defense to Midchart conventions

[straube]

Looking for suggested defense to our Michart conventions 1H-2D, 1S-2D, and 1S-2H. Here's a rough draft...

 

1H-2D is a constructive raise

 

.....Suggested defense

..........dbl-takeout of hearts

..........2H-spade overcall, possible 2-suited

..........2S-wk 2 spades

..........2N-minors

 

2S-2D shows 6 hearts and GI+

 

.....Suggested defense

..........dbl-minors, stronger

..........2H-club overcall

..........2S-diamond overcall

..........2N-minors, weaker

..........3C-clubs, weaker

..........3D-diamonds, weaker

 

2S-2H shows a constructive raise

 

.....Suggested defense

..........dbl-hearts, possible 2-suited

..........2S-takeout of spades

..........2N-minors

..........3H-hearts, weaker

[paulg]

I don't believe Mid-Chart would not require you to provide a defense as these are constructive responses as per section #3 of the chart. Although I guess a club or District may make such a rule.

[glen]

I don't believe Mid-Chart would not require you to provide a defense as these are constructive responses as per section #3 of the chart. Although I guess a club or District may make such a rule.

The 2♦ and 2♥ responses to 2♠ would require more than mid chart.

[Gerben42]

I think you are making it a bit complicated. I play:

 

1♥ - 2♦ - ?

 

Dbl = T/O

2♥ = ♠ + m

2♠ = Natural

2NT = ♣ + ♦

 

1♠ - 2♥ - ?

 

Dbl = T/O

2♠ = ♥ + m

2NT = ♣ + ♦

 

Of course theoretically it might be better to use Dbl as ♥ here, but then you have to learn something extra so we spare us the trouble.

 

1♠ - 2♦ - ?

 

Here of course you have a lot of room but I don't need many bids to show a minor:

 

2♥: 6♣ 4♦

2♠: 6♦ 4♣

2NT: 5♣ 5♦

3m: 6-card suit, not 4 in the other minor

 

It's similar to:

 

1♥ - 1NT (5+♠), where we play the same.

[straube]

I think you are making it a bit complicated. I play:

 

1♥ - 2♦ - ?

 

Dbl = T/O

2♥ = ♠ + m

2♠ = Natural

2NT = ♣ + ♦

 

1♠ - 2♥ - ?

 

Dbl = T/O

2♠ = ♥ + m

2NT = ♣ + ♦

 

Of course theoretically it might be better to use Dbl as ♥ here, but then you have to learn something extra so we spare us the trouble.

 

1♠ - 2♦ - ?

 

Here of course you have a lot of room but I don't need many bids to show a minor:

 

2♥: 6♣ 4♦

2♠: 6♦ 4♣

2NT: 5♣ 5♦

3m: 6-card suit, not 4 in the other minor

 

It's similar to:

 

1♥ - 1NT (5+♠), where we play the same.

 

Thanks. I had thought of something like your 1S-2D defense. It's nice to know that someone is using that.

[hrothgar]

You might want to wait until the Conventions Committee is accepting suggested defenses...

 

I don't recommend holding your breath, though

[Gerben42]

You might want to wait until the Conventions Committee is accepting suggested defenses...

 

I don't recommend holding your breath, though

 

I think he was hoping to play it in his lifetime. Luckily, things like this don't require a defense.

[straube]

I think he was hoping to play it in his lifetime. Luckily, things like this don't require a defense.

 

 

What would and would not require a defense? I remember someone supplying us with a suggested defense for 1C P 2H which was basically a balanced GI call.

[paulg]

What would and would not require a defense? I remember someone supplying us with a suggested defense for 1C P 2H which was basically a balanced GI call.

Read the convention chart. Although it is perhaps not as clear as it could be, you need to provide defenses where an approved defense is required. If an approved defense is not required, as it is not for constructive responses and rebids, then you are not required to provide one. Of course you may provide a defense if you like, but I would stress to the opponents that this is not an approved defense (in the ACBL legal sense) and you are providing it even though it is not required.

[awm]

For the most part, the requirement of approved defenses is only for opening bids and only for those which are not allowed on the General Chart. So you don't need an official defense for the methods you listed. The defenses people have suggested so far seem reasonable enough to me.