[benlessard]

im satisfied with our 2nt weak preempt in a minor (our 3m could be opening hands). Its easy to defend but the upside are there.

You open 3m instead of 1m. Intermediate 3m bids is where you will win most imps
You open 2Nt instead of 2D/pass (if you got clubs)
You avoid some hopeless 3Nt.
1m followed by 2m show extras.
1m followed by a jump to 3m is forcing or almost forcing.
a non vulnerable 2 level is often 5 cards.


Anyway its hard to find an alternatives.

2nt for whatever strong hand will be a slam killer.
In an ideal world you would want security, frequency, precision and preemptive effect, and being hard to defend.

[inquiry]

Club preempt or strong two suiter with hearts and either spades or diamonds.

Oh the misiry.

[Jlall]

inquiry, on Oct 21 2009, 08:36 PM, said:

Club preempt or strong two suiter with hearts and either spades or diamonds.

Oh the misiry.

haha awesome I was wondering if you would show up for this thread

[straube]

First, explain more about your 2C opening. Is it single-suited clubs or 5+S/4+C?
I've never seen 2C hide a spade canape. Is that common and why do you do that?

I think 2C would work better as six clubs or 5 clubs with 4 spades. Then 1S-1N, 2C=5S/4C

awm was on the right track, I think. Use 2N to fill a gap in your system.

You could do...

2N=weak (11-13) opening hand single-suited diamonds

Then 1D-1M, 2D=good major raise

1D-1M, 2N (or higher)=good single-suited diamonds

You don't really need 2N to show 6m/4M because you have other ways of showing this. You could use it to show 6D/4C which might otherwise be a problem for your structure.

[olien]

Well, I'm not saying the opening structure is perfect, but it is the same one used by ekeblad, granovetter, and rubin, so I'm not going to question its effectiveness too much. They use the 2N opening as natural, but we prefer not to and we have adjusted the system appropriately. A 1D opening is either 5/4+ either way in the minors, 3- suited 4+D, 11+-14 bal, or 5+S 4+D. The 2C opening could be hiding a S canape.

[Jlall]

It's strange that you reference the ekeblad, granovetter, and rubin structure as evidence that your opening structure is good when you're actually changing that opening structure heh.

It is also strange you don't want to use a natural 2N if you have no other use in mind for 2N. I could see giving it up if you thought there was something very beneficial you could play, but if you don't have anything in mind then giving it up then why don't you use the same thing that ekeblad, granovetter, and rubin use playing your same structure.

[olien]

Well let me start off by saying we do not expect the new 2N opening to be beneficial when compared to a natural 2N opening. We expect to gain by not having to open a 20-21 pt or whatever range hand with 2N. We believe that it negatively affects our decision making ability in the slam area. I do not think that there is one person who would disagree with the statement that a 2N opening hurts slam bidding. That is why we think it would be more advantageous to have another meaning for a 2N opening, so we don't have to open those hands 2N, but rather 1C and get to relay on slam hands.

[cherdanno]

olien, on Oct 22 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Well let me start off by saying we do not expect the new 2N opening to be beneficial when compared to a natural 2N opening. We expect to gain by not having to open a 20-21 pt or whatever range hand with 2N. We believe that it negatively affects our decision making ability in the slam area. I do not think that there is one person who would disagree with the statement that a 2N opening hurts slam bidding. That is why we think it would be more advantageous to have another meaning for a 2N opening, so we don't have to open those hands 2N, but rather 1C and get to relay on slam hands.

The last time I played a set against a precision pair, I won a game swing on the first board when the auction went (1C) 2H all pass, as RHO passed it out with his balanced 20 count. Of course he could bid 2N now but that would be more dangerous than opening 2N, as my partner might be able to double.
I am not claiming to know whether this issue is more important than the missed minor suit slams after opening 2NT, but it is interesting to note that Meckwell seem to have the opposite opinion - they like opening 2N so much that they play a comparatively wide range (they explain it as 19-21 I believe).

[straube]

http://usbf.org/index2.php?option=com_team...fid=221&pid=706

weak 5/5 majors by Weichsel Granovetter

[athene]

Meckstroth in his book ('Win the Bermuda Bowl with me') says that opening 2NT on balanced 19-counts isn't something that is particularly desirable but they do it because it solves other problems in their system. Basically after 1♣ - 1♦ they don't use 1♥ as a strong relay so they would have trouble with all the balanced hands otherwise - especially as they like to play tight ranges for all NT bids.

