I Use the Two Diamond Bid For.........

[32519]

This is yet another poll attempting to find out what other players use the 2♦ bid for.

 

I have no idea what the frequency of occurrence for Multi is. The frequency will be affected by the version you play.

 

Of the others listed here, Ekren’s has the highest frequency of occurrence. The natural Weak 2♦ and Polish 2♦ are second and third by some distance.

 

I still play a natural Weak 2♦. The nuisance factor is greater than many would care to acknowledge. The entire 1-level has been taken away from the opponents. Our continuations are really basic:

Pass (the hand belongs to the opponents)

2♥/2♠ (natural, non-forcing)

2NT (natural, inviting 3NT when opener is max [9-11 HCP], or with a suit containing the top 3-honours)

3♣ (natural, non-forcing, no fit in the ♦ suit)

3♦ (natural, lifting the pre-empt)

3♥/3♠ (natural, invitational)

3NT (to play, good fit in the ♦ suit)

[Cyberyeti]

Natural weak 2♦ here, but my frequency will be MUCH higher than what you quote as we open some hands that would certainly not qualify for anybody else (I have 2 favourites, the apposite one here was where partner opened 2♦ first up off Kx, xxx, xxxx, xxxx and I had a 27 count with ♦AKQJxx leading to us bidding a slam missed in the other room due to the auction starting 2♦-2N-3♣(clubs and minimum), so with my short clubs I could count the cover cards in the majors).

[paulg]

From the European Team Championships 2012, Open Series.

 

There were 97 partnerships who played:

- Multi - with some strong option(s) (28 pairs)

- weak-only Multi (26)

- Mexican (7)

- Weak (7)

- Strong (normally 23+, or like a strong 2C, etc) (7)

- Precision (11-15, short in diamonds) (4)

- Wilkosz (3)

- Ekrens (2)

- mini-multi (weak 2H or strong options) (2)

- one offs (the rest)

 

Update: For Roland's sake I should have mentioned that Flannery was not in the list, but there was a single Reverse Flannery

Edited October 1, 2012 by paulg

[kenrexford]

Your list of possible meanings for a 2D opening is way too short.

[wank]

my favourite use for 2♦ is generating pointless discussions.

[aguahombre]

Totally agree with Wank, above. There can be no meaningful debate on the virtues of the various choices, except with one's own partner.

 

The bid is either needed to fill a hole in our style (all the artificial meanings) or it isn't (natural bid). Even the frequency of occurrence is moot, if we need the bid when it does come up and can eliminate the possibility partner has that hand when she doesn't open 2♦.

[gwnn]

Will you create a thread for each of these possible meanings 32519? You already have one for multi, mexican and jammer (this one inexplicably missed the cut for this poll).

[glen]

Playing the KRex 2♦ opening is a lot of fun, and is never ever boring.

 

Assign a value of 1 for IMP scoring, and 2 for matchpoint scoring

For vulnerability, assign a value of 1=fav,2=both white,3=both red, 4=unfav

 

Then simply determine (scoring-1)*16+(vulnerability-1)*4+seat(1-4), and the 2♦ opening is:

1) 4-10, 4+Ds and other suit

2) 4-10, a five card or longer major

3) 0-7, 4+Ds, no 4cM

4) 11-14, 4-4+ reds

5) 11-15, mini-roman any shortness

6) 11-15, mini-roman not short in Ds

7) 18-19 balanced Mexican

8) 11-14, 6+Ds

9) 5-10, Hs and other

10) Weak two in Hs or strong option

11) Flannery

12) Any GF or 23-24 bal Benjamin

13) Any GF

14) GF with 4+ spades (old school KRex)

15) 5+Ds, strong in points or playing value ACOL

16) Any long suit, exactly 9 tricks

17) 0-6 with 3+Ds

18) 4-10, a five card or longer major, no shortness

19) 0-11, 4-4+ in minors

20) 11-14, 4+Ds and 5+ major

21) 0-11 5 or longer Ds

22) 0-10, 4-4+ majors Ekren

23) 4-10, Ss and other suit

24) 11-15, short Ds Precision

25) 5-10, playable in three suits including Ss

26) 5-10, 5-5+ with at least one major Wilkosz

27) Weak two in either major or strong option Multi

28) Flannery or GF in Ss

29) Weak two 6 or longer in either major Wagner

30) 5-10, weak two, 6 or longer Ds

31) Roman

32) 22-24 balanced

 

edit: equation fixed

[Free]

Playing the KRex 2♦ opening is a lot of fun, and is never ever boring.

