[NickRW]

Adriaantje, on Jun 6 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

With my normal partner i play both multi and the weak twos, so you can see a difference between a good weak two bid and a bad weak two bid.
A bad weak two bid (usually 3-6 HCP) such as:

---

is in our system opened with 2♠
A good weak two bid (usually 7-10 HCP) such as:

---

Is opened with a Multi 2♦. What do you think of this?

Well, to my mind, the main strength of the multi is that you give up 2♦, but gain 2 other bids (2♥ and 2♠) for other uses. Your scheme is one that has merit. Personally I prefer Polish 2s - but I guess it is mainly personal choice.

Nick

[Cascade]

Adriaantje, on Jun 7 2009, 04:27 AM, said:

With my normal partner i play both multi and the weak twos, so you can see a difference between a good weak two bid and a bad weak two bid.
A bad weak two bid (usually 3-6 HCP) such as:

---

is in our system opened with 2♠
A good weak two bid (usually 7-10 HCP) such as:

---

Is opened with a Multi 2♦. What do you think of this?

I would prefer the constructive weak twos with 2♥/♠ and the multi to hide the bad weak twos.

There are ambiguities that will cause problems for your side by having a multi. Since we are more likely to have a game or a slam after a good weak two then I would rather the ambiguity is resolved immediately in those cases than when I have a bad weak two.

I played this sort of method for some years and liked it. There are a few other pairs playing similar methods around here now.

If you wish to be even more aggressive you can add some five-card suits into your bad weak twos.

[jdonn]

I personally do not like playing multi at all. I played it in one partnership for about three years. The reasons I didn't like it were,
- You can find out much less information about the weak two bids themselves with your 2NT ask.
- Responder can guess wrong which major opener holds in competition. While there are two opponents who can guess wrong and one partner, I think it's much more damanging for partner to guess wrong since opponents can land on their feet anyway if they belong in a minor or 3NT.
- I like the weak 2♦ opening, I rarely hear criticism from people who have actually played it a lot, it's usually by people who have rarely or never played it.
- I really do not miss having weak 2-suited openings. I think they are more unsafe and more infrequent than I want to bother with.

My results with it simply weren't good, so I gave it up.

Practically speaking it's also annoying to play it in the ACBL, you often can't play it and you need the written defenses and lots of time is wasted, etc. I wouldn't want to play it anyway, but that is certainly some added annoyance. I certainly don't mind playing against it, since in my mind it's a negative for the side playing it and even simple or inferior defenses (ACBL database) get you by on most hands.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Jun 6 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

- I like the weak 2♦ opening, I rarely hear criticism from people who have actually played it a lot, it's usually by people who have rarely or never played it.

Yeah - there is something to that. Some people go, "oh, who wants to play a weak 2 in diamonds, it isn't very preemptive at all". But it is arguably, in some ways, a more slippery customer to deal with than a weak 2 in hearts. Over the weak 2 in hearts opps will be thinking, "we want to be in spades - er - we don't have spades - oh well - at least we know where we stand". Over 2 diamonds opps go "er - we want to be in a major - but which one - ooh - there isn't a lot of room to sort it out".

That kinda overstates the case for the the weak 2 in diamonds - but it is definitley more effective than some people give it credit.

Nick

[ovncylmz]

2C: any weak in D/H/S, 2D: majors, 2H-2S: long minor, 4M is good?

[the hog]

"I really do not miss having weak 2-suited openings. I think they are more unsafe and more infrequent than I want to bother with."

In an rgb discussion on the Wilkosz 2D opening, it was estimated that this gained 2.47 Imps every tme it was used in a particular world champs. Whether this was due to laziness in preparation by the opponents or due to Wilkosz handling problem hands better, I can't say.

[jdonn]

estimated?

Anyway, aside from the assuredly small sample size, that could even be true and wouldn't be evidence against two suited openings being unsafe or infrequent.

[the hog]

Ok. Calculated.

"Anyway, aside from the assuredly small sample size, that could even be true and wouldn't be evidence against two suited openings being unsafe or infrequent. "

Granted. Anecdotally, I have rarely had a bad result opening a 2 suited opening.

[awm]

My observation has been that two-suited openings which guarantee five-five are a big winner when they come up, but are pretty infrequent. On the other hand, two-suited openings which guarantee only five-four are very frequent but the results are quite mixed and may not be expectation positive.

