Interference over 2m openings

[straube]

We open 2C and 2D to show 6cd suits and 10-15 points. These bids deny a 4-cd major except for 2C which can have a 4-cd spade suit.

 

With other openings we're using thrump dbls at the 3-level (which ask for a stopper, else a major) and that seems to make sense for us when we're (probably) trying to see if 3N is possible.

 

At the 2-level, it's more murky.

 

Maybe for 2C interference...

 

.....2D-

..........dbl-4 spades

..........other-natural and forcing

.....2H-

..........dbl-4 spades

.....2S-

..........dbl-5 hearts

 

For 2D interference...

 

.....2H-dbl-5 spades

.....2S-dbl-5 hearts

 

Sound right or should we use penalty or whatever?

[helene_t]

Your 2m openings are very narrowly defined so I think you can do without the negative double and play penalty doubles instead. After an old-fashioned Precision 2♣ opening I would definitely play negative doubles.

[straube]

I'm starting to think that for 2C we should use a 2S response to show four spades with GI+ values. The idea is that this level is too rich to be looking for a 4-4 fit without some high card points in reserve.

 

2C (2D)

..........dbl-5+ hearts

..........2H-5+ spades

..........2S-4 spades and GI+

 

2C (2H)

..........dbl-5+ spades

..........2S-4 spades and GI+

 

Probably transfers are right over 2D as well

 

2D (2H)

..........dbl-5+ spades

..........2S-5+ clubs

..........3C-GI diamond raise

..........3D-raise

 

For 2m (dbl)

..........rdbl-shows hearts

..........other-system on

 

That last isn't best but is simple.

[wclass___]

Please no penalty doubles, it is better to focus on your own bidding, plus you can make penalty pass anyway.

 

2N needs to be artifical and forcing.

 

Split ranges. e.g. I would definetly chose 2♦-[2♥]-X=5♠ INV+(possibly with other meaning) and 2♠=competitive

 

2♦-[X]-XX please try to penalize

[WellSpyder]

Please no penalty doubles, it is better to focus on your own bidding, plus you can make penalty pass anyway.

I don't agree with this at all. If partner opens a normal 3♦ pre-empt and the next hand overcalls 3♠, do you play double for penalties or some fatuous take-out showing 4♥s? The choice between penalties and take-out should depend on how well-defined partner's hand is and the prospect of finding a fit in another suit.

 

As an example, I played for a while in one partnership that opening 3♣ and 3♦ showed a good 6-card suit, and 10-14 points (but without 4M or 3 in each M). We found a penalty double of intervention was a run-away points winner, and never regretted not being able to make a take-out double, since responder almost always had a reasonable idea of where to play the hand.

 

But I agree with Helene that after a traditional Precision 2♣ I would (and do) play double of an overcall for take-out.

[wclass___]

Please no penalty doubles, it is better to focus on your own bidding, plus you can make penalty pass anyway.

I don't agree with this at all. If partner opens a normal 3♦ pre-empt and the next hand overcalls 3♠, do you play double for penalties or some fatuous take-out showing 4♥s? The choice between penalties and take-out should depend on how well-defined partner's hand is and the prospect of finding a fit in another suit.

Why are random preempts getting involved in discussion about straube's 2m openings? However i agree, if only double you know is ''take out'' - better play penalty double in this spesific situation.

[straube]

Please no penalty doubles, it is better to focus on your own bidding, plus you can make penalty pass anyway.

 

2N needs to be artifical and forcing.

 

Split ranges. e.g. I would definetly chose 2♦-[2♥]-X=5♠ INV+(possibly with other meaning) and 2♠=competitive

 

2♦-[X]-XX please try to penalize

How would you use 2N artificial and forcing?

 

I think we need a way to show clubs instead of two ways to show spades (after 2C (2H)). After all, we'll have clubs frequently and opener is allowed to have four clubs.

[Zelandakh]

How would you use 2N artificial and forcing?

 

I think we need a way to show clubs instead of two ways to show spades (after 2C (2H)). After all, we'll have clubs frequently and opener is allowed to have four clubs.

There are several ways to use 2NT as art and forcing here. For example you could use it as a limit raise or better in clubs. Or it might be a bad raise in clubs or various GF hands and essentially a pseudo-puppet to 3C. To show clubs you can use a combination of 2NT (as above), simple raises, and an immediate 3 level cue. Just think of all the various major hand types you want to show and assign bidding sequences to them.

