[Cyberyeti]

I play 12-15 in my real diamond precision partnership and have played 10-15, 11-16 and 14-19 before (in different seats at the same time)

Astro variants are pretty common here, we play asptro where you anchor to the weaker with both majors.

[mikeh]

I have played suction v strong notrumps but don’t anymore. I don’t think it’s as effective over 1N as it can be over a strong club (or even strong 2C).

I don’t agree that suction is bad simply because advancer can’t pass it. Of course advancer can pass! Why on earth not?

I hold xxx xx KQxxxxx x. (1N) 2D (p) ?

Anything other than pass is, imo, extraordinarily bad.

I don’t play suction mostly because opener’s hand is reasonably tightly constrained…note that a strong 1C opener gives very little information to responder so ambiguous preemptive interference can be quite effective.

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2022-October-13, 12:49, said:

My experience is that weaker partners will remember the initial interferences but improvise the follow-ups, which can be disastrous. But then nobody forces us to play bridge with weak partners, even if the alternative is not playing bridge.

This is why I suggest lower intermediates to go with normal Landy. By the time you progress to Multi-Landy, you should be in a position to learn a convention to more than just a single round of bidding and also to understand how such methods work in competition. Even simple Lands has its follow-up issues - if you follow the original convention then the forcing relay after 2♣ is 3♣. I find this ridiculously inefficient and prefer to start all forcing auctions with a simple 2♦, with (1NT) - 2♣ - 2♦ -- 2M - 2NT as a second relay. But that is obviously not going to fly with a beginner. Fortunately, with Landy you can generally get by without a forcing relay sequence. After a Multi-Landy 2M though, you need to know whether your method of playing in 3 of Overcaller's minor is 2NT or 3♣. It is not necessarily even about being weak (or not) either. Most of the time it is just about having solid agreements that both partners can remember. Beginners and low intermediates have more important things to be using their memory cells on and should therefore pass on such methods.

[helene_t]

DavidKok, on 2022-October-13, 13:01, said:

Over here Suction is called 'Chameleon'.

I thought it was called Multi-Defense in the Netherlands. Or is that a slightly different thing?

[DavidKok]

I think that's the same thing.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2022-October-13, 14:13, said:

I have played suction v strong notrumps but don’t anymore. I don’t think it’s as effective over 1N as it can be over a strong club (or even strong 2C).

I don’t agree that suction is bad simply because advancer can’t pass it. Of course advancer can pass! Why on earth not?

I hold xxx xx KQxxxxx x. (1N) 2D (p) ?

Anything other than pass is, imo, extraordinarily bad.

I don’t play suction mostly because opener’s hand is reasonably tightly constrained…note that a strong 1C opener gives very little information to responder so ambiguous preemptive interference can be quite effective.

Thanks, makes sense.

Over strong 1C we are currently experimenting with Multilandy (!), which seems to work quite well, or at least they don't seem as unbothered as they are by standard Mathé. We just tweaked double to show clubs and 1NT to show 4M5m, retaining all the 2 level bids for low memory load.
We did get hit for 500 when scrambling to 3C in 4-3 after 2S was insta-doubled by Responder, so I suspect it might be wiser to move 5M4m to 1M, at least when vulnerable. It's hard to pin down their agreements over 2 level intervention, but without screens the desire for blood was pretty evident in any case

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2022-October-15, 09:25, said:

Thanks, makes sense.

Over strong 1C we are currently experimenting with Multilandy (!), which seems to work quite well, or at least they don't seem as unbothered as they are by standard Mathé. We just tweaked double to show clubs and 1NT to show 4M5m, retaining all the 2 level bids for low memory load.
We did get hit for 500 when scrambling to 3C in 4-3 after 2S was insta-doubled by Responder, so I suspect it might be wiser to move 5M4m to 1M, at least when vulnerable. It's hard to pin down their agreements over 2 level intervention, but without screens the desire for blood was pretty evident in any case

Something like this might be worth considering perhaps. The question to ask is whether it is more important to you to have a call to show 4M5m or to be able to show a minor at the 2 level. I am not sure if there is really a "correct" answer to this although most of the better players in that thread thought the ability to show a single suit at any level to be of the highest importance.

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2022-October-15, 13:42, said:

Something like this might be worth considering perhaps. The question to ask is whether it is more important to you to have a call to show 4M5m or to be able to show a minor at the 2 level.

Thanks for the link to previous discussion.
I'm sold on having a call for 4M5m and I struggle to see why we need two different bids for each minor?
It's not often going to be 5 card and when it is I'm not sure I want to wave that under the Bull's nose.

[kreivi68]

Gilithin, on 2022-October-15, 13:42, said:

Something like this might be worth considering perhaps. The question to ask is whether it is more important to you to have a call to show 4M5m or to be able to show a minor at the 2 level. I am not sure if there is really a "correct" answer to this although most of the better players in that thread thought the ability to show a single suit at any level to be of the highest importance.

I sacrificed 5♣ + 4♥/♠ hands in my own method called Valiant to be able to show 6+♣/♦. It goes like this after opponent's strong 1NT opening:

X= a) a club one-suiter or b) 5♥/♠ + minor -> 2♣ asks partner to pass with clubs, to bid 2♦ with diamonds and a major or 2♥/♠ with that major and clubs. 2♦ is a relay knowing that in the case a) we end up at least on the three-level (intervenor's 2♥/♠ show major and a minor and 3♣ clubs). Advancer's 2♥/♠ are natural signoffs.
2♣= a) a diamond one-suiter or b) both majors -> 2♦ asks overcaller to pass with diamonds and to bid longer major with majors (2NT= 5♥-5♠+ and extras). Advancer's 2♥ is P/C with 3+♥-card hearts and short spades, 2♠ is natural signoff and 2NT asks (3♣= majors; 3♦= 6+♦ minimum; 3♥/♠= diamonds, major stopper and extras).
2♦= 5+♦ + 4♥/♠ -> 2♥= P/C; 2♠= natural; 2NT asks (3♣= hearts, min; 3♦= spades, min; 3♥/♠= 4-card major, extras)
2♥/♠= 6+♥/♠
2NT= a) both minors or b) 6+♥/♠, too good to bid 2♥/♠. -> After advancer's 3♣/♦ overcaller passes or bids major with b).

Valiant was published in The Bridge World magazine in September 2019.