0-1♠
3NT = surprise! - we have same suit
4m = 6+♥ 3+♠, shortness
4♥ = 3=6=2=2

I think this covers most of it

[helene_t]

Warning: This is helene standard, any similarity with expert standard is pure coincidence

2♦-?
-- pass: long diamonds OR rubbish with hearts only OR rubbish with hearts+minor(clubs?)
-- 2♥: normal paradox OR 3c-sign-off with heart tolerance OR inv+ with 6(5)+ hearts and 1(2)- spades
-- 2♠: normal paradox (could be a heart barrage or heart invite or even GF opposite hearts) OR 3c-sign-off with spade tolerance OR inv+ with 6(5)+ spades and 1(2)- hearts
-- 2NT: inv+, opener's suit will be trumps or we play 3NT
-- 3♣: natural, inv+
-- 3♦: natural, inv+ but willing to force to 3NT opposite hearts
-- 3♥: normal paradox
-- 3♠: dunno. You might invent something more useful than normal paradox
-- 3NT: to play:
-- 4♣: asks opener to transfer
-- 4♦/♥: traditionally 4♦ asks opener to bid his suit and 4♥ is to play but you might consider swapping them as the p/c 4♥ comes up often and puts opps under maximal pressure

2♦-2♥
2♠-?
-- 2NT: puppet to 3♣, this could be the 3c drop with heart tolreance or something else
-- 3♣: invitational with 55 rounded suits
Maybe simplest to let all game invites with spade support go through 2NT while direct 3-level bids show the hands with hearts, but you might also want to have a natural invite in diamonds only and/or both reds.

2♦-2♠
?
-- 2NT: hearts, spade tolerance
-- 3♣: hearts, no spade tolerance: now responder can pass with an invitational hand with 5-5 blacks

2♦-3m
?
-- transfers/inversion

[Jinksy]

What would double typically be after the opps bid? After 2♦ (2♥), X for TO seems a bit pointless (could be to minors I suppose, but I'm guessing there are better uses - outright penalty?).

[helene_t]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-13, 12:48, said:

What would double typically be after the opps bid? After 2♦ (2♥), X for TO seems a bit pointless (could be to minors I suppose, but I'm guessing there are better uses - outright penalty?).

W had a thread about this not so long time ago. I think concensus is that "experts std" is penalty, but most of us probably learned in improver's class that it is p/c.

[Jinksy]

Does a natural 3N bid ever come up, btw? It feels like it's going to be super-rare that the hand won't play better in at least one possible major if responder has tolerance for either, or a long minor if he doesn't have tolerance for either.

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-14, 05:53, said:

Does a natural 3N bid every come up, btw? It feels like it's going to be super-rare that the hand won't play better in at least one possible major if responder has tolerance for either, or a long minor if he doesn't have tolerance for either.

And when it does come up you can bid 2NT followed by 3NT and only have leaked which major Opener holds, which is not usually critical for the lead.

[Jinksy]

Do you have any suggestions for a better use of it?

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-15, 04:06, said:

Do you have any suggestions for a better use of it?

Well I mentioned one scheme with an artificial 3NT earlier - 3NT = to play 4M (either 4-4 majors or a good hand); 4m = 5+ in linked major. You could of course also move these around if you wanted to keep 4♦ as the call to play in 4M.

[newroad]

Hi Jinksy et al.

Personally, I think the Multi 2D, in any of its main forms, is a net loser against opposition that is both good AND organised (take away either one of these, and it has merit).

The above notwithstanding, I think I'd keep 3NT as to play were I to be playing the method - the kind of hand which would bid it is a gambling style IMO, e.g. running minor, short one major, stoppers in the other two suits.

There was an article in The Bridge World a while back where someone did an analysis of system responses to the Multi 2D and how often in World Championships they'd actually happened. Most listed 3m as some form of natural (forcing I think) but they'd never actually been bid in a World Championship. The suggestion therefore followed that they could be repurposed - as some part of a raise structure.

Regards, Newroad