Page 1 of 1
defense to Midchart conventions
#1
Posted 2011-March-17, 15:04
Looking for suggested defense to our Michart conventions 1H-2D, 1S-2D, and 1S-2H. Here's a rough draft...
1H-2D is a constructive raise
.....Suggested defense
..........dbl-takeout of hearts
..........2H-spade overcall, possible 2-suited
..........2S-wk 2 spades
..........2N-minors
2S-2D shows 6 hearts and GI+
.....Suggested defense
..........dbl-minors, stronger
..........2H-club overcall
..........2S-diamond overcall
..........2N-minors, weaker
..........3C-clubs, weaker
..........3D-diamonds, weaker
2S-2H shows a constructive raise
.....Suggested defense
..........dbl-hearts, possible 2-suited
..........2S-takeout of spades
..........2N-minors
..........3H-hearts, weaker
1H-2D is a constructive raise
.....Suggested defense
..........dbl-takeout of hearts
..........2H-spade overcall, possible 2-suited
..........2S-wk 2 spades
..........2N-minors
2S-2D shows 6 hearts and GI+
.....Suggested defense
..........dbl-minors, stronger
..........2H-club overcall
..........2S-diamond overcall
..........2N-minors, weaker
..........3C-clubs, weaker
..........3D-diamonds, weaker
2S-2H shows a constructive raise
.....Suggested defense
..........dbl-hearts, possible 2-suited
..........2S-takeout of spades
..........2N-minors
..........3H-hearts, weaker
#2
Posted 2011-March-17, 18:33
I don't believe Mid-Chart would not require you to provide a defense as these are constructive responses as per section #3 of the chart. Although I guess a club or District may make such a rule.
#3
Posted 2011-March-17, 19:01
paulg, on 2011-March-17, 18:33, said:
I don't believe Mid-Chart would not require you to provide a defense as these are constructive responses as per section #3 of the chart. Although I guess a club or District may make such a rule.
The 2♦ and 2♥ responses to 2♠ would require more than mid chart.
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
#4
Posted 2011-March-19, 04:43
I think you are making it a bit complicated. I play:
1♥ - 2♦ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♥ = ♠ + m
2♠ = Natural
2NT = ♣ + ♦
1♠ - 2♥ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♠ = ♥ + m
2NT = ♣ + ♦
Of course theoretically it might be better to use Dbl as ♥ here, but then you have to learn something extra so we spare us the trouble.
1♠ - 2♦ - ?
Here of course you have a lot of room but I don't need many bids to show a minor:
2♥: 6♣ 4♦
2♠: 6♦ 4♣
2NT: 5♣ 5♦
3m: 6-card suit, not 4 in the other minor
It's similar to:
1♥ - 1NT (5+♠), where we play the same.
1♥ - 2♦ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♥ = ♠ + m
2♠ = Natural
2NT = ♣ + ♦
1♠ - 2♥ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♠ = ♥ + m
2NT = ♣ + ♦
Of course theoretically it might be better to use Dbl as ♥ here, but then you have to learn something extra so we spare us the trouble.
1♠ - 2♦ - ?
Here of course you have a lot of room but I don't need many bids to show a minor:
2♥: 6♣ 4♦
2♠: 6♦ 4♣
2NT: 5♣ 5♦
3m: 6-card suit, not 4 in the other minor
It's similar to:
1♥ - 1NT (5+♠), where we play the same.
#5
Posted 2011-March-19, 09:45
Gerben42, on 2011-March-19, 04:43, said:
I think you are making it a bit complicated. I play:
1♥ - 2♦ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♥ = ♠ + m
2♠ = Natural
2NT = ♣ + ♦
1♠ - 2♥ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♠ = ♥ + m
2NT = ♣ + ♦
Of course theoretically it might be better to use Dbl as ♥ here, but then you have to learn something extra so we spare us the trouble.
1♠ - 2♦ - ?
Here of course you have a lot of room but I don't need many bids to show a minor:
2♥: 6♣ 4♦
2♠: 6♦ 4♣
2NT: 5♣ 5♦
3m: 6-card suit, not 4 in the other minor
It's similar to:
1♥ - 1NT (5+♠), where we play the same.
1♥ - 2♦ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♥ = ♠ + m
2♠ = Natural
2NT = ♣ + ♦
1♠ - 2♥ - ?
Dbl = T/O
2♠ = ♥ + m
2NT = ♣ + ♦
Of course theoretically it might be better to use Dbl as ♥ here, but then you have to learn something extra so we spare us the trouble.
1♠ - 2♦ - ?
Here of course you have a lot of room but I don't need many bids to show a minor:
2♥: 6♣ 4♦
2♠: 6♦ 4♣
2NT: 5♣ 5♦
3m: 6-card suit, not 4 in the other minor
It's similar to:
1♥ - 1NT (5+♠), where we play the same.
Thanks. I had thought of something like your 1S-2D defense. It's nice to know that someone is using that.
#6
Posted 2011-March-19, 10:21
You might want to wait until the Conventions Committee is accepting suggested defenses...
I don't recommend holding your breath, though
I don't recommend holding your breath, though
Alderaan delenda est
#7
Posted 2011-March-19, 10:36
#9
Posted 2011-March-19, 13:48
straube, on 2011-March-19, 13:27, said:
What would and would not require a defense? I remember someone supplying us with a suggested defense for 1C P 2H which was basically a balanced GI call.
Read the convention chart. Although it is perhaps not as clear as it could be, you need to provide defenses where an approved defense is required. If an approved defense is not required, as it is not for constructive responses and rebids, then you are not required to provide one. Of course you may provide a defense if you like, but I would stress to the opponents that this is not an approved defense (in the ACBL legal sense) and you are providing it even though it is not required.
#10
Posted 2011-March-19, 14:14
For the most part, the requirement of approved defenses is only for opening bids and only for those which are not allowed on the General Chart. So you don't need an official defense for the methods you listed. The defenses people have suggested so far seem reasonable enough to me.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
Page 1 of 1