How Effective Is A Weak Two Diamonds Bid?

[Cyberyeti]

We generated the game swing that sealed the county teams final by opening 2♦ on T8xx, Qx, KQxxx, xx partner had xx, AKJxx, Axxxx, x and because we started 2♦-(X)-3♥(fit) we managed to find 4♥= and ops never found their club fit, at the other table was 5♦-1 after ops bid clubs vigorously after a 1♣ opener (5♣ is -1 if you cash out correctly).

[Jinksy]

We generated the game swing that sealed the county teams final by opening 2♦ on T8xx, Qx, KQxxx, xx partner had xx, AKJxx, Axxxx, x and because we started 2♦-(X)-3♥(fit) we managed to find 4♥= and ops never found their club fit, at the other table was 5♦-1 after ops bid clubs vigorously after a 1♣ opener (5♣ is -1 if you cash out correctly).

 

Third seat opening? Or would you do that in first?

[odisseus5]

I know another use for 2!D - 4441 distribution, relay 2!H asks for singleton

[Cyberyeti]

Third seat opening? Or would you do that in first?

 

First, you really think partner would pass his hand which I gave in the post ?

 

Philosophically we consider that there are 3 people you can screw up in first seat, and we'll take the 2:1 odds, so we preempt aggressively in first seat.

[miamijd]

The weak 2d bid works quite nicely as a preempt, especially when it is RHO that has the strong hand and partner can further the preempt at his turn before RHO gets to bid.

 

For anyone short of world-class status, there is no reason to mess with anything different. Your results won't vary that much.

 

If you really want to try something different just for kicks, then probably the two best treatments are Meckwell and Wilkosz. Wilkosz is 5/5 unspecified (with 2H and 2S as weak 2s). Meckwell is simply the base Multi bid; that is, a weak 2 in hearts or spades (with 2H as 5/5 H and another suit and 2S as 5/5 S and a minor).

[aawk]

Weak openings bids are a great weapon in disturbing opponents bidding.

 

So how more weak bids at 2 level you can make the better it is.

 

For example :

 

2♣ = being game forcing or weak with 6 card ♦ (or weak with 5-4 in majors instead of a 6 card ♦)

 

2♦ = being a strong nt pattern or weak with 6 card major (could also include semi game forcing with a 6+ card major)

 

2♥/♠ = weak 5 card major and a 4+ card minor

[Zelandakh]

If you really want to try something different just for kicks, then probably the two best treatments are Meckwell and Wilkosz.

You do not consider Mini-Multi + Muiderberg to be worth consideration for pairs looking at alternatives?!

[IGoHomeNow]

I believe there are good reasons to play Flannery. These may not balance the downside of losing a weak 2D, but the reasons remain valid either way.

 

1. Playing 2/1 and holding 45 shape in the majors is awkward unless the hand has reversing values. Flannery avoids all the rebid issues after !NT and even 2C or 2D bids. Now the 2S bid is a reverse and there is no doubt. Furthermore, when you have 4513, 5431 or 5422, the rebid over 1NT forcing is a disaster. 2H is probably best except maybe with 5413. But that is a big problem because the 2H bid really needs to promise 6 cards if partner has any hope to evaluate his invitational hands.

 

2. With Flannery, it is possible to play 1S response as guarantees 5+ Once again, this makes things a lot easier when it comes to evaluation of hands.

 

3. Flannery also comes with a decent set of tools for exploration of slams and even making wise decisions about game.

 

4. Competing with a Flannery opener is on the awkward side. Penalty doubles are pretty easy to find if your decision to compete is wrong because opener's hand is so clearly defined. After all, you most likely will be deciding which minor to play in at the 3 level in an auction where fit is totally unknown.

 

5. Against weak players or unfamiliar partnerships, simply knowing what the defensive calls mean is not clear. This can lead to a total train-wreck by your opponents.

[miamijd]

You do not consider Mini-Multi + Muiderberg to be worth consideration for pairs looking at alternatives?!

 

Mini Multi wastes too many bids showing more or less the same hand. If you want to play 2D as a weak two in a major, better to use Meckwell's treatment.

 

Muiderberg is a treatment for the 2H and 2S bids when you use Multi or Meckwell. It's very similar to Meckwell's treatment; the only difference is that 2H shows H and a minor rather than H and another suit. Not a big difference.

 

Cheers,

mike

[miamijd]

I believe there are good reasons to play Flannery. These may not balance the downside of losing a weak 2D, but the reasons remain valid either way.

