[shugart24]

When playing a Standard American pair, and they open 1C or 1D, which could have as few as 3, what does your cue bid of 2C (or 2D) mean ? Is it natural or is it the Majors ? Does it matter as long as you and your partner have an agreement as to what it means ?. Is your answer different against pairs who play a big club ? Thank you and Merry Christmas all

[Stephen Tu]

against natural-ish system, majors.

against strong 1c, (1c)-2c is just clubs. Use something else for majors (maybe 1c-dbl, 1c-1nt, or both)against 1d in a strong club system, I use (1d)-2d as still majors if diamonds is diamonds or balanced (2+). If 1d is completely artificial 0+ I play 2d as natural.

[awm]

There's quite a range of definitions for the minor suit bids from 4+ through 3+ to several versions of 2+ (some play 1♣ can only be two on 4432 in that order, whereas others open 1♣ on all balanced hands) and even 1+ (I've seen 1♦ showing five along with five-card majors, so 1♣ can be 4441 exactly). And that's without including strong club or diamond.

Elianna and I just play the cuebid as majors in all those cases. We do modify our takeout doubles a bit when the minor opened can be less than three (no longer promising length in the other minor and requiring advancer to hold five cards in the other minor in order to bid it), as well as not requiring a stopper for notrump overcalls or advances. We also do this over methods like Polish club that are frequently a weak notrump (but could be strong with any shape).

Over 1♣ which is always strong we do play a different defense of course.

[shugart24]

awm, on 2024-December-24, 10:52, said:

There's quite a range of definitions for the minor suit bids from 4+ through 3+ to several versions of 2+ (some play 1♣ can only be two on 4432 in that order, whereas others open 1♣ on all balanced hands) and even 1+ (I've seen 1♦ showing five along with five-card majors, so 1♣ can be 4441 exactly). And that's without including strong club or diamond.

Elianna and I just play the cuebid as majors in all those cases. We do modify our takeout doubles a bit when the minor opened can be less than three (no longer promising length in the other minor and requiring advancer to hold five cards in the other minor in order to bid it), as well as not requiring a stopper for notrump overcalls or advances. We also do this over methods like Polish club that are frequently a weak notrump (but could be strong with any shape).

Over 1♣ which is always strong we do play a different defense of course.

Thanks. so what do you do when you hold AQxxxx of clubs and they open 1C ?

[awm]

shugart24, on 2024-December-24, 11:00, said:

Thanks. so what do you do when you hold AQxxxx of clubs and they open 1C ?

Pass. If they are about to pass 1♣, sometimes partner will balance. And we may get a good result if they play in our fit (even at the one-level). I've also found that people who like to open 1♣ on two or fewer cards do not pass it very often, so they may well rescue us from a missed game here.

More often the opponents bid and I will come in with clubs on the next round (which is natural). Opponents aren't usually raising the auction to a very high level when opener doesn't have very many clubs or very many points.

We do also play a direct three-of-a-minor jump overcall as natural (but weak).

[mw64ahw]

shugart24, on 2024-December-24, 11:00, said:

Thanks. so what do you do when you hold AQxxxx of clubs and they open 1C ?

I often see Pass and then 2♣ if available especially against partner+ since we play 2+. Most of the our our opponents play Acol so it doesn't really occur.

2♣ is often both Majors, but playing The Overcall Structure it's 5♦4♠ with 1♦-2♦ being 5♣4♥

[pilun]

We have a simple rule.
Vs 3+ 1♣, 2♣ is Michaels
vs 2+ 1♣, 2♣ is natural.

Some decades ago, that was arbitrary.
Some people would open 1♦ with 4-4-3-2 and other 1♣ with that shape.
That was a rare and minor difference, hardly worth changing system.

We did that because we would treat a 2+ Precision 1♦ similarly.

These days, 1♣ on 2+ is becoming more common. Some openers could have 4-2-4-2, 3-3-5-2, 3-3-4-3 for 1♣.
That made doubleton clubs much more common, and 3-carders a bit more common.
That swings the odds.

Common is (1♣) - 2♦ as majors (French Michaels) but we don't do that.

One more thing. When they open a short 1♣/♦ and we overcall, we play partner's change of suit as forcing.
That's because we bid their 2+ suit naturally on both sides of the table. (SO no cue raises of overcalls)

[pescetom]

 pilun, on 2025-January-05, 03:20, said:

We have a simple rule.
Vs 3+ 1♣, 2♣ is Michaels
vs 2+ 1♣, 2♣ is natural.

Some decades ago, that was arbitrary.
Some people would open 1♦ with 4-4-3-2 and other 1♣ with that shape.
That was a rare and minor difference, hardly worth changing system.

We did that because we would treat a 2+ Precision 1♦ similarly.

These days, 1♣ on 2+ is becoming more common. Some openers could have 4-2-4-2, 3-3-5-2, 3-3-4-3 for 1♣.
That made doubleton clubs much more common, and 3-carders a bit more common.
That swings the odds.

Common is (1♣) - 2♦ as majors (French Michaels) but we don't do that.

One more thing. When they open a short 1♣/♦ and we overcall, we play partner's change of suit as forcing.
That's because we bid their 2+ suit naturally on both sides of the table. (SO no cue raises of overcalls)

IMO it's an over-reaction to treat opponent's 2+ as artificial, but of course it depends a lot on the predominant local 2+ agreements. Around here 2+ is almost always 2 only on exactly 4=4=3=2, which is basically natural and is unlikely to have 2 or even 3.

People opening the balanced shapes with up to 5 diamonds that you mention will usually also open 4=4=4=1 and describe it as 1+, at least around here: now it makes sense for us to bid clubs as clubs.