[jillybean]

Preemptive 2x (X) 2N ?

2N/2x being feature ask or ogust or whatever you play, does the double change the meaning of 2N?

[ArtK78]

Not unless the partnership has an agreement that it does, such as McCabe.

[jillybean]

We play McCabe but in our version, this still leaves 2N undefined.

[Cyberyeti]

We have an agreement about this because we play particularly rancid weak 2s, but I'd have thought it's whatever it was without the X without any specific agreement.

[Phil]

I've never seen this in writing but I have been told that in McCabe, 2N asks for shortness and is supposedly a game try.

I've toyed with making 2N a 'non-lead' directing preemptive raise denying one of partner's honors.

[CSGibson]

Phil, on 2012-May-10, 16:02, said:

I've never seen this in writing but I have been told that in McCabe, 2N asks for shortness and is supposedly a game try.

I've toyed with making 2N a 'non-lead' directing preemptive raise denying one of partner's honors.

Better to play transfer McCabe - a transfer into a suit is either to play, or lead directional with a fit, and a transfer into opener's suit shows a raise with an A or K, while a direct raise denies an A or K in that suit, strictly preemptive. Then 2N retaining its meaning as a game try makes sense, as opposed to what I learned as a traditional McCabe 2N: a relay to 3C to play your own suit.

[gszes]

my personal preference is to xx with invitational
or greater values (p pulls the xx to 3 level only
if dead minimum) if lho bids over xx at 3 level
p may pass with dead minimum or raise or x.

2n shows 2 suited hand with 2 lowest unbid (hates
the weak 2 suit). 3 level bid non forcing to play
and hates the weak 2 suit does not forbid the weak
2 opener from raising with appropriate hand).

3 and 4 of weak 2 suit preemtive.

3n to play

talk to partner almost any agreement better than
no agreement.

[jillybean]

We play 2x (X) 2y as a lead directing raise, xx asks partner to bid cheapest suit then pass or bid new suit to play or a raise in 2x is invitational
but I think I like this more:

CSGibson, on 2012-May-10, 16:13, said:

Better to play transfer McCabe - a transfer into a suit is either to play, or lead directional with a fit, and a transfer into opener's suit shows a raise with an A or K, while a direct raise denies an A or K in that suit, strictly preemptive. Then 2N retaining its meaning as a game try makes sense, as opposed to what I learned as a traditional McCabe 2N: a relay to 3C to play your own suit.

[Zelandakh]

You have lots of options here. One of my favourite treatments is to switch the "strong" response to XX to gain some extra space here. Then 2NT is available for a Lebensohl- (drop dead in a lower suit, constructive in a higher suit) or Rubensohl- (clubs + 3 level transfers) like bid, or alternatively as a second type of asking bid.

Gszes's scheme looks like a good alternative, effectively trading some direct constructive sequences for a way to show the 2 lowest unbid suits. It seems like it also ought to be possible to show additional 2-suiters here with the available bids if we think that has a higher priority than constructive auctions. Something like

2♦ - (X)
========
XX = weak take-out in own suit, or some ask (Ogust/Feature/shortage)
2♥ = hearts and a black suit
2♠ = spades and clubs
2NT = some ask (Ogust/Feature7shortage)
3♣ = good raise
3♦ = weak raise
3M = fit jump

2♥ - (X)
========
XX = weak take-out in own suit, or some ask (Ogust/Feature/shortage)
2♠ = spades and a minor
2NT = some ask (Ogust/Feature7shortage)
3♣ = clubs and diamonds
3♦ = good raise
3♥ = weak raise
3S = fit jump

2♠ - (X)
========
XX = weak take-out in own suit, or some ask (Ogust/Feature/shortage)
2NT = some ask (Ogust/Feature7shortage)
3♣ = clubs and a red suit
3♦ = diamonds and hearts
3♥ = good raise
3♠ = weak raise

Or summarised, after 2X - (X):
XX = weak take-out or an ask
2X+1 = that suit plus another unbid suit
2NT = asking bid
3X-1 = good raise
the other bid below 3X = that suit plus the one above

I suppose one of the asking sequences might be better employed as a puppet to 3♣ to show a good one-suiter too. Doesn't really matter - I am more interested in whether the 2-suited bids are good here or not. For me it is not at all clear if announcing a misfitting 2-suiter is a great deal opposite a weak 2. It may well be that it helps the opponents to judge whether to bid or defend more than it helps us. Anyone else ever played bids showing 2 other suits over a double of a weak two? What was your experience of the effectiveness of the 2NT bid when it came up gszes?