minor twosuiter preempt

[Free]

I want minor-two-suiters in my preemptive structure, and I have all 2NT+ bids available. There are 2 easy sollutions:

 

Sollution 1:

2NT = 55+m

3♣ = preempt ♣

 

advantage: preempt ♣ is not in transfer, so no extra bidding space available for opps

disadvantages: 'easy' to defend against 2NT, and it's usually forcing so opps have another turn to respond

 

Sollution 2:

2NT = preempt ♣

3♣ = 55+m

 

advantages: 3♣ is not forcing, and it's harder to defend against

disadvantage: 2NT is trf-preempt, giving away even more bidding space

 

What advantages are more important for you? Which structure would you choose? Or do you have an alternative (which one)? Are there other (dis)advantages that you know of?

 

[EDIT]: I don't want brown sticker conventions!

[whereagles]

Use solution 1. The one-suiter comes up far more often than the two suiter and there you don't want to give opps extra time. For solution 2, even if the two suiter shows up, it will only put LHO under pressure to bid when he has short clubs (thus pass or raise by responder more likely).

 

There may even be a point in playing 3C = trash preempt, 2NT = decent club pree.

[tysen2k]

I also agree on using solution 1 based on frequency. I think the degree of advantage/disadvantage is about the same, so try to be disadvantaged less often. There would be some merit in 3♣ = both minors if you could use 2-under transfer preempts allowing you to play wider ranges of strength/quality and thus preempting a lot more often. But this means either having no 3-level club preempt (maybe not too bad) or losing your 2♠ bid so you can show clubs.

 

Tysen

[MickyB]

I agree with the other comments, go with option 1 on frequency. However, 2NT as both minors gives them too many options (eg Unusual over Unusual) so I would go for a 3rd solution: 2N as ♣+red or ♣+another would increase frequency and make it harder to defend against, at the expense of missing your best fit occasionally. You could find your best fit slightly more often by assigning meanings to pass and XX after they double 2NT, if you are prepared to give up trying to take them for penalties on this auction.

[Cascade]

Do you have major two-suiters in your pre-emptive structure?

[jtfanclub]

I prefer 2NT as both minors...because my partner usually leaves it in if we're not doubled and he doesn't have a good fit.

 

So the bidding most often goes...

 

2NT P P X

P

 

Now if the opponent passes, my partner gets to choose whether to pull it or leave it. This makes my LHO very nervous, since it's not out of the question that my partner has 16 HCP and we'll make.

 

So, if the opponent guesses wrong, we get a top. If he guesses right, we get an average. Not a bad combination. :)

[Free]

Do you have major two-suiters in your pre-emptive structure?

Ofcourse! 44+ :)

[the hog]

Playing 2N for the minors 5/5 is not sound. Any competent pair will have something similar to the following.

3C = t/ with longer H + 4S

3D = t/o woth long S and 4H

3H/S = natural.

Why give them extra bids?

[Cascade]

Doesn't 2NT = ♣ pre-empt suffer from the same inefficiency?

 

A competent pair can

 

Double and bid 3♣ as two different takeouts. There is also the option of passing and then doubling 3♣ on the next round.

[the hog]

Not if 2N is a pre empt in either minor, Wayne. Now it is far more difficult to counter as the opps have no idea which minor it is.

[Free]

2NT preempt in either minor = BROWN STICKER. I want to avoid this!

[the hog]

Best method is to migrate to a country with sensible system regulations.

:)

 

I believe you, but seriously, how can this be a brown sticker convention? It makes no sense.

[Free]

Best method is to migrate to a country with sensible system regulations.

:D

 

I believe you, but seriously, how can this be a brown sticker convention? It makes no sense.

Quite simple: it's a bid between 2♣ and 3♠, and there's no 4+ card known. This is the exact definition of a brown sticker convention... I thought you knew this Ron :)

 

I think people all over the world should start playing 2NT as preempt in either minor, so it would become an exception on the brown sticker (like multi-2♦) :) But I guess this is hoping too much...

[the hog]

I thought 2N+ was virtually anything allowed.

 

I agree with you 2S or 2N is good to use for weak pe empts in a m. allowing 3m to be used for constructive pre empts.

[Cascade]

From the WBF System Policy - WBF System Policy

 

"BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS AND TREATMENTS

 

1. The following conventions or treatments are categorized as " Brown Sticker".

 

a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that:

 

(i) could be weak (may by agreement he made with values below average strength); and

 

(ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

 

Exception:

 

(i) The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker Convention.)

 

(ii) An opening bid showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet.

 

:) An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

 

Exception: A natural overcall in no trumps.

 

c) Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits.

 

d) Psychic bids protected by system or required by system.

