Multi OR Weak 2 in the majors

[the hog]

"I really do not miss having weak 2-suited openings. I think they are more unsafe and more infrequent than I want to bother with."

 

In an rgb discussion on the Wilkosz 2D opening, it was estimated that this gained 2.47 Imps every tme it was used in a particular world champs. Whether this was due to laziness in preparation by the opponents or due to Wilkosz handling problem hands better, I can't say.

[jdonn]

estimated?

 

Anyway, aside from the assuredly small sample size, that could even be true and wouldn't be evidence against two suited openings being unsafe or infrequent.

[the hog]

Ok. Calculated.

 

"Anyway, aside from the assuredly small sample size, that could even be true and wouldn't be evidence against two suited openings being unsafe or infrequent. "

 

Granted. Anecdotally, I have rarely had a bad result opening a 2 suited opening.

[awm]

My observation has been that two-suited openings which guarantee five-five are a big winner when they come up, but are pretty infrequent. On the other hand, two-suited openings which guarantee only five-four are very frequent but the results are quite mixed and may not be expectation positive.

 

Another point is that I've noticed bids which show "one of several possible two-suiters" (like Wilkosz) typically work a lot better than bids which show "one of several possible one-suiters" (like Multi). This has to do with the increased likelihood of a fit, the ability to possibly play in the suit opened with a fit there, and the ability to guess at least one of partner's suits based on the opposition bidding.

[the hog]

Agree Adam. I have always thought of Muiderberg in bridge terms as akin to Crippleware in computer terms.

[helene_t]

I thought of a non-BSC modification of Wilcosz (also allowed at EBU level 4):

 

2♦=spades and another

2NT=hearts and a minor

 

Is that a good idea?

[the hog]

I thought of a non-BSC modification of Wilcosz (also allowed at EBU level 4):

 

2♦=spades and another

2NT=hearts and a minor

 

Is that a good idea?

No it is a terrible idea. You are trying t turn a destructive tool into a constructive one. The rationale behind Wilkosz is that you dont know what the suits are, except for the fact they are not both minors.

[MickyB]

I thought of a non-BSC modification of Wilcosz (also allowed at EBU level 4):

 

2♦=spades and another

2NT=hearts and a minor

 

Is that a good idea?

You've probably seen me post in the past about 2NT as 5H5m, I am pretty keen on it. I've no data to compare it with 2♥ showing the same handtype, but certainly if you want to keep 2♥ as weak (or Ekren, or three-suiter short in D) it is a good use of the 2NT bid.

 

So what about the 2♦ bid?

 

One problem is responder holding a moderate 2425 or similar. Most likely, pard has S+D and you want to be in 2♠; but a reasonable proportion of the time, pard will have either H or C and you'll belong in game. There's no way to cater to both. Of course, the same is true of any two-suited bid that may or may not include the other major.

 

Also, it isn't actually legal at EBU level 4 - it can't show either "diamonds" or "not diamonds" - so 2♦ as spades and a round suit would be legal, but 2♦ as spades and another is not.

 

It's certainly not a bad idea. IMO the only question that really needs answering is, "is this 2♦ bid more effective than a weak 2 in diamonds?"

[the hog]

"You've probably seen me post in the past about 2NT as 5H5m, I am pretty keen on it."

These are the reasons why technically this bid is very poor:

1) You can't play 2H

2) The bid is presumably forcing, so opps can wait and pick you off after you bid.

3) Follow ups - presumably 3C = P/C, 3D = P/C, so how do you invite in H? 3H? Surely this would be better as a further pre empt.

 

Not having a go at you Micky, but is seems to me the people who propose stuff like this have not thought it through properly, and certainly haven't played it.

 

I have strongly come to the coclusion that these 2 suited bids should be nf to put more pressure on the opps. That is why I strongly dislike a strong option in the multi.

 

Fwiw, in an ideal world the following is what I played in events in Australia.

 

2D Wilkosz

2H NV weak 2 in H or in S. Vul - Weak 2

2S NV weak pre empt in an undisclosed minor. Vul - Weak 2

2NT 5/5/+ minors, about 6-10

 

Before you ask, no we NEVER, that's right, not one time! had a memory problem with vul/nv

 

Had I had the guts, I would have played the nv version right through, regardless of vulnerability.

