[Kungsgeten]

I read here about a method where the 2NT opening showed a weak hand with 5-5 reds or 5-5 majors. Nice idea because 3♣ is available as a cheap forcing bid. We currently play 2NT as 5-5 majors or minors, and use 3♥ as the forcing bid.

I was thinking about the possiblity of adding one suited with clubs to the linked opening bid. If so, the 2NT opening would show:

a) Preemptive with clubs
b) Weak with 5-5 reds
c) Weak with 5-5 majors

The 3♣ opening bid could now be used to show 5-5 minors. Compared to the methods I play now, we would be able to show a weak hand with 5-5 reds, which we can not do at the moment. The main downside is ofcourse ambiguity and the fact that 2NT opener will declare a likely 3NT contract. I believe the uncontested continuations would work ok:

2NT--
3♣ = Pass/correct. Opener passes or bids 3♦ with reds, 3♥ with majors
3♦ = GF relay. Too strong to risk playing in 3♣. I guess 3♥ as reds, 3♠ as majors and 3NT as clubs would be most natural.
3♥♠ = Natural, forcing

[nullve]

What are your other 2-openings?

[Kungsgeten]

nullve, on 2016-March-21, 09:40, said:

What are your other 2-openings?

I do not think that is relevant in this case (unless there is other bids available for two-suiters), but we play:

2C = 12-16, 6+C or 5C and 4M
2D = 18-19 NT
2M = Weak

[nullve]

Idea:

2N-?:

3♣ = P/C
3♦ = Multi: either < GF w/ long major or strong
...3♥ = C preempt ["P/C"]
......P = wanted to play 3♥ opposite a C preempt
......3♠ = wanted to play 3♠ opposite a C preempt
......(...)
...3♠ = 5+H5+D [right-siding 4♥]
......P = wanted to play 3♠ opposite 5+H5+D
......(...)
...3N = 5S5H [right-siding 4M]
...4♣ = 5(+)S6+H
...4♦ = 6+S5(+)H
...(...)
3M = 5+ M, GF
(...)

[mgoetze]

This 2NT convention (both the first version and your modification) just seems strictly inferior to Wilkosz. I mean, I don't know how badly you need the 18-19 NT but it seems playing 2NT as 20-21, putting 18-19 where you have 20-21 now and inserting 2♦ Wilkosz should almost certainly be an improvement.

I've always liked the idea of 3♣ as both minors but have yet to take the leap of giving up 3♣ natural, which is pretty good in itself and when playing teams you'd be terrified if that hand type came up and the other table could bid it while you couldn't. (I almost always need 2NT as natural but even if I didn't, assume the opps have an actual defense to transfer preempts and you're already behind quite a bit.)

[mgoetze]

On second thought, I guess the one advantage that the original convention has over Wilkosz is that partner with hearts but no spades can effectively preempt to, say, 4♥. I don't think that is nearly enough to make it better than Wilkosz but you're taking away even this advantage. Also, if the preemptor is guaranteed to have hearts, you can at least have a semieffective auction of 2NT-3♥-p - that might not be a good contract but it won't be so easy for your opponents to tell. If, on the other hand, 2NT-3♥ is a forcing bid and you have to go a longer route to get to 3♥, you are giving the opps much more information as whether they should and more opportunities to get into the auction. This seems like a major disadvantage.

[Charlie Yu]

What is yr bid for 5/5 S+D or S+C?

[Kungsgeten]

nullve: I like your idea of using the 3D response as a multi.

mgoetze: I do not really think it is fair to compare it to Wilkosz. Ofcourse having 2D, 2H and/or 2S as two-suiters will be more effective than using 2NT, since 2NT is way higher. I've actually seen people play 2NT as any weak 5-5 hand, so it could be compared to that (and other structures where no other 2-level opening is available for two-suiters). In our specific system we could remove 18-19 NT from 2D (even though I believe we have good reasons for using the mexican 2D). In some systems 2D is needed for other uses: my guess is that natural or a three-suiter (or possibly multi with 2H being the two-suiter) is most common in this part of the forum.

Charlie Yu: We have no bid for a weak hand with that distribution. We also do not have a bid for 5-5 H+C. Sometimes we might open a weak 2S. With the suggested structure the 2NT opening (plus 3C) handles three of the six possible two-suiters.

Another 2NT option, handling four two-suiters, would be playing it as 5-5 major + minor. I call it Quattro Stagioni:

2NT (weak, 5-5 major + minor)---
3D = Forcing
...3M = Minimum. Lowest new suit asks minor.
...3NT = Hearts and max, 4C asks minor.
...4m = Spades + minor, max.
3NT = To play
Others = Pass/correct

[mgoetze]

Kungsgeten, on 2016-March-22, 14:38, said:

mgoetze: I do not really think it is fair to compare it to Wilkosz. Ofcourse having 2D, 2H and/or 2S as two-suiters will be more effective than using 2NT, since 2NT is way higher. I've actually seen people play 2NT as any weak 5-5 hand, so it could be compared to that (and other structures where no other 2-level opening is available for two-suiters). In our specific system we could remove 18-19 NT from 2D (even though I believe we have good reasons for using the mexican 2D). In some systems 2D is needed for other uses: my guess is that natural or a three-suiter (or possibly multi with 2H being the two-suiter) is most common in this part of the forum.

