[JoAnneM]

1c-p-1d-2d

What is 2d in an undiscussed situation?

[JLOL]

natural.

[mich-b]

Natural

[Walddk]

Natural; just like it is when it goes 1♣ pass 1♠ 2♠ or 1♦ pass 1♥ 2♥. Some play this as Michaels (5 of the other major + 5 of the other minor). You don't need that when double takes care of the other two suits.

It's similar in your example, but again you don't need 2♦ as Michaels. You double if you have the majors.

Roland

[Phil]

Yep, natural.

[jdonn]

I agree with natural, at least given what it should be and what it would be undiscussed with who I play with. But I bet well over half of BBO would take it as majors.

[david_c]

Playing offline with an English partner I'd expect it to be Michaels. Playing with a BBF partner I'd expect it to be natural (but less confidently, at least until I read the first few replies here). Otherwise I don't know.

For what it's worth, I think Michaels is the better agreement in this specific auction.

[kenrexford]

Diamonds.

If anything should be Michaels, which is doubtful, but, if anything, 2♣. The suit behind you is more threatening than the suit in front.

[FrancesHinden]

It's fairly standard to play the cue of LHO's suit as Michael's (or natural) and the cue of RHO's suit as natural.

On this specifc auction playing against a pair playing 5-card majors and Walsh, LHO's expected club length is significantly shorter than RHO's expected diamond length, so there's an argument for playing them the other way round.

[mich-b]

Quote

On this specifc auction playing against a pair playing 5-card majors and Walsh, LHO's expected club length is significantly shorter than RHO's expected diamond length, so there's an argument for playing them the other way round. 

Though this is probably correct, I think this kind of thinking in system design is dangerous and too difficult. Perhaps only a pair that plays together on a daily basis could afford to assign different meanings to a bid depending on whether the opps play Walsh or not. For the rest of us, just asigning a meaning, that would be OK against a "generic" natural system will work fine, and make our life easier.

[peachy]

mich-b, on Mar 31 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

Quote

On this specifc auction playing against a pair playing 5-card majors and Walsh, LHO's expected club length is significantly shorter than RHO's expected diamond length, so there's an argument for playing them the other way round. 

Though this is probably correct, I think this kind of thinking in system design is dangerous and too difficult. Perhaps only a pair that plays together on a daily basis could afford to assign different meanings to a bid depending on whether the opps play Walsh or not. For the rest of us, just asigning a meaning, that would be OK against a "generic" natural system will work fine, and make our life easier.

For me, it is diamonds.

What you say here is true. Perhaps a good guideline would be agree on SAYC where this bid is explicitly described as "Natural". Then again, vast majority of those who agree on SAYC, have never bothered to even look at the brief system notes that are available in many places:)

[JoAnneM]

Thanks for your replies, it confirms what I tried to tell my table at the club when we were discussing the hand yesterday.

I was the 1d bidder and we defended 2d for a top board when advancer not knowing what to do, and having 4 diamonds - passed. The 2d bidder with 19 points and the majors was bidding michaels, which my partner agreed with.

I maintained he should have doubled to show the suits, especially with such a big hand, but that 2d would always be natural. But now I wonder, with a big hand and 5-5 or 6-5, if it is better to just start bidding the suits so partner, with probably little or no points, won't end up as declarer.

[Gerben42]

Quote

The 2d bidder with 19 points and the majors was bidding michaels, which my partner agreed with.

And he didn't double because?

[Echognome]

With a big hand and 5-5 in the majors, why not bid 2NT?

[JoAnneM]

He thought 2D was Michaels, and he might have been excited about getting to use a convention? Who knows....

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on Mar 31 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

Quote

The 2d bidder with 19 points and the majors was bidding michaels, which my partner agreed with.

And he didn't double because?

Because he thought he had a bid available to show the majors.

Obviously the question you should be asking is "And he couldn't double because?" to which there is no good answer. QED.

[mycroft]

4C is Gerber. First-effort cuebids are Michaels. 4NT is always Blackwood, even after Gerber. What's the problem?

The fact that if you think about it for a minute you realize this makes no sense is somewhat irrelevant...NOBODY makes natural calls in the opponents' suit, it just doesn't happen. That wouldn't be sporting, right?