Two Diamonds Opening Bid
MrWCF
My partner and I play infrequently enough (and inexpertly enough) so
that it is desirable for us to minimize the complexity of our bidding
conventions. That said, we have been disappointed with the
effectiveness of using an opening bid of Two Diamonds as a Weak Two
bid. We are familiar with, and have discussed, Benjamin, Flannery,
Multi, Romex, Neapolitan, and Mini-Roman, and those bids and their
responses are generally too complex for our partnership style. My
question is whether any of you have suggestions or recommendations for
a simple Two Diamonds alternative to a Weak Two bid. Perhaps a bid of
Two Diamonds to show a balanced 18-19 HCPs? (Our 1 NT range is
15-17.) How about Two Diamonds to show any (balanced or not) 18-19
HCP hand? Any suggestions will be most appreciated.
Thank you.
Henry Lockwood
Two options:
- a reverse Benji 2D, showing 8 playing tricks in an unspecified suit
_or_ 18-19 balanced.
- a weak-only Multi (if this is legal where you are), showing a weak 2
in H or a weak 2 in S. This way, you can use this bid for a top-end
weak 2 (say 6 cards to two of the top three honours), and keep your 2H
and 2S for real garbage pre-empts.
Henry
raija d
"MrWCF" <mwn...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bddb4e75-3722-4bcb...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Whatever you decide to use the 2D opening for, don't forget to agree on how
it affects the auctions that covered that type of hand in your existing
system. For example , if you agree 2D to be any strong onesuiter, that
change affects auctions that start with a 2C opening [strong, artificial]
or possibly one-level opener's rebids when a strong onesuiter is no longer a
possibility (since it is covered by the 2D opening).
If you play infrequently and are *inexpert enough* - quoting you - I would
spend as little energy as possible on system construction and conventions,
and instead concentrate on defensive skills and declarer play improvements.
OldPalooka
I have seen sound argument that a weak 2D is more effective than 2H,
since it can temporarily freeze opponents who only have one major.
Here is a relatively simple convention that is effective for strong
minor suit hands, but does not occur frequently:
2C = Strong with clubs or hearts or balanced 22-23 (or whatever your
current min 2C)
2D = Strong with diamonds or spades or bigger balanced.
Single step response is negative or neutral as you prefer.
Opener rebids 2M with primary in that M; 2NT with balanced, anything
else is long strong m, including 2C - 2D - 2S/3H = long clubs,
secondary major; 2D-2H-3M = long diamonds, secondary major, and jumps
to 3NT show a long minor and stoppers.
== Bill Shutts
Histriadogsilver
How about 5+/5+ with diamonds and another, less than opening bid
values.
Histriadogsilver
However, is there anyone out there using this bidding structure, and
if not why not?
2D = either 6H or 5+H/5+other;
2H = either 6S or 5+S/5+other;
2S = both minors 5+/5+.
Of course always with less than opening bid values:-)
Bob Lipton
> On Jan 31, 7:00 pm, MrWCF <mwn_...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> My partner and I play infrequently enough (and inexpertly enough) so
>> that it is desirable for us to minimize the complexity of our bidding
>> conventions. That said, we have been disappointed with the
>> effectiveness of using an opening bid of Two Diamonds as a Weak Two
>> bid. We are familiar with, and have discussed, Benjamin, Flannery,
>> Multi, Romex, Neapolitan, and Mini-Roman, and those bids and their
>> responses are generally too complex for our partnership style. My
>> question is whether any of you have suggestions or recommendations for
>> a simple Two Diamonds alternative to a Weak Two bid. Perhaps a bid of
>> Two Diamonds to show a balanced 18-19 HCPs? (Our 1 NT range is
>> 15-17.) How about Two Diamonds to show any (balanced or not) 18-19
>> HCP hand? Any suggestions will be most appreciated.
Do't worry about it.
Most peoples' convention charts are overloaded with stuff and they use
conventions as a substitution for thinking and judgment. You wont
improve -- i.e., develop judgment -- unless you give yourself a chance.
Play fewer conventions, not more.
Bob
Henry Lockwood
> if not why not?
> 2D = either 6H or 5+H/5+other;
> 2H = either 6S or 5+S/5+other;
> 2S = both minors 5+/5+.
