Best use for 2D?

[mgoetze]

If you think a "lowly" 2D is easy to defend,

 

I don't think a weak 2 in diamonds is easy to defend against, just that it is quite a bit easier than Wilkosz. If you have such a great Wilkosz defense I'd love for you to share it with us.

[Free]

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

Please go to Poland and ask what Wilkosz is, you'll have to try hard to find someone who doesn't know what it is. Wilkosz is part of WJ2000, people all over the world have played Polish Club some time in their lives. The USA is not the center of the world, nor is it a representative population for the entire bridge world... :rolleyes:

[hrothgar]

 

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

 

FWIW, I can...

[olegru]

Wilkosz is very easy to define and explain:

Distribution 5+5+ with at least 1 major and less than opening hand.

Great convention.

[aguahombre]

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

Mini or other varieties of Roman suck.

Interesting paradox of statements, without knowing or caring what gaps a variety of Roman might fill and what negative inferences are gained in other auctions, for those who choose it.

 

We choose a form of mini we developed, but acknowledge that it would not be as useful for others as it is for us; especially for those who bring an "it sucks" approach to begin with.

[Phil]

Interesting paradox of statements, without knowing or caring what gaps a variety of Roman might fill and what negative inferences are gained in other auctions, for those who choose it.

 

We choose a form of mini we developed, but acknowledge that it would not be as useful for others as it is for us; especially for those who bring an "it sucks" approach to begin with.

 

Well if your system requires you to open 2♦ with a 4441 17+ let's just say your system sucks too! Mini fills the gap of many strong club systems but I doubt many of it's users think,'what a great use for 2♦ we have and I hope it comes up today'.

[aguahombre]

17+ is not mini.

 

Edit: and, no; what I hope comes up today is that when we have a 4-4-4-1 in the 11-14 range others will have more trouble handling it.

 

Also, I hope that when we have an auction and don't have that hand partner gains from the knowledge that I don't.

 

We have found that to be the case more frequently than the times we regret not having our second choice (the weak two in diamonds), and haven't had difficulties with strengths and patterns shown by other uses of 2D.

 

That does not mean we believe anyone else's choice sucks.

Edited August 30, 2011 by aguahombre

[mike777]

Please go to Poland and ask what Wilkosz is, you'll have to try hard to find someone who doesn't know what it is. Wilkosz is part of WJ2000, people all over the world have played Polish Club some time in their lives. The USA is not the center of the world, nor is it a representative population for the entire bridge world... :rolleyes:

 

As far as the OP I do think how you use your 2d bid really depends on the rest of your style.

 

-----

 

 

Of course I never said people in Poland or who play polish club dont know. Please see what I did say.

 

I said 100k -200K or more could not define it properly around the world without computer help. I am sure there are thousands in poland who may be able to.

 

I bet many if not most mexican players could not describe Mexican 2d properly.

 

I note even in this thread there is usage of Mexican 2d that is not even listed in the Encylopedia and I have never heard of. :)

 

Of course sayc is popular in the usa but I bet most of america could not describe SAYC properly without a computer or booklet in front of them. :) i DO WONDER how many polish may not play wj2000 properly without a booklet.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on what "Mexican" means. To me, "Mexican" is a 2♦ opening showing either a balanced 21-22 or an unbalanced game force with primary diamonds. It is not intended to limit one bids, but to provide more ways of showing strong balanced hands and to take some of the pressure off the 2♣ opening by removing from that bid GF hands with diamonds as the main suit. This allows 2♣-2♦-3♣ to show clubs and a second suit, and 2♣-2♦-3♦ to show a single suiter. Similarly, 2♦-2♥-3♣ shows diamonds and a second suit, and 2♦-2♥-3♦ shows a single suiter.

 

In Romex, the bid which limits one level suit openings is 1NT, which is either balanced 19-20 or unbalanced 4 or 5 losers (basically, a hand which would reverse or make a strong jump shift in standard or 2/1).

