[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2025-June-14, 18:40, said:

Good gadget.
What replaced it ?

I can open this 2♦, but the only requirement I have is exactly a 5-card Major. It could be balanced, but not quite good enough to open. Naturally it may have a minor too, which can be shown.

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2025-June-14, 18:40, said:

Good gadget.
What replaced it ?

It was legislated out of existence

replaces by multi 2!D and the Polish scissors

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on 2025-June-14, 22:40, said:

It was legislated out of existence

replaces by multi 2!D and the Polish scissors

The beloved but elusive Multi, Polish scissors is a new one for me.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2025-June-14, 18:40, said:

Good gadget.
What replaced it ?

This is a longer story. The Wilkosz 2♦ was banned for being a preempt without an anchor suit, and some Polish top pairs turned to the multi. To this day there are people who will say that the Wilkosz was banned for being too effective, and indeed there is a track record of the Wilkosz gaining a bunch (I've heard people cite figures of +4 IMPs/board) when it came up. Note that the main upside is not the negative inference of less shape-oriented openings, but rather the positive implications of applying pressure with these hands without overstating your values.
However... the Wilkosz 2♦ is very rare. Requiring a 5-5, even if five out of six possible suit combinations are allowed, and a specific strength range means that it is among the least common preempts, even in a field with sound preempts. At the international level, the Polish scored better with the Multi 2♦ than they did with the Wilkosz. To me this makes sense: it's a gadget that scores well if you have the right hand for it, but is catering to a hand type that is too specific.

The Wilkosz fulfills a similar role to strong pass MOSCITO (or other forms of transfer opening systems). Both were banned, and both have a small cult following who claim they would win all their matches if only those pesky regulators wouldn't get in the way. But in the regions where they are legal the methods don't score all that well.

[hrothgar]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-15, 01:43, said:

This is a longer story. The Wilkosz 2♦ was banned for being a preempt without an anchor suit, and some Polish top pairs turned to the multi. To this day there are people who will say that the Wilkosz was banned for being too effective, and indeed there is a track record of the Wilkosz gaining a bunch (I've heard people cite figures of +4 IMPs/board) when it came up. Note that the main upside is not the negative inference of less shape-oriented openings, but rather the positive implications of applying pressure with these hands without overstating your values.
However... the Wilkosz 2♦ is very rare. Requiring a 5-5, even if five out of six possible suit combinations are allowed, and a specific strength range means that it is among the least common preempts, even in a field with sound preempts. At the international level, the Polish scored better with the Multi 2♦ than they did with the Wilkosz. To me this makes sense: it's a gadget that scores well if you have the right hand for it, but is catering to a hand type that is too specific.

Its worth noting that when Wilkosz was banned, the Poles didn't give up on their two suited preempts.

Rather, they started using 2♥ and 2♠ to show the 5-5 hand patterns and 2♦ to show a weak two in either minor.

I just too a look at some of the more recent Polish convention cards for the Bermuda bowl.
As an example, all three Polish Open teams in Marrakech are playing 2M and shows 5+ cards in the majors and a 4+ card side suit.

FWIW, I don't think that Wilkosz 2♦ would score nearly as well today as it did during its heyday. However, I think that this has a whole lot more to do with changes in opening styles for 1M type openings and the ability of other systems to safely support lighter openings without barreling into bad games...

[DavidKok]

You mean "2♦ to show a weak two in either major", right? Relaxing the short suit in the two-suiters to a 4(+)-card side suit has a major impact. This changes the frequencies of both the opening and the set of hands where it is right to look for the secondary suit drastically. The 2-level openings you cite are very similar to Multi + Czech, or even Multi + Muiderberg, that are popular here. The 5-5 shape requirement was historically claimed to be an advantage of the Wilkosz, both offensive and defensive(!) as the opponents knew that even if they found a fit, the trumps would split poorly.

[hrothgar]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-15, 04:34, said:

You mean "2♦ to show a weak two in either major", right? Relaxing the short suit in the two-suiters to a 4(+)-card side suit has a major impact. This changes the frequencies of both the opening and the set of hands where it is right to look for the secondary suit drastically. The 2-level openings you cite are very similar to Multi + Czech, or even Multi + Muiderberg, that are popular here. The 5-5 shape requirement was historically claimed to be an advantage of the Wilkosz, both offensive and defensive(!) as the opponents knew that even if they found a fit, the trumps would split poorly.

The Polish scissors requires a 5/5 shape

This does seem to have been relaxed. I expect that at least some of this is a consequence of knowing partner's major when the bid initially comes up.
You have a little more safety during the scrambles and don't need the protection from having 5 cards in the side suit

[DavidKok]

My opinion is much less generous. I think the Wilkosz is a relic, and the stories about it only persist because it is banned. If it were legal I expect it to perform subpar and not be much of a threat.
In this view moving away from the traditional requirements is good regardless of reason. Multi + Czech/Muiderberg is simply a better use of the bids.
It is rarely good to scramble after a Czech 2M opening. When opener's unknown second suit is usually exactly 4 cards it's often better to sit in the known 5-2 fit, and sometimes even the known 5-1 fit, than to scramble to a potentially better strain. Doubly so if that scramble has to happen at the 3-level. You say that we have more safety during the scramble, but if we're scrambling then we're running from the one known suit. They really are very different openings with very different philosophies and continuations.

