[andy_h]

I've been wondering if this is such a useful convention in the end. I've been playing trash multi (3-7 5+M, only weak option) along with 2M = 8-11 for about a year now and have noticed a few things.

Playing against decent pairs who know how to handle multi 2♦ will have an easier time when they end up declaring because the 2♦ opener is limited to 3-7HCP and most of the time the 2♦ opener usually has most of their HCP in their suit so this makes it easier for the declarer to find other missing cruicial cards.

It seems like penalty doubles will come up more frequently when the opponents interfere over 2♦ or 2M openings, but rarely has this ever been true for me. It has maybe worked once or twice.

Opening 2♦ when unfavourable just doesn't make sense.

So maybe 2♦ doesn't work quite as well when you play against decent pairs?
What do you think?

[Echognome]

Phil and I played it slightly differently in the Blue Ribbon pairs. 2M was (9)10-13 (better hand when vul) and 2D was a preempt below that.

My experience was that the 2M bids were very effective, even against very good opponents.

I don't particular like (or dislike) the "trash" multi as you call it. I would prefer to open 2M with the preempts, so I consider it a loss not to be able to. However, I do feel that aspect is made up on the 2M hands. The question is whether the 2M openings also make up for the loss of a natural 2♦ bid.

I want to note that the 2M openings have benefits beyond the openings themselves. They also make your other bidding more accurate, e.g. when you rebid your major, you are showing more than a minimum opening (we play it as 14-16).

[Fluffy]

I have no expereince with trash multi, however I think that playing muiderberg covers a lot more hands.

In Beijing we losed 3 game swings/double swings because the opponents opened a 2 suiter major+minor we didn't have avaible.

[Phil]

I think Dayou and I are switching to trash multi with either Bailey Weak 2's or maybe Muiderberg.

[FrancesHinden]

I've been playing a 'trash' multi for years in one partnership. I'm not 100% convinced it's definitely the right way to play, but I don't play it entirely the way you imply...

Basics first: we only play it in first and second seat. In third seat we play 2D as weak (again, not obviously best); in fourth seat we play 2D as a 9-13 multi and 2H/2S as strong ("Acol Twos"). The fourth seat method I really like; it gains a lot when you get the strong hand at very little cost. You are much more likely to hold a strong two in a major after three passes than at other times.

We also play it completely differently depending on vulnerability. First NV, and particularly first at green, you can forget any idea of "most of your high cards being in your suit". It's used more as a sort of random 2-level pre-empt aimed at making life difficult for the opponents. The following are perfectly good (alhtough minimum) 2D openings first seat, NV against V:

Qxxxx
x
xxx
Kxxx

xx
J10xxx
Qxxx
Jx

As a consequence, we play a set of non-standard set of responses to the 2D opening:
i) 2D gets passed more often than you would normally expect
ii) Responder has plenty of ways to show his own suit (weak or strong) and not have to live with opener's selection. Responder can invite in the other major, sign off in any of the suits, game force with 5 cards in his own suit etc

Vul in first seat, and NV in second seat, we are a little more restrained. Now it usually shows a 6-card suit (although a good 5-card suit is allowed), but generally the difference between that and the weak two opening is not so much that it has fewer high cards, more that the suit quality is worse. This makes the 2M opening virtually 'old-fashioned textbook' type which helps constructive bidding.

Vul in second seat we use 2D to show a 7-card weak two. The sort of hand that you always want to open, but feel you can't because partner will expect something different and/or better. Second seat at red, say,

QJ109xxx
x
Kxx
xx

is a 2D opening, while

KQJ109x
x
Kxxx
xx

is a 2S opening

[Fluffy]

do you pass 2♦? I would always think that 2♦ would contain strong variations in it.

[skjaeran]

Fluffy, on Jan 31 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

do you pass 2♦? I would always think that 2♦ would contain strong variations in it.

It doesn't have to.

We used to put in a 28-30NT.

[FrancesHinden]

Fluffy, on Jan 31 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

do you pass 2♦? I would always think that 2♦ would contain strong variations in it.

We include a strong two in diamonds, with the suit solid down to the Jack. That means you can pass 'safely' whenever you have a diamond honour.

[glen]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 31 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

We include a strong two in diamonds, with the suit solid down to the Jack. That means you can pass 'safely' whenever you have a diamond honour.

I love this

[whereagles]

I dislike trash multi because you lose the natural 2♦ opener, which is one of the most bothersome preempts around.