looking for a set of destructive 2 openers

[lamford]

They don't. 10C1 provides an explanation of how to discern what is meant.

 

Since the regulation you quote says "either", sometimes one and sometimes the other would not be permitted.

 

Yes, I understand. So, at Level 4 you can play that 2D is exactly three diamonds, weak NT, or a weak two in a major, or a bad pre-empt in clubs, and 2H as exactly three hearts, weak NT, or a 6-card weak two in spades, or 5-5 in the minors. This actually seems quite good, as

 

a) the opponents are guessing for an extra round

b ) it adds definition to your weak NT bidding

c) the responder will be able to pass fairly easily as the strong version is well-defined.

d) it will drive beginners out of level 4 events (just joking)

[Free]

I don't like 2♣ as both majors if you can be 4-4. I played it for a few sessions and it seemed like we always had 4-4 exactly thereby rendering the 2♦ relay rather useless - opener would (almost) always bid 2♥, conveying very little in the way of information (suppose it was 70% 44 15% 45 15% 54, now it's 82.4% 44 17.6% 45). So if you play it as possibly 44 (and I think you should), you should put it in 2♦.

Why not put it in 2♥ to put up the pressure? ;)

[gwnn]

Because 2♥ multi is too good :)

[wclass___]

If you want to be more agressive play 2♥/♠=5+unbal ~~6+/10

 

I know that some other methods sound fun, but they are all crap.

[mtvesuvius]

If you want to be more agressive play 2♥/♠=5+unbal ~~6+/10

 

I know that some other methods sound fun, but they are all crap.

LOL

[Free]

If you want to be more agressive play 2♥/♠=5+unbal ~~6+/10

 

I know that some other methods sound fun, but they are all crap.

Ofcourse they are, you've played them all and speak from experience.

[Gerben42]

How about:

 

2♣: 9 - 12, 5+♣ unbalanced

2♦: 9 - 12, 5+♦ unbalanced

2♥: 9 - 12, 5+♥ 4+minor or 6+♥

2♠: 9 - 12, 5+♠ 4+minor or 6+♠

[mgoetze]

How about [...]

 

Do you really think Fantunes play a "destructive" style? ;)

[Gerben42]

Do you really think Fantunes play a "destructive" style? ;)

 

Note that I reduced 1 HCP. That's pretty destructive and frequent. More frequent than all these weak two bids and all, anyway. And you can really get overrun by these openings.

[hrothgar]

How about:

 

2♣: 9 - 12, 5+♣ unbalanced

2♦: 9 - 12, 5+♦ unbalanced

2♥: 9 - 12, 5+♥ 4+minor or 6+♥

2♠: 9 - 12, 5+♠ 4+minor or 6+♠

 

FWIW, I used to play EHAA which had a very similar weak style of weak two opening bids. I eventually gave up on said system because the weak twos seemed unplayable. I migrated over to assumed fit methods because

 

1. The Preempts were almost as frequent

2. The expected value of the openings seemed a lot better.

[wclass___]

Ofcourse they are, you've played them all and speak from experience.

 

No need to play all that stuff to realize that nothing comes close to natural 2M.

 

IMO analysing methods gives better estimation than playing experience, because it is hard to remember all those deals and get out some objective estimation. And normally you test your methods vs weaker opponents. (What works vs. noobs, might suck vs. really good opponents)

[wclass___]

Do you really think Fantunes play a "destructive" style? ;)

 

That is pretty destructive, but if you want more - just lower hcp range

[mtvesuvius]

That is pretty destructive, but if you want more - just lower hcp range

Are you SURE that you are not mikestar13 in disguise?

[wclass___]

Are you SURE that you are not mikestar13 in disguise?

 

You have no idea whom i am, i have no idea who are you. But i'm sure i don't want to waste my time reading trash like that.

 

How can i blacklist/ignore forum members here?

