Posted 2012-October-15, 05:04
I play a simple Michaels (spades + a minor) but I don't like ambiguity, as partner can't compete over 4♥. I like the idea Zelandakh put forward of immediately defining the minor, with 3♣/♦ showing spades plus that minor.
My preference would be 2NT as both minors, to ease memory problems, and X for any single-suited hand or 3 suited takeout. This would be a puppet to 2♠, to be passed or followed by a long suit, or 2NT for takeout.
However, any such method to handle defined 2-suiters loses out when you have a single-suiter and your LHO continues with 3♥. Partner cannot support, and you do not have a unilateral 4-bid. It's a difficult decision, whether you want to abandon natural non-forcing minor bids. Is it worth it?