[jillybean]

Well, not yet but you can play it at a club on the West Coast.
I’ve persuaded my parter and co director to play Multi in our non sanctioned game.

I would like to play the weak/strong option, my partner believes it would be fairer and easier for our opponents if we played weak only and played 2M as weak, 2 suits.

I would like to hear from players who have experience playing multi in clubs.
What is the friendliest version of Multi and best defence we can use to introduce multi to our game?

[mw64ahw]

There are a group of experts who prefer a Weak only Multi as it facilitates further preempts and enables 2♦-X to be passed. Is this what you term friendly or not?

With regards to your comment on defences I'm not sure whether this was a comment on persuading an argument for allowing the use of a Multi or providing a defence that can be used against a Multi?. If the latter then there is a standard written defence available plus others like the Multi vs Multi that can be found on Chris Ryall's website.
I play a weak/strong version at a club level, but no one has ever asked for a specific defence!

Using a weak/strong Multi has had key implications for the overall structure that I play. The ideas below have been pieced together using a number observations gathered over the last few years.

Firstly, I use an approach that aims to reduce the probability of the strong options occurring so that further preemption can be done with greater safety and 2♦-X can still be passed with minimum risk. I've highlighted some of the tweaks in previous posts.

The highlights and effects:

• The strong balanced hand in the Multi is at least 24-25 with 20-21 going through a reverse 'birthright' orientated structure.
• Bidding over 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠-2N (20-21) is now GF as 'Bust' hands with a long suit can now break the relay.
• 2♣ now becomes a Multi with a Weak 2♦. Breaking the almost forced 2♦ with 2♥ allows a wider range of shapes to be included in the weak 2. If 2♥ and the option is strong then you are slamming.
• The other strong option is primary ♦ with 3♣ 6+♦, 3♦ (4x)5x & 3♥ to 3N the 64s.
• Now you have 2N free to be repurposed which I again use as a Multi; a) ♣ preempt, b) strong xx54/xx55, c) strong xx46, d) strong 55xx.
• 3♣ is now a pre-emptive xx55 which is slightly harder to defend against than a 2N xx55 preempt.
• Strong 4441s are often included in a Multi 2♦, but I now put these through 2♣ so 2♣-2♦-3♣ is 5+♣<4♦ or 4414 with higher bids indicating (4414) with the shortage the next bid up.

So lots of changes that have evolved from wanting to play a Multi 2♦ and this is before a discussion on the plethora of weak options available; I'm currently playing a 5-card only version; may/may not have a 4+card minor.

Have fun.

[DavidKok]

I think the weak-only versions are considerably more powerful than the weak-or-strong version. This goes for more artificial preempts, such as "2♣ weak diamonds or a list of strong hands". So if you want it to be newbie-friendly, playing weak-or-strong can take a lot of the sting out of it.

The multi is popular here, and most club players will respond 2♥ almost always. Even a 2♠ response ('Pass with spades, correct with hearts') comes as a surprise. When played this way it's really not intimidating at all.

The defence I like is similar to ACBL option 2.
In direct seat:

• Bidding a suit is natural - 5(+) cards, approximately 12-17 points.
  
• 2NT is 16-19. Negotiate with your partner how many stoppers you want for this.
  
• X is "13-15 at least 4-3 in the majors and no good bid", or strong (18+ unbal or 20+ bal), plus whatever 16-19 balanced hands you dared not fit in 2NT.

In 4th seat and on the second round the meaning of bids is the same but double is takeout of the suit that they have bid. Note that pure takeout hands in second seat have to pass-then-double in this scheme, and dastardly opponents can take advantage of this by passing 2♦ or not correcting to opener's long suit. In my experience this isn't too common, especially with the can-be-strong version.
There will still be ambiguous cases. Sometimes they get you, and no system (let alone a simple one) will offer complete protection. If this is something that would upset players over a multi 2♦ (but not over, say, a weak 2♠ opening) that might be something to watch out for.

I've played other defences, such as ACBL option 1, Flannery-defences esque, and the joke system 'multi vs multi' before. I think they are more complicated as well as less effective, but they can be a lot of fun.

