Mexican Two Diamonds

[32519]

What is the rationale behind the Mexican 2♦ bid (18-19 HCP balanced)? I have seen it all too often that players using this bid, end up in 2NT going down 1, or 3NT also going down 1.

In a previous thread, Too Many 2NT Contracts are Going Down it was already identified that the 2NT contracts were fairing poorly.

 

So how many of these 2NT contracts going down can be attributed to players using the Mexican 2♦ bid?

[mike777]

What is the rationale behind the Mexican 2♦ bid (18-19 HCP balanced)? I have seen it all too often that players using this bid, end up in 2NT going down 1, or 3NT also going down 1.

In a previous thread, Too Many 2NT Contracts are Going Down it was already identified that the 2NT contracts were fairing poorly.

 

So how many of these 2NT contracts going down can be attributed to players using the Mexican 2♦ bid?

 

 

 

The rational is to throw as many hands as possible into nt type auctions. On top of playing this you will add "offshape nt openers".

If you open lite, then this helps to define/limit the none nt openers. ONe bids are quite wide.

 

So you play this not because auctions after 2d are super great but because it makes your one bids more defined/limited.

 

example 1nt=14-16 off shape often.

2d=17-19..off shape ok.

 

 

going down in 2nt and getting a "bad" bd is pretty rare but yes it happens.,

 

 

 

The whole point of playing this style is that the gains far, far out weigh the losses.

 

If not dont play it.

[Cyberyeti]

The point is that you don't have to bid 1x-1y-2N and go off on some of these hands, you can open 2♦ and possibly play 2M if partner has a 5 count.

 

Also if you play a mini, there just aren't enough bids to cover the NT ranges unless you either make both minors short/different NT ranges or widen the NT ranges appreciably so you can use 2♦ to cover some of this.

[mike777]

The point is that you don't have to bid 1x-1y-2N and go off on some of these hands, you can open 2♦ and possibly play 2M if partner has a 5 count.

 

Also if you play a mini, there just aren't enough bids to cover the NT ranges unless you either make both minors short/different NT ranges or widen the NT ranges appreciably so you can use 2♦ to cover some of this.

 

 

actually no...that is not the point and no you cant play in 2h..

[gwnn]

Now you can use 1m-1M; 2NT for some other hands (e.g. 6m3M or a very strong raise or...). This is quite obvious, I don't see the need for this thread. Or...

In a previous thread, Too Many 2NT Contracts are Going Down it was already identified that the 2NT contracts were fairing poorly.

LOL. 32519 is creating a little bridge encyclopaedia of obvious questions.

[brian_m]

<...>

So how many of these 2NT contracts going down can be attributed to players using the Mexican 2♦ bid?

 

Maybe it reflects the different groups of players on BBO, but when I've seen strong balanced hands opened 2♦, it's overwhelmingly the case that opponents are playing the classic Acol multi 2♦ (weak 2 in a major or 8 playing tricks in a minor or 19-20 balanced) rather than a Mexican 2♦.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but unless you're playing under some regulations which forbid the multi, I can't see why you would waste 2♦ openers on just 18-19 balanced.

[gnasher]

Maybe it reflects the different groups of players on BBO, but when I've seen strong balanced hands opened 2♦, it's overwhelmingly the case that opponents are playing the classic Acol multi 2♦ (weak 2 in a major or 8 playing tricks in a minor or 19-20 balanced) rather than a Mexican 2♦.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but unless you're playing under some regulations which forbid the multi, I can't see why you would waste 2♦ openers on just 18-19 balanced.

 

When you open a Multi on a balanced hand the auction usually starts 2♦-2♥;2NT. That's almost as bad as having to open 2NT. Playing 2♦ as only balanced allows more explaratory sequences, so that you have room to show two-suiters below 3NT, make invitational bids, etc.

[Vampyr]

Maybe it reflects the different groups of players on BBO, but when I've seen strong balanced hands opened 2♦, it's overwhelmingly the case that opponents are playing the classic Acol multi 2♦ (weak 2 in a major or 8 playing tricks in a minor or 19-20 balanced) rather than a Mexican 2♦.

 

It is an generally unclear what can and cannot be called "Acol", but I think that using a Multi is really pushing it.

