Alternative to a weak 2H

[Free]

Recently I read an article on an alternative 2♥ opening which is supposedly better than a standard weak two and better than a Muiderberg (5♥ with 4+m). At first sight it seems to have merit, but I wonder what your opinions are.

 

The 2♥ opening shows a weak hand (= less than an opening) with exactly 5♥ and 3-4♠, and never with a 5332. The argument to include some degree of ♠s is that these hands are better suited for preempting (because after a normal weak two opps just bid their ♠s), it's quite frequent, it allows us to play at 2-level in each Major, and in constructive situations opener can quickly show his entire hand. Also when you'd have to pass these hands (especially 5♥-4♠) you'll have trouble to get both Majors into the auction.

 

Responses are:

2♠ = to play

2NT = relay

3♣ = P/C*

3♦ = invitational with ♥ or ♠

3M = pre

3NT = to play

4m = splinter with ♥ support

4M = to play

4NT = RKC ♥

 

(*) When opener has 3♠s it means he has a 3=5=(41) or a 3=5=(50). When opener has 4♠ he can have a 4=5=(40), 4=5=(31) or 4=5=2=2. In the last case, opener should pass 3♣ (= ugly imo).

 

After 2♥-2NT:

3♣ = 4♠

3♦ = 3=5=1=4

3♥ = 3=5=4=1

3♠ = 3=5=0=5

3NT = 3=5=5=0

 

After 2♥-2NT-3♣ responder can set trumps with 3M, or bid 3♦ as a relay. In either case opener shows his hand pattern in 5 steps (2-2m, singleton high/low, void high/low).

 

So what are your thoughts?

[Vampyr]

It seems to me that 2♥ Flannery is no better and no worse than 2♠ Flannery -- so long as you have a way to bid your normal weak twos; eg multi.

[glen]

Did you run frequencies?

[RunemPard]

This doesn't seem too bad...can use 2D as hearts or insert random junk here I suppose...

[Free]

It seems to me that 2♥ Flannery is no better and no worse than 2♠ Flannery -- so long as you have a way to bid your normal weak twos; eg multi.

Not sure how I must interpret this comment, because this opening isn't a flannery opening. It can also have 5♥-3♠ in an unbalanced hand, it doesn't have opening strength, and it's not a 2♠ opening.

[Free]

Did you run frequencies?

No I didn't :) While it's probably as frequent as a Muiderberg (as stated in the article), a weak two with at least a 5 card suit is probably more frequent than this.

[Vampyr]

Not sure how I must interpret this comment, because this opening isn't a flannery opening. It can also have 5♥-3♠ in an unbalanced hand, it doesn't have opening strength, and it's not a 2♠ opening.

 

Right LOL I don't play Flannery and forgot that it shows an opening hand.

[fromageGB]

I'm not impressed by this.

 

For a start, when you do get a 2♥ open the suggested response 3♦ invitational provides no way of opener showing his length in spades. Whether 3 or 4 could be important in deciding whether a spade game is on, so responder cannot use the invitation with 5 spades unless very strong himself. Yes, he could bid the 2NT relay to discover a 4 card spade hand, but I would think you would want continuations (when opener does not have 4) to be GF.

 

Another downside is that it does not allow you to open similar hands with the majors reversed (3-4♥, 5♠) unless you use a 2♠ open for that, which would need different responses as you need to discover the extent of the heart fit.

 

You also fail to have a bid for a 5 card major without the other major. This is a problem for those that like to open weak twos with 5 card suits.

 

Presumably you need to have 2♦ as a multi for 6 card majors, in which case I think this method is not as good as using 2♦ for both majors, any (54), or 4+4+ according to taste, and using a normal 2M open (5 or 6 card according to taste) for single majors. I much prefer the ability a natural weak 2 gives you to make a 3rd seat preemptive bid.

 

Using 2♦ as the both majors bid gives you the room you need to resolve the hand if you want shape showing, or it allows a simpler response set, such as 2M to play, 2NT inquiry, 3♣/♦ invitation in the corresponding major, 3M, 4M to play.

[glen]

... While it's probably as frequent as a Muiderberg (as stated in the article) ...

Compared to the 5♥+4m Muiderberg, this idea (is there a link to the article?) adds:

4-5-2-2, 4-5-3-1, 4-5-1-3, 4-5-4-0, 4-5-0-4

 

and subtracts:

2-5-4-2, 1-5-4-3, 0-5-4-4, 0-5-5-3, 2-5-2-4, 1-5-3-4, 0-5-3-5

 

which would seem to make it less frequent

 

Personally I would have more fun with 5/6♥s and singleton/void in another suit.

[DrMunk]

I'm not impressed by this.

