[gwnn]

What is your experience with 2♥!=weak two in either major?

It strikes me as a very fun opener... Hard to defend against etc. But I didn't manage to get a good description/review of the method on the net or in these forums. Also, what's the best use for 2♠? 4 card spade suit and 5+card minor?

Thanks in advance.

[FrancesHinden]

It's brown sticker, so you'll struggle to find places to play it.

[gwnn]

Yes I realize that. But BBO is a nice place

[hrothgar]

If seen a few top pairs experiment with a 2♥ opening that shows either

A preemptive opening with 6 Hearts or
A preemptive opening with 6 Spades

As I recall, Helgemo and Helness were using this at one point in time.

From my perspective, the opening looks to be a royal pain in the butt to defend against, especially since a well defined advance structure will be designed to mix things up.

Consider the following (hypothetical) advance structure

2♥ - (P) - P

Responder's pass asks partner to pass with Hearts or 1/4 of all hands with 6+ Spades. Bid 2♠ with 3/4s of all hands with Hearts. After

2♥ - (P) - 2♠

Opener should pass with all hands with Spades and 1/3rd of all hands with 6+ hearts. With the remaining hands with 6+ Hearts, opener will show a 3 card minor (allowing responder to pass if he wants)

This is really nasty stuff. I LIKE complexity and mixing it up and this opening makes me pause for thought.
I'm not sure if the merits of the opening warrants all the associated hassle.

[mikeh]

I played it for a couple of years, including in the CNTC finals, but I suspect that it would be more difficult to use these days.

We were also allowed, for about a year, to play it on one specified night per week at the local club.. where, admittedly, the quality of opposition was low (altho we arguably have as strong a club-level game as exists in Canada).

We always had a written defence and, at the club level, we would allow a lot of discussion even in the middle of the bidding... our purpose was to gain experience, not to hammer the opps at that level.

I would estimate that we got great results 75% of the time, ok results 20% and bad results very, very infrequently.

We only played it not-vul. since we found that often responder's best action was to pass... and it becomes VERY difficult for the defenders to untangle the major suit situation thereafter. We scored a great result against a WC pair on a hand where they were cold for 4♥ and passed out 2♥: their hands hit a seam in the defensive methods they had adopted. I remember Kokish noting, when the method arose in a Challenge the Champs in the BW, that it seemed to him that it was impossible to design a comprehensive defence to the method. If Kokish can't think of one, then the rest of us should give up.

I suspect that it was this aspect of the gadget that caused it to be brown stickered. As someone who played it, I regret that. As someone who might have ended up defending against it, had it gained popularity, I applaud that

Seriously, it is so tough to play against that it really ought not to be allowed except against very good pairs who have had time to think about it. Otherwise, you are ruining the game for the casual player... and on BBO, where your opps may be a pickup partnership, I would urge you not to use it without your opps' permission.

[whereagles]

It's actually not that hard to defend, but it requires some thinking beforehand.

I agree it's yellowish stuff, though.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Mar 20 2007, 02:35 PM, said:

It's actually not that hard to defend, but it requires some thinking beforehand.

Really?????

Of course, for you it is probably trivial. But for the rest of us mere mortals, let me assure you that it is very, very tough.

I'd go one further: without knowing what your defence is, I am confident that it will fail to adequately show at least one important hand-type: and that the deficits in the method will be apparent in direct seat and after the very common sequence of 2♥ P P.

Just so you know, responder will pass 2♥ with Qxxx x AJxx Qxxx and with x QJxxxx Kxx Jxx or xxx xxx xxxx KQx as examples. He will pass anytime he thinks that 2♥ is the best spot...bearing in mind that he will be happy to go down 6 or 7 tricks undoubled when opener has ♠s and you have game.

So unlike multi 2♦, 4th chair has to cater to far more hand-types, with less info.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Mar 20 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

whereagles, on Mar 20 2007, 02:35 PM, said:

It's actually not that hard to defend, but it requires some thinking beforehand.

Really?????

Of course, for you it is probably trivial. But for the rest of us mere mortals, let me assure you that it is very, very tough.

I'd go one further: without knowing what your defence is, I am confident that it will fail to adequately show at least one important hand-type: and that the deficits in the method will be apparent in direct seat and after the very common sequence of 2♥ P P.

Just so you know, responder will pass 2♥ with Qxxx x AJxx Qxxx and with x QJxxxx Kxx Jxx or xxx xxx xxxx KQx as examples. He will pass anytime he thinks that 2♥ is the best spot...bearing in mind that he will be happy to go down 6 or 7 tricks undoubled when opener has ♠s and you have game.

So unlike multi 2♦, 4th chair has to cater to far more hand-types, with less info.

So double them, but only when its right.

That was easy to solve, now wasn't it? Next.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Mar 20 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

It's actually not that hard to defend, but it requires some thinking beforehand.

I agree it's yellowish stuff, though.

In all seriousness, I'd love to see your defense.

I've never seen a good one

[DrTodd13]

I've tinkered with this convention as well. I have found it useful in some systems as it frees up 2♠ for another useful bid. I don't think it is fair to characterize something that I did for a constructive reason to be a "purely destructive method." Sure, there are hands where 2♥ will lose but there are hands where it will gain and you have to add in the benefits of the freed up 2S bid that counteract any negatives of the 2♥ bid.

