Multi vs Weak twos

[Raff90]

So the question should be obvious on this one.

And if you dont like either of them. What do you usually play then?

And is there a best tool?

[awm]

This has come up before...

 

Like many people, I think that if the choice was:

 

(1) Weak twos in the majors, I am not allowed to open 2♦ ever

(2) Multi 2♦ (weak only), I am not allowed to open 2M ever

 

Then it would be better to play option (1) with the weak twos. Weak twos have the advantage that partner can raise more easily (because he knows my suit) and that they don't give opponents an extra way to get in the auction (i.e. by doubling a basically "forcing" 2♦ bid, or by sticking a 2♥ overcall in when opener has spades). There is some advantage in the multi because opponents don't know my suit, or because 2♦ can be passed (leading to some confusion all around) but my view (and the view of most others) is that if you play 2♦ multi, you generally lose a little to pairs playing weak twos (at least in a strong field where people have a reasonable defense to multi at the ready).

 

With that said, which approach is truly better depends on the use to which other calls are being assigned. People who play multi don't (for the most part) play it because they do so well when they open multi... they accept a small loss when they open multi in exchange for potentially getting big wins out of the alternate 2M openings. For example, I'd suspect that using 2M as intermediate is a big winner when it comes up, and that multi combined with 2M intermediate could be better than weak twos in three suits (i.e. you lose a little when you open multi and a lot when you have to pass a weak 2♦, but you win a lot when you open 2M intermediate and win a little when you open 1M because the intermediate one-suited hands have been removed from consideration). Of course, it's going to depend a little on the rest of your system (in particular, a lot of strong club systems require a couple two-level bids to help with minimum opening hands). And it depends a lot on how prepared your opponents are to defend multi.

[manudude03]

I play weak 2s with Helene (helene_t), otherwise multi.

 

Multi by itself isn't that great a convention, you're often left in the dark yourself what major partner has when the auction goes say 2D-(2NT)-P-(3NT). The big plus side is that it can be very awkward to defend against, especially if you play it as NF (note you must give up all strong options for it to not be a BSC). The big gain with multi is that you gain 2 new openings (2H and 2S) that you can use for whatever you want (a lot of people use them for weak 5M/4+m hands). If you play it with strong options (my perference), you can release even more sequences.

 

The big advantage to weak 2s is that you know partner's suit immediately. This allows you to pre-empt the auction a lot more aggressively and can be more descriptive with your enquiries (3 level rebids are all focused on 1 suit as opposed to 2 with multi). The big disadvantage is that it is so much easier to defend against.

[the hog]

I prefer Tutti Frutti Twos They are a lot of fun and very effective. Unfortunately they are Brown Sticker.

 

Wilkosz is also good value. An analysis of WC results some years ago showed that Wilkosz gained on average close to 2 IMPs every time it was opened.

 

Multi 2D has an advantage over weak 2s in that if you play the mini multi you are putting a lot of pressure on the opponents, as 2D can also be passed. Further they free up your 2M openings for something far more useful than the prosaic weak 2, such as 2 suited openings.

[gwnn]

Form or Function?

Nature or Nurture?

Yin or Yang?

[Gerben42]

Multi itself isn't so great but it frees up 2♥ and 2♠ that is quite a merit. So for me the choice is Multi.

[Siegmund]

Natural preempts are very valuable; opps only get one chance to bid over them, and they get two over transfer and artificial preempts!

 

In the end it comes down to whether you get enough from your new 2H and 2S openings to justify using Multi -- and if all you're doing is using them to show bid-suit-and-a-minor, I dont think you are getting great value from them. (And given the choice between Wilkosz+natural 2M, or Multi+two-suited 2M, I'd much rather have Wilkosz plus natural weak twos.)

[helene_t]

It really has to depend on the whole structure of two-openings. For example three weak twos versus multi+muiderberg or w/e.

 

I am not big fan of two-suited major suit openings. I think that if they promise 5+5 they are not frequent enough and if they promise 5+4 I don't really need to tell p (and opps) about the side suit but might as well just open 2M on 5-card suits, to the extent that I want to open those hands at all.

 

In Blackpool, Ant and I played multi and intermediate 2M as Adam also advocates, and I think that makes more sense.

 

If you play a strong artificial 2♣ with 2♦ waiting then it is cheap to put a weak two in diamonds into the 2♣ opening, then you can use the 2♦ opening for something else. Maybe multi combined with the "Roaring Twos" that Richie plays, if not intermediate twos. OTOH if playing a system like WJ where the 2♣ opening is natural and the 2♦ opening is not needed for constructive purposes, I would prefer to play three week twos.

[MickyB]

The first response said it all IMO. Well, almost all - the only addition that springs to mind is that, regardless of what you play in 1st+2nd, I would play natural, wide-ranging preempts in third seat.

[the hog]

"and they get two over transfer and artificial preempts!"

Not necessarily at all!

[nigel_k]

The arguments for/against multi are well known. It comes down to how much weight you attach to the gains and losses. I just don't feel that two suited openers are that big a winner when all you have is a five card major and four card minor. If you are not vul and your major is good you can still open a weak two, and in other cases you are better off passing. If I can't play Wilkosz due to regulations I would rather play 2♦ weak or use it to handle some of the strong hands.

[paulg]

Glen Ashton posted his survey of the methods used in the 2010 European Team Championships on his blog. I did the same analysis for the 2008 championships and the results were very similar. In summary, half of the top pairs in Europe were playing Multi 2D in some form, with the weak-only variant being most popular.

[mgoetze]

I like weak twos in the majors and Wilkosz. Boooo @ stupid regulations. I would like to try out Ekrens 2♥ some more, and maybe for this purpose multi could be acceptable (especially if I can smuggle in a 22-23 NT as well, because that patches up the rest of the system nicely), but I am no longer convinced by the Multi+Muiderberg scheme.

