2m as 6+m or 5+/4+ m's

[olien]

In the context of a precision base with the following opening structure:

 

1♣ 16+ HCP any or 17+ HCP Balanced

1♦ a) Balanced 11-13, b) any 3-suiter no 5M 11-15 HCP, or c) 4M 5+m 11-15 HCP

1M 5+M 11-15 HCP

1NT 14-16 HCP Balanced

2♣ 11-15 HCP 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4♦

2♦ 11-15 HCP 6+♦ or 5+♦ 4♣

 

What does one open with 5+/5+ minors? I know this opening structure has been discussed before, but have not been able to find the answer to my question in prior threads and I apologize in advance if it has been answered.

 

Thanks

[wclass___]

I have seen:

 

using 2NT as intermediate with minors.

 

putting this type of hand in 1♦

 

and opening 2♣ or 2♦.

 

I don't have problems with any of these. As stronger my hand is as more willing i am to go low road, especially if you don't mind something like 1♦-1M-3♣.

 

I tried 1D, but it was mainly because i wanted to play full relays over 2C/2D which I'm not willing to do anymore.Opening 2C/2D might as well be better, i don't have a feel for this which is better.

[mattias]

We open 2NT. I wouldn't put it in 1♦ since then the inference about either being balanced or having a 4card major disappears.

[wclass___]

not a big deal. really.

[PrecisionL]

Opening 2NT works well and I use that opening in two partnerships.

 

Theoretically, opening 3♣ would be better for the minors (eliminates opponents cue bids) and then 2NT opening would be a pre-empt in either minor. Probably not ACBL GCC (General Convention Chart) allowed.

[straube]

In the context of a precision base with the following opening structure:

 

1♣ 16+ HCP any or 17+ HCP Balanced

1♦ a) Balanced 11-13, b) any 3-suiter no 5M 11-15 HCP, or c) 4M 5+m 11-15 HCP

1M 5+M 11-15 HCP

1NT 14-16 HCP Balanced

2♣ 11-15 HCP 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4♦

2♦ 11-15 HCP 6+♦ or 5+♦ 4♣

 

What does one open with 5+/5+ minors? I know this opening structure has been discussed before, but have not been able to find the answer to my question in prior threads and I apologize in advance if it has been answered.

 

Thanks

 

Not the question you asked (sorry), but I really think 2m as 6m or 5m/4m is bad. 2m should promise 6 (or Precision 2D opening ok). When opener only promises a 5m, you don't have an anchor suit. Another way of saying this is that your 2m bid doesn't support fit-finding and responder needs more to bid; he can't introduce a major and then run to your minor in a misfit.

 

When you have (say) 3154, you basically have a 3-suited hand, so why be so commital to a 2D opening?

 

If you play these openings anyway, you can open 2D with a 5/5 minor or (better) open 2N if that's still available.

[wclass___]

When you have (say) 3154, you basically have a 3-suited hand, so why be so commital to a 2D opening?

 

Because it describes your hand really fast and precisely. It takes away bidding space instead of 1♦ which is far more easier to defend and you don't have to open 1♦ making 1♦ more defined.

 

But the most important thing is that it is logical and works.

 

It is OK to express your opinion, but... i think you are biased by some flawed reasoning and can't assess advanatges and disadvantages too well. :(

 

Same thing with 2♣-2M being forcing and 1♣-1♦ as GF.

[straube]

Because it describes your hand really fast and precisely. It takes away bidding space instead of 1♦ which is far more easier to defend and you don't have to open 1♦ making 1♦ more defined.

 

But the most important thing is that it is logical and works.

 

It is OK to express your opinion, but... i think you are biased by some flawed reasoning and can't assess advanatges and disadvantages too well. :(

 

Same thing with 2♣-2M being forcing and 1♣-1♦ as GF.

 

I disagree that it describes your hand precisely.

 

Um. It's not your decision whether it's ok for me to express my opinion. I explained my opinion and the reason for my opinion. The OP can reject it if he doesn't find it useful.

 

From you we get that "it is logical and works" without explaining your logic and you single me out for bias when we all have bias or opinions based on our understanding of what is good in a system. We get your opinion that I can't assess advantages and disadvantages too well...to which you bring in old threads about 2C-2M being forcing (we don't play this, we play essentially transfers here) and 1C-1D GF (which I think you insult every Moscito player).

 

Make your arguments, point out weaknesses in counter-arguments, but don't attack the person behind an argument and think that counts for something.