 

1. Playing 2/1 and holding 45 shape in the majors is awkward unless the hand has reversing values. Flannery avoids all the rebid issues after !NT and even 2C or 2D bids. Now the 2S bid is a reverse and there is no doubt. Furthermore, when you have 4513, 5431 or 5422, the rebid over 1NT forcing is a disaster. 2H is probably best except maybe with 5413. But that is a big problem because the 2H bid really needs to promise 6 cards if partner has any hope to evaluate his invitational hands.

 

2. With Flannery, it is possible to play 1S response as guarantees 5+ Once again, this makes things a lot easier when it comes to evaluation of hands.

 

3. Flannery also comes with a decent set of tools for exploration of slams and even making wise decisions about game.

 

4. Competing with a Flannery opener is on the awkward side. Penalty doubles are pretty easy to find if your decision to compete is wrong because opener's hand is so clearly defined. After all, you most likely will be deciding which minor to play in at the 3 level in an auction where fit is totally unknown.

 

5. Against weak players or unfamiliar partnerships, simply knowing what the defensive calls mean is not clear. This can lead to a total train-wreck by your opponents.

 

 

There is a reason that hardly any world-class pair plays Flannery, and very few expert players use it. You give up more than you get.

 

What do you get? The ability to show 45 hands with 11-14 HCP more easily. It's not that big a benefit. First off, those hands don't come up that often. Second, when they do, you generally are OK opening 1H. If the opponents compete, partner has a negative double available. If partner bids 1NT, he doesn't have 4S, anyway. If partner bids 2 of a minor, you have a game force and can find your spade fit later.

 

The only real benefit comes when you are specifically 4522 and have to bid a two-card club suit after 1NT forcing. Big whoop. Flannery is a solution for a problem that really isn't all that bad.

 

Yes, low-level players may have difficulty bidding after an opposing 2D Flannery opening, but for more experienced players, it is probably easier competing vs Flannery that vs a standard 1H bid, because you know precisely what that player has.

 

What do you give up?

1. The weak 2D bid (or Meckwell or Wilkosz or whatever you like)

2. If the opponents buy the hand, they will be able to play it more or less double-dummy (you have just told them your shape and HCP count)

3. If the 2D opener becomes dummy (which does happen sometimes after asking bids), the opponents will be able to defend pretty much double-dummy

 

That's way too much for the marginal benefit.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[johnu]

There is a reason that hardly any world-class pair plays Flannery, and very few expert players use it. You give up more than you get.

 

Levin-Weinstein play Flannery and they are one of the very best pairs in the world. There was a list of other world class pairs that played Flannery someplace, but I don't remember where. Certainly a minority choice, but everybody makes their own valuations on what is important and people make their own choices.

[m1cha]

I know another use for 2!D - 4441 distribution, relay 2!H asks for singleton

How strong is that supposed to be? If it's weak (can have less than 10 HCP), it's a brown sticker convention and cannot be played universally unless you restrict it such that the singleton may not be one particular suit, say, not spades or not diamonds. If it's strong, where's the profit?

Why not play 2♥ and 2♠ as "pass or correct" (opener will correct if partner hit the singleton)? You may play 2NT to ask for the singleton and respond in the suit above the singleton.

 

 

[Vampyr]

Weak openings bids are a great weapon in disturbing opponents bidding.

 

So how more weak bids at 2 level you can make the better it is.

 

For example :

 

2♣ = being game forcing or weak with 6 card ♦ (or weak with 5-4 in majors instead of a 6 card ♦)

 

2♦ = being a strong nt pattern or weak with 6 card major (could also include semi game forcing with a 6+ card major)

 

2♥/♠ = weak 5 card major and a 4+ card minor

 

 

These bids are fun but the downside is that partner cannot continue the preempt. I think that this is a big disadvantage.

 

I agree with those who say that Flannery is a solution looking for a problem.

[Vampyr]

How strong is that supposed to be? If it's weak (can have less than 10 HCP), it's a brown sticker convention and cannot be played universally unless you restrict it such that the singleton may not be one particular suit, say, not spades or not diamonds. If it's strong, where's the profit?

Why not play 2♥ and 2♠ as "pass or correct" (opener will correct if partner hit the singleton)? You may play 2NT to ask for the singleton and respond in the suit above the singleton.

 

I thought that the standard method was to bid the suit below the singleton (well that is what I played 25 years ago anyway) and to be fair, the range is usually Mini Roman, 11-15. If playing it stronger you may as well put in into your Multi.