Another point is that I've noticed bids which show "one of several possible two-suiters" (like Wilkosz) typically work a lot better than bids which show "one of several possible one-suiters" (like Multi). This has to do with the increased likelihood of a fit, the ability to possibly play in the suit opened with a fit there, and the ability to guess at least one of partner's suits based on the opposition bidding.

[the hog]

Agree Adam. I have always thought of Muiderberg in bridge terms as akin to Crippleware in computer terms.

[helene_t]

I thought of a non-BSC modification of Wilcosz (also allowed at EBU level 4):

2♦=spades and another
2NT=hearts and a minor

Is that a good idea?

[the hog]

helene_t, on Jun 25 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

I thought of a non-BSC modification of Wilcosz (also allowed at EBU level 4):

2♦=spades and another
2NT=hearts and a minor

Is that a good idea?

No it is a terrible idea. You are trying t turn a destructive tool into a constructive one. The rationale behind Wilkosz is that you dont know what the suits are, except for the fact they are not both minors.

[MickyB]

helene_t, on Jun 25 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

I thought of a non-BSC modification of Wilcosz (also allowed at EBU level 4):

2♦=spades and another
2NT=hearts and a minor

Is that a good idea?

You've probably seen me post in the past about 2NT as 5H5m, I am pretty keen on it. I've no data to compare it with 2♥ showing the same handtype, but certainly if you want to keep 2♥ as weak (or Ekren, or three-suiter short in D) it is a good use of the 2NT bid.

So what about the 2♦ bid?

One problem is responder holding a moderate 2425 or similar. Most likely, pard has S+D and you want to be in 2♠; but a reasonable proportion of the time, pard will have either H or C and you'll belong in game. There's no way to cater to both. Of course, the same is true of any two-suited bid that may or may not include the other major.

Also, it isn't actually legal at EBU level 4 - it can't show either "diamonds" or "not diamonds" - so 2♦ as spades and a round suit would be legal, but 2♦ as spades and another is not.

It's certainly not a bad idea. IMO the only question that really needs answering is, "is this 2♦ bid more effective than a weak 2 in diamonds?"

[the hog]

"You've probably seen me post in the past about 2NT as 5H5m, I am pretty keen on it."

These are the reasons why technically this bid is very poor:
1) You can't play 2H
2) The bid is presumably forcing, so opps can wait and pick you off after you bid.
3) Follow ups - presumably 3C = P/C, 3D = P/C, so how do you invite in H? 3H? Surely this would be better as a further pre empt.

Not having a go at you Micky, but is seems to me the people who propose stuff like this have not thought it through properly, and certainly haven't played it.

I have strongly come to the coclusion that these 2 suited bids should be nf to put more pressure on the opps. That is why I strongly dislike a strong option in the multi.

Fwiw, in an ideal world the following is what I played in events in Australia.

2D Wilkosz
2H NV weak 2 in H or in S. Vul - Weak 2
2S NV weak pre empt in an undisclosed minor. Vul - Weak 2
2NT 5/5/+ minors, about 6-10

Before you ask, no we NEVER, that's right, not one time! had a memory problem with vul/nv

Had I had the guts, I would have played the nv version right through, regardless of vulnerability.

[Codo]

Hi Ron,

I agree with your idea, that preempts should be Nonforcing as often as possible to give the opponents one shoot less.

But sometimes this is an impossible goal.

So the 2 NT bid for Hearts and a minor is not the best use to show hearts and a minor. But maybe this is still the best use of this bid.

In Germanys highest league some pairs play the following stuff since years:

2 Diamond: w2 in a major
2 HEart: Both majors
2 Spade Spade and a minor
2 NT Heart and a minor.

And it works. The idea of course is, that quite often when you have hearts, they have spades, so you won't buy it for 2 HEart anyway. And you are now able to show all one suiters and all two suiters with a major.

Of course, when you like destructive methods, Willkosz is even better, But as you are not allow to play this stuff in most tournements, this is not even part any more of WJ2005. We may hate this development, but it is reality.