[mike777]

I suppose it depends on what "Mexican" means. To me, "Mexican" is a 2♦ opening showing either a balanced 21-22 or an unbalanced game force with primary diamonds. It is not intended to limit one bids, but to provide more ways of showing strong balanced hands and to take some of the pressure off the 2♣ opening by removing from that bid GF hands with diamonds as the main suit. This allows 2♣-2♦-3♣ to show clubs and a second suit, and 2♣-2♦-3♦ to show a single suiter. Similarly, 2♦-2♥-3♣ shows diamonds and a second suit, and 2♦-2♥-3♦ shows a single suiter.

 

In Romex, the bid which limits one level suit openings is 1NT, which is either balanced 19-20 or unbalanced 4 or 5 losers (basically, a hand which would reverse or make a strong jump shift in standard or 2/1).

 

 

I note I dont use this definition and it is not in the bridge encyclopedia. I note the Romex definition of b al 18-19 only seems to be the common usage.

 

If nothing else blackshoe post show that words have meanings but we just dont know most of them.

 

--

 

 

As a sidenote this morning I am learning the difference between sewage drainage and storm drainage. Until now I always thought of them as the same but my city does not. :(

[Free]

I bet many if not most mexican players could not describe Mexican 2d properly.

:) As far as I know Mexican 2♦ has nothing to do with Mexico, anyone care to confirm this?

[hrothgar]

:) As far as I know Mexican 2♦ has nothing to do with Mexico, anyone care to confirm this?

 

I think that the Mexican 2D is an evolutionary offshoot of some ROMEX treatments which have a lot to do with one, specific, Mexican...

[glen]

:) As far as I know Mexican 2♦ has nothing to do with Mexico, anyone care to confirm this?

I can confirm it has something to do with Mexico

 

http://www.acbl.org/about/hall-of-fame/biography.php?id=60

[helene_t]

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.

Well that would put you in the same position as if you had opened 2NT (unless responder has long diamonds and can pass 2♦). You don't want to open 2NT with 18 points.

 

Playing Mexican, you can sign off in 2♠ or 3♣.

 

Anyway, if you play 2♦ as an almost-mandatory response to 2♣ then you might as well lump the weak two in diamonds into 2♣ and play 2♦ as wilxosz or flannery or mexican.

[blackshoe]

I note I dont use this definition and it is not in the bridge encyclopedia. I note the Romex definition of b al 18-19 only seems to be the common usage.

 

If nothing else blackshoe post show that words have meanings but we just dont know most of them.

 

--

 

 

As a sidenote this morning I am learning the difference between sewage drainage and storm drainage. Until now I always thought of them as the same but my city does not. :(

 

Well, I got the definition of "Mexican 2♦" from Bid to Win, Play for Pleasure, by George Rosenkrantz, published, iirc, 1990. Far as I know, Rosenkrantz invented the convention, so he ought to know. I should note, though, that the convention has evolved considerably over the years. I believe the 19-21 balanced version dates back to the 1970s version of Romex, if not earlier.

[jmcw]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Interesting paradox of statements, without knowing or caring what gaps a variety of Roman might fill and what negative inferences are gained in other auctions, for those who choose it.

 

We choose a form of mini we developed, but acknowledge that it would not be as useful for others as it is for us; especially for those who bring an "it sucks" approach to begin with.

 

Great comments tx.

 

Forget about what you like and don't like. Does anyone have data that supports one style is "more effective" than another...within a particular system?. I tried to gauge what was working better for me. Not very scientific, just looking at results where the 2♦ was opened or a weak 2♦ was not opened. Over a few years, Roman openings did produce larger swings and seemed to a significant plus for our side. When a weak 2♦ was not opened a slightly below average result has noticed. Depending on P and system I play.

 

Roman showing 10/12 any shortness

Roman 11/15 any shortness

Roman 11/15 with 4♥ (for precision)

Roman 11/15 with 4♠.

 

Multi is not an option for me.

