defence to unusual NT

[david_c]

Let's suppose partner opens 1♥, and RHO overcalls 2NT showing the minors. Now, one thing you ought to have agreed with partner is the meanings of 3♣ or 3♦ here. But that's the easy part - there are some other things which need to be discussed, and you might not realise how important they are until they come up. So, I have some questions:

 

1. A double of 2NT traditionally shows interest in penalising at least one of their suits. But what does it say about the holding in the other minor? If the next player takes out into a minor, what is the minimum holding that opener is expected to double on? And if opener passes instead, is this pass forcing? Does any of this change if responder is a passed hand?

 

2. If responder passes over 2NT, and then doubles when 3♣ or 3♦ gets passed back round, what does this double show?

[coyot]

My defence is unusual vs. unusual, so minor cuebids in this case are forcing with major suits - lower cuebid shows lower (meaning closer) suit (or support). Double is card-showing and denies 3card support or 5card in other major (direct bids of those would be competitive), which leaves me with 7+ cards in their suits, so I presume I can double whichever contract they decide on, unless partner shows more length in his suit.

 

I would use the agreement that double on 2NT promises 10+

 

If the opener does not rebid hearts, I can assume that we don't have a good fit and double their 3rd level contract based on LOTT. (We might have 4-4 spades with likely bad break, so in the worst case they have 5-3 minor - worth doubling for down one since they're on 3rd level_.

 

double on 3♣/♦ after initial pass would show less than 10 HCP and the same as above (as you would use competitive bids if you had 3♥ or 5♠.

 

1♥-2NT:

3♥ directly would be approx. 8-11 HCP

3♣ would be 12+

pass and then 3♥ is weaker.

[Finch]

As usual, it's more important to have an agreement than what the agreement is (within limits...). My agreements are:

 

1. A double of 2NT traditionally shows interest in penalising at least one of their suits. But what does it say about the holding in the other minor? If the next player takes out into a minor, what is the minimum holding that opener is expected to double on? And if opener passes instead, is this pass forcing? Does any of this change if responder is a passed hand?

 

I play pass as forcing for one level (so in this auction, forcing over 3m but not over 4m). It doesn't change if responder is a passed hand.

 

I actually prefer to play double as take-out, usually with a doubleton (a suitable singleton might also double). If you are going to defend it doesn't matter if double is take-out or penalties, but if it goes 1H 2NT x 3C P P ? and opener couldn't double for penalties, and responder can't double for penalties, it's easier for responder to make a take-out double if he has no good bid. 

 

Either way, opener usually should be prepared to defend (i.e. to double for penalties or pass a take-out double) with four trumps or a decent 3-card holding.

 

2. If responder passes over 2NT, and then doubles when 3♣ or 3♦ gets passed back round, what does this double show?

 

I play this as strict ("trump stack") penalties - opener (having passed over 3m) is not expected to remove whatever his hand is. Doubling 2NT first is looking for co-operation; this is the way to defend without asking partner's opinion.

[Double !]

My defence is unusual vs. unusual, so minor cuebids in this case are forcing with major suits - lower cuebid shows lower (meaning closer) suit (or support). Double is card-showing and denies 3card support or 5card in other major (direct bids of those would be competitive), which leaves me with 7+ cards in their suits, so I presume I can double whichever contract they decide on, unless partner shows more length in his suit.

This is (at least) the fourth version of "Unusual over Unusual" that I have seen.

The first version that I learned played doubles as a decent hand with a clear X in one of the minors, cue bid of the lower of rho's announced 2 suits as showing a limit raise or better in partner's suit, cue bidding the higher of the 2 suits as showing the 4th suit (invitational) with tolerance for P suit, and bidding the 4th suit as being GF. A second version had bidding the 4th suit as GI in that suit and cue bidding rho's higher announced suit as showing GF in the 4th suit (rather illogical to me if P opened 1H as this would make 3D by as GF in spades, and 3S as GI in spades.)

I recently read an article on U/U in the acbl bulletin (I think it was by Alan Bell) where he made a strong argument for making the cue bid of the lower of rho's suit as showing the 4th suit, and a cue bid of the higher of rho's 2 suits as showing a limit+ raise in P suit. (In all variations, a bid of 3 of P's suit is competitive). His point was that, by having the lower of the 2 suits show the 4th suit, this left an extra step available between the cue bid and opener's suit that could be used as a denial bid, a bid that would deny support/interest in responder's suit (the 4th suit). Makes sense to me.

This does really address the initial issue of this thread, but it says to me that, if a partnership agrees to play Unusual over Unusual, it might be a good idea to ascertain that both agree on the meanings of these cue bids.

 

p.s.: apologies if I have incorrectly identified the author of this article.

[Walddk]

I recently read an article on U/U in the acbl bulletin (I think it was by Alan Bell) where he made a strong argument for making the cue bid of the lower of rho's suit as showing the 4th suit, and a cue bid of the higher of rho's 2 suits as showing a limit+ raise in P suit. (In all variations, a bid of 3 of P's suit is competitive). His point was that, by having the lower of the 2 suits show the 4th suit, this left an extra step available between the cue bid and opener's suit that could be used as a denial bid, a bid that would deny support/interest in responder's suit (the 4th suit). Makes sense to me.

I have been playing that method for ages. In Denmark it's known as "Nær/Fjern" (Near/Far). The suit nearer to yourself = 4th suit and forcing, in this case spades. Now you have 3♥/♠ available as non-forcing.

 

3♦ is forcing with heart support.

 

Roland

[Echognome]

See also this thread on it:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=7220&hl=

[P_Marlowe]

1) Dbl says nothing about spades,

but of course it denies a good 5-6 card suit

pass by opener is forcing, since the Dbl promised a 2nd bid

2) unclear, but I would say, it is penalty, but responder did not

want to create a forcing pass

 

With kind regards

Marlowe