[Zelandakh]

miamijd, on 2017-April-25, 12:35, said:

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.

Vampyr, on 2017-April-25, 20:45, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2017-April-26, 03:22, said:

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.

Quote

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]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-26, 04:58, said:

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.

Vampyr, on 2017-April-26, 04:58, said:

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]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-24, 14:45, said:

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

Mm, good point.

Quote

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]

FelicityR, on 2017-April-23, 13:16, said:

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]

m1cha, on 2017-April-26, 19:10, said:

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

m1cha, on 2017-April-26, 19:10, said:

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.

m1cha, on 2017-April-26, 19:10, said:

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]

Jinksy, on 2017-April-26, 15:54, said:

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]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-27, 08:56, said:

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]

ggwhiz, on 2017-April-27, 10:33, said:

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

[m1cha]

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

nullve, on 2017-April-27, 07:03, said:

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?

nullve, on 2017-April-27, 07:03, said:

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.

nullve, on 2017-April-27, 07:03, said:

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.

[nullve]

m1cha, on 2017-April-27, 11:43, said:

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?

1) Yes, another option I show with 2N+ over 2♦-2♥/♠.
2) It's the Pass opening in 1st seat NV. (Mentioned in post #3 )
3) Yes. But unlike when responding to Ekren's 2♦, Responder will never choose the wrong major with 2S2H opposite 5M4OM.

[Jinksy]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-27, 08:56, said:

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.

So you play straight penalty doubles after these openings? We've been dithering about whether to play pens or takeout, since opener will often have a 4-card side suit.

[Vampyr]

Jinksy, on 2017-April-28, 03:04, said:

So you play straight penalty doubles after these openings? We've been dithering about whether to play pens or takeout, since opener will often have a 4-card side suit.

Really? In a natural weak two?

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-28, 07:40, said:

Really? In a natural weak two?

Clearly opposite a normal tightly defined weak 2, X is pens, but as your weak 2s get shorter and more wide ranging, there becomes more of a case for a ToX, we do however play straight penalties.

[Jinksy]

There's a great anecdote in Alan Mould's book on preempts where third in (and I assume favourable), Brian Senior opens 2♦ on xxxx xxx Jxx xxx.

After the hand in response to Mould's quizzical look, he explains that 'I wanted to show where my values were'. Mould remarks that the plural was rather generous.

[JLilly]

Quote

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

To compare using a bid to express A versus using it to express B, you need to look at the very least at the set of hands suitable for A OR for B, because using a bid as A rather than as B has an opportunity cost in the gains you forgo by not using the bid as B. So we also have to ask, how does playing weak 2♦ fare when it's *not* employed, and some other use for 2♦ is? My understanding is that experienced players agree that the standard weak 2♦ hand is considerably more frequent than a Flannery hand, but on any given board, the swing from a Flannery hand using Flannery is greater than that from a weak 2♦ hand using weak 2♦.

And that's not to mention negative inference: using 2♦ as Flannery gives partner (and opps) information about your 1♥ openers even if a Flannery hand never comes up; similiarly using it as a standard weak 2 gives partner and opps information about your 1♦ and 3♦ openers.

And even if everyone agreed on the relevant set of hands to run the numbers on, there's also what kind of environment you're playing in -- how likely opps are to deal well with your bid, how likely they are to not open when you're in second seat (if you have a weak 2♦ hand and not a Flannery hand, that's ~5 more HCP that opps could have and a swing in their suit holdings in favor of the majors), etc.

(This isn't meant to be an argument in support of one or another use of 2♦ -- I'm too new to the game to have much worth saying there -- just wanted to make a comment on the use of statistics and inference from observations.)

[Winstonm]

FelicityR, on 2017-April-23, 13:16, said:

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.

Coming to this thread late but a couple of comments may be of use to you. While it is true that 2D does not stop many overcalls, think what it does take away - communication space. When the opps have to start their conversation at 2h/2s or 3c, we have removed their ability to reverse, jump shift, jump rebid, splinter, forcing NTs, etc. Basically, we put them back into the stone age of bidding and guessing how much each other holds. This is a positive accomplishment.

[mikl_plkcc]

I have got some good results opening a hand with traditional 2♦, where it would be passed if 2♦ is conventional because it is not long enough to open 3♦. Note that I stick to the traditional weak 2 at the 1st or 2nd seat, including shape and honour requirements, therefore the partner can treat it as a picture bid.