2M would have been natural with extras.
2N would have been 11-15 3=1=4=5 or 1=3=4=5. (1♦ can be a canapé)
He will be 5♦4♣+, either minimum opener or extras without a splinter.
We play a transfer structure after 1M - (X) from 1N (showing clubs) upwards, so:
1M - (X) - 2M-1 as 3+
1M - (X) - 2M purely pre-emptive
1M - (X) - 2N as 4+
My intention with this was to produce something that allows a player to analyse where their convention produces gains and where it doesn't, you could argue this might just be results merchanting, but I think it could produce some useful information.
Granted, there are numerous complexities where inferences are ...
I think simulations are quite important when it comes to choosing a new convention, as our late squad manager always says "I think this is one for the simulation". I could quite easily implement functionality to generate hands and maybe add the ability to add parameters to measure the frequency ...
I wasn't aware of how popular it proved at Easter, it was more a proposition of moving it to a place more suitable/accessible to the majority - I think perhaps Brighton/Eastbourne has contributed significantly to attracting different juniors based on who can get there and who can't ...
I'm unable to attend this year's event because of other unforeseen commitments, but having experienced the event last year, I was finishing the final weekend already saying I doubt I'd attend for the whole week this year, if any of it.
In terms of from a junior ...
2♦ is just Kokish.
I've taken this hand from a Camrose match that was on Vugraph, so it's the player's methods so I'm not 100% sure.
Speaking in terms of my partnership, we generally bid 2♦ waiting on all negatives/semi-positives. I think control ...