Best use for 2D?

[Free]

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?

I don't think you can look at a single opening and draw any conclusions. The preemptive structure should be considered as a whole. It's also about efficiency and making sacrifices. 2M openings put up the pressure, while a 2♦ opening does not. So it depends on what your focus is, with which hands you want to pressure opps, which hands you think don't need pressure, how many hands you want to open (multi 2♦ + 2♥ both Majors leaves 2♠ available for anything you want),...

 

Looking at the hands with both Majors, the 2♦ opening with both Majors may be inferior than the 2♥ opening. But if the players are under the impression that natural 2M openings are much better than the alternative and compensate the disadvantages of the 2♦ opening, they'll play it anyway.

[JLOGIC]

Exactly Free. 2H is a superior way to show the majors, no doubt. It is a higher preempt, and it bids one of the known suits which puts pressure on the opps and gives them less bids.

 

However, a 2H opener with weak in hearts is going to be far more effective than multi, or 2D as a transfer preempt, for the same reason. Preempting to the level that your lowest known suit is is always going to be better.

 

Perfectly I'd rather have 2D as the majors and 2 hearts as a weak 2 by a mile than vice versa, even though I would rather open 2H for the majors than 2D in a vacuum. Maybe the bermuda bowl participants feel the same way.

 

edit: guess mgoetze also said the exact same thing also, sry.

[whereagles]

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.

 

It's harder to devise tools to fight Wilkosz, but once you have those it's easy to use them. That's the point. Tools to defend a weak 2D are very simple but choosing the right one is what's hard.

 

Basically, Wilkosz fares better against non-experts because they have difficulties dealing with gadgets. But on a higher level the weak 2D ends up being quite more of a nuisance in the long run. Also, Wilkosz is sort of banned from most tournaments :huh:

[hrothgar]

 

Basically, Wilkosz fares better against non-experts because they have difficulties dealing with gadgets. But on a higher level the weak 2D ends up being quite more of a nuisance in the long run. Also, Wilkosz is sort of banned from most tournaments :huh:

 

When people are analyzing the performance of various preempts, Wilkosz normally scores very highly

I'd argue that this has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the opening itself, nor the defenses being used.

 

The reason that Wilkosz scored so well was that the pairs that weren't playing Wilkosz couldn't stand to pass these glorious 5-5 hand with a major and no rebid problems. They'd open 1♠ with a 5-5 nine count and the partnership would barrel into 3NT down a zillion or partner would make a low level penalty double and the opponents would score up a doubled game.

 

I don't think that Wilkosz would perform nearly as well in this day and age, largely because opening standards have relaxed significantly and pairs have adapted their constructive auctions to encompass weak distributional hands.

[peachy]

Almost anything works, but don't even dream of using 2D opening for Mini-Roman (10-15, 4441) - that gadget offers the worst of both worlds = helps opponents and hinders our side.

[glen]

My recommendation for Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup pairs that have available a 2♦ opening bid for any use, is that the best is the Energy Sapping 2♦ convention.

 

Just before the final deadline to submit cc's, send yours in with the 2♦ opening bid having at least four strange never-seen-before vague meanings, depending on seat and vulnerability.

 

For example, you might have:

 

1-2 NV: 4+♠s and another suit, 0-10 HCP, must have ♥s as second suit if does not have ♣ ace.

1-2 V: Any solid suit without outside A/K, or a weak two in ♦s with exactly two of the top three honors.

3-4 NV: 15-17 balanced with exactly 2♠s, 3♥s.

3-4 V: 13-14 with either 4♥s and a longer second suit, or 6+♥s and no second suit.

 

Note that these openings are optional based on the state-of-the-match. Define the 2NT response as "asking", rest of responses "to play", except provide a few exceptions where responses are pass/correct.

 

If asked for further details, point out your partnership has never played these meanings before, and don't have any notes beyond what is on the cc. If asked at the table, point out the convention has never come up before.

 

Now the energy sapping happens. The coaches (e.g. Martels, Kokish/Kraft) have to investigate (finding no previous hands), and prepare defenses. The players have to learn these complex defenses. They may have lots of questions about negative inferences and tendencies (answer to anything: we don't know, has never come up before). The coaches and players will focus a lot of energy in preparing to defeat the convention.

 

Try as much as possible to find another call with any hand that accidently matches the 2♦ opening, and let the convention work as it does.