Do you overcall?

[whereagles]

Ron, it's pretty common around Europe as well. The point is not to get kicked out of a major suit contract, should RHO have something like xxxx in the suit he bid.

[jdonn]

Wow Fluffy, your partner psychs once every two sessions??

[mtvesuvius]

1♠, partner knows better than to lead suits I bid.

[the hog]

Thought about this a lot last night.

 

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

 

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.

Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

 

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

 

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

[peachy]

Thought about this a lot last night.

 

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

 

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.

Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

 

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

 

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

There is no right or wrong. What you agree with your partners is fine, but if you play with any advanced or better player, I think you should expect either of the opponents's suits to be natural. Not to give anybody a skin rash for mentioning SAYC [if you play in ACBL tournies on BBO, you might be interested to know}, but it is explicitly also written in SAYC that after opponents have bid two suits, bidding either of their suits is natural.

[Cascade]

I explained our agreement: natural, Director switched the score to 7♦ bid and made after the deal.

On what basis?

[Cascade]

Thought about this a lot last night.

 

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

 

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.

Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

 

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

 

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

I play that:

 

2♣ and 2♥ are both natural

 

2NT is unusual for the unbid suits

 

Hands that are not good enough for 2NT just bid 1♠

 

Double shows less distribution than 2NT

[jdonn]

Thought about this a lot last night.

 

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

 

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.

Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

 

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

 

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

I play that:

 

2♣ and 2♥ are both natural

 

2NT is unusual for the unbid suits

 

Hands that are not good enough for 2NT just bid 1♠

 

Double shows less distribution than 2NT

Essentially, so do I.

[Winstonm]

Thought about this a lot last night.

 

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

 

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.

Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

 

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

 

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

I have played this multiple ways - what was best was what happened to work a given day.

[the hog]

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -

(1x) 2 same x

 

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

[awm]

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -

(1x) 2 same x

 

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

Supposing that we want bids in new suits (including jumps) to be natural as well as non-jumps in notrump, when the opponents open 1♣ we have available:

 

Double

2♣

2NT

 

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the three unbid suits (2) as many as three two-suited hands in the unbid suits (3) a hand with clubs. Generally frequency and odds of fit imply that the first two are more important. So we prioritize and double shows the three-suited option with 2♣ and 2NT showing two of the three two-suited options.

 

Over 1♣-P-1♥, we have available:

 

Double

2♣

2♥

2NT

 

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the two unbid suits (2) hands with one of the suits the opponents bid. Again, frequency and odds of fit imply that the first is more important. But here we have four bids to show basically three hand types. There is no reason to allocate all four to the "more important" one -- the marginal gains from each subsequent bid allocated to show "the unbid suits" are diminishing pretty quickly. So we assign two of them to the unbids (double and 2NT) and the others to showing hands with the suits opponents named.

[jdonn]

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -

(1x) 2 same x

 

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

No because it's easy to show a 2 suiter when they have bid the other two suits, but if you take away the direct cuebid it becomes much harder if they have only bid one suit. It's also very likely that if you hold their suit and pass, the auction won't have increased a level when it comes back so you will still get a chance. The same can not as easily be said for when they have bid two suits.

[straube]

1S

[the hog]

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -

(1x) 2 same x

 

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

Supposing that we want bids in new suits (including jumps) to be natural as well as non-jumps in notrump, when the opponents open 1♣ we have available:

 

Double

2♣

2NT

 

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the three unbid suits (2) as many as three two-suited hands in the unbid suits (3) a hand with clubs. Generally frequency and odds of fit imply that the first two are more important. So we prioritize and double shows the three-suited option with 2♣ and 2NT showing two of the three two-suited options.

 

Over 1♣-P-1♥, we have available:

 

Double

2♣

2♥

2NT

 

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the two unbid suits (2) hands with one of the suits the opponents bid. Again, frequency and odds of fit imply that the first is more important. But here we have four bids to show basically three hand types. There is no reason to allocate all four to the "more important" one -- the marginal gains from each subsequent bid allocated to show "the unbid suits" are diminishing pretty quickly. So we assign two of them to the unbids (double and 2NT) and the others to showing hands with the suits opponents named.

Ok I understand your rationale. Also your's Josh.

You haven't convinced me to change though. I don't lke the idea of the misfit and I think the frequency of me holding a hand with a suit the opp has bid and good enough to bid to be too remote.

[Cascade]

Ok I understand your rationale. Also your's Josh.

You haven't convinced me to change though. I don't lke the idea of the misfit and I think the frequency of me holding a hand with a suit the opp has bid and good enough to bid to be too remote.

These are the numbers I got on a crude simulation after the auction 1♣ Pass 1♥ (actually I didn't make sure that partner passed very thoroughly).

 

We have

 

5 hearts 6.8%

6 hearts 1.3%

7+ hearts 0.1%

 

5 clubs 8.3%

6 clubs 2.0%

7+ clubs 0.3%

 

spade diamond two suiters

 

5/5 1.6%

5/6 0.3%

6/5 0.3%

more extreme <0.1%

 

More of the heart/club hands are likely to want to pass but I suspect that the frequency of bidding one of their suits naturally is still higher than the frequency of having some extreme two-suiter in the other two suits.

[whereagles]

Actually, I have defined in my pet system sequences similar to this one (in the sense that we might want to play in a 4-card suit of opponent's):

 

1NT (2♦) 2♥

 

2♦ = majors

2♥ = if 2♦ has 5 cards systematically, 2♥ is a cue. If 2♦ could be 4 cards (most play that way), then 2♥ is NATURAL, Lebenshol style (i.e. to play).

 

Another:

 

(2♣) 2♠

 

2♣ = 44 majors, weak

2♠ = 5 good spades or 6, usually overcall strength.

 

Etc...

[skjaeran]

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -

(1x) 2 same x

 

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

Actually, with my recent partner, we played (1♣) 2♣ as natural. In combination with 2♦ showing a weak hand with either major and 2♥/2♠ showing weak/strong Michaels hands.