 

Assign a value of 1 for IMP scoring, and 2 for matchpoint scoring

For vulnerability, assign a value of 1=fav,2=both white,3=both red, 4=unfav

 

Then simply multiply scoring*vulnerablity*seat(1-4), and the 2♦ opening is:

1) 4-10, 4+Ds and other suit

2) 4-10, a five card or longer major

3) 0-7, 4+Ds, no 4cM

4) 11-14, 4-4+ reds

5) 11-15, mini-roman any shortness

6) 11-15, mini-roman not short in Ds

7) 18-19 balanced Mexican

8) 11-14, 6+Ds

9) 5-10, Hs and other

10) Weak two in Hs or strong option

11) Flannery

12) Any GF or 23-24 bal Benjamin

13) Any GF

14) GF with 4+ spades (old school KRex)

15) 5+Ds, strong in points or playing value ACOL

16) Any long suit, exactly 9 tricks

17) 0-6 with 3+Ds

18) 4-10, a five card or longer major, no shortness

19) 0-11, 4-4+ in minors

20) 11-14, 4+Ds and 5+ major

21) 0-11 5 or longer Ds

22) 0-10, 4-4+ majors Ekren

23) 4-10, Ss and other suit

24) 11-15, short Ds Precision

25) 5-10, playable in three suits including Ss

26) 5-10, 5-5+ with at least one major Wilkosz

27) Weak two in either major or strong option Multi

28) Flannery or GF in Ss

29) Weak two 6 or longer in either major Wagner

30) 5-10, weak two, 6 or longer Ds

31) Roman

32) 22-24 balanced

Basically all prime numbers above 3 are unreachable. You're learning 9 systems which you'll never use. A good thing Flannery is one of them. Nice system!

[MrAce]

Will you create a thread for each of these possible meanings 32519?

 

Oh, definetely he will ! And I am afraid he is just warming up.

[glen]

Basically all prime numbers above 3 are unreachable. You're learning 9 systems which you'll never use. A good thing Flannery is one of them. Nice system!

I made a typo in the equation, and since I was posting from my phone the mobile version of forums would not allow me to edit it

[kenrexford]

You might like a passage from Gil's Epic Game, a running monthly story I am writing for my local bridge club newsletter (www.limadbc.blogspot.com)

The hospitality room at night was a buzzing mess of frustratedpeople, for the most part. The room wasdivided into small groups of two or four people, for the most part, discussingthe various post-mortem problems of the day, often with less skill than eventhe actual auction. For, after-the-fact bidding and play might be ideal for thehand under discussion but worse than the actual decisions as a matter ofgeneral application. If you bid everyhand as was needed for the one bad result you received on Tuesday evening, yourresults would be astonishing.

 

Gil and Kid ended up in a group in a corner, a groupsneaking cigarettes out of sight of the hotel staff, with plastic cups asashtrays. Everyone had some form ofalcohol, technically, if the cheap beer that you find in hospitality room coolers is actually alcohol. Others had cheap whiskey or boxed wine.

 

The topic that soon arose was the Two Diamond opening.

 

“You know, I have thought about this for years, and I justcannot decide what to use a Two Diamonds opening for,” started Gil. “If you research this, you will findcountless innovations and methods, and each seems to have its pros and cons.”

 

“My personal preference,” began one, “is Flannery. It really does solve a lot of problems withthe Forcing 1NT. I especially like usinga flexible form of Flannery, where a six-card heart suit is possible. I also like being able to show five spadeswhen responding to a One Heart opening.”

 

Another then, “Yes, but Weak Two Diamonds actually does havesome punch, despite the space allowed. That is my preference. I like toadd in my own specialized rebid structure after Two No Trump by Responder. See, Three Clubs shows a minimum, ThreeDiamonds a middlish hand, Three No Trump a hand with good diamonds, and thenmajor calls show three-card suits, which allows for better exploration ofpossible major strains.”

