[Kungsgeten]

Bocchi-Madala uses 2S as weak with 5-4 minors (or better) when non-vulnerable. Me and partner has just added this to our system, but it hasn't come up yet (we've only played 48 boards since adding it). Has anybody of you tried this, and if so, what's your experience of it? It should be pretty easy to defend, but you do remove the 1- and 2-level.

[phoenix214]

Well I am playing this in my partnership, - just a toy to open both minors, when it comes up. We use it as weak or strong with both minors. So you know partner has always minors, but 2S in its nature is forcing. For defending, have not come against it, but against not too strong pairs they might get confused - and you will always be in the better fit(because of the 2NT bid you have)

[Trick13]

We've used it for about as long as you have. Came up almost immediately and I think it helped the opponents overbid. Our version is always weak and could be 4-4. I think it might be improved if it also promised 2-3S, non-forcing: small drop in frequency compensated by increased safety and harder to defend. Time will tell.

[rbforster]

I saw you were also up using 2N as a weak two suited preempt, in addition to this 2S bid. I think 2N is a whole lot better for both minors, if you want a bid for that, than 2S. Both are artificial and forcing, and it's not like you need a ton of space to bid 3C p/c or 3N which are your most likely actions.

On the other hand, 2S could be a much more effective preempt if it had or often had spades. You were using 2N as major+minor, and I would argue you'd be better off swapping that with this 2S bid. Not only will responder be able to pass 2S much more often (open will have spades half the time, and even if he doesn't, the opponents may not be sure), but you can use the extra step of 2N for an inquiry to help sort out the additional hand types. Major / Minor is 4 combinations, while Minor / Minor is 1 - certainly this argues the former should have a cheaper bid unless you're trying to be deliberately destructive and accept more common bad outcomes from miscommunications or guessing.

You also don't have to cover every possibly. 2S could be spades + minor, which is a very effective natural preempt. 2N could be hearts + minor instead of both minors, which is twice the frequency anyway (2 combinations instead of one). 3C if it's free could be both minors instead of a club preempt if you wanted.

[Kungsgeten]

rbforster: Well, this 2S can be 5-4 minors, while a two-suited 2NT bid would show 5-5. Ofcourse you could play 2NT as 5-4 minors, but its safer to use 2S. I'm not 100% sure, but I think 5+-4+ minors is more common than four 5-5 combinations. When using 2S as minors opener can pass 2S, which we're playing as "I can stand playing 2S undoubled", which means that pass may or may not contain spades. In other words: Our version of 2S is not forcing. We can also find out which of opener's minors is longer/better.

[Trick13]

Kungsgeten, on 2015-June-21, 18:45, said:

I'm not 100% sure, but I think 5+-4+ minors is more common than four 5-5 combinations.

You are right, about 16% more frequent.

[Gerben42]

The main disadvantage is that you lose the most effective 2-bid there is: Natural 2♠. Just my two cents.

2NT as both minors has been working well for me.

[Free]

If you want to open both minors (5-5 or better), I prefer 3♣ over 2NT because it's NF and gives away only 1 cuebid. But when it shows at least 5-4 then you need it to be 2♠ so you can scramble into the best fit. It's been a while since I played this though, don't have any particularly good or bad memories about it actually.

[nullve]

Free, on 2015-June-22, 12:20, said:

If you want to open both minors (5-5 or better), I prefer 3♣ over 2NT because it's NF and gives away only 1 cuebid. But when it shows at least 5-4 then you need it to be 2♠ so you can scramble into the best fit.

The problem is that if 2♠ has a very wide range then the 2N response is useful both as "bid your longer minor" and as an INV+ relay (or "range ask").

But here's another idea (1st seat NV only):

2♠ = 0-8 (rules of 10-18), 5D5C / 0-9 (rules of 9-18), 3-S3-H5m4Om / "6-8" (rules of 16-18), 6+m4+Om
3m = modern aggressive preempts that include "0-5" (rules of 10-15), 6+m4+Om

2♠-?:

(...)
2N = "NF relay" ("bid your longer minor if max (:= rules of 16-18), else pass")
...P(!) = non-max¹
...3♣ = max, longer C or 5D5C (=> 3♦ = GF relay (=> 3♥ = 5D5C?)?)
...3♦ = max, longer D (=> 3♥ = GF relay?)
3m = pref.², no interest in game
3♥ = "Kokish": GF, 5+ H / "bal." slam try
...Then something like:
...3♠ = 3 H
......3N = "bal" slam try
.........P = non-max
.........4m = max, nat.
......4♣ = 5+ H
.........4♦ = max, ?
.........4♥ = non-max
.........4♠+ = ?
......(...)
...3N = non-max, 2- H¹
...4m = max, 2- H, nat.
3♠ = GF, 5+ S
...Then something like:
...3N = non-max, 2- S¹
...4m = max, 2- S, nat.
...4♥ = max, 3 S, ?
...4♠ = non-max, 3 S
...4N+ = ?
(...).

Maybe the NF relay is rubbish (as well as an oxymoron), but since Opener isn't required to bid over it, Advancer is under extra pressure and will have to double more often. Then e.g.

2♠-(P)-2N-(X); ?:

P = non-max, longer C or 5D5C
XX = non-max, longer D
3m = same as over 2♠-(P)-2N-(P).

¹ Here it helps that Opener can't have 6+m4+Om.
¹ Usually genuine, since 2N was available with 2D2C or 3D3C.