What do you think about our 2 level openings?

[Chris2794]

Hey everyone,

 

I just wanna know what you guys think about the 2 level openings we're playing at the moment.

 

In general we're playing 2/1 GF and 14-16 NT with 5cM or semibalanced hands.

 

So here are our 2 level openings:

 

2♣: Any semi/gameforcing (2♦ Relay, 2♥=any GF after that)

2♦: Either a weak two in ♥ or ♠, 16-19 with a 6 card ♣ or ♦ or 16-19 any 4441

2♥/2♠: 11-15, 5♥/♠ + 4+m

 

Whats your opinion about that? Do you think its good to play that? Any other suggestions?

[mgoetze]

2♣: Any semi/gameforcing (2♦ Relay, 2♥=any GF after that)

 

Opening "semiforcings" at the 2-level is of course popular in Germany but I think they are better opened at the 1-level.

 

2♦: Either a weak two in ♥ or ♠, 16-19 with a 6 card ♣ or ♦ or 16-19 any 4441

 

I think this bid is very bad. Either responder can never preempt when he has both majors, or opener will be screwed when he has a 16-19 hand.

 

2♥/2♠: 11-15, 5♥/♠ + 4+m

 

I think playing these as 11-15, 5♥/♠ and 4+ clubs is hard enough. So with an ambiguous minor it is probably overloaded.

[helene_t]

I think most 16-19 counts with six clubs or diamonds can easily open at the 1-level. Same with 4441 hands.

 

Also, with a 16-19 4441 hand you may already be too high when you have to rebid 2NT or higher. There is also an issue with responder's second bid:

 

2♦-2♥

2NT-?

 

Now presumably 3♣ and 3♦ are both to play (unless that suit happens to be opener's singleton) so responder would have to bid 3♥/♠ to force. Opposite 16-19 I would like to be able to invite, though.

 

It also gets awkward if reponder starts with 2NT or 3♥ and opener now has to show one of the many strong hands he can have.

 

I would prefer either not to put any strong hands into the multi, or only put some very strong hands into it. Hands that are too strong to open at the 1-level.

 

If 2♣ contains any (semi)gf hand then it is very difficult to handle preempts by the opps. Say it goes:

 

2♣-(3♠)-pass-(4♠)

?

 

Now it is a big advantage if opener has already denied a variety of shapes (those which are in the 2♦ opening).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

You can include hand with 5 hearts and 4 spades in the 2H opener, the "Flannery hand".

 

I am not good at analysing systems.

 

Your responses to 1m openings is major first?

 

The consequence of your 2 level openings is, that when opener is

showing a 2-suiter, he has reverse strength?

 

In general: Try to formulate, what you want to achieve with your

2-level opening bids.

One task of your 2-level opening bids is to make your 1-level opening

bids better defined.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: As Helene pointed out, I dont think, you need to include the strong

1-suiter in a minor in the 2D multi opening bid. Less ambiquity make the bid

better.

[MrAce]

 

 

Whats your opinion about that? Do you think its good to play that? Any other suggestions?

 

I have no objection to what you choose to play 2♣ and 2M openings. But having played MULTI and almost its all versions, i can easily tell that you are extremely reducing the effectiveness of your MULTI by putting too much options in it, which will cause responder to bid shy when it is right time to put pressure on opponents, with the fear of some other possibilities u may hold. No need to mention, when they overcall, YOU will be the HUNT instead of HUNTER, a nice way of creating bidding puzzles for your side imho.

[the hog]

Opening "semiforcings" at the 2-level is of course popular in Germany but I think they are better opened at the 1-level.

 

 

 

I think this bid is very bad. Either responder can never preempt when he has both majors, or opener will be screwed when he has a 16-19 hand.

 

 

 

I think playing these as 11-15, 5♥/♠ and 4+ clubs is hard enough. So with an ambiguous minor it is probably overloaded.

 

I agree with these comments. I think the openings are very poorly conceived for the reasons given above.

