[rfedrick]

Please take it as a given that I need to employ 2♥ for something special (opening values, constructive), as a result of a particular choice of system architecture.

I currently play three weak-2's, so this is going to have to change. The two alternatives that I am pondering are
i) 2♦ as a hearts-only multi (plus strong 4441s, rare but useful when it comes up), with 2♠ as a normal weak-2; or
ii) 2♦ as a regular 2-major multi (either just weak options, or maybe including a strong option as well), and then 2♠ as Muiderberg (♠ + m)

[I quite fancy a regular multi with 2♠ = any junk preempt, but it's not legal often enough to make sense].

Anybody have a view? Anybody have experience? I have played a multi relatively rarely and Muiderberg very rarely so don't have much of a results bank to fall back on.

Any other suggestions welcome of course.

[kenrexford]

Two possibilities:

Multi, with a special meaning for 2♠, whatever that is, makes sense.

Or,

Make 2♦ handle whatever 2♥ must mean, and then have 2♥ and 2♠ old fashioned weak twos.

The latter may well be GC compliant, perhaps, but it at least reduces the paperwork.

Making 2♦ the weak two in hearts (or multi with hearts only) and 2♥ whetever it means seems weird.

[dake50]

Try 2S, 2H as solid 6+suits with side void. (Namyats with voids; now all Aces work after Namyats 4C,4D)

[Phil]

Lots of choices. You could try a 2♦ multi for either and a 2♠ opening as a 'bad' 3 of a minor opening (3m becomes constructive with a good suit).

I don't like the idea of a 2♦ opening showing 'just hearts'. Transfer preempts are too easy to defend against.

Ken's suggestion of 2♦ showing your good heart hand makes a lot of sense and is probably the simplest solution.

[rfedrick]

Phil, on Apr 21 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of a 2♦ opening showing 'just hearts'. Transfer preempts are too easy to defend against.

It's not 'just hearts', it's 'hearts is the only weak option'. If i'm going to lose some functionality i want my other 2L openings to do some more work to compensate.

The hearts only version would either be {♥ or 17+ 4441} (2♦-2♥-2♠ = 4'441' 17-19 NF, 2♦-2♥-2NT = exactly 1444 17-19 NF, 3L = 4441 types 20+), or {♥ or 20+ 4441 or str bal}.

So i lose a w/2 in ♦ but get some better definition on a rare but awkward strong type. I can live with that.

My issue is living without a natural 2♠ preempt; i hate the idea sufficiently that i've never played a multi except when a partner has specifically wanted to. Does having a 5/4+ Muiderberg 2♠ offer sufficient compensation for losing the w/2?

[gwnn]

We tried 2♠ as 4 spades, 5+ minor, it's a funny opener, it usually got some imps, even if I can't say it never gets in trouble.

[whereagles]

If 2♥ is busy, I'd use

2♣ = multi for the minors.
2♦ = weak, hearts
2♠ = weak, spades

Even better would be to use 2♦ as your constructive heart opener and

2♣ = multi for the minors.
2M = weak, natural

If that multi for the minors is not allowed, I would play 2♣ as multi-landy (diamonds or 54 majors, weak). If multi-landi is not allowed, then 2♣ as majors seems ok.

[paulg]

gwnn, on Apr 21 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

We tried 2♠ as 4 spades, 5+ minor, it's a funny opener, it usually got some imps, even if I can't say it never gets in trouble.

One of our regular forum posters often plays this. It tends to be his best generator of bidding problems, although he only inflicts these on his friends rather than here.

He swears by it. The rest of us swear at it

[Echognome]

All I will say is if you are going to play a multi, then don't have any strong options. It makes it so much less effective.

[Codo]

I prefer to play 2 ♦ as multi and 2 ♠ and 2 NT as two-sutiers.
2 Spades as Spade and a minor, 2 NT as Heart and a minor.
The idea is that when you own the hearts, they will often outbid you with spades, so you can start a level higher, because you won't get it for 2 Heart anyway.

I played 2 Diamond as real multi, mini multi and weak two in hearts. I know there are many different opinions, but I have not found out that one way was better then the other. And besides strong opinions, there are no facts, no sims which can prove that "multi with strong options is less effective, or that "multi with hearts only is so easy too defend".
So I would load as much into the multi as you need and can handle.

[Gerben42]

I agree with Codo.

My choice would be

If 2♣ is strong, be sure to include a W2 in ♦ if allowed
2♦ = Multi (weak in M, strong in m or big NT)
2♥ = Both majors weak (I assume that's what it needed for?)
2♠ = Some 2-suiter with ♠ (choices are Muiderberg, Velociraptor i.e. 4M 5m, or Polish, promising 5 - 5 in ♠ and another)

Velociraptor is probably most agressive and most fun, Polish the most constructive, Muiderbeg "middle of the road".

[rfedrick]

Gerben42, on Apr 22 2009, 02:55 AM, said:

2♥ = Both majors weak (I assume that's what it needed for?)

No, I want to use 2♥ to solve a bunch of 4441 problems.

For example, playing our particular T-walsh variant, a 4414 15-count is impossible to show after 1♣-1♠ since a 1NT rebid would be 11-13 balanced.

