[kenberg]

Pard and I have agreed to play unusual over unusual, and I even thought to ask if this applies over minor suit michaels bids (with this partner it doesn't). Ah but...

1NT-(2NT)-3D is ?


Without a doubt, it is my error in not asking about this at the same time I asked about 1D-(2D)-2H. But I didn't. Not like I don't know better.

So: What's best here? With other partners I play U/U as on whenever the opponents promise two specific suits. With this partner I play U/U over 1M-(2NT) but not U/U over 1m-(2m). The auction 1NT-(2NT)-3D is to be defined. It seems to make some sense to abandon U/U, play 3C as Stayman, and play transfers on.

I'm sure the world is full of people who resolved this years ago.

For those who wish to know, I was the 3D bidder and alerted opps that it showed spades. I held 5-5 in the majors, and after they bid 4D I bid 4H and played it in my 5-2 fit, not successfully. Had I just bid 3S over 2NT like a normal human partner would have raised to 4. Much better.

Anyway, partner and I remain on speaking terms but we need to decide how to play this.

Ken

[han]

Here any agreement is better than no agreement, and Unusual vs Unusual should work just fine. It will be useful to have a bid that shows both majors, so perhaps you could use 4C and 4D for that.

In the spirit of unusual over unusual you could play something like:

Pass then double of a 3-level contract= take-out.
Double = penalty oriented, denies a 5-card major. Later doubles are penalty.
3C = GF hand with hearts.
3D = GF hand with spades.
3H, 3S = natural, mildly invitational.
3NT = to play.
4C = both majors, slam interest.
4D = both majors, no slam interest.
4M = to play.

Alternatively you could use 4C and 4D to show shortness and both majors, but this seems more useful to me.

If you are interested in 3NT but you are lacking a stopper then you can start with double or pass.

[han]

I missed Justin's post. Although I like his suggestion, I'm somewhat worried about wrongsiding the games. It seems important to have the overcaller lead into partner's hand. Perhaps 3H should show GF with spades, and 3S should show GF with hearts. You lose nothing but it does become more complicated, I think I'll just stick with normal unusual over unusual.

[joshs]

Its normal to play U vs U.

Its better to play:
x=values, interest in defending
3C= stayman, usually both majors
3D=H, INV or better
3H=S, INV or better
3S=5-5 in the majors, gfing
3N=make them guess which minor to lead...

I usually play vs 2N opening bids showing the minors
x=15+ balanced, about 18+ with a suit
3C=majors, better or equal hearts
3D=majors, better spades
3H=hearts, sound, 14-17ish
3S=Spades, sound, 14-17ish
3N= Solid 6 card major, and stoppers in the minors
P then x=takeoout
P then 3M 11-13ish, usually a 6 card suit or a singleton in their suit

The same idea can be extended to the 1N-(2N) auction, with different ranges.

[kenberg]

I'll discuss these various suggestions with partners.

Justin, just to be sure I understand: Are you saying that this reversal of the usage for S&D is also for the usual case of unusual 1M-(2NT)? Eg
1H-(2NT) -3D (spades, modest values)-pass
3H (I really prefer hearts unless you have a ton of of spades)-...

This indeed sounds useful. Probably it is less needed after 1S-(2NT) but I imagine it could still come to something. Maybe
1S-(2NT)-3D-Pass
3H (I have hearts also, if that does anything for you).
When you actually have this major double fit it is probably naive to think fourth hand would be passing, still it might happen.

ken

[Double !]

unusual over unusual is a fine counter-device

Just make sure that you and your P agree on which version of U/U you are going to play: I know of 4 different versions, and more are coming every day.

DHL

[keylime]

I use the lo-lo one due to memory concerns (the lower cue = limit or better, the higher cue = forcing).

Justin's concept has considerable merit however.