[mike777]

1s=p=p=2s


What is 2s in expert 2/1 with no discussion?

[gwnn]

5+ hearts, 5+minor

[mtvesuvius]

jdonn, on May 29 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

Is this question really here?

[Trinidad]

I don't know what it means, but I do know that the two previous answers are oversimplifying this problem. The fact that the 2♠ bid is made by an unpassed hand in the passout seat makes this different from "Just Michaels".

It have seen this played as:

o A huge takeout
o An unspecified twosuiter (I play this with one 2/1 partner)
o 5♥ + 5m (this I play with another partner)

And I can come up with more meanings that make sense.

Rik

[rbforster]

big offensive takeout

[rogerclee]

Rob F, on May 30 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

big offensive takeout

I don't know if you mean that this is actually a standard expert treatment with no discussion, or that this is your preferred method with discussion, but anyway this seems to be a bad agreement. You are giving up a very useful descriptive tool (Michaels) for something that is

1) very infrequent
2) can usually be described successfully with a takeout double anyway

[gwnn]

Trinidad, on May 30 2009, 08:59 PM, said:

I don't know what it means, but I do know that the two previous answers are oversimplifying this problem. The fact that the 2♠ bid is made by an unpassed hand in the passout seat makes this different from "Just Michaels".

It have seen this played as:

o A huge takeout
o An unspecified twosuiter (I play this with one 2/1 partner)
o 5♥ + 5m (this I play with another partner)

And I can come up with more meanings that make sense.

Rik

I'm sure there are tens of possible meanings which make sense but mike777 was asking for expert standard and that is clearly Michaels wtp.

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on May 31 2009, 02:23 AM, said:

I'm sure there are tens of possible meanings which make sense but mike777 was asking for expert standard and that is clearly Michaels wtp.

This was not a list of meanings that make sense. This was a list of what is commonly played among experts. The point of that list is that there is no expert standard about a cue by an unpassed hand in the pass out seat. (And if there is an expert standard, it is most likely NOT Michaels. In my list there were two options that outranked Michaels.)

This question is about equivalent to the question: "In expert standard, is a bid of the fourth suit forcing to game or forcing for one round?" The answer is: "There is no expert standard. Some play GF, some play forcing for 1 round and for some it depends on the situation."

Many players have never thought that the bidding by an unpassed hand in the pass out seat is an entire chapter of bidding in itself and that the standards for a direct bid do not apply there. For those people a jump overcall in the passout seat is still preemptive and a 1NT overcall still shows 15-17. 2NT is still unusual for the minors and a cue is still Michaels.

But the way I interpret Mike's question is what the standard is among players who do realize that bidding by an unpassed hand in the passout seat is entirely different from the bidding in direct seat. I read the question as: "Fred meets Norberto Bocchi on the beach and they decide to crash the local bridge club. They don't discuss any system (other than something like "2/1GF, 1/3/5 and udca, expert standard") and this bidding situation comes up. What would they expect partner to have?"

My answer is that they don't know what partner would have (other than a decent hand), but they would at least cater to the possibility of:

1) A huge (offensive) takeout
2) An unspecified twosuiter
3) 5♥ + 5m

This would probably also reflect the ranking of the possibilities (i.e. the huge offensive takeout is the most likely).

A second point that one could make is that Fred and Bocchi would try to avoid making this bid, since they realize that there is no concensus about the meaning of the bid.

Finally, I myself prefer to play it as Michaels, but as you pointed out, that was not the question.

Rik

[gwnn]

Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree until Fred or Norberto Bocchi englightens us

[655321]

I agree with gwnn on this one.

Because this is not exactly the most commonly discussed auction, probably I would not have heard about pairs who have defined it something different. But my own experience suggests that this is always played as Michaels, and I would not be worried about the bid being misinterpreted in a pickup partnership.

[P_Marlowe]

Trinidad, on May 31 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

<snip>

My answer is that they don't know what partner would have (other than a decent hand), but they would at least cater to the possibility of:

1) A huge (offensive) takeout
2) An unspecified twosuiter
3) 5♥ + 5m

This would probably also reflect the ranking of the possibilities (i.e. the huge offensive takeout is the most likely).

A second point that one could make is that Fred and Bocchi would try to avoid making this bid, since they realize that there is no concensus about the meaning of the bid.

Finally, I myself prefer to play it as Michaels, but as you pointed out, that was not the question.

Rik

Hi,

I think you can rule out the first meaning, if the bid comes
up undiscussed, since you have a clear defined bid for this: X.

The other meanings are similar, in so far, that 2 includes 3.

So I guess: Undiscussed the cue showes a 2-suiter.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hanp]

Thinking that partner might bid an undiscussed 2S with the minors is strange to me.

Some old folks might play 2S as a strong takeout.

[ArtK78]

Several posters have dismissed the possibility of 2♠ being a strong offensive takeout by saying there is already a bid for that - double.

However, there are times when you don't want to double because the risk of the double being passed out is signficant. For example, suppose you held this hand in fourth seat after (1♠) - P - (P) - ?

