[thebiker]

Hi
I currently play Multi Landy as a defence to weak notrumps

If partner overcalls with 2Ma showing 5Ma cards and 4+ cards in a minor, what do people think is the best responding structure to employ?

I currently play as follows
(a) (1N) 2Ma (P) 2NT asks for partners minor - and has game interest -

(b) (1N) 2Ma (P) 3C simple pass/or correct

I would be interested to hear what other players use, plus any notes on follow up sequences and comments on the viability of the their responding structure

Does anyone have an alternative responding structure?

Maybe
(1N) (2Ma) (P) 2NT Pass/Correct sequences in play in 3Mi, plus GI/GF sequences,

(1N) (2Ma) (P) 3C Game Try with both minors (The Style of response currently played (by some) over Muiderberg 2Ma openings)

thanks in advance for your replies/input

regards

Brian Keable
"the biker"

[hirowla]

thebiker, on 2014-March-19, 07:56, said:

Hi
I currently play Multi Landy as a defence to weak notrumps

If partner overcalls with 2Ma showing 5Ma cards and 4+ cards in a minor, what do people think is the best responding structure to employ?

I currently play as follows
(a) (1N) 2Ma (P) 2NT asks for partners minor - and has game interest -

(b) (1N) 2Ma (P) 3C simple pass/or correct

I would be interested to hear what other players use, plus any notes on follow up sequences and comments on the viability of the their responding structure

Does anyone have an alternative responding structure?

Maybe
(1N) (2Ma) (P) 2NT Pass/Correct sequences in play in 3Mi, plus GI/GF sequences,

(1N) (2Ma) (P) 3C Game Try with both minors (The Style of response currently played (by some) over Muiderberg 2Ma openings)

That sequence will work but it's a matter of whether it's worth the memory or if it comes up often enough to bother. I've heard of a sequence after all of the multi-Landy bids that says a response of 2NT shows interest in game but is it worth it and does it come up often enough. It doesn't come up that often in my experience.

Regards,

Ian

[Zelandakh]

I use the same structure as for my version of Muiderberg:-

(1NT) - 2♥ - (P)
==
2♠ = nat, INV+
2NT = relay (3m = that minor + min; 3♥ = ♣ + max; 3♠ = ♦ + max; 3NT = 0544 + max)
3♣ = P/C
3♦ = good ♥ raise
3♥ = to play

and

(1NT) - 2♠ - (P)
==
2NT = relay (3m = that minor + min; 3♥ = ♣ + max; 3♠ = ♦ + max; 3NT = 5044 + max)
3♣ = P/C
3♦ = hearts, INV+
3♥ = good ♠ raise
3♠ = to play

If you do play Muiderberg (or similar) then I would suggest using the same structure is a good idea regardless of whether you think a different one would be theoretically better.