[lamford]

gnasher, on 2010-November-03, 19:33, said:

Do you mean that it's allowed in the EBU? If so, can you explain why?

At level 4. If I am reading this correctly:

<snip>
( B ) Any combination of meanings which either:
(1) includes one specified suit of at least four cards; or
(2) has a specification which does not include holding at least four cards in the
suit bid, and does not include two-suiters where the suit bid is the longer
suit.

So, for 2D, it either includes a four card-diamond suit or it has a specification which includes diamonds but they are not longer they are equal length.
For 2H, it either includes a four-card heart suit or it has a specification where the longer suit, clubs, is not the bid suit.

Perhaps they don't mean that, and perhaps I am misinterpreting it, as it is a bit of a struggle! And the OP did say brown-sticker is fine, anyway.

[Free]

gnasher, on 2010-November-03, 08:58, said:

I also like

2♣ = 4-4 or longer, clubs + a major
2♦ = 4-4 or longer, diamonds + a major

but to limit damage to your own constructive bidding I think you have to play them very weak - about 0-6 probably - and that makes they fairly rare.

I disagree, I've played them as 6-9 in the past with success. Playing as 0-6 makes the range bigger and you might ruin a simple hand where partner has an opening and you can respond 1M with 5-6HCP, or when partner has a strong hand.

We used 2♥ as P/C (I think 2♠ was also P/C, but not sure), we had an invitational relay and a GF relay. After 2♣ we used 2♦ as "bid the Major you don't have" which was either a signoff in an own Major, or the start of an invitational sequence (continue with 2NT). That was a great tool imo which made the 2♣ opening a lot better than the 2♦ opening!

[campboy]

lamford, on 2010-November-04, 03:29, said:

Perhaps they don't mean that, and perhaps I am misinterpreting it, as it is a bit of a struggle! And the OP did say brown-sticker is fine, anyway.

They don't. 10C1 provides an explanation of how to discern what is meant.

EBU Orange Book said:

If there is a list of options for a permitted agreement then a partnership may agree to play the particular call to mean only one item from the list if it says:
(a) Any one of ...
(b ) Either ... or ...
However, a partnership may agree to play it as a multi-way call, showing various possibilities from the list, if it says:
(a) Any of ...
(b ) ... or ...
© Up to three of ...

Since the regulation you quote says "either", sometimes one and sometimes the other would not be permitted.

[Flameous]

One opening not mentioned yet is sort of "reverse wilkosz", 2C as 5+m, 4M. I have very limited use of that opening so I'm not saying anything about how good it is, but at least it's very frequent. With that and wilkosz you are opening every two suiter you just dare to open. I'd throw in 2H as multi, it's wonderful toy when NV. I needed 2S for more constructive purposes, and there aren't much hands left. I think you can combine 55ms and bad 3m bid to single 2S bid. Respond 2NT with preference for Ds and 3C with preference for Cs. 3D can be either asking or P/C bid.

Vulnerable I'd go for something that actually shows some suits

[gwnn]

I don't like 2♣ as both majors if you can be 4-4. I played it for a few sessions and it seemed like we always had 4-4 exactly thereby rendering the 2♦ relay rather useless - opener would (almost) always bid 2♥, conveying very little in the way of information (suppose it was 70% 44 15% 45 15% 54, now it's 82.4% 44 17.6% 45). So if you play it as possibly 44 (and I think you should), you should put it in 2♦.

All that said, 2♦ as 4 diamonds and 4 in a major is probably more fun to play. However, I'm wondering about gnasher's idea of letting 2♦ be opening strength in diamonds or weak in hearts, that's kind of nice, then maybe you can play 1♦ then 2♦ as artificial, showing 4 hearts (over 1♠) or something else.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2010-November-04, 05:07, said:

They don't. 10C1 provides an explanation of how to discern what is meant.

Since the regulation you quote says "either", sometimes one and sometimes the other would not be permitted.

Yes, I understand. So, at Level 4 you can play that 2D is exactly three diamonds, weak NT, or a weak two in a major, or a bad pre-empt in clubs, and 2H as exactly three hearts, weak NT, or a 6-card weak two in spades, or 5-5 in the minors. This actually seems quite good, as

a) the opponents are guessing for an extra round
b ) it adds definition to your weak NT bidding
c) the responder will be able to pass fairly easily as the strong version is well-defined.
d) it will drive beginners out of level 4 events (just joking)

[Free]

gwnn, on 2010-November-04, 06:25, said:

I don't like 2♣ as both majors if you can be 4-4. I played it for a few sessions and it seemed like we always had 4-4 exactly thereby rendering the 2♦ relay rather useless - opener would (almost) always bid 2♥, conveying very little in the way of information (suppose it was 70% 44 15% 45 15% 54, now it's 82.4% 44 17.6% 45). So if you play it as possibly 44 (and I think you should), you should put it in 2♦.

Why not put it in 2♥ to put up the pressure?

[gwnn]

Because 2♥ multi is too good

[wclass___]

If you want to be more agressive play 2♥/♠=5+unbal ~~6+/10

I know that some other methods sound fun, but they are all crap.

[mtvesuvius]

wclass___, on 2010-November-04, 08:48, said:

If you want to be more agressive play 2♥/♠=5+unbal ~~6+/10

I know that some other methods sound fun, but they are all crap.

LOL

[Free]

wclass___, on 2010-November-04, 08:48, said:

If you want to be more agressive play 2♥/♠=5+unbal ~~6+/10

I know that some other methods sound fun, but they are all crap.

Ofcourse they are, you've played them all and speak from experience.

[Gerben42]

How about:

2♣: 9 - 12, 5+♣ unbalanced
2♦: 9 - 12, 5+♦ unbalanced
2♥: 9 - 12, 5+♥ 4+minor or 6+♥
2♠: 9 - 12, 5+♠ 4+minor or 6+♠

[mgoetze]

Gerben42, on 2010-November-04, 12:17, said:

How about [...]

Do you really think Fantunes play a "destructive" style?

[Gerben42]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-04, 14:06, said:

Do you really think Fantunes play a "destructive" style?

Note that I reduced 1 HCP. That's pretty destructive and frequent. More frequent than all these weak two bids and all, anyway. And you can really get overrun by these openings.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on 2010-November-04, 12:17, said:

How about:

2♣: 9 - 12, 5+♣ unbalanced
2♦: 9 - 12, 5+♦ unbalanced
2♥: 9 - 12, 5+♥ 4+minor or 6+♥
2♠: 9 - 12, 5+♠ 4+minor or 6+♠

FWIW, I used to play EHAA which had a very similar weak style of weak two opening bids. I eventually gave up on said system because the weak twos seemed unplayable. I migrated over to assumed fit methods because

1. The Preempts were almost as frequent
2. The expected value of the openings seemed a lot better.

[wclass___]

Free, on 2010-November-04, 09:01, said:

Ofcourse they are, you've played them all and speak from experience.

No need to play all that stuff to realize that nothing comes close to natural 2M.

IMO analysing methods gives better estimation than playing experience, because it is hard to remember all those deals and get out some objective estimation. And normally you test your methods vs weaker opponents. (What works vs. noobs, might suck vs. really good opponents)

[wclass___]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-04, 14:06, said:

Do you really think Fantunes play a "destructive" style?

That is pretty destructive, but if you want more - just lower hcp range

[mtvesuvius]

wclass___, on 2010-November-04, 14:36, said:

That is pretty destructive, but if you want more - just lower hcp range

Are you SURE that you are not mikestar13 in disguise?

[wclass___]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-November-04, 15:13, said:

Are you SURE that you are not mikestar13 in disguise?

You have no idea whom i am, i have no idea who are you. But i'm sure i don't want to waste my time reading trash like that.

How can i blacklist/ignore forum members here?

[Gerben42]

wclass___, on 2010-November-04, 14:36, said:

That is pretty destructive, but if you want more - just lower hcp range

Well 1st 2nd seat favourable we add some symmetry and play 1NT as 9 - 12 as well. When the vulnerability is right, opening all 10-counts and most 9-counts is pretty destructive I guess...

To the other options that were proposed: I'm not a fan of a 2♠ opening showing "either minor" of sorts. 2♠ of all things should be a nonforcing opening bid, exactly because it's the toughest to act against.