[Phil]

A few things here.

 

1. Flannery works great. Steve and Bobby play it, so does Hamman and Bramley, and Rosenberg / Willenken played it when they were a partnership. There are also countless other 2nd tier partnerships that employ it as well.

 

2. I've been playing Fantunes 2 bids for the last year and I have found I do not miss weak 2 bids at all. Except for a weak 2S call, none of the bids seem to use up any space and the opponents seem to have room to maneuver. 20 years ago, people were more cautious entering the bidding, but now the same hands will overcall over a 2 bid than an opening one bid.

 

3. But to a newer player, weak twos are fine and and using a 2d opening is perfectly OK. However, because they aren't really that preemptive, a lot of good pairs play them slightly stronger; say 8-11, which aids in constructive bidding and doubling the opponents when its right.

[Zelandakh]

Mini Multi wastes too many bids showing more or less the same hand. If you want to play 2D as a weak two in a major, better to use Meckwell's treatment.

 

Muiderberg is a treatment for the 2H and 2S bids when you use Multi or Meckwell. It's very similar to Meckwell's treatment; the only difference is that 2H shows H and a minor rather than H and another suit. Not a big difference.

Mini Multi usually refers to using a 2♦ opening to show a weak 2 in a major without any strong hands being included. You appear to be using the term for something more specific so perhaps you could start by describing what you mean here.

 

Muiderberg allows for a 4 card minor on the side and is not restricted to 5-5 shape, which was what you gave previously - that is a major difference. The 5-4 version of your recommendation is generally, in the UK at least, referred to as Woo Twos.

 

 

I thought that the standard method was to bid the suit below the singleton (well that is what I played 25 years ago anyway) and to be fair, the range is usually Mini Roman, 11-15. If playing it stronger you may as well put in into your Multi.

This is also what I would expect, with 3♠ showing a minimum with short clubs and 3NT short clubs and a maximum. It is reasonable to play one-over responses when using a relay for runouts rather than good hands but doing so in combination with 3M pass/correct makes little sense. The third build that one occasionally sees is Opener rebidding the short suit itself; the expectation in this case is that Responder will then set the suit, returning to natural bidding, rather than continuing within a relay structure.

[Vampyr]

Muiderberg allows for a 4 card minor on the side and is not restricted to 5-5 shape, which was what you gave previously - that is a major difference. The 5-4 version of your recommendation is generally, in the UK at least, referred to as Woo Twos.

 

No disrespect meant to Al, who is still a fine player and is very nice, but the term usually used is Lucas.

 

This is also what I would expect, with 3♠ showing a minimum with short clubs and 3NT short clubs and a maximum. It is reasonable to play one-over responses when using a relay for runouts rather than good hands but doing so in combination with 3M pass/correct makes little sense. The third build that one occasionally sees is Opener rebidding the short suit itself; the expectation in this case is that Responder will then set the suit, returning to natural bidding, rather than continuing within a relay structure.

 

if 3M is pass/correct, would 2M be to play even opposite the singleton? I prefer 2M pass/correct. However I haven't played or encountered this method in ages, so I don't remember how easy it was to manage to play in the singleton suit.

[Zelandakh]

No disrespect meant to Al, who is still a fine player and is very nice, but the term usually used is Lucas.

Sorry, you are right. i got these mixed up, Woo is the other name for Muiderberg and Lucas is the freer version including side majors.

 

 

if 3M is pass/correct, would 2M be to play even opposite the singleton? I prefer 2M pass/correct. However I haven't played or encountered this method in ages, so I don't remember how easy it was to manage to play in the singleton suit.

Another mistake from me but this time a typo. The 3M should be 2M and refers to the last line of m1cha's comment.

[Jinksy]

First, you really think partner would pass his hand which I gave in the post ?

 

Mm, good point.

 

Philosophically we consider that there are 3 people you can screw up in first seat, and we'll take the 2:1 odds, so we preempt aggressively in first seat.

 

I tend to agree, but I have a faint memory of a similar hand (IIRC a 5422 with a Q in one of the doubletons) getting scorned as a potential first seat weak 2 a couple of years ago.

 

We've been trying a style where we're very vul-sensitive in first, so vul we'd have a six card suit and something vaguely resembling the values for a classical weak 2. Favourable at IMPs we bid hyperaggressively (we might open 3D on this hand!), though at MPs we reign it in slightly. What are your paremeters?

