[MickyB]

awm, on 2014-September-07, 10:48, said:

This 2♣ method doesn't seem very good to me. Suppose I pick up a hand like ♠x ♥Qxx ♦Kxxxx ♣xxxx; this is exactly the sort of hand where having an opening that shows 5+♦ with limited values is a huge winner, because I can really put the screws to the opposition. But this is also exactly the hand where I'd be afraid that partner holds a "strong 2♣" opening and any aggressive raise of diamonds limits our ability to find the right strain and level.

Yeah this was kind of my [limited] experience with 2C as GF/weak 2D. The auction 2C (2S) 5D (P); 5H (P) 6H may have been successful but it didn't feel best!

Quote

I'd also be worried about finding major suit fits over the 2♦ opening, especially on non-GF hands. Just because I know opener has a major doesn't mean I have the same major; for example say I hold ♠AQxxx ♥Kx ♦xx ♣xxxx; I might make game opposite ♠Kxxx ♥Qxx ♦AQxxx ♣x but don't really want to get higher opposite the more likely ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦AQxxx ♣Kxx.

Yup, although oppo will often overcall when neither of you has one of the majors.

Quote

Given the general system I'd go with 2♦ showing 6+♦ and intermediate, and let the 4M-5♦ hands open 1♦ where at least I can consistently find my major suit fits. These 1453-type patterns are not that different from balanced hands in most situations anyway (except playing strength when partner responds your 4M).

Well, their playing strength in diamonds is quite different too! Not a bad idea though. I'm still tempted by 2D = 6D/5D4C, and opening 1M on 4M5D min.

Quote

I do think putting both balanced ranges into 1♣ is better; it's easy to clarify in a non-competitive auction, and when opponents are going to bid I'd rather have one nebulous "usually just a balanced hand" opening than two.

I think this is over-simplistic; a bid that is either natural or 17-19 NT is by no means "usually just a balanced hand".

[benlessard]

Glen do you think its wise to put the weak NT in 1D and the 17-19 in 1C or it should be the other way around ?

[yunling]

1♦ as 11-13 NT or 14+ with diamonds is very odd to me. It is the intermediate hands that causes problem, so 1♦ as 14-16 NT/14+ with diamonds or as 11-13 NT/11-13&17+ with diamonds looks much better.
I don't like 2m openings either.

[PhilKing]

MickyB, on 2014-September-05, 10:14, said:

If you open all weak nts with 1D (or 1C), the worst hands for your system are minima with primary diamonds (clubs); even if your uncontested methods are good, you will be a long way behind in contested auctions.

Surely the weakest hand in contested auctions is the weak no trump. It is fear of this that prevents partner from supporting agressively with good support and marginal values.

[glen]

benlessard, on 2014-September-07, 21:20, said:

Glen do you think its wise to put the weak NT in 1D and the 17-19 in 1C or it should be the other way around ?

All things being equal (and never are) my research shows it is better to put the weak NT in 1D and 17-19 in 1C. When one tries to design a strong 1D system one realizes how much better a big club approach is. There are a bunch of reasons for weak NT in 1D related to space and declarer position, but a key is to compare the short club now dominating top European play with the Meckwell Lite strong presence in top US play and realize that the Meckwell Lite 1D doesn't need transfers (or major flips) to be just as effective and the extra space of the short club allows better counter measures.

My current toy system (unpublished), the one I bid most hands I see against, is:

1♣: 14+ 4+♥s unbal, 15+ any unbal, 17+ bal
1♦: 11-13 bal, or 10-14 3 suiter with 3♠s and minor singleton (not void) or 13 1-4-4-4
1♥: 10-14 4♠s unbal
1♠: 9-14 5+♠s
1NT: 14-16 bal
2m: 10/11-14, 5+m, singleton or void if just 5m, not 4♠s, not 4♥s if 14 or 3-4-(5-1)
2♥: 9/10-13, 5+♥s, unbal, not 4♠s, not 3-5-(4-1)
2♠: 0-8, 5/6♠s

A lot of this is based on spades (or the lack of them), but another key is to give the weak NT an opening that is mostly to its own. I agree that the more the weak NT is paired with other minimum hand types that are not quasi balanced it results in increased mess in the contested auction.

[Jinksy]

Who are you and what have you done with the MickyB who said the 2♦ opening was the worst thing about the Fantunes system?

[benlessard]

Good one Jinksy.

Also lol at those who think 2C precision/PC with 6C/5C+4M is terrible but somehow 2D with 6D/5D+4M is acceptable.

[MickyB]

Jinksy, on 2014-September-09, 11:16, said:

Who are you and what have you done with the MickyB who said the 2♦ opening was the worst thing about the Fantunes system?

