1S-2S (2N)

[straube]

What's the standard meaning for 1S P 2S (2N)? natural? minors? two-suited? Is the best treatment the same as the standard treatment?

[bluecalm]

I like minors because I like bids which tells partner exactly what suit we have and I hate bids which are 2suiters without known suits (because it more difficult to compete if they bid 3♠ and partner tells more about his distribution to them if he does compete because he needs 2 fits instead of one).

[gnasher]

I like minors because I like bids which tells partner exactly what suit we have and I hate bids which are 2suiters without known suits (because it more difficult to compete if they bid 3♠ and partner tells more about his distribution to them if he does compete because he needs 2 fits instead of one).

If you're going to play it as two specific suits, isn't it better if one of them is hearts, because of the increased chance of making game?

[olien]

I've played as any two suits, but what seems to work best is playing it as Michaels.

 

Then partner can bid 3♣ P/C, or bid 3♦ as a game try in ♥.

[Phil]

I've always used 2N is "two places to play" and I haven't seen a reason to change. Taking out one of the combinations would reduce the frequency and create a pattern that is hard to bid if 2N isn't available.

 

If I want to add to my repertoire, I'd include Leaping Michaels to break up the ranges a bit.

[JLOGIC]

Michaels is infinitely better than the standard 2 places to play imo, especially at imps. Good luck getting to 4H when you are cold for game in hearts if 2N could include minors.

 

But even at MP, you usually get to your minor instead of hearts, and that can be a problem.

[jillybean]

How about this for 2 suit overcalls

 

(1♠) P (2♠) 2N lowest ♦&♣

(1♠) P (2♠) 3♠ highest ♥&♦

(1♠) P (2♠) 3♣ highest M & lowest m ♥&♣

[JLOGIC]

Then you cannot overcall in clubs, and you cannot bid with H+D and play 3 of either suit. Doesn't seem like a good idea.

[jillybean]

Then you cannot overcall in clubs, and you cannot bid with H+D and play 3 of either suit. Doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

After 1♠ 2♠ I doubt that the opps will let you play in 3 of anything very often. 3♠ is obviously game forcing

in ♥ and to the 4level in ♦`s but it seems better to involve partner rather than make a independant guess at the 3level.

[gnasher]

For the hands where you're willing to go to the four-level, Leaping Michaels is better. How often have you wanted to make a natural one-suited jump here?

[helene_t]

btw, what does a 3♠ overcall mean, if we play 2NT as ♥+minor? It could be both minors. It could also be a strong one-suited minor, like (2♠)-3♠. Which is better?

[JLOGIC]

For the hands where you're willing to go to the four-level, Leaping Michaels is better. How often have you wanted to make a natural one-suited jump here?

 

The expert community agrees with you obv, but imo frequently. Maybe I am a spaz but I love to bid 4 of a minor to say "partner, you should consider saving." Bidding 3C with x xx xxx KQJTxxx w/r does not get that message across nearly enough imo, or some 7-4 at equal vul that you don't just want to save by yourself with. I do not view these as all that infrequent.

 

helene: yeah I play 3S shows the minors.

[bluecalm]

2NT as ♥ + minor seems reasonable to me. Showing hearts is important and maybe we will be saved if partner has misfit ♥. Actually after thinking about it I like it even more than minors.

[kenrexford]

The hand types that you might want to show below 3♠ will apparently include the following (beyond simple three-suited):

 

Clubs

Diamonds

Hearts

Clubs+diamonds

Clubs+hearts

Diamonds+hearts

 

Having 2NT show hearts plus a minor allows five of six options, but it leaves out both minors and it leave Advancer not knowing which minor partner has (which might be rather important for deciding whether to bid game or not, etc.).

 

what if, instead, the following structure was used:

 

2NT = both minors or just diamonds

3♣ = clubs plus hearts

3♦ = diamonds plus hearts

3♥ = just hearts

 

In that structure, Overcaller is enabled to bid five out of six options, with the added benefit of being able to show which minor he has.

 

This might even be improved. If 2NT shows "both minors or just diamonds," one could add, "or just hearts competitive only." Then, a direct 3♥ would show a values bid with hearts (akin perhaps to a strong jump overcall), which makes game exploration even better.

 

If this was used, we might be able to get back the "just clubs" call through the double. Advancer (assuming a pass) could bid 3♦ or 3♥ after this "clubs or takeout" double if Advancer would bid that way if partner has clubs (if he does not, this is even better news). Advancer can also bid 3♣ (I would pick clubs opposite a takeout call), which will be great news for overcaller if overcaller has just clubs.

 

If Advancer has any other hand, he can bid 2NT to say that he normally would have picked a red suit. If the doubler has just clubs, he bids 3♣. With a takeout hand, he bids 3♦ (pass-or-correct).

 

That solves all problems, including the "just clubs" overcall, except that Advancer cannot now bid 2NT as scrambling. I could live with that, myself.

 

The upside to this structure is obvious -- ability to handle all seven possible hands at the three-level (any one-suited, any two-suited, and three-suited) while specifying the range of the hearts-only hand and specifying the minor in the heart-minor two-suiter. The downsides would be that 2NT for both minors or diamonds and the double are less well positioned if Opener bids 1-2-3.

 

I wonder, though, if this would work.

[Zelandakh]

Any reason for not arranging the bids in the more obvious way Ken? I mean:-

 

X = normal t/o or clubs and hearts

2NT = minors or reds (optionally weak hearts as per your message)

3m/H = natural

[MrAce]

If you're going to play it as two specific suits, isn't it better if one of them is hearts, because of the increased chance of making game?

