[gwnn]

What should 2♦ and 2♠ mean if 2♥ shows 11-15 and one card away from 4415? 2♦ as minimulti and 2♠ as 4♠+longer minor? Or just 2♦ multi 2♠ natural w2?

[Double !]

could be wrong, but I believe the second option is the way Meckwell plays or played it, with 2 D being minimult.

DHL:

[effervesce]

Double !, on Jul 21 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

could be wrong, but I believe the second option is the way Meckwell plays or played it, with 2 D being minimult.

DHL:

They used to play 2♦ as minimulti, and 2♠ as a bad minor preempt. They now again play 2♦ as 3 suited short diamonds, 3CM possible.

[effervesce]

Duplicate post.

[blackshoe]

Romex Forcing Club plays 2♥ as 3 suited short ♦, 2♦ as Mexican (21-22 or 27-28 balanced, or GF with primary ♦) and 2♠ as a normal weak two.

[FrancesHinden]

gwnn, on Jul 21 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

What should 2♦ and 2♠ mean if 2♥ shows 11-15 and one card away from 4415? 2♦ as minimulti and 2♠ as 4♠+longer minor? Or just 2♦ multi 2♠ natural w2?

Let me ask a different question: why are you playing this 2H bid (used to be known as the TRS 2H opening, but I don't know if it still is) ?

In particular, why are you opening 2H rather than the (more traditional) 2D?

Haven't you made that decision because you already know what you want to use 2D for?

Anyway, I would ask what are the other hand-types your system doesn't deal well with, and are they suitable for two level openings. And I would also ask how random you want your pre-empts to be...

Assuming you are sticking with the 'standard' 2C = clubs and 2NT = minors you can play

2D = multi
2S = bad pre-empt in any suit (that's brown sticker, so it depends where you play, in England you could play it as a bad pre-empt in clubs, diamonds or hearts)

or
2D = weak in hearts or something else amusing
2S = weak

or you could get rid of 2NT for the minors and play a 2NT opening as showing opening (ish) values and 6+ clubs, whilst opening 1D on the more balanced-type club hands, then 2C is also available for general amusement.

2D = weak in hearts, or

[lexlogan]

One reason to play 2♥ as described is because 2♦ is a more effective weak two than either 2♥ or 2♠, and of course 2♥ puts more pressure on the opps since they can't count on two chances to act. So a normal Precision pair can simply play 2♦ and 2♠ weak. Other schemes allow you to include more hand types, including various additional weak hands or hard-to-bid strong or intermediate hands, but all such schemes allow the opps more chances to get in the action, so I queston their effectiveness. Weak twos are simple and moderately effective, so don't feel compelled to muck around with anything else. I'd suggest concentrating on the rest of your system. Where allowed, the Rough 2♦ is a simple, reasonable alternative that puts pressure on the opps. Multi is reasonable if that's what is commonly played in your area.

[mycroft]

Berkowitz/Manley suggest using 2D for the Traditional Roman hand - 18-24, 4441. Low Frequency, High Reward when it does come up.

Hey, if the Flannery players are willing to do that, why can't I? Oh yeah, because there aren't enough mid-chart events for it to be worth learning it around here, and having to remember to swap back and forth is going to be a disaster.

[david_c]

I used to play this thing, with

2♦ = (mini-)multi
2♠ = 5 spades and a 4+ minor

Actually I'd be rather surprised if this wasn't the "normal" approach. It's what Rigal's book on Precision suggests.

I don't like methods where 2♠ doesn't show spades.

[Apollo81]

david_c, on Jul 22 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

I used to play this thing, with

2♦ = (mini-)multi
2♠ = 5 spades and a 4+ minor

Actually I'd be rather surprised if this wasn't the "normal" approach. It's what Rigal's book on Precision suggests.

I don't like methods where 2♠ doesn't show spades.

I also think this is the normal approach when making 2♥ the three suiter

[gwnn]

Frances, what happened with the bottom half of your post?

I thought 2H was more effective than 2D because it's harder to defend because its strong NF nature. I think the margin 2D will do worse than natural weak twos is smaller than 2H will do better than classical 2D, at least in our fields. We'd like to use 2D and 2S both for preemptive hands.