[JanM]

I'm interested in the fact that several people commented that they don't like to use 2♦ as a weak hand with both majors because they prefer to use 2♥ for that. The reason I find this interesting (a priori, I would have agreed), is that in the Bermuda Bowl this year, by my first run through the convention cards, which might have missed one or two, there are 7 pairs playing 2♦ as weak with both Majors and only 2 pairs playing 2♥ for this. Stefanov-Aranov, for Bulgaria, actually use both bids - 2♥ in first and second seats, 2♦ in third & fourth.

 

Any opinions of why the Bermuda Bowl participants seem to disagree that 2♥ is better?

[jdeegan]

:P Playing pairs games in North America I have tried just about everything legal over the years, and the 6-7 card weak two bid worked out best for me. It comes up fairly often, and it seems to trip up even good opponents more often than you would think. I recommend using it with 4-10 HCP range animal-style when non-vul. My objective is to just get back even with the field when it is our hand but to preempt the opponents when it is their hand.

Non-vul even something like:

A94

75

1098752

96

would be OK with me, esp. in third seat.

I expect partner to raise with three-card support.

[Foxx]

I like 2♦ as Flannery when a 1NT response to 1♥ (or 1♠) is forcing. No more 2♣ rebids with a doubleton!

 

When the 1NT response isn't forcing, 2♦ as a natural, weak two becomes better.

[hrothgar]

I'm interested in the fact that several people commented that they don't like to use 2♦ as a weak hand with both majors because they prefer to use 2♥ for that. The reason I find this interesting (a priori, I would have agreed), is that in the Bermuda Bowl this year, by my first run through the convention cards, which might have missed one or two, there are 7 pairs playing 2♦ as weak with both Majors and only 2 pairs playing 2♥ for this. Stefanov-Aranov, for Bulgaria, actually use both bids - 2♥ in first and second seats, 2♦ in third & fourth.

 

Any opinions of why the Bermuda Bowl participants seem to disagree that 2♥ is better?

 

If there is truly a statistically significant skew between random BBF forums and BB participants, I'd expect that the quality of defensive card play is (probably) the most plausible explanation.

 

I think that its clear that 2♥ = both majors is much more difficult to defend against than 2♦ = both majors

At the same time, 2♦ = both majors allows you a lot more scrambling options over a penalty oriented double than 2♥ = both majors

 

The stronger the defensive play of the pairs you compete against, the more important it becomes to have good scrambling methods.

 

<< Embarrassed that I didn't make the same argument as Free MGoetze, and JLall>>

[MickyB]

Removed - The post I replied to has been edited. Edited August 30, 2011 by MickyB

[MickyB]

I like 2♦ as Flannery when a 1NT response to 1♥ (or 1♠) is forcing. No more 2♣ rebids with a doubleton!

 

When the 1NT response isn't forcing, 2♦ as a natural, weak two becomes better.

 

I assume by "when the 1NT response isn't forcing" you mean that it shows 5-10 or similar. I am used to playing it as semi/non-forcing but upto 11 or 12 so I still have to take another bid on 4522 15-counts, hence my original response. Apologies, it was obvious what you meant.

 

A counter-argument is - if you are playing Flannery, you bid 1H-P-1NT much more frequently, I believe. This is more attractive if 1NT is non-forcing.

[MrAce]

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?

 

IMO either weak 6 card ♦ or multi with only weak major options with 5 cards. (while 2♥/♠ will show 6 carders)

[the hog]

As far as the OP I do think how you use your 2d bid really depends on the rest of your style.

 

-----

 

snipped

 

. :) i DO WONDER how many polish may not play wj2000 properly without a booklet.

 

Hardly any would need a booklet.

[mgoetze]

Any opinions of why the Bermuda Bowl participants seem to disagree that 2♥ is better?

 

Who knows, maybe they don't disagree per se, they just think opening a weak 2 in hearts anything other than 2♥ is too horrible, and the advantage of opening the both majors hand 2♥ doesn't make up for it.