[jillybean]

Does anyone know of this convention,

2♦ opening = 18-19 balanced hand, responses are as follows:

2♥ bust
2♠ waiting
2N 55 majors
3x positive in suit x

These responses may be modified rather than standard and I am trying to find out what the standard, complete responses are to this convention.

Can anyone help?

[gwnn]

http://www.bridgebas...-to-mexican-2d/

I hope you don't mind me saying that I don't think it's worth it to learn this convention unless you're willing to learn pages and pages of system. You need to discuss and know not only the continuations after 2♦-?, but also 1m-1M; 2NT-?, 2NT being some sort of clever raise of partner's major, or perhaps 6m3M, or something else entirely. I think it's a nice system but it really must have a lot of artificial bids so I would advise against learning it. I am perhaps biased, though, since I myself have never learned these systems either, for the same reasons.

[Free]

This is the Mexican 2♦ although the responses you described are different (and quite poor imo).

I agree with gwnn that this opening has a lot of consequences to the rest of your system and is probably not worth the effort unless you play in an international top team. It's a patch to fix certain difficult hands after a 1m opening (the 2NT rebid is now free for anything you want). The 2♦ opening on it's own probably won't win over a standard approach (might even lose slightly, dunno), but the extra possibilities after 1m openings improve the entire system. The philosophy is a bit similar like playing reverse flannery responses, but this is much more complicated.

[Phil]

I've mentioned before that a lot of weak players in my club play this and they have no idea why they do, or how it impacts other sequences.

[helene_t]

It is mentioned in Kleinman's "the notrump zone", he uses 2♥ as a transfer to spades.

[jillybean]

Yikes, no wonder we are playing 'modified responses' I don't particularly want to play this convention but I am playing in
a sectional this weekend with a partner who has this as her favorite gadget. I was hoping to get a quick overview of it so I could understand it better but I am going to leave it after seeing the actual system.

I play with this partner once or twice a year when we get together at tournaments, we have a great time and usualy do very well.
We have a very basic 2/1 card which is fine but I had to work to get inverted minors added, we don't play leb. I know it is her mentor who has got her playing this and a very similar response system to 2C, oh joy.

It came up last night which is what prompted the post because we didn't know how to bid over interference.

---

Making 4, after which my partner said "so how do you like it?"

[glen]

If you want a structure influenced by the Italian methods, please see page 12 of:

polar.pdf

[mike777]

If this is suppose to be mexican 2d(17/18-19 bal) then the responses are horrible.


For starters 95% of the time it starts 2d=2s(forcing 2nt) then basically you have a nt auction with trfs.


2d=2h=tfr to spades.

The whole purpose is to try and throw many hands into a nt type auction that are 14+ and help make your lite and wide ranging one level bids more limited.
-----------


As far as handling interference if they bid 2h or 2s then basically:
x= negative
2s=to play
2nt lebensohl


If they bid 2nt or higher
x shows game going values, treat it as sort of a neg double
3nt=stopper
new suits forcing

[Siegmund]

It may have some recognizable merit if it actually achieves something for the rest of your system -- for instance, it could be modified to include some other kinds of hard-to-bid strong hands, or use it to free up your 2NT opening to do something else.

I have had several players from BC and Alberta approach me with it under the name "Karosel 2D" - and if they propose it under that name they seem to invariably propose it with terrible responses, like those on your first post. I believe it's not so much a variation on Mexican 2D, as someone local to your area's pet convention, that happens to bear a resemblence to Mexican.

[Flameous]

I think the best thing about Mex 2D isn't really about those couple advantages it gives you in constructive auctions. (ie. maybe better sequences after 2D opening and 1m-1M-2NT sequences)

The real upside comes from that you never have to face that stupid balanced hand in competition.

Sequences like 1m (3x) p (p), although rare, are quite horrible when you hold that 18-19 balanced. You are forced to double with some really awful hands. (shape wise)

There are many others you can think of. For this reason I'd say that it's quite good convention to play even without working real hard for good constructive structures. Better than natural 2♦? I don't think so but it comes close at least.

[gwnn]

jilly you can play something like

1m-1M
2N = 3m bid with 3 card fit (maybe forcing)
3m = 3m bid with 0-2 card fit

as a first approximation. there is also

2N=3M based on points
3M=3M based on shape

[jillybean]

Siegmund, on 2011-September-11, 10:46, said:

It may have some recognizable merit if it actually achieves something for the rest of your system -- for instance, it could be modified to include some other kinds of hard-to-bid strong hands, or use it to free up your 2NT opening to do something else.

