Introducing a new convention: Lee Two Diamonds

[gwnn]

(emphasis mine)

Read this post by mikeh. A natural 2♦ bid has a bigger nuisance value than many are willing to admit. Therefore I don't want to lose it. The overall frequency of occurrence of my 2♦ bid is 3.74%. Of that number, 2.64% is a natural ♦ suit. The other 3 options within my 2♦ bid which are rarer all have proper follow up sequences.

But you do lose it. Your multi 2♦ will be forcing, so it's not a weak 2 in diamonds any more. Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

[32519]

But you do lose it. Your multi 2♦ will be forcing, so it's not a weak 2 in diamonds any more. Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

No I don't. 74.2% of the times opened, my 2♦ bid will be a natural 2♦ bid. But you are correct in saying that it is forcing for 1 round. When it is a ♦ suit, the auction is forced to 3♦. When I opened with a 7-card suit, that is where I want to be anyway. That still leaves another 25.8% of times when I have one of the strong/semi-strong options.

[gwnn]

Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

 

The nuisance value will largely vanish when you make your "75% weak 2" forcing. Mikeh was talking about a weak 2 in diamonds, not opening a weak 2 in diamonds with a forcing 2♦.

 

Maybe bold face will help?

[32519]

Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

 

The nuisance value will largely vanish when you make your "75% weak 2" forcing. Mikeh was talking about a weak 2 in diamonds, not opening a weak 2 in diamonds with a forcing 2♦.

 

Maybe bold face will help?

50% of the time this can work to the advantage of your side, the other 50% to the advantage of our side.

 

If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout, my partner is under no obligation to bid. However if you choose to pass first to find out something about partners hand, and which hand pattern opener is actually holding (74.2% a natural ♦ suit), the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a full level of bidding space, a very rare and priceless commodity.

 

I’m perfectly happy with that sort of bidding.

[gwnn]

In that case I suggest you switch to a slightly different system: open 3NT on every hand with 13+ hcp, pass on every other hand. Reasoning: 50% of the time it will work, 50% of the time it will not.

[hrothgar]

In that case I suggest you switch to a slightly different system: open 3NT on every hand with 13+ hcp, pass on every other hand. Reasoning: 50% of the time it will work, 50% of the time it will not.

 

The sad thing is that this this might be an improvement over his existing methods...

[32519]

50% of the time this can work to the advantage of your side, the other 50% to the advantage of our side.

 

If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout, my partner is under no obligation to bid. However if you choose to pass first to find out something about partners hand, and which hand pattern opener is actually holding (74.2% a natural ♦ suit), the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a full level of bidding space, a very rare and priceless commodity.

 

I’m perfectly happy with that sort of bidding.

In that case I suggest you switch to a slightly different system: open 3NT on every hand with 13+ hcp, pass on every other hand. Reasoning: 50% of the time it will work, 50% of the time it will not.

I have changed my mind on the 50% you gain, 50% I gain. I have changed it to 100% I gain and 0% you gain.

 

If your side doubles the 2♦ bid for takeout and my partner chooses to pass, the pressure switches onto your side. I have retained the natural nuisance value of a 2♦ opening bid. If you choose to pass first, the bidding comes back to you in 3♦. You have lost a whole level of bidding space.

 

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

[gwnn]

Ow :( OK... :mellow:

[hrothgar]

Here is another hand from a club game incorporating my version of the Multi. The final contract was all over the place -

When N/S declared:

2/18 in 2NT

2/18 in 3♦

4/18 in 3NT

1/18 in 4NT

1/18 in 5♦

2/18 in 5♦X

1/18 in 6♦

When E/W declared:

2/18 in 3♠X

3/18 in 4♠X

All E/W made 9 tricks. According to the hand records, E/W can make 8 tricks in ♠, N/S can make 11 tricks in ♦.

[hv=pc=n&s=sh93djt76543cq943&w=sqt9643hkqj6dcat6&n=sak85ha542daqckj7&e=sj72ht87dk982c852&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p2d(%5Bsee%20note%201%5D)2n3d(%5Bsee%20note%202%5D)p3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

Notes on the bidding:

1. West's 2♦ was Multi, but promising one of the following hand patterns -

(a) 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP

(b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP

© Big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP

(d) Big 2-suiter in the minors, 14+ HCP

2. When North overcalled 2NT, East figured that West either held a) a natural ♦ suit, or b) 6-4 in the majors. 3♦ was pre-emptive for 3 suits knowing of a) a 10-card fit in ♦, or b) a 9-card fit in either ♥ or ♠.

