[Echognome]

My partner and I are in some discussion about whether UvU is the best method to deal with a two-suited overcall.

Are there any general thoughts on this?

If you play something other than UvU, what methods do you play?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions.

[Walddk]

Versus Michaels: (1mi-2mi)

Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the majors.

2♥/♠: Stopper in that suit, not in the other. Later bid is forcing with own suit or support for partner's.

2NT: Stoppers in both majors, no interest in a penalty.

Support: Relatively weak.


Versus 2NT: (1♥-2NT)

Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors.

3♣: Forcing with spades.

3♦: Forcing with support for hearts (limit or better).

3♥: Natural, non forcing.

3♠: Natural, non forcing.


1♠ - 2NT:

Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors.

3♣: Forcing with hearts.

3♦: Forcing with support for spades (limit or better).

3♥: Natural, non forcing.

3♠: Natural, non forcing.


The thing to remember: cue bidding clubs shows own suit, cue bidding diamonds shows partner's suit. This is known as the near/far convention in Denmark. Bidding their lower suit (near) is what is nearer to yourself: own suit. Bidding their higher suit is what is further away from you (physically): partner.

Something similar can be adopted if the bidding goes 1mi - 2NT if that shows the two lowest unbid suits.

There are other metods, but I haven't come across anything better than this.

Roland

[Free]

Walddk, on Mar 25 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Versus Michaels: (1mi-2mi)

Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the majors.

2♥/♠: Stopper in that suit, not in the other. Later bid is forcing with own suit or support for partner's.

2NT: Stoppers in both majors, no interest in a penalty.

Support: Relatively weak.


Versus 2NT: (1♥-2NT)

Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors.

3♣: Forcing with spades.

3♦: Forcing with support for hearts (limit or better).

3♥: Natural, non forcing.

3♠: Natural, non forcing.


1♠ - 2NT:

Double: Interest in penalising at least one of the minors.

3♣: Forcing with hearts.

3♦: Forcing with support for spades (limit or better).

3♥: Natural, non forcing.

3♠: Natural, non forcing.


The thing to remember: cue bidding clubs shows own suit, cue bidding diamonds shows partner's suit. This is known as the near/far convention in Denmark. Bidding their lower suit (near) is what is nearer to yourself: own suit. Bidding their higher suit is what is further away from you (physically): partner.

Something similar can be adopted if the bidding goes 1mi - 2NT if that shows the two lowest unbid suits.

There are other metods, but I haven't come across anything better than this.

Roland

You stole this from me (just joking, just in case the smileys aren't enough)

I play the same...

[pclayton]

Over here, this is whats more common:

1) If their call shows 2 known suits (i.e., 2N for the 2 lowest unbids):

----->Double – penalty oriented and sets up a force. Should be more than a string of trump and a weak hand.
----->Lowest of their suit – limit + in our lowest suit
----->Highest of the their suit – limit + in our highest suit
----->Simple raise – competitive
----->4th suit – non-forcing
----->Jump shift in one of their suits; splinter raise of opener’s suit
----->Jump raise or jump in 4th suit – preemptive

2) If their call shows one anchor suit and an unknown suit (1♥ - (2♥): ♠’s and a minor)

----->Similar to above, except: New suits are forcing and the cue bid is just a limit + raise of our suit.

[joker_gib]

pclayton, on Mar 25 2005, 07:47 AM, said:

Over here, this is whats more common:

1) If their call shows 2 known suits (i.e., 2N for the 2 lowest unbids):

----->Double – penalty oriented and sets up a force. Should be more than a string of trump and a weak hand.
----->Lowest of their suit – limit + in our lowest suit
----->Highest of the their suit – limit + in our highest suit
----->Simple raise – competitive
----->4th suit – non-forcing
----->Jump shift in one of their suits; splinter raise of opener’s suit
----->Jump raise or jump in 4th suit – preemptive

2) If their call shows one anchor suit and an unknown suit (1♥ - (2♥): ♠’s and a minor)

----->Similar to above, except: New suits are forcing and the cue bid is just a limit + raise of our suit.

I play roughly the same as you, Phil !

Alain

[Fluffy]

Dunno the advantages, but I was taught that 3♣ always showed ♥ and 3♦ always showed ♠.

after 1♥-2♥ and 1♠-2♠ everything is transfer to me, except 2♠.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Mar 25 2005, 06:47 PM, said:

I have one small improvement, and I think if you think about it you will agree.

1H-2N:

3C-limit+in hearts.
3D-constructive with spades.
3H-non forcing
3S-forcing

the improvement is, you can get out in 3H after showing spades. So if you have only a fair 6 card spade suit and 2 hearts with pard, this can help alot.

With lite openings:
3c=Limit+ in H... good 11 or more
3d=Inv+ with spades..... good 11 or more
3h=competitive H raise...about 7-10
3s=Competetive (non-forcing) hand with long spades....about 7 to bad 11.

[keylime]

I like Justin's refinement.

I use Phil's form of it myself.

[Double !]

fwiw
the version justin gave is the one i learned.

[Echognome]

Just thought I'd throw a wrinkle in here. I presume those that play unusual versus unusual would play the same defense to a 2NT opener showing the minors.

What about a Lucas (specific Major + another) or Dutch (specific Major + minor) 2-level opening? What defense would you recommend for that?

And what I think is the toughest one.. the Ekren 2H (4/4 or better in the majors)?

Any thoughts appreciated.

[MickyB]

Dutch/Lucas should just be treated as natural IMO. Although I guess there is slightly more reason to be playing X as power and 2N as t/o than over a 6 card weak two.

Ekren is indeed the toughest one. Hows this...X = power, 2♠ = a minor (now 2N = weak or strong, 3♣/3♦ = intermediate pass or correct) 2N = minors (weak or strong), 3♣ = minors (intermediate), 3♦ = 5♦5major, 3M = natural, big hand, strong 6 card suit

[bestguru]

I thought ekren was 2!d. I've played it that way with dutch 2M and 2nt for both minors. In retrospect, I should have suggested 2!c as strong or a weak 1 suiter.

[MickyB]

Ekren 2♥ is superior to Ekren 2♦ because it puts more pressure on the defence - you can pass out 2♥ much more often. Also many don't want to give up their weak twos, so combine it with a multi.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Mar 31 2005, 03:52 AM, said:

Just thought I'd throw a wrinkle in here. I presume those that play unusual versus unusual would play the same defense to a 2NT opener showing the minors.

What about a Lucas (specific Major + another) or Dutch (specific Major + minor) 2-level opening? What defense would you recommend for that?

And what I think is the toughest one.. the Ekren 2H (4/4 or better in the majors)?

Any thoughts appreciated.

You'd be VERY wrong

When you are playing UvU, the cornerstone of your defense is predictated on the fact that partner has already shown a suit. In contrast, if RHO opens 2NT showing both minors, you have virutally no information regarding partner's hand.

From my perspective, its best to define "sets" of opening bids, planning to apply similar defenses against all bids in the set.

For example: One set might be -

Two suited preempts, with a known anchor suit
RHO has opened in the known anchor suit

Example: Lucas 2S opening

A second set would include

Two suited preempts with a known anchor suit
RHO has opened in a suit other than the known anchor suit

Example: 2NT = Both minors

A third set would include

Two suited preempts with no known anchor suit

Example = Wilkosz 2D opening

Regarding defenses to Assumed fit methods: I like playing assumed fit preemts. From my perspective, "good" defenses should be penalty oriented.

At one point in time, I posted a fairly complete defense against a 2D opening showing 4+♦ + 4+ cards in either major.

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on Mar 31 2005, 06:37 PM, said:

Ekren 2♥ is superior to Ekren 2♦ because it puts more pressure on the defence - you can pass out 2♥ much more often. Also many don't want to give up their weak twos, so combine it with a multi.

I believe that its better to use a 2♥ opening to show a weak hand with 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades. It places MUCH more immiedate pressure on the opponents and is much more diffiuclt to defend against.

With this said and done, there are some advantages to the original Ekren's 2♦. Most notably, if the opponents trot out a double, you can design a MUCH better runout scheme over 2♦...

[MickyB]

IMO two suited preempts with both suits known and two suited preempts with only one suit known should be treated differently - ie five sets in all.

[Echognome]

Hrothgar, I appreciate your discussion, but I would be more interested if you proposed some actual defenses rather than how to categorize them. If you have already posted a defense to a "Rough" 2♣ or "Rough" 2♦, could you post the link?

I will post a link for the openings and suggested structures for playing them, along with the analysis of many deals using them (with due credit to Ben Cowling):

http://www.rough2s.info/

[hrothgar]

Here is the defense that I recommend (for what its worth, said defense was originally devised by Josh Sher)

In direct seat

(2♦) - 4♦ = 5+ Hearts and 5+ Spades, game forcing values
(2♦) - 4♣ = 5+ Clubs and 5+ Cards in a major, game forcing values
(2♦) - 3NT = to play, typically based on a running suit
(2♦) - 3♠ = ~17 - 19 HCP, strong 6+ card suit
(2♦) - 3♥ = ~17-19 HCP, strong 6+ card suit
(2♦) - 3♦ = ~17+ HCP, weak in Diamonds, treat as a takeout double
(2♦) - 3♣ = 5+ Clubs, ~12-16 HCP
(2♦) - 2NT = 5+ Hearts, ~12-16 HCP
(2♦) - 2♠ = 5+ Spades, ~12-16 HCP
(2♦) - 2♥ = Takeout Double of Diamonds. NAtural responses. No Lebensohl
(2♦) - X = 15+ HCP (Balanced or semi-balanced if 15-18)
Double promises Hxx, AQ, or any 4 Diamonds
With significant extra strength, Doubler may hold xxx in Diamonds
Double establishes a forcing pass at the 2 level
Double followed by 2♠, 2NT, or 3♣ does not promise extras
Double promised by 3♦+ shows extras

(2♦) - X - (2♥) = Penalty oriented (Usually at least Hxx in Hearts)
Direct seat doubler should pull to 2♠ with xx in Hearts and 5+ Spades
Direct seat doubler should pull to 3♣ with xx In Hearts and 5+ Clubs
Direct seat doubler should pull to 2NT with xx in Hearts and 5+ Diamonds

(2♦) - X - (2♥) - 2♠ = Limited, 5+ Spades

(2♦) - X - (2♥) - 2NT+ = Lebensohl

(2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - X = Penalty oriented, at least Hxx in Hearts

(2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - 2♠ = 4+ Spades, ~15-18 HCP
(2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - 2NT = 15-18 HCP, balanced, can't hit 2♥

(2♦) - X - (2H) - P -(P) - 3♣ = 5+ Clubs, ~15-18 HCP

(2♦) - X - (P) - P = Willing to sitt for penalty

(2♦) - X - (P) - 2NT = Puppet to 3♣
3♦ = Stayman
3♥ = 5+ Hearts, game forcing values
3♠ = 5+ Spades, game forcing values

(2♦) - X - (P) - 3♣ = Constructive, 5+ Clubs

(2♦) - X - (P) - 3♦) = Artificial game force with short Diamonds

(2♦) - X - (P) - 3♥ = 5+ Hearts, invitational

(2♦) - X - (P) - 3NT = Diamond Stopper, 5+ Clubs, limited

In Balancing Seat

All doubles in auctions that start with (2♦) - P are always for takeout

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Mar 31 2005, 07:08 PM, said:

Hrothgar, I appreciate your discussion, but I would be more interested if you proposed some actual defenses rather than how to categorize them. If you have already posted a defense to a "Rough" 2♣ or "Rough" 2♦, could you post the link?

I will post a link for the openings and suggested structures for playing them, along with the analysis of many deals using them (with due credit to Ben Cowling):

http://www.rough2s.info/

I just started to look at Ben's analysis...

Its interesting to note that while the Frelling 2♦ and Rough 2♦ nominally promise the same hand type, the differences in auction continuation are very significant

Case in point: You hold

♠ AT76
♥ 7
♦ AQJT
♣ A975

And partner opens 2♦. Cowling is forced to make a preemptive 3♦ raise. Playing Frelling 2's, partner can make a conventional 2♠ response, as a puppet to 2NT. Responder's 3♦ rebid asks partner to pass with Hearts and show range with Spades. Given the frequency of these opening bids, I think that its imperative to adopt a sophisticated response structure.

I'll also comment that I think that the suggested defense that Ben is providing is very weak...