[whereagles]

It's not just in Oz. I play that too:

(1m) 2NT = 55 other m + major.

[gwnn]

1m-2NT is om+M in Romania too but I hate it very very much. mind you, I'm somewhat biased because I also hate 1M-2M=oM+m , but not that much

[P_Marlowe]

The_Hog, on Apr 22 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

<snip>
Seriously absolutely stock standard in Oz and with every pd I have ever played that it ,[ (1D) 2NT ], shows C+ an unspecified major. Maybe you play it differently, but then I am curious how you show C+S.
<snip>

You cant.

If you happen to hold this suit combination, you have to
make a simple overcall.
Thats the price you pay for requiring that the cue shows
all unbid mayors.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Apr 21 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

(1♦) 5♦ (Pass) ?

[1♦ shows 4+♦ in a weak 1NT, 4-card majors system]
You are playing in the final of the district pivot teams. You were 54 IMPs down going into the last 14 boards and may have picked up about 20 IMPs in the first 10 hands.

You have a semi-regular expert partner and are playing basically your own system, so you know that the notes have nothing about this sequence (nor (1♦)-4♦).

What do you think the 5♦ bid means?

---

IMO ...

_P = 10, 6♦ = 9, 5♥ = 8.

5♦ should be treated as natural because ...

• As Frances points out, how else can partner get to play in 5♦?
  
• Your ♦ holding is consistent with partner having a different intention but partner could not rely on you having a ♦ holding that would arouse your suspicions.
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistant with partner having a heart ♥ or two in with his ♦ but he should still have sufficient ♦ for 5♦ to be playable.
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistent with an opponent psyching or making a mistake and in such cases trusting partner is better for long term partnership morale.

But there is quite a good case for bidding, as a safety play, in case partner overrestimates my telepathic powers.

[the hog]

whereagles, on Apr 23 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

It's not just in Oz. I play that too:

(1m) 2NT = 55 other m + major.

Thanks Nuno. So where is this apology of yours, Josh?

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 23 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

whereagles, on Apr 23 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

It's not just in Oz. I play that too:

(1m) 2NT = 55 other m + major.

Thanks Nuno. So where is this apology of yours, Josh?

Laos, Australia, AND Portugal? It must be standard!

[the hog]

And Csaba!

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 23 2008, 07:25 PM, said:

And Csaba!

Ok toss in Romania. Tell you what, add Djibouti and the Bailiwick of Jersey to the list and I'm sold.

[P_Marlowe]

nige1, on Apr 23 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

IMO 5♦ should be treated as natural because ...

• As Frances points out, how else can partner get to play in 5♦?
  
  
• Your ♦ holding is consistent with partner having a different intention but partner could not rely on you having a ♦ holding that would arouse your suspicions.
  
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistant with partner having a heart ♥ or two in with his ♦ but he should still have sufficient ♦ for 5♦ to be playable. 
  
  
• Your ♦ holding is also consistent with an opponent psyching or making a mistake and in such cases trusting partner is better for long term partnership morale.

A1 Passing first, and bidding diamonds later?
If you cant bid a certain suit direct, a delayed bid will
be natural.
A2 If you have no clue what a given bid means, it surely
makes some sense to look at your cards, maybe they will
tell you something?
A3 Do you suggest, that I should assume partner made a
mistake? How does this go along with A4?
A4 Do you suggest that the oppoenents made a psych bid
in first position leading by 20-30IMPs, the majority
of boards already being played?

You have to know, if the bid was meant to be natural or artificial,
the discussion showed that most expert on this forum,

and you can make this all expert who posted in this thread,
because I am certainly not claiming to be an expert,

believe the bid to be natural, which is fine.

You buy it or you dont, I dont, but it does not matter, as long as
you get it right, if the bid pops up, because those hands dont come
up often enough to make a discussion with partner worthwhile.

[the hog]

Uwe,
"A1 Passing first, and bidding diamonds later?
If you cant bid a certain suit direct, a delayed bid will
be natural". So how do I make a cue raise when you suggest the bid will be "natural"?

Secondly if you are playing with a, (good), regular partner and she makes a bid you do not understand, then I would suggest that that bid IS natural. Good partners do not practise masochism.

Thirdly - A4. Whom do YOU trust, partner or the opponents?

But you are right, this is too rare to spend a lot of time discussing.

[skjaeran]

I don't know anyone who would bid 5♦ undiscussed there without intending the bid to be natural. I don't think I'd ever come across a partner who would suggest it to be anything but natural - if we ever discussed this.

As to 2NT overcall - in Scandinavia it's absolutely standard to play this as the two lowest unbid suits (although in Denmark some play Copenhagen - similar to Ghestem). And it's far from GF. So I totally agree with Josh on that account.

[the hog]

skaeran, on Apr 27 2008, 03:45 AM, said:

As to 2NT overcall - in Scandinavia it's absolutely standard to play this as the two lowest unbid suits (although in Denmark some play Copenhagen - similar to Ghestem). And it's far from GF. So I totally agree with Josh on that account.

Ok so how do YOU show S? Seems a pretty stuffed and crippled system if you can't. Anyway what is standard in one part of the world is not so in others.

[gnasher]

In England also it's standard to play the cue bid as the highest two and 2NT as the lowest two. This is hardly ideal, but playing 2NT as clubs and a unknown major doesn't seem any better. Auctions like (1♦)-2♦-(4♦) or (1♦)-2♦-(5♦) must be hard to handle.

Over any opening, I prefer to use the cue bid as the highest two, and 2NT as highest and lowest. If you're going to play specific two-suiters, I am sure this is better than the Michaels/UNT arrangement, for these reasons:

- If you bid 2♦ over 1♦ showing hearts and clubs, and they bid spades, you're less likely to want to compete than if you had shown spades and clubs and they'd bid hearts. The potential gain from showing spades and clubs is greater than from showing hearts and clubs.

- If you have spades and clubs and have to overcall 1♠ over 1♦, and the bidding later comes back to you in, say, 3♥, bidding clubs would take you past 3♠. If you have hearts and clubs and have to overcall 1♥ over 1♦, and the bidding later comes back to you in, say, 3♠, bidding clubs doesn't bypass any likely contracts. The "muddling through" approach is less effective with spades and clubs than with hearts and clubs.

[skjaeran]

Standard here is that 2NT shows the two lowest and a cuebid both majors or the other major + a minor.

I normally play the cuebid to show both majors (over minor) or ♣ + other M (over major). That means we have no single bid to show the blacks (over 1♦) or ♦+M over 1M. Those hands we bid naturally, overcalling our major. We might or might not be able to/want to show the minor suit later.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 26 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

skaeran, on Apr 27 2008, 03:45 AM, said:

As to 2NT overcall - in Scandinavia it's absolutely standard to play this as the two lowest unbid suits (although in Denmark some play Copenhagen - similar to Ghestem). And it's far from GF. So I totally agree with Josh on that account.

Ok so how do YOU show S? Seems a pretty stuffed and crippled system if you can't.

Well fwiw I don't consider it a necessity to show every 2 suited combination right away. I think of the ones I can show as a bonus for bids that would otherwise have no use.