[olien]

So, before this goes too far off topic, my partner is not exactly a proponent of this method. Not because he thinks the openings are poor, but because he doesn't like 1♦ becoming 0+. I know that in practice this 1♦ opening becomes better defined than playing a 2♣ opening = 6+ and 2♦ = 3-suited short ♦, because there are fewer hand types. He also doesn't like that a 1♦ opening can include very long ♣ with 4M Our current opening structure is as follows:

 

1♣ Strong (16+ HCP)

1♦ Catchall 11-15 HCP

1M 11-15 HCP 5+M

1NT 14-16 HCP balanced

2♣ 11-15 HCP 6+♣, may have 4M

2♦ 11-15 HCP (43)=1=5, 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5

2NT 19-20 HCP balanced

 

So, 1♦ really includes many hand types. However, I'm trying to convince him that changing is an improvement. So, I was actually working on a compromise that looks as follows:

 

1♦ balanced 11-13, 4M-5+♦, 4M-5♣, any 4441, any 5m(440)

2♣ 11-15 HCP 5+♣ 4♦ or 6+♣ (may have 4M)

2♦ 11-15 HCP 5+♦ 4+♣ or 6+♦ (no 4M)

 

Over a 2♣ opening, a 2♦ response is a relay (which if wclass___ is not a proponent of, if he could please explain why). Over the 2♦ response:

2♥ 1-suiter (then 2♠=GFR)

2♠ 5+♣ 4♦ (now 2NT=GFR, and symmetric+1)

2NT 6+♣ 4♥

3♣ 6+♣ 4♠ min

3♦ 6+♣ 4♠ max

3M 5M

 

I'm not sure if I like this structure or not, but its a result of trying to compromise with my partner.

 

Over a 2♦ opening, a 2♥ response is the relay and then:

2♠ 6+♦ (now 2NT=GFR at symmetric+1)

2NT+ 5+♦ 4+♣ at symmetric+1

 

Not sure if this is any good, or if the compromise is worthwhile. Some input regarding competitive auctions after opening 1♦ which can be 4M-5+m, any 3-suiter, or balanced 11-13 would be welcome

 

Thanks

[straube]

How is this a compromise? I thought your partner disliked 1D as 0+ diamonds, but in this proposal, you could be 4405 or 4306. I'm more with your partner. Standard Precision openings work pretty well imo, though 2m as 6m works better if you want to relay the hand...and express a preference for trump when you really have a preference.

[wclass___]

11-15 5m+ unbalanced no 4M is really good and valuable definition - there is no point for you to argue against this. Responder can benefit a lot from knowing that partner doesn't have 4M. It is more informative than 2m as simply 6m+.

 

Your ''arguments'' was about some abstract anchor suit, well.. i am not really sure if i should take it serious or not. Then one could argue against opening 1336.. what i'm going to do when partner bids spades?! This game is about percentages and expectations... if you never bid too much you are clearly doing something wrong.

 

You are saying that i haven't explained my logic while you probably didn't read my first 2 sentences where i did that. I could have go on and explain it in more detail, but from my experience with you - you are quite stubborn and don't really try to assess advantages and disadvantages, but rather stick to your tiny argument.

 

And about insulting - you were saying that this 2m is ''bad''. We have had enough discussion about this and you know it is one of my favorite bids. Then you come up and say it is ''bad'' throwing one single argument about ''anchor suit'' (where i can't really tell if you are being serious or provoking) without providing information of how bad you are dealing one your own... and expect not to get punched in your face? :blink:

[wclass___]

olien - your opening structure is very powerful. It is something very similar i came up myself (my NT ranges were different though and system was made exclusively for NV). Don't even think about changing.

[straube]

11-15 5m+ unbalanced no 4M is really good and valuable definition - there is no point for you to argue against this. Responder can benefit a lot from knowing that partner doesn't have 4M. It is more informative than 2m as simply 6m+.

 

Your ''arguments'' was about some abstract anchor suit, well.. i am not really sure if i should take it serious or not. Then one could argue against opening 1336.. what i'm going to do when partner bids spades?! This game is about percentages and expectations... if you never bid too much you are clearly doing something wrong.

 

You are saying that i haven't explained my logic while you probably didn't read my first 2 sentences where i did that. I could have go on and explain it in more detail, but from my experience with you - you are quite stubborn and don't really try to assess advantages and disadvantages, but rather stick to your tiny argument.

 

And about insulting - you were saying that this 2m is ''bad''. We have had enough discussion about this and you know it is one of my favorite bids. Then you come up and say it is ''bad'' throwing one single argument about ''anchor suit'' (where i can't really tell if you are being serious or provoking) without providing information of how bad you are dealing one your own... and expect not to get punched in your face? :blink:

 

This is more personal attack. You say I'm quite stubborn, but just last week you helped me with my 2M thread. Here was my reply and I don't think it was "quite stubborn"...

