[Balrog49]

What are "standard expert" methods in this situation? Anyone have a better idea?

---

[Hanoi5]

2♣ would have been Michael's previously? I suppose, then 2♣ now. If it had been natural... the 2♣ now.

[Balrog49]

Yes, a direct 2♣ would have been Michaels.

[gnasher]

2♣ would be natural, but I think this is too good for that. I'd bid 3♣.

[barmar]

Is it really that good? Yes, your club suit and aces are nice, but the ♠Q has a good chance to be worthless since spades were bid on your left. LHO is unlimited, and partner probably has mostly red cards and a relatively weak hand sitting in front of opener. And opener's strength is mostly in partner's suits.

If partner has perfect cards you may be able to make 3NT. I wouldn't give it good odds, though.

[Balrog49]

barmar, on 2012-December-01, 16:47, said:

Is it really that good? Yes, your club suit and aces are nice, but the ♠Q has a good chance to be worthless since spades were bid on your left. LHO is unlimited, and partner probably has mostly red cards and a relatively weak hand sitting in front of opener. And opener's strength is mostly in partner's suits.

If partner has perfect cards you may be able to make 3NT. I wouldn't give it good odds, though.

I intended this to be a question about expert bidding methods, not a "you hold" problem. Most of the people I've asked use a delayed cue bid to show opener's suit but none have any specific agreements about length, strength, or continuations.

[Free]

Balrog49, on 2012-December-01, 16:58, said:

I intended this to be a question about expert bidding methods, not a "you hold" problem. Most of the people I've asked use a delayed cue bid to show opener's suit but none have any specific agreements about length, strength, or continuations.

A delayed 2-level cuebid is like you normally make a 2-level overcall. A jump shows a stronger hand. It doesn't get more specific than that I guess.

[Zelandakh]

It depends what an immediate 2♣ and 3♣ would have been. I think (American) standard has become that an immediate 2♣ is Michaels and 3♣ is weak. Then a delayed 2♣ overcall is a normal 2 level overcall. That does not leave much for a delayed 3♣ other than a stronger club overcall, as rare as that might be. The older way of playing was for an immediate 3♣ to be intermediate, something like a normal club overcall. Then a delayed 2♣ needs to be something else, whether stronger, weaker or a 2-suited takeout of some sort. Some pairs play different methods here depending on the length promised by the 1♣ opening. In particular, several countries play an immediate 2♦ as Michaels as standard with a natural 2♣ overall. Again, this has a knock-on effect to the delayed 2♣. So the basic answer is that "expert standard" varies depending on which country the expert comes from.

[fromageGB]

As this is not posted in the experts forum, I feel entitled to make a comment!
Certainly standard here is immediate = Michaels, delayed = natural, but if the club could be short, as I guess is the case, my preference is for an immediate X to say "I would have opened that". We then play system on, ie transfer walsh, so that copes well in finding major fits when it also acts like a normal takeout double. In this case, my rebid is 2♣ to deny a potential major fit (if partner showed one) and to show 6 clubs. Seems right to me.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would assume X to be for T/O, but somme say, you cant have a T/O anymore, hence
X is penalty, showing the trap pass.

Bidding their suit becomes natural.

For the actual hand, ... you can pass, they are red, you are on lead.

With kind regards
Marlowe