 

This says an awful lot about the standard of play in Bumple***** SA

 

In any normal field, I'd expect that the auction would proceed

 

1♠ - X - P - 2♦

2♠ - 2N - P - 3♦

 

or some such. No idea where most of these scores are coming.

Then again, this is a field where folks overcall 2NT on a balanced 21 count, so lord knows what to expect.

[johnu]

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

 

I am stunned that 100% of bridge players do not play this. I guess that [100% - y%] (where y is the percentage of players who do play this) of the players do not know how to bid.

[Zelandakh]

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

This is where I find myself wondering once again whether I should really take part in your system discussions. There are very few conventions out there that have no downside whatsoever and it gives the impression that you not only have no idea but that you do not want to improve your bridge level when you come out with lines like this.

 

Just to take a trivial argument for this case, if you open 2♦ with a 3♦ opening then your are obviously worse off if they overcall 2M before you can get your 3♦ rebid in. Similarly, if you have a 2♦ opening and partner has a complete misfit, you are clearly going to be worse off in 3♦X than 2♦X. This is without getting into scenarios where you lose a 4-4 major fit opposite the 6-4 hand or are forced to guess at the 4 or 5 level with one of the intermediate strength hands. And also not even mentioning fundamental issues with any multi 2♦ opening, even a mini-multi, of not being able to preempt as quickly as after a weak 2M opening.

 

In truth, I do not know many people who think that their multi 2♦ openings are even a winner, let alone a 100% win. Most pairs are using a multi either to plug a system hole or to gain additional preemptive options. The pluses nearly always come from somewhere else rather than the 2♦ opening itself. So I invite you to spend a moment's thought to re-evaluate. Come back to us if/when you can see why this is not a 100% gain.

[32519]

I am stunned that 100% of bridge players do not play this. I guess that [100% - y%] (where y is the percentage of players who do play this) of the players do not know how to bid.

This is where I find myself wondering once again whether I should really take part in your system discussions. There are very few conventions out there that have no downside whatsoever and it gives the impression that you not only have no idea but that you do not want to improve your bridge level when you come out with lines like this.

 

Just to take a trivial argument for this case, if you open 2♦ with a 3♦ opening then your are obviously worse off if they overcall 2M before you can get your 3♦ rebid in. Similarly, if you have a 2♦ opening and partner has a complete misfit, you are clearly going to be worse off in 3♦X than 2♦X. This is without getting into scenarios where you lose a 4-4 major fit opposite the 6-4 hand or are forced to guess at the 4 or 5 level with one of the intermediate strength hands. And also not even mentioning fundamental issues with any multi 2♦ opening, even a mini-multi, of not being able to preempt as quickly as after a weak 2M opening.

 

In truth, I do not know many people who think that their multi 2♦ openings are even a winner, let alone a 100% win. Most pairs are using a multi either to plug a system hole or to gain additional preemptive options. The pluses nearly always come from somewhere else rather than the 2♦ opening itself.

 

So I invite you to spend a moment's thought to re-evaluate. Come back to us if/when you can see why this is not a 100% gain.

Both of you are reading my 100% gain out of context. I was replying to this post of gwnn.

 

Opps will be able to bid much more accurately if you give them 1 or 2 more occasions to interfere.

 

The nuisance value will largely vanish when you make your "75% weak 2" forcing.

 

Mikeh was talking about a weak 2 in diamonds, not opening a weak 2 in diamonds with a forcing 2♦.

 

Maybe bold face will help?

His argument was that the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ bid will largely vanish when it is forcing for 1 round. My counter argument was that –

1. If the opponents double for takeout (or make an overcall), my partner is under no obligation to bid. Under that scenario I am under exactly the same footing as anyone else who opens a natural 2♦. But now the pressure is transferred to the partner of the doubler to enter the bidding on potential crap not knowing what my partner is holding. Additionally my partner is sitting behind the doubler which is going to prove problematic for his side when my partner has real values. I have retained the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ bid in my version of the Multi, a 100% gain over everyone else who plays some or other version of Multi which does not include the possibility of a natural 2♦ bid. The other versions don’t have the nuisance value.

2. If he chooses to pass the first time round to find out, a) something about partners hand, and b) which hand pattern I am actually holding, then the bidding gets back to him in 3♦ 74.2% of the times. He has lost a whole level of bidding space for his side which may prove crucial in his side reaching the optimal spot. I rate that as a gain for my side and a loss for his side.