> Of course always with less than opening bid values:-)
Funny you should mention that. We're about to trial (in our precision
club system):
2C = either 6D or 5/5 H&S
2D = either 6H or 5/5 S&C
2H = either 6S or 5/5 C&D
2S = H and either C or D
Alan Malloy
Goodness, Suction openers? That's a bit of a novelty, although I imagine
it would be good fun and allow you to be in general very irritating in
competition. I'd be interested in trying this myself, except that these
sorts of destructive bids are frowned upon in the ACBL, where I play. If
the 5/5 hands are "strong" (whatever that means for a two-suiter), then
this agreement is Mid-chart (no anchor suit); if they are "weak" then
it's in fact Super-chart (at least one of two known suits). I'm not
familiar with the EBU Orange book (that is what's in force where you
play, right?), but I'd be interested to know at what levels this is
permitted, if you know.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
Adam Beneschan
Interesting. After you've stated that Flannery and Mini-Roman (inter
alia) and their responses are two complex for your partnership style,
it seems that several posters have posted their own pet 2D conventions
that seemingly must be significantly more complex. Mini-Roman is
pretty simple; after 2D, responder just bids what he has, and if (or
*when*, to us pessimists) he hits opener's singleton, opener then bids
the next suit. Responder with a good hand can also bid 2NT to ask
where opener's singleton is. Doesn't seem complex to me. I only like
this convention when my opponents use it and I have hope for yet
another +800, but I don't think it's complex.
As for using 2D to show 18-19 balanced: it's called "Mexican 2D" and
George Rosenkranz recommended this convention. A partner and I tried
this a couple decades ago. I don't recall his recommended response
structure.
Currently, my partnership is using 2D to show 20-21 balanced (a 2NT
opening shows minors). The response structure is somewhat similar to
our 1NT structure, with two extras: 2H shows a weak hand and asks
opener to bid 2NT, but opener can pass 2H with a five-card heart suit;
3S asks opener to bid 3NT so that the stronger hand can be the
declarer. The rest of the responses are like our responses to 1NT:
2S=clubs, 2NT=diamonds, 3C=Stayman, 3D=hearts, 3H=spades.
-- Adam
Histriadogsilver
The good thing about knowing at least one five card suit from partner
is that he can bid his shortest suit with 3 card support. This should
improve a lot partnerships' judgment in competition. While additional
distribution and a possible double-fit should improve the chances of
the partnership of reaching a good sac. in case the opener is holding
only five hearts.
Histriadogsilver
wrote:
I mean, responder can bid his shortest suit with 3 card support for
opener:-))
Histriadogsilver
Of course in this case 2D (5+H) - 2S (5+S, natural forcing) while 2D -
3H (3H, short spades):-)
henry...@yahoo.com
If you are looking to improve your constructive auctions, then I might
suggest any of the following;
2d = good band, bad suit, 15-17 hcps (the so-called bridge world death
hand), that always presents rebid problems:
x
AKx
QTxxxx
AKx
2d = three suited, short spades, 11-15 hcps:
x
AJxx
AJxx
Kxxx
which could be extended to any three suited hand with 4 hearts (now
you are opening minimum 3-suiters only when you have short hearts,
which means you will almost never have rebid problems).
i don't, particularly, like 2d = 18-19 balanced (I think that is too
weak), but if you DO choose that then you have the advantage of
playing 1m-1M-2nt as an artificial bid, which I recommend using as a
power raise to at least the 3-level (you have gobs of room to
establish shape and range of opener's hand, now) which in turn means
that 1m-1M-3M / 4M is a purely distributional raise.
Henrysun909
kingfish
***
I'm confident that we all have some unique convention which can start
with a 2D call, but is it of value to your partnership? Years ago, a
reliable question to ask was "How well does my proposed convention
handle the hand it was devised to address", and "How often can it be
used". Then one would compare the gains from the convention against
the loss of the natural bid it was replacing. Finally, you need to
review what to do over competition along with how well the proposed
convention fit into your overall bidding structure. If it results in
issues with the "Garden Variety" hands, then it does not fit well into
your bidding structure.
Too often players, mostly newer players, jump into some convention
that some partner wants to play with little or no understanding of
what problem the convention was intended to solve, which had trypes
hands it was designed for, the proper structure, with and without
competition, and they are taught by someone who also does not know.
So it is the blind leading the blind.
