[Jinksy]

Playing Fantunes (or other systems with cheap forcing bids), we effectively have 2N as a spare bid.

Up until now, we've been using it to take some of the pressure off the 2♥ opening, such that it shows 5♥s, 5+m, same playing strength as an opening 2-bid. I'd briefly contemplated making it the same but with ♠s as the anchor suit, but initially dismissed the idea on the assumption that preempting seemed less valuable with the boss suit.

I'm now revisting that assumption, since I've realised that anchoring to Ss gives you a lot more space to bid constructively at the 3 level. But I'm finding it hard to get a suitable sense from just running BB hands of which factor is more powerful, and wondered if others had any well-informed intuition or even sim data they could share.

Also open to the idea of using it to mean something completely different (I like Gerben's idea of 'nat, 13-14' 1st and second in NV, but few partners are willing to play that ), but I think the 2-suiter version is pretty helpful, esp since with our continuations over 2M, opener would never get to show this shape otherwise.

[whereagles]

How about multi for the minors, i.e. a wimpish 1-suiter in clubs/diamonds?


As for two-suited, I'm not sure I follow you. You mean right now 2♥ = hearts + minor, 2NT = free?

[RunemPard]

I always liked a C+D or H+S preempt...

[nige1]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-09, 07:43, said:

Playing Fantunes (or other systems with cheap forcing bids), we effectively have 2N as a spare bid.
Up until now, we've been using it to take some of the pressure off the 2♥ opening, such that it shows 5♥s, 5+m, same playing strength as an opening 2-bid. I'd briefly contemplated making it the same but with ♠s as the anchor suit, but initially dismissed the idea on the assumption that preempting seemed less valuable with the boss suit.
I'm now revisting that assumption, since I've realised that anchoring to Ss gives you a lot more space to bid constructively at the 3 level. But I'm finding it hard to get a suitable sense from just running BB hands of which factor is more powerful, and wondered if others had any well-informed intuition or even sim data they could share.
Also open to the idea of using it to mean something completely different (I like Gerben's idea of 'nat, 13-14' 1st and second in NV, but few partners are willing to play that ), but I think the 2-suiter version is pretty helpful, esp since with our continuations over 2M, opener would never get to show this shape otherwise.

David and Janet Barnes play 2N = ♠ and another. Over the past decade or so, they've had good results with it.
I've played 2N = ♥ and another, which is more annoying tor opponents and seems theoretically better.
After 2N - ??

• 3♣ = P/C
• 3♦ = ASK
• 3♥ = NAT NF
• 4♥ = NAT NF

After 2N - 3♦ - ??

• 3♥ = TRF MIN ♥ and ♠
• 3♠ = TRF MIN ♥ and ♣
• 3N = TRF MIN ♥ and ♦
• 4♣ = NAT MAX ♥ and ♣
• 4♦ = NAT MAX ♥ and ♦
• 4♥ = TRF MAX ♥ and ♠

These variants are legal in most jurisdictions because they promise length in a specified suit.

[Jinksy]

whereagles, on 2014-October-09, 10:10, said:

How about multi for the minors, i.e. a wimpish 1-suiter in clubs/diamonds?

I really want something usable in all four seats (my long-suffering Ps would probably mutiny otherwise), and there's not much point in this in third, since we can just open those hands 2m.

Quote

As for two-suited, I'm not sure I follow you. You mean right now 2♥ = hearts + minor, 2NT = free?

No, 2N is unnecessary as strong balanced, so can be used for whatever - we're currently using it for ♥ + minor 2-suiters.

RunemPard, on 2014-October-09, 18:07, said:

I always liked a C+D or H+S preempt...

I believe that's not legal in the UK (where the opening has to guarantee or exclude at least one suit)

[Jinksy]

nige1, on 2014-October-09, 19:19, said:

I've played 2N = ♥ and another, which is more annoying tor opponents and seems theoretically better.

That was my original view, but I think it depends on the strength of the bid. If it's weak, the premptive value is higher, but having ♠s as your anchor suit means eg it's a lot easier to seek game without overshooting a possible place to play.

Also, since we play bog standard UNT/Michaels without Ghestem or similar, the ♥+m hands can more realistically show themselves later by passing first.

[Vampyr]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-10, 11:38, said:

I believe that's not legal in the UK (where the opening has to guarantee or exclude at least one suit)

Not for a 2NT opening. Check out 7C1 Note (a).

[Free]

Although Fantunes is an aggressive system, it's definitely based on constructive principles. So in line of the system I'd go for the constructive part of a 2NT opener and use ♠ as anchor suit. Moreover, a 2♠ opening has less space than a 2♥ opening, so you might as well get some hands out of there and make it better in the process.

