[Gerben42]

Why is Wilkosz getting less popular in Poland? It is no longer in WJ2005 and I also hear from some friends that it was declining even before the publication of WJ2005.

Is this because of
a ) International pressure? (as if non-international players would care about that)
b ) Licencing in Poland? (can they do that to mr. Wilkosz?!)
c ) Someone finding a deadly defence? (if so please let me know what it is )
d ) Just a trend because people want to play Multi instead because it's "modern"? (Very retro)
e ) Something else?

[vang]

i'm not Polish but i guess the answer is "a ) International pressure". it's true that non-international players can ignore that, but consider that international players are the masters and if they play something else, then the people will switch to what masters play.

I was a long time fan of wilkosz convention and i find banning this convention is at least incorrect. WBF should either allow wilkosz or ban multi (and any other convention with no defined suit).

good reference for wilkosz: http://www.cavendish...two/wilkosz.htm

[the hog]

Gerben, at the end of last year I asked the same question of Marek Wojkicki. His comment was that Tutti Frutti is more fun and is harder to play against, (only allowed when Brown Stickers are permitted). As the better players gravitate to this, the lesser players follow.

Its interesting to note that von Arnim-Auken play a version of Tutti Frutti as well.

[Gerben42]

Tutti Frutti (Auken v.Arnim style)
2♦ = Weak two in ♥ or 2-suiter ♠+minor
2♥= Weak two in ♠ or 2-suiter ♥+minor
2♠= 2-suiter majors or minors
2NT = bad preempt in a minor

Is this what they are playing in Poland also?

I also like this variation:
2♦ = Wilkosz
2♥ = Weak two in ♥ or ♠

Then you have all bases covered already

[the hog]

"Is this what they are playing in Poland also?"

Pretty much. Some minor differences from pair to pair, mainly in the responses.

[Gerben42]

I finally got to try Tutti Frutti in a real life tournament (not often BSC are allowed here) and I really liked it.

As an added detail, it came up against Auken - von Arnim and they also had difficulties defending against it

[Free]

what's better?

2♠ both M or poor preempt m
2NT both minors

or

2♠ both M or both m
2NT poor preempt m

[Echognome]

I personally am not a fan of 2NT as a preempt in both minors. You leave both majors wide open for competition and give the opponents two cuebids. At least with bad preempt in a minor, they don't really know what is a cuebid and what is a natural suit. (although they may decide to adopt the same defense)

[MickyB]

Agreed, I prefer 2N as either minor

[Antoine Fourrière]

Another problem is that Wilkosz may not be as effective constructively as the other permutations. For instance, it forces the responder to answer 2♠ with a moderate hand with four spades and two hearts and opener is supposed to pass without extra values.
(With AQxxx Kxxxx x xx opposite KJxx xx Kxxx AQx, it goes 2♦ 2♠, while 2♥ hearts and another or 2♠ Tutti-Frutti would make it easier for responder to relay and to end up into 4♠.)

On the other hand Wilkosz should do better with a maximum six-five, but these are probably too uncommon.


I am also not a fan of 2N as a single hand type. Maybe 2N as either both five-card minors or both five-card majors and a maximum, so that Wilkosz still doesn't deny both majors? Or (if you play WJ) 3♣ as minors and 2N as a club preempt or a very distributional hand with clubs, such as AJ874 __ A KQT9643, which forced Balicki to rebid 5♣ instead of 4♠ in the 1994 final after he had opened a could-be-a-very-strong-hand-with-spades 1♣?