Multi + Polish scizzors is much closer to the Wilkosz, and I'm not surprised that it isn't as popular.

[hrothgar]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-15, 04:52, said:

My opinion is much less generous. I think the Wilkosz is a relic, and the stories about it only persist because it is banned. If it were legal I expect it to perform subpar and not be much of a threat.

My opinion is also much less generous

I don't think that framing discussions like this around the "effectiveness" of methods is particularly useful.

The goal in suppressing methods boils down to

1. Clamping down on variance.
2. Laziness

In particular, pros have a strong incentive to make sure that everyone is playing the same methods and arriving in the same contracts because this magnifies their edge.

They have an equally strong incentive to make sure that their sponsors are happy and don't have to invest time and effort learning to defend against the opponent's methods yet still pretend to be competing at a mind sport.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2025-June-14, 18:40, said:

Good gadget.
What replaced it ?

It’s only a good gadget because the discussed hand happens to fit the gadget. How often does this situation arise, though.
Although pooh-poohed often, I’d prefer a weak 2D as it comes up far more frequently and it takes away many standard bids from opps: 1nt openings, reverses, jump shifts, Flannery etc.

[Cyberyeti]

WasWinM, on 2025-June-15, 07:32, said:

It’s only a good gadget because the discussed hand happens to fit the gadget. How often does this situation arise, though.
Although pooh-poohed often, I’d prefer a weak 2D as it comes up far more frequently and it takes away many standard bids from opps: 1nt openings, reverses, jump shifts, Flannery etc.

I think 2♦ weak 2 either major, 2♥ Ekren covers a load of hamds

[hrothgar]

Here's a fun hand that cropped up during a game this afternoon

2♥ was an assumed fit preempt, showing 4+ Hearts and either (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs)
The resulting contract was not a thing of beauty. I felt pretty awful after the balancing bound, even worse after it got passed out and dummy did not inspire confidence.

However, we ended up scoring +3 IMPs and, more importantly, it was a fun contract to play

https://www.bridgeba...CC5%7Cmc%7C6%7C

[WasWinM]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-June-15, 07:59, said:

I think 2♦ weak 2 either major, 2♥ Ekren covers a load of hamds

Yep. Agree. Frequency is an important element in deciding.

[mw64ahw]

hrothgar, on 2025-June-15, 14:28, said:

Here's a fun hand that cropped up during a game this afternoon

2♥ was an assumed fit preempt, showing 4+ Hearts and either (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs)
The resulting contract was not a thing of beauty. I felt pretty awful after the balancing bound, even worse after it got passed out and dummy did not inspire confidence.

However, we ended up scoring +3 IMPs and, more importantly, it was a fun contract to play

https://www.bridgeba...CC5%7Cmc%7C6%7C

Could have been the other way with a ♠ lead

[Huibertus]

hrothgar, on 2025-June-15, 14:28, said:

Here's a fun hand that cropped up during a game this afternoon

2♥ was an assumed fit preempt, showing 4+ Hearts and either (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs)
The resulting contract was not a thing of beauty. I felt pretty awful after the balancing bound, even worse after it got passed out and dummy did not inspire confidence.

However, we ended up scoring +3 IMPs and, more importantly, it was a fun contract to play

https://www.bridgeba...CC5%7Cmc%7C6%7C

Lucky B*. Who plays bridge and does not understand on this hand you need to take out the opponents small trumps ASAP (that comment applies to BOTH defenders especially once they saw dummy)? And when you do decide not to lead trumps, leading the J from J84? Really?

[jillybean]

WasWinM, on 2025-June-15, 07:32, said:

It’s only a good gadget because the discussed hand happens to fit the gadget. How often does this situation arise, though.
Although pooh-poohed often, I’d prefer a weak 2D as it comes up far more frequently and it takes away many standard bids from opps: 1nt openings, reverses, jump shifts, Flannery etc.

Of course, it's not going to be frequent, but fun when it does come up. I'm willing to give up the 2D preempt and use 3D.

hrothgar, on 2025-June-15, 14:28, said:

Here's a fun hand that cropped up during a game this afternoon

2♥ was an assumed fit preempt, showing 4+ Hearts and either (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs)
The resulting contract was not a thing of beauty. I felt pretty awful after the balancing bound, even worse after it got passed out and dummy did not inspire confidence.

However, we ended up scoring +3 IMPs and, more importantly, it was a fun contract to play

Yes, lucky **, against better opponents it would be a different story but we all get the same opportunities for gifts.
It's interesting to hear of the innovative bidding concepts from around the globe.

[mw64ahw]

hrothgar, on 2025-June-15, 14:28, said:

Here's a fun hand that cropped up during a game this afternoon

2♥ was an assumed fit preempt, showing 4+ Hearts and either (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs)
The resulting contract was not a thing of beauty. I felt pretty awful after the balancing bound, even worse after it got passed out and dummy did not inspire confidence.

However, we ended up scoring +3 IMPs and, more importantly, it was a fun contract to play

https://www.bridgeba...CC5%7Cmc%7C6%7C

3♥ rather than X looks like a better overcall on this occasion especially with 23hcp and a running suit