My suggestion is, if the "natural" 2D (today that would be a weak 2)
does not appeal to you, find a hand type that you have difficulty with
in your basic bidding structure, then look up a convention to address
that hand type. Learn it completely. Agree about what to do after
interferance by the opponents. Then agree about what to do with the
hand you are replacing with the 2D bid.
Sandy Barnes
***
Gerben Dirksen
We tried on a similar note:
2C = either 6C or 5/4 D & H
2D = either 6D or 5/4 H & S
2H = either 6D or 5/4 C & S
2S = either 6S or 5/4 C & D
2N = 5/5 C & H or 5/5 D & S
Had some great moments, had some bad ones. Lots of FUN moments at
least.
Gerben
Gerben Dirksen
How about Two Diamonds showing a Weak Two in Diamonds? It's a fine
bid, maybe you should discuss follow-ups more carefully.
2D as Balanced 18-19 = a waste for a good preemptive bid, if you ask
me. 18 - 19 any is just unplayable.
Gerben
Henry Lockwood
I've just checked the Orange Book (yes, that's the one ;-) ).
From the Orange Book:
(these are described as guidelines, not rules)
(a) Novice events, No Fear events, or lower flights of flighted events
should
generally be run at Level 2 or as Simple Systems events - see 9 D.
(b) Otherwise, events run by National Authorities should be at Level 4
unless they
are run as Unusual System events - see 9 F.
(c) While it is expected that other authorities will continue to run
Level 3 events the
Committee believes that the approach in (b) would be better for all
events and
asks all such authorities to consider this approach.
So basically you can play Level 3 anywhere, and Level 4 in many clubs,
tournaments and all national events.
These openers are level 4; the relevant clause says that your 2-level
bids must either promise 4 cards in a specific suit _or_ say nothing
about length in a specific suit (so these are legal, because the
length in the suit bid is utterly unknown).
Larry
any 4441. That is what I use in most of my once a week partnerships.
Fills a hole in the strong hand complex (2C). Keep responses simple,
a suit is to play, 2NT is G.I. or better and asks for the singleton.
Larry
ACBLand
ewleo...@hotmail.com
I like the weak two diamond bid as showing a decent suit and a
slightly constructive hand.
The opponents are less likely to let you play 2D. If they step in they
may be in trouble. Also, if the opponents find a major suit fit it is
more likely to find the wrong major suit fit then if you had open a
weak two bid in a major. Also, you leave open the chance for partner
to bid a good 3NT contract that you otherwise might not get to.
Eric Leong
Nick France
I'm with Bob here. If you play infrequently leave 2D alone for now.
Whatever you try to change it to will have an effect on the rest of
your system. Develop your bidding and playing judgement. Worry about
minor bidding system advantages (which take significant memory time)
until you don't give away too much with your judgment.
Nick France
Ed Reppert
there are, as this thread shows, lots of options. But... you said you
considered "Romex". This opening bid in the Romex system has changed
at least four times in the last four books on the system. How simple
do you want it to be? An early version had opener holding one of (1) a
balanced 21-22, (2) a balanced 27-28 (hardly ever comes up), (3) a GF
with primary diamonds, (4) a GF 3 suiter, unspecified shortage.
Responder's first bid showed (1) 0-5 HCP (2H) (2) 6-10 HCP (2S) or (3)
11+ HCP (2NT). The last shows strong slam interest. Using this, you
could keep only option (1) for opener, or for a little more complexity
(and utility) options (1) and (3). You'll wrong-side the contract
sometimes, but that's a price you pay for simplicity. Note that per
the latest Romex book, the 3 suiter has been dropped from this opening.
ttw...@att.net
I rather like the Blue Team 2D too. As mostly I play canape style,
suit lengths become rather important. Even in long-suit-first bidding,
it's nice to know that a reverse does show 5 cards in the anchor suit.
The Blue Team 2D does this nicely. While rare, its influence is felt
in every reverse auction.
pgmer6809
I concur.
You say you are dissatisfied with your current results using 2D as
weak, but you do not say why.
Maybe you are just not using it correctly?
I seem to recall that there was a study of OK bridge hands that showed
that of all the weak 2 bids, the 2D showed the most profit. Which
isn't to say that there might not be an even better use for 2D, I
leave that to the system boffins, but it does say that a natural 2D is
not all that bad.
