And Now for Something Completely Different

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1sp1npp2s]133|100[/hv]

 

What is 2♠?

 

[mich-b]

Natural - hoping to play there.

[the hog]

Natural.

[paulg]

Natural. Limited by the lack of two spades on the first round.

[ArtK78]

Natural. Limited by the lack of two spades on the first round.

I play that 2♠ (and 2♣) are natural over 1♠. Nevertheless, the 2♠ bid here is natural.

[mgoetze]

I play that 2♠ (and 2♣) are natural over 1♠.

I'll bet Paul does too.

[P_Marlowe]

No idea.

 

A direct 2S over the 1S bid would have been natural too, hence,

the suit needs to be worse than a suit bid direct, is this a

good idea?

 

You cant have a two suiter either, you have X, and you have 2NT,

so I vote the bid does not exist.

Given that we are green, I would pass as partner, letting partner

explain his reasoning, nodding in agreement, and thinking for myself,

if his changing of his doctor was such a good idea.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

I made this bid at the club yesterday, holding 6 nice spades and made 2♠+1.

I knew my brilliant partner would get it right. First time I've ever had this auction, and I thought it was neat.

[P_Marlowe]

I made this bid at the club yesterday, holding 6 nice spades and made 2♠+1.

I knew my brilliant partner would get it right. First time I've ever had this auction, and I thought it was neat.

Ok - so you feared, that partner would have interpreted a 2S bid the round before as a 2-suiter,

or maybe that was your agreement.

 

Thats why you waited.

 

So the important thing to take away is to clarify the meaning of 2S the round before.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Phil]

I made this bid at the club yesterday, holding 6 nice spades and made 2♠+1.

I knew my brilliant partner would get it right. First time I've ever had this auction, and I thought it was neat.

 

Weren't good enough to bid 2♠ the 1st time?

[jillybean]

Weren't good enough to bid 2♠ the 1st time?

2♠ the 1st round sounds like a 2 suiter but since we have other ways of showing a 2 suiter then this is redundant.

Another sequence to discuss with partner.

[jillybean]

I had a quick chat with Phil about this.

 

Can 2M be natural in this sequence (1M) P (1x) 2M and if not, what is it?

Can 2m be natural in this sequence (1m) P (1N) 2m ?

 

One approach I have heard of is "when the opps have bid two suits, only the last bid suit called by an opponent is available for a cuebid. A bid of the first suit is natural." I don't know the rationale behind this, does anyone know?

[nigel_k]

I have always preferred that the suit bid on your right is natural and the one bid on your left is a cue bid (Michaels or whatever depending on context). Because you want the enemy trumps onside, not offside. But I do live in a place where people seldom open one of a minor with less than four cards.

[Siegmund]

I play 1X-P-1Y-2X and 1X-P-1Y-2Y both natural, whether major or minor, with most my partners, and was under the impression that it was the substantial-majority treatment.

 

I have heard a few people say that opener's suit was a cuebid and responder's was natural, which has some positional sense, but it's opener's minor that you are most likely to be long in.

[MrAce]

I play 1X-P-1Y-2X and 1X-P-1Y-2Y both natural, whether major or minor, with most my partners, and was under the impression that it was the substantial-majority treatment.

 

I have heard a few people say that opener's suit was a cuebid and responder's was natural, which has some positional sense, but it's opener's minor that you are most likely to be long in.

 

Do you frequently play vs 1M promise only 4 cards or do you play that also vs 5 card major openings ?

 

1♥-pass-1♠- 2♥ for example shows natural ♥ suit in your formula.

[P_Marlowe]

I had a quick chat with Phil about this.

 

Can 2M be natural in this sequence (1M) P (1x) 2M and if not, what is it?

Can 2m be natural in this sequence (1m) P (1N) 2m ?

 

One approach I have heard of is "when the opps have bid two suits, only the last bid suit called by an opponent is available for a cuebid. A bid of the first suit is natural." I don't know the rationale behind this, does anyone know?

#1 2X and 2M in the given seq. can be both, Michaels or natural, some play that X, 1 NT, 2X and 2M, 2NT

all as 2-suited, showing various length / strength, some believe 5 bids (or 4 bids - 1NT being natural)

are too many.

 

#2 2m in the 2nd seq. is natural, a direct 2m would be Michaels, this is not related to the now evolving theme

of the thread, unless you think the theme is broader - when is idding their suit natural?

 

On a side note, but a similar theme

 

1NT - (2C (1)) - 2M (2)

 

(1) Landy - both Majors, 4+/4+ depending on vulnerability

(2) natural / artificial ?

 

Our rule in those situations, if the suit could be a 4 carder, than the bidding suit is

natural, if it it could be a 5 carder, than cue - if both are 5 carders, unusual vs.

unusual applies.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

1H-p-1S-2H is an exception. You should play it as michaels (5+S, 5+m).

[P_Marlowe]

1H-p-1S-2H is an exception. You should play it as michaels (5+S, 5+m).

Never thought about this, but ... our stated rule would cover it, hopefully,

I would have worked it out on the table.