 

For a start, when you do get a 2♥ open the suggested response 3♦ invitational provides no way of opener showing his length in spades. Whether 3 or 4 could be important in deciding whether a spade game is on, so responder cannot use the invitation with 5 spades unless very strong himself. Yes, he could bid the 2NT relay to discover a 4 card spade hand, but I would think you would want continuations (when opener does not have 4) to be GF.

 

 

I think this opening sounds interesting.

 

How about changing the answers:

 

2nt: Ask opener to choose minor(Only inconvenient with 4-5-2-2 but then opener might pass?)

3♣: Invitational plus with spades, possibly also done with a hand that wants to play 4spades or 3nt.

3♦: Invitational + with hearts.

 

I have not given to much thoughts to this responses, so probably i am missing something..

 

 

Which 2♦ and 2♠ opening would you use together with this? Multi and Muiderberg ?

[Free]

An alternative can be to play 3♦ as invite with ♥ fit and 3♠ as invite with ♠ fit. You lose a preemptive action, but responder doesn't know how many ♠s opener has anyway.

 

Imo 2NT has to stay a strong relay to ask about opener's shape. The 3♣ P/C is ugly opposite a 4522, so perhaps we shouldn't open these hands in the first place to make sure opener always bids at least a 3 card minor.

 

At the moment we're playing Wilkosz 2♦ and weak two's in the Majors (at least a 5 card suit). This opening partly overlaps with Wilkosz (5-5's), so we're not sure if it's worth it. On the other hand, the overlap makes our Wilkosz even better I think. So we're not sure how to fit it in.

 

We do find it an interesting opening though, because you bring ♠s in the picture. Opps can't intervene with 2♠ as easily as after a normal weak two, but they also don't have an extra cuebid at their disposal. Responder can easily correct to 2♠, even with only a 3 card ♠ (in case you're playing a 3-3 fit both hands have a singleton, so it can still be quite playable). But I agree: the 3♦ invite is not a thing of beauty and responding with a 4=5=2=2 after 3♣ P/C is just awful. Alternatives are possible to solve these issues imo, but perhaps these modifications make the opening less interesting.

[MickyB]

Not a bad idea. Over 2H-X you'd have a way to ask for partner's four-card suit.

 

This thread has made me want to try a 2C opening showing 3+spades, 4+hearts, like my defence to 1NT. Besides greatly increased frequency, this allows a pass-or-correct bid for partner's four-card suit even when oppo don't intervene [2C:2D, 2H:2S].

[Zelandakh]

This seems to be a variant of the Bailey 2 bids given at Chris Ryall's site. Those show 2-3 in the other major instead of 3-4 but it seems that the same kind of advances and arguments should probably apply. I wonder if we have any posters (presumably from CA area) who can share experiences of the one and compare with the other.

[Free]

This seems to be a variant of the Bailey 2 bids given at Chris Ryall's site. Those show 2-3 in the other major instead of 3-4 but it seems that the same kind of advances and arguments should probably apply. I wonder if we have any posters (presumably from CA area) who can share experiences of the one and compare with the other.

I don't think this should be considered a variant. 2-3 OM doesn't suggest to play there, while this opening (3-4 S) clearly suggests S as a strain. In Bailey opener can also have 6 or 7 card M, or even a 5332, which this opening specifically doesn't allow. Bailey seems to aim more at penalizing opps, although I don't have experience with this.

[han]

Compared to the 5♥+4m Muiderberg, this idea (is there a link to the article?) adds:

4-5-2-2, 4-5-3-1, 4-5-1-3, 4-5-4-0, 4-5-0-4

 

and subtracts:

2-5-4-2, 1-5-4-3, 0-5-4-4, 0-5-5-3, 2-5-2-4, 1-5-3-4, 0-5-3-5

 

which would seem to make it less frequent

 

The article appeared in IMP and was written by Dutch junior Joris van Lankveld.

 

Many Dutch players do not open Muiderberg with 3+ cards in the other major. If you follow that rule then the difference becomes:

 

3-5-4-1, 3-5-1-4, 3-5-5-0, 3-5-0-5, 4-5-2-2, 4-5-3-1, 4-5-1-3, 4-5-4-0, 4-5-0-4

 

vs

 

2-5-4-2, 2-5-2-4, 1-5-4-3, 1-5-3-4, 1-5-5-2, 1-5-2-5, 0-5-4-4, 0-5-5-3, 0-5-3-5

 

In this case the K2 opening is slightly more frequent then the Muiderberg opening.

[cherdano]

I don't like it. BBF taught me long ago that you should preempt when you have got shortness in the majors, and you shouldn't when you haven't.

[fromageGB]

BBF? butt buddy forever, british baseball federation (yes, that surprised me!), belgian badminton federation ... ?

[MickyB]

I don't like it. BBF taught me long ago that you should preempt when you have got shortness in the majors, and you shouldn't when you haven't.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple. Preempting with *undisclosed* length in the majors is obviously not ideal. I had never heard of Muiderberg players agreeing not to open 2M holding 5-3 majors, but it makes sense - you are far too likely to belong in the other major on these hands.