 

None of the foregoing restrictions pertain to conventional defences against strong, artificial opening bids or defences against Brown Sticker or HUM conventions.

 

2. Additional to the classification of systems in © above, any partnership using one or more Brown Sticker conventions must indicate this alongside its system classification. "

[helene_t]

Do you have major two-suiters in your pre-emptive structure?

Ofcourse! 44+ :blink:

Hey Free, I begin to get an impression of your bidding style: trash preempts, psyches, light openings .... do you also have a way to show less than 8 lost tricks? :)

 

Btw, last time I was in Belgium many people there played 3♣ as diamonds OR both minors. Similar to psycho suction and the HOLO-deffence against Polish Club, but it is not a brown sticker. Without interference, you may end in a too high 4♣ or 3♦ contract. But with interference, I can immagine that it works well.

[Free]

Well Helene, it's been a while that I psyched (3 days or so - my first 1st seat psych), and "trash preempts" is actually saying the same thing twice :blink: I use the 1-level is for constructive auctions.

 

3♣ with ♦ or ♦-♣? Sounds weird to me, but ok...

[hrothgar]

I agree with The_Hog on this one. (ain't that shocking)

 

Using 2NT to show weak hands with both minors provides the opponent's with a direct seat double, two known cue bids, and attractive pass followed by double balancing actions. I don't consider this preempt to be sound...

 

If I felt that I needed a weak preempt to show both minors, I'd use 3C.

Personally, I am happy to use 2NT to show a bad three level preempt in either minor, coupled with 3C/3D to show constructive three level preempts. Hard to believe that the ACBL allows a BSC at the Midchart level.

[keylime]

I use 2NT as two suited minor preempt, denying opening values - very few opps have even figured out how to deal with it here in this part of the world. And no I won't tell them how either!!!! :D

[inquiry]

I use 2NT as two suited minor preempt, denying opening values - very few opps have even figured out how to deal with it here in this part of the world. And no I won't tell them how either!!!! :D

I have to disagree with this attitude key....

 

Well, actually this "won't tell" attitidue is not in keeping with the game. When I spring a new convention on someone and it is obviously new, I will volunteer standard defense or defenses, and allow them to decide which to use. Active Ethics is not such a slippery thing... Besides, I hope to win by superior technique (note word hope...) rather than springing surpise conventions on an unssupecting public.

 

Ben

[keylime]

Ben,

 

I meant this as being facetious!!! :D Of course I'd give them the "defense", written down, even though I'm not required to give one :).

[the hog]

"very few opps have even figured out how to deal with it here in this part of the world. "

 

Now see, this is interesting. In this part of the world, where you face up to this stuff from the lols in the Saturday afternoon duplicate, most have figured out a way to cope. It is the old adage, "Familiarity breeds contempt". If US system regs were more sensible your lols would treat this stuff with contempt as well.

 

Like the last time I played Moscito in a congress -

Pd 1D, Me - alert "Yes Dear?", "Pd has 9-14 with at least 4H".

Lo lady "Thank you dear" - bids 4H making 11.

[Cascade]

Hard to believe that the ACBL allows a BSC at the Midchart level.

Especially when I had to give up on this idea in NZ many years ago. NZ is supposed to be one of the homes of system innovation with forcing pass and all of that.

[Cascade]

Well, actually this "won't tell" attitidue is not in keeping with the game. When I spring a new convention on someone and it is obviously new, I will volunteer standard defense or defenses, and allow them to decide which to use. Active Ethics is not such a slippery thing... Besides, I hope to win by superior technique (note word hope...) rather than springing surpise conventions on an unssupecting public.

Some of the recommended defenses that I have seen are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

In general I am happier playing my own defenses or generic defenses than something that the opponents recommend.

 

It could create a problem when you follow a recommended defense and end up in trouble. Not sure how the officials would deal with this.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I don't think that wasting the 2N opening on the least useful two-suited preempt makes much sense. (Sure, more than showing 20-21 balanced, but that isn't a reference.) And I am more afraid of giving the opponents a delayed penalty double with a two-suiter than with a one-suiter, because the former is less sound than the latter. So I would suggest:

 

2N diamond preempt (3♣ by responder shows a problem somewhere and opener has to ask with 3♦), or perhaps some annoying strong hand with diamonds. It could also be played as a large-range diamond preempt, but in my opinion you need to open (4♣ or) 4♦ with less than a good 7 HCP if you really want to disrupt their bidding. Otherwise, they will end up into their normal contract just on power, and the preempt will now backfire.

 

3♣ club preempt (3♦ by responder asks for shortness, over which 3♥ is balanced or short in hearts, over which 3♠ shows heart weakness.)

 

3♦ both minors (unsound, but at least their double is for takeout now)