[Liversidge]

The EBU's Standard English Acol system file states that 2NT shows the two lowest ranking unbid suits, which means it cannot be used when holding 5 Clubs/Diamonds and 5 Spades in response to a 1 Diamond/Club opening. The No Fear handout says the same, and one or two other sources.
I have just come across a variation that overcomes this limitation and it seems very logical to me. There must be a reason why it's not standard, so I thought I'd ask you guys.

In the same way that a Michaels Cue bid over 1H/1S, followed by 2NT from partner asks "which minor?", why can't UNT over 1C/1D followed by a Cue bid in the opponents' suit ask "which major?"
So with the UNT bidder holding 5 diamonds and 5 spades, the bidding goes 1C - 2NT - pass - 3C showing no interest in Diamonds from partner, but holding support in Hearts and Spades.

It seems so easy to remember, "cue bid" then "2NT" with Michaels, "2NT" then "cue bid" with UNT. There's got to be a catch??

[hrothgar]

Liversidge, on 2014-March-07, 06:52, said:

The EBU's Standard English Acol system file states that 2NT shows the two lowest ranking unbid suits, which means it cannot be used when holding 5 Clubs/Diamonds and 5 Spades in response to a 1 Diamond/Club opening. The No Fear handout says the same, and one or two other sources.
I have just come across a variation that overcomes this limitation and it seems very logical to me. There must be a reason why it's not standard, so I thought I'd ask you guys.

In the same way that a Michaels Cue bid over 1H/1S, followed by 2NT from partner asks "which minor?", why can't UNT over 1C/1D followed by a Cue bid in the opponents' suit ask "which major?"
So with the UNT bidder holding 5 diamonds and 5 spades, the bidding goes 1C - 2NT - pass - 3C showing no interest in Diamonds from partner, but holding support in Hearts and Spades.

It seems so easy to remember, "cue bid" then "2NT" with Michaels, "2NT" then "cue bid" with UNT. There's got to be a catch??

Two quick observations:

1. The system that you are suggesting could very easily force your partnership to play at the three level holding an eight (maybe even a seven) card spade fit. An enormous amount of part score bidding focuses on making informed decisions about declaring 2♠ versus 3m. Bidding 2NT and praying that it works out is a bid rich for my blood (and this is saying a LOT)

2. The nature of the scoring table incentivizes people to provide specific information about majors.

[helene_t]

The reason is that advancer more often will be interested in the major so that it is more important to know which one that is. Say it goes
(1♦)-2NT-(pass)-?

and you hold something like xx-Kxxx-Axxx-Jxx, you could easily have a good 4♥ contract if partner has hearts, but you will probably bid 3♣ on the basis of the idea that partner is more likely to have spades and in that case, 3♣ may be enough.

Compare to Michaels: if it goes
(1♥)-2♥-(pass)-?
it is not so bad to bid 2♠ on a doubleton if you don't support both minors - you are only at the two level. You may miss a better fit in a minor but at least you are at a level lower, and besides you don't have game in a minor suit that often. And if it goes
(1♠)-2♠-(pass)-?
you can always try 2NT and correct to 3♥ if partner appears to have the minor suit you are short in.

Finally, if the opponents open one of a minor and you have spades, it will often work well enough just bid 1♠ and not show the minor suit. If the opponents have a fit in hearts and you have a fit in spades and/or a minor, you are much more likely to want to compete in spades because that can save against a heart contract at a lower level. Same if the opponents have a diamond fit. And if they have a club fit, you can often bid you diamonds over their clubs in the next round.

[Cyberyeti]

This sort of exists, it's just not called unusual no trump which is specifically the lowest 2 suits. There are several schemes for 2 suited bids, Michaels/UNT style where you show both majors with the cue over 1m lowest 2 with 2N and just overcall the major with the off suits, or things like Ghestem and quantum where you use a third bid (3♣ in Ghestem, the jump cue in quantum) so you have 3 bids for the 3 combinations.

[wank]

2NT over 1 minor is normally played as hearts and the other minor.

with spades and the other minor, just start by bidding spades.

majors are more important. it's much easier to make 10 than 11 for game. if you're thinking it's only 1 extra trick, think of it in reverse. in 5m you can only afford to lose 2 tricks. in 4M you can afford to lose 3, that's 50% more,

[Zelandakh]

There are several other ways of overcoming the issue you raise over a 1minor opening but unfortunately most of them are far too complex for this forum. If I wanted to change one of the 2-suited overcalls to take two different hand types I would far prefer to amend the cue bid in this case than the 2NT overcall. It would be possible to play (1m) - 2m as "spades + another suit". It would mean that, for example, (1♦) - 2♦ - (P) - 2♥ needed to be played as "pass or correct", which is already a somewhat advanced concept for a complete beginner, but this would be an option for some at least.