 

"I think you're right that Revision is better. In particular, I like their ability to show 2-suited hands opposite a preempt. I also don't like my 3C asking bid because it tried to accomplish both slam tries with fits and non-fits; much better for responder to show his hand and elicit a response. I'm just uncertain that 2H-2N, 3C-3H is better as a GT with club values than a generic try with heart tolerance. Maybe I'll start a poll. Finally, I really do want to be able to sign off in 3D (or 3H in the case of 2S). As long as opener can't super-accept without a fit and maximum, I'm fine with that, but I don't like 2H-3C, 4H as a possible auction.

 

Btw, thanks a lot for your help wclass."

 

Our opening structure is...

 

1D-various including 6D/4M

1M-5+ major

1N-14-16

2C-6 clubs, 4 spades possible

2D-6 diamonds, no major possible

2N-4H/6C

 

So our 2m usually denies a 4-cd major and yet promises a 6-cd minor. Partner my compete with a 2-fit and be assured that we have an 8-cd fit.

 

Lastly, I said that I thought that 2m with 5/4 was bad, so I was clearly stating an opinion. I don't remember what you play and weren't thinking of you at all when I wrote it. So no, I wasn't expecting a punch in the face.

[olien]

How is this a compromise? I thought your partner disliked 1D as 0+ diamonds, but in this proposal, you could be 4405 or 4306. I'm more with your partner. Standard Precision openings work pretty well imo, though 2m as 6m works better if you want to relay the hand...and express a preference for trump when you really have a preference.

 

If you read more carefully, my 'compromise' is that a 2♣ opening can be 6♣-4M.

So, your statement about possibly being 4=3=0=6 is incorrect. Can be 4=4=0=5. My compromise is as follows:

 

1♦ a) 11-13 HCP Balanced, b) 11-15 HCP any 4441 or 5m(440), c) 11-15 HCP 5+♦ 4M or d) 11-15 HCP 5♣ 4M

1M 11-15 HCP 5+M

1NT 14-16 HCP balanced

2♣ 11-15 HCP a) 6+♣ MAY HAVE 4M, or b) 5+♣ 4♦

2♦ 11-15 HCP a) 6+♦ NO 4M, or b) 5+♦ 4+♣

 

After 2♣-2♦:

2♥ single-suited (now 2♠=GFR and on track with symmetric)

2♠ 5+♣ 4♦ (now 2NT=GFR and symmetric+1)

2NT 4♥

3♣ 4♠ min

3♦ 4♠ max

3M 5-card M

 

 

After 2♦-2♥:

2♠ single-suited (now 2NT=GFR and symmetric+1)

2NT+ 5+♦ 4+♣ and symmetric+1

 

So, now you can see the compromise (I hope).

[straube]

I misunderstood. I see the compromise now and hopefully your partner will like being able to open 2C with a 6C/4M.

[wclass___]

Inference about not having 4M is way too valuale to even think about changing 2m.

 

No 4M is the key element that makes this opening so good. e.g. I find 2m-2NT as natural invite and 2m-3NT (both can have 4/5 long M) to be very effective. If responder has to take into account posible 4M you are losing a lot of value. (In terms.of poker.)

[olien]

Inference about not having 4M is way too valuale to even think about changing 2m.

 

No 4M is the key element that makes this opening so good. e.g. I find 2m-2NT as natural invite and 2m-3NT (both can have 4/5 long M) to be very effective. If responder has to take into account posible 4M you are losing a lot of value. (In terms.of poker.)

 

Alright. Will take this into consideration. However, it is difficult to assess how valuable this is without lots of hands of experience (and bidding room doesn't help). I know how great it is to disclose less information about your hand to the opponents. I realize that allowing a 4cM in the 2♣ opening negates any advantage. Will try out both. Hopefully I can convince my partner to try your version first and if he really doesn't like it, then we'll have to figure something out. But, I think I'll be able to convince him otherwise.

 

Thank You for your help.

 

P.S. if the opponents interfere, do you recommend penalty X's?

[wclass___]

P.S. if the opponents interfere, do you recommend penalty X's?

 

No, but they obviously have some merit.

 

BTW, if you agree to play no 4M version you still can and should open 2m with some appropriate 6m4M's.

 

 

 

[straube]

Here's an idea...