I think that the best ever use of 2D was shown to be the Wilkosz 2D
which I seem to recall shows 5-5 in any two suits. Because there is no
anchor suit, it is banned in most ACBL events. (GCC etc.)
Also as stated elsewhere adopting one convention usually means you
need to think about how this affects the rest of your system. Do you
have the time and inclination to do that?
pgmer6809
Stephen Fischer
> I think that the best ever use of 2D was shown to be the Wilkosz 2D
> which I seem to recall shows 5-5 in any two suits. Because there is no
> anchor suit, it is banned in most ACBL events. (GCC etc.)
Wilkosz is any two-suiter with at least one major. A study of its use
(by Bo-Yin Yang, if memory serves) in world championship team events
showed an average gain of +3 IMPs per hand.
patmp...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, and they wondered why. Having played much Wilkosz I think the
main advantage is describing a common, awkward hand precisely and
cheaply so that partner knows what to do. Not being able open such
hands is a disadvantage, as they often require too much bidding room
to describe as responder/overcaller. So it is useful to be able to
open 2D and get it over with.
Hiding your suits from opponents seldom makes any difference. The
preemptive effect is of some use but a secondary advantage. 2D is not
much of a barrier.
By the way, for Wilkosz 7-11 HCP is expected.
Gerben Dirksen
They found that good hands for the Wilkosz are the maximum hands that
others might open 1M out of fear to miss something, and partner than
runs to game with a 12-count and a misfit. Typical would be something
like:
KQxxx
x
AJxxx
xx
opposite
Ax
AQxxx
Qxx
xxx
Wilkosz-bidders will simply play 3D with the field in a hopeless game.
Gerben
patpow...@gmail.com
I think the orthodox Wilcosz response would be 2S with partner
passing.
If opener did not have spades then opener would correct to a minor.
With the double fit advancer could then invite game with 3H.
Michael Angelo Ravera
A Weak 2D, with no anchor suit, not promising a major, is banned or
HEAVILY RESTRICTED in MOST SOs, not just in the ACBL. The WBF, for
instance, requires FILED description of methods on special forms a
couple days in advance.
I tend to agree that 5-5 hands with near average high card strength
and 5-7 LTC are prime candidates for a gadget bid. People who
recklessly open these hands on the Rule of 19 (or 20) often find
themselves in hopeless games. People who fail to open them somehow
often miss a good partial.
axm...@hotmail.com
Ed Reppert wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:00�pm, MrWCF <mwn_...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > My partner and I play infrequently enough (and inexpertly enough) so
> > that it is desirable for us to minimize the complexity of our bidding
> > conventions. �That said, we have been disappointed with the
> > effectiveness of using an opening bid of Two Diamonds as a Weak Two
> > bid. �We are familiar with, and have discussed, Benjamin, Flannery,
> > Multi, Romex, Neapolitan, and Mini-Roman, and those bids and their
> > responses are generally too complex for our partnership style. �My
> > question is whether any of you have suggestions or recommendations for
> > a simple Two Diamonds alternative to a Weak Two bid. �Perhaps a bid of
> > Two Diamonds to show a balanced 18-19 HCPs? �(Our 1 NT range is
> > 15-17.) �How about Two Diamonds to show any (balanced or not) 18-19
> > HCP hand? �Any suggestions will be most appreciated.
> > Thank you.
> there are, as this thread shows, lots of options. But... you said you
> considered "Romex". This opening bid in the Romex system has changed
> at least four times in the last four books on the system. How simple
> do you want it to be?
I just had my first experience with Romex over the weekend. The
opponents were arguably among the strongest in America. After 2D they
expertly bid to 4H and then watched us inexpertly cash four of our
five trumps and a couple of side tricks. These folks were expert
class; mind you- to expect a bit of a learning curve on that one.
I would suggest adopting a system that works as a unit. There
probably is a reason outside of the agreement causing your sadness
over 2D openings and I can relate. Some years ago a partner decided
that 2-bids are preemptive so she got to open 2-bids quite often.
invariably [nearly 100%] of the time i had game going values we got
way to high, or the opponents successfully outbid, and with so-so
values it was too expensive to compete except for the times it wasn't
too expensive and then the penalty was too expensive, and without
decent values that was when we had games that we never explored.
Do you see the message?
The style that was adopted was incompatible with the rest of the
system so it cost every occasion that it was employed as well as a
sizeable number of occasions when alternative actions were lost.
