[hrothgar]

MickyB, on Aug 1 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

A 2NT opening showing spades and a red suit would be more likely to go past par on the hand. If both sides can make 8 tricks in their respective major-suit fit, you are happy to preempt to 3♥ but not to 3♠. It's less useful to preempt holding both majors (oppo are less likely to have game) and the well-defined major-suit lengths often allow responder to place the contract immediately.

Perfectly reasonable answer:

Another possibility would be to use 2N as Diamonds and a major...
This would still permit 3♣ as an ask, eliminate the two suiters with both majors, and halve the frequency that partner holds Spades.

Any chance that you could post the response schedule that you use over the Hearts + a minor variant?

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on Aug 1 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

MickyB, on Aug 1 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

A 2NT opening showing spades and a red suit would be more likely to go past par on the hand. If both sides can make 8 tricks in their respective major-suit fit, you are happy to preempt to 3♥ but not to 3♠. It's less useful to preempt holding both majors (oppo are less likely to have game) and the well-defined major-suit lengths often allow responder to place the contract immediately.

Perfectly reasonable answer:

Another possibility would be to use 2N as Diamonds and a major...
This would still permit 3♣ as an ask, eliminate the two suiters with both majors, and halve the frequency that partner holds Spades.

Any chance that you could post the response schedule that you use over the Hearts + a minor variant?

I think uncertainty over which major suit opener has would make it harder to reach 4M quickly when it is the right thing to do.

The responses to 2NT -
3♣/4♣/5♣ pass-or-correct
3♦ ART enquiry, now 3♥ = any MIN, 3♠ = MAX with ♣, 3N = MAX with ♦, 4m = 5♥6m max
3♥/4♥ to play
3♠ natural invitational

[Free]

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

A bid to show 7-10 and 5/5 minors is useful, but to play 2NT as this bid is foolish. Use 3C instead. Against 2NT any useful pair will have assigned meanings g\for 3C /3D /3M. We play 3C = long H+4S, 3D = long S and 4H, 3M natural for example.
Play 2NT as a C pre empt - you now only give the opps one option instead of 2 above.

I've played this approach as well. Doesn't work all that well as you think... Ok, a 3♣ opening for both minors is more efficient, but a 2NT opening for ♣s alone is worse. Since ♣ preempts occur more often, it seems logical to use 2NT for both minors.

Pressure bidding is one of the area's where you can win or lose lots of imps/MP. If you give more possible penalty doubles away, you're doing the wrong thing imo. After a 2NT opening showing a ♣ preempt, opps get penalty doubles, but they lose them after the 3♣ opening. Again, frequency is key. So swapping these openings doesn't make much sense.

[rbforster]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. I know 2N for the minors is a pretty rare opening anyway, but one in precision that doesn't have many good alternatives. I understand the issues about passing 2N making it less desirable to have strong options (how often do you really do this?), but including some sort of GF hands with both minors also seems reasonable.

Free, on Aug 2 2007, 03:14 AM, said:

3♣ opening for both minors is more efficient, but a 2NT opening for ♣s alone is worse.  Since ♣ preempts occur more often, it seems logical to use 2NT for both minors.

I agree. On the subject of where to put the club preempt and the both minors preempt (among 2N and 3♣), I think another point in favor of the "usual" version with 2N minors is that 3♣ natural makes it hard for the opponents to check on stoppers for 3N (typically one hand needs shortness for a takeout X and the opposite needs the full stopper, or else someone needs a huge hand to bid 3N directly). In contrast, over 2N for clubs, between a direct X, 3♣ cue, and a delayed X (and maybe a 3♣ cue in response to the X, or a X of a 3♣ if 3rd hand completes the transfer), I think the opps have plenty of options to sort out takeout, penalty, and whatever else they want. Furthermore, when we have just clubs, it's more likely the opps want to play in 3NT than if we have both minors (when they are more likely to have a major fit), again suggesting that a natural 3♣ is the way to go.

Besides, since 3♣ is more common than 2N in terms of shapes, it makes sense to have this be the "better" (NF) preempt.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Aug 2 2007, 07:42 PM, said:

I agree.  On the subject of where to put the club preempt and the both minors preempt (among 2N and 3♣), I think another point in favor of the "usual" version with 2N minors is that 3♣ natural makes it hard for the opponents to check on stoppers for 3N (typically one hand needs shortness for a takeout X and the opposite needs the full stopper, or else someone needs a huge hand to bid 3N directly).  In contrast, over 2N for clubs, between a direct X, 3♣ cue, and a delayed X (and maybe a 3♣ cue in response to the X, or a X of a 3♣ if 3rd hand completes the transfer), I think the opps have plenty of options to sort out takeout, penalty, and whatever else they want.  Furthermore, when we have just clubs, it's more likely the opps want to play in 3NT than if we have both minors (when they are more likely to have a major fit), again suggesting that a natural 3♣ is the way to go.

Couple quick comments here:

1. You can't analyze shape in isolation from strength. In general, when I have seen strong club pairs using a 3♣ opening to show both minors, the strength requirement is somewhere are 7 - 11 HCP. This hits the sweet-spot on the bell of hand strength. Typically, the single suited club preempts are substantially weaker. (You're opening 2♣ with the 10 and 11 counts - as well as some of the better 9 counts)

♠ Kxx ♥ x ♦ xxx ♣ AQTxxx

is good enough for 2♣ in my books)

This will have a significant impact on the relative frequency of the two hand types.