 

2m (2L)

 

Dbl shows an invitational or better hand, hands with a 5-cd major double and then bid the major

.....bidding should be forced to at least 2N, opener's rebids should depend on which suit was overcalled and how much room is consequently available, but the most important

.....thing is to separate 5/4 from 6 and not to show a stopper. So where space is most crowded (2C (2S) dbl P). Opener should rebid 2N with a minimum 4/5 and 3C with a minimum 6

.....and 3D with a maximum 4/5 etc)

 

2M-nf, constructive or invitational

2N-requests 3C (Lebensohl)

.....3C

..........P-to play

..........3L-competitive if lower ranking, GF with six if higher ranking (and denying a fit for opener's minor)

3m- fit, constructive, invites opener to compete

3L-new suit is forcing at this level, jump shifts are fit showing (2C (2H) 3S is FSJ)

[shevek]

I see this comes from a 5-card major context.

 

For three main reasons, we play 4-card majors.

1) A desire not to overload 1♦ & underload 1M.

2) A wish to use symmetric over all openings

3) Usual testosterone-inspired MAFIA.

 

So important that 2m denies a 4-card major. We have used 6+m or 5-4m for years with good results.

Agree with Straube that 6+ is better & 5431 hands are not well served.

Having said that, opening 2♦ on hands like

 

♠AQx ♥x ♦QJxxx ♣Kxxx

 

while ugly, has been good for us. Opponents have tended to overbid. 2m has been a net IMP gainer.

Note that 1♦ is not an option for us. 1♦ thru 1♠ show Major hands.

 

PS. We open 2♣ with 5-5, 10-14.

[awm]

I really cannot recall ever getting a bad score because I opened 2m with 6-card minor and a side 4-card major and missed a major suit fit. On the hands where responder is too weak to invite, the opponents can almost inevitably make something; they will either bid (allowing us to find our fit) or pass (missing their own fit, which could easily be a good result for us even though we missed our fit also). This 1♦ opening that can be balanced or 4M-either-longer-minor also seems like a gigantic loser to me in competitive situations.

[straube]

What's your opening structure? Four-card majors, but 1D, 1H, and 1S all denote major suit interest so I'm a bit stumped.

 

I used to play that 1D promised a 4-cd major and our 2m was the same as olien is contemplating. I like your placement of the 5/5 in 2C. You have much more room over a 2C opening and I think you'll be +0.

 

I also noticed overbidding against our 2m openings and thought our 2D opening was a winner. These openings may not enjoy such an advantage over very strong opponents; they ought to recognize that we may be in a bit of trouble if we've opened 2D with AQx x QJxxx Axxx and let us get some bad results.

 

One ought to hope to gain imps with more preemptive and descriptive bids; our 2D showing six is a winner, too, when it comes up (which is maybe 2/3 as frequent).

[straube]

I really cannot recall ever getting a bad score because I opened 2m with 6-card minor and a side 4-card major and missed a major suit fit. On the hands where responder is too weak to invite, the opponents can almost inevitably make something; they will either bid (allowing us to find our fit) or pass (missing their own fit, which could easily be a good result for us even though we missed our fit also). This 1♦ opening that can be balanced or 4M-either-longer-minor also seems like a gigantic loser to me in competitive situations.

 

I feel that way about our 2C opening which may have four spades. When I open 4S/6C hands, I don't worry that we'll miss a spade fit. Usually our best fit is clubs and we may take more tricks in clubs than in a 4/4 spade fit. Our 2N opening shows 4H/6C and we've often suppressed a heart fit in favor of clubs for that very reason.

[shevek]

What's your opening structure? Four-card majors, but 1D, 1H, and 1S all denote major suit interest so I'm a bit stumped.

 

I used to play that 1D promised a 4-cd major and our 2m was the same as olien is contemplating. I like your placement of the 5/5 in 2C. You have much more room over a 2C opening and I think you'll be +0.

 

I also noticed overbidding against our 2m openings and thought our 2D opening was a winner. These openings may not enjoy such an advantage over very strong opponents; they ought to recognize that we may be in a bit of trouble if we've opened 2D with AQx x QJxxx Axxx and let us get some bad results.

 

One ought to hope to gain imps with more preemptive and descriptive bids; our 2D showing six is a winner, too, when it comes up (which is maybe 2/3 as frequent).

 

1♣ = 16+

1♥= 4+♥, denies 4♠s, could be minor canapé

1♠ = both majors

1♦ = 4+♠s, denies 4♥s

1NT = 12-15 balanced-ish, no Major

[straube]

Ok. I've seen that before in discussions about how to make Moscito legal in certain jurisdictions.