 

Different ways of showing spades are important because there are lots of important hand types with spades - ideally you want to be able to distinguish between 4, 5 and 6+ for all INV and GF hands (or alternatively between 0-2, 3 and 4 from Opener). When you have a club fit it is more important to discover a stop in the opps' suit than to determine lengths.

[wclass___]

How would you use 2N artificial and forcing?

I would first find a way how to bid INV hands with support as 2NT is not really an option.

 

e.g. 2♣-[2♠]-? .. not many options here and 3♣ as INV is probably best, so 2NT must be a puppet to 3♣.

 

After 2♦ it is probably wise to use 3♣ as puppet.

 

It is somewhat complicated to assign meaning for 2NT as contract rightsiding is very important here.

 

Ax(xx) stopper is interesting, and one might use 2NT-sth-3NT to show this.

[straube]

Devoting space toward recovering 4/4 spade fits at the 2-level is not worthwhile.

 

2C (2D)

...............dbl-5 hearts

...............2H-5 spades

...............2S-cue bid, club tolerance

...............2N-natural

...............3C-raise

...............3D-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

 

2C (2H)

...............dbl-5 spades

...............2S-cue bid, club tolerance

...............2N-natural

...............3C-raise

...............3D-natural, f

...............3H-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

 

2C (2S)

...............dbl-cue bid, club tolerance

...............2N-natural

...............3C-raise

...............3D-hearts

...............3H-diamonds

...............3S-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

 

2D (2H)

...............dbl-5 spades

...............2S-clubs

...............2N-natural

...............3C-cue bid, diamond tolerance

...............3D-raise

...............3H-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

 

2D (2S)

...............dbl-5 hearts

...............2N-natural

...............3C-cue bid, diamond tolerance

...............3D-raise

...............3H-clubs

...............3S-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

[Zelandakh]

Devoting space toward recovering 4/4 spade fits at the 2-level is not worthwhile.

Actually you could achieve this within the structure you propose...

eg

2C - (2D) - 2H - (P) or 2C - (2H) - X - (P) (now becomes 4+ spades)

2S = 0-2 spades

2N = 3 spades with stop

3C = 3 spades without stop

3D = 4 spades, min

3S = 4 spades max

 

There are other possibilities but you get the idea. I use something similar without interference over a precision 2C opening. Even if you choose to keep the call as 5+ spades it might be beneficial to know about the extra support should there be further competition.

[straube]

Devoting space toward recovering 4/4 spade fits at the 2-level is not worthwhile.

Actually you could achieve this within the structure you propose...

eg

2C - (2D) - 2H - (P) or 2C - (2H) - X - (P) (now becomes 4+ spades)

2S = 0-2 spades

2N = 3 spades with stop

3C = 3 spades without stop

3D = 4 spades, min

3S = 4 spades max

 

There are other possibilities but you get the idea. I use something similar without interference over a precision 2C opening. Even if you choose to keep the call as 5+ spades it might be beneficial to know about the extra support should there be further competition.

I think your structure is clever but wrong. Clever because it arranges opener's rebids in terms of fit for spades (worst to best). It also picks up the 4-4 spade fits which mine does not.

 

The thing is it may not be absolutely necessary for responder to show the 4-4 fit immediately. Lets say it goes 2C (2H) and responder has Axxx Kxx xxxxx x. He can safely pass this sort of hand and know that if opener has Kxxx xx x AKxxxx that he will reopen with 2S.

 

Your scheme is ok in an uncontested auction, but lets say the overcall is raised and opener has a decent hand with 3 spades. He can't know if it's safe to come in at the 3-level.

 

Better I think for responder to be able to show GI+ values right away so as to let opener show 4 spades himself.

 

2C (2H) 2S(GI+ cue) (3H) 3S(shows 4 spades).

 

Opener is relying on the fact that responder has GI values. These values support fit finding. If there's no spade fit, likely responder can rebid 3N or 4C.

 

The other thing is that if 2C (2H) dbl can show 5 spades, then opener can rebid 2S with 2 or 3 (min) but can reject with 0 or 1. This means that we can play 2S with 5-2 fits. If opener's rebid could be 0 or 1 spades and responder has Axxxxx Kxx xx Qx he won't know whether to sit for 2S or pull to 3C.

[Zelandakh]

I think your structure is clever but wrong. Clever because it arranges opener's rebids in terms of fit for spades (worst to best). It also picks up the 4-4 spade fits which mine does not.

