Best use for 2D?

[gorvacofin]

Assuming you always play 2♥/2♠ as weak twos and 2♣ as a game force, what's the best use for a 2♦ opening and why?

[Siegmund]

Wilkosz!

 

~runs and hides~

 

[seriously, it's one of the few 2D uses out there that does something different than what standard already can do for you, which comes up frequently, and gains frequently. But most the world is scared of it for no good reason, and bans it.]

[mike777]

I like mexican 2d....even the Italians use it. :)

 

 

A more serious response would say "It depends" on the rest of your system.

 

 

for us a big goal/huge goal is to try and throw a lot of hands into "nt openings" to make our one bids a bit more limited.

 

If throwing hands into a nt type auction to make your one bids more meaningful is not a huge issue for you than use 2d for something else that matters.

 

So I would ask you what is the most 'useful' use of 2d in your style?

[JLOGIC]

weak with the majors, flannery, or weak with diamonds are all good imo.

[Cascade]

Mexican is great.

 

I prefer 2♣ Mexican style and 2♦ Game force.

[Phil]

Much depends on what your system requires and 2♦ frequently plugs a gap.

 

I prefer Flannery but weak is ok too. Mini or other varieties of Roman suck. Multi is fine too.

[the hog]

Wilkosz!

 

~runs and hides~

 

[seriously, it's one of the few 2D uses out there that does something different than what standard already can do for you, which comes up frequently, and gains frequently. But most the world is scared of it for no good reason, and bans it.]

 

I agree with this. Read the discussion on rgb a few years ago that explains why Wilkosz is good.

[mike777]

Wilkosz!

 

~runs and hides~

 

[seriously, it's one of the few 2D uses out there that does something different than what standard already can do for you, which comes up frequently, and gains frequently. But most the world is scared of it for no good reason, and bans it.]

 

 

 

1) you dont say what it is

2) you claim it comes up alot

3) you claim it gains frequently but not why

---

 

 

I note I recommend 2d mexican if opening nt type hands to limit one bids is important in your style...

[Vampyr]

 

I note I recommend 2d mexican if opening nt type hands to limit one bids is important in your style...

 

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that if you are going to open Mexican 2♦, then you might as well play Multi, in order to free up 2♥/2♠ for Lucas Twos, sound weak 2s, or similar.

[mike777]

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that if you are going to open Mexican 2♦, then you might as well play Multi, in order to free up 2♥/2♠ for Lucas Twos, sound weak 2s, or similar.

 

 

of course this makes no logic....and you dont explain.....and you do not even mention my main point

 

 

Yes you seem to be missing something since you ask

 

 

I will repeat.....the main reason we play mexican 2d is too limit our one bids....and take out `14+ nt hands; in this case 17-18

 

if this is not an issue for you ok but taking out 14+ opener hands is really important in some styles.

 

---

 

 

I have no idea what a lucas two bid is but I guess it is a one bid for us.

-------------

 

 

Just to repeat for effect .....14+ hands are the difficult ones for opener....roughly 14-16 with lots of shape

[Vampyr]

Yes you seem to be missing something since you ask

 

 

I will repeat.....the main reason we play mexican 2d is too limit our one bids....and take out `14+ nt hands; in this case 17-18

 

if this is not an issue for you ok but taking out 14+ opener hands is really important in some styles.

 

---

 

 

I have no idea what a lucas two bid is but I guess it is a one bid for us.

-------------

 

A Lucas 2 bid is a weak opening with 5+ in major, 4+ in other, and is one way you can expand your opening repertoire if playing a Multi. Anyway I have investigated -- I hadn't realised that a Mexican 2♦ was a Benji-type opening; I had thought that it was used just for good balanced hands, which was why I thought that weak 2's could easily be incorporated into it.

[mike777]

A Lucas 2 bid is a weak opening with 5+ in major, 4+ in other, and is one way you can expand your opening repertoire if playing a Multi. Anyway I have investigated -- I hadn't realised that a Mexican 2♦ was a Benji-type opening; I had thought that it was used just for good balanced hands, which was why I thought that weak 2's could easily be incorporated into it.

 

 

Yes mexican 2d is for good hands only. 17-19 or 18-19 bal(loosly) yes...

 

again the goal is to take out/reduce 14+ hands out of one bids by opener...

--------------

 

 

Just to repeat as far as the OP......try and figure out the best use/most important use of 2d in your style of opening bids.

[mgoetze]

I like Wilkosz too. One thing I don't really like is playing 2♦ as weak, both majors. I much prefer 2♥ for that, so if I'm playing that convention I'll usually play 2♦ as weak 2 in hearts or something else. That something may be a certain balanced range, or strong diamond hands (especially if playing Polish Club), or a weak 2 in spades (to free up the 2♠ bid for something else again), etc.

 

2♦ as weak two in diamonds is OK, too.

 

What you should definitely not do is play Benjamin.

[mgoetze]

1) you dont say what it is

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wilkosz

[whereagles]

Unless you need 2D for something else for systemic reasons, the most annoying use for it is weak 2. Annoying, from the opponent's point of view.

[mgoetze]

Unless you need 2D for something else for systemic reasons, the most annoying use for it is weak 2. Annoying, from the opponent's point of view.

 

LOL. I suppose you've never played against Wilkosz... weak 2 in diamonds is easy, you've got a cuebid.

[the hog]

1) you dont say what it is

2) you claim it comes up alot

3) you claim it gains frequently but not why

---

 

 

I note I recommend 2d mexican if opening nt type hands to limit one bids is important in your style...

