2C containing weak 2D etc

[Phil352]

I'm looking for any information on systems with the following 2 level opener structure:

 

2♣: traditional "GF", or a weak 2 in diamonds

2♦: Multi (either incorporating a strong option or just as destructive weak 2 in a major)

2♥/♠: Constructive weak 2s

 

I know this structure is quite unusual but I think it's becoming more commonly used, especially in Europe. Does anyone have any experience playing this or knowledge of any documents detailing systems over this?

 

In particular I'm interested in:

Can 2♣ 2♦ 2NT be passed (ie 2NT = 23-24 balanced?)?

What are the borderlines for constructive/destructive weak 2 options in different seats and vulnerabilities. Are these based purely on point count/shape? or is losing trick count a better guide?

What was the upper limit of a constructive weak 2? I played recently vs a pair who played 11-13!

[MickyB]

Everything is just standard after 2C-P-2D. You can play Kokish if you wish. I played the 2C opener for a while and wasn't that keen, I seemed very bad at guessing which handtype partner had. Maybe I needed to watch him count his points.

 

I play 2M as about 9-12. 1st NV it is more like 8-12 [as all sorts of rubbish gets opened a multi 1st NV].

 

There's a slight issue with 4S6H and around 10 points, if you bid 1H:1N, 2H then partner will expect a better hand. I think many play something that allows them to show this hand over the 2N (or 2S) enquiry, I heard somewhere it was Zia's method, try looking at his convention card. Likewise defensive hands with a poor suit aren't ecstatic about having to preempt vulnerable. Overall it works well though.

[fromageGB]

I played this until quite recently. The method was 2♣ forces 2♦ (except for a hand that would take a weak 2 in diamonds on to game), and if opener bid again it was whatever you used a 2♣ opener for normally. Your strong 2-bids are as you wish. I played 2♣ when strong as a trick weaker than 2♦ which was any GF. Our NT ranges were 2NT open = 20/21, 2♣ then 2NT = 22/23, 2♦ then 2NT = 24/25, 2♣ then 3NT = 26/27, 2♦ then 3NT = wishful thinking. :rolleyes:

 

Our 1M open was kept up to strength by the other two-bids, so that 1M guaranteed a 5 card major and a rule of 17 (length in that suit + hcp) so that it was 12 with a 5 card suit, 11 with a 6 card suit.

 

We played that the multi 2♦ included a 6 card major and 6-10 points, and the 2M open was specifically a 5 card major and 8 or 9-11 (with different partners). The 2M showed nothing about the other suits.

 

Unfortunately we now play in clubs that adhere to EBU level 3 restrictions, which for reasons unknown prohibit that weak 2 in diamonds, so have abandoned it. I found anyway that I was growing disenchanted with the multi, as sometimes you need to raise a major preemptively when you would pass a weak 2 in the other. However, the benefit of having 2 definitions of weak 2 in the majors, one being preemptive 6 card and one a constructive 5, was definite.

[Cyberyeti]

I think it's also pretty common to play weak 2 through the multi as a standard weak 2 and Lucas (2 suited) 2M.

 

The 2♣ opening bid with the weak 2♦ is played a fair bit as it tends to discourage the "random rubbish" overcalls when you actually have the big one.

 

Responding to it, there is no reason why if you play a new suit as constructive non forcing to a weak 2♦ that you shouldn't do this opposite this type of 2♣.

 

Side note. If you play this 2♣ with strong 2 any suit as the strong meaning or weak 2♦ and 2♦ as the GF, do NOT put Benji on your card.

 

I had an incident in a match where my opps did this, partner knew the weak 2♦ was a possibility for opps 2♣, I didn't, looked at the card which said Benjamin, looked no further and used my strong 2♣ defence. This got us into a mess, and when I raised this on the laws forums here, the suggestion is that even though the 2♣ was fully explained below on the card, putting Benji on the top entitled me to expect that it was a straight strong 2♣, so I would have potentially got a ruling had I needed one.

[Phil352]

Thanks for these thoughts. I've previously played Lucas 2s but am more intrigued by the ability to distinguish between good and bad weak 2s. I found a system card from Zia-Rosenberg (2007) with these as their 2D-S bids. Their 2M opener can include 4oM which can be found using their enquiry bid. However they only played the poor/destructive 2M part of the multi at green, resorting to a constructive 2M option of their multi when vul. Has anyone else any experience of being burned for opening a disclosed destructive weak 2 through the multi?