[jmcw]

whereagles, on 2011-August-30, 02:28, said:

Unless you need 2D for something else for systemic reasons, the most annoying use for it is weak 2. Annoying, from the opponent's point of view.

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

In many ways a weak 2♦ is the most awkward of the weak 2s to defend, and IMO should be played in very destructive fashion. Why ?

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 ?

Most pairs at anything below absolute top level have agreements for defending weak 2s that are geared to 2M and don't alter them for a weak 2♦, which I am convinced is not the optimal approach.

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.

Great comments tx.

Forget about what you like and don't like. Does anyone have data that supports one style is "more effective" than another...within a particular system?. I tried to gauge what was working better for me. Not very scientific, just looking at results where the 2♦ was opened or a weak 2♦ was not opened. Over a few years, Roman openings did produce larger swings and seemed to a significant plus for our side. When a weak 2♦ was not opened a slightly below average result has noticed. Depending on P and system I play.

Roman showing 10/12 any shortness
Roman 11/15 any shortness
Roman 11/15 with 4♥ (for precision)
Roman 11/15 with 4♠.

Multi is not an option for me.

[JanM]

I'm interested in the fact that several people commented that they don't like to use 2♦ as a weak hand with both majors because they prefer to use 2♥ for that. The reason I find this interesting (a priori, I would have agreed), is that in the Bermuda Bowl this year, by my first run through the convention cards, which might have missed one or two, there are 7 pairs playing 2♦ as weak with both Majors and only 2 pairs playing 2♥ for this. Stefanov-Aranov, for Bulgaria, actually use both bids - 2♥ in first and second seats, 2♦ in third & fourth.

Any opinions of why the Bermuda Bowl participants seem to disagree that 2♥ is better?

[jdeegan]

Playing pairs games in North America I have tried just about everything legal over the years, and the 6-7 card weak two bid worked out best for me. It comes up fairly often, and it seems to trip up even good opponents more often than you would think. I recommend using it with 4-10 HCP range animal-style when non-vul. My objective is to just get back even with the field when it is our hand but to preempt the opponents when it is their hand.
Non-vul even something like:
A94
75
1098752
96
would be OK with me, esp. in third seat.
I expect partner to raise with three-card support.

[Foxx]

I like 2♦ as Flannery when a 1NT response to 1♥ (or 1♠) is forcing. No more 2♣ rebids with a doubleton!

When the 1NT response isn't forcing, 2♦ as a natural, weak two becomes better.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on 2011-August-30, 15:08, said:

I'm interested in the fact that several people commented that they don't like to use 2♦ as a weak hand with both majors because they prefer to use 2♥ for that. The reason I find this interesting (a priori, I would have agreed), is that in the Bermuda Bowl this year, by my first run through the convention cards, which might have missed one or two, there are 7 pairs playing 2♦ as weak with both Majors and only 2 pairs playing 2♥ for this. Stefanov-Aranov, for Bulgaria, actually use both bids - 2♥ in first and second seats, 2♦ in third & fourth.

Any opinions of why the Bermuda Bowl participants seem to disagree that 2♥ is better?

If there is truly a statistically significant skew between random BBF forums and BB participants, I'd expect that the quality of defensive card play is (probably) the most plausible explanation.

I think that its clear that 2♥ = both majors is much more difficult to defend against than 2♦ = both majors
At the same time, 2♦ = both majors allows you a lot more scrambling options over a penalty oriented double than 2♥ = both majors

The stronger the defensive play of the pairs you compete against, the more important it becomes to have good scrambling methods.

<< Embarrassed that I didn't make the same argument as Free MGoetze, and JLall>>

[MickyB]

Removed - The post I replied to has been edited.

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2011-August-30, 16:59

[MickyB]

Foxx, on 2011-August-30, 16:12, said:

I like 2♦ as Flannery when a 1NT response to 1♥ (or 1♠) is forcing. No more 2♣ rebids with a doubleton!

When the 1NT response isn't forcing, 2♦ as a natural, weak two becomes better.

I assume by "when the 1NT response isn't forcing" you mean that it shows 5-10 or similar. I am used to playing it as semi/non-forcing but upto 11 or 12 so I still have to take another bid on 4522 15-counts, hence my original response. Apologies, it was obvious what you meant.

A counter-argument is - if you are playing Flannery, you bid 1H-P-1NT much more frequently, I believe. This is more attractive if 1NT is non-forcing.

[MrAce]

gorvacofin, on 2011-August-29, 21:33, said:

Assuming you always play 2♥/2♠ as weak twos and 2♣ as a game force, what's the best use for a 2♦ opening and why?

IMO either weak 6 card ♦ or multi with only weak major options with 5 cards. (while 2♥/♠ will show 6 carders)

[the hog]

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

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

-----

snipped

. i DO WONDER how many polish may not play wj2000 properly without a booklet.

Hardly any would need a booklet.

[mgoetze]

JanM, on 2011-August-30, 15:08, said:

Any opinions of why the Bermuda Bowl participants seem to disagree that 2♥ is better?