[Free]

I don't see the point of sacrificing several opening bids for hands that don't cause problems (except the 4441's, but everyone has the same problem). 16-19 hands with 6+m or 4441 have no problems opening at 1-level, same with 11-15 with 5M-4m (1M-1NT-2m). Moreover, the strong versions in the multi make the multi a lot worse (I prefer minimulti containing only the weak 2M versions).

 

Perhaps it would be interesting to know why you want to play this structure.

[mgoetze]

I've played 2M as M+♣ to allow for a completely artifical 2♣ rebid after a 1M opening, but I can't imagine that you would need both 2♣ and 2♦ as artifical rebids.

[Chris2794]

I thiik this bid is very bad. Either responder can never preempt when he has both majors, or opener will be screwed when he has a 16-19 hand.

 

Thats a huge point and I totally agree with you. We're actually playing 1♣/1♦-1x-3♣/3♦ as a preemptive jump but the 2♦ multi is bad at this point.

 

I think playing these as 11-15, 5♥/♠ and 4+ clubs is hard enough. So with an ambiguous minor it is probably overloaded.

 

It works quite well and the reason we're playing this 2M openings is that we do not play Gazzilli or something like that. A 2m rebid after 1M opening shows 16+

 

Now presumably 3♣ and 3♦ are both to play (unless that suit happens to be opener's singleton) so responder would have to bid 3♥/♠ to force. Opposite 16-19 I would like to be able to invite, though.

 

3♣ is a Relay, asking for the singleton. So we never can play 3♣ even if we wanted.

 

It also gets awkward if reponder starts with 2NT or 3♥ and opener now has to show one of the many strong hands he can have.

 

We have solved the problem with strong ♣/♦ hands after 2NT by playing 3♣/3♦ either as weak with ♥/♠ (minimum hand) or 16-19 with ♣/♦. So the responder can now bid 3♦/3♥ or 3M (paco) to see what opener has. With the 6card minor the opener will bid 3NT now.

 

 

But now I've got one more question for you:

 

What do you prefer as 2 level openings?

[mgoetze]

What do you prefer as 2 level openings?

 

I like:

2♣ 22+ balanced or any GF

2♦ Wilkosz

2♥ Weak 2 in Hearts

2♠ Weak 2 in Spades

 

Wilkosz is of course not allowed in very many events, so you can play something else like Weak 2 in Diamonds instead. Maybe I will try 2♦ = 17-18 balanced one of these days.

 

Another scheme I play with one partner, which is more useful for crushing LOLs at the club:

2♣ 22-23 balanced or any GF

2♦ 24-25 balanced or Weak 2 in Hearts or Weak 2 in Spades

2♥ 5-10 points 4+ hearts 4+ spades (not 4-4 if 5-7 points)

2♠ 5+ spades 5+ minor weak

[mgoetze]

It works quite well and the reason we're playing this 2M openings is that we do not play Gazzilli or something like that. A 2m rebid after 1M opening shows 16+

 

I happen to know that you can memorize things which are much more complicated than Gazzilli, and Gazzilli is definitely worth it. ;)

 

Anyway if you want to keep this idea I would recommend changing the 2M openings to 11-13, rebidding 2m with 14-17 and rebidding 3m with 18+, or something like that.

[Vampyr]

I don't play it myself, but I think that 2-bids which are weak in the suit above or specific strong hands can be effective and fun.

[nige1]

2♦: Either a weak two in ♥ or ♠, 16-19 with a 6 card ♣ or ♦ or 16-19 any 4441

IMO, your Multi is a bit overloaded but including 4441s means that you are likely to harvest the occasional penalty.

[fromageGB]

What do you prefer as 2 level openings?

For years I have played multi 2♦ as either a weak 2 in a major or varieties of very strong NT or any GF suited hand, and have used the 2♥ and 2♠ as tightly defined 9-11 and exactly 5 card suits, and that worked well. The distinction between 5 cards and 6 is useful.

