[cherdano]

IMPs all red, 2nd seat, RHO opens 1♥.
You hold ♠xx ♥x ♦KQ98x and clubs as in the question. What is the worst hand where you would use unusual 2N?

Thanks, Arend

[ohioply]

I picked thie first one....though i'd prefer to be white. I tend to bid michaels with 0 hcp so i'm kinda happy with just the kq:)

[jchiu]

There are two ways to play. In New England, I was accustomed to a split-range unusual notrump. Although the unusual 2NT is much more a preemptive gadget than the Michaels cuebid, there should be a minimum for using a call that commits the intervening side to the three-level. I am used to a split range notrump, that separated an 8+ to 11 from a 16+ hand.

However, I have recently encountered a hand that caused a serious discussion with my regular partner echognome. I held

Scoring: Rubber

---

in a pickup rubber bridge game against friends. The acution had proceeded

1♥ 2NT 4♥

and I bid a futile 4NT, hoping optimistically that LHO would not bid 5♥. After he bid the obvious and expected 5♥, the auction passed back to me, at which point I bid 6♣, expecting to make. I redoubled quickly after LHO doubled with both black aces. Matt obviously thought i was seeing the world through a rosy-tinted pair of glasses, and offered a different alternative to the Unusual 2NT. He suggested that it should be a continuous-range bid that includes pure 6-counts, which is the choice that I voted for here. He believes that it is much more useful to play the Unusual 2NT as a preemptive bid, although he regards

Scoring: Rubber

---

as less than a "maximum" two-suited overcall. Another of my regular partners, Warren Foss (warrenf on BBO) overcalled this hand with Michaels over 1♥, and rebid 4♣ over 2NT. Matt thought this was not quite worth a maximum. Although I am starting to see his "wide-minimum" view, I really have to be careful to not regard a 5-5 minors 13-count as a two-bid overcall hand. Maybe because I should unlearn old habits, maybe because there is no accepted standard for the unusual overcall.

[Echognome]

I just wanted to clarify my opinion on these matters further to what Jason said. I do believe in a wider ranging Michael's and Unusual 2NT. You get the nature of your hand off your chest in one bid and that can help partner compete with you further. The idea is that you won't always get to the right level, but you have a better chance of finding the right strain. However, the important things to discuss are "minimum values" and what you need to bid again.

I agree entirely with Justin that hcp are not a great measure of a hands playing strength. I'd much rather bid 2N over 1M with:

x x QJT9x QJT9xx

Than with:

Qx x Kxxxx Axxxx

Ok. It's not rocket science, but the point being the first hand is much more offensive in nature and has good texture in its long suits. With the first hand I'd definitely preempt at NV and would consider preempting at game all. With the second I wouldn't bid 2N even at favourable. So while I agree you should have a minimum value for taking your side to the 3-level, you also need to decide how offensive or defensive your hand is. I know Justin wrote a good article about things to consider when preempting. Go check out his blog and read it!

[Halo]

My choice is 4th hand upwards as a minimum at this vulnerability.

I used to play split range, but I now think wide range makes more sense.

The chance of a penalty exists, but its hard to get an adequate penalty against an opponent with 55 of anything, even when he is vulnerable.

Telling the opponents where your cards are, when they have already bid a major, and you have little chance of taking them to the 5 level, can't be good - as already pointed out.

[han]

To me, forcing to the 3 level vul while telling them your exact shape when they rate to play the hand so they can play it double dummy and risking going for a digit and having the minor suits which makes you more likely to be outbid while they have penalty doubles and now 2 cuebids available carries with it a good minimum.

Can somebody tell me what this sentence means?

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Jan 25 2007, 01:08 AM, said:

To me, forcing to the 3 level vul while telling them your exact shape when they rate to play the hand so they can play it double dummy and risking going for a digit and having the minor suits which makes you more likely to be outbid while they have penalty doubles and now 2 cuebids available carries with it a good minimum.

Can somebody tell me what this sentence means?

My sources tell me it means roughly hand 6 (KQ98x KJT9x).

[whereagles]

I'm going with the bandwagon at this vuln. Hand 4 is where I start butting-in.

[Double !]

Hannie, on Jan 24 2007, 06:08 PM, said:

To me, forcing to the 3 level vul while telling them your exact shape when they rate to play the hand so they can play it double dummy and risking going for a digit and having the minor suits which makes you more likely to be outbid while they have penalty doubles and now 2 cuebids available carries with it a good minimum.

Can somebody tell me what this sentence means?

It means, given all of the options and information that bidding 2NT gives to the opps, as well as the chance getting your own side too high, one better have a very good reason for bidding an UNT.

DHL

[dake50]

Assume Hxx support for your weaker suit, tally the tricks likely.
Look at defensive tricks, what do they make to compare loss to?
Why risk 800 vs. their close game?
But. risking 800 vs. their unfindable (space gone now) slam, that's enticing.
DKQ + CKQ looks close defense-- don't offer big set.
DKQ + CQ looks 1 DT-- bid up!

[gwnn]

I voted hand 6, but I'm more comfortable with hand 7

[Gerben42]

Interesting to see so many different answers. I voted hand 3. I like the style that these bids are either preemptive or very strong NV (mind the gap!), and decent hands vuln. So vulnerable the SUITS will be okay like hand #3 if you have an Ace or Kx on the side...