BBO Discussion Forums: Micro-Mexican 2m - BBO Discussion Forums

Five-six years ago, I experimented with a Mexican-style 2m opening with a weak NT range. Naturally, I started to think of the opening as "Micro-Mexican", carefully reserving "Mini-Mexican" for Mexican-style 2m openings with a medium NT range. Then a couple of years ago I was told that none other than Paul Marston (or was it Stephen Burgess?) had been toying with this type of opening recently. He even had a hilarious name for it --- something with "transfer", iirc. And a while ago I ran across this thread,

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

A couple questions here:

1. What are your responses to this 2♣ opening?
2. It seems unlikely that your results from the opening itself will be better than "okay" so the real benefit will be the impact on the rest of your system. How are you taking advantage of removing the weak notrump hand from your other openings?

A local pair played that 2C showed a balanced hand with 3+ clubs in the 9-11 range. They gave it up quite quickly, but I'm not entirely sure why. Perhaps it was just too random?

Does the no-trump opening really need to be more than 10 points for it not to be Brown Sticker?

awm, on 2016-September-22, 19:23, said:

Something like

P = 5+ C or "gamble"¹ , weak
2♦ = 5+ M, weak / GF hand types unsuitable for 3♥+
2♥ = 4-S4H¹ or 4S5H, weak,
2♠ = 4S3-H¹, weak,
2N = 3-S3-H5-D4-C¹, weak,
3♣ = to play²
3♦ = to play
3♥ = ?
3♠ = Puppet to 3N³
3N = to play
4m = South African Texas
4M = to play,

both because I can't think of a better scheme when Responder is weak, but also be because it allows fancy continuations like

2♣-2♦; ?:

2♥ = 2 H or 3+S3H [can't afford to superaccept hearts]
...P = 5+ H, weak
...2♠ = 5+ S, weak
...2N = relay, slam interest [usually bal.?]
......3♣ = 3- S, but not 4m333
.........3♦ = relay
............3♥ = 3244 or 22(54)
...............3♠ = relay
..................3N = 3244
..................4♣ = 2245
..................4♦ = 2254
............3♠ = 3S5C(32)
............3N = 3S5D(32)
......3♦ = 4S4+D
.........3♥ = relay
............3♠ = 4243
............3N = 4342
............4♣ = 2452
......3♥ = 3H(433)
.........3♠ = relay
............3N = 3334
............4♣ = 3343
............4♦ = 4333
......3♠ = 4234
......3N = 4324
......4♣ = 4225
...(...)
2♠ = 3-S4+H or 2S3H [can probably afford to superaccept hearts, but not spades]
...P = 5+ S, weak
...2N = relay, slam interest [usually bal.?]
......3♣ = 2S3H
.........3♦ = relay
............3♥ = 2344
............3♠ = 2335
............3N = 2353
......3♦ = 4H4+D
.........3♥ = relay
............3♠ = 2443
............3N = 3442
............4♣ = 2452
......3♥ = 3433
......3♠ = 2434
......3N = 3424
......4♣ = 2425
...(...)
...3♥ = 5+ H, weak
...(...)
2N: idle
3♣ = 4423 [can afford to superaccept both major suits]
4♦ = 4432 [can afford to superaccept both major suits],

assuming 2♣ denies 5M(332), when Responder is very strong.

¹ Respomder will also pass with either with very weak hand (when opps are likely to have game) or with 4C333/4C4O(32)/5D4C when 2N is unlikely to make]
² At first I thought 3♣ should be (Puppet?) Stayman, because I forgot that the "multi" 2♦ response already doubles as a kind of Stayman.
³ It occured to me today that this must be useful.

awm, on 2016-September-22, 19:23, said:

I haven't given it huge amounts of thought, but one obvious way in a standardish 2/1 context involves

* 1m-1x; 1M = 4+ M, unbal.
* 1m-1x; 1N = 17-19 bal.
* 1m-1x; 2N = Bridge World Death Hand
* 1m-3m = preemptive, often with less support than in standard 2/1 (since 1m promises 5+ m or 4m(441) unless 17-19 bal.)
* 1m-(1x)-2m = 3(4) m (with 8c+ m fit almost guaranteed unliess Opener has 17-19 bal.)
* 1m-(2x)-3m = 3+ m (with 8c+ m fit almost guaranteed unless Opener has 17-19 bal.)

I'm not sure this is compensation enough even after finding out what to do with standard 2♣ opening hands, but it should be a good start.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-September-24, 03:59

Vampyr, on 2016-September-23, 03:16, said:

No.

Hi Nullve.

Do I understand correctly that your design criteria which lead you to consider playing, say, 2♣ as 11-13 hcp BAL no 5M, is that you want to

• Play a 14-16 hcp BAL 1NT opening, and
  
• Don't want any BAL ranges in your 1m openings?

For this to make sense (over at least one obvious alternative) the pre-emptive/destructive side of this would need to outweigh the certain constructive losses - predominantly the ability to play 1NT. A priori, your side will have the balance of power with this hand type, even more so if in 2nd and RHO has passed. Further, it doesn't have the benefit of a Jammer style knowing of shortage, allowing you to crawl out at the two level if needed. As someone who plays (i) an 11-13 1NT opening in one key partnership, and (ii) a Jammer variant in another, it just doesn't feel like the odds are in your favour.

However, by altering the design constraint, I think you can get to a better option.

• Play an 11-13 hcp 1NT opening
  
• Play a 14-16 hcp 2♣ medium-Mexican 1NT opening

With the extra strength in the 2♣ opening, you will more often than not be able to recover the self-preemption when it matters. There is the side-effect that the oppo will be able to DBL 1NT for penalty more often, but from the experience myself of an 11-13 1NT, those of most Fantunes-style players and the more honest Acol ones, I judge this to be only minor.

A bit left field, I know, but no more so than the original idea itself.

Regards, Newroad

newroad, on 2016-September-24, 06:27, said:

When I experimented with this (well, I've toyed around with it quite a lot the last couple of days, too) the idea was to play a 14-16 NT, yes. But 17-19 bal. was still in 1m. (Actually 1♣.)

newroad, on 2016-September-24, 06:27, said:

It's my impression, too, that seat matters a lot and that the shapewise unrestricted Micro-Mexican is just bad in 3rd and 4th seat, and significantly worse in 2nd seat than in 1st.

It would certainly help if the opening guaranteed 3+ C, as in the version mentioned by Kungsgeten (where 2♣ = 9-11 bal., 3+ C), since Responder will often have to pass with 4 clubs. But it might be interesting to compare with classical Precision's 2♣ opening, showing 6+ C or 5C4M. Here Responder will often have to pass with 0-1 C, knowing that this can lead to a 5-1 or 5-0 C fit instead of an 8c+ M fit. So if one focuses just on what can go wrong, classical Precision 2♣ certainly looks unplayable, too.

newroad, on 2016-September-24, 06:27, said:

I've actually tried your medum-Mexican (my Mini-Mexican) 2♣, and my impression is that one can even play Bocchi-style responses to it. And I agree that your proposed scheme is probably superior in 3rd and 4th seat, maybe also in 2nd seat.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-September-25, 06:56