[gwnn]

1S-p-2S-2N

as ♥+m

I just saw this treatment on a top CC I bumped into. Does anyone here play this? How does it work out?

[Jlall]

This is a very good treatment, I think it is becoming more common among experts.

[aguahombre]

Hmm, interested in how it works. A Michaels that doesn't go to the 4-level.

I guess there are about twice as many 2-suiters with h+m than there are with both minors. How does that square with the fact that you don't have 2NT to find out which minor?

Pass or correct? what if advancer only has one minor?

[nige1]

gwnn, on Jan 1 2010, 09:41 PM, said:

1S-p-2S-2N
as ♥+m
I just saw this treatment on a top CC I bumped into. Does anyone here play this? How does it work out?

Tsetse ♣ has

• 2N opener = ♥ and any other suit (then 3♣ = pass/correct, 3♦ = enquiry)
  
• 2N over ♥ = ♠ and minor.
  
• 2N over anything else = ♥ and another (unbid) suit.

It doesn't come up very often. I've played it for only a few years, with mixed results; but failures may be as much the fault of the players as the convention

[paulg]

gwnn, on Jan 2 2010, 02:41 AM, said:

1S-p-2S-2N

as ♥+m

I just saw this treatment on a top CC I bumped into. Does anyone here play this? How does it work out?

In England it is not permitted to play 2NT as any two-suiter, so you have to play it as guaranteeing at least one suit.

[gwnn]

wow something standard in the US banned in the UK?

[nige1]

♥ + m guarantees at least one suit (♥) so is OK in the UK

[gwnn]

I was referring to the banned convention not ♥+m. in US it is standard to play it as any 2 suits. in the UK it's banned.

[cherdanno]

gwnn, on Jan 2 2010, 04:32 AM, said:

I was referring to the banned convention not ♥+m. in US it is standard to play it as any 2 suits. in the UK it's banned.

Tsk tsk, careful Csaba.

cardsharp, on Jan 2 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

In England it is not permitted to play 2NT as any two-suiter, so you have to play it as guaranteeing at least one suit.

[gwnn]

well I meant it's banned somewhere in the UK

[paulg]

cherdanno, on Jan 2 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jan 2 2010, 04:32 AM, said:

I was referring to the banned convention not ♥+m. in US it is standard to play it as any 2 suits. in the UK it's banned.

Tsk tsk, careful Csaba.

cardsharp, on Jan 2 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

In England it is not permitted to play 2NT as any two-suiter, so you have to play it as guaranteeing at least one suit.

cherdano's concern is appropriate, as it is permitted in Scotland.

I expect the English position is due to their default meta-rules and no-one ever asking for the 'any 2-suiter' 2NT to be licensed.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Jan 2 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

In England it is not permitted to play 2NT as any two-suiter, so you have to play it as guaranteeing at least one suit.

I think you're mistaken

EBU Orange Book said:

11 N Defence to Natural One of a Suit Opening Bids
...
11 N 11 Defence by fourth hand
(a) After a raise, any defence is permitted.

[paulg]

gnasher, on Jan 2 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 2 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

In England it is not permitted to play 2NT as any two-suiter, so you have to play it as guaranteeing at least one suit.

I think you're mistaken

EBU Orange Book said:

11 N Defence to Natural One of a Suit Opening Bids
...
11 N 11 Defence by fourth hand
(a) After a raise, any defence is permitted.

Oops. sorry.

It was the Laws & Ruling thread, where it was noted that (1♠)-2NT showing any two suits is not permitted, that confused me (as this is permitted in Scotland but not England).

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Jan 2 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

This is a very good treatment, I think it is becoming more common among experts.

With X the 3-suited TO it makes sense to cover as many 2-suited variations as possible so instead of just ♣-♦ we get twice as much with ♣-♥ & ♦-♥. I have to think about if ♥ as the anchor is necessarily better than ♣ or ♦

[gwnn]

pooltuna the question wasn't about minors vs ♥+m. many (most) people use it as any 2 suits and now apparently the tend is to drop the minors from the 3 combinations.

[aguahombre]

---edit

Now I really have questions. I didn't know that (1S) P (2S) 2NT commonly showed any two suits. But supposing it does, certainly having one known suit (hearts) would be helpful if partner can compete in hearts at whatever level.

But, doesn't the frequency argument (twice as likely to have h+m than x+y) get trumped by the inablity to compete at all in a lot of cases when the minor fit is unknown?

At least if the two suits are both known (say, minors), then partner can make reasonable judgements about how high to compete, especially if spades are raised again before there is a chance for partner to call.

that blurb doesn't sound like "questions". It sounds like argument. But I really would be interested in how our side is supposed to sort things out when the minor is unknown or the suit the 2NT bidder doesn't have is unknown.

[Siegmund]

IMO "many (most) people use it as any 2 suits" is a significant overbid. I would have expected that treatment to be in third place behind minors and h+minor.

[gwnn]

we will just have to agree to disagree since I can't do a global poll of all bridge players.my impression is quite different from yours but I don't have readily available proof for it.