[slyq]

been playing round with various major raise schemes always been a fan of 2nt
being strong bal 16+ (incl spades supt ) in precision style but thought i could probably squeeze in
an option for it being also a weak pre-emptive raise 3-6 points interested in what people think thanks

[gwnn]

This might be similar to what I experienced when I used to post my poetry to this poetry website and many people said "oh no what is this, where are the rhymes?? and what's with that weird title?" and I wasn't happy with them replying who didn't understand the idea behind it, BUT

but I just don't understand the idea behind this. In practice the amount of these "either-or" bids is directly proportional to both your headaches and your opps' headaches. Of course perhaps you like being in pain etc but now your opps won't mind so much since they now have more room for actions like

1M-p-2NT-x (strong takeout)

1M-p-2NT-p
...-p-3M-x (weakish, more distributional takeout)

1M-p-2NT-3x

and those 16+ balanced auctions will suffer a bit since 2NT already gobbled up all that space (you should probably play 2C as GF clubs or balanced, the fashionable bid nowadays)...

[effervesce]

Strongly prefer 2NT as limit+ with 4 card support, after which opener's 3♣ bid shows a minimum.

[slyq]

because of the relative low frequency of both these hand types it seemed more sensible to combine them than having 2nt and three spades seperate allowing a direct 3s ( over 1s) to be a mixed raise this would leave the 3s bid to be used more frequently and be less vunerable to the aforementioned actions (x and cueing 3s)
I was hoping it would not impact on the responsees to severely either except
3s would be min bal 3nt 6s max 4x 5-5 max and 4s min 6s ( the four level responses may also well presure those who elect to pass iniatially with a weak style t/o

[rd6789]

I have recently been introduced to the idea of playing 2NT as either 16+ or 10-12 with 4 card support, with 13-15 4 card support through 3NT.

If you play mini-splinters (I do) then 2NT denies a shortage.

3-card support can go through forcing nt.

[akhare]

Hmm...if you are willing to be at the 3 level with 3-6 points, you might as well get there directly by bidding 1M - 3M and deny them the bidding space.

[Siegmund]

Having the point ranges be non-adjacent is certainly helpful, rather than playing limit+.

The only such bid currently in my system is 1S-3H = either preemptive with 4-card support, or 17+ with 4-card support, such that 1S-3S is limit while 1S-3H-3S-pass is weak, 1S-3NT = 13-16 balanced, 1S-3H-3S-3N = 17+ balanced, 1S-4C minimum club splinter 1S-3H-3S-4C club splinter with serious slam interest, etc.

There is certainly potential to expand that scheme to other ranges that want to be at the 3-level because of a 4th trump.

[effervesce]

Siegmund, on Mar 23 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

Having the point ranges be non-adjacent is certainly helpful, rather than playing limit+.

The only such bid currently in my system is 1S-3H = either preemptive with 4-card support, or 17+ with 4-card support, such that 1S-3S is limit while 1S-3H-3S-pass is weak, 1S-3NT = 13-16 balanced, 1S-3H-3S-3N = 17+ balanced, 1S-4C minimum club splinter 1S-3H-3S-4C club splinter with serious slam interest, etc.

There is certainly potential to expand that scheme to other ranges that want to be at the 3-level because of a 4th trump.

That sounds like an argument for 1♣ being 0-7 or 15+ HCP being better than 1♣ showing 12(11)+HCP, or 1♥ 0-2 or 6+ hearts better than 5+ hearts...

[rbforster]

effervesce, on Mar 27 2010, 03:36 AM, said:

That sounds like an argument for 1♣ being 0-7 or 15+ HCP being better than 1♣ showing 12(11)+HCP, or 1♥ 0-2 or 6+ hearts better than 5+ hearts...

1♣? That's crazy talk. Now Pass wtih 0-7 or 15+ could be workable .

[dake50]

Expect you are hinting at the Expected tricks for US matches the Expected tricks for THEM at some low hcp value. Try to systematize this. When opponents' get frisky was 2NT preemptive or are they taking advantage of our ambiguous 2NT? Do they have the tricks or barraging us? Sort that out reliably might work.