Strong 2C?

[kenrexford]

How about...

 

2H=Ekrens

2S=Weak 2 Spades

2D=Weak 2 Hearts or FG DIAMONDS

2C=FG without DIAMONDS

 

rightsiding the contract + able to show your FG hands better

You are focusing the wrong suit for your strong bids.

[dbsboy]

Ekrens is just a suggestion

 

Definitely Flannery, or Muiderberg, are all okay.

 

Am I focusing the wrong suit for my strong bids? oh...I dont completely understand this.

 

How about 2D=Weak or Strong H, 2C=Strong without H? is that what you mean?

 

 

Despite all the negative?? comments i think this scheme is pretty useful.

 

According to my scheme,

2C-2D=Wait, 2H/2S/3C=Honours, 2N=D Honours

 

Then after 2H/2S<=3M sets suit, or 3C then 3D sets Clubs, or 2N then 3C=nat and 3D=sets suits...

 

and after 2C-2D-3D=FG PrimaryC+Secondary D, it works well

[the hog]

Ekrens is a very useful convention. Contrary to some posters, I have had excellent results playing this and that is agains people who know how to play against it, so not from unfamiliarity. However it does nothing to solve this posed problem and so isn't really relevant.

[1eyedjack]

It does occur to me that the objectors to opening 2C base their argument on shortfalls in the follow-up sequences. But it is possible that their methods after opening 2C may be inferior. If they are content with those continuations then their argument for opening 1D has some validity. But perhaps their time might be better spent developing or importing superior methods in response to 2C instead.

 

I am another of those who rarely open 2C but I would on this hand. And after 2D response rebid 3C as transfer to D.

[Tola18]

LHO doubles and it goes pass-pass, I bid 2D and thank LHO for giving us the opportunity to show diamonds one level lower.

 

Is there really a problem here?

Yes, may be.

 

If partner suspects me for the classical psyche - opening 2C with weak diamonds.

 

(some has it even declarer as a sort of mult: 2C either any strong or weak in diamonds)

[kenrexford]

Am I focusing the wrong suit for my strong bids? oh...I dont completely understand this.

If you are going to split strong, forcing openings between two bids, it seems to me that the ideal split is, as you suggest, a focus on strain, as the largest first hurdle with natural systems and strong, forcing openings is strain resolution. The second hurdle is getting that resolution low enough to be able to effectively pursue "the rest of the story."

 

When you focus strain on diamonds, however, I think you lose out on a significant potential gain from your strain focus. Consider, for example, the difference between having a strong, forcing opening with a diamond focus and the converse of a dedicated strong opening with an anchor in one or the other major. If, for example, 2♦ focuses diamonds, then Responder ideally can make calls in such a way as to cater to the diamond suit. However, when do you usually want to focus diamonds, except after major-suit exploration? If, alternatively, 2♦ focused either hearts or spades, then you would be focusing a primary suit more rapidly.

 

A diamond focus initially might be OK when the level will be slam, but you lose somewhat on game-only sequences, I think. I think you are on the right path, in strain focus, then, but the focus should be on a major. Personally, I believe that spades is the ideal focal suit, for a complicated set of reasons. But, perhaps a heart focus would work well also.

 

As to improving the response structure over 2♣, I don't think much can be done. You could actually have a wildly detailed method as far as strain resolution if the primary focus switches to patern resolution for Responder, but this seems backwards and somewhat nonsensical. Without that, slight tweaking is possible, but there is little that can be done without such a strain divergence, IMO.

[blackshoe]

Romex methods:

 

2♣: balanced, 8 controls, normally 23-24 HCP OR unbalanced, 3 or fewer losers, 6 or more controls, not primary ♦.

 

After 2♣-2♦: 2NT shows the balanced hand, 2M shows an unbalanced hand with that major as the primary suit, 3♣ shows primary ♣, two suited (3♦ asks for the second suit), and 3♦ shows a single suited hand with ♣.

 

2♦: balanced, 7 controlas, normally 21-22 HCP OR 10 controls, normally 27-28 HCP OR unbalanced, 3 or fewer losers, 6 or more controls, primary ♦.

 

There are various possible response schemes over 2♦, but they all have 2♥ as, essentially, the "negative" response. After 2♥:

2NT shows the minimum balanced hand, 3NT shows the maximum one (and is forcing to 4NT).

2♠ shows a two suiter, ♦ and ♠, 3♣ shows a two suiter, ♦ and a round suit (3♦ asks, 3♥ shows ♥, 3NT shows ♣, 4♣ shows ♣, not willing to play in 3NT). 3♦ over the 2♥ response shows a diamond one suiter.

[kenrexford]

Romex looks silly, frankly. Sure, you get your control count out there, but the problem is strain, strain, strain. It probably works great when you have a five-card major as your longest suit, or a one-suited minor hand, or a balanced hand. Not so good with major-minor canape hands or 4441's.

 

Plus, even though the control count is set, without enhancement of the ability to set trumps low enough, and describe pattern somewhat, Responder might know whether he has the right number of possible covers but not necessarily whether his potential is working potential or non-working potential. The right Queen and a doubleton might be more contextually useful than two Kings.

[blackshoe]

Romex looks silly, frankly.

So far as I know, Dr. Rosenkranz never does anything without a good reason. So before you dismiss Romex as "silly", I suggest you read his books, and try the system out.