[DaveMikeH]

So there is a large debate about how to use the 2♦ bid in SAYC (Preemptive, Flannery, other). I know many smarter people than I have thought about this but why not use 2♦ to represent the strong 2nt bid (not multi since not allowed) and have 2nt be minors or something else preemptive. I'm sure other people have thought about this, but it seems to me overall better than the standard 2d preemptive. I have some follow-up ideas, do others already have some or are willing to send me something?

[aguahombre]

In SAYC, there is no debate at all. The Yellow Card tells us what 2D is.

[gwnn]

Many people use 2♦ as 18-19 balanced. That enables them to use sequences as:

1♦-1♥
2NT
(actually any 1m-1M; 2NT)

as something other than 18-19 balanced, for example a very strong 4-card raise, or strong 6m+3M, or strong 6m+(0-2)M.

Another popular one in parts of Europe is Ekren: 4-4 or better in majors, weak. Wilkosz is an infamous convention allegedly banned because it was too good: 5-5 or better in a two suits other than both minors, weak. Neither of these conventions is legal in ACBL, and the latter one is illegal in almost any bridge-playing country.

[DaveMikeH]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-19, 06:43, said:

In SAYC, there is no debate at all. The Yellow Card tells us what 2D is.

Apologies, in a standard, American GCC legal system.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-19, 06:43, said:

In SAYC, there is no debate at all. The Yellow Card tells us what 2D is.

I am sure that Dave meant in a Standard structure rather than in an SAYC structure. The title of the thread refers to a 2 over 1 structure.

I was going to point out that some players do use a 2♦ opening as a strong balanced hand - maybe not as strong as an opening 2NT, but still strong. But Gwnn beat me to it.

I know that the Mexican 2♦ opening was originally a strong balanced hand of about 18-19 HCP. I am not sure what the current Mexican 2♦ opening is.

[awm]

Why all the dislike for 2♦ preemptive? It is a very effective bid, probably better than weak 2♥!

The 2NT for minors is fine when it comes up, but much lower frequency. I wouldn't trade a weak two for that unless I was getting a lot of other benefits too.

[bluecalm]

As someone who is basically forced to play 2♦ multi and 2H/2S as weak two suiters because 99% of people here play either that or Wilkosz + weak two bids I miss simple 2d = weak in diamonds.
If I were playing standard I would prefer playing 2D as 18-19 bal and 2N as 20-21 bal as top Italians do because not having 18-19 balanced in 1m is huge bonus if bidding get competitive because then every double/other display of strength is unbalanced with 5+minor suit.

Most people here play 2N as minors and imo this is not very good. You rarely cause much harm to opponents who have 2 operational bids available (3C/3D) as well as direct and delayed double but you make the play much easier for them. Not recommended imo.

[Phil]

I've played 2♦ as the 20-21 hand and 2N as the minors. Its more of a gimmick than anything else, and doesn't have an enormous effect on your constructive bidding, unless you complicate the followups. Being able to play exactly 2♦ is sometimes nice, but you won't win many matches with these pickups

[nigel_k]

2♦ as a weak two bid is highly underrated.

I dislike 2NT as weak with minors, for the reasons bluecalm gave. Multi suffers from similar problems of being less preemptive and giving opponents an extra turn to call. Using 2♦ to show some kind of strong hand (whether 18-19 bal or something else) may be better but would require a lot of work to develop the continuations.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-19, 07:09, said:

I know that the Mexican 2♦ opening was originally a strong balanced hand of about 18-19 HCP. I am not sure what the current Mexican 2♦ opening is.

GF with primary diamonds, or 21-22 HCP balanced, or 27-28 HCP balanced.

[32519]

awm, on 2012-March-19, 15:15, said:

Why all the dislike for 2♦ preemptive? It is a very effective bid, probably better than weak 2♥!

The 2NT for minors is fine when it comes up, but much lower frequency. I wouldn't trade a weak two for that unless I was getting a lot of other benefits too.

Spot on here!

At the Vanderbilt (currently under way) a standard weak 2♦ opener caused some problems on board 18 here, 1 hand overbid and 1 hand underbid.

[Cyberyeti]

Add me to the camp that likes the weak 2♦. The particular problem it causes is where the next hand has somnething like a 2434 16 count without a stop. Auctions can quickly get to silly places when partner has spades if you double.

We actually use this as often as possible 1st/3rd so xxxx, xx, xxxx, xxx is a weak 2♦ systemically in 3rd seat at favourable.

[mike777]

No dissing the weak 2d bid, I just find playing mexican 2d 17/18-19 is a big help in making my one level bids more limited and defined. I can take many bal/semi bal 14+ hands and throw them into a nt type auction.

I think this is the most important reason to play mexican 2d.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2012-March-24, 10:41, said:

No dissing the weak 2d bid, I just find playing mexican 2d 17/18-19 is a big help in making my one level bids more limited and defined. I can take many bal/semi bal 14+ hands and throw them into a nt type auction.

I think this is the most important reason to play mexican 2d.

I guess my partner has zero to five opposite that array more often than yours; but, at least now I know the logic of the convention and why it might be a better use of 2D for those of you who want 1m to show an unbalanced hand (or 11-13 bal) at the outset.

[Free]

Hasn't this question been asked and answered a million times?