2. Just because weak single suited hands with clubs can be shown via a 2NT opening does not mean that a 2NT opening should be limited to weak single suited hands with clubs. Consider what happens when the 2NT opening shows either a weak single suited hand with Clubs or a weak single suited hand with Diamonds

* You don't put any noticable pressure on your constructive response structure
* You deprive the opponents of a known cue bid
* The opponents suddenly need to worry about showing hands with long clubs

[rbforster]

Your suggestion is an interesting one Richard (with 2NT = either minor preempt). Still, there are some issues.

- 2N for either minor, like for just clubs, pushes past 3m after any inquiry (maybe 3♦ asking for example), so constructive responses are going to be cramped generally in either case. I expect it will be worse with either minor since you will have additional ambiguity to resolve which minor partner has.

- over 2N for just clubs, partner knows he can try 3N with a good hand and fitting club values. If 2N is either minor, he may not be sure which one.

+ certainly 2N for either minor will be harder to defend than just clubs as you say

+ the value of including diamonds in 2N also depends on whether you can put a direct 3♦ opening to good use. If we're thinking about ACBL midchart (where 2N either minor is ok), you still can't use 3♦ as multi to show a better/worse 3M opening than a direct 3M. Maybe 2N could include the "constructive" preempt in diamonds vs a worse one being direct? It's not a big difference, but it's something.

[hrothgar]

Hi Robert

Playing my normal methods

2N = bad three level preempt in either minor
3C = Constructive with Clubs
3D = Constructive with Diamonds

The response structure is optimized to explore whether Opener has a three card major. For example, the 3♦ response asks for a 3 card major. Opener rebids 3♥ with Spades, 3♠ with Hearts, 3N with neither, and 4♣+ with both. There are some options to explore for 5m or 6m, however, given the weakness of the preempt, Opener needs a real rock crusher to try for slam so I don't worry much about asking for the long minor.

Personally, I perfer differentiating between the different types of single suited preempts rather than showing the 5-5 minor suited hand type. (For what its worth, Martson disagrees. He prefers to show use 2NT to show the 5-5 patterns and uses 3m to show constructive preempts. This lets him bump up the minimum strength for a 1♠ / 2♣ opening).

Regardless, if I did decide to adopt an opening to show both minors, I suspect that I would

1. Use 3♣ to show this hand type
2. Use 2N to show the bad single suited preempts
3. Use 3♦ to show constructive Diamond preempts
4. "Force" constructive club preempts into either Pass, 2N or 2♣ based on what felt like the least lie

[the hog]

Free, on Aug 2 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

A bid to show 7-10 and 5/5 minors is useful, but to play 2NT as this bid is foolish. Use 3C instead. Against 2NT any useful pair will have assigned meanings g\for 3C /3D /3M. We play 3C = long H+4S, 3D = long S and 4H, 3M natural for example.
Play 2NT as a C pre empt - you now only give the opps one option instead of 2 above.

I've played this approach as well. Doesn't work all that well as you think... Ok, a 3♣ opening for both minors is more efficient, but a 2NT opening for ♣s alone is worse. Since ♣ preempts occur more often, it seems logical to use 2NT for both minors.

Pressure bidding is one of the area's where you can win or lose lots of imps/MP. If you give more possible penalty doubles away, you're doing the wrong thing imo. After a 2NT opening showing a ♣ preempt, opps get penalty doubles, but they lose them after the 3♣ opening. Again, frequency is key. So swapping these openings doesn't make much sense.

Frederick,
What i actually used to play was that 3C = both minors, and 2NT was a bad pre empt in either minor. This worked extremely well. I did not bother posting the latter bid as I suspect it is banned in the US. (I am surprised they allow Stayman). This counters your argument as now there is NO CUE over the 2NT opening, which is better of course! However 3C of course is far more efficient as a minor pre empt for the reasons I have suggested.

I have actually played this for some time and as I stated above, it is extremely effective. I suspect that those who argue against this method have never played it or analysed it carefully.

[kes]

In a strong 1C context you don't need a strong 2NT , but "unusual" 2NT with 55+ minors has a low frequency .

You may consider to add the x-x-4=5= (but not x-x-5=4=) hands . Partner will bid his longest minor , with equal length he will bid 3C .

Another idea is to add the 6+Diamonds hands . If partner bids 3C (no problem , if he bids 3D) , you will correct to 3D .
This frees your 3D bid for other purposes .

[hrothgar]

The_Hog, on Aug 3 2007, 07:02 AM, said:

What i actually used to play was that 3C = both minors, and 2NT was a bad pre empt in either minor. This worked extremely well. I did not bother posting the latter bid as I suspect it is banned in the US. (I am surprised they allow Stayman).

In a shocking development, the ACBL sanctions this method at the Midchart level. (I've always found this a bit odd, since, this is a Brown Sticker Convention. The ACBL is normally much more conservation than the rest of the world with respect to choice of methods)

[awm]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2007, 07:47 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 3 2007, 07:02 AM, said:

What i actually used to play was that 3C = both minors, and 2NT was a bad pre empt in either minor. This worked extremely well. I did not bother posting the latter bid as I suspect it is banned in the US. (I am surprised they allow Stayman).

In a shocking development, this ACBL sanctions this method at the Midchart level. (I've always found this a bit odd, since, this is a Brown Sticker Convention. The ACBL is normally much more conservation than the rest of the world with respect to choice of methods)

Easily explained. Meckstroth and Rodwell want to play this method. Meckstroth is on the committee deciding legality. Problem solved.

I find it amusing that this 2NT opening (weak with either minor) is mid-chart but 2NT showing hearts and a minor (i.e. guaranteeing 5+ cards in a known suit) is not mid-chart for lack of an approved suggested defense.