Echognome Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 My partner and I are in some discussion about whether UvU is the best method to deal with a two-suited overcall. Are there any general thoughts on this? If you play something other than UvU, what methods do you play? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Versus Michaels: (1mi-2mi) Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the majors. 2♥/♠: Stopper in that suit, not in the other. Later bid is forcing with own suit or support for partner's. 2NT: Stoppers in both majors, no interest in a penalty. Support: Relatively weak. Versus 2NT: (1♥-2NT) Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors. 3♣: Forcing with spades. 3♦: Forcing with support for hearts (limit or better). 3♥: Natural, non forcing. 3♠: Natural, non forcing. 1♠ - 2NT: Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors. 3♣: Forcing with hearts. 3♦: Forcing with support for spades (limit or better). 3♥: Natural, non forcing. 3♠: Natural, non forcing. The thing to remember: cue bidding clubs shows own suit, cue bidding diamonds shows partner's suit. This is known as the near/far convention in Denmark. Bidding their lower suit (near) is what is nearer to yourself: own suit. Bidding their higher suit is what is further away from you (physically): partner. Something similar can be adopted if the bidding goes 1mi - 2NT if that shows the two lowest unbid suits. There are other metods, but I haven't come across anything better than this. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Versus Michaels: (1mi-2mi) Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the majors. 2♥/♠: Stopper in that suit, not in the other. Later bid is forcing with own suit or support for partner's. 2NT: Stoppers in both majors, no interest in a penalty. Support: Relatively weak. Versus 2NT: (1♥-2NT) Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors. 3♣: Forcing with spades. 3♦: Forcing with support for hearts (limit or better). 3♥: Natural, non forcing. 3♠: Natural, non forcing. 1♠ - 2NT: Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors. 3♣: Forcing with hearts. 3♦: Forcing with support for spades (limit or better). 3♥: Natural, non forcing. 3♠: Natural, non forcing. The thing to remember: cue bidding clubs shows own suit, cue bidding diamonds shows partner's suit. This is known as the near/far convention in Denmark. Bidding their lower suit (near) is what is nearer to yourself: own suit. Bidding their higher suit is what is further away from you (physically): partner. Something similar can be adopted if the bidding goes 1mi - 2NT if that shows the two lowest unbid suits. There are other metods, but I haven't come across anything better than this. Roland You stole this from me :) :blink: (just joking, just in case the smileys aren't enough) I play the same... :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Over here, this is whats more common: 1) If their call shows 2 known suits (i.e., 2N for the 2 lowest unbids): ----->Double – penalty oriented and sets up a force. Should be more than a string of trump and a weak hand. ----->Lowest of their suit – limit + in our lowest suit----->Highest of the their suit – limit + in our highest suit----->Simple raise – competitive----->4th suit – non-forcing----->Jump shift in one of their suits; splinter raise of opener’s suit----->Jump raise or jump in 4th suit – preemptive 2) If their call shows one anchor suit and an unknown suit (1♥ - (2♥): ♠’s and a minor) ----->Similar to above, except: New suits are forcing and the cue bid is just a limit + raise of our suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker_gib Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Over here, this is whats more common: 1) If their call shows 2 known suits (i.e., 2N for the 2 lowest unbids): ----->Double – penalty oriented and sets up a force. Should be more than a string of trump and a weak hand. ----->Lowest of their suit – limit + in our lowest suit----->Highest of the their suit – limit + in our highest suit----->Simple raise – competitive----->4th suit – non-forcing----->Jump shift in one of their suits; splinter raise of opener’s suit----->Jump raise or jump in 4th suit – preemptive 2) If their call shows one anchor suit and an unknown suit (1♥ - (2♥): ♠’s and a minor) ----->Similar to above, except: New suits are forcing and the cue bid is just a limit + raise of our suit. I play roughly the same as you, Phil ! :unsure: Alain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I have one small improvement, and I think if you think about it you will agree. 