@ais523 said:
Back when it was common to play under regulations where multis required a strong option, a common workaround to the regulation was for the strong option to be a strong single-suiter in diamonds. (The idea was that a player with a weak hand and long diamonds could pass 2!d, because such a hand would effectively guarantee that partner didn't have the strong diamond single-suiter, and thus imply by elimination that they must hold a weak option.)
Such a bid would seem to count as a full multi by the EBU definition, but have the same defensive considerations as the mini-multi (which is the whole reason it was invented in the first place). Does that imply that it should be disclosed differently from a multi in which the possibility of a strong option precludes the responder passing?
I certainly would - "it's weak two in either major or a strong two diamonds" should do it.
If you play methods that are difficult to defend against, you should explain them fully, especially the elements that make them difficult to defend against.
You should want to benefit from the fact that the methods are intrinsically difficult to defend against, not from the fact that the methods have been disclosed in a way that make them even more difficult to defend against.
Comments
I certainly would - "it's weak two in either major or a strong two diamonds" should do it.
If you play methods that are difficult to defend against, you should explain them fully, especially the elements that make them difficult to defend against.
You should want to benefit from the fact that the methods are intrinsically difficult to defend against, not from the fact that the methods have been disclosed in a way that make them even more difficult to defend against.