[Codo]

Hi Ron,

 

I agree with your idea, that preempts should be Nonforcing as often as possible to give the opponents one shoot less.

 

But sometimes this is an impossible goal.

 

So the 2 NT bid for Hearts and a minor is not the best use to show hearts and a minor. But maybe this is still the best use of this bid.

 

In Germanys highest league some pairs play the following stuff since years:

 

2 Diamond: w2 in a major

2 HEart: Both majors

2 Spade Spade and a minor

2 NT Heart and a minor.

 

And it works. The idea of course is, that quite often when you have hearts, they have spades, so you won't buy it for 2 HEart anyway. And you are now able to show all one suiters and all two suiters with a major.

 

Of course, when you like destructive methods, Willkosz is even better, But as you are not allow to play this stuff in most tournements, this is not even part any more of WJ2005. We may hate this development, but it is reality.

 

So:

1. You cannot play 2 HEart so often anyway, they often compete to 2 Spade. But surely there are hands, where this approach costs.

2. Yes opps have more then one chance. Same is true for any 2 NT bid to show a two suiter.

3. You can invite with 3 Diamond. 3 Club is paco, 3 Heart to play. Or you can play without any invitation at all. Both is possible.

[helene_t]

No it is a terrible idea. You are trying t turn a destructive tool into a constructive one. The rationale behind Wilkosz is that you dont know what the suits are, except for the fact they are not both minors.

Strongly disagree. One purpose of weak two openings is to allow me to enter the auction before opps make it unsafe (or before partner makes an undisciplined 3♣ opening in 3rd seat opposite my club shortness). And to describe a good hand with few HCPs.

 

Another purpose is to allow partner to bid game quickly, whether it's meant as a barrage or to make. He can do that more frequently the more specific my preempt is - of course the more specific my preempt is the less I can use it in the first place, so there is a trade-off.

 

A third purpose is the destructive effect of the opening itself, but that is more effective the more often partner can pass it and the more often I have the suit that I open. This is why I don't like multi with Polish twos. The ineffective preempt (multi) is more frequent than the effective preempts (polish twos). Yes I know you consider multi to be an effective preempt but everyone else thinks that natural weak twos are much more effective so you are probably wrong.

 

Multi+Muiderberg has the right balance between the frequencies of the two-openings. But if one insists on two-suiters being 5+5, Wilcosz has a better balance. So I like Wilcosz (I am sure it is better than my suggestion), but unfortunately you can't play it in most countries.

[MickyB]

So the 2 NT bid for Hearts and a minor is not the best use to show hearts and a minor. But maybe this is still the best use of this bid.

 

This.

 

The situation is that we have a 2NT opening free to use as a preempt. What should it be used to show? I much prefer H+m to both minors.

 

Follow ups - presumably 3C = P/C, 3D = P/C, so how do you invite in H? 3H? Surely this would be better as a further pre empt.

 

Nah, 3♦ is an enquiry.

 

Not having a go at you Micky, but is seems to me the people who propose stuff like this have not thought it through properly, and certainly haven't played it.

 

Of course I've played it! Small sample size, but so far the results have been split about 50/50 between "good" and "neutral".

[the hog]

"Nah, 3♦ is an enquiry."

 

That is not good! 3D should be pass or a further pre empt in C, similar to 2D Multi - 2S

 

As I stated, I wasn't having a go at you at all.

Anyway you should play what makes you comfortable.

[the hog]

"Strongly disagree. One purpose of weak two openings is to allow me to enter the auction before opps make it unsafe (or before partner makes an undisciplined 3♣ opening in 3rd seat opposite my club shortness). And to describe a good hand with few HCPs."

As stated, you are trying to turn a destructive eapon into a constructive one. Poor philosophy

 

"Another purpose is to allow partner to bid game quickly, whether it's meant as a barrage or to make. He can do that more frequently the more specific my preempt is - of course the more specific my preempt is the less I can use it in the first place, so there is a trade-off."

 

Yep, and he doesn't know your monor, so you have a crippled bid.! Muiderberg is a poor bid as 5-4 shapes are nowhere near as powerful as 5-5s, so lumping the lot together cripples your destructive bidding.

