[kiwinacol]

EDITED


ideally,


2H = 5-9, 5H's and another 5 carder


2S = 5-9, 5'S and a 5 minor

===
Hello, a weak 2D comes up frequently. Forgetting other uses for a multi-2D opening and loss of immediate pre-emptive raises, how many more hands can I expect to open with 2-suiter 2H and 2S, 5-9 points?

1) Usually 5-5,

2) but maybe in 3rd position 5M-4, or 5-4 on suitable hands?

I'm happy that the 2D can accomodate some of the strong balanced hands that the overloaded 2C opening now carries, and that I still have weak 2H and 2S bids, even if they are slightly less effective. Multi 2's were very popular many years ago and some would have experience and knowledge that I want to tap into.

Thank you.

[etha]

I like 2♦ weak only multi.
2♥ ekren
2♠ muiderberg.




both majors seems like the most important thing you want to be able to show.

[hrothgar]

Hi there

The short answer is "it depends" on "maybe a 5-4 with suitable hands".

Suppose that we're looking at 2♠ openings

For the 5-5s,

The frequency of a 5-5-2-1 hand is .03174
The frequency of a 5-5-3-0 hand is .00895


Two suited hands with 5+ spades compromise 50% of the two suiters.
So, if we ignore issues of hand strength, quality, etc. then the frequency is roughly .020345

IIn contract

The frequency of a 6-3-2-2 hand os .05642
The frequency of a 6-3-3-1 hand is .0344

25% of the single suited hands is 0.022725

So, the frequency of the two openings would seem to be roughly equivalent.

However, 5-4-3-1 hands make up a womping 0.12931 and 5-4-2-2's another0.10580

Once these patterns start getting added into the mix, the two suited openings become a LOT more frequent. Without knowing what you mean by a "suitable" 5-4 pattern, its really hard to say what's what.

[helene_t]

Sorry I don't understand this poll. Is it about other options in multi besides the weak option, or is it about what 2M should mean in the context of 2♦ being multi?

Anyway, I like multi if I have time to discuss all the follow ups with partner, what is usually not the case. I am not sure what 2M should mean, though. I suppose Muiderberg or Polish is ok.

As for strong options in multi, I like the idea that the only strong options are gf unbalanced hands with diamonds.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, here is my preferred method

https://www.chrisrya...wo/frelling.htm

[kiwinacol]

Thanks for the reply. I meant making sure that partner didn't use any 5-4, but where the points were in the 5-4 and the 4 card suit had good intermediates. So to make the bids viable your % show you need to include 5-4's. Thanks.

 hrothgar, on 2019-April-17, 04:48, said:

Hi there

The short answer is "it depends" on "maybe a 5-4 with suitable hands".

Suppose that we're looking at 2♠ openings

For the 5-5s,

The frequency of a 5-5-2-1 hand is .03174
The frequency of a 5-5-3-0 hand is .00895


Two suited hands with 5+ spades compromise 50% of the two suiters.
So, if we ignore issues of hand strength, quality, etc. then the frequency is roughly .020345

IIn contract

The frequency of a 6-3-2-2 hand os .05642
The frequency of a 6-3-3-1 hand is .0344

25% of the single suited hands is 0.022725

So, the frequency of the two openings would seem to be roughly equivalent.

However, 5-4-3-1 hands make up a womping 0.12931 and 5-4-2-2's another0.10580

Once these patterns start getting added into the mix, the two suited openings become a LOT more frequent. Without knowing what you mean by a "suitable" 5-4 pattern, its really hard to say what's what.

[kiwinacol]

Thanks. I got carried away with the poll and included extra options that were not directly related. The options including the strong hand and two ranges for the major suits option weren't necessary. I've edited the poll.

 helene_t, on 2019-April-17, 05:10, said:

Sorry I don't understand this poll. Is it about other options in multi besides the weak option, or is it about what 2M should mean in the context of 2♦ being multi?

