[DavidKok]

I'm picking up the weak only multi soon, and have scoured the web looking for a good set of agreements on it. Below are links to discussions I've found with comments on response structures, costs and benefits.

Spoiler

• https://www.bridgeba...eak-only-multi/
  
• Chris Ryall's page on the multi
  
• Kit Woolsey's weak only multi
  
• Mats Nilsland's suggestions
  
• https://bridgewinner...-continuations/
  
• https://bridgewinner...i-2d-responses/
  
• Discussion on interference over our weak-only multi

I'm both interested in

• Finding a relatively simple set of strong agreements.
  
• Discussing what very good (or even optimal) agreements might look like.

For now I am planning on using the weak-only multi as garbage preempts, usually a 5-card suit but may be a bad 6-card suit. This has some consequences for the response and rebid structure. Based on the above the basic response structure that I am thinking of is:

• Pass - prepared to play 2♦ undoubled. May run if doubled. Usually responder will have (4)5+ diamonds for this action and shortage in at least one major suit, judging that the diamonds are not much worse than the probable 5-1 fit.
  
• 2♥ - Pass or correct to 2♠. May be a runout to 3m (even diamonds) when prepared to play 2♥ opposite hearts but preferring a minor suit facing spades. Can also contain hands that would raise spades but have heart shortage, or weak hands with a long heart suit ('gambling' that partner doesn't also have hearts, intending to rebid them at the 3-level).
  
• 2♠ - Pass with spades, bid 2NT (minimum) or 3♣ (maximum) with hearts. May be a runout to 3m with hands that cannot stand playing in hearts, similar to the above. Also contains hands with a long spade suit and willingness to play it at the 3-level.
  
• 2NT - Strong asking bid. I'm still looking for a good response structure, see end of post. It is somewhat popular to psych this bid, I have never done so and don't really see the appeal.
  
• 3♣ - Artificial inv(+) with 5(+) hearts, asking about opener's heart holding. If you want to simplify, instead use this as a NF natural bid.
  
• 3♦ - Artificial inv(+) with 5(+) spades, asking about opener's spade holding. If you want to simplify, instead use this as an invitational bid with both majors (relieving some pressure from 2NT).
  
• 3♥ - Pass or correct, promises at least 3-3 in the majors and no game interest opposite hearts. Hearts are not better than spades.
  
• 3♠ - Pass or correct, promises at least 3-4 in the majors and no game interest opposite spades. Hearts are better than spades.
  
• 3NT - To play.
  
• 4♣ - Transfer me into your suit. Does not promise or deny strength (although it does deny slam interest).
  
• 4♦ - Bid your suit.
  
• 4♥ - To play, do not correct.
  
• 4♠ - To play.

In light of the aggressive competitive nature of the bid I think the agreements over interference are equally important. I was thinking of the following:

2♦-(X)-?

• Pass - asks opener to pass with at least 3 diamonds (promises 4(+) diamonds).
  
• Redouble - asks opener to bid 2♥, responder has their own suit and will place the contract.
  
• 2♥ - Pass or correct to 2♠, system on.
  
• 2♠ - Identical, system on.
  
• 2NT - Strong asking bid, system on.
  
• 3♣ - Natural NF.
  
• 3♦ - Does not exist.
  
• 3♥ and up: system on (including 4♣ and 4♦).

Since 2♥ and 2♠ are system on we don't really need 3♣ natural NF - we already have ways to run to that suit. There is some benefit to getting there early, and in theory we can pick up (say) 1-1 in the majors and not be willing to play in partner's suit ever, but I'm prepared to lose on those hands.

2♦-(2M)-?

• Pass - Weak. We are off the hook. Please do not bid.
  
• Double - "I would have made a 2M bid" - i.e. pass if this is your suit, system on if it's the other one. This is nearly identical to a takeout double.
  
• 2♠ (over 2♥ only) - To play, do not correct. We could play system on, but if you have some heart tolerance and are prepared to play 2♠ opposite spades a double should work just fine.
  
• 2NT - Strong asking bid, system on.
  
• 3♣ - Natural NF.
  
• 3♦ - Natural NF.
  
• 3♥ and up: system on (including 4♣ and 4♦).

Similar to before, immediate 3♣/3♦ bids aren't that useful.

