[xx1943]

What should South bid?

---

2 ♦ shows a 2-suiter (at least 5-5) with clubs and a major. The strength is below opening or very strong.
What are your agreements in such a situation or similar?
Does the double change your choice?

[gwnn]

4♦ I hope asking for the major.

[Fluffy]

4♠ seems to much for me.

I'd just bid 2NT invitational, where I hope partner has a way to show minimums (3♣) and maximums (major bids)

over 3♣ I'd try 3♦ asking for the major and if he picks 3♠ I pass, I don't think opps wil be quiet for this long time though.

If you happen to play 3♠ pass or correct that's another strong option.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

(1D) - 2D! = Cl and a Major.. that's a new one on me... but so be it.

What is your "asking bid(s) " ?? although 3D!/4D! = "bid your major" seems reasonable here.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi

3S, although I dont mind 4H or 2NT, which one to choose is
basically a matter of style, what does partner think is enough
for 2D at the given colors.

I am strong enough, and holding the majors to have no fear
that the opponents will out compete us, ..., if they sac. at the
5 level, ok, I wont be able to prevent this anyway.

4H is pass or correct
3S should be pass or correct, with a willingness to play 4H, so
basically it is invite.
2NT is a general invite.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

I will be unhappy with partner if he has some silly hand which is perfectly suitable for 1M but made this silly 2♦ bid.

[P_Marlowe]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-October-26, 07:11, said:

(1D) - 2D! = Cl and a Major.. that's a new one on me... but so be it.

What is your "asking bid(s) " ?? although 3D!/4D! = "bid your major" seems reasonable here.

This convention is called "Schroeder", after Dirk Schroeder, a well known German bridge player,
who was also the one, who popularized this in Germany, and it is quite often played in the clubs
up to a certain level.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

4D for me as well.

By the way, this convention is also called Petin, after Henri Petin, a well known French player, and Schleicher, after a well known Austrian player, and also di Matteo, after Frederico di Matteo, a well known Russian expert.

[mtvesuvius]

4♦. Partner is R/W, and therefore should have a reasonable hand for their Michaels bid. I would think opposite a normal R/W 2 Suited Overcall, that we should have at least some play for game. I have 4 (or 6) card support, an ace, and a stiff in the opponent's suit... If this is not what a 4♦ bid looks like, then I don't know what is.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on 2010-October-26, 06:22, said:

4♦ I hope asking for the major.

and I was hoping it was a splinter for 2 suits

[wank]

i'd bid 4H if it's pass or correct or 4D if it's not.

the idea of playing this convention made me choke on my dinner.

[bucky]

I think this convention bears no relationship with the Michaels bid suggested in the title.

[gnasher]

Is (1♦) 2♦ showing clubs and a major really worse than (1♥) 2♥ showing spades and a minor?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-October-26, 16:11

[bucky]

gnasher, on 2010-October-26, 16:11, said:

Is (1♦) 2♦ showing clubs and a major really worse than (1♥) 2♥ showing spades and a minor?

Probably yes. It is important to be able to show BOTH majors, unless opponents already showed one.

[dake50]

I'm already out of this one.
My 2C showed C+M; 3C if single suited clubs. So I have a 2D Q-bid asking M +min/max.

I'd choose 4H as P/4S, but asking H: Hx to let this play.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on 2010-October-26, 16:11, said:

Is (1♦) 2♦ showing clubs and a major really worse than (1♥) 2♥ showing spades and a minor?

Yes, at least a little. Not knowing partners major is more costly in the long run, than not knowing partners minor.

But not that I like (1♥) - 2♥ = Spades and a minor.

[mcphee]

Assuming from the guide line of less than opening bid we can rule out slam as partner can not be as good as AJxxx S and AQxxx C which is in the ball park for slam requirements as a minimum, then some good luck in the red suits. This double is interesting as it now seems we may not be able to play 4S (if that is our fit as seems possible) as the opps have a super spot in 5D. It would be nice to know how the opps play this double. It would also be nice to know what sort of agreements you have when playing some toy that comes up so often

Barring the agreement menu if I end up defending I would really like a H lead. On the off chance that partner is strong I suspect that 2N must be some inquiry at which time we find out if its a good or bad hand and maybe even his second suit at the same time.

I have come to the safe conclusion that passing must work best, I can go crazy later.

[P_Marlowe]

gnasher, on 2010-October-26, 16:11, said:

Is (1♦) 2♦ showing clubs and a major really worse than (1♥) 2♥ showing spades and a minor?

Maybe / Maybe not, but the meaning of the cue comes together with the meaning,
that 2NT over a minor showes both majors and over a minor both minors.

And that means, that with a major two suiter you will be forced to play on the
3 level.
Ok, if you play Ghestem, than you also have to play on the 3 level, but at least
Gehstem allowes you to show all 3 combinations of possible two suiters, without
ambiquity.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: We also play the cue as 5-4 in certain situation, and this would not be possible,
if we always end up on the 3 level.

[dake50]

Uncommon convention: C+M Q-bid. And haven't discussed these responses?? Bizarre!
Or is this intended as "what do experts consider here? so this partnership can agree responses? That makes more sense but why not show what you already agree to get that peer reviewed?

[Zelandakh]

I agree with Fluffy 100% on this one and think this is much better than 4D. General principles for me would use 2NT as a relay along the lines that Fluffy gave. I would add a 3D response to this show equal length and max for a weak type with 3M showing that major longer. The same structure would work at the 4 level too for the big hands although there is also the option to show shortage which might well work out better.