Of course it's not fair to simply say "when you have the two-suited hand, you'll do better if you're playing Wilkosz". The loss of whatever other meaning you have for 2♦ does need to be accounted for. I just feel that Wilkosz is SO MUCH better than this 2NT convention that even giving up your current meaning for 2♦ you will come out ahead for 99% of the bidding systems out there. (Which is to say, I guess, that I just think this 2NT convention is bad.)

[Charlie Yu]

If you don't plan the cover all six two-suiter, I think you should prioritize spades?

[mgoetze]

Charlie Yu, on 2016-March-24, 07:45, said:

If you don't plan the cover all six two-suiter, I think you should prioritize spades?

I think the opposite, so maybe provide some reasoning?

[Free]

After your 3♦ relay you might want to consider letting responder play. So perhaps it's better to play:
3♥ = ♣
3♠ = reds
3NT = Majors

[nullve]

If

T = Wilkosz + 2N as 5+D5+C, weak
T' = Mexican 2♦ + Quattro Stagioni
S = Swedish Club (with 15-17 NT) containing T
S' = S after replacing T with T' and "updating" (to fill the holes created and reap some structural benefits, say),

then, arguably, S is better (on average) than S' on both T and T' hands, because, evidently(?),

* Wilkosz is better (on average) than Quattro Stagioni on weak 5+M5+m hands
* Wilkosz is better (on average) than Pass (in S') on many weak 5+S5+H hands (the 5+S5+H hands that Wilkosz is restricted to, say)
* 2N in S is better (on average) than Pass in S' on many weak 5+D5+C hands (the hands that the 2N opening in S is restricted to, say)
* Swedish 1♣ in S is better (on average) than Mexican 2♦ with 18-19 bal., despite occasional embarrassments¹ after e.g. 1♣-(3x)-P.

So if S' is the better system overall, then that will be an example of the kind of mild paradox that my 'Utiltitarian sacrifices' [sic!] thread was about. Mild, because in order to say with certainty which system is better, we clearly need to know the details of how S is updated after T has been replaced with T'². (Consider possible updates when the 1N rebid after 1♣-1♦ can no longer contain 18-19 bal., for example.)

¹ Today's big shock: https://en.wiktionar...i/embarrassment (6th sense of the word)
² As mgoetze pointed out in that thread.

[mgoetze]

nullve, on 2016-March-24, 12:31, said:

T = Wilkosz + 2N as 5+D5+C, weak

Note that this is not what I suggested.

[nullve]

mgoetze, on 2016-March-24, 17:07, said:

Note that this is not what I suggested.

No, you didn't. I chose that meaning for 2N to be able to make a certain point. Mexican 2♦ + Qattro Stagioni vs. Wilkosz + 20-21 NT would have been a different comparison entirely.

[Zelandakh]

You might also consider looking up the French 2NT opening, which is any 2 suits from ♠, ♥ and ♦, although there are very few jurisdictions that would allow it. That would cover half of the 2-suiters. You can also take a look at Chris Ryall's site, where a number of different options for the 2NT opening are written up - the Dave Keen method might be a possibility for example.

[nullve]

Then the French 2N opening is the same as in 1993 Viking Precision.

[Kungsgeten]

I could try to explain why we have chosen 2D as 18-19 NT instead of a preemptive call, but I'm not sure it would be an interesting read We actually played Wilkosz for a while when playing Moscito, but I do not have enough experience of it to have a strong opinion. I remember I was a bit concerned about the possibility of 5-5 majors, since you many times bid your worse major as pass/correct and thus with 3-2-4-4 for instance would play a 5-2 heart fit instead of 5-3 spade fit.

Zel: The French 2NT seems interesting. I guess 3D would be pass/correct, while 3C would be a relay (either strong or a hand not wishing to play diamonds) asking opener to bid 3D with both majors or 3M with major + diamonds?

[nullve]

Grøtheim writes in the book that he took the opening from Armstrong-Forrester, who used it on a now famous deal from the 1987 BB. It can be found on page 6 here:

http://www.eurobridg.../pdf/bul_01.pdf

[Zelandakh]

Kungsgeten, on 2016-March-27, 13:49, said:

Zel: The French 2NT seems interesting. I guess 3D would be pass/correct, while 3C would be a relay (either strong or a hand not wishing to play diamonds) asking opener to bid 3D with both majors or 3M with major + diamonds?

Sorry, I have to report that I wrote the wrong thing in the previous post. The French 2NT is a 2-suiter excluding spades rather than clubs. But for the TRS opening linked by nullve, 3♣ relay and 3red pass/correct seems eminently reasonable.