Anyway, I like multi if I have time to discuss all the follow ups with partner, what is usually not the case. I am not sure what 2M should mean, though. I suppose Muiderberg or Polish is ok.

As for strong options in multi, I like the idea that the only strong options are gf unbalanced hands with diamonds.

[kiwinacol]

Thanks and I looked at your descriptive source. I think it would be an approach to investigate after I have convinced partner to change and we get used to simpler approaches. It would that some doing to get partner to bid at the two level on weak 4-4 hands.

 hrothgar, on 2019-April-17, 05:36, said:

FWIW, here is my preferred method

https://www.chrisrya...wo/frelling.htm

[fromageGB]

Not sure still what the question or topic is. Are you are talking specifically about "both major" hands, and that if it is a "5-4" the 5 card suit is unspecified? Are you talking specifically about 5 spades and the 4 card suit could be any suit? Whatever it is, I think you need to explain your followups that enable you to find a sensible contract.

If you are happy with opening 2♦ on (maybe suitable) {45}xx hands, for example, I don't see how you find the best fit, and how it is any better than you would get if the requirement for opening was merely 44xx. Maybe if your partner cannot either, he would be more welcoming to an Ekren or Frelling opening.

If you are eventually moving to that, one advantage of Ekren 2♦ is that it can be combined with a strong option, such as for me a 21+ 3-suiter, which means an unbalanced 1♦ is limited to 20, and thus more manageable. Apart from the benefits you get when you do have the strong option.

[kiwinacol]

thanks. I've had trouble not expressing what I meant and have edited my first post to add:

ideally
2H = 5-9, 5H's and another 5 carder
2S = 5-9, 5'S and a 5 minor


another issue is that I added the poll after the posting but it lists first anti doesn't exactly relate to the topic heading. I'll be more careful next time.


===

 fromageGB, on 2019-April-17, 07:42, said:

Not sure still what the question or topic is. Are you are talking specifically about "both major" hands, and that if it is a "5-4" the 5 card suit is unspecified? Are you talking specifically about 5 spades and the 4 card suit could be any suit? Whatever it is, I think you need to explain your followups that enable you to find a sensible contract.

If you are happy with opening 2♦ on (maybe suitable) {45}xx hands, for example, I don't see how you find the best fit, and how it is any better than you would get if the requirement for opening was merely 44xx. Maybe if your partner cannot either, he would be more welcoming to an Ekren or Frelling opening.

If you are eventually moving to that, one advantage of Ekren 2♦ is that it can be combined with a strong option, such as for me a 21+ 3-suiter, which means an unbalanced 1♦ is limited to 20, and thus more manageable. Apart from the benefits you get when you do have the strong option.

[awm]

Multi 2♦ with a range of 4-9 and 2M natural single-suited 9-13 is our preference.

The 5-7 range is pretty rare and not worth separating from 8-10. Getting the minimum one-suiters out of 1M helps our constructive bidding significantly while also putting opponents to some difficult guesses over 2M intermediate.

I've been pretty underwhelmed by the two-suited bids people play here; they seem to have accidents pretty often and rarely get great results.

[maartenxq]

I prefer 2 ♦ multi or 22-23 NT and 2 M 5-5 weak. But this only with a partner with whom I agreed how to proceed. Without agreements weak 2's are much less accident prone.\

Maarten Baltussen

[nullve]

 awm, on 2019-April-17, 11:49, said:

Multi 2♦ with a range of 4-9 and 2M natural single-suited 9-13 is our preference.

The 5-7 range is pretty rare and not worth separating from 8-10. Getting the minimum one-suiters out of 1M helps our constructive bidding significantly while also putting opponents to some difficult guesses over 2M intermediate.

My partner and I used to play

2♦ = "0-7, 6(+)M3-OM" OR "24+ BAL"
2M = "8-11, 6(+) M",

something we had copy-pasted from the Brogeland-Lindqvist system.

