[Cyberyeti]

mikestar13, on 2015-February-11, 03:48, said:

But assuming there is no regulatory requirement, what is the rationale for having strong options? The mini-Multi (always weak) is an equally effective preempt, with no strong hands that suffer from self-preemption.

Maybe if the strong hand possibilities plug a major system hole it could be wortwhile, but even then it is quite dangerous to lump several different strong possibilities into the bid. I can imagine a multi where if strong, opener has a balanced 25 or about. I can also imagine a multi where if strong, it is GF with primary diamonds. I find it hard to wrap my mind around how to unwind things if it could be either of those, or 22-ish balanced, or GF with primary clubs, or just short of GF with a primary major.

I used to play weak 2M, strong balanced, 20+ 4441 any, it allows you to play strict 2 point ranges in your notrump rebids and rebid 2N showing a precise 2 point range up to 27 (and 3N up to 33) if you use kokish over 2♣ as well. The strong 2 in a minor we found ineffective, but the strong 4441 removed hands that were a problem in our system even if they are rare.

[mycroft]

Yeah, to me (who has mostly theoretical experience with the Multi, and almost none whatever with Multi-with-strong-variants), it's the Acol 2s in the Major that is the mind-bender. It effectively stops you from playing Paradox responses, since you can't have 2♦-2♠; 3♥ mean both "you were concerned I might have spades; I have hearts" and "I have an Acol 2 in Hearts" (and the coding required to unravel the rest of the strong variants artificially while still making room for "next major is C in P/C" seems - difficult, and difficult to remember).

[kgr]

2♣ opening is weak for us (mini-precision).
We like that 2♣ opening, and that is the cause of 2♦ multi having all these variant.
Maybe it would be better if we have 2♣ strong instead of mini-precision.

[helene_t]

Or play polish club if you really like the 2c opening

[helene_t]

Or you can pretend that strong hands don't exist. Just open at the onelevel with 10 playing tricks and at the five or six level (or 4nt specific ace ask) with 11. Unsound of course but at matchpoints the gain from having the entire two level for preempts might well be worth it.

[NickRW]

mikestar13, on 2015-February-11, 03:48, said:

But assuming there is no regulatory requirement, what is the rationale for having strong options? The mini-Multi (always weak) is an equally effective preempt, with no strong hands that suffer from self-preemption.

"Standard" has no really good home for the "Acol 2" type of hand (hence the fairly regular questions about whether to open a hand with 2♣ or not on these forums). On the other hand "standard" Acol devotes the all of the 2 level openers to solving this matter - which is inefficient.

On top of that typically both Acol and Standard open 2NT on a 3 point range (20-22) which is arguably too wide.

A possible solution (there are others) is to adopt, say:

2♣ 24+ bal or genuine GF hands (no shaded Acol 2s)
2NT 20-21 bal
2♥/♠ Acol 2
2♦ weak 2 in either major/or 22-23 bal/or Acol 2 in a minor about 8.5/9 playing tricks and enough high cards that it can stomach partner wanting to play 3NT on a weakish non fitting hand.

This gives an Acol player some sort of access to using weak twos and leaves all the strong options still available (including solving Acol's theoretical problem of what do you do with an Acol 2 in clubs).

The downside is that you only get 2 weak twos instead of 3 and it is more difficult to pre-emptively raise them.

Though you never see it, you can play Standard this way!

[mgoetze]

This discussion just keeps getting more expert-class all the time, LOL.

[kgr]

We play 2♣ as only weak (mini-precision) and 2♦ as (an overloaded) multi.

In Belgium you will see a lot of players having:
- 2♣ multi; with weak option: some Both majors; some for weak with D(and f.i. Semi-GF)
- 2♦ multi; with weak option: 6-card M (and f.i. GF)

You also have good players playing both 2♣ and 2♦ as only strong.

[NickRW]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-12, 04:36, said:

This discussion just keeps getting more expert-class all the time, LOL.

Quite so. However, I really couldn't give a monkey's where questions are posted (unlike some folk who seem to get all upset about it for some weird reason)