Yes, I should second karlson's plug for my own convention, Meyerson. This is:
X = Major + minor two suiter, at least 5-4, either suit can be longer
2
♣ = majors
2
♦-2
♠ = natural
Followups to X:
If responder passes, then 2
♣ is "bid your five card suit", 2
♦ is "bid your major" and 2M is natural.
If responder makes some artificial suit bid (like a transfer) then double shows length in the suit responder named, willingness to compete in that suit if opener holds 4+ there.
If responder bids a natural suit, or opener bids a suit and it's passed around, then double is takeout.
Comparing this method to normal Woolsey:
(1) If opponents pass after the opening, we will reach the same contract as Woolsey on the two suited hands (note that over 2
♣, overcaller bids a 5cM even if the four-card minor is
clubs).
(2) We have a way to bid a diamond one-suiter, which woolsey does not (some people include diamond one-suiter in the woolsey double but this can create other issues).
(3) We greatly increase the frequency of the double (probably more than a factor of two counting 5-5 hands); while the double is not penalty by any means, it
can be converted on occasion. When this happens it's a big win.
(4) We enable advancer to introduce his own long major suit opposite the two-suited option; this is important because when overcaller has a
single suit playing in overcaller's suit is almost always okay, but there are definitely hands where overcaller has a 5-4 two-suiter and it is far better to play in advancer's six-card suit (basically, 6-card suit plays fine opposite singleton or even void but 5134 opposite 1633 and it is quite clear that 2
♥ is better than 2
♠ or 3m).
(5) Most people play transfers over double, which gives us a lot of opportunities to find our fits opposite the two-suited options (i.e. double the transfer bid, double for takeout when opener accepts the transfer). There are also sequences like 1NT-2
♦(one major)-2NT(clubs) and advancer has a mediocre 2434 hand. Do we want to commit to the three-level opposite what is probably a spade one-suiter? Doubtful. But opposite a heart one-suiter passing out 3
♣ could be embarrassing. In fact I even had a hand in the LM pairs a few years back where the opponents had a
nine card spade fit and I was 1-4 in the majors on this very auction. Assuming partner had spades I allowed the opponents to play in 3m. While this might've been a loss for them (they were cold for 3
♠ and could only make eight tricks in their minor) they ended up winning the board substantially -- a combination of the fact that we were cold for 4
♥ and that partner misdefended the hand (well double dummy, his duck of my spade lead seemed normal at the time) because he couldn't visualize the weird distributions around the table.
(6) Unlike Woolsey, Meyerson is general chart and is allowed in all ACBL events.
(7) Most opponents simply
can't believe that we play a natural 2
♦ overcall, especially when the rest of our methods include a lot of conventions. We get a lot of disbelieving stares and questions about it. This might make playing the convention worthwhile even if it wasn't good on technical merits.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit