[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

W N E S
1♣ Dbl P ?

---

Opponents are playing a standard system where 1C shows 3+ clubs. Where do you go from here?

[tysen2k]

2NT

[Al_U_Card]

If 2C shows at least an invitational hand with 4-4 in the majors, does 3C show a game going hand and ask for a C stopper? Otherwise, 2NT should be fine most of the time.

[luis]

3NT (to play) the only game where we have a chance.

Luis

[mikeh]

2♣ for now, then 2N.

2♣ says nothing specific (certainly does not promise any particular major suit holding) but usually creates a force until we have bid and raised a suit.

Thus if partner bids 2♥, and I raised to 3♥, that would not be forcing, but if I bid 2♠, it would be. Not, of course, that I intend to do either of these things

My intention is to bid 2N next, which I hope partner will interprete as doubt showing in terms of our destination. An immediate 2N (the value bid) should deliver a more solid stopper than 10xxx.

I expect partner to raise 2N with any good 13+ including a doubleton ♣ (which I hope includes an honour). I expect him to pass with a minimum takeout double. I doubt that he will be bidding a suit, but if he does I raise a rebid suit. There is no reason for him to bid a new major, since my sequence denies a major of my own. I am concerned about 2♣   (P)   2♥/♠   (P) 2N (P) 3♦, but I will correct to the major on that auction.

[han]

Mikeh, you come close to contradicting yourself. You say that 2C is *usually* forcing until a suit is bid and raised, but you play 2C followed by 2NT not as forcing? If so, I like your auction but I do not have that agreement (I have not discussed this auction with any partner).

I would bid 2NT, I don't think that we have good play for game unless partner has a sound double.

[pbleighton]

3NT. The hand is halfway between 2NT and 3NT, and when in doubt...

Peter

[Fluffy]

2♣, then 3NT

[akhare]

Winstonm, on Nov 23 2005, 12:08 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

W  N  E  S
1♣ Dbl P ?

---

Opponents are playing a standard system where 1C shows 3+ clubs.  Where do you go from here?

3N -- if the opps reel off the first five ♣ that's too bad -- you probably didn't have much of a chance in a major suit game anyway...

[Kalvan14]

2♣, and then 2NT is the book bid.
I admit I would be sorely tempted to bid 3NT (and possibly i would take this action at the table)

[Winstonm]

My thinking at the table was along the lines of MikeH - if I really wanted to play NT I'd just bid it, so I started with 2C. Partner bid 2H, and according to plan I followed with 2N. Now partner bid 3D - note, we had not discussed this sequence.

What would you expect partner to hold and what do you do?

Winston

[Rebound]

I might be totally wrong about this, but here goes:

It seems that partner is something like 3-4-5-1 or 4-4-5-0 with a pretty decent holding in high cards. I am assuming the extra length lay in the diamond suit on the basis that 2♣ would be interpreted by partner as a major suit probe. Therefore, 3♦ over 2NT suggests that partner is denying interest in a NT game unless you have good clubs.

I would try 4♦ now.

[Gerben42]

I'll offer an odd choice. Pass.

If partner has nothing in ♣ then we won't set this more than once but then I don't want to be in 3NT either. Could easily be 500 against nothing though.

[Robert]

Hello Winstonm

Partner might think that you are showing four spades and a club stoper when you bid (1C)-X-2C-2H-2NT unless you have firm prior agreements.

I like your auction 'after prior agreement' with partner.

I am still nervous about our club stopper. Larry Cohen likes to picture his hand opposite a 4441 shape when he tries to picture a final contract.

Opposite 4441 I do not fancy our chances in 3NT. Maybe your strong auction will stop a club lead.

Hello Rebound

What does partner do with a weak 3451 hand? Partner only bid 2Hs over that 2C cuebid. If you are expressing doubts about 2NT with this auction, partner with 3451 should be very nervous about passing 2NT.

If partner does have 'extra' values, how about him bidding 3Cs over your 2NT bid?
That way a direct 3D bid over 2NT could show a weak 3451 type.

Regards,
Robert

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Nov 24 2005, 01:36 AM, said:

My thinking at the table was along the lines of MikeH - if I really wanted to play NT I'd just bid it, so I started with 2C.  Partner bid 2H, and according to plan I followed with 2N.  Now partner bid 3D - note, we had not discussed this sequence.

What would you expect partner to hold and what do you do?

Winston

If partner is 4=5 in the reds, he has made a very poor bid with 2♥. His correct bid was 2♦, over which you bid your cheaper 4 card major, should you have one. Which is why I disagree, strongly, with the notion that 2♣ followed by 2N over a 2♥ bid implies 4♠'s.

I am going to bid 3♥: if he has longer ♦, then next time he will bid more descriptively. Maybe he has (I forget my actual holding so may duplicate honour cards) AQx Jxxxx AJxx x and chose an offshape double so as to not overstate his ♥ suit.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Nov 24 2005, 10:45 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 24 2005, 01:36 AM, said:

My thinking at the table was along the lines of MikeH - if I really wanted to play NT I'd just bid it, so I started with 2C.  Partner bid 2H, and according to plan I followed with 2N.  Now partner bid 3D - note, we had not discussed this sequence.

What would you expect partner to hold and what do you do?

Winston

If partner is 4=5 in the reds, he has made a very poor bid with 2♥. His correct bid was 2♦, over which you bid your cheaper 4 card major, should you have one. Which is why I disagree, strongly, with the notion that 2♣ followed by 2N over a 2♥ bid implies 4♠'s.

I am going to bid 3♥: if he has longer ♦, then next time he will bid more descriptively. Maybe he has (I forget my actual holding so may duplicate honour cards) AQx Jxxxx AJxx x and chose an offshape double so as to not overstate his ♥ suit.

This holds perfectly true, and perhaps I made an error on the next call - after pard bid 3D I envisioned a hand like Kxx, AQxx, Axxxx, x and raised to 4D. This made, but in a poor contract.

For the record, partner's hand was:

AKxx
Kxxx
10xxx
x

I have no objections at all to this perfect shape and controls minimum takeout double.

Winston

[beatrix45]

2 NT
Looks to me like the only correct bid, excepting only for an optimistic and aggressive 3NT against a certain type of opposition. Not much point in 2♣. Why tell the opponents any more than necessary?

[Fluffy]

2♣ followed by anything but a raise in a major is GF (IMO 2NT is stronger than 3NT). When aprtner bids 3♦ he should be something close to 3451, I would had bid 4♣ isntead of 4♦, and would probably end in 5♦ down.

[Rebound]

For the record, I believe I would have bid a direct 2NT over the double on the given hand. It may not be right on this hand, but it could be.

Incidentally, Robert, I appreciate that suggestion. However, that indicates only that I maybe wrong about the strength of partner's hand for 3♦, not the shape (I'd be somewhat happy even if I got only that much right lol). I neglected to take note of the form of scoring, where at MP's, I would expect partner to pass 2NT with a minimum 3-4-5-1 t/o dbl after 2♣-2♥-2NT.