How Effective Is A Weak Two Diamonds Bid?

[FelicityR]

Whilst playing at home with a few friends this weekend, I have again noticed (in a session of about 30 boards) that the Weak Two in ♦ (6 card suit, about 6-10 points) is not as effective as a weak two in ♥ or ♠.

 

It is something I have thought about previously, as it easier to overcall 2♦ than a weak two in ♥s or ♠s.

 

It is interesting to note that whilst European players I find use the 2♦ bid to cover a multitude of hands, from Acol strong two bids, Benji, Flannery or Multi 2♦, American players playing 2/1 or SAYC tend to keep the 2♦ as weak.

 

Is it such an effective weapon in a bridge player's armoury given its low pre-emptive level? I tried comparing it to a weak NT bid (12-14) which, I feel, has more of a pre-emptive impact than a weak 2♦ even though they are different types of hands.

 

Your comments as always would be appreciated. Thank you.

[1eyedjack]

Just to mention that weak 2 in H and S are not equally pre-emptive as each other either. Just as weak 2 major is more pre-emptive than weak 2D, so a weak 2S is more pre-emptive than a weak 2H.

 

And however short on pre-emption the 2D bid might be, it is still more pre-emptive than passing. As well as having some lead direction benefits. Furthermore, the effective pre-emption may come when responder is able to raise.

 

All that said, with a non-pickup partner I agree that there are better uses to put to 2D (and perhaps 2M). With a pickup, keep it simple.

[nullve]

Is it such an effective weapon in a bridge player's armoury given its low pre-emptive level?

And however short on pre-emption the 2D bid might be, it is still more pre-emptive than passing.

How preemptive a call is also depends on what it enables partner to do. As an extreme example, I play (sadly only 4-handedly so far) a pass opening in 1st seat NV that promises 2+ cards in every suit. Then partner can treat it like a 0-10 NT (or 0NT opening?!?) and go berzerk in 3rd seat.

[gwnn]

One way* of looking at it is that after 2D, opps need to find two different major suit fits, while after 2H/2S they can concentrate on just one. That makes it the hardest to defend against.

 

*-not the only way, but I'll just put this side of the argument here.

[NickRW]

One way* of looking at it is that after 2D, opps need to find two different major suit fits, while after 2H/2S they can concentrate on just one. That makes it the hardest to defend against.

 

Yes, it is said by some that 2D is at least as effective as 2H.

[Vampyr]

I quite like the weak 2♦, and play it with my regular partners. I will agree to Multi or even Benji, if that is what a casual partner wants. Flannery, by the way, is rarely played outside the US.

[ArtK78]

It is my experience that the weak 2♦opening bid is quite effective. Even in top flight competition, opps seem to have trouble dealing with any preemptive action.

[wank]

According to the stats it generates on average over 2 imps per boards or 58% when it's employed.

[FelicityR]

According to the stats it generates on average over 2 imps per boards or 58% when it's employed.

 

That's an interesting statistic. Thank you. So maybe it is more effective than a Multi 2♦ - which personally I find one of the most awkward bids to counter.

[Vampyr]

That's an interesting statistic. Thank you. So maybe it is more effective than a Multi 2♦ - which personally I find one of the most awkward bids to counter.

 

There are several good defenses out there, which will work most of the time. No methods offer a 100% guarantee against preempts.

 

I think, perhaps w*nk has some statistics, that the Multi is a loser when it is actually opened.

[Vampyr]

Please delete dup

[Nabooba]

You need to look at how it fits into your system. There are statistics that show 2D is effective. However if you use 2D as a Multi you can use 2M as something else, for example 5M/5m. The best 2D bid is Wilkosz - look at Chris Ryall's website for statistics and a good debate on Wilkosz. Using this you can retain you 2M as weak 2 bids. Unfortunately Wilkosz is regarded as a Brown Sticker convention.

