[Tramticket]

Playing at club last night it became apparent that my partner and I were on different wavelengths about our methods when opponents make a two-suited overcall (Unusual NT, Michaels, Ghestem etc.).

We are currently updating our systems and would welcome constructive comments about your methods/recommendations:

(1) After 1Maj, 2NT:
- Double = values in at least one of opponent's suits?
- A raise is weak and competitive?
- Bidding the other major is natural and forcing for 1 round?
- 3C, 3D show different types of support? Or does 3C imply hearts and 3D imply spades? Or???
- 4C, 4D splinters?

How would this change if the opening bid was a minor and 2NT showed hearts and the other minor?

(2) After 1Maj, 2Maj (Michaels):
- Double = values in at least one of opponent's suits?
- A raise is weak and competitive?
- Bidding the other major shows support and invitational or better values?
- 3C, 3D natural & forcing for 1 round?
- 2NT???

(3) After 1Min, 2Min (Michaels):
- Double = values in the other major or values in both minors?
- A raise is weak and competitive?
- Other suit bids natural and forcing?
- 2NT???

Thanks

[Zelandakh]

Something fairly standard would be:

1M - (2NT) = minors
==
X = values, no direction, possible penalty interest
3♣ = constructive, other major
3♦ = good raise
3M = competitive, nat
------------------------------------

1♠ - (2NT) = hearts + another
==
X = values, no direction, possible penalty interest
3m = nat, constructive
3♥ = good raise
3♠ = competitive raise

------------------------------------
1♠ - (2♠) = hearts + another
==
identical to above plus
2NT = competitive in a minor (or various slam tries)
------------------------------------

1♥ - (2♥) = spades + another
==
X = values, no direction, possible penalty interest
2♠ = good raise
2NT = competitive in a minor (or various slam tries)
3m = nat, constructive
3♥ = competitive raise
------------------------------------

1m - (2m) = both majors
==
X = values, no direction, possible penalty interest
2M = shows a stopper in this suit
2NT = nat, major stops
3m = constructive, nat
3M = splinter
------------------------------------

There are (good) alternatives around of course. Be careful not only to discuss situation with 2 connected suits or one known suit but also with 2 known suits that are not connected in rank. That situation is not difficult from a logic point of view but sometimes players new to UvU get it wrong after learning a rule like "higher cue = good raise".

[fromageGB]

After a major open, I think it can be useful to distinguish 3 card support and 4 card support when the bidding is at the 3-level, as a law-abiding partnership wants to be able to better judge whether to penalise or compete.

If you subscribe to this approach, a general principle could be that a bid of 3M is 4 cards and weaker than a lower bid in one of their suits, which is also 4 card support but of a defined strength. Have a partnership agreement on what this strength is, whether judged in hcp, losers, or whatever - I have seen partnerships come adrift on differences here.

Adopting the 3/4 idea you could say that X shows 3 card support with a defined strength, and with that strength but without that support a hand will pass to possibly double later. This allows opener to pass the double for penalty or bid on, according to his hand. A weaker 3 card support can make a cue bid in the cheaper of the opponent's two suits if they are both defined, and if responder wishes to do so (ie not vulnerable, have pronounced shortage in one of their suits, etc).

[WesleyC]

Regarding the doubles, my preferred style is to use the first double as showing transferable values without a strong fit (weak 3c support is ok) with the next double defined as t/o (although not extreme shortage). The main advantage of t/o rather than penalty doubles is that they allow better exploration for 3NT.

However, if responder passes first and then doubles the final contract, this double is pure penalty. The logic behind this agreement is that there is limited value in competing to the 3 level vs an opponent with 5/5 shape if you don't have support for partner or a long suit.

[Tramticket]

Thanks for some interesting insights and points to discuss with my partner.

One thing that I should have mentioned at the start is that our basic system is four-card majors / weak NT. In this context we will not support at the three-level on a three-card suit.

[fromageGB]

Please note that my comments are based 100% on playing 5 card majors. If a major can be 4 cards I just don't know what I would do - it depends on what proportion of your major openings would be 4 as opposed to more than 4. You are on very shaky ground when it comes to competing, playing this style, in my opinion. If you now support to the 3-level only with 5 card support, you are hardly ever going to bid. I would imagine your methods would turn more to penalty-orientated doubles on strength.

May we please have some comments from the 4 card major enthusiasts? I'm curious.

[ahydra]

If you play a style where all 4441s are opened with 1m (never 1M), then 1M is 4 only if 15-19 BAL. Can make it even more likely to be 5 if you agree to open 1m where possible on BAL hands. As such it's probably still a good idea to support a major on 3 cards if responder also has some shape, given the high probability opener does actually have 5; particularly if this is done with a double as fromageGB suggests, you're unlikely to come unstuck.

ahydra

[Tramticket]

Under our methods, 1Maj opening promises either (i) a five-card suit, (ii) a four-card suit and extra strength (a strong NT hand or better).

This does allow us to often compete to the three level on a four-card suit on the basis that we are either law compliant with a nine-card fit or the hand "belongs to us". Also, a five-card holding in partner's suit is not so unusual when there are nine outstanding cards in the suit and overcaller has at most three cards.

But yes, we will sometimes encounter a difficult hand for the system. The other side of the coin is that our 1Min opening guarantees a four-card suit so we can raise minor suits aggressively in competition - e.g 1C, (2C), 5C...

As you observe, penalising the opponents is part of the strategy. One thing my partner and I agree on is that a double of 2NT shows a willingness to penalise at least one of their suits.