2x (X) 2N

[jillybean]

Preemptive 2x (X) 2N ?

 

2N/2x being feature ask or ogust or whatever you play, does the double change the meaning of 2N?

[ArtK78]

Not unless the partnership has an agreement that it does, such as McCabe.

[jillybean]

We play McCabe but in our version, this still leaves 2N undefined.

[Cyberyeti]

We have an agreement about this because we play particularly rancid weak 2s, but I'd have thought it's whatever it was without the X without any specific agreement.

[Phil]

I've never seen this in writing but I have been told that in McCabe, 2N asks for shortness and is supposedly a game try.

 

I've toyed with making 2N a 'non-lead' directing preemptive raise denying one of partner's honors.

[CSGibson]

I've never seen this in writing but I have been told that in McCabe, 2N asks for shortness and is supposedly a game try.

 

I've toyed with making 2N a 'non-lead' directing preemptive raise denying one of partner's honors.

 

Better to play transfer McCabe - a transfer into a suit is either to play, or lead directional with a fit, and a transfer into opener's suit shows a raise with an A or K, while a direct raise denies an A or K in that suit, strictly preemptive. Then 2N retaining its meaning as a game try makes sense, as opposed to what I learned as a traditional McCabe 2N: a relay to 3C to play your own suit.

[gszes]

my personal preference is to xx with invitational

or greater values (p pulls the xx to 3 level only

if dead minimum) if lho bids over xx at 3 level

p may pass with dead minimum or raise or x.

 

2n shows 2 suited hand with 2 lowest unbid (hates

the weak 2 suit). 3 level bid non forcing to play

and hates the weak 2 suit does not forbid the weak

2 opener from raising with appropriate hand).

 

3 and 4 of weak 2 suit preemtive.

 

3n to play

 

talk to partner almost any agreement better than

no agreement.

[jillybean]

We play 2x (X) 2y as a lead directing raise, xx asks partner to bid cheapest suit then pass or bid new suit to play or a raise in 2x is invitational

but I think I like this more: :)

 

Better to play transfer McCabe - a transfer into a suit is either to play, or lead directional with a fit, and a transfer into opener's suit shows a raise with an A or K, while a direct raise denies an A or K in that suit, strictly preemptive. Then 2N retaining its meaning as a game try makes sense, as opposed to what I learned as a traditional McCabe 2N: a relay to 3C to play your own suit.

[Zelandakh]

You have lots of options here. One of my favourite treatments is to switch the "strong" response to XX to gain some extra space here. Then 2NT is available for a Lebensohl- (drop dead in a lower suit, constructive in a higher suit) or Rubensohl- (clubs + 3 level transfers) like bid, or alternatively as a second type of asking bid.

 

Gszes's scheme looks like a good alternative, effectively trading some direct constructive sequences for a way to show the 2 lowest unbid suits. It seems like it also ought to be possible to show additional 2-suiters here with the available bids if we think that has a higher priority than constructive auctions. Something like

 

2♦ - (X)

========

XX = weak take-out in own suit, or some ask (Ogust/Feature/shortage)

2♥ = hearts and a black suit

2♠ = spades and clubs

2NT = some ask (Ogust/Feature7shortage)

3♣ = good raise

3♦ = weak raise

3M = fit jump

 

2♥ - (X)

========

XX = weak take-out in own suit, or some ask (Ogust/Feature/shortage)

2♠ = spades and a minor

2NT = some ask (Ogust/Feature7shortage)

3♣ = clubs and diamonds

3♦ = good raise

3♥ = weak raise

3S = fit jump

 

2♠ - (X)

========

XX = weak take-out in own suit, or some ask (Ogust/Feature/shortage)

2NT = some ask (Ogust/Feature7shortage)

3♣ = clubs and a red suit

3♦ = diamonds and hearts

3♥ = good raise

3♠ = weak raise

 

Or summarised, after 2X - (X):

XX = weak take-out or an ask

2X+1 = that suit plus another unbid suit

2NT = asking bid

3X-1 = good raise

the other bid below 3X = that suit plus the one above

 

I suppose one of the asking sequences might be better employed as a puppet to 3♣ to show a good one-suiter too. Doesn't really matter - I am more interested in whether the 2-suited bids are good here or not. For me it is not at all clear if announcing a misfitting 2-suiter is a great deal opposite a weak 2. It may well be that it helps the opponents to judge whether to bid or defend more than it helps us. Anyone else ever played bids showing 2 other suits over a double of a weak two? What was your experience of the effectiveness of the 2NT bid when it came up gszes?