1H-2N: 3C-limit+in hearts.3D-constructive with spades.3H-non forcing3S-forcing the improvement is, you can get out in 3H after showing spades. So if you have only a fair 6 card spade suit and 2 hearts with pard, this can help alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 Dunno the advantages, but I was taught that 3♣ always showed ♥ and 3♦ always showed ♠. after 1♥-2♥ and 1♠-2♠ everything is transfer to me, except 2♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 I have one small improvement, and I think if you think about it you will agree. 1H-2N: 3C-limit+in hearts.3D-constructive with spades.3H-non forcing3S-forcing the improvement is, you can get out in 3H after showing spades. So if you have only a fair 6 card spade suit and 2 hearts with pard, this can help alot. With lite openings:3c=Limit+ in H... good 11 or more3d=Inv+ with spades..... good 11 or more3h=competitive H raise...about 7-103s=Competetive (non-forcing) hand with long spades....about 7 to bad 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 I like Justin's refinement. I use Phil's form of it myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double ! Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 fwiwthe version justin gave is the one i learned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted March 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Just thought I'd throw a wrinkle in here. I presume those that play unusual versus unusual would play the same defense to a 2NT opener showing the minors. What about a Lucas (specific Major + another) or Dutch (specific Major + minor) 2-level opening? What defense would you recommend for that? And what I think is the toughest one.. the Ekren 2H (4/4 or better in the majors)? Any thoughts appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Dutch/Lucas should just be treated as natural IMO. Although I guess there is slightly more reason to be playing X as power and 2N as t/o than over a 6 card weak two. Ekren is indeed the toughest one. Hows this...X = power, 2♠ = a minor (now 2N = weak or strong, 3♣/3♦ = intermediate pass or correct) 2N = minors (weak or strong), 3♣ = minors (intermediate), 3♦ = 5♦5major, 3M = natural, big hand, strong 6 card suit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestguru Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 I thought ekren was 2!d. I've played it that way with dutch 2M and 2nt for both minors. In retrospect, I should have suggested 2!c as strong or a weak 1 suiter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Ekren 2♥ is superior to Ekren 2♦ because it puts more pressure on the defence - you can pass out 2♥ much more often. Also many don't want to give up their weak twos, so combine it with a multi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Just thought I'd throw a wrinkle in here. I presume those that play unusual versus unusual would play the same defense to a 2NT opener showing the minors. What about a Lucas (specific Major + another) or Dutch (specific Major + minor) 2-level opening? What defense would you recommend for that? And what I think is the toughest one.. the Ekren 2H (4/4 or better in the majors)? Any thoughts appreciated. You'd be VERY wrong When you are playing UvU, the cornerstone of your defense is predictated on the fact that partner has already shown a suit. In contrast, if RHO opens 2NT showing both minors, you have virutally no information regarding partner's hand. From my perspective, its best to define "sets" of opening bids, planning to apply similar defenses against all bids in the set. For example: One set might be - Two suited preempts, with a known anchor suitRHO has opened in the known anchor suit Example: Lucas 2S opening A second set would include Two suited preempts with a known anchor suitRHO has opened in a suit other than the known anchor suit Example: 2NT = Both minors A third set would include Two suited preempts with no known anchor suit Example = Wilkosz 2D opening Regarding defenses to Assumed fit methods: I like playing assumed fit preemts. From my perspective, "good" defenses should be penalty oriented. At one point in time, I posted a fairly complete defense against a 2D opening showing 4+♦ + 4+ cards in either major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Ekren 2♥ is superior to Ekren 2♦ because it puts more pressure on the defence - you can pass out 2♥ much more often. Also many don't want to give up their weak twos, so combine it with a multi. I believe that its better to use a 2♥ opening to show a weak hand with 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades. It places MUCH more immiedate pressure on the opponents and is much more diffiuclt to defend against. With this said and done, there are some advantages to the original Ekren's 2♦. Most notably, if the opponents trot out a double, you can design a MUCH better runout scheme over 2♦... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 IMO two suited preempts with both suits known and two suited preempts with only one suit known should be treated differently - ie five sets in all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted March 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Hrothgar, I appreciate your discussion, but I would be more interested if you proposed some actual defenses rather than how to categorize them. If you have already posted a defense to a "Rough" 2♣ or "Rough" 2♦, could you post the link? I will post a link for the openings and suggested structures for playing them, along with the analysis of many deals using them (with due credit to Ben Cowling): http://www.rough2s.info/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Here is the defense that I recommend (for what its worth, said defense was originally devised by Josh Sher) In direct seat (2♦) - 4♦ = 5+ Hearts and 5+ Spades, game forcing values(2♦) - 4♣ = 5+ Clubs and 5+ Cards in a major, game forcing values(2♦) - 3NT = to play, typically based on a running suit(2♦) - 3♠ = ~17 - 19 HCP, strong 6+ card suit(2♦) - 3♥ = ~17-19 HCP, strong 6+ card suit(2♦) - 3♦ = ~17+ HCP, weak in Diamonds, treat as a takeout double(2♦) - 3♣ = 5+ Clubs, ~12-16 HCP(2♦) - 2NT = 5+ Hearts, ~12-16 HCP(2♦) - 2♠ = 5+ Spades, ~12-16 HCP(2♦) - 2♥ = Takeout Double of Diamonds. NAtural responses. No Lebensohl(2♦) - X = 15+ HCP (Balanced or semi-balanced if 15-18)Double promises Hxx, AQ, or any 4 DiamondsWith significant extra strength, Doubler may hold xxx in DiamondsDouble establishes a forcing pass at the 2 levelDouble followed by 2♠, 2NT, or 3♣ does not promise extrasDouble promised by 3♦+ shows extras (2♦) - X - (2♥) = Penalty oriented (Usually at least Hxx in Hearts)Direct seat doubler should pull to 2♠ with xx in Hearts and 5+ SpadesDirect seat doubler should pull to 3♣ with xx In Hearts and 5+ ClubsDirect seat doubler should pull to 2NT with xx in Hearts and 5+ Diamonds (2♦) - X - (2♥) - 2♠ = Limited, 5+ Spades (2♦) - X - (2♥) - 2NT+ = Lebensohl (2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - X = Penalty oriented, at least Hxx in Hearts (2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - 2♠ = 4+ Spades, ~15-18 HCP(2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - 2NT = 15-18 HCP, balanced, can't hit 2♥ (2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - 3♣ = 5+ Clubs, ~15-18 HCP (2♦) - X - (P) - P = Willing to sitt for penalty (2♦) - X - (P) - 2NT = Puppet to 3♣3♦ = Stayman3♥ = 5+ Hearts, game forcing values3♠ = 5+ Spades, game forcing values (2♦) - X - (P) - 3♣ = Constructive, 5+ Clubs (2♦) - X - (P) - 3♦) = Artificial game force with short Diamonds (2♦) - X - (P) - 3♥ = 5+ Hearts, invitational (2♦) - X - (P) - 3NT = Diamond Stopper, 5+ Clubs, limited In Balancing Seat All doubles in auctions that start with (2♦) - P are always for takeout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Hrothgar, I appreciate your discussion, but I would be more interested if you proposed some actual defenses rather than how to categorize them. If you have already posted a defense to a "Rough" 2♣ or "Rough" 2♦, could you post the link? I will post a link for the openings and suggested structures for playing them, along with the analysis of many deals using them (with due credit to Ben Cowling): http://www.rough2s.info/ I just started to look at Ben's analysis... Its interesting to note that while the Frelling 2♦ and Rough 2♦ nominally promise the same hand type, the differences in auction continuation are very significant Case in point: You hold ♠ AT76♥ 7♦ AQJT♣ A975 And partner opens 2♦. Cowling is forced to make a preemptive 3♦ raise. Playing Frelling 2's, partner can make a conventional 2♠ response, as a puppet to 2NT. Responder's 3♦ rebid asks partner to pass with Hearts and show range with Spades. Given the frequency of these opening bids, I think that its imperative to adopt a sophisticated response structure. I'll also comment that I think that the suggested defense that Ben is providing is very weak... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Josh's defence looks excellent Richard, and yes, Ben's responses go for simplicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 I also play some sort of rough two's (2m = weak, 4+m and 4+M), but also with other response schemes (home made). I like full relays (and my partner likes that as well), but our invitational bids are also well defined. The only problem we've encountered is finding a 5-3♥ fit when partner opens 2♦ with a 3 card ♥ and 4+♠s. However, if opps intervene we find it :P I noticed that many people indeed have problems defending against such bids. We get a lot of good scores when we open these. Note, I also play Ekren 2♥, and I also prefer it above 2♦. But as it is with the rough two's, if opps Dbl, you get a lot more interesting runout schemes to find the best contract. This might make the Ekren 2♦ better.If you ask me, Dbl is one of the worst bids you can make when opps open such gadget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.