 

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but unless you're playing under some regulations which forbid the multi, I can't see why you would waste 2♦ openers on just 18-19 balanced.

 

I think that its value is mainly in competition.

[campboy]

Also if you play a mini, there just aren't enough bids to cover the NT ranges unless you either make both minors short/different NT ranges or widen the NT ranges appreciably so you can use 2♦ to cover some of this.

This was (sort of) the original point of Mexican 2♦, wasn't it? There weren't enough rebids to cover the NT ranges, though not because 1NT opener was mini but because it wasn't natural at all.

[Cyberyeti]

actually no...that is not the point and no you cant play in 2h..

Sorry, you're right, but you can play 2♦ or 2♠. Part of the point is to avoid the 18-19 bal 1x-1y-2N bid, but as much to free it up for unbalanced hands as to avoid going off in 2N, but the consideration of the revolting 2N contracts is real.

 

This was (sort of) the original point of Mexican 2♦, wasn't it? There weren't enough rebids to cover the NT ranges, though not because 1NT opener was mini but because it wasn't natural at all.

 

True originally, but the only pair I've actually seen use it was in the context of a mini.

[brian_m]

It is an generally unclear what can and cannot be called "Acol", but I think that using a Multi is really pushing it.

 

 

All right, let me try wording my comment this way. Please mentally substitute the following wording in my previous comment.

 

 

When I lived and played bridge in the UK, this was the version of the multi 2♦ used by the overwhelming majority of those of my opponents who described their system as "Acol with a Multi 2♦", or some equivalent description.

 

 

 

That was undoubtedly due in no small measure to the tight restrictions placed on the Multi 2♦ by the EBU after the statement of intent to ban it completely apparently provoked such a response from the membership at large that the idea of the ban was rapidly shelved. The passage of time has made me a little uncertain about exactly when such a ban was proposed, but I'm fairly sure I was living in West Lancashire when I read about it, which ties it down to 1989-94.

 

as regards what does and doesn't constitute "Acol", well, I'll leave that discussion to folks who play it as their main system, which excludes me.

[paulg]

Maybe I'm missing something, but unless you're playing under some regulations which forbid the multi, I can't see why you would waste 2♦ openers on just 18-19 balanced.

Versace-Lauria (2♦) and Bocchi-Madala (2♣) do not consider it a waste, but I believe that they consider it an unwieldy opener that's value is when you do not open it. It does mean that 1♣/♦ is either a weak notrump or an unbalanced hand, which makes auctions such as 1♣ - (2♠) - pass - (pass) easier (and safer) to handle.

[han]

Last Monday I had this auction:

 

1C - 1S - Dbl - 4S

Dbl - p - ??

 

It would have been nice to be playing Mexican 2D, so that opener would have shown an honest takeout double and not some 18-19 balanced hand. I think this kind of situation comes up fairly often, although I have never had an advantage on the 150 hands or so when I was playing Mexican 2D.

[mcphee]

A couple of good friends used Mexican, so I asked what he felt the main advantage was. "do you know how much energy is wasted after 2NT rebids?" I know that they did not use Wolfe (more complications claimed one. At one point my friends were about the only high level pair still using a weak 2D, thus the adoption Mexican.

[blackshoe]

it seems there are several definitions of "Mexican 2♦". AFAIK, though, it was originally devised as part of George Rosenkranz' Romex system, and in that system it is currently 21-22 HCP balanced, 27-28 balanced or GF with primary diamonds. Responses are artificial, based on the balanced possibility, and range from 2♥ (0-9 HCP, no slam interest opposite 21-22 balanced, fewer than 4♥) to 4♦ (6+ ♠, to play opposite 21-22 balanced). The purpose, as I have read in Rosenkranz' books on the system, is to remove GF hands with primary diamonds from the 2C opening*, and to provide more bids to show strong balanced hands. The Romex NT ladder goes, in 2 HCP steps, from 19 to 30 HCP, and up to 26 HCP, all ranges are shown by a 2NT bid or rebid.

 

* The sequence 2♦-2♥/♠-3♦ shows a one suited GF with diamonds. 2♦-2♥/♠-3♣ shows diamonds and a second suit. 3♦ asks for the suit. Similarly, 2♣-2♦/♥/♠/NT (control showing responses)-3♦ shows a one suited GF with clubs, and the 3♣ rebid shows clubs and a second suit.

