[whereagles]

Talk about reckless.. that structure is insane

[han]

The structure is not reckless at all, depends on how you apply it. Nowhere do I state that you have to preempt any time you have a 5-card minor. You can be very conservative and still play the above structure.

When vulnerable it might make more sense to play 2H and 2S as honest constructive weak 2's, since another corollary of Tysen's law says that when you have a major, you have game. I like the structure I suggest better when not vulnerable.

[pbleighton]

"I like the structure I suggest better when not vulnerable."

Well, let's face it, all of the stuff we've been discussing plays a LOT better NV. Your 2S bid is a bit adventurous, even by my very relaxed standards, but it would be a lot of fun

Peter

[tysen2k]

I don't think the 2♠ bid is that bad.

[pbleighton]

"I don't think the 2♠ bid is that bad."

I didn't say "bad", I said "adventurous"

Peter

[whereagles]

Let's say.. it's to be used sparingly, and with moderation

[Free]

I've played following structure for quite a while:

2♣ = 4+♣ and 4+M
2♦ = 4+♦ and 4+M
2♥ = 4+♥ and 4+♠
2♠ = 6+♠ (a maximum hand with 5 good ♠'s is also allowed)
3♣ = 5+♣ and 5+♦

We had great results, preempted the most of the entire field, played in some very nice 4-3 fits,... I've thought about why we had such good results, and here are the following reasons:
- All bids are NF. When NV, we could just pass if we also had a very weak hand, and let opponents find it out or play in 4-1 fits not doubled.
- All 2-level bids can have ♠s. That's VERY handy in competitive bidding.
- This structure is extremely frequent, and almost always got us in playable contracts.
- 2♥ and 3♣ bids only give away 1 cuebid.

[EricK]

Free, on Sep 10 2005, 08:23 AM, said:

I've played following structure for quite a while:

2♣ = 4+♣ and 4+M
2♦ = 4+♦ and 4+M
2♥ = 4+♥ and 4+♠
2♠ = 6+♠ (a maximum hand with 5 good ♠'s is also allowed)
3♣ = 5+♣ and 5+♦

We had great results, preempted the most of the entire field, played in some very nice 4-3 fits,... I've thought about why we had such good results, and here are the following reasons:
- All bids are NF. When NV, we could just pass if we also had a very weak hand, and let opponents find it out or play in 4-1 fits not doubled.
- All 2-level bids can have ♠s. That's VERY handy in competitive bidding.
- This structure is extremely frequent, and almost always got us in playable contracts.
- 2♥ and 3♣ bids only give away 1 cuebid.

Very interesting.

What strength do you play these, and what, if any, requirements do you have with regard to the strength of the suits (eg do you need honours in both suits etc)?

Eric

[Free]

We only need 'decent suits', but according to vulnerability, we open a bigger range when NV (obviously). V we usually want something extra than just decent suits.

Our definition of a 'decent x-card suit' is: at least K, QT or x+1 cards => in function of our preempts this means Kxxx, QTxx or 5+ cards in the suit.

[MickyB]

Matt - you probably know my opinions already, but here goes...

I don't like 2♣ for the majors. Knowing which major is 5 cards will come in useful occasionally, but it needs

- Responder to have equal length in the majors
- Opener to not be 4-4 or 5-5 (true about 40% of the time)
- Responder to guess incorrectly (which he should do less than 50% of the time)

before you miss your best fit, and even then you may not be left to play there. I'd rather play 2♥ as the majors, which puts a lot more pressure on the opps, although I'm not terribly keen on that either. I suspect that 2♣ for the majors isn't that easy to develop an optimal defence to, simply because you have been given so many options.

If I was designing a structure to use at level 4, I'd make 2♣ show either 6♦ or 5-4 majors (2♦/♥/♠ responses all pass or correct, after 2♣:2♦ opener bids his longer major - this works ok unless responder is 2425 and opener is 54xx) and I'd take the strong options out of the multi.

I also think playing preempts as 0-5 1st NV is misguided. Their frequency is less than 40% of a 6-9 range.

I like opening a naturalish 2 of a minor as it makes it hard for the opps to look for fits in both majors, however I feel it should either promise or deny a side 4 card major otherwise you land up burying your own fits as well. 4-5 cards in the minor and a 4 card major, 5 cards in the minor and 4 cards in the major and natural either single suited or a minor 2 suiter are all good, with fairly obvious gains and losses.

If you want to get into conventions that aren't legal at EBU level 4, then the following structures are worth considering...

2♦ = 5major, 4+minor
2♥ = 6♥ 6-9 or 5+♠ 0-5
2♠ = 6♠ 6-9

This is very destructive as 2♦-X-AP can occur quite frequently if the defending side let it, but the 2♦ opener leaves you on a guess when you want to play in 3m if partner holds the major that you are short in but 4M if he holds the major that you have length in.

2♣ = 5major, 4+minor
2♦ = 6♦ 6-9 or 5+♥ 0-5
2♥ and 2♠ as above

2♦ = 6♥ or 5♠4+minor
2♥ = 6♠ or 5♥5+minor
2♠ = 5-5, majors or minors

Solves the constructive problem of Rainbow while losing some of the destructiveness.