[mikegill]

Scoring: MP

1♦ 2♦ ?

---

You're playing Unusual/Unusual here.

[whereagles]

probably pass and, over opps' 2M, a 2NT or 3♣ bid.

of course, if LHO bids 3M i'm toast...

[pclayton]

Hands like this underscore why u/u isn't an optimal agreement. A card showing double is becoming more popular.

Not playing this, I think I prefer 3♦ over pass. What will we know after LHO takes preference?

[ArtK78]

Whether you play U/U or not, the question of the meaning of the double is one for partnership agreement. The standard interpretation of double is that you can penalize at least one of the opponents' suits. Card showing is an alternate treatment.

Not playing card showing doubles, all you can do over 2♦ is pass. While partner rates to have a real diamond suit, he will certainly expect more from you than Kxx if you bid 3♦ here.

[jdonn]

I pass now and double next round, showing a hand like this (balanced values). I think this is a bare minimum. If you double now then for better or worse, most play that creates a force next round, and you will have no bid available since double then will be penalty.

I would sooner pass throughout than do anything else now or next round.

[Apollo81]

I'd pass and then compete to 3♣ if they settle in 2♥.

[joshs]

Well its balanced and weaker then an INV so pass is normal. 2N is the other option if you play this as typically 3=5 and not 3=6 (2N=minors in U vs U...)

[jtfanclub]

So what would 2♠ show? Shortness? Stopper?

[keylime]

I like the concepts of xfers in this situation while reserving the 2M bids as the forcing calls but balanced. It allows you to get out of their 2M fit and shows your hand.

If I had a working queen extra I'd bid 2M (whichever flavor of u/u you use) to show this hand.

Under this concept, I could bid 2Nt, to force 3♣.

[ArtK78]

Playing U/U, 2♠ shows limit or better in diamonds.

[han]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

I pass now and double next round, showing a hand like this (balanced values). I think this is a bare minimum. If you double now then for better or worse, most play that creates a force next round, and you will have no bid available since double then will be penalty.

I would sooner pass throughout than do anything else now or next round.

ditto

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Pass.

I cant double, this should create a forcing Pass Seq.
at least if 2M comes back, and maybe even if 3M
comes back.

I am not bidding 3C, the suit quality is rotten, it
is just a 5 card suit and I am bal.

And I dont have a fit for partner.
-------------------------------------------------------------
After my Pass, if 2H comes back, I make a t/o, if 2S
comes back I pass again.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nige1]

mikegill, on Dec 12 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♦ 2♦ ??
You're playing Unusual/Unusual here.?

---

IMO P=10, 2N=6. 3♦=4, _X=2.
I like JDonn's recommendation: Pass now, hoping for the opportunity to double (T/O) later. 2N = Unusual or Lebensohl or scrambling also seems a cunning agreement

[awm]

joshs, on Dec 13 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

Well its balanced and weaker then an INV so pass is normal. 2N is the other option if you play this as typically 3=5 and not 3=6 (2N=minors in U vs U...)

So I looked up unusual vs. unusual online in two different places. Neither indicated that the 2NT bid in the auction 1m-(2m) was for minors. In fact one place specifically said it was natural.

Then I looked in Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions." They have a section on "invisible cuebids" which states that 2NT in this auction is natural. Their method seems to differ from unusual vs. unusual as most play it mostly in that lower cuebid = limit raise instead of lower cuebid = lower suit. They have a brief blurb on unusual vs. unusual that says nothing about the 2NT call.

In any case, while agreeing that 2NT here shows something like 5-3 or 6-3 in the minors with more length in the minor not shown by opener is certainly a reasonable agreement, I am not convinced that it's a standard part of unusual vs. unusual. Certainly I would not assume this meaning without discussion (even opposite a strong partner).

[joshs]

awm, on Dec 14 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

joshs, on Dec 13 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

Well its balanced and weaker then an INV so pass is normal. 2N is the other option if you play this as typically 3=5 and not 3=6 (2N=minors in U vs U...)

So I looked up unusual vs. unusual online in two different places. Neither indicated that the 2NT bid in the auction 1m-(2m) was for minors. In fact one place specifically said it was natural.

Then I looked in Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions." They have a section on "invisible cuebids" which states that 2NT in this auction is natural. Their method seems to differ from unusual vs. unusual as most play it mostly in that lower cuebid = limit raise instead of lower cuebid = lower suit. They have a brief blurb on unusual vs. unusual that says nothing about the 2NT call.

In any case, while agreeing that 2NT here shows something like 5-3 or 6-3 in the minors with more length in the minor not shown by opener is certainly a reasonable agreement, I am not convinced that it's a standard part of unusual vs. unusual. Certainly I would not assume this meaning without discussion (even opposite a strong partner).

Well practically everyone these days plays x then 2N as natural and INV, so its a bit redundant for 2N direct to mean the same thing....

[pclayton]

joshs, on Dec 14 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

awm, on Dec 14 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

joshs, on Dec 13 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

Well its balanced and weaker then an INV so pass is normal. 2N is the other option if you play this as typically 3=5 and not 3=6 (2N=minors in U vs U...)

So I looked up unusual vs. unusual online in two different places. Neither indicated that the 2NT bid in the auction 1m-(2m) was for minors. In fact one place specifically said it was natural.

Then I looked in Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions." They have a section on "invisible cuebids" which states that 2NT in this auction is natural. Their method seems to differ from unusual vs. unusual as most play it mostly in that lower cuebid = limit raise instead of lower cuebid = lower suit. They have a brief blurb on unusual vs. unusual that says nothing about the 2NT call.