Ultimately, the majority will get their way. If they don't like facing this bid it will be outlawed under GCC. If the pros like it, it will be allowed under super-chart. They should just be honest and say there isn't any rhyme or reason about what is allowed versus disallowed other than people's reaction to the bid. There is no objective standard. It is all subjective and they should admit that. It is no benefit to classify things as destructive. If enough people want to play something and it becomes mainstream then it will be accepted and allowed.

If one side introduces randomness and the other side tries to battle randomness with fixed definitions then you may certainly not have room to express all hand types. It may turn out that the best way to battle randomness is with more randomness. Find a way to double such that the 2♥ responder can't determine what opener's suit is and let him bid 2♠ only to have opener correct to 3♥ which can now be defeated. People don't like to be forced out of their comfort zones so they would sooner ban something than have to adopt a complex defense, especially one based on randomness, to battle it.

[rbforster]

Regarding 2♥ multi, Daniel's system's page has links to brief writeups as this is played by some world class players. In addition to playing 2♥ multi, Lauria-Versace were playing 2♠ as a 3-level preempt in either major, or 6/4 (either way) in the minors 11-15.

Don't forget the Weak 2 Archive - Brown Sticker Discussion, which lists lots of weird but fun stuff, like extending the "2♥ multi" philosophy to your 3 level preempts too - ie 3♣ multi (3 level preempt in ♣ or ♦), 3♥ for either major, etc. You might also find some of the links in my discussion safer alternatives to Lorenzo weak 2's useful in thinking about these sorts of ambiguous weak 2 bids.

[whereagles]

mikeh: if you're so certain my defense sucks, I won't even bother saying what it is...

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Mar 20 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

mikeh: if you're so certain my defense sucks, I won't even bother saying what it is...

nice way to duck the issue: now I am supposed to think you really had a defence.....lol

[Gerben42]

I have discovered a beautiful defense but this post is not large enough to contain it.

I use something similar as defense to some artificial opening bids and have asked really WC players how they would defend against it and got the answer that they don't know. The key problem is that one of the possible suits is the bid suit, something that also makes Wilkosz hard to defend.

First let me state that due to a mistranslation, this convention is actually allowed in Germany. I've pointed this out but nothing has been done to fix the inconsistency.

It gets even better: Whereas in most countries the strength required for a bid without known suit is a "strong" hand, in Germany it is the rule-of-18. With one partner I'm playing a system that uses the 2-level for either-or bids similar to this 2♥, but rule-of-18 just to point out that this should NOT be allowed. Still waiting for it to be banned, fully aware that it should be.

Also I'd like to know how Justin defines destructive. And I'm not going to accept "I know it when I see it". And I'm not going to accept "It creates random swings" either, since lots of natural bids do too.

BTW I'm okay with disallowing methods at lower levels and in short-meeting tournaments (MP) although the draconian ACBL strategy seems too extreme.

However at the high-level and long matches it should be "part of the game". You can either choose to think of a defense to the opponent's system or not. In the second case, you run the risk of some IMP losses due to that. If you want to spend that extra hour practicing Bridge Master instead of discussing the system, it's a tradeoff.

To finish, if you play unusual methods you have an unusual obligation to the opponents to give full disclosure. Many players, including Fred from what I've read in his posts, have met pairs who do not do so. I can only say: HOW DARE YOU! to such pairs. On the other hands I've also met pairs playing "simple Acol" who could not tell me what suit they open with 4-4 in the reds.

P.S. Adam's question "what do you use 2♠ for? is simple: A ♠ 2-suiter. I am a firm believer that the 2♠ opening bid should show ♠.

P.P.S. If you want a system that covers lots of hands try:
2♦ = Wilkosz
2♥ = Multi
2♠ = 4♠ and a longer side suit

[glen]

For my long opinion, see:

Countering Vexing Bids

The short answer is play a Passable Takeout Double in direct, and a Passable Value Showing Double in balancing seat. See the section on Handling Ambiguous Bids.

[hrothgar]

Hi Glenn

One quick comment: I read through your notes...

Esssentially what you have is a (lengthy) assertion. You are claiming that your PTO and PVS doubles are the right way to defend against a wide variety of bids, however, you don't provide much analysis regarding why this style of doubles is better than any number of other defenses.

I'm not (necessarily) critiquing the methods. For example, I agree that a value showing double is probably best versus assumed fit type methods. However, you haven't done anything to demontrate that this is true.

[glen]

The notes were not written to prove the theories or provide detailed reasons for the methods - they just document them. So you are correct in saying “you don't provide much analysis regarding why this style of doubles is better than any number of other defenses.” That is why I stated it was “my long opinion”.

Written independently (though we may have discussed things with common sources) is Roy Hughes's Building a Bidding System which discusses doubles along the same lines.

[rbforster]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 20 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

It's brown sticker, so you'll struggle to find places to play it.

I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US remember that the ACBL's general chart rules allow any defense you want to "conventional calls," in particular to an artificial 1♣ or 1♦ opening. So while you can't play 2♥ multi in ACBL Superchart events, you can use it as a weak jump overcall if your opponents play Precision, Polish Club, 1♣ "could be short" (2 or fewer), or even over a standard strong 2♣.

[whereagles]

Gerben42, on Mar 21 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

I have discovered a beautiful defense but this post is not large enough to contain it.

An overkill? Mine is like 3 lines long Ok, add 5 more to explain follow-ups