[m1cha]

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.

In my country Benji is part of the official system, it's what is taught to all the beginners. But it seems they all leave it sooner or later. A little while ago an expert (sorry, I forgot who) stated in the national bridge magazine that he hasn't seen Benji on any CC in the premier league. So meanwhile whe have an official alternative which is Multi, with the 2♥ and 2♠ openers as two-suiters. This certainly has its value but what I don't like about Multi is that it is hardly ever possible to preempt fast.

 

My own preference is 2♦ as a 5-card weak two in spades. No matter the remaining distribution (well, rather not 5107 or 5620, I guess).

The advantages:

- It's 3 times as frequent as a weak two.

- It's precise, partner will know what to do.

- It's the boss suit.

- Excellent chances of playing 2♥ or 2♠ if you want to run.

- Excellent preemptive value if partner has support. (Imagine 2♦ (X) 4♠ ...?)

The down side:

- If you play a modern-style weak two with 2♠ as either 5- or 6-card length, then you don't need this of course.

 

This is how we continue:

- 2♥: pass or correct, opener should bid 2♠ with less than 3 cards in ♥.

- 2♠: to play (usually at least 2 cards in ♠).

- 2NT: FG usually without a ♠ fit, asking opener so show a 4-card suit (♥ preference).

- 3♦: at least invitational with a ♠ fit.

Most other bids are "to play".

 

I have also played 2♦ as both majors (4-4 or longer) in weak-two-strength with one partner for a few years. It is also more than twice as frequent as a weak two and also has good immediate preemptive value (you bid diamonds to show hearts and spades, so what remains for the opponents?). It includes the important suits, you have good chances of running into a good fit suit on the 2 level or finding your best fit for a full game. The down side is that it lacks some precision for preempting; or if you want to stay on the 2 level and responder has 3-3 in the majors you end up in the wrong contract occasionally. This can be prevented of course by requiring that spades may never be longer than hearts or vice versa.

 

For a while I experimented with 2♦ as exactly 4 cards in ♠ and any 5-card side suit, also in weak-two-strength. It's also a frequent bid and it's playable but it didn't convince me. You play a good contract in spades when responder has 4+ cards, you play a side suit when responder has 2- cards. But 1/3 of the time responder has exactly 3 cards in spades and you play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit only to find out later that you had better played in a different suit. These failures are not frequent, sure, but occasionally it spoils the fun. So we gave this one up. Perhaps better try 4 cards in spades and 3 - 4 cards in hearts if you want a challenge.

[nullve]

For a while I experimented with 2♦ as exactly 4 cards in ♠ and any 5-card side suit, also in weak-two-strength.

This is almost what I (or, rather, nullve-nullve) play, although in 1st seat NV,

 

2♦ = < Rule of 19, either a) 4S4C(41)* b) 4S5+O, but not 4405 c) 5+S6+H, H always longer / "GF, 5+ S, unBAL"

2♥ = < Rule of 19, either d) 4H4D(41)* e) 4H5+O, but not 4450 f) 5+S5+H, H never longer .

 

** The (4441) hands are included so that Pass can promise 2+ cards in each suit, but constructive bidding becomes even harder (but not impossible) as a result.

 

Notice that these two openings together almost completely solve the "Ekren problem" when Responder has < INV with either 22 or 33 in the majors, because the bidding will either go

 

2♦-2♥*

P**,

 

* P/C

** 5+ H or 4S4H4+D

 

or

 

2♥-2♠*

P**.

 

* P/C

**5+ S or 4S4H4+C

 

It's also a frequent bid

My 2♦ opening in 1st seat NV has a frequency of up to 1 in 22 hands, but I like Pass to be an option with 4S5m22.

 

it's playable but it didn't convince me. You play a good contract in spades when responder has 4+ cards, you play a side suit when responder has 2- cards. But 1/3 of the time responder has exactly 3 cards in spades and you play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit only to find out later that you had better played in a different suit. These failures are not frequent, sure, but occasionally it spoils the fun. So we gave this one up.

I'm sure you don't mean to say that

 

* 1/3 of the time [(responder has exactly 3 cards in spades) AND (you play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit only to find out later that you had better played in a different suit)],

 

because when you end up in 2♠ on a 4-3 fit, which usually happens after

 

2♦-2♠

P,

 

when Responder couldn't safely respond 2♥ (P/C) with 3S1-H (or 3S2-H, if you allow 2♦ on 4S4H), or after

 

2♦-2♥

2♠-P,

 

when Responder couldn't safely rebid 3♣ (P/C) with 3S2-m, there will seldom be 2+ more tricks in 3m than in 2♠, so 2♠ will tend to score equally well.