 

The thing is it may not be absolutely necessary for responder to show the 4-4 fit immediately. Lets say it goes 2C (2H) and responder has Axxx Kxx xxxxx x. He can safely pass this sort of hand and know that if opener has Kxxx xx x AKxxxx that he will reopen with 2S.

 

Your scheme is ok in an uncontested auction, but lets say the overcall is raised and opener has a decent hand with 3 spades. He can't know if it's safe to come in at the 3-level.

 

Better I think for responder to be able to show GI+ values right away so as to let opener show 4 spades himself.

 

2C (2H) 2S(GI+ cue) (3H) 3S(shows 4 spades).

 

Opener is relying on the fact that responder has GI values. These values support fit finding. If there's no spade fit, likely responder can rebid 3N or 4C.

 

The other thing is that if 2C (2H) dbl can show 5 spades, then opener can rebid 2S with 2 or 3 (min) but can reject with 0 or 1. This means that we can play 2S with 5-2 fits. If opener's rebid could be 0 or 1 spades and responder has Axxxxx Kxx xx Qx he won't know whether to sit for 2S or pull to 3C.

You have to play it so if you think it is wrong fair enough :).

 

I personally play these bids as GI+ or a weak hand with long suit. Thus with a decent hand and 3 card support it is safe to come in knowing you either have a game somewhere or a 9 card fit. Similarly pulling 2S to 3C shows an invitational hand - you have to make the decision to sit for 2S before bidding at all with a competitive hand. The only action Responder should take after transferring with a weak hand is generally to re-transfer should Opener show support. I use 2S differently in my structure so the sequence you give is not available to me. It seems you only lose the 4-4 spade fit if Responder is invitational and Opener minimum - not a big loss.

[straube]

That helped me see how you are using it. Yes, I'm losing out on 4S GI opposite 4S minimum. I've only looked at a few hands but it seems a rather narrow target (and some of those clubs may play better).

 

I want to use 2C (2H) dbl as constructive+ (like 9+ hcp with 5 spades or shaded with 6). With a weaker spade hand I'll pass and then takeout pd's reopening dbl to 2S. Since pd's reopening dbl ought to be more values and not necessarily shape, he'll get the message that responder has likely 6 spades.

 

Nice to have an agreeable difference of opinion. So are you playing 2C as clubs now and is this structure that you proposed how you're handling interference?

[kayin801]

We play negative doubles here after our 2♣, and penalty double of a natural 2NT overcall. I've hardly ever run into trouble with this, or at least any more trouble than I would using natural methods. I mostly treat it like 1♣-(2♠)-?. We are also allowed to compete in clubs, and can do so more easily knowing that partner has a 6 bagger, so you should be more willing to do that with a lot of 7-9 point hands with 2-3 clubs and something nice in them. I know that's unsatisfactory at MP sometimes, but I am sooooooooooooooooo much happier knowing partner has real clubs for me.

 

I haven't played a 2♦ opener this way too much, but I would assume that it would operate the same way?

 

Edit: just saw that you mostly deny 4cM with your openings. Whoops. I think what I said holds less weight then :/ I would guess that for negative doubles, you want to ostensibly show 5 hearts or 4 spades, depending on their overcall, and I'd be content with that, and then make 2♣-(2♥)-2♠ constructive 5+ suit NF

[Zelandakh]

That helped me see how you are using it. Yes, I'm losing out on 4S GI opposite 4S minimum. I've only looked at a few hands but it seems a rather narrow target (and some of those clubs may play better).

 

I want to use 2C (2H) dbl as constructive+ (like 9+ hcp with 5 spades or shaded with 6). With a weaker spade hand I'll pass and then takeout pd's reopening dbl to 2S. Since pd's reopening dbl ought to be more values and not necessarily shape, he'll get the message that responder has likely 6 spades.

 

Nice to have an agreeable difference of opinion. So are you playing 2C as clubs now and is this structure that you proposed how you're handling interference?

My 2C opening is traditional precision shapes in the 10-14 range so somewhat less well defined than yours. The structure I use over this is somewhat similar to the competitive auctions you were suggesting only I use it in an unopposed auction too. I do not think you are losing much in missing the 4-4 spade fit on the very small range of hands we are talking about. A bigger concern would be the inability to compete on hands where partner cannot re-open with a double.

 

If you are interested the overall scheme came largely as an adjunct to playing puppet over 1NT and then modified through alot of play-testing and tweaking...