So look at your entire system before evaluating how to deal with 2D.
regards
axman
Alan Malloy
[snip]
> I would suggest adopting a system that works as a unit. There
> probably is a reason outside of the agreement causing your sadness
> over 2D openings and I can relate. Some years ago a partner decided
> that 2-bids are preemptive so she got to open 2-bids quite often.
> invariably [nearly 100%] of the time i had game going values we got
> way to high, or the opponents successfully outbid, and with so-so
> values it was too expensive to compete except for the times it wasn't
> too expensive and then the penalty was too expensive, and without
> decent values that was when we had games that we never explored.
sounds like you are saying you always guessed wrong because partner's
weak-two bids were too wide-ranging, but you have chosen a long-winded
and contradictory run-on sentence to express this (entirely valid) concern.
>
> Do you see the message?
>
> The style that was adopted was incompatible with the rest of the
> system so it cost every occasion that it was employed as well as a
> sizeable number of occasions when alternative actions were lost.
>
> So look at your entire system before evaluating how to deal with 2D.
This is sound advice, of course. You should pick a meaning for 2D (and
in fact for every opening bid) that makes sense within the context of
your partnership, and within partnership style in general.
axm...@hotmail.com
Alan Malloy wrote:
> axm...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> > I would suggest adopting a system that works as a unit. There
> > probably is a reason outside of the agreement causing your sadness
> > over 2D openings and I can relate. Some years ago a partner decided
> > that 2-bids are preemptive so she got to open 2-bids quite often.
> > invariably [nearly 100%] of the time i had game going values we got
> > way to high, or the opponents successfully outbid, and with so-so
> > values it was too expensive to compete except for the times it wasn't
> > too expensive and then the penalty was too expensive, and without
> > decent values that was when we had games that we never explored.
> This last sentence is the most confusing one I have ever read on RGB. It
> sounds like you are saying you always guessed
Time out.
I said nothing about guessing. Well guessing may be fine for some but
not for me. On a 50-50 proposition a 15% success rate is quite an
achievement for me <sigh> so guessing is not for me.
What I was describing was that by taking the indicated action the
expected outcome rarely went outside 0-20%. This is not good from the
standpoint of bridge scores.
>wrong because partner's
> weak-two bids were too wide-ranging, but you have chosen a long-winded
> and contradictory run-on sentence to express this (entirely valid) concern.
Sorry you took the brunt of my previously unrelieved exasperation.
The key to accurate bidding comes from having a good picture of the
partnership's holdings. Opportunities for achieving it occur less
frequently than we prefer. Which suggests that when the opportunities
do occur they ought not be squandered.
Personally, I prefer to use 2-bids as a foundation for accurate
partial, game, slam, and sacrifice investigation. I can do so because
of the expectations placed on opener. Namely, the suit is 6[+] length
head by at least 2 of the 3 top honors, and the overall honor strength
is 5-11 hcp.
From there responder's [a] change of suit expects a raise on as little
as xxx [Hx if there is nothing better to do], bid a suit containing a
high honor, or sign off minimally. [b] 2N artificially asks for the
suit containing an ace or king , (where, 3N promises AKQ) [c] any
raise is considered non forward going and can be made on strong or
weak honors.
In essence, responder is in a position to immediately judge the
partnership offense and defense to about 1.5 tricks, and, know about
how much bidding room there is to obtain a more accurate estimate.
regards
axman
blackshoe
> I just had my first experience with Romex over the weekend. The
> opponents were arguably among the strongest in America. After 2D they
> expertly bid to 4H and then watched us inexpertly cash four of our
> five trumps and a couple of side tricks. These folks were expert
> class; mind you- to expect a bit of a learning curve on that one.
You'll forgive me, I trust, if I take this apparent condemnation of
Romex with a pound or two of salt. First, "expert" does not mean
"infallible", and second, one swallow does not make a summer.
axm...@hotmail.com
I was not condemning the method.20 years ago I watched Rosencranz at a
time he was promoting Romex [as distinct from Mexican 2D, which was
only a piece] for a couple of hours during which both tables combined
for one negative score. If I remember that was 14 gains on fourteen
boards including 13 double swings.
Anyway, the method was suggested for 2D. I was pointing out that it
is likely going to be a bit to chew. And there could be compatibility
issues.
regards
axman