2♦-(2NT)-?
I don't know what to play here. My first thought was pass = weak, double = bid your suit, any suit = NF constructive. But having 3♥ pass/correct applies more pressure than a double, so maybe that should be retained. Maybe it is a good idea to play the same as over 2♦-(X)-?, i.e. X = bid 3♣, I will place the contract and all other bids are system on(?). Alternatively just copy the structure below over 3m interference for consistency.

2♦-(3m)-?

• Pass - Weak. We are off the hook. Please do not bid.
  
• Double - Bid your suit.
  
• 3♦ (over 3♣ only) - Natural, forcing.
  
• 3♥ - Natural, forcing.
  
• 3♠ - Natural, forcing.
  
• 3NT and up: system on.

Note that we don't have a way to show strong clubs on 2♦-(3♦)-?. Oh well.

2♦-(P)-P-(X); ?
Pass always, partner will run if it is right. Perhaps redouble should show some specific diamond length (either shortness, i.e. S.O.S., or length).

2♦-(P)-any bid-(X); ?
System on, redouble does not exist.

2♦-(P)-(any bid)-(any different bid); ?
System on as much as possible, if the systemic call is still available make it (including stolen bid doubles). Pass is a catchall for lower responses.

There are a few more sequences that require specific agreements, I've included them below.

Spoiler

2♦-(P)-2♥-(P); 2♠-(P)-?:

• Pass - Weak with tolerance for both majors.
  
• 2NT - Ogust/some other asking bid. 'To play' also seems fine.
  
• 3♣ - To play, runout. I suppose opener is allowed to support with a 4-card suit, but I don't think we'll get silent opponents in that situation.
  
• 3♦ - To play, runout. I suppose opener is allowed to support with a 4-card suit, but I don't think we'll get silent opponents in that situation.
  
• 3♥ - To play, do not correct or raise.
  
• 3♠ - Does not exist (maybe invitational for spades?).
  
• 3NT - Does not exist ('To play' is fine but won't come up often - the 2♥ bid implies heart shortage in a strong hand, which is a fatal flaw for 3NT).

2♦-(P)-2♠-(P); 2NT/3♣-(P)-?

• Pass - To play
  
• 3♣ - To play, runout. I suppose opener is allowed to support with a 4-card suit, but I don't think we'll get silent opponents in that situation.
  
• 3♦ - To play, runout. I suppose opener is allowed to support with a 4-card suit, but I don't think we'll get silent opponents in that situation.
  
• 3♥ - Does not exist (to play).
  
• 3♠ - To play, do not correct or raise.
  
• 3NT - Does not exist (same as above).

2♦-(P)-3m*-(P); ?
First step: 0-1 cards in partner's major.
Second step (3 of partner's major): 2 cards in partner's major.
Third step: 3(+) cards in partner's major.
It makes sense to reserve the 4th steps and up for the superfit ('partner you found my major'), e.g. Kit Woolsey uses these as natural descriptive bids with 5(+) in support. The 3(+) cards answers set trumps and force to game, over the 0-2 answers responder should place the contract or make a forcing natural bid. Perhaps we should go straight to control bidding opposite the doubleton support answer.

Based on the above I still have a number of questions.

• What are some good answering schemes to 2NT? Some popular ones I've seen include:
  • 3♣ any medium hand (3♦ asks for the suit while 3♥/3♠ are P/C. Over 3♦ opener bids the major they don't have); 3♦ weak with hearts, 3♥ weak with spades (responder's rebids are natural), 3♠ strong with hearts, 3NT strong with spades.
    
  • 3♣ weak with hearts, 3♦ weak with spades, 3♥ strong with spades, 3♠ strong with hearts.
    
  • 3♣ any 5-card suit (3♦ asks, similar to above), 3♦ minimum with 6 hearts, 3♥ minimum with 6 spades, 3♠ maximum with 6 hearts, 3NT maximum with 6 spades.
  Our multi will contain a lot of really lousy hands, we really don't need bids showing AKQxxx or the likes (we won't have that hand).
  
• What do you use 2♦-(2M)-3M/3oM for? Playing, say, 2♦-(2♥)-3♥* as P/C seems strange.
  
• What (if anything) should 2♦-(X)-3♦ show?
  
• What is a good structure over 2♦-(2NT)-?
  
