[neilkaz]

The_Hog, on Feb 15 2009, 03:43 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 15 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

2♥ is 110% natural in the good ol' US of A (and more than one or two other places, I'm given to understand).  Whether it's right is another matter.

Well blow me down with a feather duster. I am amazed. Why on earth would you do this?

Because how many ways do we need to show the unbid suits when the opps have bid two of them ?

Here in Fivecardmajorland the 1♣ opening could often be 3 cards and quite a few play it as 2+ so that ♦ is always 4+. The 1♥ response could be on a weak 4 card suit.

Sometimes responder will hold a hand that would love to have overcalled at the 2 level in the opp's perhaps not so good suit, had the opps not bid it. I honestly prefer to play that both 2♣ and 2♥ are natural on this sequence. If I want to show the unbid two suits I can double.

About 20 years ago in a sectional MP game here in the US. I made 6♣ on a hand where the opps opened 1♣. It was the only slam that could make since I need my trumps to ruff the 2nd round in my stiff side suit.

[skjaeran]

The_Hog, on Feb 15 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 15 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

2♥ is 110% natural in the good ol' US of A (and more than one or two other places, I'm given to understand).  Whether it's right is another matter.

Well blow me down with a feather duster. I am amazed. Why on earth would you do this?

Because natural is the most needed meaning for this overcall. You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit (or 1NT for some). You've got no need for 2♥ as a conventional bid.

It's entirely true that you won't be using the natural overcall very often. But it's great when you hold the hand for it. I've seen it used quite a few times, both by myself, partner and opps. The last time I can remember was in an online teams match, where I transferred to spades after partners 1♣ opening. LHO overcalled 1♠ natural, and later made 4♠, eventhough I held six trumps!

[peachy]

The_Hog, on Feb 15 2009, 04:43 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Feb 15 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

2♥ is 110% natural in the good ol' US of A (and more than one or two other places, I'm given to understand).  Whether it's right is another matter.

Well blow me down with a feather duster. I am amazed. Why on earth would you do this?

You do this to find a fit with good long suit.

After opponents have bid two suits, both the bid in opener's suit or responder's suit is natural. there are at least two (for some players, three) ways to show the unbid suits: Takeout Double, 1NT Sandwich, or 2NT. Seems excessive to need a third (or fourth) way of showing the same thing while having no way to show a good suit. If we find a fit, we are just blessed with the advance knowledge that trumps don't split AND we know where the long trumps are.

[Fluffy]

skaeran, on Feb 15 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

I transferred to spades after partners 1♣ opening. LHO overcalled 1♠ natural, and later made 4♠, eventhough I held six trumps!

trump stacks are overrated lol.


Playing on a junior tournament with screens RHO as dealer I hear the auction

(1♦)-pass-(1♥)-2♥


My screen mate inquirys me about 2♥ bid. I had 6 hearts myself, and in the past 2 days I have told my partner THREE times that this sequence is natural.

My partner psyches 1 hand every 50 deals or so.

WTF should I explain my RHO?

I explained our agreement: natural, Director switched the score to 7♦ bid and made after the deal.

[y66]

Fluffy, that is hilarious.

[whereagles]

Ron, it's pretty common around Europe as well. The point is not to get kicked out of a major suit contract, should RHO have something like xxxx in the suit he bid.

[jdonn]

Wow Fluffy, your partner psychs once every two sessions??

[mtvesuvius]

1♠, partner knows better than to lead suits I bid.

[the hog]

Thought about this a lot last night.

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.
Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

[peachy]

The_Hog, on Feb 15 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

Thought about this a lot last night.

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.
Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

There is no right or wrong. What you agree with your partners is fine, but if you play with any advanced or better player, I think you should expect either of the opponents's suits to be natural. Not to give anybody a skin rash for mentioning SAYC [if you play in ACBL tournies on BBO, you might be interested to know}, but it is explicitly also written in SAYC that after opponents have bid two suits, bidding either of their suits is natural.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on Feb 16 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

I explained our agreement: natural, Director switched the score to 7♦ bid and made after the deal.

On what basis?

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Feb 16 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

Thought about this a lot last night.

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.
Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

I play that:

2♣ and 2♥ are both natural

2NT is unusual for the unbid suits

Hands that are not good enough for 2NT just bid 1♠

Double shows less distribution than 2NT

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 15 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 16 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

Thought about this a lot last night.

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.
Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

I play that:

2♣ and 2♥ are both natural

2NT is unusual for the unbid suits

Hands that are not good enough for 2NT just bid 1♠

Double shows less distribution than 2NT

Essentially, so do I.

[Winstonm]

The_Hog, on Feb 15 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

Thought about this a lot last night.

Harald's comment was "You can show 2-suiters by doubling, 2NT or cuebidding openers suit" Ok a x won't show 5+/5+, probably more like 4/4 and a good hand right?

