[MrAce]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-12, 15:33, said:

My view is that adverse vulnerability means more playing strength is needed for the weaker hands - more like 6-5 and quite good suits.

........... I can't help it - I'm old.

How old?

[dave_beer]

A matter of agreement.

The older style for both unusual NT overcalls and Michaels cue-bids was split range, i.e., either save-oriented or hands strong enough so that there would be a good chance to make if partner took the save. The strong hand might take another call even if partner passed.

The modern style is continuous range, i.e., just get your shape into the auction and hope to be able to sort it out.

Playing split range, the given hand falls in the middle and you bid 2♦ hoping to bid ♣ next if the level is convenient; playing continuous range, you bid 2NT.

[aguahombre]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-11, 12:19, said:

When my favorite partner, Bob, was alive, we were adamant that these two-suited bids like the unusual NT should be only 1 of 2 hand types: either weak and sacrifice-orientated or very strong, so strong that you can't tolerate partner passing a bid.

When you try to mix in this third type, you force an unnecessary guessing game into your own bidding - IMHO.

I would bid 2D and not worry if it didn't work out on this particular hand.

At these colors, and opposite a passed hand partner, if you don't bid 2nt you are creating an unnecessary guessing game instead of letting partner select the correct suit. And, you are not gobbling up any room for the opponents to use at the two-level. Even if partner weren't a passed hand, 2nt would be right at red v red or red v white.

Regarding 'split range', fine. But it should mean the lower range is appropriate for the colors and the higher one is a moose. This one is not the "third type" to which you referred.

[wank]

dave_beer, on 2017-June-12, 18:43, said:

Playing split range, the given hand falls in the middle and you bid 2♦ hoping to bid ♣ next if the level is convenient; playing continuous range, you bid 2NT.

well that's just silly, because there are no hands weaker than this which can bid 2nt

[Nabooba]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-11, 12:19, said:

When my favorite partner, Bob, was alive, we were adamant that these two-suited bids like the unusual NT should be only 1 of 2 hand types: either weak and sacrifice-orientated or very strong, so strong that you can't tolerate partner passing a bid.

When you try to mix in this third type, you force an unnecessary guessing game into your own bidding - IMHO.

I would bid 2D and not worry if it didn't work out on this particular hand.

This is a poor philosophy. Show your shape first and then worry about the strength.

[sfi]

maximusg, on 2017-June-11, 10:04, said:

---

Obvious choices are 2nt, 2♣, and 2♦. Which do you choose? Sorry if this shouldn't be posted to the Expert board but I wanted expert opinions. Thanks.

Given other responses, I'm clearly in the minority. You also don't say whether it is MPs or IMPs.

At IMPs I don't think this hand has anywhere near the playing strength needed for a vul vs. not unusual 2NT, especially opposite a passed hand. I would like to see good intermediates in my suits and would expect 6-5 or 6-6 more often than 5-5 here.

At MPs 2NT has more going for it. I still wouldn't do it because I don't think the odds are in my favour. But that could be because almost everything I get to play in is IMPs.

2D for me, and I don't think it's close. 2NT just feels like you're asking for a double.

[PhilG007]

maximusg, on 2017-June-11, 10:04, said:

---

Obvious choices are 2nt, 2♣, and 2♦. Which do you choose? Sorry if this shouldn't be posted to the Expert board but I wanted expert opinions. Thanks.

The "obvious" bid is the unusual 2NT. But not everyone uses or likes this bid. If so,what is the alternative?

[aguahombre]

Over the years, generating action (and involving partner at the same time) with hands this "pure" -- suit quality and shape -- has worked out well for us. The dangers just don't seem to materialize, even when in theory they should have.

I contrive this example, but it is far from unlikely:

Axxx Xxx X Kxxxx across from the given hand. 4♥ doesn't make, if they bid it. If I pass or if I bid 2♦ (call the police if I bid 2♣), we will be defending Hearts... part score or game and collecting 50's or if lucky we might double 4♥ and get 500. I would rather have the pleasant option of Plus 600 or plus 800.