 

To repeat:

 

Read the discussion on rgb a few years ago that explains why Wilkosz is good.

I think practically everyone will know what this convention is. If not, you can google it. Also look at the discussion on Chris Ryall's website.

[mike777]

To repeat:

 

Read the discussion on rgb a few years ago that explains why Wilkosz is good.

I think practically everyone will know what this convention is. If not, you can google it. Also look at the discussion on Chris Ryall's website.

 

 

I bet 100,000 to 200,000 out of a million bridge players cannot define wilkoz in detail

 

 

I bet top 500 could

 

in usa I bet less than 5000 playercould define in detail...maybe 1000 or less without computer

-------

 

 

if 100 on bbo forums do without computer help right now I will be shocked

[whereagles]

LOL. I suppose you've never played against Wilkosz... weak 2 in diamonds is easy, you've got a cuebid.

 

Just so you know, I played Wilkosz and similar structures for like 5 years and defended against it my whole bridge life (~15 years).

 

If you think a "lowly" 2D is easy to defend, you're confusing mechanical ease (simple natural bids are enough to defend it) with judgement ease, i.e. choosing one tool from the set of tools available. This is where the "weak" 2D becomes far more deadly than you credit it for.

[Cyberyeti]

Just so you know, I played Wilkosz and similar structures for like 5 years and defended against it my whole bridge life (~15 years).

 

If you think a "lowly" 2D is easy to defend, you're confusing mechanical ease (simple natural bids are enough to defend it) with judgement ease, i.e. choosing one tool from the set of tools available. This is where the "weak" 2D becomes far more deadly than you credit it for.

In many ways a weak 2♦ is the most awkward of the weak 2s to defend, and IMO should be played in very destructive fashion. Why ?

 

What do you do with say a 2434 14 count ? Double and have partner bid spades ? If you double 2M, the focus is really on the other major, with 2♦, there are 2 other majors, so what do you do with one but not the other ?

 

Most pairs at anything below absolute top level have agreements for defending weak 2s that are geared to 2M and don't alter them for a weak 2♦, which I am convinced is not the optimal approach.

[mich-b]

An approach that has been gaining popularity in Europe recently is playing 2♦ as Multi for a "bad" weak 2 in a major (typically 4-8 hcp) , and 2M as a "good" weak 2 (typically 9-12 or similar). This allows you to open more aggressively, without partner being tempted to invite with moderate hands. Also , it removes some of the weaker hands from the 1M-rebid 2M sequences , which improves your precision on sequences like 1M-1NT-2M.

[mike777]

fwiw I just dont see partner bidding more over weak two as such a big issue as you "multi" players think.....

 

You really make this out to be a big deal

[MickyB]

A Lucas 2 bid is a weak opening with 5+ in major, 4+ in other, and is one way you can expand your opening repertoire if playing a Multi. Anyway I have investigated -- I hadn't realised that a Mexican 2♦ was a Benji-type opening; I had thought that it was used just for good balanced hands, which was why I thought that weak 2's could easily be incorporated into it.

 

I've seen "Mexican 2D" used to refer to both a NF bid showing a balanced hand, usually 18-19, and a forcing bid showing one of a number of strong hands, but the former is definitely the more common usage. Including weak twos in the 2D opening would leave you much worse placed on the balanced hands, both in contested and uncontested auctions.

 

I like playing 2D as a "bad weak two" in either major and 2M as a "good weak two". The requirements vary by conditions - 1st NV, this means 2D shows 2-7 points and a 5+card suit, while 2M shows 8-11 and a six-card suit. Vulnerable, 2M should be more like 9-12 or 10-13. This allows you to preempt frequently and means auctions like 1S:1N, 2S show some extras.

 

2D showing 18-19 balanced is good in a natural system with a 15-17 1NT opening. Now you don't have to worry about showing this handtype in competition, so if opener acts again he has an unbalanced hand. Also, 1m:1M, 2NT is free to show something else, e.g. 6m3M decent hand.

 

Weak two diamonds is fine too. I really don't like 2D weak with both majors [2H is better for this as it gives oppo fewer options] and I don't think the benefits of Flannery are as great as the alternatives.

[gnasher]

From a destructive point of view, I like 2♦ as 4-4 in diamonds and a major. That comes up twice as often as Ekrens, and stands to gain more often, because the opponents are more likely to have game on. If they do end up in game, it also gives less away - sometimes it's not clear which major we have.

 

Compared with Wilcosz, it's more frequent, but also more dangerous. In one way it's easier to defend, because the opponents have a 3♦ cue-bid; in another it's harder, because even after overcalling one major they may still have a fit in the other.

 

Better still would be 4-4 in a major and a minor, but I haven't worked out a sensible responding scheme.

 

 

For constructive pruposes, I like 18-19 or 18-20 balanced, because it makes competitive sequences that start with a one-bid easier, and frees up 1m-1x;2NT to show other good hands. I don't think you should put this hand-type into a Multi, because that effectively means that you're opening 2NT. The extra two bids make a lot of difference to constructive sequences.

[Free]

What do you do with say a 2434 14 count ? Double and have partner bid spades ? If you double 2M, the focus is really on the other major, with 2♦, there are 2 other majors, so what do you do with one but not the other ?

What do you do with say a 2344 14 count after a 2♥ opening? I admit that this problem is twice as frequent after a 2♦ opening, but it's not like it's a huge problem imo. It just happens from time to time, that's all. In many cases you can just pass and let partner bid his suit or Dbl which will get you to a decent spot.