 

A third, more of a scientist, “I hate Two Diamonds as weak,because it does not really do all that, in my opinion. Obviously, I love Multi,but I do not get to use it that much. When in GCC-land, I suppose Mexican makes as much sense as anything. This allows a much better use of a Two NoTrump jump rebid, which I have developed into a unique means of handling theproblem of the forcing minor rebid.”

 

Gil took all of this in, and he decided to ask Kid for hisopinion. Kid had sat there quietly,which was strange, as he usually seemed to have an opinion. Gil was mostlyinterested in Kid’s take because this question seemed to tell a lot about theperson. One could easily assess the mindset of the player by simply asking thatquestion – “What is your preferred use for a Two Diamonds opening?” The opinion on this topic is so powerful inunderstanding the person. So, he turnedto Kid.

 

“Well, of course I think that Mini-Roman is the absolute best use for TwoDiamonds. It is such a greatconvention!” Kid seemed earnest in hisresponse.

 

This troubled Gil, because that is the response of theidiot. No one plays Mini-Roman unless they have no clue about the game, andthe most vehement advocates of Mini-Roman are the most absurd of players.

 

This reaction was shared by the rest of the small group, whofound this development too shocking and ridiculous to even remain. The band separated, with various mutteringsof absurdity and looks of scorn. Oneeven parted with the not-quite-whispered comment to Gil, “And you think thisdolt has potential?” Only Gil and Kid remained.

 

Gil could not understand this strange response, so heasked. “Mini-Roman? Really? I mean, that is the most idiot convention ever played, in my opinion.”

 

“Of course it is,” responded Kid. “That’s why I play Mini-Roman.”

 

“What?!?”

 

“Look,” responded Kid. “No one disputes that Mini-Roman is absurd. In fact, the nonsense of the method is one that causes an immediate andalmost violent reaction by all respectable bridge players. But, every other method is unimportant. Ifyou play Flannery,you apparently have decided that a Weak Two Diamonds can be ditched without toomuch detriment to the system, which is true. If you play a Weak Two Diamonds, you have decided that not playingFlannery is workable, which is also true. The fact that Mexican Two Diamonds even exists proves that nothingis critical. Thus, one could easily play that you just don’t open Two Diamondsat all, right?”

 

“Well, true.”

 

“So, assuming this, I decided that it made a lot of sense toplay Mini-Roman and to announce this with great enthusiasm. Ofcourse, I would never actually open Two Diamonds, even if I had that hand. Thatwould be stupid. But, you see what thereaction is when I announce that I play Mini-Roman. Everyone takes me for an idiot, which meansthat they double me more when they should not, overbid and pay for it againstme, do not expect my defense to be as good as it is, and otherwiseunder-estimate my abilities. This pays dividends.”

 

Gil found this answer intriguing and hysterical. Of course, this Wild Man seemed to not careabout reputation, which is odd among bridge players, but it could be anasset. Especially for Gil. If he played with Kid and won, people wouldthink that Gil was a bridge god, not realizing that the ticket wasbalanced. So, Gil determined to partnerthis Wild Man. Kid, who had seen the talent and had gotten over the roughpersonality, took Gil up on this. So,they decided to play the next day. Thiswas quickly seen as a fool’s errand by the “experts,” but this was preciselywhat Gil had hoped. They were sure to dowell, which meant that Gil was sure to look like a true star, if eccentric inhis partnering of Kid.

 

[the hog]

My personal preference is to play it as undiscussed and totally random. One one hand it might be Flannery, on another 23+ any, on a third Wilkosz. on a fourth a Multi and so on. Oh, of course it is either non forcing or forcing.

[32519]

Your list of possible meanings for a 2D opening is way too short.

 

I am well aware of that. I chose to list the uses for the 2♦ bid which I believe are amongst the more popular uses for it. If you use it for something else, then vote "Something Else" and then tell us in a post what you use it for.

[Zelandakh]

Would you like the answer for what I use in my preferred (strong club) methods, what I play with my partner (in a simple, natural system), what I have played with previous partners (various), or what I play with pick-up partners (also various)? It is (imho) silly to ask about a single bid in isolation without any reference to the rest of the system being employed.