• This one varies by region, which common artificial overcalls and defences is it worth preparing for?
  
• If we get overcalled at the 3M-level or higher, are there some simple meta-rules on the meaning of our bids? Which bids are P/C or help us identify opener's major suit?
  
• There are multiple auctions (especially competitive ones, e.g. 2♦-(X)-?), where there might be merit to using a jump to 4♥ as P/C to apply maximum pressure. Between 2NT and 3♣ we already have two ways to get to 4♥ without it being P/C. Would it make sense to swap a direct 4♥ for a P/C bid? If so, in which situations would this (not) be a good idea?
  
• This structure is relatively restrictive on opener, assigning systemic bids to most auctions. Would it make sense to include some jump bids for 6-5 or even reasonable 5-5 hands somewhere, for example over 2oM (where we are running anyway) or a 2NT ask?
  
• I've given up on penalty doubles pretty much everywhere - if second hand interferes I think making descriptive bids and/or learning about opener's major suit takes priority. If fourth hand sticks their neck out the situation is different. Which competitive auctions with fourth hand interference, if any, are common enough to make special agreements on?
  
• There are a few more situations where opener's specific calls have no assigned meaning in competition (notably redouble). Is there a good use for these, depending on the auction?

All ideas, suggestions and comments are welcome!

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-March-03, 06:05, said:

For now I am planning on using the weak-only multi as garbage preempts, usually a 5-card suit but may be a bad 6-card suit. This has some consequences for the response and rebid structure.

The main reason I don't like "standard" Garbage Multi that much is the frequent Burn's Law violations after 2♦-2M; P.

Here is an idea I had for avoiding 5-1 and 5-0 fits when Opener's major is spades.

Edit: The 'Multi 2d' thread mentioned in that thread.

[Cyberyeti]

What we use for our multi (it's wider ranging than yours I suspect) over 2N. Where I refer to ranges 1-4, 1 is the weakest, 4 the strongest.

2♦-2N-3♣ ♥ ranges 1/2/4
2♦-2N-3♦ ♠ ranges 1/2/4
2♦-2N-3♥ hearts range 3
2♦-2N-3♠ spades range 3
2♦-2N-3N solidish major no singleton

over 3m:
3 of our major is signoff opposite ranges 1 and 2, you bid on with range 4
the next suit up asks for clarification, 3 of our major is range 1, 3N/4 of our major is range 2 and you bid a new suit as a cue with range 4

[awm]

Elianna and I have been playing this for a while, and our non-competitive responses are similar to yours. We do play 2♦-4M as pass/correct (hands with their own major either bid 3m or 2M). Other differences in what we play:

2♦-(2NT/3m): We play double as penalty; you occasionally catch opponents out on these auctions and responder having her own suit that she wants to compete in on a possible misfit is relatively rare (probably more unusual than the penalty double). We play major suit bids as initially pass-or-correct here, but if responder continues it shows that the original suit was natural. So for example:

2♦-(3♣)-3♥-(Pass)
3♠-(Pass)-3NT/4♦/4♥ = natural and hearts were a real suit

Over 2♦-(X) we actually play the reverse of what you play, where 2M is natural (my own suit) and XX is "bid your major"; I suspect the way you have it is very slightly better, but our approach is more consistent with other sequences that we play.

We also prefer that 2♦-(X)-Pass is more of a real diamond suit so that opener passes most of the time (in our style, the pass shows 5+♦ and usually 6+♦, and opener should pass on doubleton diamond routinely and possibly on singleton if holding a weak five card suit).

Our general agreement is that if opponents have not shown a specific major suit, our major suit bids are pass or correct. So for example 2♦-(3♦)-4♥ is pass/correct. However, when opponents bid a major at the three-level or above, we generally assume partner has the other major and bids become natural (so for example, 2♦-(3♥)-4♠ is to play often assuming partner has spades, and 4♥ is a slam-interested raise of spades).

[dokoko]

If you open Multi with 5 and 6 card suits you may like this: https://docs.google....W_MqMadpAU/edit

[awm]

We indeed open multi with both 5 and 6 card suits, and we don’t even have a way to check openers length. Certainly it’s possible to find this out on the way to game with a bit more complexity, and we have played 4-major in a 5-2 fit because of this a half dozen times.

