T
KQ52
AT865
A75
J97 AQ65
AJT 7
KJ3 Q9742
Q642 T98
K8432
98643
-
KJ3
2D(1) X 2NT(2) P
2H(3) P 4H 5D
5H X XX
(1) 6-10 HCP, 5+-5+ in the majors
(2) Asking for the suits
(3) Hearts and spades
Down two for -1000 and -11 IMPs.
A question, if 2D shows 5-5 in the majors how can 2NT ask which suits
and 2h(I assume you meant 3H) show hearts and spades as that is what
2D showed?
As for 5H why is opener rebidding his values?
Nick France
If 2D is really Wilkosz, it shows 55 with at least one major (i.e.
5 possible two-suiters).
> As for 5H why is opener rebidding his values?
Bad mistake, yes. He then continued with a misplay, as he should
make 10 tricks, I think. Either 4 hearts, spade K, spade ruff,
long spade, DA, CA+K (or 3 hearts and 2 spade ruffs, depends a
bit on the defence).
Joachim
Thanks for the clarification on what Wilkosz is
Nick France
There are jurisdictions which insist that the 2D bid show an 'anchor
suit'. I think ACBL is one of them.
The original Wilkosz is any 5-5; but here in ACBL land the Polish Club
players must make do with having it show
both majors, or perhaps Hearts and another, or Spades and another etc.
pgmer6809
Sophisticated Poles today have given up on Wilkosz. They bid 2S to
show spades and a minor, 2H to show hearts and another, 2D is Multi
and 2NT is the minors. I think it is an improvement. This allows
partner to preempt if he can. I have heard that Westerners are
adopting this, and to get higher frequency they allow a four-card
minor as well. This makes sense to me. I have never seen anyone
play in the minor.
As far as this bidding goes, NS are bidding well and EW recklessly but
luck out for a coup. West isn't strong enough for his first
double. This is a good way to find oneself in game going down one.
East's 5D bid is reckless for unfavorable vulnerability. He seems to
be assuming that the double of 2D showed diamonds. From the bidding
that is a fair assumption but it is not worth the gamble. The
boldness of his bid though "sells" it to the enemy, which often
happens. They don't know either, and that void in South's hand
certainly lends credibility. South is also inclined to think that he
has a double fit with North, which means They have a double fit as
well. I think that if I'd posed this as question many would go along
with South's 5H.
I think the redouble is a good idea as well: if we go down we are a
bottom already, so we may as well get some upside if we make it. By
the way, it was a loss of 15 IMPs, not 11.
The scheme with Multi is definitely NOT better than the scheme with
Wilkosz, but it's introduced to be internationally accepted (Wilkosz
is brown sticker, while Multi is not). The possibilities are pretty
much the same, but the implementation is not as good. Multi is
definitely not as good as a standard weak two, it's far worse because
you can hardly bid out your hand. Wilkosz is also not as good as
opening 2M showing 5-5 (no full relays for example), but the
disadvantage here is far less! So Wilkosz with weak two's is
obviously better, but due to system regulations alternatives have been
found...
I've never played the new scheme, I just think it would be better. If
partner opens 2S and I've got a ton of spades I can preempt. With 2D
that's usually not possible. I think hiding the suits hurts Us more
than Them. I would also agree that Multi is worse than a standard
weak two. So if you have played them both and say that the net result
is to be worse, then so be it.
I'd like to try opening both 5-4+ and 6 naturally. I think this
ambiguity would help us more than it does them. Why should I tell
them my shape? If partner wants to know, he can ask. 2D could
possibly be modeled on the Precision 2C.
Frederick - post above - is correct, of course. Wilkosz is far
superior to Muiderberg 5/4 openings which you describe. Sorry to be
blunt, but I think you were playing at a beginner's table. The double
of 2D is fatuous. The worst bid of the auction is 5H. This bid has to
have been perpetrated by an absolute beginner. Just pass and let
partner act on the hand.