Zelandakh, on 2011-November-10, 08:09, said:
Why this and not the more popular version with 2C both minors intermediate and 2D or 2H 3-suited, Ken?
Some friends of mine tried reversing these, and the results were not as good. There are reasons why, and I predicted that their experiment would fail for those reasons.
First, consider the three-suited call. The classic response structure to a Mini-Roman 2
♦ is to bid 2NT to ask for the stiff, perhaps submarine-style. You end up, then, with a knowledge of the stiff at the three-level with no knowledge of the overall strength of the hand. You also lose 2NT as another meaning.
Constrast this with a 2
♣ opening as three-suited and a 2
♦ asking bid. Opener can now bid:
2
♥ = minimum with four hearts, unknown stiff.
2
♠ = minimum precisely 4-1-4-4, 4-0-5-4, or 4-0-4-5
2NT...3
♥ = maximumm, submoarine the stiff (bid one below the stiff)
After 2
♥, Responder can bid naturally if discouraged or can ask for the stiff with a second asking bid.
This also preserves 2
♣-P-2NT for other meanings (such as balanced, or both minors).
Thus, that one little step is extremely beneficial. But, does this then hurt minors sequences?
Not really. When Opener has diamonds and clubs, the "standard sequence" will often be 1
♦...2
♣ with a diamond "courtesy correct." With diamonds and clubs, the opponents likely have a major and might compete us to the three-level anyway. Plus, the club suit is the only suit that MUST be played at the three-level in a "Law of Total Tricks" application if each side has an 8-card fit. Hence, "forcing the three-level" to show club preference is not really, in practice, a loss. Sure -- the 2
♥ asking bid after the 2
♦ opening is somewhat costly, in taking away the ability to bid a natural 2
♥. But, if 2
♣ shows the minors, you lose 2
♥ as well, or you lose the ability to preference diamonds at the two-level (if 2
♦ is the asking bid), which is really bad, IMO. This is especially bad if one assumes that "diamond purity as 5-card" is usual (rare exceptions), which makes sense because 1
♦...2
♣ with 4
♦/5
♣ as an exception is more workable than 1
♦...2
♦ with 5
♦/4
♣, IMO.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.