3. Something else that neither of you are taking into consideration is the fact that you don’t know what the continuation structure looks like when partner has values. Your side not entering the auction the first time round allows my partner to show those values (in whatever combination they are held). You are allowing my side to bid in an uncontested auction. I rate that as a gain for my side and a loss for his side.

 

The loss of a natural 3♦ pre-empt is something I have already conceded higher up in this thread. But that wasn’t part of the argument with gwnn. The argument with him was about losing the nuisance value of a natural 2♦ pre-empt.

 

For your benefit I will make this concession as well – when opener has a really weak 2♦ opening bid, knowing that the auction is possibly going to go to 3♦, the system notes say that these sorts of hands should rather be passed. So your side won’t be extracting any penalty double from those types of hands. Is that a gain or a loss? I will let you decide for yourself.

[Cthulhu D]

Isn't there a loss as you cannot freely advance diamonds as well? This significantly reduces the nuisance value of the bid. I think you'd be better off putting the weak 2 diamonds hand in 2C. Then you could change the weak option in 2D to something else.

[Vampyr]

Perhaps N-S forgot to agree some defence when E-W pre-alerted them and North then got confused.

 

I missed this; I wasn't aware that there had been a pre-alert. But I don't know if this matters much. N-S are not strong players, and were probably not capable of devising a defense to a bid with with so many options within the time constraints involved in starting a round in a pair game.

 

Or maybe they decided to treat it as weak with diamonds (and probably had not ever agreed what a NT overcall of a preempt looked like.)

[32519]

Isn't there a loss as you cannot freely advance diamonds as well? This significantly reduces the nuisance value of the bid.

An immediate raise to 3♦ promises 10-13 HCP and guarantees support for the 6-card major (whenever opener opened with the 6-4 hand pattern in the majors. The bid is game invitational. After this whenever opener has opened one of the other three hand patterns, then –

1. With a natural ♦ suit, opener will pass. The combined HCP strengths of the two hands will hopefully see the contract home.

2. With the big 4-4-4-1 16+ HCP hand, the minimum combined HCP strengths of the two hands is 26. The continuation bidding allows you to find the best spot.

3. With the big 5-5 14+ HCP hand in the minors, the minimum combined HCP strengths of the two hands is 24. The final contract now depends on the degree of fit between the two hands, more often than not either –

a. A minor suit partial

b. 4NT to play

c. Game in a minor

4. An immediate raise to 4♦ or 5♦ is pre-emptive and showing a single suiter in ♦, a hand completely useless outside of a ♦ contract. Obviously now opener has not opened with a natural weak 2 in ♦. Whether or not opener bids game over 4♦ will depend on the actual hand pattern held. With 6-4 in the majors, a pass is more likely. With a big 4-4-4-1 hand pattern, game will most likely be bid.

 

So to answer your question, an immediate raise of the ♦ suit is not lost. Also it puts more pressure onto the opponents to enter the bidding once partner has shown some values.

[the hog]

Here is another hand from a club game incorporating my version of the Multi. The final contract was all over the place -

When N/S declared:

2/18 in 2NT

2/18 in 3♦

4/18 in 3NT

1/18 in 4NT

1/18 in 5♦

2/18 in 5♦X

1/18 in 6♦

When E/W declared:

2/18 in 3♠X

3/18 in 4♠X

All E/W made 9 tricks. According to the hand records, E/W can make 8 tricks in ♠, N/S can make 11 tricks in ♦.

[hv=pc=n&s=sh93djt76543cq943&w=sqt9643hkqj6dcat6&n=sak85ha542daqckj7&e=sj72ht87dk982c852&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p2d(%5Bsee%20note%201%5D)2n3d(%5Bsee%20note%202%5D)p3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

Notes on the bidding:

1. West's 2♦ was Multi, but promising one of the following hand patterns -

(a) 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP

(b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP

© Big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP

(d) Big 2-suiter in the minors, 14+ HCP

2. When North overcalled 2NT, East figured that West either held a) a natural ♦ suit, or b) 6-4 in the majors. 3♦ was pre-emptive for 3 suits knowing of a) a 10-card fit in ♦, or b) a 9-card fit in either ♥ or ♠.

 

Was south asleep during the auction or was he called away to the phone and the wine waiter passed throughout?

By the way, the first slam is awful! A D to lose and then you need to pick up both Majors.