[Cyberyeti]

The weak/strong option is much easier to defend because you are much more likely to get another bid if you pass over it.

David summarises the defence we play, I would add that pass then 3m shows 5 that minor and 4 in the other major.

Multi is designed as disruptive, so playing 2M as a classical weak 2, with the multi as weaker is feasible or as we do using 2♥ as Ekren. What we'd like to play but is not legal here is to use 2M as 4 of the major and a longer minor.

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-28, 01:49, said:

The weak/strong option is much easier to defend because you are much more likely to get another bid if you pass over it.

David summarises the defence we play, I would add that pass then 3m shows 5 that minor and 4 in the other major.

Multi is designed as disruptive, so playing 2M as a classical weak 2, with the multi as weaker is feasible or as we do using 2♥ as Ekren. What we'd like to play but is not legal here is to use 2M as 4 of the major and a longer minor.

I wasn't aware that 4M5+m was illegal here. What is the Rule that covers it?. I've played Frelling 2M occasionally, but partner finds it a struggle to get there head round some of the continuations.

[hrothgar]

mw64ahw, on 2025-March-28, 02:28, said:

I've played Frelling 2M occasionally, but partner finds it a struggle to get there head round some of the continuations.

I think that they are eminently logical, but perhaps I am biased

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2025-March-27, 18:29, said:

What is the friendliest version of Multi

I would frame things slightly differently

I think that a weak only multi is significantly more difficult to defend against because the partner of the multi opener can take certain liberties such as passing with hands without real diamond tolerance or making an immediately jump to 3N with a hand that is actually willing to sacrifice at the four level in either major.

If you are your partner are truly interested in being friendly, then you might consider forgoing some of the more amusing options... (at least until folks have more experience playing against this particular opening)

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2025-March-28, 02:28, said:

I wasn't aware that 4M5+m was illegal here. What is the Rule that covers it?. I've played Frelling 2M occasionally, but partner finds it a struggle to get there head round some of the continuations.

The same one that rendered our "natural 4+ cards" weak 2s illegal. Changed within the last couple of years, blue book 7c(v).

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-28, 04:14, said:

The same one that rendered our "natural 4+ cards" weak 2s illegal. Changed within the last couple of years, blue book 7c(v).

Thanks

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-28, 01:06, said:

In direct seat:

• Bidding a suit is natural - 5(+) cards, approximately 12-17 points.
  
• 2NT is 16-19. Negotiate with your partner how many stoppers you want for this.
  
• X is "13-15 at least 4-3 in the majors and no good bid", or strong (18+ unbal or 20+ bal), plus whatever 16-19 balanced hands you dared not fit in 2NT.

Easy. We can present this to our opponents, some will be very interested, others won't care.
I'm also going to suggest we set ourselves as NE, a friendly thing to do.

Now, do we play 2M as 10-13 or Muiderberg? I should go with partners preference.

[pescetom]

I agree with others that weak-only is the hardest to defend against, but I think it is still the most rational choice as it is simple to describe and is also what they are likely to encounter in the future.

I suspect you have excessive fears about people resenting the difficulty they will have against Multi: in my experience ordinary club players will either not realise just how badly they are doing against it, or resignedly accept it as the due price to pay when Multi comes up. The one thing they will not do is go look for an effective defence convention and learn to play it well (although IIRC ACBL makes it mandatory to provide them with a defence, which might help). They will however spot and resent the reticent explanations which are typical of many Multi players, so work on that.

jillybean, on 2025-March-28, 09:54, said:

Easy. We can present this to our opponents, some will be very interested, others won't care.

I think you should flesh it out as a full description, similar to the ACBL 1 and 2 defences, and have two printed copies ready to present to opponents (explaining that they can refer to this or their own preferred defence while they are defending, which is an unexpected right).
But even more important, I think you should set an example by preparing clear system notes about your Multi, present this to the players in advance and have it ready at the table.

[jillybean]

Yes, I'm sure you are correct about my fears, is it any more difficult than the beloved flannery?
I will heed your comments about defence notes and a clear system description. I think that most won't care, and I hope others may pick it up and try it.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL's defenses to Multi aren't all that and a bag of chips anyway.

