The Ultimate 2d Discussion

[Caitlynne]

This is an invalid question. It always depends on system and the partnership's principal strategic objectives for the auction.

 

Many openings - particularly the openings of 2C and 2D - are designed specifically to provide coverage for a set of problem or "gap" hands for the system.

 

My answer would be quite different playing SAYC than playing Precision, for example. In SAYC, Flannery would be quite useful but it is less useful when playing 2/1 or Precision, especially if you play the Kaplan 1S/1NT Inversion or some device like Gazzilli.

 

Likewise, if my partnership prefers a strategy of creating action and confusion, I might want to play Multicolored 2D and Muiderberg-like 2H and 2S bids regardless of system.

 

So your question is insufficiently limited to really have a valid or definitive answer.

[nekthen]

I like multi 2♦ 3 way weak major or strong minor or balanced. it leaves room for 2♥ and 2♠ to be other weak hands. I use them both for Muideberg a 5 card major plus a 4/5 card minor weak.

I am ok passing a weak hand with both majors because most of the time I get to bid later.

from a memory / consistency pov it fits with Multi landy which I also use

[nullve]

In SAYC, Flannery would be quite useful but it is less useful when playing 2/1 or Precision

It's the other way around, isn't it? I mean, if

 

1♥-1N = 6-10 hcp, 3-S2-H,

 

then Opener can just pass with 11-15 hcp and either 4522 or 45(31).

[lorserker]

usually when i talk about system, i am happy if we can quickly agree that 2SHD are weak, so we can move on and talk about some other parts of the system.

 

maybe playing 2D as stronger than 2C is also good, but then there is a lot to talk about responses, so i usually don't suggest this. is this strong 2d still used by many people?

 

in natural, i think weak both majors is nice.

 

in precision, a loose three-suiter which can contain 5431 and is short in diamonds is nice.

[Zelandakh]

maybe playing 2D as stronger than 2C is also good, but then there is a lot to talk about responses, so i usually don't suggest this. is this strong 2d still used by many people?

It is very common at club level in France, Germany and parts of the UK - less common in most other places.

[gwnn]

Ken Rexford proposed 2♣=strong, 0-3 spades. 2♦=strong, 4+ spades. I don't know exactly how it makes sense but as far as I remember, it makes everything quite elegant in your structures.

[PrecisionL]

Playing Precision: 2♦ = 10-14 hcp and 5+ ♦ without a 4-cd major. May have 4♣ also.

 

Playing 2/1: 2♦ = (a) Any 4441 hand with 17+ hcp, or (b) Balanced with 5+♦ & 20-21 hcp, or © 1 or 2 suited with ♦s primary.

Response is always 2

♥

asking:

2

♠

= Any 4441 hand

2NT = 20-21 hcp balanced with 5+

♦

3

♣

= 4+

♣

and 5+

♦

, 1 round force

3

♦

= 6+

♦

, unbalanced

3

♥

= 4

♥

and 5+

♦

3

♠

= 4

♠

and 5+

♦

3NT = 5+

♦

, balanced and 24-25 Hap

[daffydoc]

I use 2D to show the 17-24 4441 - traditionally a very hard hand to bid. One year at the nationals came up 5 times in 10 days, Last year once. Effective tool when it comes up. daffydoc

[Siegmund]

Delighted to come to this thread and see Wilkosz mentioned several times already.

 

I always felt it was easier to defend against than Multi was -- 10 cards in 2 suits is a lot more specific than 6 cards in 1 suit is. Was struck by the irony of Europe being too scared to play a convention the Polish LOLs managed, just like North America is scare to play a convention the English LOLs manage.

 

In particular, Wilkosz+Natural 2H/2S beats the pants off of Multi+Muiderberg style 2Ms.

[msjennifer]

For me playing with a partner playing any standard e.g.Sayc,Acol or std American I play 2D as Flannery.It is no use playing multi against strong opponents as they know how to deal with it. Same for playing it as weak in diamonds.When playing strong club or precision I use it to show sub-one club opener short in diamonds and lacking a five card major.Playing blue club I use 2D as three suited with no five card major and 17 to 23 HCP. it all depends upon who my partner is.

[Vampyr]

It is no use playing multi against strong opponents as they know how to deal with it. Same for playing it as weak in diamonds.

 

Relying on opponents' unfamiliarity with a treatment is not the way most people prefer to play.

[gordontd]

Yeah for sure 2H weak with the majors is better than 2D, but I wouldn't want to have to play multi. Seems like having a bid for the majors is the nuts in general though.