-----
KQJT
KQJT
KQJT9

I certainly would not want partner passing out 1♠x if I held this hand, especially if we were vul and they were nonvul. And there is a real risk on this auction that 1♠x will become the final contract if I balance with a double.

I am not saying that 2♠ should be played as a strong offensive takeout or that it is "expert standard." But the idea has some merit.

[Stephen Tu]

Bridge World Standard:
balancing cue-bid = Michaels
Note however that the poll in favor of this as opposed to the takeout unsuitable for double was only 53-47 by the panel. 60-40 by the readers. Is 53-60% really enough to declare consensus Michaels wtp?

Proponents of other style usually give as example hands with a void in the suit, or humongous one suiters not really suited to a jump overcall, or huge 2 suiters.

Mike Lawrence complete book on balancing:
not Michaels

Marshall Miles competitive bidding 21st century:
not Michaels

So I have to side with Rik here.

[jdonn]

Mike Lawrence's book is what, 25 years old? 30? I'm just estimating but I don't think I'm far off.

Marshall Miles has a personal bias against 2-suited bids (he claims to play Michaels in direct seat but I can assure you he almost never bids it, even on hands that seem obviously suitable.) Further, he is the first to admit that the majority of his prefered methods are minority choices. He is hardly a good example to use in this case.

I disagree with Rik. I would have no qualms making a balancing cuebid with an unknown expert and being certain they would take it as michaels undiscussed, even if they play something else in their own partnership. At the table I've never seen it as anything else.

Btw, was the strong minority vote in BWS completely for a strong offensive takeout? That would at least mean Rik is wrong about his unspecified 2-suiter option.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Mike Lawrence's book is what, 25 years old? 30? I'm just estimating but I don't think I'm far off.

1980. I'd bet lots that he doesn't now play the cue bid the way he suggested then.

[y66]

gnasher, on Jun 2 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

1980.  I'd bet lots that he doesn't now play the cue bid the way he suggested then.

That's a safe bet. In the flash cards he did for the Bridge Clues site (c 2003), Mike recommends playing 1S P P 2S as Michaels.

The BWS poll question is

Quote

Currently, BWS uses a cue-bid in opener’s suit, both in direct and reopening position, to show either a weakish or a very strong hand with (a) both majors if the cue-bid is in a minor, or (b) the unbid major and an unspecified minor if the cue-bid is in a major. This approach . . .
   327a. is acceptable. (53,60)
   327b. should be repolled. (47,40)

I suspect the repoll votes have more to do with the weak/strong part of this question than the direct/reopening part.

Just re-read Marshall Miles' discussion of two suited overcalls in Competitive Bidding In The 21st Century. Good stuff.

[jdonn]

y66, on Jun 3 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

The BWS poll question is

Quote

Currently, BWS uses a cue-bid in opener’s suit, both in direct and reopening position, to show either a weakish or a very strong hand with (a) both majors if the cue-bid is in a minor, or ( the unbid major and an unspecified minor if the cue-bid is in a major. This approach . . .
   327a. is acceptable. (53,60)
   327b. should be repolled. (47,40)

I suspect the repoll votes have more to do with the weak/strong part of this question than the direct/reopening part.

WOW! So for reference,

Stephen Tu, on Jun 2 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

Bridge World Standard:
balancing cue-bid = Michaels
Note however that the poll in favor of this as opposed to the takeout unsuitable for double was only 53-47 by the panel.  60-40 by the readers.  Is 53-60% really enough to declare consensus Michaels wtp?

And Stephen, who is probably the most articulate poster we have and likely 6.5 times smarter than I am, posted this! Either it was simply careless since this is a poll in favor of weak/strong Michaels and not Michaels in with any strength (such as how Meckwell plays), and since it makes no mention of an alternative treatment of 'takeout unsuitable for double' so it's not necessarily a poll against that at all, or else that was one of the more deceptive and disingenuous comments I have seen in a really long time. I have never in the past seen him be the slightest bit careless or disingenuous, which is why I'm so surprised in either case.

[Stephen Tu]

It's ambiguous. I was careless and missed that the poll was also about direct seat action, so made a mistake in assuming the objection would be to Michaels vs. non-Michaels. So it's impossible to tell whether the objection is mainly to the direct seat meaning (where surely it's about weak/strong vs. continuous range, not Michaels vs. something else), or the balancing seat meaning (where I insist it has to be controversy about Michaels vs. strong takeout, as those are the only treatments at all common, who is going to balance "weak"?). Maybe it's both?

I do think the majority meaning is Michaels these days, I just don't think it's necessarily 90+% where one can freely assume & not make allowances. I think it depends on how old your partner is, how he learned to play, + some regional variations.

I learned almost exclusively from reading, and Lawrence/Miles are among my favorite authors, so I'll admit bias. Maybe I'm out of touch. I also don't play enough to get an adequate sample size of balancing cues (much more rare than other actions, either meaning!) and even if I did maybe there is local bias.

[cherdanno]

I would have thought the main alternative to Michaels in balancing seat is "any 2-suiter". I don't think "strong takeout" would get more than 10% of the panel vote.