[jdonn]

fan13027, on Nov 9 2008, 12:47 AM, said:

I just wish my lesson would have been served up with a little more tolerance by those who frequent these forums.

Words don't do justice here. You are amazing.

[kenrexford]

This was a bizarre discussion at times.

[P_Marlowe]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 7 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

<snip>
Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

No.

I'm beginning to think people are being deliberately obtuse here ... I asked an either/or ( a pick one of these two) question and the reply I get is NO?

You did ask, if your pickup partner could reasonably expect, that
2D or 3C would be understood as Michaels.

My answer to your question was "No".

Why? Simply look at the various answers, either bid is problematic,
it would have been better to either make a neg. X or to bid 2NT,
both bids would have shown the other suits.
And because of this, one could argue, that both bids are natural, may
not make a lot of sense, but than upsent special agreements, and
since you have two bids to do the job, why do you need a 3rd.
I would have passed both bids, at least nonvulnerabl, and if the
opponents would have made a double.

The point is, in a pickup partnership you try too find bids, which are
clear and unambigious, which prevent misunderstandings, even if
you are going to miss something or risk going over the top.

Sry, I could have spelled it out more, but I though the other
responses made it clear.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

If your question is "I have a partner, and we want to make changes to Standard American. Which bid should we use for the unbid suits", then I would suggest:

1♦-P-2♣-?

2♦: Natural
2NT: Diamonds and Hearts
3♣: Hearts and Spades

Because 1♦ is only 3+, it's very likely that you'll want to play in diamonds after this auction. But because the last suit bid is clubs and it's normally a 5 card suit, it would be rare for you to want to play in clubs- you'd rather they play in clubs, hopefully doubled! Therefore, there's two natural ways to show diamonds, and no way to show clubs.

This looks much less weird on the auction:
1♣-P-1♠-?
1NT: Clubs and Hearts
2♣, 2♦, 2♥: Natural
2♠: Diamonds and Hearts
2NT: Clubs and Diamonds

But I need to emphasize this isn't Standard American. It works fine, and I didn't make it up. But it's going to be a real shock if you try it with a pickup partner without discussion.

[han]

Phil, I don't agree that 2D is better used as natural in this auction. When the opponents have a power auction such as 1D-2C it will be very rare that we want to bid a suit the opponents have already bid. It seems more useful to use 2D as Michaels so that we can show both minors at the 2-level.

I actually think that this is an interesting question to discuss, given that you (and others) seem to think that 2D is better played as natural.

[han]

Quote

This looks much less weird on the auction:
1♣-P-1♠-?
1NT: Clubs and Hearts
2♣, 2♦, 2♥: Natural
2♠: Diamonds and Hearts
2NT: Clubs and Diamonds

Not being able to bid spades on this auction does look weird.

[skjaeran]

After 1x-1y I prefer 1NT to be natural, 2x to show the two unbid suits and 2y to be natural.

In the given auction, I'd prefer 2♦ to be Michaels (55M) and be able to get in and out of the bidding at the 2-level. The only plausible (barely) meaning for 3♣ would be stopper asking.

[jocdelevat]

I'm b/i like you Fan13027 and what I suppose you was confused is your partner couldn't bid 2d because she wasn't in the seat after the 1d bider you was and the other op already bid a diferent suit so as others says if she bid 2d could have been natural. What I mean Michaels 1d 2d is direct seat and 1d pass 2c 2d here on second auction is balanced seat and could be natural and no more Michaels. Thats why your partner and others here told you 3c should show the majors.

[pclayton]

han, on Nov 10 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Phil, I don't agree that 2D is better used as natural in this auction. When the opponents have a power auction such as 1D-2C it will be very rare that we want to bid a suit the opponents have already bid. It seems more useful to use 2D as Michaels so that we can show both minors at the 2-level.

I actually think that this is an interesting question to discuss, given that you (and others) seem to think that 2D is better played as natural.

If you want to play at the two level, you have a takeout double available, Han. Obviously we are going to have serious shape to come into this auction, whether we double or bid 2N.

If I have six real good diamonds, I want to be able to bid them.

A better argument might be to have 2♦ as diamonds and a major, and 2N as the majors. Or some variant.

As long as this thread has gone, however, this is the last time I ever want to discuss 1♦ - pass - 2♣ - ?

[peachy]

A good rule of thumb, for now, would be that Michaels is on only directly over their one-level opening bid. After the opponents have bid two suits, NT or Dbl will show the unbids and everything else (including what looks like a 'cuebid' of one of their suits) is a natural overcall in that suit.

In the given auction, it cannot be Michaels when there is takeout Dbl and 2NT available to show two suiters that cannot stand to Dbl (fear that partner leaves it in).