I like the idea of 2D showing diamonds and a major, weak, at least 4-4. I've only had one partner who I played it with though, and the best result we had was when he psyched it against a couple of former world champions on a 3433 hand, which I raised with a 3136.

[nullve]

Relying on opponents' unfamiliarity with a treatment is not the way most people prefer to play.

Unless they play stupid games like chess.

[Vampyr]

Unless they play stupid games like chess.

 

Chess is a very dissimilar game to bridge, but I wouldn't call it stupid. You may not like it, but lots of people find it fascinating.

[aguahombre]

Relying on opponents' unfamiliarity with a treatment is not the way most people prefer to play.

I wonder.

[gwnn]

Chess is a very dissimilar game to bridge, but I wouldn't call it stupid. You may not like it, but lots of people find it fascinating.

He was being facetious.

[mycroft]

I reiterate, Multi is a horrible bid, and clearly -EV. However, it frees up two bids to be something. If you can make those sufficiently +EV, you win.

 

For me, I like 2♦ aggressive (wide-ranging) natural. In the words of Auken and Anderson, "I've tried all the different kinds of toothpaste, and gone back to natural."

 

Have not played Wilkosz, of course (given where I live). I also find it odd (given where I live) that there are treatments for 2M that require Multi to play sanely that are Mid-chart (2), but since Multi is Mid-chart (6)...

[chasetb]

I reiterate, Multi is a horrible bid, and clearly -EV. However, it frees up two bids to be something. If you can make those sufficiently +EV, you win.

 

For me, I like 2♦ aggressive (wide-ranging) natural. In the words of Auken and Anderson, "I've tried all the different kinds of toothpaste, and gone back to natural."

 

Have not played Wilkosz, of course (given where I live). I also find it odd (given where I live) that there are treatments for 2M that require Multi to play sanely that are Mid-chart (2), but since Multi is Mid-chart (6)...

Well, according to this semi-dated article, the weak only multi 2♦ is actually +EV, but when pared with Tartan Twos (if they actually meant Tartan) was -EV. Han made some valid points here, so I think over my 'Spring' Break I will look at the recent BBs and try to decide.

 

For what it's worth, in a standard system I would play Flannery as outlined by Steve here, more than anything because I detest Weak 2♦. Not because I think they are worthless, but because for some reason I NEVER get good results playing it as weak or playing against it as weak.

[Charlie Yu]

Relying on opponents' unfamiliarity with a treatment is not the way most people prefer to play.

Being familiar with the game is part of skill.

 

And Wilkosz isn't even about abusing your unfamiliarity - it is more like fixing a hole in the system, having a catch all bid for hands that you really want to open but otherwise couldn't.

[Vampyr]

He was being facetious.

 

Maybe, maybe not. It was an entirely irrelevant comment, with seemingly no purpose but to take a dig at chess.

 

Being familiar with the game is part of skill.

 

Yes, of course. And if you pick a method that is best, and the opponents are unfamiliar with it, fair enough. Although it is common courtesy to tell the opponents beforehand so they can agree on a defense (if the treatment is very uncommon where you live).

 

But choosing a method that you don't think is best except for the fact that opponents will not know how to defend is IMO sleazy.

[gwnn]

Maybe, maybe not. It was an entirely irrelevant comment, with seemingly no purpose but to take a dig at chess.

Actually it was not a dig at chess at all, but at your point (as in chess there are a lot of players who choose methods/openings only because they are unfamiliar to other players, and chess is clearly not a silly game - so his point is, if a lot of chess players enjoy it, wouldn't it follow that many bridge players also would enjoy it?). I am trying to help you here. nullve likes short and cryptic posts and I managed to decypher this one (I don't really agree with it but that's another story).

[mgoetze]

I am trying to help you here.

But is Vampyr the one who needs the help in this case?

[Charlie Yu]

But choosing a method that you don't think is best except for the fact that opponents will not know how to defend is IMO sleazy.

And they deserve it if they didn't attempt to learn the ways to defend it.

[gwnn]

Ok I see a pattern here, every time I post somewhere it becomes a meta discussion about meta discussions and at some point I will have to face the fact that I have something to do with this effect.

[Zelandakh]

Ok I see a pattern here, every time I post somewhere it becomes a meta discussion about meta discussions and at some point I will have to face the fact that I have something to do with this effect.

It's because you try to be helpful Csaba and through that have gotten into a pattern of feeding trolls. The "utilitarian sacrifice" thread is a great example of that. It is total rubbish, and you know it is total rubbish - the only saving grace is that it is at least self-contained. I am all for trying to pull the small group of "difficult" posters into the community but supporting posts like this one is not the way, especially when it represents part of a thread derail as here.