32519

This was the full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=s7hak5dkj87cajt87&w=saj9853h3dt64c962&n=skhj76daq952ckq53&e=sqt642hqt9842d3c4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d2d(Michael%27s)3c4s5cp5dppp]399|300[/hv] This was a truly bizarre hand where E/W can make 4♠ on a combined 9 HCP. 34 was a top. At one table East bid to 5♠ undoubled which only goes down 1 for an outright top. At least half the field found the minor suit slam, mostly in ♣. We still managed to score above average here when N/S stopped in 5♦ at our table.

This is also good. How about using 2M as game invitational (whatever meaning you and partner assign to the bid) and 3M as game force, slam try not excluded (again, whatever meaning you and partner assign to the 3M bid).

I like this. 3♥ and 3♠ would therefore be forcing. Implying what though? A stopper searching for 3NT maybe?

As the dealer you are now looking at this: [hv=pc=n&n=skhj76daq952ckq53&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d2d(Michael%27s)3c4s]133|200[/hv] Your bid? 5♣ seems easy, but what if you miss a ♣ slam? Maybe 5♣ is too high? You are not sure what East actually holds in the ♥ suit.

Turns out the argument over the misunderstanding here was this: "The t/o X never consumed any of our bidding space! Additionally, I am sitting behind the t/o doubler with a big hand. Anything coming out of doubler's hand, chances are excellent I got the next higher card! I would have bid 5♦ to signoff at these colours with ♦ support and little else. So to me 4♦ was still Minorwood." So I got a tongue-lashing here! Does this argument make sense to anyone?

Board 5 from a club match: Would you make a Michael's overcall with this powerhouse? [hv=pc=n&e=sqt642hqt9842d3c4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d]133|200[/hv]

What would a "redouble" from partner over the opponents t/o double imply? 4th seat has yet to get in on the action.

None Vul: As the dealer I opened the bidding 3♦ with a 7-card ♦ suit topped by the KQJ and nothing outside (those were my only HCP). LHO has an 11 count, a (almost) text book t/o X with a 4504 distribution. Partner held a fantastic hand with a big ♦ fit and bid 4♦ over the t/o X intending it as Minorwood. I understood the bid to be just competitive. 1. Who is right and who is wrong? Does Minorwood still apply after a t/o X by the opponents in this sequence? 2. What about 4♦ over a 3♥ or 3♠ overcall by the opponents? Is it Minorwood or just competitive?

wt :ph34r: is baze?

There is more to this than just agreeing which one you play. I think it was Eddie Kantar who said "switch" to 1430 when the strong hand is doing the asking. "Switch" to 0314 when the weak hand is doing the asking. I don't think enough intermediates understand the importance of this (my F2F partner included). Cuebidding up the line BEFORE embarking on a RKCB ask often reveals a suit where neither partner holds a control. No point in doing RKCB now :ph34r:

See my reply to aguahombre.

So then I must assume that the significant majority viewpoint will always make a t/o X for the two unbid suits. Does that mean we can discard the sandwich NT bid to the junk pile along with my other pet hates?

What do you mean by a strong-balanced sandwich position? How strong is "strong?" And if you are strong why did you pass initially? Where and how does the Michaels/Unusual 2NT combination fit into your bidding agreements if you bid this way?

So here’s a thought. Maybe these guys are playing their bastardized 2/1 methods to make provision for these hand types. Maybe their thinking is this – 1. In an auction such as this 1♥-1♠ ?-2♠ simply promises 5X♠ and less than 12 HCP 2. In an auction such as this 1♥-2♣ (alerted as 12-14 HCP) ?-2♠ is not a reverse bid (the hand is limited to 14 HCP) and shows a 5-card ♠ suit. Partner bids on appropriately? 3. 1♥-3♠ is a ♠ splinter in support of ♥?

In regular 2/1 how does one initiate a 2/1 GF sequence immediately when partner opens 1♥ and you hold 5X♠ and 12+ HCP?

Don't know what the answer is but I would assume that 2♥ over 1♠ promises a 5-card suit and GF values. All I could gather was the corruption of how the 2♣ and 2♦ bids were used.

I think it was Zel who said he likes to dabble in bidding theory. Maybe I also like to try and figure out why players do things like this. With more and more replies maybe something pops out the woodwork that the players using this method spotted that I have yet to discover. To reply to your post: I certainly am interested in trying to figure out why someone would bid like this.

With this bidding sequence opener is showing 5X♠ and 4X♦ so you found the fit. NT looks like failing because of the ♥ weakness. Responder can bid 4♦ over 3♦ as Minorwood confirming the fit. Now its just whether you sign off in 5♦ or 6♦.

Bastardization sounds about right, but it's still a 2/1 GF, just not what the rest of us are accustomed to.

Haven't got the faintest idea what they would do with this. Maybe they put it through the 1NT bid which is forcing for 1 round playing 2/1. Once opener has made his 2nd bid (showing shape or whatever), responder possibly makes some or other jump bid?

This can work. To summarise how I understand this: 1. Double = 4/4 in the two unbid suits 2. 1NT = 4-cards in the other major and 5-cards in the other minor 3. 2NT = 5/5 in the two unbid suits With 5-cards in the other major and 4 in the other minor you just make a normal overcall. The actual length in the unbid minor is supressed, but that's ok. You've managed to get a bid in consuming some of the opponents bidding space.

:blink: Huh? Maybe someone can decipher what was actually said here?

It’s easy to criticise other player’s methods without having the full system notes. 2/1 uses a 15-17 1NT range. It’s common for the range to include a 5-card major. So by opening 1M, opener is showing either, a) 12-14 HCP, b) 18+, or c) an unbalanced hand of any range. So maybe the thinking is to firstly tell opener what the combined HCP holding is, therein applying the brakes immediately when both hands are minimum?

Hey guys, this isn’t my system. It’s something unusual that I have never before encountered. So I posted it here to find out if others have encountered something similar. Over either response (2♣ or 2♦), opener makes the cheapest shape showing bid or 2NT. If responder repeats either minor (now on level 3), it must surely show a 5-card or longer suit. Where the 1st response was 2♦ showing 15+ HCP, you still have plenty of room to bid a minor suit slam if a 5-3 or better fit can be found. When the 12-14 HCP hand is shown, opener can try and sign off in 3NT if that is the best spot or 5m with an unbalanced hand and a 3-card fit.

Here is something new I have recently encountered at the table. The opponents were playing 2/1. The auction proceeded as follows - 1M-(P)-2♦ (alerted) So obviously you ask why the bid was alerted and you get this explanation: 2♦ is GF promising 15+ HCP, the ♦ suit can be as short as 2 (with only 1 or a void they splinter). So you then ask what the 2♣ bid would promise and they say GF but only 12-14 HCP. After the days play you sit back and think more about what these guys are communicating to each other by bidding this way, and you conclude, "Hey, maybe I should think deeper about this." The continuation bidding after either response from opener's point of view is basically the same i.e. 1. After the 2♣ response opener makes the cheapest shape showing bid or 2NT to find out where the auction is headed (4M or 3NT). 2. After the 2♦ response opener again makes the cheapest shape showing bid or 2NT and hands over captaincy of the auction to responder. Anybody else come across this before? What are your thoughts about bidding this way?