[Cyberyeti]

We've been trying a style where we're very vul-sensitive in first, so vul we'd have a six card suit and something vaguely resembling the values for a classical weak 2. Favourable at IMPs we bid hyperaggressively (we might open 3D on this hand!), though at MPs we reign it in slightly. What are your paremeters?

 

You don't want to know :)

 

Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx has been known to be opened 2♠ for example. This was the first one we picked up after agreeing to play this style, and indeed generated a 4 figure number, LHO overcalled 3♦ and partner with his 2N opener with ♦AQ108 knew what to do with that.

[ggwhiz]

You don't want to know :)

 

Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx has been known to be opened 2♠ for example.

 

I played with a wannabe Marty Bergen type once and made him promise to have a 6 card suit in 2nd chair. 2nd chair only.

 

A few hands in he opened 2♥ in 2nd, p - p - dbl float. They drew trumps in 5 rounds, knocked out our side Ace and ran that suit when they got in with the last trump.

 

Me: You PROMISED to have a 6 bagger in 2nd seat!

 

Him: (hurt look) I DID! clubs :)

[MrAce]

I played with a wannabe Marty Bergen type once and made him promise to have a 6 card suit in 2nd chair. 2nd chair only.

 

A few hands in he opened 2♥ in 2nd, p - p - dbl float. They drew trumps in 5 rounds, knocked out our side Ace and ran that suit when they got in with the last trump.

 

Me: You PROMISED to have a 6 bagger in 2nd seat!

 

Him: (hurt look) I DID! clubs :)

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

[m1cha]

This is certainly an interesting approach. Looks complicated though. Sorry, I didn't understand several things.

 

This is almost what I (or, rather, nullve-nullve) play, although in 1st seat NV,

 

2♦ = < Rule of 19, either a) 4S4C(41)* b) 4S5+O, but not 4405 c) 5+S6+H, H always longer / "GF, 5+ S, unBAL"

2♥ = < Rule of 19, either d) 4H4D(41)* e) 4H5+O, but not 4450 f) 5+S5+H, H never longer .

 

** The (4441) hands are included so that Pass can promise 2+ cards in each suit, but constructive bidding becomes even harder (but not impossible) as a result.

 

Notice that these two openings together almost completely solve the "Ekren problem" when Responder has < INV with either 22 or 33 in the majors, because the bidding will either go

 

2♦-2♥*

P**,

 

* P/C

** 5+ H or 4S4H4+D

 

or

 

2♥-2♠*

P**.

 

* P/C

**5+ S or 4S4H4+C

 

1) Line 2: What is "GF, 5+ S, unBAL"? is it another option for the 2♦ opener? I'm asking because it contradicts the "< Rule of 19" condition.

 

2) Line 4: A Pass after which sequence and 2+ cards in which hand?

 

3) Line 5 "22" and line 9 "4S4H4+D": Does that mean you might play 2♥ in a 4-2 fit?

 

I'm sure you don't mean to say that

 

* 1/3 of the time [(responder has exactly 3 cards in spades) AND (you play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit only to find out later that you had better played in a different suit)],

Correct. :)

I meant

[1/3 of the time (responder has exactly 3 cards in spades) AND (you play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit)]

and then if

responder is too short in diamonds to pass 2♦ and if

opener does not have 5-card ♥ and if

responder is too unbalanced in the minors to ask for openers 5-card minor and if

responder is too weak for a game force and if

the opponents don't interfere and if

2♠ is down while 3m makes,

(which is a lot of ifs)

then you may regret the 2♦ opening. This suggests a hand like 3-4-1-5 with a 5-5 fit in ♣ which is sufficiently rare as to be negligible mathematically but maybe not psychologically if you have another 2♦ opener without this shortcoming, if you know what I mean. :)

 

 

when Responder couldn't safely rebid 3♣ (P/C) with 3S2-m, there will seldom be 2+ more tricks in 3m than in 2♠, so 2♠ will tend to score equally well.

Correct analysis. But if responder is short in one minor (and too short in hearts to force that suit), he's usually long in the other minor, and there is a - dunno - perhaps 1/4 or 1/5 chance of a really good fit.

 

EDIT: But what is worse: If opponents decide to play in 3♣ or 4♥ and you have a good defense in ♦, you may not realize it either.