 

So perhaps I need a poll option "depends on regulations".

[mgoetze]

Thinking about this some more, I have convinced myself that quality of the opposition is a real factor here. Playing against LOLs, Ekrens 2♥ is a real killer, having a 22-23 NT in your multi is no burden, and you don't need to worry about them making much use of the extra space you give them over your major preempts. Playing against top-notch opposition, they will sometimes nail you when you open Ekrens 2♥, and most of the time be able to bid their games; opening (say) 2♠ as spades and a minor tells them how to play the hand, and they will get into your Multi auctions so that you have trouble sorting out which hand-type you have, not to mention that their bidding becomes much more accurate by having double, pass-then-double, etc. available.

 

So perhaps against LOLs I would like to play

2♦ W2 Hearts / W2 Spades / 22-23 balanced

2♥ Weak 4-4 in majors

2♠ Spades and a minor

 

and against Pros I would like to play

2♦ Wilkosz

2♥ W2 Hearts

2♠ W2 Spades

[gnasher]

opening (say) 2♠ as spades and a minor tells them how to play the hand

Doesn't exactly the same criticism apply to Wilcosz, only more so since you know it's 5-5?

[mgoetze]

Doesn't exactly the same criticism apply to Wilcosz, only more so since you know it's 5-5?

 

Yes, I suppose it does. Wilkosz is more ambiguous though, so at least for the first trick or three declarer might be more in the dark, and I feel we will end up declaring more often when we open Wilkosz.

[Gerben42]

So perhaps against LOLs I would like to play

2♦ W2 Hearts / W2 Spades / strong balanced

2♥ Weak 4-4 in majors

2♠ Spades and a minor

 

This is what I play a lot.

 

2♣ bzw = W2 Diamonds / strongest opening.

Although 2♦ is probably a small loss compared to natural weak two bids against strong opposition, 2♥ for the majors is tough for stronger pairs, as is "Muiderberg" 2♠. Remember, both these openings should be compared with "pass" as they are not opened on the virtual SAYC / SEF table we are comparing to.

 

The major gain of Wilkosz comes on the maximum 9 - 10 HCP hands that others might open on the 1-level or are just a close pass. Other pairs often get too high before they show 5-5.

 

It would be interesting to see how much you give up in preemptiveness by including strong variations in Multi.

[Hanoi5]

When I played weak-two's I used to open 2 of a Major with many 5-4's as they came up fairly often. I think playing Multi has allowed me to do this without having opponents complain so much (as I also play Muidenberg).

[Free]

This depends a lot on the type of multi you're comparing with. If you include strong options, then it's a clear win for natural weak two's imo. Otherwise it's pretty much equal I guess: the uncertainty and NF aspect of the multi vs the sure pressure and preemptive/constructive possibilities of a natural weak two. It also depends if you allow 5 card suits opened 2M or not, but ok...

 

One clear advantage of multi is that it frees up 2♥ and 2♠ openings, but that's something which is not relevant in this poll imo, it's about the performance of multi vs nat.

[Fluffy]

I've played for some years 2♦ both majors weak or 23 balanced, and it really sucks, I can count with one hand the times it gained me a large swing*, it hardly ever shows up at the right time, and it doesn't preempt the opponents, the key is to bid first when each side has a major, not when you have both majors, then there is no hurry.

 

*: most of them were when partner passed already, so maybe it has some merit in 3rd and 4th.

[Gerben42]

2♦ as both majors gives opponents a free shot. 2♥ is a different matter. Try it.

[whereagles]

Preempts are more effective when natural. This is because opps have only 2 chances to bid over them (direct and balancing). Multi (or transfer) preempts leave opps with 3 or 4 chances to enter the bidding, so, in theory, they are less bothersome for opps.

 

This is why I prefer natural weak 2s.

[Free]

2♦ as both majors gives opponents a free shot. 2♥ is a different matter. Try it.

Yes, and definitely remove the strong element! If you really want strong options, then open these hands 2♣ so at least you find the best 2M contract when you're weak.

[whereagles]

Stuff like

 

2♥ = majors

2♥ = weak 2 in either hearts or spades

 

are harder to defend than the multi. You can come up with good schemes, but they all require some homework and hence the opener should be made brown sticker (if not HUM).

 

Other stuff like

 

2♠ = any 3-level wimpish pree

 

definitely requires detailed agreements and are, I believe, HUMs.

[hrothgar]

Stuff like

 

2♥ = majors

2♥ = weak 2 in either hearts or spades

 

are harder to defend than the multi. You can come up with good schemes, but they all require some homework and hence the opener should be made brown sticker (if not HUM).

 

The terms Brown Sticker and Highly Unusual Methods both have well established definitions.

 

Said definitions are actually based on specific criteria.

Sadly, "Whereagles doesn't like this bid" really isn't a practical guide for folks to use.

 

For the record, the HUM category applies to the entirety of a system and not an isolated bid.

The decision to categorize a system as a HUM is based on the definition assigned to one level openings and Pass.

Preemptive structures are pretty much irrelevent.

 

Brown Sticker is a characteristic of individual bids between 2♣ and 3♠.

 

A 2♥ opening that shows either hearts or spades is clearly brown sticker.

A 2 ♥ opening that promises 4+ cards in Hearts is decidedly not brown sticker

 

The very concept of a brown sticker convention is based on the whether or not a weak bid promises 4+ cards in a known suit. This is the single most important part of the definition.

 

Perhaps, you would be better off trying to create the concept of a "purple sticker" convention or a "plaid sticker" convention rather than redefine Brown Sticker to mean the opposite of what it does today?