[jocdelevat]

[FONT=Courier]

Scoring: MP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♥    2NT   ?


* 2nt minors

[FrancesHinden]

Without any detailed discussion on methods, 3S, natural and forcing.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 16 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

Without any detailed discussion on methods, 3S, natural and forcing.

agreed

depends on methods.

There are several versions available of a convention known as Unusual v Unusual.

The method I prefer is (I think) bridge world standard: 3♣ is limit or better in hearts, 3♦ limit or better in spades, 3♥ and 3♠ are competitive. One nice thing about this approach is that the meaning of responder's call is independent of which major partner has shown (altho, of course, the length we hold in the major we bid does vary )

In that scheme, I bid 3♦, limit or better in spades, intending to force to game.

With no agreement, I echo Frances

[Echognome]

We've had this discussion a few times before.

I definitely prefer the style that if you have to bid above 3 of partner's major, it should show the good hand. That way, you can make a competitive bid in your own suit and still return to partner's major if he hates your suit. So that would be:

3♣ Limit or better in hearts
3♦ Competitive with spades
3♥ Competitive with hearts
3♠ GF with spades

[helene_t]

Oh I thought 3♠ would be NF and a stronger hand must bid 3♦. Maybe it's more in agreement with the useful space principle to use 3♣ for spades.

Without agreements I would bid 4♠.

[han]

Echognome's argument sounds convincing but as (in my experience) nobody plays it that way I wouldn't advocate it in the B/I forum.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Nov 16 2007, 05:07 PM, said:

Echognome's argument sounds convincing but as (in my experience) nobody plays it that way I wouldn't advocate it in the B/I forum.

I have often had that agreement.

[skjaeran]

Echognome, on Nov 16 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

We've had this discussion a few times before.

I definitely prefer the style that if you have to bid above 3 of partner's major, it should show the good hand. That way, you can make a competitive bid in your own suit and still return to partner's major if he hates your suit. So that would be:

3♣ Limit or better in hearts
3♦ Competitive with spades
3♥ Competitive with hearts
3♠ GF with spades

Not how I'm used to play it, but surely looks better than "standard" unusual vs unuslal approaches.

With a good pick-up partner I'd bid 3♦, expecting that to show inv+ with ♠'s.

[awm]

I'll disagree with the Echognome version.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we bidding? We certainly have the option to double, or pass followed by double, or just pass.

I think there are two main reasons to bid without a heart fit: (1) I have a good suit. (2) I have a good hand. In case (1), I don't see a huge necessity to let partner play in hearts at the three level. After all, I have a really good suit. My suit should be playable opposite a singleton. In case two however, partner will sometimes be stuck deciding whether to bid 4♥ on a six-card suit (into what could be a 6-1 or 6-0 fit) or bid 3NT on what could be dubious minor suit stoppers. It seems much more useful to be able to temporize with 3♥ on this type of hand in order to scramble to our best game.

[han]

OK, maybe I should change my post to "while echognome's suggestion looks very good to me, I'd like to warn beginnin players that most are not familiar with that structure."

[neilkaz]

4♠ for me with no agreements.. if PD has a moose he may go on, but with that in mind, if I was 100% certain that PD wouldn't pass 3♠ (mine wouldn't) that would be my call as it makes finding slam easier.

.. neilkaz ..

[Echognome]

awm, on Nov 16 2007, 02:49 PM, said:

I'll disagree with the Echognome version.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we bidding? We certainly have the option to double, or pass followed by double, or just pass.

I think there are two main reasons to bid without a heart fit: (1) I have a good suit. (2) I have a good hand. In case (1), I don't see a huge necessity to let partner play in hearts at the three level. After all, I have a really good suit. My suit should be playable opposite a singleton. In case two however, partner will sometimes be stuck deciding whether to bid 4♥ on a six-card suit (into what could be a 6-1 or 6-0 fit) or bid 3NT on what could be dubious minor suit stoppers. It seems much more useful to be able to temporize with 3♥ on this type of hand in order to scramble to our best game.

Obviously the two agreements lead to different hands they are suitable for.

Suppose you held AQTxxx Qx xx xxx. With your agreements, you get to pass or bid 3♥. With mine, I get to show spades. So it's really up to what you prefer to show. I know my preferences.

Oh and I disagree with your premise. If you have a good hand, I don't think either agreement matters. If you have a good suit, you can show it either way. The question is where you want to use the space.

[Echognome]

Hannie, on Nov 16 2007, 02:50 PM, said:

OK, maybe I should change my post to "while echognome's suggestion looks very good to me, I'd like to warn beginnin players that most are not familiar with that structure."

Agree with this. Apologies for suggesting it in BIL.