[mich-b]

An approach that has been gaining popularity in Europe recently is playing 2♦ as Multi for a "bad" weak 2 in a major (typically 4-8 hcp) , and 2M as a "good" weak 2 (typically 9-12 or similar). This allows you to open more aggressively, without partner being tempted to invite with moderate hands. Also , it removes some of the weaker hands from the 1M-rebid 2M sequences , which improves your precision on sequences like 1M-1NT-2M.

[mike777]

fwiw I just dont see partner bidding more over weak two as such a big issue as you "multi" players think.....

You really make this out to be a big deal

[MickyB]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-30, 00:38, said:

A Lucas 2 bid is a weak opening with 5+ in major, 4+ in other, and is one way you can expand your opening repertoire if playing a Multi. Anyway I have investigated -- I hadn't realised that a Mexican 2♦ was a Benji-type opening; I had thought that it was used just for good balanced hands, which was why I thought that weak 2's could easily be incorporated into it.

I've seen "Mexican 2D" used to refer to both a NF bid showing a balanced hand, usually 18-19, and a forcing bid showing one of a number of strong hands, but the former is definitely the more common usage. Including weak twos in the 2D opening would leave you much worse placed on the balanced hands, both in contested and uncontested auctions.

I like playing 2D as a "bad weak two" in either major and 2M as a "good weak two". The requirements vary by conditions - 1st NV, this means 2D shows 2-7 points and a 5+card suit, while 2M shows 8-11 and a six-card suit. Vulnerable, 2M should be more like 9-12 or 10-13. This allows you to preempt frequently and means auctions like 1S:1N, 2S show some extras.

2D showing 18-19 balanced is good in a natural system with a 15-17 1NT opening. Now you don't have to worry about showing this handtype in competition, so if opener acts again he has an unbalanced hand. Also, 1m:1M, 2NT is free to show something else, e.g. 6m3M decent hand.

Weak two diamonds is fine too. I really don't like 2D weak with both majors [2H is better for this as it gives oppo fewer options] and I don't think the benefits of Flannery are as great as the alternatives.

[gnasher]

From a destructive point of view, I like 2♦ as 4-4 in diamonds and a major. That comes up twice as often as Ekrens, and stands to gain more often, because the opponents are more likely to have game on. If they do end up in game, it also gives less away - sometimes it's not clear which major we have.

Compared with Wilcosz, it's more frequent, but also more dangerous. In one way it's easier to defend, because the opponents have a 3♦ cue-bid; in another it's harder, because even after overcalling one major they may still have a fit in the other.

Better still would be 4-4 in a major and a minor, but I haven't worked out a sensible responding scheme.


For constructive pruposes, I like 18-19 or 18-20 balanced, because it makes competitive sequences that start with a one-bid easier, and frees up 1m-1x;2NT to show other good hands. I don't think you should put this hand-type into a Multi, because that effectively means that you're opening 2NT. The extra two bids make a lot of difference to constructive sequences.

[Free]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-August-30, 04:33, said:

What do you do with say a 2434 14 count ? Double and have partner bid spades ? If you double 2M, the focus is really on the other major, with 2♦, there are 2 other majors, so what do you do with one but not the other ?

What do you do with say a 2344 14 count after a 2♥ opening? I admit that this problem is twice as frequent after a 2♦ opening, but it's not like it's a huge problem imo. It just happens from time to time, that's all. In many cases you can just pass and let partner bid his suit or Dbl which will get you to a decent spot.

[mgoetze]

whereagles, on 2011-August-30, 04:04, said:

If you think a "lowly" 2D is easy to defend,

I don't think a weak 2 in diamonds is easy to defend against, just that it is quite a bit easier than Wilkosz. If you have such a great Wilkosz defense I'd love for you to share it with us.

[Free]

mike777, on 2011-August-30, 02:41, said:

I bet 100,000 to 200,000 out of a million bridge players cannot define wilkoz in detail


I bet top 500 could

in usa I bet less than 5000 playercould define in detail...maybe 1000 or less without computer
-------


if 100 on bbo forums do without computer help right now I will be shocked

Please go to Poland and ask what Wilkosz is, you'll have to try hard to find someone who doesn't know what it is. Wilkosz is part of WJ2000, people all over the world have played Polish Club some time in their lives. The USA is not the center of the world, nor is it a representative population for the entire bridge world...

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2011-August-30, 02:41, said:

if 100 on bbo forums do without computer help right now I will be shocked

FWIW, I can...

[olegru]

Wilkosz is very easy to define and explain:
Distribution 5+5+ with at least 1 major and less than opening hand.
Great convention.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2011-August-29, 22:05, said:

Much depends on what your system requires and 2♦ frequently plugs a gap...
Mini or other varieties of Roman suck.

Interesting paradox of statements, without knowing or caring what gaps a variety of Roman might fill and what negative inferences are gained in other auctions, for those who choose it.

We choose a form of mini we developed, but acknowledge that it would not be as useful for others as it is for us; especially for those who bring an "it sucks" approach to begin with.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-30, 08:08, said:

Interesting paradox of statements, without knowing or caring what gaps a variety of Roman might fill and what negative inferences are gained in other auctions, for those who choose it.

We choose a form of mini we developed, but acknowledge that it would not be as useful for others as it is for us; especially for those who bring an "it sucks" approach to begin with.

Well if your system requires you to open 2♦ with a 4441 17+ let's just say your system sucks too! Mini fills the gap of many strong club systems but I doubt many of it's users think,'what a great use for 2♦ we have and I hope it comes up today'.