 

"that is more effective the more often partner can pass it and the more often I have the suit that I open. "

Yep and he can't do this with the 2NT bid you propose, can he?

 

"I know you consider multi to be an effective preempt"

 

Yep, as do many players, Poles, Italians etc etc. Yanks don't, but then they aren't used to it. Its especially effective if you can pass 2D. 2H multi is even better - see Mikeh's comments.

 

"So I like Wilcosz (I am sure it is better than my suggestion), but unfortunately you can't play it in most countries."

Sigh................................

 

 

Roland:

"Hi Ron,

 

I agree with your idea, that preempts should be Nonforcing as often as possible to give the opponents one shoot less.

 

But sometimes this is an impossible goal."

Why? At least try to maximise the destructive nature of your system as much as possible. Look at an Ekrens 2D opening for example. Nf, but both Ms. Hard to defend against.

[NickRW]

Also, it isn't actually legal at EBU level 4 - it can't show either "diamonds" or "not diamonds" - so 2♦ as spades and a round suit would be legal, but 2♦ as spades and another is not.

Think you need to check your Orange book, section 11G10 - looks legal to me as the spec isn't about diamonds at all - it is about spades.

 

Nick

[RMB1]

If 2 ♦ shows spades and may have another suit, then it may not have 5 ♦.

If 2 ♦ shows spades and another suit (4+) then it may not show spades and diamonds, although it may have three suits including diamonds and spades (showing spades and a "round" suit).

 

You can play 2 ♦ as weak with 5+ M (specification does not show diamonds) and agree to open 2 ♦ with 5M+4♦ but not 5M+5♦.

 

You can not play 2 ♦ as weak with 5+M and 4+ in another suit.

 

You can play 2 ♦ as weak with two suits, neither of which is diamonds, with 5+M; and agree to open 2 ♦ with 5M+4♦+4♣ or 5M+4OM+4♦.

 

Robin

Robin

[NickRW]

If 2 ♦ shows spades and may have another suit, then it may not have 5 ♦.

If 2 ♦ shows spades and another suit (4+) then it may not show spades and diamonds, although it may have three suits including diamonds and spades (showing spades and a "round" suit).

 

You can play 2 ♦ as weak with 5+ M (specification does not show diamonds) and agree to open 2 ♦ with 5M+4♦ but not 5M+5♦.

 

You can not play 2 ♦ as weak with 5+M and 4+ in another suit.

 

You can play 2 ♦ as weak with two suits, neither of which is diamonds, with 5+M; and agree to open 2 ♦ with 5M+4♦+4♣ or 5M+4OM+4♦.

 

Robin

Robin

 

You guys need to read your Orange Book, rather than make up or pass on erroneous rules.

 

11 G 10 General

Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or two of the following:

(a) Strong: Any combination of meanings provided that it promises a minimum strength of ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4).

(b ) Any combination of meanings which either:

  (1) includes one specified suit of at least four cards; or

  (2) has a specification which does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid, and does not include two-suiters where the suit bid is the longer suit.

Notes:

(i) Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of his partner’s opening bid.

(ii) An example of item (b )(2) for clarification: it is permitted to play a 2♦ opening as ‘weak with Spades or Clubs’; this would not preclude a pair from opening such a bid on a hand that happened to have a second suit of Diamonds, since length in Diamonds is not part of the specification. But it is not permitted to play it as ‘Spades or Clubs with a second suit of Hearts or Diamonds’, since length in Diamonds is part of the specification.

(iii) Note that there is no limit to the number of types of strong hand included under (a), nor to the number of types included under (b ) so long as the requirement (1) is followed, or alternatively so long as the requirement (2) is followed.

 

11G10 b1 clearly says the bid can include one specified suit of 4 cards - it does not say that the suit specified needs to be the suit actually bid. Nor does it say that other suits have or have not to be specified - so long as there is one specified (anchor) suit.

 

Further emphasis is given to this in note iii of the same regulation.

 

Nick

[RMB1]

I do think I know what I'm talking about - I have read the Orange Book - many times as a reviewer and as a TD. If a bid shows spades and another suit that is a specification that includes holding 4 diamonds, because the other suit may be diamonds.