 

However I am now in one partnership playing the stong hands incorporated in the 2♣ open (Kokish type) and reverting to standard weak 2M (may be 5 card), and have 2♦ as as least 44 in the majors (probably called Ekren) 6-11 count and we are having great fun with it. We have a response to the weak 2 of the next step over 2M as asking, with step replies of weaker 5, weaker 6, stronger 5, stronger 6. With 2M being 5 or 6 you cant preempt so effectively, but you get more disruptive bids into the reckoning than you would weak pure 6 carders. Similarly 2NT over 2♦ has a clarification set of responses, but any major bid is to play. The 2♦ open is real fun. Don't ask me if it's the best method - I play for fun not money.

[fromageGB]

Incidentally, my preference for handling the 3 suiters is to play 1♦ as either a 6 card suit, or as any hand with a singleton or void other than diamonds, all semibalanced hands not in the 15-16 range going into the 1♣ open. It copes very well.

[mgoetze]

Given the choice between

 

2♥ Some weak hand with hearts (e.g. Weak 2)

2♦ Ekrens

 

and

 

2♥ Ekrens

2♦ Some weak hand with hearts (e.g. Weak 2)

 

I think I prefer the latter, on the grounds that I want opps to have as little room as possible for finding their penalty doubles against my Ekrens opening. But having decided this, it becomes perfectly reasonable to put another handtype into 2♦.

[xxhong]

One big problem for 14-16 1NT is how to handle balanced 19. 1x 1y 2N usually shows 17-18, so it is certainly a headache to handle those 19 balanced hands. Perhaps a strong 2D showing 19-20 balanced is a good convention that is compatible with 14-16 1NT natural systems.

[fromageGB]

One big problem for 14-16 1NT is how to handle balanced 19. 1x 1y 2N usually shows 17-18, so it is certainly a headache to handle those 19 balanced hands. Perhaps a strong 2D showing 19-20 balanced is a good convention that is compatible with 14-16 1NT natural systems.

Transfer walsh does this for you if you play the version where balanced opener with 2 or 3 of the major completes the transfer, but with 17+ breaks the transfer.

 

My preference is for a full strength 12 count balanced open, so with 12-14 complete the transfer, with 15-16 would have opened 1NT so not be in that position (it also helps having 2 point NT ranges, as responder does not need to be game forcing to use stayman), with 17/18 break the transfer and bid 1NT, with 19 jumping to 2NT. Of course with 4 card major support you raise in various ways.

 

This solves the problem perfectly, as well as the other benefits given by transfer walsh.

[gwnn]

Too many hands, and the strong hands aren't strong enough so they will come up and those auctions will be awful. sorryyy

[han]

The multi 2D with lots of common and fairly strong hands is a very weak part of the system imo.

[Free]

I don't play it myself, but I think that 2-bids which are weak in the suit above or specific strong hands can be effective and fun.

I disagree, I've played them in the past and it wasn't that much fun imo. First of all the strong options are very rare (usually some strong 5-5). Second of all you give opps much more options to intervene, balance or penalize you when you hold the weak version (which is much more common). This also means you can't preempt as agressive as you'd normally want. Putting pressure with agressive NF bids is a lot more fun imo. ;)

 

1 strong opening is more than enough, the auction will sometimes be messy or difficult, but it's quite rare and if that situation occurs many people will struggle as well.

 

I like:

2♣ 22+ balanced or any GF

2♦ Wilkosz

2♥ Weak 2 in Hearts

2♠ Weak 2 in Spades

I also like this, but my partner doesn't want to play Wilkosz because it's BSC and usually we're not allowed to play this. The alternative/reverse is also fine, which is what we play at the moment:

2♣ = bal 22+ or semi GF or stronger

2♦ = weak with 6(+)♥ or 6(+)♠

2♥ = weak with 5+♥ and 5+ in another suit (may be ♠)

2♠ = weak with 5+♠ and 5+m

 

I've always enjoyed extremely weak 2-openings in certain positions when NV, for example

- random 2♣: 0-5HCP any distribution

- Lorenzo two's (I used to play 2M Lorenzo): 0-7HCP, 4+ cards in the suit, MAFIA style