[aguahombre]

17+ is not mini.

Edit: and, no; what I hope comes up today is that when we have a 4-4-4-1 in the 11-14 range others will have more trouble handling it.

Also, I hope that when we have an auction and don't have that hand partner gains from the knowledge that I don't.

We have found that to be the case more frequently than the times we regret not having our second choice (the weak two in diamonds), and haven't had difficulties with strengths and patterns shown by other uses of 2D.

That does not mean we believe anyone else's choice sucks.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-August-30, 09:56

[mike777]

Free, on 2011-August-30, 05:37, said:

Please go to Poland and ask what Wilkosz is, you'll have to try hard to find someone who doesn't know what it is. Wilkosz is part of WJ2000, people all over the world have played Polish Club some time in their lives. The USA is not the center of the world, nor is it a representative population for the entire bridge world...

As far as the OP I do think how you use your 2d bid really depends on the rest of your style.

-----


Of course I never said people in Poland or who play polish club dont know. Please see what I did say.

I said 100k -200K or more could not define it properly around the world without computer help. I am sure there are thousands in poland who may be able to.

I bet many if not most mexican players could not describe Mexican 2d properly.

I note even in this thread there is usage of Mexican 2d that is not even listed in the Encylopedia and I have never heard of.

Of course sayc is popular in the usa but I bet most of america could not describe SAYC properly without a computer or booklet in front of them. i DO WONDER how many polish may not play wj2000 properly without a booklet.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on what "Mexican" means. To me, "Mexican" is a 2♦ opening showing either a balanced 21-22 or an unbalanced game force with primary diamonds. It is not intended to limit one bids, but to provide more ways of showing strong balanced hands and to take some of the pressure off the 2♣ opening by removing from that bid GF hands with diamonds as the main suit. This allows 2♣-2♦-3♣ to show clubs and a second suit, and 2♣-2♦-3♦ to show a single suiter. Similarly, 2♦-2♥-3♣ shows diamonds and a second suit, and 2♦-2♥-3♦ shows a single suiter.

In Romex, the bid which limits one level suit openings is 1NT, which is either balanced 19-20 or unbalanced 4 or 5 losers (basically, a hand which would reverse or make a strong jump shift in standard or 2/1).

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-30, 09:52, said:

I suppose it depends on what "Mexican" means. To me, "Mexican" is a 2♦ opening showing either a balanced 21-22 or an unbalanced game force with primary diamonds. It is not intended to limit one bids, but to provide more ways of showing strong balanced hands and to take some of the pressure off the 2♣ opening by removing from that bid GF hands with diamonds as the main suit. This allows 2♣-2♦-3♣ to show clubs and a second suit, and 2♣-2♦-3♦ to show a single suiter. Similarly, 2♦-2♥-3♣ shows diamonds and a second suit, and 2♦-2♥-3♦ shows a single suiter.

In Romex, the bid which limits one level suit openings is 1NT, which is either balanced 19-20 or unbalanced 4 or 5 losers (basically, a hand which would reverse or make a strong jump shift in standard or 2/1).

I note I dont use this definition and it is not in the bridge encyclopedia. I note the Romex definition of b al 18-19 only seems to be the common usage.

If nothing else blackshoe post show that words have meanings but we just dont know most of them.

--


As a sidenote this morning I am learning the difference between sewage drainage and storm drainage. Until now I always thought of them as the same but my city does not.

[Free]

mike777, on 2011-August-30, 09:45, said:

I bet many if not most mexican players could not describe Mexican 2d properly.

As far as I know Mexican 2♦ has nothing to do with Mexico, anyone care to confirm this?

[hrothgar]

Free, on 2011-August-30, 11:05, said:

As far as I know Mexican 2♦ has nothing to do with Mexico, anyone care to confirm this?

I think that the Mexican 2D is an evolutionary offshoot of some ROMEX treatments which have a lot to do with one, specific, Mexican...

[glen]

Free, on 2011-August-30, 11:05, said:

As far as I know Mexican 2♦ has nothing to do with Mexico, anyone care to confirm this?

I can confirm it has something to do with Mexico

http://www.acbl.org/...raphy.php?id=60

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-30, 00:05, said:

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that if you are going to open Mexican 2♦, then you might as well play Multi, in order to free up 2♥/2♠ for Lucas Twos, sound weak 2s, or similar.

Well that would put you in the same position as if you had opened 2NT (unless responder has long diamonds and can pass 2♦). You don't want to open 2NT with 18 points.

Playing Mexican, you can sign off in 2♠ or 3♣.

Anyway, if you play 2♦ as an almost-mandatory response to 2♣ then you might as well lump the weak two in diamonds into 2♣ and play 2♦ as wilxosz or flannery or mexican.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on 2011-August-30, 09:56, said:

I note I dont use this definition and it is not in the bridge encyclopedia. I note the Romex definition of b al 18-19 only seems to be the common usage.

If nothing else blackshoe post show that words have meanings but we just dont know most of them.

--


As a sidenote this morning I am learning the difference between sewage drainage and storm drainage. Until now I always thought of them as the same but my city does not.

Well, I got the definition of "Mexican 2♦" from Bid to Win, Play for Pleasure, by George Rosenkrantz, published, iirc, 1990. Far as I know, Rosenkrantz invented the convention, so he ought to know. I should note, though, that the convention has evolved considerably over the years. I believe the 19-21 balanced version dates back to the 1970s version of Romex, if not earlier.