 

Robin

[NickRW]

I do think I know what I'm talking about - I have read the Orange Book - many times as a reviewer and as a TD. If a bid shows spades and another suit that is a specification that includes holding 4 diamonds, because the other suit may be diamonds.

 

Robin

LOL

[Quantumcat]

I think playing multis only gains when your opponents don't know how to defend against it, and muddle themselves up. If they do, it is way easier to get to the right spot after a multi than after a weak 2, because you have the extra option of passing in various places. You also can't pre-empt effectively (by the time you know what opener's suit is and want to bid 4H/S - the opponents have already talked) and like lots of people mentioned, constructive bidding is made much more difficult. It's been said that they free up 2H/S to include a minor suit, but who does that help? The opponents when they declare! Nobody wants to play in a minor game and more often than not, it will be the opponents playing since you have a weak hand.

 

Does anyone like this system of pre-empts? They are called Brad Twos.

 

In 1st/2nd seat:

- 2♣ is 4+/4+ clubs and spades

- 2♦ is 4+/4+ diamonds and spades

- 2♥ is 4+/4+ hearts and spades

- 2♠ is 5+ spades

 

In 3rd seat:

- 2♣ is 4+/4+ clubs and hearts

- 2♦ is 4+/4+ diamonds and hearts

- 2♥ is 5+ hearts

- 2♠ is 5+ spades

- 1♠ could be a psyche with short spades

[PrecisionL]

NEITHER!

 

The Poll needs a third option as I prefer to play neither Multi or Weak Twos as do some top players (see BB convention cards).

 

We play constructive twos in all suits:

 

10-14 hcp and 6-cards if a minor without a 4-card major.

 

5332 or 6322 if the major is weak. Descriptive and semi-preemptive with some defense. However, see Fred's post on weak twos when he was playing with Ekeblad - Rubin.

 

Larry

[fred]

I think playing multis only gains when your opponents don't know how to defend against it, and muddle themselves up. If they do, it is way easier to get to the right spot after a multi than after a weak 2, because you have the extra option of passing in various places. You also can't pre-empt effectively (by the time you know what opener's suit is and want to bid 4H/S - the opponents have already talked) and like lots of people mentioned, constructive bidding is made much more difficult. It's been said that they free up 2H/S to include a minor suit, but who does that help? The opponents when they declare! Nobody wants to play in a minor game and more often than not, it will be the opponents playing since you have a weak hand.

 

IMO this is a very superficial analysis much of which is nonsense.

 

Does anyone like this system of pre-empts? They are called Brad Twos.

 

In 1st/2nd seat:

- 2♣ is 4+/4+ clubs and spades

- 2♦ is 4+/4+ diamonds and spades

- 2♥ is 4+/4+ hearts and spades

- 2♠ is 5+ spades

 

In 3rd seat:

- 2♣ is 4+/4+ clubs and hearts

- 2♦ is 4+/4+ diamonds and hearts

- 2♥ is 5+ hearts

- 2♠ is 5+ spades

- 1♠ could be a psyche with short spades

 

Some free advice (which I am offering because you seem young, smart, nice, and genuinely interested in bridge and which may be worth nothing more to you than what you are paying for it):

 

Your opening paragraph strongly suggests to me that, if you really want to be a very successful player one day, you should spend some more time focusing on simplicity and less time experimenting with various types of 2-bid (and other aspects of systems design).

 

Spend a few years getting very good at the basics. You will have plenty of time after that to experiment with systems as you see fit.

 

Of course if your goal is to mostly have a good time (as opposed to being a very successful player) then do whatever turns you on.

 

Hope you won't be insulted by the above. I am trying to be helpful and my judgment from reading your posts suggests that the sooner you learn this the better for you.

 

Perhaps needless to say, there are other people out there who I think would benefit from listening to the above free advice.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gnasher]

Some free advice (which I am offering because you seem young ...)

Doesn't the final word in that extract guarantee that the advice will be ignored?

[NickRW]

...Does anyone like this system of pre-empts? They are called Brad Twos...

I'll be a tiny bit more encouraging than Fred - sounds like fun for a match point session if you want to mix it up. Not my general cup of tea though - I prefer to be able to regularly clock up comfortably the right side of 50% or better, rather than get some 60s and some 40s.

 

Nick