 

This version of Mexican 2♦ fits quite well into Romex.

[bluecalm]

1)Competition:

Now 1m openings are natural (with the exception of 12-14 with clubs) so any further action means opener has unbalanced hand with natural suit. For example:

1C - 4S - p p

dbl = clubs are natural now

 

1C - 1S - dbl - 3S

dbl = real clubs, not 18-19 balanced.

 

2)improved constructive bidding:

1C - 1S

2N = natural invite with 6+clubs

3C = 7 clubs

 

I think 1) is huge gain over standard.

Bidding after 2D itself isn't that bad either as it's easy to acoomodate for all the 2 suiters below game.

The drawback, as mentioned is that you sometimes play too high in a partscore but imo, especialy at IMPs this opening is very good. As to matchpoints I have my doubts but a team consisting of 2 pairs (+ a sponsor pair) playing this opening won two last Reisingers so it's probably playable :)

[the hog]

The point of the Mexican 2D is that if you live in Mexico and don't use it George Rosenkrantz will be very upset.

[32519]

Are 5-card majors permitted in the 18-19 HCP balanced 2♦ opening bids?

[Zelandakh]

I think han's point is the key to the rise in popularity of this convention. It is often problematic to handle big balanced hands in competition. If you have a spare call available to remove this headache then why not? It also sometimes allows you to get out in 2♠ or 3m where that would have been difficult or impossible in a typical 1♣ - 1M; 2NT auction. You also do not have to take account of the hand type on some weak auctions: 1♣ - 3♣, or 1♣ - 2M (weak) for example. Overall, it plugs a gap in some systems rather nicely but is almost certainly not ideal for everyone.

[gwnn]

(snip) but is almost certainly not ideal for everyone.

... as opposed to? :)

[MickyB]

+1 to the biggest advantage being in competition. I don't think anyone has mentioned that 1m then NT in competition must be unbalanced too. 1m:1X, 2N as ART is nice but there are several other ways of freeing up this rebid.

[bluecalm]

Are 5-card majors permitted in the 18-19 HCP balanced 2♦ opening bids?

 

Nope.

Interestingly Italians playing this opening (Lauria - Versace, Sementa - Duboin) and similar one (Bocchi - Madala) do open 2N with 5M-3-3-2 inspite of playing a system which could easily accommodate those hands in 1M openings. They must think it's good for some reason.

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned that 1m then NT in competition must be unbalanced too

 

I wonder what:

 

1D - 1S - p - 2S

2N should be

 

The possibilities are:

a)good diamonds, S stopper

b)5-4 minors

c)a or b

 

There was a hand in recent Italian championship where Madala bid that with Qx Ax AQxxx AKxx and got 4C response from Tx Jxx Kxx J98xx but it still doesn't answer my question what would he bid with say: Axx x AKJxxx AJx.

[gnasher]

I wonder what:

 

1D - 1S - p - 2S

2N should be

Does this question imply that you think this sequence shows 18-19 balanced in standard methods? I can't see why one would want to bid at all with such a hand, given that it's not suitable for a takeout double.

 

The possibilities are:

a)good diamonds, S stopper

b)5-4 minors

c)a or b

 

I think the normal meaning is 6-4 in the minors, but I quite like:

(d) 4-6 reds, so that double denies four hearts.

 

Some people play it as

(e) Good-Bad

[bluecalm]

Does this question imply that you think this sequence shows 18-19 balanced in standard methods? I can't see why one would want to bid at all with such a hand, given that it's not suitable for a takeout double.

 

Imo passing with say AQx KQx AKJx xxx is a bad idea here and I would want to bid 2N, especially if we are vul.

[gnasher]

Imo passing with say AQx KQx AKJx xxx is a bad idea here and I would want to bid 2N, especially if we are vul.

So that you can go three down opposite xx 10xxx xx Qxxx? Or so that you can go one down in game opposite xx xxx Qxx A10xxx? When partner passes over 1♠ instead of doubling, bidding 1NT, or bidding 2♦, it usually means he doesn't have very much. 2NT is hoping for him to have a hand where he wanted to bid but couldn't, but even opposite that hand-type game won't always make.