 

When we have shortage in the majors, oppo are more likely to have game, but how often does a bid that leaves oppo with a 2M overcall destroy their game bidding? I think there's more to be gained in the part-score battles. Over natural(ish) 2M openings oppo will often be unable to compete to 3m without partner converting to 3NT.

 

If you compare 2H [5♥3-4♠ unbal] with 2H [5♥4m0-2♠], not only is the former more frequent, but you are much more likely to reach a playable strain when partner is short in hearts, especially once you factor in the greater utility of 2H-X-XX.

[ennaji]

Hello all,

 

My name is Joris van Lankveld and I came up with the convention ''K2'' about a year ago. Last month I wrote an article about the K2 in the Dutch bridge magazine IMP' and since then it is getting more popular in my country.

 

It's not always a good strategy to open ''Muiderberg'' with weak hearts. After Muiderberg 2♥ responder will pass with 4-2-(43) and sometimes even with 4-1-5-3. It's a disadvantage that you have to play on 3-level and that you don't know the minor of the opener. That's why one of the conditions of Muiderberg users is that the main suit should be of good quality, especially when vulnerable. Another reason for having a good suit is that it decreases the chance of getting penalized. Would you open 2♥ with:

 

x

J9xxx

Axxx

Qxx

 

when red versus green or all vulnerable? I think it's too risky, even when you don't get doubled you can go minus 200 or 300 if there is no heart fit. If you would swap the black suits, you can open K2 without taking that risk. Eight cards are known for responder and he knows when to run to 2♠. If you take into consideration that you can open more hands without a sound suit quality, the frequency of the K2 is even higher than Han and Mickey already showed.

 

There are more advantages that haven't been :

- when responder has weak holdings in the minors like KQxx, Qxxx, xxx, xx he knows the opponents have a running minor and they can make 3m/3NT/4m, which gives some certainty that jumping to 4♥ is justified. After a weak two or Muiderberg you often don't know how much defense your side has.

- in comparison with 2♥ (or 2♦) as both majors, responder is well placed to estimate the playing strength of our side. The amount of hearts is a sure thing, the unbalanced pattern is known and one of the side suits (3 or 4) is also known. Compared to both majors with 5-4 or 4-5 when one can only support with a four card fit, you can put more pressure on the opponents. I have heard solutions like playing 2♥ as 5+♥ and 4+♠, but that would harshly decrease the frequency of the opening (if it doesn't already give too much information to the opponents).

-in game forcing situations it's a great advantage that you can tell the exact shape of the hand in one bid without a difficult relay structure. The only exception is 2♥-2NT-3♣, but that allows you to bid 4 spades without giving more information to the opponents. Usually you are just interested whether opener has three or four spades.

-it's hard to show hands with 5 hearts and 4 spades in the bidding if you start with pass.

 

A funny hand occurred in the Dutch Open Pairs, when I didn't play with my regular partner:

 

Jxx

Q98xx

-

KTxxx

 

KQT

A

QJT

AJxxxx

 

North was dealer and we were green versus red. We played weak twos in all suits and I was forced to pass as North. The opponents overcalled in spades and for the majority of the field it was too hard to end up in 5 clubs.

After the K2 in North responder has a very unlucky hand, because you know game is not likely to be good if partner has shortness in clubs. Anyway, ''bridge is like chocolate. You never know what you are gonna get'', so you respond 2NT.

 

2♥ - 2NT

3♠ - 4♣

4♦ - 4NT

5♣ - 6♣

 

3S: 3-5-0-5

4C: sets clubs as trump suit

4D: cue bid

4NT: RKC

5C: 1-4

6C: too bad! (no seven today)

 

 

Some disadvantages are:

-there is no solution for invitational hands without fit. Although that's the problem with any kind of 2-opening (what would you with 16-18 with 4144 after a weak two in hearts?], it may lead to missing an easy game. Sometimes you are lucky when an opponents decides to bid in fourth position after your pass...

-in the Dutch national pairs

 

It's not clear how to advance after the game forcing relay, because it depends on how hard you want to have the agreements. In my example it would be better to play 4 clubs as slam try in hearts and 4 diamonds as slam try in clubs, but if you are not used to game forcing relays then I would strongly advice to keep things as simple as possible.

 

Whoever is going to play the K2, don't hesitate to share your experience. It's a new convention and I am curious to know how good it really is. At the moment I have played the K2 for a year and so far the results are very positive. Berend and I have played the K2 with success in several international tournaments, like the World Junior Championship in China. If you start playing it, please name it 'K2' on your convention card so everyone will name it the same way. I'm thinking of writing an article of the K2 in the Bridge World.

