Mexican 2 Diamonds

[olien]

My partner and I want to play a 2♦ opening to show a balanced hand of 18-19 HCP without 5M or 6m. And I'm looking for a good structure over that. I looked at Lauria-Versace's CC from Beijing since they play it. Here is their initial response structure from their supplementary notes, but doesn't give any follow ups:

 

2♥=4+♠ or SI with 6+♣/♦/♠

2♠=4+♥

2NT=transfer to 3♣

weak with ♣ or ♥

slam try 6+♥

slam try balanced

3♣=asking for majors

5+♥ 4♠

3♦=5+♠ 4♥

3♥=5/4+ minors, short ♥

3♠=5/4+ minors, short ♠

3NT=GF 5/5+ in Majors

 

It would be appreciated if could expand on this structure, but if somebody has a structure that is effective and easy, that'd be great also

 

Thanks

[PrecisionL]

Mexican 2 D are from Romex. I have all the versions and will e-mail them Monday when I have access to my other computer.

 

Larry

[Cascade]

One simple idea is to play your method for

 

1NT 3x for three-level bids

 

and

 

your method for

 

2NT 3x via a puppet to 2NT

 

This is exactly what we do. For us:

 

2♦ 3x show distributional hands with a shortage

 

2♦ 2♠ is a puppet to 2NT

2NT 3♣ is puppet Stayman and we play transfers

 

This leaves a 2♥ response and a 2NT response to be defined.

 

We use these to show spades and hearts respectively with distributional hands (or a sign-off in the case of spades). Whereas the transfer through the puppet is a more unidirectional hand.

 

We also make 2NT a puppet to 3♣ so that we can include a weak takeout into clubs.

 

This is the scheme:

 

Pass to play - usually long diamonds although I once passed with a 4-3-3-3 yarborough with only three diamonds.

 

2♥ Spades distributional (singleton somewhere) or a sign-off*

 

2♠ Puppet to 2NT then Puppet Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, 3♠ one or both minors etc

 

2NT Puppet to 3♣ either weak with clubs or distributional with hearts

 

3♣/♦/♥/♠ 4 cards in the suit bid and a singleton of the same rank no five-card major any other distribution (can have extra length if a minor but not a major)

 

3NT to play

 

4♣ not sure we have ever discussed (maybe Gerber but Gerber has very limited utility over a strong opening)

 

4♦/♥ Texas Transfers

 

4♠ Both minors no slam interest

 

4NT Quantitative (although we are very much more likely to want to right side this)

 

Some Comments:

 

1. There are plenty of other schemes including those that concentrate more on right-siding the contract;

 

*2. On right siding the auction 2♦ 2♥; 2♠ 3♠ can be used as a choice of games to avoid responder having to bid spades or NTs first;

 

3. I really like our 3-bids opposite 1NT so was keen to graft them in here;

 

4. If you are willing to move to a 2♣ opening to show this hand there is even more room. Bocchi Duboin used 2♣. You can use the extra room obviously to get out to more two-level contracts in particular 2♥. You can potentially also widen the range and use one of the steps as an invite. We are planning to make this change. Obviously there is a cost to your 2♣ opening.

[blackshoe]

Mexican 2 D are from Romex. I have all the versions and will e-mail them Monday when I have access to my other computer.

 

Larry

Or you could look here. (Granted this only covers versions from the last four books).

[olien]

4. If you are willing to move to a 2♣ opening to show this hand there is even more room. Bocchi Duboin used 2♣. You can use the extra room obviously to get out to more two-level contracts in particular 2♥. You can potentially also widen the range and use one of the steps as an invite. We are planning to make this change. Obviously there is a cost to your 2♣ opening.

maybe play 2♣ as 18-21 HCP balanced? If this is what you (cascade) are suggesting, then please pass along some response ideas. Thanks Owen

[PrecisionL]

George 2♦: 18-20 hcp, balanced,

 

from THE NOTRUMP ZONE BY Danny Kleinman, 2004, pgs. 121-6.

 

RESPONSES TO 2♦:

 

2♥ (transfer to 2♠ denying hearts)

 

2♠ (puppet to 2NT denying spades)

 

2NT (puppet to 3♣ denying NT interest)

 

3♣ (Stayman, promising spades)

 

3♦ (super Flannery)

 

3♥ (clubs) Strong 1-suiter.

 

3♠ (diamonds) Strong 1-suiter.

[MarkDean]

4. If you are willing to move to a 2♣ opening to show this hand there is even more room.  Bocchi Duboin used 2♣.  You can use the extra room obviously to get out to more two-level contracts in particular 2♥.  You can potentially also widen the range and use one of the steps as an invite.  We are planning to make this change.  Obviously there is a cost to your 2♣ opening.

maybe play 2♣ as 18-21 HCP balanced? If this is what you (cascade) are suggesting, then please pass along some response ideas. Thanks Owen

Does not sound like this is what you are looking for as this scheme does not allow invitational sequences, but here is what I have played over 18-19 balanced 2♣ opener (mostly designed by pd).

 

Pass = to play (it actually took us a while to figure this was what to do with bad club hands....)

2♦ = hearts, mostly natural continuations, but 3♥ = 5 hearts, choice of games (to rightside nt). We actually used Keri style rebids with 2NT = clubs etc, but that is not necessary.

2♥ = same as above for spades

2♠ forces 2NT, to play, to bid some number of nt, or 3 suit = splinter.

2NT = good balanced hand, forcing to 4NT bid suits up the line

3♣ = forces 3♦ to play or to describe various minor hands

3♦ = 44 majors

3♥ = asking if opener has 4 spades

3♠ = askign if opener has 4 spades

3NT = to play, hand hogging.

 

It is probably not optimal (and I am sure Adam would ride us for not checking the literature), but it seemed to get the job done. Transfers, to majors and nt, and checking for 4 card majors made up 90%+ of the actions taken. The tough hands are hands bad enough you do not think you will make 2NT and there is no 5cM. I tended to pass those with four clubs, as I found that was the action mostly likely to cause fourth hand to balance, and because we did not open this with five card majors, so minors are more likely to make a hit.

[qwery_hi]

It is probably not optimal (and I am sure Adam would ride us for not checking the literature), but it seemed to get the job done.

I'm not so sure about that.

 

As long as you mention what you have done (either checked the literature or didn't check the literature or only looked at site xyz, etc), I don't think there is any problem.

 

Providing a reference (or saying there is no reference) to the existing body of work on bidding is beneficial, especially for people like me who are not very familiar with different ideas in bidding. Since I am not knowledgeable enough to evaluate a proposed system in a vacuum, I usually just ignore them. However, when a proposed system is compared and contrasted with an existing system, I will be able to better understand the system designers point of view.