[Jinksy]

P opens an intermediate 2C, say, showing 5C and a distributional hand (5+C, with only 5 he will also have a singleton).

The question is how best to have 2H by responder. We have a fairly elaborate feature ask system that would allow opener to show max/min, then over either for responder to show exactly a 5cM/poor 6 (at the three level by now), GFing.

Given that, the question is whether 2H is worth being nominally invitational, or nominally to play. In favour of inv:
If it's not inv and responder wants to invite anyway, he won't be able to rest in a H part unless opener shows up with 4H.
Knowing about responder's 5cM before judging whether he's max/min will help him evaluate his hand better.

Against inv:
Opps don't tend to rescue you from dodgy part scores. If P has a weak 2 esque hand with shortage in your suit, often his suit will be a making part when you won't.
P in any case will pass with real weakness and mediocre suit, since he won't want to advertise it to the opps. So even if 2H is nominally to play, opener can afford to raise (showing max on the way if he has it) with good support.
After inv when opener has a negative and shortage in H but nothing much extra in C, it's tough for him to know whether to pass or rebid his suit (did partner upgrade based on a good C fit or downgrade based on a poor one?). When P's nominally not showing particular interest in game, you know he's bidding 2H because he means it, so you can safely pass without an extreme discrepancy between what you have and what he expects you to have in the two suits.

[kenrexford]

Sorry to not be directly responsive, but the intermediate-with-clubs-unbalanced 2♣ opening is a call that is, as you have experienced, somewhat difficult to unwind. There are some improvements that others might suggest.

My experience, however, is that the best solution for the 2♣ unwind is more fundamental -- avoiding that opening as a part of the system structure. Most systems that I have seen that employ that sort of 2♣ opening can be restructured with a few shuffles to achieve a different core structure for a few relevant hand types, one that is easier to unwind.

If you are interested in my thoughts on a more global structural solution/idea, let me/us know what your overall opening bids structure is.

As an example, consider Precision. Classic Precision has an unwieldy 2♣ opening, a weird 2♦ opening, and a Nebulous 1♦ opening. The alternative core of a 2♦ opening for both minors, 2♣ for three-suited with any shortness (and the critical 2♦ response for the unwind), and 1♦ as one or the other minor but never both (or balanced) works better, from experience.

In a canape structure (like Neapolitan), it seems better to have the same two calls as for modified Precision at the two-level, with 1♦ a diamond-major canape or either one-suited minor (never both minors).

The problem with the classic Precision-Neapolitan 2♣ opening is that you essentially end up opening clubs-only hands, heart-club canape, spade-club canape, and diamond-club canape in one over-stacked, self-preemptive bid, when that pain need not be experienced.

[aguahombre]

Did someone misclick this into the SAYC 2/1 Forum?