2N opening for the minors

[rbforster]

Your suggestion is an interesting one Richard (with 2NT = either minor preempt). Still, there are some issues.

 

- 2N for either minor, like for just clubs, pushes past 3m after any inquiry (maybe 3♦ asking for example), so constructive responses are going to be cramped generally in either case. I expect it will be worse with either minor since you will have additional ambiguity to resolve which minor partner has.

 

- over 2N for just clubs, partner knows he can try 3N with a good hand and fitting club values. If 2N is either minor, he may not be sure which one.

 

+ certainly 2N for either minor will be harder to defend than just clubs as you say

 

+ the value of including diamonds in 2N also depends on whether you can put a direct 3♦ opening to good use. If we're thinking about ACBL midchart (where 2N either minor is ok), you still can't use 3♦ as multi to show a better/worse 3M opening than a direct 3M. Maybe 2N could include the "constructive" preempt in diamonds vs a worse one being direct? It's not a big difference, but it's something.

[hrothgar]

Hi Robert

 

Playing my normal methods

 

2N = bad three level preempt in either minor

3C = Constructive with Clubs

3D = Constructive with Diamonds

 

The response structure is optimized to explore whether Opener has a three card major. For example, the 3♦ response asks for a 3 card major. Opener rebids 3♥ with Spades, 3♠ with Hearts, 3N with neither, and 4♣+ with both. There are some options to explore for 5m or 6m, however, given the weakness of the preempt, Opener needs a real rock crusher to try for slam so I don't worry much about asking for the long minor.

 

Personally, I perfer differentiating between the different types of single suited preempts rather than showing the 5-5 minor suited hand type. (For what its worth, Martson disagrees. He prefers to show use 2NT to show the 5-5 patterns and uses 3m to show constructive preempts. This lets him bump up the minimum strength for a 1♠ / 2♣ opening).

 

Regardless, if I did decide to adopt an opening to show both minors, I suspect that I would

 

1. Use 3♣ to show this hand type

2. Use 2N to show the bad single suited preempts

3. Use 3♦ to show constructive Diamond preempts

4. "Force" constructive club preempts into either Pass, 2N or 2♣ based on what felt like the least lie

[the hog]

A bid to show 7-10 and 5/5 minors is useful, but to play 2NT as this bid is foolish. Use 3C instead. Against 2NT any useful pair will have assigned meanings g\for 3C /3D /3M. We play 3C = long H+4S, 3D = long S and 4H, 3M natural for example.

Play 2NT as a C pre empt - you now only give the opps one option instead of 2 above.

I've played this approach as well. Doesn't work all that well as you think... Ok, a 3♣ opening for both minors is more efficient, but a 2NT opening for ♣s alone is worse. Since ♣ preempts occur more often, it seems logical to use 2NT for both minors.

 

Pressure bidding is one of the area's where you can win or lose lots of imps/MP. If you give more possible penalty doubles away, you're doing the wrong thing imo. After a 2NT opening showing a ♣ preempt, opps get penalty doubles, but they lose them after the 3♣ opening. Again, frequency is key. So swapping these openings doesn't make much sense.

Frederick,

What i actually used to play was that 3C = both minors, and 2NT was a bad pre empt in either minor. This worked extremely well. I did not bother posting the latter bid as I suspect it is banned in the US. (I am surprised they allow Stayman). This counters your argument as now there is NO CUE over the 2NT opening, which is better of course! However 3C of course is far more efficient as a minor pre empt for the reasons I have suggested.

 

I have actually played this for some time and as I stated above, it is extremely effective. I suspect that those who argue against this method have never played it or analysed it carefully.

[kes]

In a strong 1C context you don't need a strong 2NT , but "unusual" 2NT with 55+ minors has a low frequency .

 

You may consider to add the x-x-4=5= (but not x-x-5=4=) hands . Partner will bid his longest minor , with equal length he will bid 3C .

 

Another idea is to add the 6+Diamonds hands . If partner bids 3C (no problem , if he bids 3D) , you will correct to 3D .

This frees your 3D bid for other purposes .

[hrothgar]

What i actually used to play was that 3C = both minors, and 2NT was a bad pre empt in either minor. This worked extremely well. I did not bother posting the latter bid as I suspect it is banned in the US. (I am surprised they allow Stayman).

In a shocking development, the ACBL sanctions this method at the Midchart level. (I've always found this a bit odd, since, this is a Brown Sticker Convention. The ACBL is normally much more conservation than the rest of the world with respect to choice of methods)

[awm]

What i actually used to play was that 3C = both minors, and 2NT was a bad pre empt in either minor. This worked extremely well. I did not bother posting the latter bid as I suspect it is banned in the US. (I am surprised they allow Stayman).

In a shocking development, this ACBL sanctions this method at the Midchart level. (I've always found this a bit odd, since, this is a Brown Sticker Convention. The ACBL is normally much more conservation than the rest of the world with respect to choice of methods)

Easily explained. Meckstroth and Rodwell want to play this method. Meckstroth is on the committee deciding legality. Problem solved.

 

I find it amusing that this 2NT opening (weak with either minor) is mid-chart but 2NT showing hearts and a minor (i.e. guaranteeing 5+ cards in a known suit) is not mid-chart for lack of an approved suggested defense.