Designing a strong club relay system you are best-off sorting out everything else and then thinking "what hands am I stuck with?" and trying to use 2NT for those. This is better than hunting for germ warfare for 2NT, since (as has been pointed out) most destructive uses aren't that wonderful. For example I use 2NT as 10-15 HCP and 7+ hearts in my current relay system as I can't unwind all the extreme shapes after opening 1♥ (my 1♥ opener is 1♠ ).

If you really want a "fun" use for 2NT, play it as 5/5 with hearts and a minor. Good for pre-empting spades, and you have a bit of room to invite (3♣ pass/correct, 3♦ = game-try in hearts for example).

[joshs]

Personally I have had lots of success playing 2N as 5-5 in the minors and about 10-12 HCP in the context of similar systems. Yes it doesn't happen that often but you are well places when it does, and the opps have to guess a little.

Since you don't want to play this as minors, then I really have no good suggestion. How about 18-19 semi-balanced with a 6 card minor?

[jdonn]

I think the point was to not use it for any hands that could otherwise be opened 1♣.

[Apollo81]

I believe 2NT strong is the best possible meaning, even in a relay system. My experience is that if you don't play strong 2NT, you will lose about 3 boards from opponents interfering over 1c for every 2 boards you gain from starting lower.

[benlessard]

Quote

I believe 2NT strong is the best possible meaning, even in a relay system. My experience is that if you don't play strong 2NT, you will lose about 3 boards from opponents interfering over 1c for every 2 boards you gain from starting lower.

I disagree 80% If your relay system is well designed the last thing you want to do is to open 2Nt with a strong hand and when i hold a big balanced hand interference does not bother me at all, its almost welcomed.

However there is almost always a gap that is difficult to cover. So i can accept a strong 2NT because the other uses arent wonderful. But to say that youre going to have 3 bad board for 2 good board is laughable.

[Gerben42]

You could try MisIry transfer preempts

[jwmonty]

benlessard, on Oct 31 2009, 07:16 AM, said:

Apollo81 said:

I believe 2NT strong is the best possible meaning, even in a relay system. My experience is that if you don't play strong 2NT, you will lose about 3 boards from opponents interfering over 1c for every 2 boards you gain from starting lower.

I disagree . . . [T]o say that youre going to have 3 bad board for 2 good board is laughable.

Why is it laughable? He wasn't expressing an opinion in his second sentence, he was stating a fact. He says it has been his *experience* that not opening 2NT on strong balanced hands loses more often than it wins. The only way that could be "laughable" would be if you believe it can't possibly be true, which is to say, if you believe he's lying about what his experiences have been. Is that what you mean to say?

I also believe that opening a strong 2NT is a useful "preempt," and my experience also supports that idea.

[gwnn]

I hate hate hate it when they get their little lead directors in and I go down 3 when the dufi are making +2 after 2NT-3NT

[awm]

My experience is rather the opposite of Noble's. While occasionally opening 1♣ allows the opponents to intervene effectively, I find that this is a win as often as a loss. For example, I may get to defend a doubled partial that outscores declaring the hand myself, I may be warned of what the opponents will lead and avoid a bad 3NT, I may simply reach a better contract because of the ability to place some key finesses in the bidding, or I might play the normal contract better because I can more easily count the opposing distribution. Of course, when the opponents don't bid over 1♣ I'm much better placed for having opened two levels lower.

I've noticed that there's some set of players who feel it's really important to "keep the opponents out of our auction." They seem to be really offended when the opponents bid, feel that their results would be much better if the opponents would just shut up every time it's "our hand" etc. Generally I feel the opposite. Even with a perfect relay method, you can't ask partner where the opponents cards are or how a particular suit breaks between the opponents hands or what the opponents are going to lead against your eventual contract (well okay you can ask, but partner won't know either unless he's peeking). When the opponents bid, sometimes they answer this question for you.

[akhare]

awm, on Nov 1 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

My experience is rather the opposite of Noble's. While occasionally opening 1♣ allows the opponents to intervene effectively, I find that this is a win as often as a loss.

I concur -- I have played strong ♣ systems for years with and without a strong 2N. Opening 2N may produce more compact auctions for game contracts, but it's great to play in say 1N when the field is langushing in an impossible 2N.

IMO, given the low frequency of the strong 2N type hands, the semantics assigned of the 2N opening come down to individual preference. That said, I can't recall too many hands when I have regretted opening such hands with 1♣.

My personal preference is to play it as some sort of intermediate bid with both minors.

[helene_t]

I have mostly bad experience with playing 2NT as minors, and playing it as an unknown minor doesn't sound better, although I haven't tried it. I thought maybe playing it as 5♥5m would make some sense. But I tend to agree with Noble. A natural 2NT is probably as good as anything.

I don't see why it matters whether you are playing a relay system. What's wrong with playing relays after 1♣ and playing something different over 2NT?