[helene_t]

In the open Dutch pairs champship quarterfinals, we encountered a pair of mad scientists playing some home-grown two-way club system with a weak 1NT. I thought their preempt structure was interesting:

2♣: 4 hearts with longer sidesuit, or 6 hearts.
2♦: 4 spades with longer sidesuit, or 6 spades.
2M: Muiderberg.
2N: Minors.

This allows a pass to deny an intermediate, unbalanced hand. (Except 4441-shapes, and also they probably won't open 2N with 5/4 minors and 3/1 majors when vulnerable).

[whereagles]

Pass denies an unbalanced hand? What do they do with 6m and 6-11 hcp?

[helene_t]

Come on Whereagles, you're not that old

[keylime]

I gotta admit; those look rather interesting to me. Problem is, I bet the ACBL would not allow a permitted defense even tho it's Mid-Chart legal (any call that promises 4 cards in a known suit).

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Jul 13 2007, 06:49 PM, said:

I gotta admit; those look rather interesting to me. Problem is, I bet the ACBL would not allow a permitted defense even tho it's Mid-Chart legal (any call that promises 4 cards in a known suit).

For what its worth, I've been using a 2♠ opening showing

4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs OR
6+ Spades

for some time now.

In a not too surprising development, I never managed to get a defense approved to this one.

[joshs]

I remember an australian pair sat down against me in the reisinger playing about 8 different pre-empts like thats (including the 6S or 4S and 5+ minor pre-empt) with a small sheet of inadequite defenses and we had no time to go over them and come up with reasonable defenses, even though there are completely unsound....

This kind of stuff is one of the reasons the acbl decided they had to approve defenses in the first place.


Perosnally, I think in a pairs movement, there should be a limit to the number of your pre-alerts (at least for not totally routine stuff like multi or x-fer responses to stuff which partnerships really should be expected to be pre-pared for these days, hence probably should not even require a prealert in a national event). You just don't have enough time to even figure out wha the methods are (and make the appropriate negative inferences) let alone discuss defenses....

[jtfanclub]

joshs, on Jul 13 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

I remember an australian pair sat down against me in the reisinger playing about 8 different pre-empts like thats (including the 6S or 4S and 5+ minor pre-empt) with a small sheet of inadequite defenses and we had no time to go over them and come up with reasonable defenses, even though there are completely unsound....

For the General Convention Chart, I agree.

For Midchart, I think that you should already know a generic defense.

1 or 2 suiter, one known suit.
Known suit is suit bid: Whatever you play over normal weak 2s.
Known suit is not suit bid: X is takeout with tolerence, bidding their suit is shortness in their suit, pass and then X is penalty (or their known suit), and everything else, same as you play over weak 2s.

The REAL danger is that the opponents lie. Let's say that 2♣ shows "2♣: 4 hearts with longer sidesuit, or 6 hearts", but in fact they always have at least 3 clubs. Now the normal defenses won't work. If they're honest, though, the generic defenses should work fine.

[hrothgar]

joshs, on Jul 13 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

I remember an australian pair sat down against me in the reisinger playing about 8 different pre-empts like thats (including the 6S or 4S and 5+ minor pre-empt) with a small sheet of inadequite defenses and we had no time to go over them and come up with reasonable defenses, even though there are completely unsound....

This kind of stuff is one of the reasons the acbl decided they had to approve defenses in the first place.


Perosnally, I think in a pairs movement, there should be a limit to the number of your pre-alerts (at least for not totally routine stuff like multi or x-fer responses to stuff which partnerships really should be expected to be pre-pared for these days, hence probably should not even require a prealert in a national event). You just don't have enough time to even figure out wha the methods are (and make the appropriate negative inferences) let alone discuss defenses....

I apologize if I am putting words in Josh's mouth, however, I (think that I) agree with his core point.

I think that the ACBL should increase the number of Convention Charts that it publishes. At the moment, the ACBL has four different Convention Charts. My impression is that said charts are designed to reflect the skill levels of the participants in different classes of events.

The Limited Chart is intended for novice games
The General Convention Chart is intended for experienced players
"Experts" should be able to handle the Mid-Chart
Internationalists should be able to cope with the Super-Chart.

Personally, I would prefer a system in which both skill level and round length was a factor

Convention Chart 1: Beginners

Convention Chart 2(a): Experienced players, short rounds
Convention Chart 2(B): Experienced players, long rounds

Convention Chart 3(a): Expert players, short rounds
Convention Chart 3(B): Expert players, long rounds

Convention Chart 4(a): Internationalists, short rounds
Convention Chart 4(B): Internationalists, long rounds

For what its worth, I don't think that the Conventions Committee shold be allowed to specify what chart gets used for what type of event. If a tournament sponsor wants to run a Blue Ribbon Pair level event using Convention Chart 1, thats for them to decide (and publicize in advance).

The Conventions Committe's "influence" should be based on the quality of the Convention Charts that they produce and not administrative fiat. I will note in passing that a number of Districts already feel free to supplement the exisitng Convention Charts with their own additions / subtractions.

[awm]

I wonder if it would be better or worse to play:

2♣ = 4+♥ and another 4+ suit
2♦ = 4+♠ and another 4+ suit
2♥/2♠ = natural 6-carder

It seems like the 2♣ bid showing "4♥ or 6♥" doesn't allow partner to bump the preempt often when opener has 6 and responder 3. It might also be nice to be able to get out in 2m with some of the Muiderberg hands. This is basically "Astro preempts" of course.

[Free]

awm, on Jul 13 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

I wonder if it would be better or worse to play:

2♣ = 4+♥ and another 4+ suit
2♦ = 4+♠ and another 4+ suit
2♥/2♠ = natural 6-carder

It seems like the 2♣ bid showing "4♥ or 6♥" doesn't allow partner to bump the preempt often when opener has 6 and responder 3. It might also be nice to be able to get out in 2m with some of the Muiderberg hands. This is basically "Astro preempts" of course.

I played following for a while:
2♣ = 4+♣, 4+M
2♦ = 4+♦, 4+M
2♥ = 4+♥, 4+♠
2♠ = weak two

Works fine