Secondly, 2NT takes the auction up to uncomfortable heights.
Thirdly, why is a bid of "responder's suit" natural, and opener's suit artificial? sorry but this makes no sense to me at all. Responder is definitely showing 4+. Opener, if he opens a minor, shows 3+. So what happens, following this logic, if you have a good had with opener's minor. You guys appear to be doing one thing in one instance and the exact opposite in another similar instance. Further, if you play this, why are (1C) 2C and (1H) 2H Michaels. Why don't you play this as natural?Sure I know in the second example the 1H opener promises 5+, but the responder in the original example can also have 5+

I have always played that in a sequence like (1C) P (1H) you now have 2 cue bids available to show disparate lengths/strengths in the remaining 2 suits. X would show a good hand with 4/4, maybe 5/4 and 2NT, (if the opening was in a minor), would still show the minors.

I am not saying you guys are wrong, but it does appear to me that you are using meaning for a bid in one situation and a totally different meaning in an identical situation.

I have played this multiple ways - what was best was what happened to work a given day.

[the hog]

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -
(1x) 2 same x

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

[awm]

The_Hog, on Feb 16 2009, 01:11 AM, said:

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -
(1x) 2 same x

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

Supposing that we want bids in new suits (including jumps) to be natural as well as non-jumps in notrump, when the opponents open 1♣ we have available:

Double
2♣
2NT

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the three unbid suits (2) as many as three two-suited hands in the unbid suits (3) a hand with clubs. Generally frequency and odds of fit imply that the first two are more important. So we prioritize and double shows the three-suited option with 2♣ and 2NT showing two of the three two-suited options.

Over 1♣-P-1♥, we have available:

Double
2♣
2♥
2NT

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the two unbid suits (2) hands with one of the suits the opponents bid. Again, frequency and odds of fit imply that the first is more important. But here we have four bids to show basically three hand types. There is no reason to allocate all four to the "more important" one -- the marginal gains from each subsequent bid allocated to show "the unbid suits" are diminishing pretty quickly. So we assign two of them to the unbids (double and 2NT) and the others to showing hands with the suits opponents named.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 16 2009, 01:11 AM, said:

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -
(1x) 2 same x

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

No because it's easy to show a 2 suiter when they have bid the other two suits, but if you take away the direct cuebid it becomes much harder if they have only bid one suit. It's also very likely that if you hold their suit and pass, the auction won't have increased a level when it comes back so you will still get a chance. The same can not as easily be said for when they have bid two suits.

[straube]

1S

[the hog]

awm, on Feb 16 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 16 2009, 01:11 AM, said:

Well, I still would like to know whty you lot then don't play the following as natural -
(1x) 2 same x

Isn't the rationale the same, especially if 1X is a minor?

Supposing that we want bids in new suits (including jumps) to be natural as well as non-jumps in notrump, when the opponents open 1♣ we have available:

Double
2♣
2NT

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the three unbid suits (2) as many as three two-suited hands in the unbid suits (3) a hand with clubs. Generally frequency and odds of fit imply that the first two are more important. So we prioritize and double shows the three-suited option with 2♣ and 2NT showing two of the three two-suited options.

Over 1♣-P-1♥, we have available:

Double
2♣
2♥
2NT

We'd like to show (1) a hand with the two unbid suits (2) hands with one of the suits the opponents bid. Again, frequency and odds of fit imply that the first is more important. But here we have four bids to show basically three hand types. There is no reason to allocate all four to the "more important" one -- the marginal gains from each subsequent bid allocated to show "the unbid suits" are diminishing pretty quickly. So we assign two of them to the unbids (double and 2NT) and the others to showing hands with the suits opponents named.

Ok I understand your rationale. Also your's Josh.
You haven't convinced me to change though. I don't lke the idea of the misfit and I think the frequency of me holding a hand with a suit the opp has bid and good enough to bid to be too remote.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Feb 16 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

Ok I understand your rationale. Also your's Josh.
You haven't convinced me to change though. I don't lke the idea of the misfit and I think the frequency of me holding a hand with a suit the opp has bid and good enough to bid to be too remote.

These are the numbers I got on a crude simulation after the auction 1♣ Pass 1♥ (actually I didn't make sure that partner passed very thoroughly).

We have

5 hearts 6.8%
6 hearts 1.3%
7+ hearts 0.1%

5 clubs 8.3%
6 clubs 2.0%
7+ clubs 0.3%

spade diamond two suiters

5/5 1.6%
5/6 0.3%
6/5 0.3%
more extreme <0.1%

More of the heart/club hands are likely to want to pass but I suspect that the frequency of bidding one of their suits naturally is still higher than the frequency of having some extreme two-suiter in the other two suits.