So:
1. You cannot play 2 HEart so often anyway, they often compete to 2 Spade. But surely there are hands, where this approach costs.
2. Yes opps have more then one chance. Same is true for any 2 NT bid to show a two suiter.
3. You can invite with 3 Diamond. 3 Club is paco, 3 Heart to play. Or you can play without any invitation at all. Both is possible.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Jun 25 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

No it is a terrible idea. You are trying t turn a destructive tool into a constructive one. The rationale behind Wilkosz is that you dont know what the suits are, except for the fact they are not both minors.

Strongly disagree. One purpose of weak two openings is to allow me to enter the auction before opps make it unsafe (or before partner makes an undisciplined 3♣ opening in 3rd seat opposite my club shortness). And to describe a good hand with few HCPs.

Another purpose is to allow partner to bid game quickly, whether it's meant as a barrage or to make. He can do that more frequently the more specific my preempt is - of course the more specific my preempt is the less I can use it in the first place, so there is a trade-off.

A third purpose is the destructive effect of the opening itself, but that is more effective the more often partner can pass it and the more often I have the suit that I open. This is why I don't like multi with Polish twos. The ineffective preempt (multi) is more frequent than the effective preempts (polish twos). Yes I know you consider multi to be an effective preempt but everyone else thinks that natural weak twos are much more effective so you are probably wrong.

Multi+Muiderberg has the right balance between the frequencies of the two-openings. But if one insists on two-suiters being 5+5, Wilcosz has a better balance. So I like Wilcosz (I am sure it is better than my suggestion), but unfortunately you can't play it in most countries.

[MickyB]

Quote

So the 2 NT bid for Hearts and a minor is not the best use to show hearts and a minor. But maybe this is still the best use of this bid.

This.

The situation is that we have a 2NT opening free to use as a preempt. What should it be used to show? I much prefer H+m to both minors.

Quote

Follow ups - presumably 3C = P/C, 3D = P/C, so how do you invite in H? 3H? Surely this would be better as a further pre empt.

Nah, 3♦ is an enquiry.

Quote

Not having a go at you Micky, but is seems to me the people who propose stuff like this have not thought it through properly, and certainly haven't played it.

Of course I've played it! Small sample size, but so far the results have been split about 50/50 between "good" and "neutral".

[the hog]

"Nah, 3♦ is an enquiry."

That is not good! 3D should be pass or a further pre empt in C, similar to 2D Multi - 2S

As I stated, I wasn't having a go at you at all.
Anyway you should play what makes you comfortable.

[the hog]

"Strongly disagree. One purpose of weak two openings is to allow me to enter the auction before opps make it unsafe (or before partner makes an undisciplined 3♣ opening in 3rd seat opposite my club shortness). And to describe a good hand with few HCPs."

As stated, you are trying to turn a destructive eapon into a constructive one. Poor philosophy

"Another purpose is to allow partner to bid game quickly, whether it's meant as a barrage or to make. He can do that more frequently the more specific my preempt is - of course the more specific my preempt is the less I can use it in the first place, so there is a trade-off."

Yep, and he doesn't know your monor, so you have a crippled bid.! Muiderberg is a poor bid as 5-4 shapes are nowhere near as powerful as 5-5s, so lumping the lot together cripples your destructive bidding.

"that is more effective the more often partner can pass it and the more often I have the suit that I open. "

Yep and he can't do this with the 2NT bid you propose, can he?

"I know you consider multi to be an effective preempt"

Yep, as do many players, Poles, Italians etc etc. Yanks don't, but then they aren't used to it. Its especially effective if you can pass 2D. 2H multi is even better - see Mikeh's comments.

"So I like Wilcosz (I am sure it is better than my suggestion), but unfortunately you can't play it in most countries."

Sigh................................


Roland:
"Hi Ron,

I agree with your idea, that preempts should be Nonforcing as often as possible to give the opponents one shoot less.

But sometimes this is an impossible goal."

Why? At least try to maximise the destructive nature of your system as much as possible. Look at an Ekrens 2D opening for example. Nf, but both Ms. Hard to defend against.

[NickRW]

MickyB, on Jun 25 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Also, it isn't actually legal at EBU level 4 - it can't show either "diamonds" or "not diamonds" - so 2♦ as spades and a round suit would be legal, but 2♦ as spades and another is not.

Think you need to check your Orange book, section 11G10 - looks legal to me as the spec isn't about diamonds at all - it is about spades.

Nick