However, none of these 4-major contracts have lead to a bad result, with several of them being huge wins with other tables in 3nt failing. So we’re not in a rush to adopt more complex sequences to distinguish 5 vs 6!

[DavidKok]

dokoko, on 2023-March-08, 12:47, said:

If you open Multi with 5 and 6 card suits you may like this: https://docs.google....W_MqMadpAU/edit

Thank you, Nigel Kearney's notes are under the fifth link in the first post. I'd looked at them but don't like them much - they are very much in the style of an 'old' multi, focusing on how to handle the situation when opener has a monster hand. The example auctions also happen to feature remarkably passive opponents.

We've slightly simplified and adapted the system in the first post, and will start playing this weak only multi soon. On the first few rounds of testing the scientific auctions over 2NT haven't really come up, so we're sticking with a simple scheme for now and focusing on our competitive agreements first. We've kept penalty doubles over 2♦-(2NT/3♣/3♦/higher) but 'stolen bid' (i.e. 'pass if this is your suit, otherwise system on) over 2♦-(2M). Also a direct 4♥ is P/C in all situations now.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2023-March-03, 06:05, said:

Based on the above the basic response structure that I am thinking of is:

[...]

• 3♥ - Pass or correct, promises at least 3-3 in the majors and no game interest opposite hearts. Hearts are not better than spades.
  
• 3♠ - Pass or correct, promises at least 3-4 in the majors and no game interest opposite spades. Hearts are better than spades.

Too aggressive unless you rarely open 2♦ with only a 5c suit.

[DavidKok]

Our multi will usually be a 5-card suit (I haven't run a simulation but I expect it to be a 5-card suit maybe 80+% of the time). The raise is not LAWful, but I think it is also not too aggressive. I'm starting with this agreement and might tone it down if we get caught speeding too often.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-March-03, 06:05, said:

For now I am planning on using the weak-only multi as garbage preempts, usually a 5-card suit but may be a bad 6-card suit. This has some consequences for the response and rebid structure. Based on the above the basic response structure that I am thinking of is:

Does this mean you are keeping 2M as a sound preempt and not using 2M as 5M+4/5 other suit preempt? why?

[DavidKok]

As an experiment, to see how low we can go with the multi. So far the results are incredibly positive. However, making the multi range all the way from ♠Qxx, ♥JTxxx, ♦Txxx, ♣x to ♠x, ♥KQJxxx, ♦xxx, ♣xxx makes it very difficult for responder with a strong hand, so we split them. Besides, we tend to open the 5(+)M4(+)m hands anyway - we just make a judgement call whether they are 'pure' weak twos or 'impure' weak twos and open accordingly.

Our 2M openings aren't sound in any real way - they can be 5-card suits and very aggressive. But they are pure preempts. Vulnerable against not, second seat, we'd open ♠KQTxx, ♥x, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx with 2♠.

[Cyberyeti]

Having said in a previous thread I hadn't seen many passes of a multi 2♦, yesterday I picked up a hand where I might well have passed a multi with strong options, but was a much easier pass of a weak only, x, AJxx, AJ10xxx, Ax - 2♦+1 for 2/3 of the MPs

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-April-01, 02:09, said:

As an experiment, to see how low we can go with the multi. So far the results are incredibly positive. However, making the multi range all the way from ♠Qxx, ♥JTxxx, ♦Txxx, ♣x to ♠x, ♥KQJxxx, ♦xxx, ♣xxx makes it very difficult for responder with a strong hand, so we split them. Besides, we tend to open the 5(+)M4(+)m hands anyway - we just make a judgement call whether they are 'pure' weak twos or 'impure' weak twos and open accordingly.

Our 2M openings aren't sound in any real way - they can be 5-card suits and very aggressive. But they are pure preempts. Vulnerable against not, second seat, we'd open ♠KQTxx, ♥x, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx with 2♠.

I'm interested in where you are playing these methods. I may be wrong but I would expect good results when playing against pairs who don't know how defend and are inexperienced played against Multi. Playing these extra light openings against a strong field may not be so profitable?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-April-03, 08:27, said:

I'm interested in where you are playing these methods. I may be wrong but I would expect good results when playing against pairs who don't know how defend and are inexperienced played against Multi. Playing these extra light openings against a strong field may not be so profitable?

I think you’re probably correct.

