http://www.bridgebas...el-openings-be/
where antonylee mentions a 2♣ opening showing 8-11 bal. w/ 4+ C, and then Mbodell a 2♣ opening showing just 9-11 bal. So apparently the basic idea wasn't crazy enough to have occured to me or Marston (Burgess?) alone.
For the sake of discussion, a Micro-Mexican 2m opening (or whatever you want to call it) will cover a subset of the hands covered by either a Weak 1N or a Kamikaze 1N opening. However, when I experimented with the opening, my preferred range was 11-13 because
* the lower limit of 11 points meant the opening was not a BSC;
* it fit well into the 2/1-like framework with 14-16 NT I used;
* the 3-point range was not wider than that I could be handle it with something analogous to the pass-or-bash style that I used (and still use) after a 1N opening.
And since I wanted to rid my 1m openings of all balanced minimum hands, I put no further restrictions on shape other than tentatively disallowing 5M(332).
It would be fun to hear what experience others have with this type of opening. Other comments are also welcome, but feel free to spend 5+ minutes at a bidding table (bidding all 4 hands) to get a feel for the opening before commenting on how bad it is. Your instinct should obviously be that it sucks, but vulnerability, seat and whether the opening is 2♣ or 2♦ can make a huge difference. So even if Micro-Mexican 2♦ in 4th seat V vs. NV may be objectively horrible, that doesn't mean that Micro-Mexican 2♣ in 1st seat NV vs. V is nearly as bad.
This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-September-22, 16:30