[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

1♦2♦ ?

---

Partner and I recently discussed using 3H/3S in this auction as game forcing/slam interest club/diamond hands instead of stopper ask - seems to fit in well with the concept of pass and double for penalty and immediate double as general cards.

We haven't put it in place yet. Any input on the relative value of this treatment verses another? 3C here would simply be a 1-round force but not game force.

[han]

Given that you propose something new, perhaps you could explain what the gains are compared to the standard unusual/unusual? (or however you call it after Michaels)

I wouldn't like to give up on 3C as non-forcing for example, that seems a useful bid.

[mikeh]

I play that 2♥ shows invitational or better in ♣, 2♠ the same in ♦, and 3major as splinters in partner's suit. New minor (3♣ here, 2♦ after 1♣-(2♣)) would be constructive (I have a reason to bid) but non-invitational opposite a normal opening bid.

So I don't use 3Major as stopper ask: it seems to me that you will rarely (ever?) have a hand on which the ONLY information you need to get is the presence of a specific stopper. Using 2M as invite or better, in a minor, allows you to cue a major next time if you want to suggest getting to 3N when you stop only one major.

And you can (usually) manage slam hands: altho, admittedly, 4th seat may jam you. I suspect that the edge gained from the infrequent slam jump is modest, and that the frequency of the hand arising is less than the splinter: altho neither will be at all common.

[han]

I play that 2♥ shows invitational or better in ♣, 2♠ the same in ♦, and 3major as splinters in partner's suit. New minor (3♣ here, 2♦ after 1♣-(2♣)) would be constructive (I have a reason to bid) but non-invitational opposite a normal opening bid.


This is unusual over unusual I believe.

[barmar]

A slightly better form of Unusual/Unusual is to use 2♥ as invitational in opener's minor, 2♠ as invitational in the other minor. In general, over any bid that shows two specific suits, the cheaper cue-bid shows support for opener, and the other cue-bid shows the 4th suit.

The benefit of this structure is that when you have a known fit you would like more room for game tries or cue bids in search of slam.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Jan 19 2006, 03:16 PM, said:

I play that 2♥ shows invitational or better in ♣, 2♠ the same in ♦, and 3major as splinters in partner's suit. New minor (3♣ here, 2♦ after 1♣-(2♣)) would be constructive (I have a reason to bid) but non-invitational opposite a normal opening bid.


This is unusual over unusual I believe.

Agreed There are several variants of unusual v unusual, however, and it is important that, when playing with a new partner, you discuss which one you play: see the post about linking low cue to opener's suit. My own opinion on that method is reflected by the fact that I used to play it and now prefer not to.

[inquiry]

Hannie, on Jan 19 2006, 03:16 PM, said:

I play that 2♥ shows invitational or better in ♣, 2♠ the same in ♦, and 3major as splinters in partner's suit. New minor (3♣ here, 2♦ after 1♣-(2♣)) would be constructive (I have a reason to bid) but non-invitational opposite a normal opening bid.


This is unusual over unusual I believe.

Also goes by the name "invisible cue-bids" I believe (UvU is better description, but invisible Cue can be used over other two suited bids that are not unusual NT). I like Mikeh's suggestion that lower cuebid is for lower suit, and higher cue-bid is for higher suit.

[pclayton]

I think I might have mentioned that down here, its common to play 2♥/2♠ as stoppers and inv. + values. Its a little different than unusual / unusual.

But playing either method, this looks like a 2♥ call.

[Winstonm]

Here is the reasoning behind this.

If opps bid Michaels and responder is not interested in penalizing then the thing you want least to happen is to get jammed without transferring a lot of information.

Therefore, the total concept is this: Over 1C or 1D.

Double is "Cards" with no clear direction.
Pass is weak or penalty.
2H/2S are both opened minor raises, limit and forcing respectively.
2N is natural
3C is natural and a 1 round force unless 4th seat acts.
3D is competetive
3H/3S are clubs/diamonds game force slam interest.

Winston

[Double !]

Hannie, on Jan 19 2006, 03:16 PM, said:

I play that 2♥ shows invitational or better in ♣, 2♠ the same in ♦, and 3major as splinters in partner's suit. New minor (3♣ here, 2♦ after 1♣-(2♣)) would be constructive (I have a reason to bid) but non-invitational opposite a normal opening bid.


This is unusual over unusual I believe.

Please note the myriad of responses to this thread, specifically the number of different structures that various good people play. My point?
There is no one commonly agreed upon Unusual Over Unusual convention: there are at least 4 or 5 (probably more) different variations. And there is no one standard set of responses that are used when the opps make a michaels cue bid. (I try to slow the opps down by informing them that they may not use a convention that has someone's name unless they can state the person's first name. Unfortunately, more and more people know the correct answers, making my literary counter-defense inoperable.)

In this thread, the discussion is unusual over michaels and/or other defenses the michaels cue bids. I know that the Martels publicized their defenses to Michaels, oh, at least 10, probably more years age. If anyone has their structure of responses and would be kind enough to post it, I would appreciate it. TYIA

DHL

[Fluffy]

What about a forcing 3♣? At least for me this is forcing, 3♣ NF looks like a maybe useful convention, but 1♦-2♦ doesn't come up enough for specific agreememt.

[han]

Fluffy, this not only applies over 1D-2D, it applies over many 2-suited overcall by them where both suits are know. For instance:

Over 1S-(2NT=minors):
3C=good with hearts
3D=good with spades
3H=NF, natural
3S=NF raise.

Over 1D-2D:
2H = good with clubs
2S = good with diamonds
3C = NF, natural
3D = NF raise.

It is true that some people switch the cuebids in some cases and maybe that is theoretically better. I've always found this easier to remember.

I don't think that it is true (as Double! says) that people play a myriad of conventions over Michaels. In my experience almost all North American experts know how to play the above (can't speak for other countries). This is confirmed by this thread, barmar, mikeh, inquiry and myself all play unusual/unusual, and I'm sure that pclayton knows it and plays it if asked.