jillybean, on 2024-August-12, 14:12, said:
Is the weak, natural 2♦ bid really so valuable? The opponents have an easy 2M bid over it.
It is completely standard to open weak club hands 3C, why not raise the bar for the diamond preempt and put more pressure on your opponents?
It really is that valuable. I've said it elsewhere but in terms of weak 2-level openings the effectiveness is 2
♠ > 2
♦ > 2
♥. With both majors in play the opponents have much more trouble finding the right strain. When they overcall we are off the hook and likely profit from their lack of ability to explore strain and level, and their takeout doubles, cue bids and (artificial, typically) 2NT responses have to take on more roles. There is simply more to investigate, and the extra step compared to 2
♥ is not enough compensation.
As for why not open 3
♦ - because there are many hands that I would automatically open 2
♦ on, but think 3
♦ is too much. In fact, this is far more common than the converse, where I am spoilt for choice since the hand meets the criteria for both. As a cute example I opened 2
♦ today, everybody vulnerable, second seat, on
♠J7,
♥62,
♦AJ652,
♣8762. In my opinion this is not suitable for 3
♦, but is decidedly profitable to stick in a 2
♦ opening with. I'm sure with a more conservative style you can find an example for yourself - move the club 8 to the diamonds, for example.
To me the multi is a double loss - I lose my highly effective 2
♠ preempt, and my highly effective 2
♦ preempt. The multi 2
♦ is not as effective as a natural 2M opening, so I need to gain a lot on whatever I now put in the 2M openings to get back to even. We simply cannot beat "2
♠ - weak two in spades, frequently only five" for competitive purposes. That being said it is a fun convention and I played some very sophisticated followups. I will happily play it for fun if a new or substitute partner wants me to.
This part is a bit condescending but I think also honest, so my apologies in advance. I went through a phase where I got very excited with new competitive and preemptive tools, and tried to cram a lot of artificial preempts into my repertoire. I enjoyed opening them regardless of merit - they were simply fun to play. With repeated exposure I got more frustrated with the losses and the lack of gains, and at some point I was just going through the motions. By refocusing on what scored well I ended up at my current approach to preempting, and I am having a blast again. I suspect that the reason that quite a few players fear and/or adore the multi 2
♦ in particular is a lack of familiarity. It is strange, it is new and it is exciting. Also it produces situations without parallel in bridge, and there are genuine new problems that you would not face on other auctions. But I think the multi is not that good, not in a field where people play with and against it frequently. The unique situations are rare, and even then you can often reason out what the percentage action is. Defenders may end up with a lousy score against a multi sometimes, but on balance I think they are in a better position than had their opponents opened a weak two.