1S-2S-4S-?

[kenrexford]

(1♠)-2♠-(4♠)-?????????

 

This seems to be one of the toughest sequences. I hate it. Advancer always seems to have some general unknown "stuff" with uncertainty as to whether a sacrifice is right, doubling is right, or passing is right. Advancer's partner could have some garbage hand or some promising hand. Plus, the damned minor is unknown.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[Cascade]

1. Play 2♠ as a specific two suiter

 

2. Play 2♠ as constructive

[kenrexford]

Sure, that solves Advancer's problem when you make that call, but then you open up a world of new problems for yourself, in second seat.

[effervesce]

Agree that a 2♠ michaels cuebid should be constructive (not a weak hand), unlike 1m-2m or 1H-2H; 1S-2S forces to the three level where you need extra values to play and also to help partner evaluate when to bid game (over 1m-2m and 1H-2H there is more room to explore game).

[billw55]

1. Play 2♠  as a specific two suiter

 

I too have sometimes though that it would be handy to remove the "unknown minor" from the equation. If:

 

unusual 2NT = two lowest unbid suits

michaels = two highest unbid suits

? = highest and lowest unbid suits

 

What bid might work for the third case? Has anyone tried this?

[gwnn]

There are several ways.

 

1 (original Ghestem)

cuebid=highest and lowest

2NT=cheapest two

3C=highest two

 

but some people play that

 

(1♣)-2♣ is natural and

(1♣)-2♦ is both majors and

(1♣)-3♣ is ♠+♦

 

2 (I think this is what many people in Norway use)

cuebid of minor=majors, cuebid of majors=other major+clubs

2NT=cheapest two

(nothing)=highest+lowest

 

3 (posted recently by gnasher)

cuebid=highest two

2NT=highest and lowest

(nothing)=cheapest two.

[effervesce]

I really hate the ghestem convention - there are oh-so-many horror stories about it (especially the original ghestem) that any theoretical gains are quickly wiped out by the times where you forget the convention and think the call is natural and end up playing in a ridiculous fit. Maybe others have gotten much better experiences with it however.

[kenrexford]

Well, to add to the backstory, the most recent frustration occurred when the vulnerability was favorable (white on red). Whatever concerns may exist for sound employing of Michaels vanish when you kick into these colors, where rather weak holdings merit Michaels (if systemically allowed).

[ArtK78]

This auction is the downside of the current trend to bid Michaels on all hands of the right shape as opposed to the prior custom of weak or strong Michaels. The 4♠ bid really leaves you poorly placed.

[hanp]

Any thoughts on this?

Often bid 4S here as opponent?

[Phil]

Any thoughts on this?

Often bid 4S here as opponent?

LOL hanp.

 

I can think of a few 'cures' for this auction but they may be worse than the disease.

 

OK maybe not so bad. Use 4N as a constructive 5m (or 5H) call. This would at least keep us from making a phantom.

 

Use x as convertible values (it already is of course). But specifically asks pard to pass if he is non-min (else they make 4S) or some extra shape (we make 5 something).

 

Maybe some good ideas come out of this talk.

[karlson]

Play double as "I want to bid if your minor is diamonds".

[cherdanno]

Play double as "I want to bid if your minor is diamonds".

Heh I was thinking the same.

[Finch]

I go with "play specific two-suiters" (I don't have a bid to show the cheapest two suits).

 

Double is too useful as a penalty double.

[Winstonm]

All you can ever accomplish is your best guess unless you want to restrict your conventional calls to absolute picture bid status.

 

My best guess is that pass will work out the best in the long run. It is no big crime to miss a sacrifice, but it is pretty unimpressive to go for a phantom or to post a big number.

 

I think the meanings of double and NT bids should be reserved for good hands with positive expectations.

 

I would not concern myself with missing profitable sacrifices in this situation.