[manudude03]

What the last few posters have been saying is that defending against a weak 2 in diamonds can be potentially awkward (what do you do with 4225 hands and the like), but having the opening as forcing gives the defense a lot more options. There are other rather large flaws in your opening (without even 1 guaranteed suit* with your good hands, constructive bidding is difficult to say the least).

 

* I'm just after looking up the definition of brown sticker conventions and your opening may well be one, since your weak options are diamonds and both majors which doesn't seem to be allowed. You can't pass off the both majors option as a strong option since it doesn't promise a king about an average hand. The exception for multi is the second one below:

 

ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a

known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four

card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average

strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at

least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings

show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is

not a Brown Sticker Convention.)

EXCEPTION: a two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak

two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong

hand types containing 16 high card points or more, or with

equivalent values. Defensive measures are permitted for

opponents as in 6 below.

emphasis mine.

[32519]

This hand comes from a club game last night. How do you plan to cope with this bidding sequence?

[hv=pc=n&n=skqh5dk98532ca972&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(%5BSee%20note%201%5D)p2h(My%20longest%20major)]133|200[/hv]

The 2♦ bid promises one of the following hand patterns -

1. 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP

2. 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP

3. A big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP

4. A big 5-5 hand in the minors, 14+ HCP

[manudude03]

I make sure to agree with all my partners to assume that they've hit whatever option they are bidding, so I double here, won't work well if partner is 4333, but even then, there's a decent chance of getting rescued by the opps.

[Fluffy]

This is where I find myself wondering once again whether I should really take part in your system discussions.

Hehe, I made the right decision long ago, you gotta have a lot of spare time :). Did I mention I have a webpage where you can play?

[gwnn]

For the benefit of 32519, I looked it up (http://www.sabf.co.za/laws/sabfcc2013a.pdf):

OPENING suit bids at the 2 level or higher may indicate ONE of the following:

a) a weak single-suited hand with a minimum of 5 cards in the suit, the minimum point

count and range must be specified;

b) A two-suiter where at least one of the suits is designated, the minimum point count

and range must be specified;

c) a three-suited hand where at least one of the suits is designated;

d) a hand containing at least 16HCP;

e) a hand that guarantees 8 playing tricks, if played in that suit.

 

2D: ARTIFICIAL opening bid indication ONE OR MORE of the following:

a) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, forcing for at

least one round. Suit need not be specified;

b) 16 or more HCP or 8 or more playing tricks, balanced or unbalanced, game-force.

Suit need not be specified;

c) A three-suiter, minimum point count and range to be specified;

d) Both majors, minimum point count and range to be specified;

e) A 5-card major, the minimum point count and range must be specified;

f) As in a) above, but with Diamonds as the suit denomination.

g) Multi showing a weak opening in a major, combined or not with strong

hands. Point count and ranges must be specified.

So you can play it EITHER as a natural preempt, OR artificial but you can't play it as both. So it looks like your side will gain 100% of the time out of the 0 boards that you are allowed to play it legally :(

[32519]

I make sure to agree with all my partners to assume that they've hit whatever option they are bidding, so I double here, won't work well if partner is 4333, but even then, there's a decent chance of getting rescued by the opps.

I have given this reply of yours the thumbs up. If you only had 2-minutes to agree on a defence beforehand, this is good.

After your double this is how the bidding continued –

[hv=pc=n&n=skqh5dk98532ca972&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2d(Multi)p2h(My%20longest%20major)d(T/o%20for%20the%20minors)2s(6%20spades%2C%204%20hearts)]133|200[/hv]

Because of the vulnerability, I do not know how aggressive your side is. Will South bid or not over 2♠? You have a known 4-4 fit in ♣ after the t/o double.

[Wackojack]

:huh: Where do you play bridge? Since when is a slam bid and made, disgusting? Slams bid and made on distributional fits low in HCP are all part of the game. B-)

 

I confess that I voted to finesse. I now realise the error of my ways. :( The OP is playing against beginners and they have been taught (possibly by the OP himself in his inimitable way) that they MUST cover an honour with an honour despite of course that this can never gain when declarer is known to have a 6 card suit. Now we can see that the play of the ace to drop the king increases the odds to about 65%. Moreover it is now a certainty that I can play the spades without losing a trick. I just play the Jack from hand and if not covered I finesse on the way back. So it is a good slam. The chances of making are about 65%.

[gwnn]

edited out, sorry.

[RunemPard]

I don't even use a weak 2 in diamonds...I just open 3 in a minor if it feels worth the risk...quite effective actually.