And, a 4441 (stiff club) 12-count is awkward if (i) 1♦ is supposed to '5+ cards unbal' and (ii) even if you do open it 1♦ then you need to mangle the 1♦-2♣ structure to cope, and (iii) 1♣ is supposed to be 'clubs or balanced, 2+ cards' so opening it 1♣ is not ideal either.

There are other situations too, all of which i currently solve in various ugly ways but would all be neatly sorted by a 2♥ opener = 44'14' 11-16 (or 44'05' 10-13).

4441 hands are a pain, everyone has to do something to deal with them. This is just my version of the problem.

[gnasher]

If you can find somewhere where they'll let you play it, you could try 2♦ = weak two in a red suit, routinely passed on moderate hands. That's quite hard to defend against, because they have to cater for both length and shortage in either red suit. It only really works non-vulnerable, because of the problem of going lots down undoubled in a non-fit when no one had a game on.

A similar possibility that may work with your system is to play 2♦ as either an opening-strength one-suiter in diamonds, or a weak two in hearts. Responder passes with any hand that isn't interested in game opposite the diamond opener, regardless of vulnerability. If partner turns out to have hearts, the opponents presumably have a game on.

[PrecisionL]

I have tried several variations of an opening 2♦ and like this one best which almost fits your system:

a) Weak 2 in hearts, responder always bids 2♥ 
b) 17+ hcp with any 4441 (or 5-losers), opener rebids 2♠ and responder places the contract, or bids 2NT if interested in game asking for the singleton. (Variations possible)
c) 21-22 (whatever range fits your system) hcp, balanced with 5+ Diamonds, rebid 2NT
d) 20+ hcp (4-losers), unbalanced with one-suiter in diamonds, rebid 3♦
e) 20+ hcp (4-losers), unbalanced two-suited with diamonds and a 4-card suit, rebid 3♣, now 3♦ asks for the suit (3NT = clubs)

It is very difficult to include a weak 2 in spades in this scheme.

I have just started playing this with an A partner after several weeks of research.

Larry

[Gerben42]

Quote

4441 hands are a pain, everyone has to do something to deal with them. This is just my version of the problem.

But starting them on the 2-level is even more of a pain, imho. Anyway...

[kenrexford]

Gerben42, on Apr 23 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

Quote

4441 hands are a pain, everyone has to do something to deal with them. This is just my version of the problem.

But starting them on the 2-level is even more of a pain, imho. Anyway...

Starting 4-4-4-1 hands at 2♦+ is a pain.

Strangely, starting 4-4-4-1 hands at the ever-so-slightly-lesser 2♣ makes it all fall together very well, though.

So, I'd say that you are 80% right.

[hanp]

Easy suggestion:

2D weak with hearts or strong with diamonds.
2C weak with diamonds or strong, but not diamonds.

[rfedrick]

kenrexford, on Apr 23 2009, 08:59 AM, said:

[Strangely, starting 4-4-4-1 hands at the ever-so-slightly-lesser 2♣ makes it all fall together very well, though.

If I was trying to show any medium 4441 (mini-Roman), I would agree.

But I have two anchor suits, the majors. Opening this pattern 2♥ has worked very efficiently for me in the past.

[kenrexford]

rfedrick, on Apr 23 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 23 2009, 08:59 AM, said:

[Strangely, starting 4-4-4-1 hands at the ever-so-slightly-lesser 2♣ makes it all fall together very well, though.

If I was trying to show any medium 4441 (mini-Roman), I would agree.

But I have two anchor suits, the majors. Opening this pattern 2♥ has worked very efficiently for me in the past.

FWIW, 2♣ actually handles just about ANY STRENGTH of 4-4-4-1, ANY STIFF, fairly well. I played this as showing "10-34 HCP" years ago, and it worked.

A teaser:

2♦ asks for strength/shape:

2♥ = minimum with four hearts (3♦ asks for the stiff: 3♥=1444, 3♠=4441, 3N=4414)
2♠ = minimum with short hearts
2NT = maximum (3♣ asks)
3♣ = super-Maximum (3♦ asks)
3♦...3NT = one-under mediums
4♣+ = ridiculous maximums

If Responder bids 2♥ pass-or-correct, for example:
Pass = OK (min or med)
2♠ = wrong (min or med)
2NT = wrong, maximum, no fit
3♣/3♦/3♥(spades) = right, maximum, this stiff
3♠+ = various super-maximums

Similar stuff in competition.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Apr 22 2009, 03:47 AM, said:

If you can find somewhere where they'll let you play it, you could try 2♦ = weak two in a red suit, routinely passed on moderate hands. That's quite hard to defend against, because they have to cater for both length and shortage in either red suit. It only really works non-vulnerable, because of the problem of going lots down undoubled in a non-fit when no one had a game on.

A similar possibility that may work with your system is to play 2♦ as either an opening-strength one-suiter in diamonds, or a weak two in hearts. Responder passes with any hand that isn't interested in game opposite the diamond opener, regardless of vulnerability. If partner turns out to have hearts, the opponents presumably have a game on.

isn't this similar, in intent and effect, to the italian 2♥ showing a weak 2 in an unspecified major? I played it for a couple of years, including the Canadian team trials, and had almost exclusively average to hugely good results... loved it, and felt it was impossible to play against... which difficulty (not my opinion thereof ) led, I gather to it being banned. Oh well.

PS Our best results usually began with 2♥ P P ?