Back a few years I played multi as a garbage weak 2M with 2M being good 8-10, so 2D was 4- bad 8.

In practice at the club, with permission from the owner and only when the opps agreed (which they did about half the time…and we didn’t even ask pairs we knew would feel intimidated) it worked well. Off to the Canadian National Team Championships and our experience was that the 2D opening was a significant net loser, so that was the end of that experiment.

Ironically, our current approach isn’t that much different…2D is 5-9 hcp. Doesn’t sound that different but so far it works ok…with (in our experience) the biggest gain is that 2M is 10-13. That range works very well. It makes opponents, who could overcall 1M at the 2-level (or 1S over 1H), bid a level higher when responder has a penalty (not negative) double available. It’s a lot easier to double when you know opener has real values.

Plus now 1M 1N or 1H 1S 2H etc show 14-16 hcp, which avoids having to jump to 3M, risking a bad outcome when partner has a weak misfit

So while the weak multi is likely less effective than a wider range, the loss appears to be modest at worst while the gains from the 2M approach seem real.

Personally, I think ultra weak 5 card weak twos are long term losers for a variety of reasons….information leakage on hands where there is a strong likelihood that we’re defending, inability to preempt due to concern that opener may have a very inappropriate hand, easier for the auction to end in 2M doubled, etc.

But…that’s the beauty of the game. I have my opinions but I may be very wrong😀

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2023-April-03, 08:27, said:

I'm interested in where you are playing these methods. I may be wrong but I would expect good results when playing against pairs who don't know how defend and are inexperienced played against Multi. Playing these extra light openings against a strong field may not be so profitable?

We're playing this in a weak field. I think all aggressive methods (conditional on being bid) get better results in weak fields than in strong fields. That being said, I think the weak-only multi causes real problems that even experts would have some issues solving. An example hand from last night (I was sitting North):

---

I think it is not clear what to do, and would probably pass. I can't find the exact hand online so I most definitely got some of the pips wrong.

There are some interesting remarks on (very) aggressive bids in general:

• They are less effective against skilled opponents. Skilled opponents will have more experience with bids like this or similar competitive situations, and have better card judgement in general. But there is a second side to this argument: passing is also less effective, where you let them play their full system and still exercise their judgement. On balance I think it pays to be more conservative against weaker opponents and more aggressive against stronger opponents - weak opponents have more disasters in the auction and/or play.
  
• I previously played in relatively strong fields and never got punished for being too aggressive. Every time I opened a weak two it kept winning. In my opinion it logically follows that you have to keep pushing the envelope until something breaks - if I can increase the frequency of a winning call with little to no downside, why wouldn't I? It took me almost two years to go for -1100, and believe me when I say I've been trying. Meanwhile we picked up dozens of game swings, good sacrifices and stolen deals.
  
• Almost all analysis I've seen of weak bids at the two level (but not the three level) suggests they are incredible winners and everybody should be more aggressive. Several people have told me something along the lines of "Your style might work against the current field, but when you get to the next level they will know how to deal with your sort!". So far it has never been true. I'm playing this absolutely ridiculous version of the multi as an experiment - I want to keep trying it until it actually breaks. So far we are ahead by some hilarious amount - we've opened the weak-only multi 7 times in 48 deals, and a regular weak two 4 times. We got a good score on 10 of those 11 boards.

Lastly I'd like to stress that we're not playing multi + weak two bids in a major split by playing strength, but split by purity/defensive strength. Both have an approximate range of 4-10, but the 2M openings are offensively oriented while the 2♦ opening is 'anything goes'.

mikeh, on 2023-April-03, 11:42, said:

Personally, I think ultra weak 5 card weak twos are long term losers for a variety of reasons….information leakage on hands where there is a strong likelihood that we’re defending, inability to preempt due to concern that opener may have a very inappropriate hand, easier for the auction to end in 2M doubled, etc.

But…that’s the beauty of the game. I have my opinions but I may be very wrong��

I couldn't disagree more, I think the five card weak two openings are some of the highest expected value part of my system, being high frequency and high profit when they come up. You do need agreements on which hands with a 5 card major are appropriate. Most are not. But 5 cards are so much more frequent than 6 cards in a suit that you can still bump the frequency of the bid by a great amount, without sacrificing partner's ability to compete, sacrifice, investigate game/slam etc.