[msjennifer]

It all depends upon the ability of your opponents to cater for it.I have personally found that the precision 2D openings which guarantees support for all three remaining suits and 11/15 HCP is a little better weapon.When playing SAYC or standard system slowly 2D multi is gaining popularity and some have found that 2D Flannery is also worthwhile consideration.but not at all popular as pointed out by others.Expert opponents have no difficulty in catering to all these varieties of 2D openings.

[myxxin]

i open weak 2 d usually with 3 d

[Cyberyeti]

We find a weak 2♦ the most effective of our bids and open particularly weak and short examples. The problem it causes is that say you're 4234 either too weak for your NT overcall range or without a stop, now what ? (this is basically Gwnn's point)

[sfi]

You need to look at how it fits into your system. There are statistics that show 2D is effective. However if you use 2D as a Multi you can use 2M as something else, for example 5M/5m. The best 2D bid is Wilkosz - look at Chris Ryall's website for statistics and a good debate on Wilkosz. Using this you can retain you 2M as weak 2 bids. Unfortunately Wilkosz is regarded as a Brown Sticker convention.

 

Wilkosz (for those who don't know) swaps the meanings of 2D and 2M in a multi-two. One of the reasons Wilkosz is so much better is that you get to retain weak twos in both majors, which gives the opponents fewer chances to interfere with moderate hands. So they have to commit on a wider range, which helps our sides. It also gives us the chance to compete with all those two-suiters that people playing weak twos have to decide whether or not to pass.

 

The downside is giving up the weak 2, but we simply tend to open those hands 3D.

 

Defending against it isn't all that difficult - in fact we simply suggest to opponents that haven't seen it to use whatever they use against a multi two. This suggestion has flummoxed exactly nobody, from novice players upwards. In fact most people here in Australia don't even care what it actually shows since they see things like this - and much stranger - all the time.

[sfi]

According to the stats it generates on average over 2 imps per boards or 58% when it's employed.

 

That seems like a good use of the bid, but I am curious about putting it in context. Does the data suggest how well these hands would fare if opened 3D instead, thus freeing up the bid for another use? How do other 2D openings fare? Or does the aggregation of the individual data points become too complex to full compare the various options?

 

I remember a study that suggests Wilkosz was about +3 imps/board, but that it was likely exaggerated because people were unfamiliar with it at the time.

[FelicityR]

Once again thank you for all your replies. I admit I haven't heard of the Wilkosz convention. I'm still learning....

[eagles123]

I like playing 2d as weak imo its very underrated

[PhilG007]

4999' post='920678']

Whilst playing at home with a few friends this weekend, I have again noticed (in a session of about 30 boards) that the Weak Two in ♦ (6 card suit, about 6-10 points) is not as effective as a weak two in ♥ or ♠.

 

It is something I have thought about previously, as it easier to overcall 2♦ than a weak two in ♥s or ♠s.

 

It is interesting to note that whilst European players I find use the 2♦ bid to cover a multitude of hands, from Acol strong two bids, Benji, Flannery or Multi 2♦, American players playing 2/1 or SAYC tend to keep the 2♦ as weak.

 

Is it such an effective weapon in a bridge player's armoury given its low pre-emptive level? I tried comparing it to a weak NT bid (12-14) which, I feel, has more of a pre-emptive impact than a weak 2♦ even though they are different types of hands.

 

Your comments as always would be appreciated. Thank you.

Depending on the quality of the diamond suit I would open either 2♦ or 3♦ Holding♦AQxxxxxx I would open 2♦

However with something like ♦KQ10985432 I would be more inclined to open 3♦ The vulnerability would also have

an influence on my decision.

[PhilG007]

4999' post='920678']

Whilst playing at home with a few friends this weekend, I have again noticed (in a session of about 30 boards) that the Weak Two in ♦ (6 card suit, about 6-10 points) is not as effective as a weak two in ♥ or ♠.

 

It is something I have thought about previously, as it easier to overcall 2♦ than a weak two in ♥s or ♠s.

 

It is interesting to note that whilst European players I find use the 2♦ bid to cover a multitude of hands, from Acol strong two bids, Benji, Flannery or Multi 2♦, American players playing 2/1 or SAYC tend to keep the 2♦ as weak.