2D = 4+ hearts

2H = 4+ spades

2S = range ask, no major

2N = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV

3m/3N/4C/5C = to play

3H = slam try in diamonds

3S = slam try in clubs

4D = hearts

4H = spades

 

With both majors it is normal to start with 2D even if spades are longer. The exception is for 5-5 invitational hands which start with 2H. I spent alot of time with this structure comparing it with traditional precision and meckwell style responses. I personally find it alot simpler to use even though there are difficult hands (6D is particularly difficult to find on many hands). Had I not found this response set I would probably have re-designed the system to fire the 5C-4M hands through the 1D opening.

 

Really I just noticed the similarity to your proposed structure and thought I would show you the response structure over the transfer I had worked out if you wanted to look for the 4-4 fit. Of course my 2S bid specifically denies a major (3S the following round is a stopper ask) so this route to recapture the 4-4 fit is unavailable. Basically your suggestion looks to be sound - I would say try it and see how it works out. If you find the 4-4 fit issue or the delayed competition is a problem then make some small changes to address the issue.

[keylime]

If your 2♣ opening could be based on five clubs with a 4 card major, then playing double as negative has some merit. However, I'd play penalty doubles over any pure 2m opening being six cards or more, regardless of the possibility of holding a side major.

[Free]

If your 2♣ opening could be based on five clubs with a 4 card major, then playing double as negative has some merit. However, I'd play penalty doubles over any pure 2m opening being six cards or more, regardless of the possibility of holding a side major.

I agree. And play some kind of Lebensohl/Rubensohl/someothersohl for constructive purposes, works great imo.

[Zelandakh]

I agree. And play some kind of Lebensohl/Rubensohl/someothersohl for constructive purposes, works great imo.

If you look at straube's structure he is using something Rubinsohl-like except that the transfers start from double and 2S is used as the cue bid with a direct cue bid a stopper ask. I think this is at least as good as a pure Lebensohl structure with penalty doubles. For comparison:-

 

2C (2D) (straube)

...............dbl-5 hearts, INV+

...............2H-5 spades, INV+

...............2S-cue bid, club tolerance

...............2N-natural

...............3C-raise

...............3D-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

 

2C (2D) (rub with pen dbl)

...............dbl-pen

...............2H-to play

...............2S-to play

...............2N-club raise

...............3C-4 spades

...............3D-5 hearts, INV+

...............3H-5 spades, INV+

...............3S-stop ask

 

It is clear that the second structure deals better with competitive hands (straube prefers delayed action with these) and gets a penalty double. It is equally clear to me that the first structure is better on constructive hands. The loss of penalty doubles is not great (trap pass or bid 3NT) although I personally think the delayed action with competitive hands might prove to be a problem in practise. Even when I am a big fan of Rubinsohl, here I prefer the former structure modified to allow competitive hands to bid dbl/2H. That said I am not convinced that 2NT natural is a good use of a key bid - seems to be stopping on a pin-head to me.

[straube]

What I've never liked about responses to 2C is that most seem to play 2M as constructive nf. Not saying that this isn't right necessarily, but what does 2M advertise? A 5 cd suit? A 6 cd suit? Does the response deny club support?

Will we languish in a 5-2 fit when we have a 6-4 club fit available?

 

If I can play transfers over interference, then responder can show a constructive hand (I'm thinking 9+ hcps with a 5-cd suit) and then decide after opener accepts the transfer (generally showing 2-cd support) whether to pull to 3C or not. Certainly responder would pass 2M with a minimum hand and a 6-cd suit.

 

I've sampled hands a bit and it seems like the penalty double occurs infrequently and there is usually an attractive alternative like bidding 3N. I can play 2C (2H) P P dbl as just extra values. It can't really promise support for all of the other suits (maybe 2-cd tolerance?) but it seems like responder will usually be well-placed. If opener doesn't have extra values he passes or bids 3C with a better suit.

 

I do agree about 2N invitational being a rather narrow target but it seems like an important message to send. I'd have the cue bid (2S for clubs) which then pretty much denies exactly an invitational hand with a stopper but does show some points.

 

I was actually using the direct cue bid as showing a stopper instead of asking for one. If I hold Axx Kxx KQxxx Qx and hear the auction go 2C (2H) I want to force the heart overcaller to be on opening lead in case opener has Qx or even Jx of hearts.

[wclass___]

  What I've never liked about responses to 2C is that most seem to play 2M as constructive nf. Not saying that this isn't right necessarily, but what does 2M advertise?

