[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]

bluecalm, on 2011-March-27, 13:58, said:

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]

JLOGIC, on 2011-March-28, 02:59, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2011-March-28, 05:07, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2011-March-27, 15:34, said:

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.

@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]

MrAce, on 2011-July-01, 17:29, said:

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