[akwoo]

Most pairs don't know how to play against Flannery either.

Getting to a reasonable spot against Multi isn't too difficult. Getting to the best spot can be a challenge, more so than against other methods.

Calls that are relying on going down a pile undoubled nonvulnerable being a good score are always unfriendly to beginners. The pass opposite Multi is hardly the only such call, though it's quite common to the method. If you're an inexperienced player, and it goes (3C)-P-(3N(*)) to you, and 3N is alerted as "they want to play 3N, usually because they think they can make it, but sometimes because they want to scare you out of your making game and are willing to go down 5 undoubled to do so", you won't have any idea what to do either.

It's not too serious a game - no one will be too disturbed that your Multi keeps them out of the perfect spot, so DavidKok's defense is fine. And don't make calls that are aiming for -250; take them out of your system.

[mycroft]

Good luck. I don't know why you would want to play Multi without:

• knowing what you are going to use the freed-up 2M bids for (prioritizing the constructive element), or
  
• playing it as "hard" as possible (prioritizing the disruptive element)

but I'm not you. Maybe all you want is to show that it isn't this ungovernable bugbear others make it out to be.

But there are two big differences between Multi and Flannery 2♦:

• Multi shows *a* major, and "hides" the cuebid for at least one round(*), Flannery shows both majors (and allows a Unusual vs Unusual-style defence if they want it(**));
  
• Flannery shows constructive values, usually enough that game is only available to the opening side; Multi is a preempt, and game in *any suit* (because the opponents don't know which one you have) is available. So instead of competing for the partscore or passing and letting them bid, they have to work out game or partscore or defend, and which suit, after this "doesn't mean anything" call that takes away 1.4 levels of bidding.

Does that make it clear?

I'm not trying to raise the spectre of the Evil Multi Brigade that others in the ACBL do; I'd play it if it were legal in the games I play in too (and we had useful, legal, meanings for 2M). But you asked "why this bad and not Flannery"; and, well.

(*)Apart from the other "hard calls" mentioned above (passing 2♦ and 3M "to play, even if it's -8 NV"), passing partner's 2M response with the other suit is a serious option. How do we get to 4♥ when you've claimed a 6-x break?
(**)I don't. I use a simple Flannery defence (2♥ is takeout, 2♠ is natural (I know the suit breaks 4-x, I don't care), double is diamonds or BIG, and deal). But if you're willing to concede the majors, even the 4-4-4-1 spade suits, to them, you can effectively compete in the minors with a "preempt" and a "constructive" call.

[jillybean]

I want to play Multi because I had a lot of fun playing with and against it while I was in NZ during covid. I like having fun when I play. I want to become proficient so that when I encounter it, I know what I'm doing. Of course there's also the "you are not allowed to play" so I want play it, aspect.

When I played Multi back in 2022-23 in NZ, I was playing 2M as the intermediate 6 card, my partner here is interested in playing Muiderberg.
I ask as there is always someone playing something I haven't heard of, and I'm not married to any particular convention here.

The only thing I'll never give up is 2C*/1x gf.

I realize Flannery and Multi have little in common, I think Flannery causes as much grief for newbies as Multi does. IME Flannery is not such a common convention so causes more problems when encountered, unlike Multi which is widely played where it's legal.

[DavidKok]

Over here Multi+Muiderberg is common. I've also seen Multi 2♦, Ekren 2♥ and Muiderberg 2♠, arguing that the Muiderberg 2♥ is ineffective. The 10-13 2M openings also seem solid enough to me.
Multi can be a lot of fun, and I definitely recommend trying it to gain familiarity with it. If you really want to become accustomed to it I think you might want more complicated/detailed agreements in competition. After a weak opening you'll find yourself in a competitive auction frequently, and the lack of an anchor suit leads to unique followups on such starts. Knowing how to deal with them is, in my opinion, more important than knowing the constructive agreements over a multi 2♦.

[jillybean]

Thanks. It won't take long for my partner to get up to speed. Finding competition may be more challenging and of course we won't get any experience playing against it.