Who knows, maybe they don't disagree per se, they just think opening a weak 2 in hearts anything other than 2♥ is too horrible, and the advantage of opening the both majors hand 2♥ doesn't make up for it.

[Free]

JanM, on 2011-August-30, 15:08, said:

I'm interested in the fact that several people commented that they don't like to use 2♦ as a weak hand with both majors because they prefer to use 2♥ for that. The reason I find this interesting (a priori, I would have agreed), is that in the Bermuda Bowl this year, by my first run through the convention cards, which might have missed one or two, there are 7 pairs playing 2♦ as weak with both Majors and only 2 pairs playing 2♥ for this. Stefanov-Aranov, for Bulgaria, actually use both bids - 2♥ in first and second seats, 2♦ in third & fourth.

Any opinions of why the Bermuda Bowl participants seem to disagree that 2♥ is better?

I don't think you can look at a single opening and draw any conclusions. The preemptive structure should be considered as a whole. It's also about efficiency and making sacrifices. 2M openings put up the pressure, while a 2♦ opening does not. So it depends on what your focus is, with which hands you want to pressure opps, which hands you think don't need pressure, how many hands you want to open (multi 2♦ + 2♥ both Majors leaves 2♠ available for anything you want),...

Looking at the hands with both Majors, the 2♦ opening with both Majors may be inferior than the 2♥ opening. But if the players are under the impression that natural 2M openings are much better than the alternative and compensate the disadvantages of the 2♦ opening, they'll play it anyway.

[JLOGIC]

Exactly Free. 2H is a superior way to show the majors, no doubt. It is a higher preempt, and it bids one of the known suits which puts pressure on the opps and gives them less bids.

However, a 2H opener with weak in hearts is going to be far more effective than multi, or 2D as a transfer preempt, for the same reason. Preempting to the level that your lowest known suit is is always going to be better.

Perfectly I'd rather have 2D as the majors and 2 hearts as a weak 2 by a mile than vice versa, even though I would rather open 2H for the majors than 2D in a vacuum. Maybe the bermuda bowl participants feel the same way.

edit: guess mgoetze also said the exact same thing also, sry.

[whereagles]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-30, 05:29, said:

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.

It's harder to devise tools to fight Wilkosz, but once you have those it's easy to use them. That's the point. Tools to defend a weak 2D are very simple but choosing the right one is what's hard.

Basically, Wilkosz fares better against non-experts because they have difficulties dealing with gadgets. But on a higher level the weak 2D ends up being quite more of a nuisance in the long run. Also, Wilkosz is sort of banned from most tournaments

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2011-August-31, 06:34, said:

Basically, Wilkosz fares better against non-experts because they have difficulties dealing with gadgets. But on a higher level the weak 2D ends up being quite more of a nuisance in the long run. Also, Wilkosz is sort of banned from most tournaments

When people are analyzing the performance of various preempts, Wilkosz normally scores very highly
I'd argue that this has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the opening itself, nor the defenses being used.

The reason that Wilkosz scored so well was that the pairs that weren't playing Wilkosz couldn't stand to pass these glorious 5-5 hand with a major and no rebid problems. They'd open 1♠ with a 5-5 nine count and the partnership would barrel into 3NT down a zillion or partner would make a low level penalty double and the opponents would score up a doubled game.

I don't think that Wilkosz would perform nearly as well in this day and age, largely because opening standards have relaxed significantly and pairs have adapted their constructive auctions to encompass weak distributional hands.

[peachy]

Almost anything works, but don't even dream of using 2D opening for Mini-Roman (10-15, 4441) - that gadget offers the worst of both worlds = helps opponents and hinders our side.

[glen]

My recommendation for Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup pairs that have available a 2♦ opening bid for any use, is that the best is the Energy Sapping 2♦ convention.

Just before the final deadline to submit cc's, send yours in with the 2♦ opening bid having at least four strange never-seen-before vague meanings, depending on seat and vulnerability.

For example, you might have:

1-2 NV: 4+♠s and another suit, 0-10 HCP, must have ♥s as second suit if does not have ♣ ace.
1-2 V: Any solid suit without outside A/K, or a weak two in ♦s with exactly two of the top three honors.
3-4 NV: 15-17 balanced with exactly 2♠s, 3♥s.
3-4 V: 13-14 with either 4♥s and a longer second suit, or 6+♥s and no second suit.

Note that these openings are optional based on the state-of-the-match. Define the 2NT response as "asking", rest of responses "to play", except provide a few exceptions where responses are pass/correct.

If asked for further details, point out your partnership has never played these meanings before, and don't have any notes beyond what is on the cc. If asked at the table, point out the convention has never come up before.

Now the energy sapping happens. The coaches (e.g. Martels, Kokish/Kraft) have to investigate (finding no previous hands), and prepare defenses. The players have to learn these complex defenses. They may have lots of questions about negative inferences and tendencies (answer to anything: we don't know, has never come up before). The coaches and players will focus a lot of energy in preparing to defeat the convention.

Try as much as possible to find another call with any hand that accidently matches the 2♦ opening, and let the convention work as it does.