I have had several players from BC and Alberta approach me with it under the name "Karosel 2D" - and if they propose it under that name they seem to invariably propose it with terrible responses, like those on your first post. I believe it's not so much a variation on Mexican 2D, as someone local to your area's pet convention, that happens to bear a resemblence to Mexican.

This is it exactly - "Karosel 2D" , It came up once today, we survived it and finished in the overalls.

[daveharty]

jillybean, on 2011-September-11, 08:33, said:

...with a partner who has this as her favorite gadget...

...we didn't know how to bid over interference...

Bit of a disconnect here JB. I would recommend that you ask your partner to actually learn the convention before classifying it as her favorite. That really isn't meant to sound harsh; I just don't understand this mentality of adding "gadgets" to your convention card just because you can. Conventions are supposed to SOLVE difficult bidding problems, not create them.

[blackshoe]

Free, on 2011-September-11, 02:58, said:

This is the Mexican 2♦ although the responses you described are different (and quite poor imo).

I agree with gwnn that this opening has a lot of consequences to the rest of your system and is probably not worth the effort unless you play in an international top team. It's a patch to fix certain difficult hands after a 1m opening (the 2NT rebid is now free for anything you want). The 2♦ opening on it's own probably won't win over a standard approach (might even lose slightly, dunno), but the extra possibilities after 1m openings improve the entire system. The philosophy is a bit similar like playing reverse flannery responses, but this is much more complicated.

This is a version of Mexican 2♦. It's far from the best one I've seen. As for the rest, just play Romex as described in Godfrey's Bridge Challenge by Rosenkranz and Alder.

The purpose of Mexican 2♦ in Romex is to both firm up the opener's NT ladder (by which he shows balanced hands of various strengths) and to remove the GF unbalanced 2♦ bid from the forcing 2♣ opening, making GF hands with a minor suit easier to handle. Leaving the unbalanced hands out of the 2♦ opening is probably a mistake.

In Romex, the 2NT rebid shows a balanced 17-18 HCP.

If you already play 2/1, switching to Romex isn't that hard.

[jillybean]

daveharty, on 2011-September-11, 21:09, said:

Bit of a disconnect here JB. I would recommend that you ask your partner to actually learn the convention before classifying it as her favorite. That really isn't meant to sound harsh; I just don't understand this mentality of adding "gadgets" to your convention card just because you can. Conventions are supposed to SOLVE difficult bidding problems, not create them.

Dave, I agree 100%. There are many, many other things we that we should be working on. I will only play this once or twice a year with this particular partner and hopefully one day convince her to drop it.
Being the small fry in the big sea, I often don't have much say. One day when I have accumulated enough monster points I may then been seen to have the credentials to give systems advice.

[Zelandakh]

Being good at system design is not the same as being a good bridge player and vice versa. Your partner may be the best card player in the world but that does not mean they have the right temperament to give themselves good system advice let alone someone else. The Mexican 2D is not a bad convention, in fact in the right system it is perfect. But if it is not solving a system problem then you have to ask yourself what you are gaining in relation to the alternatives.

As for responses, let me point you towards an old online CC for Lauria-Versace (they dropped the notes in the latest version). If you are going to make the effort to play the convention then you may as well play it optimally!

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2011-September-12, 03:04, said:

As for responses, let me point you towards an old online CC for Lauria-Versace (they dropped the notes in the latest version). If you are going to make the effort to play the convention then you may as well play it optimally!

I'm not sure Lauria and Versace have enough ACBL masterpoints for me to consider their structure optimal...

[jillybean]

It`s not Mexican 2♦ that this partner is playing, it is Karosel 2♦, or atleast a version of that. http://www.bridgeguy...l2Diamonds.html

I'm not interested in playing either Mexican or Karosel 2♦, I was simply looking for a quick guide on the
convention so that I would be better prepared for yesterdays game. Thanks for the replies.

[gnasher]

jillybean, on 2011-September-11, 08:33, said:

It came up last night which is what prompted the post because we didn't know how to bid over interference.

That's one of the easiest bits: over any overcall, play exactly the same methods as you play after you've opened 1NT.

If they double 2♦, the simplest methods are:
- Pass = I want to play here.
- Redouble = I don't want to play here, but I'm not sure where I do want to play. Initiates a scramble.
- Others = as without intervention.
but this doesn't fit in well with your current response structure.

[blackshoe]

What convention is this?

Quote

Defense to 1NT

X: Penalty
2♣: single suited hand
2♦: both majors
2♥: hearts and a minor
2♠: spades and a minor

Player A: Cappelletti
Player B: Hamilton
Player C: Helms
Player D: Pottage

They're all right.