What would your two-level openings be?

[Kungsgeten]

Playing Baltic Club combined with Multi 1NT you would have the following opening scheme at the 1-level:

 

1C = 11+ natural or 12-14 balanced or 18+ any

1DHS = Natural 11-17

1NT = 15-17 NT or a weak two in hearts or spades

 

Now all bids at the 2-level are available for whatever you want, and you do not have to include regular weak twos in the majors since they're included in 1NT. Just out of curiousity, what would your choices be?

[gwnn]

Without any restrictions right?

NV I'd play:

2C=weak two nat or bad weak two diamonds

2D=good weak two nat or bad weak two hearts

2H=good weak two nat or bad weak two spades

2S=good weak two nat

 

V I don't see much wrong with just four weak two's... Although you might want to play something like 2D bad weak two in a major and 2M a good weak two. Not sure what 2C could be then. Maybe both minors weak?

 

I hope it's ok to say at this point that the whole idea of Baltic Club seems absurd to me.

 

edit: no weak two's in hearts and spades eithet? yikes! I think I read that part of the opening post but blocked it out due to how little sense it makes to put them in 1NT

[Kungsgeten]

gwnn: The major weak twos are handled by the 1NT opening, so I dont think you need three ranges for your weak twos?

[antonylee]

At some point in a Baltic-club-like setup I played 2C=8-11 bal, 4+C[treat as a mini-NT with some safety for the runout], 2D=nat weak, 2M=8-11, 4M-5+m. I guess the best thing about this scheme is that it is actually GCC-legal :) And it is actually not as awful as it sounds (especially at MPs though, as you will go for a large number every once in a while).

 

Responses were constrained by the "no conventional calls" restriction of GCC (although we also took advantage that GCC defines natural in a minor as 3+...), so we played

2C-2D = 3+D, usually interest in a major, inv (treat as 1N-2C NF stayman)

2C-2M/2N = to play

2C-3m = 3+m, usually interest in a major, GF (treat as 1N-2D GF stayman, you will have a 3crd m except if (54)22)

2C-3M = nat GF

but you can obviously do better if you do not have such restrictions.

 

As often discussed in PC threads it may make sense to play 1D as wider-ranging, but perhaps you can offload some of the hands to 2D instead too.

[gwnn]

gwnn: The major weak twos are handled by the 1NT opening, so I dont think you need three ranges for your weak twos?

Yes I did notice that after rereading the OP but it just seems such a strange system at this point.. I guess then I'd just play four weak twos and splitting the hands with a major. Alternatively you could play 2D wilkosz? I don't know really, as long as you are giving away imps left and right with your 1NT openings it doesn't matter much what you do with the rest.

[Mbodell]

2♣ - 9-11 balanced (I agree with Antony that 2♣ should be balanced with 9-11 or 8-11. You can decide to make it 4+ clubs if you really want, or stick it out as any balanced hand (sort of an uber preempt).)

2♦ - 5-10 5/5 with at least one major (Wilkosz)

2♥ - 5-10, exactly 44 in the majors (alternatively include 5/4 either way in majors too: extra alternatively you could also do 2♥ Flanery - or even 2♥ precision style 4415-1 - if you wanted to take some pressure off your one level bids)

2♠ - Good 3 minor preempt

2nt - both minors preempt

 

I think the above would make sense for supplementing your one level openings.

[helene_t]

2c minors at least 44

2d wilk

2H 4H 5+ other

2S 4S 5+ m

[gwnn]

You might want to try 2C as a kind of "Jammer"?

Maybe:

2C=0-2 spades 3+♥ 3+♦ 3+♣?

[helene_t]

What about psycho suction?

[Mbodell]

2c minors at least 44

2d wilk

2H 4H 5+ other

2S 4S 5+ m

 

I think you can get the minor hands off with 2nt, and then do 2♣ as balanced 8-11 with 4+ clubs, and the other 2 levels as you have (all 5-10). The 4M 5+ other preempts would be potentially hard on the opponents.

 

What about psycho suction?

 

This would also work, although I'd prefer inverted psycho suction (so every bid X is either 2-suiter X and X+1 or 1-suiter X+2 all bids, including the first, nf pass or correct). But I think the other preempts are probably better.

[gwnn]

I really hate always opening 8-11 balanced on the 2-level (even if you promise 4 clubs). You go for a number quite a few times and give away tons of negative inferences if you have a proper convention card. I would sooner agree to never opening 2♣ than to it being 8-11 balanced.