Average+ 5 card suit or 6+ that thinks game would be a nice contract, if partner has a maximum hand with fit. Fits are very important here, therefore it is constructive NF. Sometimes you don't want to force game with 5♠ and random 12 count, fearing misfit. But if partner has a fit and fitting hand, you might need very little for game.

IMO constructive NF is by far the best approach here as it is the most flexible.

 

Does the response deny club support?

Will we languish in a 5-2 fit when we have a 6-4 club fit available?

No, 2 card support is certainly ok, if 3 then it probably depends on your hand.

I would advertise 2♣-3M fit jumps.

 

If I can play transfers over interference, then responder can show a constructive hand (I'm thinking 9+ hcps with a 5-cd suit) and then decide after opener accepts the transfer (generally showing 2-cd support) whether to pull to 3C or not. Certainly responder would pass 2M with a minimum hand and a 6-cd suit.

 

You need 2♠ as NF. Clubs or whatever isn't close to this. If you bid this way, you will lose part score swings and good games frequently.

 

I do agree about 2N invitational being a rather narrow target but it seems like an important message to send. I'd have the cue bid (2S for clubs) which then pretty much denies exactly an invitational hand with a stopper but does show some points

Please do not play 2N as nat inv. It is not problem hand at all, you have many options that are usually better than 2N.

 

1) Show support+inv - 3m will often be safer contract than 2N. And when partners goes for game, 3NT will be rightsided.

2)Pass - typically if you don't have fit or 3m isn't appealing. If we have game partner will reopen. Or you will penalize.

3) Ask partner to bid 3N - rightisiding contract might as well be worth that one trick so if you were up to bidding 2N, you may as well try this.

[Zelandakh]

IMO constructive NF is by far the best approach here as it is the most flexible.

 

Transfers are absolutely much more flexible than 2M = constructive NF. With transfers you lose on hands where you would relay to slam were you to be using 2D as a relay. You can also lose out on hands with a diamond fit that do not play well in 3NT although those are pretty difficult with every response set.

 

I would advertise 2♣-3M fit jumps.

 

It seems to me clear that you should use 2C - 3M for whichever hands are difficult to bid in the rest of your system. I noticed today that Meckwell use 3H (in their uncontested auction at least) the same way as me (strong hand with diamonds) and use 3S as 6-4 in S/H. Presumably this latter hand type is otherwise awkward to handle using their methods. Fit jumps are an option if you do not have any other awkward hands of course.

 

You need 2♠ as NF. Clubs or whatever isn't close to this. If you bid this way, you will lose part score swings and good games frequently.

 

You need 2S as NF only if you do not have 2H followed by pass of partner's 2S available to show this hand type. I agree that straube might find that delayed action on competitive hands is problematic - it is an easy thing to track it and see - but keeping the transfer structure and allowing this hand type is a far smaller change than moving to a non-forcing 2S bid. If you are using 2H to show spades then you really do not need 2S as another spade hand. If you are missing games then you are not using the transfers correctly and you can compete on more hands, not fewer.

 

Please do not play 2N as nat inv. It is not problem hand at all, you have many options that are usually better than 2N.

 

1) Show support+inv -  3m will often be safer contract than 2N. And when partners goes for game, 3NT will be rightsided.

2)Pass -  typically if you don't have fit or 3m isn't appealing. If we have game partner will reopen. Or you will penalize.

3) Ask partner to bid 3N -  rightisiding contract might as well be worth that one trick so if you were up to bidding 2N, you may as well try this.

 

Did you actually look at the responses? The structure already has options for 1 and 3. You solution to the hands shown by 2NT is pass. That is not unreasonable for some reasons already given in the thread but straube just said he thinks the message is important. More interesting (and useful) would be to suggest which holes in the suggested structure might be plugged using the 2NT bid. After all, if there are no holes to plug you may as well use it naturally - the same argument as with 2C - 3M above in essence.

[Free]

I agree.  And play some kind of Lebensohl/Rubensohl/someothersohl for constructive purposes, works great imo.