Our impression, after playing this for a couple of years, was that the weak Multi option was so rare that there had to be a better use of the opening. So we tried Ekren and have enjoyed it since.

I also found the "8-11" range awkward. Wide preemptive ranges become more of a problem constructively the stronger they are, because we own a greater proportion of the hands, and here the four-point range meant we had to invite too often for my comfort. And although it helped that Opener's

1M-1♠/N; 2M

was now "12-15" instead of "10-15", I thought it would be better if

1M = normal, but usually not "10-12" if 6+ M
...1♠/N
......2M = "13-15, 6+ M"
2♦ = "0-9, 6M3-OM" OR "24+ BAL"
2M = "10-12, 6(+) M",

assuming no invites (at least no unLAWful ones) would be needed after

1M-1♠/N; 2M

and

2M.

My current system, which looks very different, has actually evolved from this. One big change is that I now open 1M also on the "10-12" hands (with 6 M), but use an artificial rebid structure to separate the "10-12" hands from "13-15" hands. I believe I pay a very low price for that and that there is therefore probably a better use of the 2M openings as well.

I think awm (a Non-Natural System Discussion forum regular) already knows my position on much of this.

[kiwinacol]

 nullve, on 2019-April-18, 04:37, said:

My partner and I used to play

2♦ = "0-7, 6(+)M3-OM" OR "24+ BAL"
2M = "8-11, 6(+) M",

something we had copy-pasted from the Brogeland-Lindqvist system.

Our impression, after playing this for a couple of years, was that the weak Multi option was so rare that there had to be a better use of the opening. So we tried Ekren and have enjoyed it since.

I also found the "8-11" range awkward. Wide preemptive ranges become more of a problem constructively the stronger they are, because we own a greater proportion of the hands, and here the four-point range meant we had to invite too often for my comfort. And although it helped that Opener's

1M-1♠/N; 2M

was now "12-15" instead of "10-15", I thought it would be better if

1M = normal, but usually not "10-12" if 6+ M
...1♠/N
......2M = "13-15, 6+ M"
2♦ = "0-9, 6M3-OM" OR "24+ BAL"
2M = "10-12, 6(+) M",

assuming no invites (at least no unLAWful ones) would be needed after

1M-1♠/N; 2M

and

2M.

My current system, which looks very different, has actually evolved from this. One big change is that I now open 1M also on the "10-12" hands (with 6 M), but use an artificial rebid structure to separate the "10-12" hands from "13-15" hands. I believe I pay a very low price for that and that there is therefore probably a better use of the 2M openings as well.

I think awm (a Non-Natural System Discussion forum regular) already knows my position on much of this.

Thanks, I'm going to hunt for your other postings.

[ahydra]

I either play three weak twos or Multi + Muiderberg depending on partnership. To maximise the effectiveness of the bids, I like to play multi as weak 2M only (so that responder can safely pre-empt to any level) and play the 2M openings as 5M4+m since 5-5s don't come up anywhere near often enough. Obviously, when vulnerable and/or in 2nd one does not pre-empt with rubbish.

ahydra

[fromageGB]

 ahydra, on 2019-April-19, 02:42, said:

... and play the 2M openings as 5M4+m since 5-5s don't come up anywhere near often enough. Obviously, when vulnerable and/or in 2nd one does not pre-empt with rubbish.
ahydra

And the big problem I have found with other people using Muiderberg is that responder has a doubleton major and no more than 2 or 3 in one minor, even though he has a larger number of the other minor. Does he pass opener's 2M or not? Having a xx44 or longer as responder is pretty rare, so I reckon you are better served by a possibly 5 card single-shown-suit weak 2. Or say 2M is that plus a specific minor.

[coliecam]

What!! No Flannery anymore..still a few top pairs that use it

[kiwinacol]

Added

 coliecam, on 2019-April-19, 18:49, said:

What!! No Flannery anymore..still a few top pairs that use it