 

I like this most if what u meant was ♥+specific minor. If not i like minors more, at least we find the fit and bid at 5 level if needs to be. Otherwise just for being able to play 4♥, when they opened and raised ♠ suit by the way, doesnt sound as big of a gain unless side suit is known to me.

 

As u can tell, I am not a big fan of 2 suiter bids where 1 suit is hidden. :P

 

@Olien : How does pd bid lets say when he has a great hand for ♦ but not good for ♣ (of course no ♥ fit) ? 3262 or similar hand lets say

 

Or what does he do with 3163 or 3136 when 1♠ opener jumps to game or bids 3♠ ? Just hope that pd doesnt have his minor and pass or just bid 4 nt hoping pd's minor is his minor but ends up saving with 5-3 fit ?

 

To be honest idk the standart for this call but as far as watching top pairs, they seem to play specific 2 suiters.

[semeai]

To be honest idk the standart for this call but as far as watching top pairs, they seem to play specific 2 suiters.

 

Do you mean European pairs only?

[Siegmund]

I would guess that minors (and quite often 5-4 either way, rather than strictly 5-5 like 1S (2N) is standard, along with X = "3-suited in principle, but often hearts, one minor, and a prayer."

 

I would not be surprised if something else is better. I quite like Zelandakh's proposal. But I've not run across very many people using it as Michaels, and two places to play is not GCC legal on the first round of the auction and therefore a non-starter for a lot of North American players. (I was going to write "two places to play is Midchart" but just this minute I am having trouble finding anything on the Midchart that permits it.) I'd certainly be willing to give Two Places a try playing somewhere where it was allowed.

[Zelandakh]

I think I can see now why Ken arranged the bids in the less illogical way - in the alternative I posted there is a problem with red suits opposite red suits. If I get time I moght play with a couple other thoughts that this thread have sparked - but as I am feeling pretty ill I might just forget it...

[dake50]

"How about this for 2 suit overcalls

 

(1♠) P (2♠) 2N lowest ♦&♣

(1♠) P (2♠) 3♠ highest ♥&♦

(1♠) P (2♠) 3♣ highest M & lowest m ♥&♣_

- jillybean

 

** Then X is any 1-suiter to show next

** - loses if immediate 1-suiter would disrupt them better,

** or 3-suits

[gwnn]

dake50 are you a bot? you copy-pasted a post from this same thread

[MrAce]

dake50 are you a bot? you copy-pasted a post from this same thread

 

:D

 

I am sure he intended to quote, but fell short.

[1eyedjack]

After 1♠ 2♠ I doubt that the opps will let you play in 3 of anything very often.

Do we care? If our competitive bidding forces them into a dicey 3♠ contract when they would otherwise have been allowed to play in a safe 2♠, is that not just as effective a job done? But that does at least require that we compete.

[Zelandakh]

OK, I had a chance to work through my thoughts on this and I think I have an optimal solution. If we start from Ken's (good) logic then we have 7 hand types, plus an optional eigth.

 

A) 3-suited

B) 3 x 2-suited

C) 3 x 1-suited

D) (optional) competitive with hearts

 

Of these, 4 hand types must be shown at 3C or lower, 2 at 3D or lower, and the remaining 1 (+1) are fine at 3H. This means that to show everything we must include 2 hands in the double, as Ken identified, and use 2NT to sort it out.

 

In theory we could put any 2 club-based hands into double but there is a distinct advantage to playing it as 3-suited or a specific 2-suiter, because in this case our 3NT response can show the 3rd suit. Since hearts is the most expensive suit here and we are concerned about 4H it makes sense for this 3rd suit to be hearts. Thus it is surely best to play double as "takeout or minors". For the reasons earlier I like to stick with Ken's structure for the higher bids.

 

After this preamble, here is my proposed structure:-

 

(1S) - p - (2S) - ?

===================

X = takeout or minors

... 2NT = hearts

... ... 3C = minors

... ... ... 3H = invitational with long hearts

... ... 3D = invitational heart raise

... ... 3H = to play

... 3m = natural

... 3H = weak with long hearts

2NT = 1-suited, either minor or competitive with hearts

... paradox responses as per multi

3m = hearts and the minor

3H = good heart overcall

 

You can see how many ways we have of differentiating heart fits in this structure making 4H much easier to find than any other scheme I have seen.

 

Having come this far I am now wondering if this structure is also workable in similar situations at the 4 level. For example, after 2S - 4S from the opps, or even just over a 4S opening. Is including the minor suit hands here now going to inhibit our ability to extract penalties over a regular takeout double? I would be interested in some feedback on this and if one of the simulators is available that would be especially appreciated!

[1eyedjack]

Not saying that I have a better solution, and of course there is no solution that does not have weaknesses, my concern about Zel's structure is its dependence on the opponents' silence following the 2S bid, which silence cannot be guaranteed and indeed may be a minority action. Of course, if opener bumps it up to 3S that is going to put you to some uncomfortable guesses whatever methods you use.

 

But anticipating further intervention I feel a little uncomfortable about making bids which leave the suits in doubt, even though they may be clarified with a free run at the auction. The double, for example which may or may not have hearts, followed by a 3S raise by opener, seems vulnerable.

 

Given that something has to give, I generally find it preferable to get my suits across even if the cost of that policy is a more flexible strength definition.