[NickRW]

2m = weak two

2H = hearts and another

2S = spades and a minor

2N = minors

[Cyberyeti]

Would it take a bit of useful strain off the club to play 2♣ or 2♦ mexican ish ?

[helene_t]

If we overload the two- and three-openings just a little bit, we can play pass as promising both majors :)

[Kungsgeten]

Would it take a bit of useful strain off the club to play 2♣ or 2♦ mexican ish ?

 

Probably :) I think it is more effective to use a Precision-like 2♣ to remove strain frome 1♣ though, like in Polish club.

[phoenix214]

Really depends on style of play. One option would be freiling style weak twos based on frequency. Although if there is a possiblity i would like to have some weak/strong openings there or something that helps my constructive side a bit more.

Example for that would be.

2C-diamonds weak or some strong 4441

2D-Wilkosz(But also add some strong options, like same hand but can be strong as well)

2H-Flannery?:D

2S-Minors Weak or strong

2NT-20-21 bal

[Free]

I have some fun structures:

- One of my favorites: Lorenzo two's (I used to play 2M Lorenzo's when NV with great success). This gives you a pass showing (6/7)8-10 HCP any.

2X = 0-7HCP with 4+X, Majors first style (pretty much obligated unless you have a good hand like AQ or AK)

 

- This I used to play with my f2f partner, very aggressive and also very playable when Vulnerable:

2m showing weak hands with 4+m and 4+M. Especially the 2♣ opening is great because you can use 2♦ to ask for the Major which partner doesn't hold!

2♥ = weak with at least 4-4 Majors

2♠ = agressive weak two with 5+♠ (or perhaps Lorenzo two)

 

- Something based on the Random 2♣. We played it one night at the club, it came up 4 times, and the next week BSC's were banned ;)

2♣ = 0-5HCP, any distribution (so pass shows 6-10 without much distribution)

Other bids are still free, so I'd take something like:

2♦ = Wilkosz (weak with 5+M and 5+ other)

2♥ = weak with 44+M (not 5-5)

2♠ = weak with 5♠ (5332 or 4-card minor)

[Kungsgeten]

One of my favorites: Lorenzo two's

 

I've played Lorenzo two's a couple of times in a natural forcing pass system played only non-vul:

 

Pass = 15+

1X = 8-14, 5+ suit or 4441

1NT = (11)12-14

2X = 0-7(8), 4+ suit

2NT = 9-11 NT

 

A cool thing if playing Lorenzo with a pass showing constructive values, say 7-10, is that a third/fourth hand opening bid can be forcing and unlimited.

 

My experiences of Lorenzo two's is not that great however, but they're exciting for sure :) We once tried playing a natural system where we switched pass and 1♠, so pass showed 4+ spades and 1♠ showed 0-10 hcp. Compared to that I must say I prefer Lorenzo ;)

[glen]

given weak two's are in the 1NT opening,

 

2♣: 4M + longer m weak

2♦: 5M + 5m weak (like Wilkosz)

2♥: Majors weak

2♠: Awful ♠ preempt

[rbforster]

This might be ok given the weak major single suiters are included already, and covers all the two suiters.

 

2♣ weak two in either minor

2♦ hearts and a minor

2♥ both majors

2♠ spades and a minor

2N both minors

 

I leave it up to you to decide how many cards per suit are required, 4/4, 5/4, promising 4M vs 5M, etc.

[Free]

My experiences of Lorenzo two's is not that great however, but they're exciting for sure :)

When we played Lorenzo two's in the Majors, we had a couple of bad results in the beginning. We think we found some patterns that turn out badly and adjusted our 2M openings slightly by not making them obligatory. We didn't open with 4333 or 4-3M.

 

The biggest successes were when responder was quite strong and opps didn't have the discipline to pass. When partner opened 2M and we held 18HCP we quickly passed. 4th seat had a big problem because he didn't know how the values were distributed. Sometimes he'd stretch after which his partner got into trouble: should he raise or not? Picking up someone for 1400+ happened quite often B-)

[mycroft]

One thing I played in an "8+ opening, strong club" system (which actually started as a joke, but we were quite comfortable with it eventually):

 

• 2♦ *bad* mini-Multi (but I agree with the above that Flannery/AntiFlannery as appropriate, much as I hate it, fits better into your structure)
  
• 2♥ Both majors
  
• 2♠ bad preempt in a minor (but you may already have 2NT for that).
  

 

2♣ could be "M+m, or 4M, longer m" or whatever you think you want to play