X and bid a new suit over 2C precision Flexible hands or big overcall ?
Posted 2012-April-25, 10:49
What does 2H/2S mean ?
a flexible hand 54 in the majors or a hand too good for a direct 2M (around 19 pts) ?
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
Posted 2012-April-25, 11:51
The only difference is that one would probably not stretch to bid over a 2♣ opening.....iow, you might double 1♣ on a nice 4441 10 count, while you might choose to need at least a good 11 or 12 count with this shape to do it at the 2-level.
Given that you are really using the same scheme over this 2♣ as you are over 1♣, it makes sense to play as Justin suggests, and as I think is standard: 2M is strong....presumably a good 16 count (or so, depending on partnership taste and style) and usually a 6+ suit.
I guess I could just have upvoted Justin, since I am not really adding value to his comment.
Posted 2012-April-25, 14:38
Yes, but this is not a preempt over a preempt situation. Opener has announced 11-15 hcp, and while it is limited, it is a constructive call, not an attempt to distort the auction. So in my experience, it is common and reasonable to play that 3M retains the meaning if would have after a 1♣ opening.
Posted 2012-April-25, 17:24
Posted 2012-April-26, 01:44
It's very different from bidding over a 1♣ opening. After a one-level overcall, you often get a chance to find a fit in the other major: partner may advance 1♠ or 1NT, or the opponents may bid something which lets you show your second suit, either directly or by doubling. For example, with a 4522 14-count you might bid
Also, after a one-level overcall gets doubled, partner will often run with something like a 4144 shape, but he'll be less inclined to do so at the two-level, because he expects a better suit. (Maybe this argument is circular though.)
Posted 2012-May-02, 00:45
That might solve another problem, but it doesn't solve this one - it makes it worse. In your methods we can't show either the ELC-type or the strong hand.
Posted 2012-May-02, 00:53