If you look at straube's structure he is using something Rubinsohl-like except that the transfers start from double and 2S is used as the cue bid with a direct cue bid a stopper ask. I think this is at least as good as a pure Lebensohl structure with penalty doubles. For comparison:-

 

2C (2D) (straube)

...............dbl-5 hearts, INV+

...............2H-5 spades, INV+

...............2S-cue bid, club tolerance

...............2N-natural

...............3C-raise

...............3D-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

 

2C (2D) (rub with pen dbl)

...............dbl-pen

...............2H-to play

...............2S-to play

...............2N-club raise

...............3C-4 spades

...............3D-5 hearts, INV+

...............3H-5 spades, INV+

...............3S-stop ask

 

It is clear that the second structure deals better with competitive hands (straube prefers delayed action with these) and gets a penalty double. It is equally clear to me that the first structure is better on constructive hands. The loss of penalty doubles is not great (trap pass or bid 3NT) although I personally think the delayed action with competitive hands might prove to be a problem in practise. Even when I am a big fan of Rubinsohl, here I prefer the former structure modified to allow competitive hands to bid dbl/2H. That said I am not convinced that 2NT natural is a good use of a key bid - seems to be stopping on a pin-head to me.

I wouldn't use the original Rubensohl structure because of the lack of showing invitational hands. I'm more for combining more hands in 2NT, like:

2NT = puppet to 3♣, either signoff or INV in another suit

...3♣ = obligated

......pass = to play

......3X = invite with a good 6+ card suit

This brings you to 3-level with invites, but it makes your GF hands easier, you can still support (indirectly), you can bid a suit NF at 2-level, and you can penalize opps for being idiots. ;)

 

As an extra, you have several calls available for all sorts of things:

2♣-(2X)-2NT;3♣-3X

2♣-(2X)-3X-1

2♣-(2X)-3♠

2♣-(2X)-3NT

In case of ♦ you might even have an invite with ♣ (bid 3♣ immediately with inv, go via 2NT with weaker hands). In case of a Major you could still play something similar, keep 3♣ invitational, and use some 3-level bids natural. You can play with it as much as you want :)

[wclass___]

Transfers are absolutely much more flexible than 2M = constructive NF. With transfers you lose on hands where you would relay to slam were you to be using 2D as a relay. You can also lose out on hands with a diamond fit that do not play well in 3NT although those are pretty difficult with every response set.

 

I will add some:

 

They are antipreemptive - it is not clear who owns the hand yet, it may allow opponents to enter an auction safely. And you give opponent one more moment to balance - giving opponent more options.

 

Wrongsiding. If opener has to declare this then his hand will be more defined than his partners's making defense relativey easy. Also I would certainly prefer to be a leader if opener declares rather than his partner.

 

Surely wide ranged bids don't shine in competition as well as in constructive bidding. Limit yourself early.

 

I am not saying transfers are unplayable, i just said that ''IMO constructibe NF is by far the best.''

 

I don't think you are competent enough to say that "Transfers are absolutely much more flexible than 2M = constructive NF" .... like it would be accepted by all professional players and bridge gods, lol.

 

It seems to me clear that you should use 2C - 3M for whichever hands are problematic to bid in the rest of your system. I noticed today that Meckwell use 3H (in their uncontested auction at least) the same way as me (strong hand with diamonds) and use 3S as 6-4 in S/H. Presumably this latter hand type is otherwise awkward to handle using their methods. Fit jumps are an option if you do not have any other awkward hands of course.

 

Exactly: suit+fit is difficult, if you bid 2M with great ♣ fit, it might backfire, very logical. And it is also relativey common and safe.

Meckwell has different openings and they tend to focus on GF hands a lot. If they play something it doesn't mean at all that it is best.

 

If you are missing games then you are not using the transfers correctly and you can compete on more hands, not fewer.

It is very important to limit your strenght in competitive auctions. 5OM+ is very important hand type and 2 bids for it is way better than 1. If you double 2♥ on weaker hands than i bid 2♠ then your double is way too wide ranged.

 

Did you actually look at the responses? The structure already has options for 1 and 3. You solution to the hands shown by 2NT is pass. That is not unreasonable for some reasons already given in the thread but straube just said he thinks the message is important.

I am pretty sure straube meant to be able to bid 2N with 2-card support.

3 is suggestiog alternative option for hands that one would be going to bid 2N and i can't see where straube would examine this particulary.

 

More interesting (and useful) would be to suggest which holes in the suggested structure might be plugged using the 2NT bid.

If you read my posts in this thread maybe you would find some suggestions and also reasoning.

[straube]

I'd like to see complete structures for all of the 2-level overcalls (as I posted). I'm open to using 2N etc as transfers but I'm not seeing how it all fits together. Please keep in mind that both of our 2m openings deny hearts and the 2D opening denies four spades.