[TylerE]

If you're concerned about this sort of thing, I'd just recommend giving up the jump to 3♣ as a WJS, and playing

1x-(2x) = Michaels, always both majors over a 1m opening, and Other major + ♦ over 1M openings
1x-(2N) = Two lowest
1x-(3♣) = Top + Bottom (e.g. if opener opened 1♣, 3♣ shows ♦ and ♠)

This way advancer ALWAYS knows what the two suits are and can act accordingly.

[sfi]

Liversidge, on 2014-March-07, 06:52, said:

In the same way that a Michaels Cue bid over 1H/1S, followed by 2NT from partner asks "which minor?", why can't UNT over 1C/1D followed by a Cue bid in the opponents' suit ask "which major?"
So with the UNT bidder holding 5 diamonds and 5 spades, the bidding goes 1C - 2NT - pass - 3C showing no interest in Diamonds from partner, but holding support in Hearts and Spades.

It seems so easy to remember, "cue bid" then "2NT" with Michaels, "2NT" then "cue bid" with UNT. There's got to be a catch??

There's no real catch, and quite a few people in Australia play 2NT exactly this way. As others have mentioned, the biggest reason not to do so is that you might want to be sure which major is held, but it's certainly not a silly idea.

(And had I known we were playing this the other day, we might have found our 6-6 diamond fit rather than me bidding my spades.)

[johnu]

sfi, on 2014-March-07, 16:13, said:

There's no real catch, and quite a few people in Australia play 2NT exactly this way. As others have mentioned, the biggest reason not to do so is that you might want to be sure which major is held, but it's certainly not a silly idea.

(And had I known we were playing this the other day, we might have found our 6-6 diamond fit rather than me bidding my spades.)

What level are these players? Did you read helene_t's post? The catch is that the advancer to 2NT may have an ok fit for the minor, a good fit for one of the majors, and a terrible fit for the other major and not be willing to risk finding a non-fit in the majors and having to play 1 level higher in the minor. You can miss a game, or a much better part score in a possible major suit fit.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

What you're looking for is Bailey Cuebids .

It's simple and works the same way as Michaels :

( 1A ) - 2NT = the normal Un2NT = 2 lowest unbid
( 1m ) - 2m = Spades and ONE of the 2 suits which would be shown by Un2NT
( 1H ) - 2H = same as above ( normal Michaels )
( 1S ) - 2S = Hts and ONE of the 2 suits shown by Un2NT ( normal Michaels )

[sfi]

johnu, on 2014-March-07, 16:27, said:

What level are these players? Did you read helene_t's post? The catch is that the advancer to 2NT may have an ok fit for the minor, a good fit for one of the majors, and a terrible fit for the other major and not be willing to risk finding a non-fit in the majors and having to play 1 level higher in the minor. You can miss a game, or a much better part score in a possible major suit fit.

I'm sure you know that fashion dictates conventional agreements more than any theoretical advantage. All levels of players use this convention, and I've played it without issue in any number of national tournaments over the years without issue. In any case, the correlation between quality of players and theoretical quality of their conventions is pretty low most of the time, so that's not a good judge either.

You can certainly construct hands where one or the other works well, and my regular partner and I have given it up because we decided knowing the major is more important, but the differences are small. And if you want to be able to show all available 2-suiters, that's one sensible way to do it.

Another one is for the cuebid to always be ambiguous - over a minor it shows spades and another suit. This variation is probably the most common around here.

[johnu]

sfi, on 2014-March-07, 19:46, said:

All levels of players use this convention, and I've played it without issue in any number of national tournaments over the years without issue.

Hmmm, I was wondering why I am so unlucky. Obviously all my luck has left me and gone to lucky people like you.

[fromageGB]

Unless you are playing in a club that says you must play "standard English acol", there is no reason why you shouldn't play whatever you want. Most people seem to have just 2 calls for 2-suiters, 2NT=lowest 2 other suits, and cue bid = any other two. This seems playable, but you can get too high when looking for a suit that is not there.

This is inevitable with any method where the suits are undefined. There is also a deficiency in that partner cannot make an immediate pre-empt to make it more difficult for opener. You should consider whether it is worth giving up a cheap natural jump bid in clubs, or diamonds if they opened 1♣. If (1♥) 3♣ is for you currently a strong bid, you could always bid 2♣. If it is a weak jump overcall, you could agree to lessen your standards for a simple 2♣ overcall.

You then have available the method TyleE was suggesting, which may or may not be called Questem:
Cue bid = top 2 suits
2NT = bottom 2 suits
3♣ (or 3♦ over 1♣) = the extreme 2 suits.
I find this very effective. It is easy to remember, and the bid for the extreme 2 suits has the merit of being passable, as the bid is itself one of the two suits.