Perchance, did I follow up with, "because you have no way to find out at a safe level whether partner has a major on the side"?

[MickyB]

PhilKing, on 2014-September-08, 02:21, said:

Surely the weakest hand in contested auctions is the weak no trump. It is fear of this that prevents partner from supporting agressively with good support and marginal values.

This is true. It is also obvious and doesn't disagree with anything I'd said!*

* I guess you could interpret my post differently, but I think it's fairly clear I was saying that on {unbalanced hands with diamonds} we would rate to do less well than on other handtypes.

[MickyB]

benlessard, on 2014-September-09, 11:24, said:

Good one Jinksy.

Also lol at those who think 2C precision/PC with 6C/5C+4M is terrible but somehow 2D with 6D/5D+4M is acceptable.

Who has said that?

Also - if I quote my own post and disagree with something that I didn't actually say, will I get an upvote too?

[benlessard]

Not one person in particular but in bbo history of thread about 2C precision close to 75% of the players thought 2C without 6 was nearly unplayable or really a poor method.

[PhilKing]

MickyB, on 2014-September-09, 12:07, said:

This is true. It is also obvious and doesn't disagree with anything I'd said!*

* I guess you could interpret my post differently, but I think it's fairly clear I was saying that on {unbalanced hands with diamonds} we would rate to do less well than on other handtypes.

I understood perfectly well, but imo you are thinking about this the wrong way - increasing the strength of the natural diamond options within 1♦ does not make a great deal of difference.

It makes no difference to partner's ability to compete. Partner still has to pass with some marginal hands and we just lose the board in exactly the same way as before even when opener has extras. The biggest losses will tend to come when opener has a medium strength hand with decent shape.

If you think opening at the two level with minimum 54 diamond hands is a winner when compared with other options, that is a different matter, but it does not "solve" the one level.

[Cthulhu D]

MickyB, on 2014-September-07, 15:13, said:

Not precisely, I was thinking maybe those with experience playing 2C as gf/weak 2D might weigh in.

It's very different, you're going to have a lot more constructive auctions that I am playing a 21+ or weak diamonds. Basically any 11-12 count is fine letting the partnership sit in 2D, but opposite you that is a danger hand. As a result you can afford a really conservative 'packing' of responses - and indeed even squeeze additional weak options into 2C.

On a related note, from experience with a Diamonds + major opening it's really awkward because often you want to advance if partner has hearts but really do not want to if partner has spades. That might be less of an issue in constructive auctions that with 2D as a diamonds + major pre-empt, but ti is torturous. My hardest decisions at the bridge table in random club session are often whether to bid 2H over 2D. We can deal with this at the 1 level in a !C = balanced or clubs 1D = unbalanced type structure with flip flop responses (so 1D-1S-1NT= 5D-4H weak hand.

[Kungsgeten]

MickyB, on 2014-September-06, 18:03, said:

Not precisely, I was thinking maybe those with experience playing 2C as gf/weak 2D might weigh in.

I play this from time to time and like the convention. It must be said that I play mostly MP though. The follow-ups I've used are pretty poor, but easy. Our 2C is 20-21 bal, weak diamonds or any GF:

2D = Non-forcing vs weak diamonds
2M = To play vs 20-21 bal or weak diamonds
2NT = Forcing (opener shows SPL or bids 3NT+ with the strong hand)
3m = To play vs 20-21 bal or weak diamonds

A concern for many is not being able to preempt as responder with diamonds support (for fear of the strong hand). This is a valid point, but one thing to consider is that the alternative (in most cases) is to not have a weak diamond opening at the 2-level at all. At least now you've taken away the 1-level.

A better response scheme would probably be something like this:

2D = Non-forcing vs weak diamonds
2H = Forcing relay, includes good hands with diamonds
2S = Natural
2NT = Hearts
3C = Natural
3D = Preemptive, strong hand must bid

If 2S, 2NT and 3C should be forcing or not I do not know. If not, 3M should probably be a natural GF.

[Zelandakh]

Gerben also has this convention on his webspace and that might be of interest.

[benlessard]

I think the original version that has been played in Ottawa/Toronto for some years now is better.

2C is 20-21 bal or reg 2C (direct 2NT is 22-23)

2C--??

2D H transfer or waiting GF (IIRC 4H+5m is possible)
2H S transfer could be 4S+5m if GF
2S bust vs 20-21 or ...
the rest is minors.

2C-2D-2H-2S is some sort of Kokish and its a relay to 2Nt.

Just the transfers over 2C are worth more than the possible weak 2D in 2C. So its clear for me to drop the weak option in 2C.