[masse24]

(1♥) - P - (2♥) - 3♥

What is 3♥?

[paulg]

A non-standard treatment but it shows the minors for me, as I use two notrump to show the weaker Michaels hand.

[Vampyr]

Irish cuebid: I have a heart stopper; do you by any chance have a running minor suit?

[nigel_k]

I agree with paulg. I think Michaels is standard, but it's slightly better to bid 2NT with the Michaels hand and cue bid with both minors (even more so if their suit is spades).

[Siegmund]

Michaels is the majority treatment, but Ive met people who play it as the running minor asking for a stopper.

I havent run across the 2NT treatment from the last two posts yet.

[ggwhiz]

It used to be any big 2-suiter (which I prefer) but we changed it to michaels with a 4♥ bid showing both minors.

[P_Marlowe]

Michaels.

2NT would be an arbitary 2-suiter, in the given seq., chances are high, that
it is a minor 2-suiter.

4NT is for the minors.

It becomes more interesting, if you replace the auction with

(1S) - Pass - (2S) - 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[zasanya]

The most common usage seems to be michaels is a cue bid made at 2 level to show both majors or other major and minor while Western cue bid is a cue bid made at 3 level to ask for a stopper and shows a running minor.
Refer http://www.bridgebum...ern_cue_bid.php
http://www.bridgebum...aels_cuebid.php
Other reference sites also support this contention.

[Zelandakh]

I wonder if it is not possible to adapt Ken's 1♠ - 2♠ defensive methods here which leads to something interesting. After (1♥) - P - (2♥):

X = takeout or both minors
2♠ = natural
2NT = clubs or diamonds or weak hand with spades
3m = minor plus spades
3♥ = stopper ask
3♠ = good hand with spades

There is some space to shift some of these around - for example both minors could be moved into 2NT with single suited minor moving to double, or a direct 3♠ being weaker and 3♠ via 2NT stronger. You could do most of these things in Standard too of course - but it is easy to lose the minor in 2-suited hands which can easily cost more than on the one-suiters. Therefore it seems to me that 3m as the minor plus the other major combined with moving the minor suit overcall hands into either 2NT or double is worthy of some investigation.

[fromageGB]

I play a simple Michaels (spades + a minor) but I don't like ambiguity, as partner can't compete over 4♥. I like the idea Zelandakh put forward of immediately defining the minor, with 3♣/♦ showing spades plus that minor.

My preference would be 2NT as both minors, to ease memory problems, and X for any single-suited hand or 3 suited takeout. This would be a puppet to 2♠, to be passed or followed by a long suit, or 2NT for takeout.

However, any such method to handle defined 2-suiters loses out when you have a single-suiter and your LHO continues with 3♥. Partner cannot support, and you do not have a unilateral 4-bid. It's a difficult decision, whether you want to abandon natural non-forcing minor bids. Is it worth it?