In any case, while agreeing that 2NT here shows something like 5-3 or 6-3 in the minors with more length in the minor not shown by opener is certainly a reasonable agreement, I am not convinced that it's a standard part of unusual vs. unusual. Certainly I would not assume this meaning without discussion (even opposite a strong partner).

Well practically everyone these days plays x then 2N as natural and INV, so its a bit redundant for 2N direct to mean the same thing....

An initial double is penalty. That's standard u/u.

It has nothing to do with any type of 'invite'.

Mind you, I don't think this is optimal.

[joshs]

pclayton, on Dec 14 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

joshs, on Dec 14 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

awm, on Dec 14 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

joshs, on Dec 13 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

Well its balanced and weaker then an INV so pass is normal. 2N is the other option if you play this as typically 3=5 and not 3=6 (2N=minors in U vs U...)

So I looked up unusual vs. unusual online in two different places. Neither indicated that the 2NT bid in the auction 1m-(2m) was for minors. In fact one place specifically said it was natural.

Then I looked in Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions." They have a section on "invisible cuebids" which states that 2NT in this auction is natural. Their method seems to differ from unusual vs. unusual as most play it mostly in that lower cuebid = limit raise instead of lower cuebid = lower suit. They have a brief blurb on unusual vs. unusual that says nothing about the 2NT call.

In any case, while agreeing that 2NT here shows something like 5-3 or 6-3 in the minors with more length in the minor not shown by opener is certainly a reasonable agreement, I am not convinced that it's a standard part of unusual vs. unusual. Certainly I would not assume this meaning without discussion (even opposite a strong partner).

Well practically everyone these days plays x then 2N as natural and INV, so its a bit redundant for 2N direct to mean the same thing....

An initial double is penalty. That's standard u/u.

It has nothing to do with any type of 'invite'.

Mind you, I don't think this is optimal.

What??? Penalty of what??? In the auction 1D-(2D) they are currently in diamonds, are you saying x is that they can't make 2D??

In U vs U the x of 2D is:
"I have a good hand, and am interested in defending". (This is very similar to xx after 1X-Dbl-? if you play new suits as forcing). Every natural 2N bid (except maybe those with 4+ card support for partner) fits into this category.... If you have 3334 shape, and you x 2D and partner x's 2H are you unhappy??? Quite frankly, if I was 3244 I would probably still be reasonably happy defending in most vuls. And if you were not you can always bid 2N/3N next, so what is the loss?

[jdonn]

joshs, on Dec 14 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

What??? Penalty of what??? In the auction 1D-(2D) they are currently in diamonds, are you saying x is that they can't make 2D??

In U vs U the x of 2D is:
"I have a good hand, and am interested in defending". (This is very similar to xx after 1X-Dbl-? if you play new suits as forcing). Every natural 2N bid (except maybe those with 4+ card support for partner) fits into this category.... If you have 3334 shape, and you x 2D and partner x's 2H are you unhappy??? Quite frankly, if I was 3244 I would probably still be reasonably happy defending in most vuls. And if you were not you can always bid 2N/3N next, so what is the loss?

That you might not have the suit they bid stopped?

[han]

Yes indeed, bidding 2NT without nothing in the majors might work out really badly when partner has a strong balanced hand.

[pclayton]

joshs, on Dec 14 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 14 2007, 01:35 PM, said:

joshs, on Dec 14 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

awm, on Dec 14 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

joshs, on Dec 13 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

Well its balanced and weaker then an INV so pass is normal. 2N is the other option if you play this as typically 3=5 and not 3=6 (2N=minors in U vs U...)

So I looked up unusual vs. unusual online in two different places. Neither indicated that the 2NT bid in the auction 1m-(2m) was for minors. In fact one place specifically said it was natural.

Then I looked in Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions." They have a section on "invisible cuebids" which states that 2NT in this auction is natural. Their method seems to differ from unusual vs. unusual as most play it mostly in that lower cuebid = limit raise instead of lower cuebid = lower suit. They have a brief blurb on unusual vs. unusual that says nothing about the 2NT call.

In any case, while agreeing that 2NT here shows something like 5-3 or 6-3 in the minors with more length in the minor not shown by opener is certainly a reasonable agreement, I am not convinced that it's a standard part of unusual vs. unusual. Certainly I would not assume this meaning without discussion (even opposite a strong partner).

Well practically everyone these days plays x then 2N as natural and INV, so its a bit redundant for 2N direct to mean the same thing....

An initial double is penalty. That's standard u/u.

It has nothing to do with any type of 'invite'.

Mind you, I don't think this is optimal.

What??? Penalty of what??? In the auction 1D-(2D) they are currently in diamonds, are you saying x is that they can't make 2D??

In U vs U the x of 2D is:
"I have a good hand, and am interested in defending". (This is very similar to xx after 1X-Dbl-? if you play new suits as forcing). Every natural 2N bid (except maybe those with 4+ card support for partner) fits into this category.... If you have 3334 shape, and you x 2D and partner x's 2H are you unhappy??? Quite frankly, if I was 3244 I would probably still be reasonably happy defending in most vuls. And if you were not you can always bid 2N/3N next, so what is the loss?

Currently in diamonds when they bid 2♦? I guess thats accurate but its also the same as saying they are currently in clubs when they bid Stayman.

Double says, I am interested in defending if you or I double it. It also sets up a FP. That's 'penalty' to me (it certainly isn't 'takeout').

On some balanced hand I am very pleased to defend. I suppose you could have an invitational hand initially.