[gwnn]

I made a typo in the equation, and since I was posting from my phone the mobile version of forums would not allow me to edit it

it's not fixed.

[32519]

It is (imho) silly to ask about a single bid in isolation without any reference to the rest of the system being employed.

I can only partially agree with you here e.g. Precision, Romex, Benjaminised ACOL have a systemic bid for the 2♦ bid. However, when I scrutinize the CCs of some top international players, I have seen some who have deviated from the standard systemic bid. Precision is an example I can think of here with some players moving the 4414/3415/4405 hands into the 2♥ bid in order to free up the 2♦ bid for something else (usually Multi).

 

In general, most players tend to use the 2♦ bid for whatever fits in best with their system. I am curious as to what others are using the bid for, and hence this thread.

[Trinidad]

I like glen's 2♦ opening but I think it would definitely be superior to flip numbers 11 and 14.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

I have heard all of the arguments, and I have played many of the 2♦ openings - Strong (from my earliest Goren days), Weak, Flannery, original Mexican (circa 1975), Roman (real and weak), Precision, Multi (weak only and with some strong options), and Schenken (I didn't see anyone refer to the Schenken 2♦ opening). I have had occasional successes with all of them. But my favorite remains the old standard weak 2♦ opening.

 

I have particular loathing about the weak Roman and original Precision 2♦ opening, and I see that Ken Rex shares that opinion.

 

In one North American pair event, every time I opened a weak 2♦ I got a good result.

 

For a short time one summer I was playing in a few events with Richard Colker. Our convention card stated that we were playing Flannery. In actual fact, we were playing a variation of Flannery which I referred to sarcastically as the Colker 2♦ opening. Our stated range was 11-15, but whenever Richard opened 2♦ his maximum count was 11, and was often less. I would not called this a concealed partnership agreement, as I always treated his opening bid as 11-15, but I began to see the 10 counts and 9 counts with increasing frequency. And, whenever he did it, we got a good result.

[gnasher]

Our stated range was 11-15, but whenever Richard opened 2♦ his maximum count was 11, and was often less. I would not called this a concealed partnership agreement, as I always treated his opening bid as 11-15, but I began to see the 10 counts and 9 counts with increasing frequency.

I would call it a concealed partnership agreement. It doesn't matter whether you cater for the possibility that he has a 9-count: if you know that he's likely to do it, you have an agreement which has to be disclosed.

[ArtK78]

I would call it a concealed partnership agreement. It doesn't matter whether you cater for the possibility that he has a 9-count: if you know that he's likely to do it, you have an agreement which has to be disclosed.

Our agreement was Flannery with the usual 11-15 HCP range. Richard's subminimum openings, as common as they may have been, always violated our partnership agreement and I did not cater to them.

 

The name "Colker 2♦ opening" was a way of making fun of his openings.

 

I considered them amusing.

 

By the way, had we continued to play together, I would have alerted the opps to the possibility of his openings being "light." But we never got that far.

[paulg]

Our stated range was 11-15, but whenever Richard opened 2♦ his maximum count was 11, and was often less. I would not called this a concealed partnership agreement, as I always treated his opening bid as 11-15, but I began to see the 10 counts and 9 counts with increasing frequency.

A good example that could be used in the definition of a concealed partnership agreement.

 

Our agreement was Flannery with the usual 11-15 HCP range. Richard's subminimum openings, as common as they may have been, always violated our partnership agreement and I did not cater to them.

It violated your announced partnership agreement. This is why your actual (implicit) agreement is being called concealed.

[han]

So he did it often enough so that you gave the opening a nickname but not often enough to inform the opponents?

[mycroft]

There's another issue with "subminimum" Flannery openings - they're not GCC if they don't promise 10 High. Doesn't matter to everybody, but sure did matter to Art/Richard.

[olegru]

There's another issue with "subminimum" Flannery openings - they're not GCC if they don't promise 10 High. Doesn't matter to everybody, but sure did matter to Art/Richard.

 

BTW, are "subminimum" Flannery openings" legal in midchart?