[Free]

Hi Joris, welcome to the forums and thanks for writing about this topic. My partner and I are thinking about adopting the method because it does sound interesting. That's why I started a discussion here, to see if there's anything we've missed.

 

there is no solution for invitational hands without fit. Although that's the problem with any kind of 2-opening (what would you with 16-18 with 4144 after a weak two in hearts?], it may lead to missing an easy game. Sometimes you are lucky when an opponents decides to bid in fourth position after your pass...

Even the invitational hands WITH fit aren't handled in a good way either imo. 2♥-3♦ as an invite with either M doesn't sound attractive. But I was wondering if you use 2♥-3♠ a lot for preemptive purposes. If not, then isn't it better to play this sequence as some invitational hand (like INV with 5+♠), and make 3♦ more ♥ oriented (or possibly some ♠ invite with exactly 4♠ looking for the best contract)?

[ennaji]

Hi Joris, welcome to the forums and thanks for writing about this topic. My partner and I are thinking about adopting the method because it does sound interesting. That's why I started a discussion here, to see if there's anything we've missed.

 

 

Even the invitational hands WITH fit aren't handled in a good way either imo. 2♥-3♦ as an invite with either M doesn't sound attractive. But I was wondering if you use 2♥-3♠ a lot for preemptive purposes. If not, then isn't it better to play this sequence as some invitational hand (like INV with 5+♠), and make 3♦ more ♥ oriented (or possibly some ♠ invite with exactly 4♠ looking for the best contract)?

Thanks for bringing the theory abroad!

 

A good idea to use 3♦ for invitational with hearts only. In fact it is not a big difference from what I already play, since opener is allowed to bid 4♠ over 2♥-3♠ with a decent hand with four spades. For other readers, the schedule I published in the article was:

 

2♥-3♦ (invitational for 4M)

 

3♥: minimum for hearts (if partner bids 3 spades, you can still raise)

3♠: maximum for hearts, minimum for spades (I would not use this often as a spade contract may be wrongsided and you may give information about your shape)

3NT: maximum (if partner has a general slam try and were just looking for (super)min/max he can bid 4 clubs for hearts and 4 diamonds for spades).

 

Frankly, I haven't seen the bidding 2♥-3♠ as barrage so far, so I think it is OK to remove the 3♠ response after 3♦. That would mean that we will bid 3♠ with an (light) invitational hand. I still think it's good to bid 3♦ with a strong invitational hand. You can show the spades after 3♥ MIN with 3♠ and bid 4♠ after 3NT MAX (or 4♥ MAX if you prefer to play it that way) and it doesn't give up anything.

 

Oh, and another advantage of the K2 compared to 2♦/2♥ as majors: the bidding is more likely to end after 2♥.

 

My favorite bidding sequence of the convention is 2♥-3♥, which is putting a lot of pressure on the opponents. What should double mean? Take out with spades? Take out but having spades is not necessary? Just points? I don't know the solution and I'm glad not to face that problem. Yet...

[ennaji]

...and make 3♦ more ♥ oriented (or possibly some ♠ invite with exactly 4♠ looking for the best contract)?

 

I think the goal you are aiming for with this agreement is too small.

 

With a good invitational hand I rather prefer to (slightly) overbid with 2NT and struck gold if partner shows an interesting distribution. Sometimes you can end up in a nice five in a minor or even slam like in my example on the previous page.

[gnasher]

The 3♣ response seems a bit wasted. It's only useful if you're 5-5 in the minors, as with 31(54) you'd probably just pass 3♥ rather than risk a 4-3 fit.

 

Instead, what about

3♣ = invitational with 4+ spades. Then 3♦ = maximum without 4 spades, 3♥ = minimum without 4 spades, 3♠ = minimun with four spades, 4♠ = maximun with four spades.

3♦ = invitational with heart support.

[ennaji]

The 3♣ response seems a bit wasted. It's only useful if you're 5-5 in the minors, as with 31(54) you'd probably just pass 3♥ rather than risk a 4-3 fit.

 

Instead, what about

3♣ = invitational with 4+ spades. Then 3♦ = maximum without 4 spades, 3♥ = minimum withiut 4 spades, 3♠ = minimun with four spades, 4♠ = maximun with four spades.

3♦ = invitational with heart support.

 

Nice thinking, gnasher. How about:

 

2♥-3♣ (inv, 4+ spades)

 

3♦: 3 spades, 4+ diamonds, minimum (NF)

3♥: 3 spades, 4+ clubs, minimum (NF)

3♠: 3 spades, 4+ diamonds, maximum

3NT: 3 spades, 4+ clubs, maximum

4♣ and higher: 4 spades

 

This would give the opportunity to play in 3 diamonds or 3 hearts when there is no spade fit. It also tells something about the shape, which may be interesting if responder is interested in playing a 4-3 fit (which often is the case after 3♣). However, the solution may be too difficult for a problem that is not very frequent.