[Gerben42]

That is pretty destructive, but if you want more - just lower hcp range

 

Well 1st 2nd seat favourable we add some symmetry and play 1NT as 9 - 12 as well. When the vulnerability is right, opening all 10-counts and most 9-counts is pretty destructive I guess...

 

To the other options that were proposed: I'm not a fan of a 2♠ opening showing "either minor" of sorts. 2♠ of all things should be a nonforcing opening bid, exactly because it's the toughest to act against.

[mtvesuvius]

Go to "My Settings" -> "Profile" -> "Manage Ignored Users"

 

Bye now.

[Zelandakh]

If you are interested in anything and willing to make your own decisions you should also check out Chris Ryall's site which has pretty much every option available collected together with frequencies, pros and cons.

[the hog]

No need to play all that stuff to realize that nothing comes close to natural 2M.

 

IMO analysing methods gives better estimation than playing experience, because it is hard to remember all those deals and get out some objective estimation. And normally you test your methods vs weaker opponents. (What works vs. noobs, might suck vs. really good opponents)

 

Silly comments. Some of these methods have been analysed extensively and shown to be highly effective in world class competition. Just to name 2 Wilkosz and using 2H as a weak 2 in either Major.

[gnasher]

Some of these methods have been analysed extensively and shown to be highly effective in world class competition. Just to name 2 Wilkosz and using 2H as a weak 2 in either Major.

Where can I find this analysis?

[the hog]

Where can I find this analysis?

 

Andy, if you look at Chris Ryall's site, there is lengthy debate on Wilkosz where he has copied the posts from rgb. Read that.

[hrothgar]

Where can I find this analysis?

 

There's a fairly well known study of the Wilkosz 2♦ opening that showed that it generated ridiculously good results when it cropped up. You can find references to this on rec.games.bridge

 

My own take on matters is that this analysis was valid when it was originally performed, however, I think that the results are too dated to be trustworthy at this point in time. As I recall, many of the big wins for Wilkosz occured on hands where

 

1. The Poles opened with a Wilkosz 2D

2. Their opponents opened with a 1 level opening bid and then self destructed

 

Simply put, the high score of the Wilkosz 2D had less to do with the merits of this specific opening and more to do with issues with the opponent's one level openings and the subsequent response structures.

 

Over the last couple decades folks have gotten a lot better at integrating light / distributional one level openings into a 2/1 framework. Methods have changed somewhat and judgement has improved enormously. I think that many of those self inflicted wounds wouldn't occur in this day and age.

 

Consequently, the Wilkosz 2♦ probably wouldn't look nearly as good.

[NickRW]

My problem with analyses which "prove" that bid X gains Y IMPs is not that with the figures, but it does not tell you what the rest of your system gains/loses by using bid X for that purpose versus some alternative structure. Such an analysis is nearly infinitely more complex. (And that is without the further complexity of how opps vary their defense to the alternatives under consideration)

 

Nick

 

P.S. Sorry to any mathematical pedants for "nearly infinitely".

[gnasher]

Andy, if you look at Chris Ryall's site, there is lengthy debate on Wilkosz where he has copied the posts from rgb. Read that.

 

So anecdotes and subjective opinions published on rec.games.bridge constitute "analysis", whereas similar material published here is "Silly comments"?

[the hog]

So anecdotes and subjective opinions published on rec.games.bridge constitute "analysis", whereas similar material published here is "Silly comments"?

 

Andy, are you an idiot? The thread on rgb was not anecdotal or subjective; it presented the results of a study over a series of several hundred hands. See Richard's post above. Do you even read what people post? You are engaging in obstreperous behaviour for its own sake.

[MickyB]

Despite, apparently, noone agreeing with me, this thread has made me really want to play 2D as S+m or H and 2H as H+m or S - this seems to have nearly all the advantages of Wilkosz and 2H multi, without a lot of the disadvantages. I think I would play 2S as a good weak two, removing the top end from the 2H opening will make it more comfortable to pass at times.

 

If I had 2C and 2NT available as well, I think I would use 2C as 5+m4M and 2NT as minors or majors.