 

Is it such an effective weapon in a bridge player's armoury given its low pre-emptive level? I tried comparing it to a weak NT bid (12-14) which, I feel, has more of a pre-emptive impact than a weak 2♦ even though they are different types of hands.

 

Your comments as always would be appreciated. Thank you.

Depending on the quality of the diamond suit I would open either 2♦ or 3♦ Holding♦AQxxxxxx I would open 2♦

However with something like ♦KQ10985432 I would be more inclined to open 3♦As always it is the intermediate cards that sway the balance. The vulnerability would also have an influence on my decision.

[ggwhiz]

There is a lot more to the bid than pure pre-emption.

 

Constructive aspects are showing partner a potential source of tricks for 3nt, lead directing and shutting partner up at a safer low level on a misfit.

 

It is still mildly pre-emptive but the main thrust of that comes from a responder who can either raise or jump, especially when their bigger hand is in 4th chair. How about a raise to 3♦ by partner to a 16 count 3-2-2-6 shape?

 

Depending on vul, shape etc. I do look for strategic reasons to open 3♦ instead of 2 as Phil mentions (but not with 8 of them). On occasion my 3♦ openers white vs red are pretty awefull, like a QJT98x with a QJTx on the side that don't fit any of the constructive issues so in general, opening 3♦ (on these or equal colors) is weaker than a 2♦ bid.

[Zelandakh]

Depending on the quality of the diamond suit I would open either 2♦ or 3♦ Holding♦AQxxxxxx I would open 2♦

However with something like ♦KQ10985432 I would be more inclined to open 3♦As always it is the intermediate cards that sway the balance. The vulnerability would also have an influence on my decision.

Your trolling is really reaching the bottom of the barrel here, particularly given that the OP is obviously relatively new to the game and might think you were serious with this.

 

To Felicity, it is widely held that preemptive 2♠ and 2♦ openings are generally more difficult to defend than 2♥ almost irrespective of the meanings assigned to the calls. There are a few exceptions to this but it is not far from the truth for all preemptive methods generally to be found at club level and below. 2♦ as a weak 2 in diamonds is a highly effective call because the possibility of a fit in either major often causes difficulties for the opponents. 2♦ as a Multi is also effective, not so much because of the 2♦ opening itself (it is generally a disadvantage in comparison to a normal weak 2) but because of the addition of 2 further preempts for the 2M openings; you can expect the resulting 2♠ opening to be an effective weapon that a team playing 3 weak 2s will not have available.

 

Finally, I am not so sure that you are right in your classification of 2♦ openings. In my (limited) experience the Flannery 2♦ opening is more popular in North America than anywhere else and there are regulatory reasons for the Multi 2♦ not being taken up very strongly in the ACBL. Probably the next most common meaning for a 2♦ opening after these at a high level is Precision given the regulation restrictions placed on Wilkosz. This is also reasonably popular amongst elite American pairs.

[eagles123]

from my signature - see 2:12

[Left2Right]

Beyond the weak two's preemptive value is its constructive value.

Consider these two hands.

North: ♠ 7 6 ♥ K 5 ♦ K Q 9 6 4 3 ♣ J 10 8

South: ♠ Q J 10 9 ♥ A 9 8 2 ♦ A 5 2 ♣ K 3

 

The point-counting novice sees merely 9 HCP in the North hand and 14 in the South, well short of the "opening hand facing an opening hand" game requirement that Goren wrote about.

 

After North's "weak" 2♦ call, a trick-counting South envisions the possibility of six diamonds, his ace and two more tricks from anywhere else in the hand, depending on whether or not the quality of the weak two is closer to the top of the range.

 

Because of this potential, multiple conventions have been authored over the years to take advantage of the cheaply stolen but constructively bid 3NT game (Feature, Ogust). And this also goes for weak twos in the majors.

 

So despite the relatively poor preemptive value of 2♦, system designers need to consider what all they are giving up before they try for the potential gain to be had by giving the 2♦ opening some other meaning.