Sure, the above was manipulated to illustrate just what I wanted it to. But, 2nt knocks off their Drury and a lot of other tools while at the same time allowing Partner to make informed decisions for our side. It will be plus or break even a lot more often and for higher stakes than will silence.

[gszes]

IMPS 2n Yes the risk of getting slaughtered is still present but stretching for game is still viable at these colors so risk vs reward seems to indicate goforit.
MP Pass chances of game seem slim and chances for -200 seems much greater given the lack of suit quality. -200 at imps no big deal but at MP ouchies.

[MrAce]

gszes, on 2017-June-13, 11:49, said:

IMPS 2n Yes the risk of getting slaughtered is still present but stretching for game is still viable at these colors so risk vs reward seems to indicate goforit.
MP Pass chances of game seem slim and chances for -200 seems much greater given the lack of suit quality. -200 at imps no big deal but at MP ouchies.

Yes, I agree. Some people still have this weird idea of "You can be aggressive at MP" as does SFI.
It is completely the opposite for most experts for a reason.

[MrAce]

sfi, on 2017-June-13, 06:12, said:

2D for me, and I don't think it's close. 2NT just feels like you're asking for a double.

I have sympathy for pass but zero sympathy for 2♦.

[sfi]

MrAce, on 2017-June-13, 18:16, said:

Yes, I agree. Some people still have this weird idea of "You can be aggressive at MP" as does SFI.
It is completely the opposite for most experts for a reason.

That's really not what I said. What I said was that it has more going for it.

At MPs, you might get lucky and talk them out of something, so there is a potential positive position that can be balanced against the -200s. At IMPs, the set of hands where you win is much smaller - you're looking for a good club fit where either you have game opposite a passed hand or can talk them out of their 4S contract.

I'm not worried about the -200s. I'm worried about -1100, which is worse at IMPs than at MPs. Frankly, I see little upside in bidding 2NT at any form of scoring.

[Winstonm]

MrAce, on 2017-June-12, 18:17, said:

How old?

Old enough to have played against Barry Crane numerous times, Hamman and Wolff a couple of times. And Oswald Jacoby, once in a club game in Dallas.

[Winstonm]

Nabooba, on 2017-June-13, 05:21, said:

This is a poor philosophy. Show your shape first and then worry about the strength.

I think the first question to answer is: should I bid? If you shouldn't bid, your shape is fairly meaningless

[Winstonm]

MrAce, on 2017-June-13, 18:33, said:

I have sympathy for pass but zero sympathy for 2♦.

I actually think pass is the best bid. I rescind my 2D bid.

[Nabooba]

Passing is so bad that it is amusing that someone would even consider this.

[Kaitlyn S]

msjennifer, on 2017-June-12, 10:45, said:

My bid is 2 Diamond.I am not brave enough to bid 2NT which this hand with the given vul does not qualify.Add two minor suit Knaves in place of one small in each minor and my bid will be 2NT.

I'm not sure bidding 2NT and showing two suits is any braver than bidding 2D and showing one suit. After all, if it goes 1S 2D P P X, are you bidding 3C or sitting for it? If you pass, you might be playing 2Dx on a 5-1 when you have a 5-4 club fit. If you bid 3C, you let the responder know that opener has a reopening double when making his decision, rather than choosing blind over 2NT - not to mention that the opening lead comes through partner's major suit strength rather than up to it.

[Kaitlyn S]

Nabooba, on 2017-June-13, 21:55, said:

Passing is so bad that it is amusing that someone would even consider this.

After a few -1100's, you begin to realize the value of passing.

[PhilG007]

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-June-14, 00:34, said:

After a few -1100's, you begin to realize the value of passing.

A great expert once said "If you're not going down 800+ two or three times a week,
then you're not bidding enough!"

[eagles123]

seems very close to me, my gut feeling is to pass but I could easily be persuaded that bidding is right.