Also, when we don't have ♠, chances are we open 2♥ and opps intervene with 2♠. This still gives us the opportunity to bid 3m with a 5-5 (or they overcall 3♣ and we have 5-5 reds).

[Jinksy]

Free, on 2014-October-11, 01:30, said:

Also, when we don't have ♠, chances are we open 2♥ and opps intervene with 2♠. This still gives us the opportunity to bid 3m with a 5-5 (or they overcall 3♣ and we have 5-5 reds).

What I've found from bidding a few deals on BBO (where as S I have 5♥s, 5+m, 9-13 HCP and W has 5+♠s and 10+ HCPs) is that usually when you open 2♥, if it comes back around to you, it's a warning that the hand is a misfit and you're glad to be out of the auction. I haven't bid enough to feel confident that this is real pattern and not fluke yet, but atm I'd more often be inclined to X unless my hand looks particularly pure. More so with ♦s, obviously, since I can correct a 3♣ response.

[SteelWheel]

Having played a lot of Precision and other strong club systems, I also find 2NT to be a wasted opening bid (you can always cover the 22-23 balanced hands with done other forcing sequence). In the past, I've most frequently played this as "unusual for the minors" generally around 6-11 (subject to all the caveats about vulnerability and such, of course).

In mid-chart events, I've fooled around with 2NT as a "bad" 3-level preempt in a minor, leaving 3-minor direct as a "good" preempt, which we whimsically defined as "if partner bids 3NT, I won't get sick to my stomach"--so in practice, a long one-loser suit.

Ken Rexford also has done interesting ideas about this Dort of stuff in his canapé book.

[PrecisionL]

SteelWheel said:

Having played a lot of Precision and other strong club systems, I also find 2NT to be a wasted opening bid (you can always cover the 22-23 balanced hands with done other forcing sequence). In the past, I've most frequently played this as "unusual for the minors" generally around 6-11 (subject to all the caveats about vulnerability and such, of course).

In mid-chart events, I've fooled around with 2NT as a "bad" 3-level preempt in a minor, leaving 3-minor direct as a "good" preempt, which we whimsically defined as "if partner bids 3NT, I won't get sick to my stomach"--so in practice, a long one-loser suit.

Ken Rexford also has done interesting ideas about this Dort of stuff in his canapé book.

This is my preference also. Schenken in his Big Club System recommended that an opening bid of 3♣ contain 6-7 playing tricks. A solid 6-card suit or 7-cards with an outside winner. Opening 2♣ with such a hand was an underbid.

Thus, a 2NT opening fits in with such an approach. (Not ACBL GCC legal though.)

[snillrik13]

Agree with two last opinions. Would like to add that a Multi 2NT should not be just for fun but reasonable to play. So 2NT = clubs or diamonds weak preempt as per your taste. I play 3 of a minor opening as very strong 7 tricks and have an Acol bid as a Little stronger 8-9 tricks. Works very well. This is a design for imp play. What to play in matchpoint might be Another subject.

[Cthulhu D]

You can also do the following:

3C both minors weak
3DHS: I wish we played weak 2s p
2NT: a real 3 level preempt.

Which leads to some hair raising auctions (have really solid agreements about what, say, 2NT-(3D)-3H is) but it is very playable. I prefer going slow with the better hands to minimise the opportunities to get hammered when P has decided that he's gonna open 3H on stuff like x KJTxxx Qx xxxx

I feel like Frees 5\5 approach helps Jinky's system a lot more unless partner is pining for his preemptive bids

[Jinksy]

For the time being we've decided to go with a Fantunes-strength constructive ♠ & (♥/♣) hand on the theory that it's a constructive bid. That's let us find a few games in testing that we certainly wouldn't have found before, and that many of the room might miss.

Up until now we've been having to suck it up and open 5♠-5♥ hands with a normal 2-bid, so this fixes a very awkward gap in our system.

[nige1]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-10, 11:38, said:

No, 2N is unnecessary as strong balanced, so can be used for whatever - we're currently using it for ♥ + minor 2-suiters

SteelWheel, on 2014-November-08, 05:52, said:

Having played a lot of Precision and other strong club systems, I also find 2NT to be a wasted opening bid (you can always cover the 22-23 balanced hands with done other forcing sequence).

Strong balanced 2N openers can be pre-emptive too, right-siding contracts and making it harder for opponents to overcall to direct a lead.

[Jinksy]

That's an odd meaning of preemptive. Since we open them 1♣ with pseudo-xfer responses, we can usually rightside anyway, and if the opps overcall it might let us penalise when they might well have found the killer lead to 3N anyway (it's a major, if they have room to overcall at at the one level).

On the other hand, when P has a distributional hand, 2N certainly pre-empts us.