[ArtK78]

gnasher, on 2012-October-02, 14:54, said:

I would call it a concealed partnership agreement. It doesn't matter whether you cater for the possibility that he has a 9-count: if you know that he's likely to do it, you have an agreement which has to be disclosed.

Our agreement was Flannery with the usual 11-15 HCP range. Richard's subminimum openings, as common as they may have been, always violated our partnership agreement and I did not cater to them.

The name "Colker 2♦ opening" was a way of making fun of his openings.

I considered them amusing.

By the way, had we continued to play together, I would have alerted the opps to the possibility of his openings being "light." But we never got that far.

[paulg]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-02, 13:58, said:

Our stated range was 11-15, but whenever Richard opened 2♦ his maximum count was 11, and was often less. I would not called this a concealed partnership agreement, as I always treated his opening bid as 11-15, but I began to see the 10 counts and 9 counts with increasing frequency.

A good example that could be used in the definition of a concealed partnership agreement.

ArtK78, on 2012-October-03, 07:35, said:

Our agreement was Flannery with the usual 11-15 HCP range. Richard's subminimum openings, as common as they may have been, always violated our partnership agreement and I did not cater to them.

It violated your announced partnership agreement. This is why your actual (implicit) agreement is being called concealed.

[han]

So he did it often enough so that you gave the opening a nickname but not often enough to inform the opponents?

[mycroft]

There's another issue with "subminimum" Flannery openings - they're not GCC if they don't promise 10 High. Doesn't matter to everybody, but sure did matter to Art/Richard.

[olegru]

mycroft, on 2012-October-03, 10:39, said:

There's another issue with "subminimum" Flannery openings - they're not GCC if they don't promise 10 High. Doesn't matter to everybody, but sure did matter to Art/Richard.

BTW, are "subminimum" Flannery openings" legal in midchart?

[blackshoe]

olegru, on 2012-October-03, 14:54, said:

BTW, are "subminimum" Flannery openings" legal in midchart?

AFAICS, no.

[mycroft]

but, oddly enough, 2♥ showing subminimum Flannery is, 6 board rounds (although the *defence* says vs "weak". Don't know if 8-15 is "weak"

[awm]

Sam and I play 2♦ natural intermediate (in our strong club base) which is more frequent and seems more effective than precision 2♦, while similarly taking some pressure off the overloaded 1♦ opening.

Elianna and I play 2♦ natural weak (in our standard american base, with lots of extras). This works well when it comes up, and I like to make this bid with 5/4 and 5/5 minors hands fairly frequently especially non-vulnerable.

In principle I like playing 2♦ weak-only multi with 2M natural intermediate (because I think 2M natural intermediate is frequent and effective and takes some pressure off 1M openings, not because of any particular love for the multi) but this method is banned in so many events where I am (USA) that it's not worth building a system around it.

[Siegmund]

I voted Wilkosz, of course, since it's far and away the meaning I want to be able to give the 2D opening.

Living in ACBLand, what I actually play with SA or 2/1 is natural and weak. Won't be caught dead with the F-word on my card.

The 11-15 6+ diamonds meaning is a solid contender if I can play 1D=hearts or something else fun like that.

[kenrexford]

I talk theory, so here goes.

IMO, strong club systems, whether natural or canape, work most smoothly with a minor core of 2C Roman, 2D minors, and 1D flamingo, whether natural flamingo or canape flamingo.

When the system is natural, a two-way strong opening structure has a lot to offer. If not that, then I want to use 2D to solve a problem.

2D as minors solves the problem of the over-wide minors range issue, but it causes a tendency to not need or use courtesy corrects, which seems good except that it thereby removes the viability of the delayed canape solution. So, I gave up on that.

2D as 5H/4-5S light solves the 3-2, but that is very narrow.

2D as 5S/4-5D solves the 3-2 problem better, if coupled with Opener's Bart, and it also solves the 1S-2H-3D problem, which beats the former as fat as coverage.

So, prefer 2-way or pointeds, whichever.

[32519]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-04, 21:14, said:

I talk theory, so here goes.

IMO, strong club systems, whether natural or canape, work most smoothly with a minor core of 2C Roman, 2D minors, and 1D flamingo, whether natural flamingo or canape flamingo.

What the heck is flamingo?

[Zelandakh]

I have not heard the term until recently either but what Ken means by Flamingo is an opening bid of 1♦ to be clubs or diamonds but not both - maybe some balanced types too, not sure on that. It is a good solution and there is some decent theory backing it up. It is not uncommon to combine it with a 2♣ opening to show the minors but Ken prefers 2♦ for this.

[kenrexford]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-05, 02:26, said:

I have not heard the term until recently either but what Ken means by Flamingo is an opening bid of 1♦ to be clubs or diamonds but not both - maybe some balanced types too, not sure on that. It is a good solution and there is some decent theory backing it up. It is not uncommon to combine it with a 2♣ opening to show the minors but Ken prefers 2♦ for this.

yep. Balanced option if natural, not if canape.

[jdeegan]

For what it's worth, I prefer my 2♦ opener as a weak two bid because:

1. It has more preemptive value than one might think because partner can raise, and it is sometimes hard come in on if LHO has ♣ and only one major.

2. It seems to work better at MP than IMPs. I play a lot of MP.

3. It comes up much more often than the other treatments.

4. There are other ways to handle the Flannery hands reasonably well.

5. The ACBL doesn't like Multi.

[Quantumcat]

In 1st/2nd seat, my 1♦ bid is reserved to show any hand with exactly four spades, so 2♦ shows 11-15 with diamonds. At first it was just a way to be able to bid these hands but we have gotten SO many good boards from this that it seems worthwhile playing just on its own. Here are two reasons:

1. At other tables they will open 1♦ and rebid 2♦, meanwhile the opponents have overcalled a major and are now playing in 2-major. Whereas at my table it goes 2♦-all pass.

2. It is way easier for partner to make a penalty double (compared to over a weak two) - 2♦ usually has some defence (a 3♦ opening shows a hand that REALLY belongs in diamonds).

The combination of these two is: they can come in on a questionable hand then go for 800, or not come in and get a bottom when everyone else is in 2 or 3-major

Our 1♣ opening, if natural, shows 14+ HCP so our 3♣ opening shows 9-13 HCP. We have had similar good results from that bid too.

[32519]

What do ACOL players use the 2♦ bid for? The Benjamin 2♦ bid here didn't get any votes.

[gwnn]

Acol is not an acronym. Also, there are not a lot of Acol players here. Also, you can play with 2C=strong, 2DHS=weak even in Acol.

[FrancesHinden]

Acol, not ACOL. Traditional Acol uses a natural strong 2D bid, which you have missed out from your poll.
I'd that in national tournaments those players playing some form of Acol are mainly split between 2D multi and 2D benjamin with a sizeable weak 2D minority. (In top level tournaments you won't find many people playing any form of Acol)

[paulg]

In the clubs in Scotland you will find a lot of people playing Benjamin Twos. Many of these play in tournaments but I think "weak twos in three suits" would be as popular. Multi is not that popular although it is permitted at all levels of the game.

You can do your own analysis on the aspiring internationals as their system cards are all published.