[whereagles]

Good-bad if you're playing that in other sequences, 6♦-4♣ else.

[cherdano]

Certainly not good-bad if undiscussed. I think minors with longer diamonds, probably 6-4.

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Dec 15 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

Certainly not good-bad if undiscussed. I think minors with longer diamonds, probably 6-4.

I agree this is diamonds and clubs with much better diamonds.

[mike777]

It does seem if ever 2nt may not be natural assume so..... Matt G would strongly disagree but.....

[cherdano]

Hmm, I should have given natural more thought. That would be a hand like Kx Qxx AKQJxx Ax.
Seems to me that knowing partner's general style somewhat, I might be able to guess right most of the time; but with partner unknown, it's almost 50-50.

[the hog]

Long Ds 4C. Not natural!

[awm]

Well certainly there are a lot of things it could be. But without agreement I would assume natural, especially if you don't play good/bad or the like in other sequences.

After all, what's partner supposed to bid in this auction with a balanced 19? Pass I guess, but you could easily miss a game that way. And the shape will often be wrong for double.

[cherdano]

awm, on Dec 16 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

Well certainly there are a lot of things it could be. But without agreement I would assume natural, especially if you don't play good/bad or the like in other sequences.

After all, what's partner supposed to bid in this auction with a balanced 19? Pass I guess, but you could easily miss a game that way. And the shape will often be wrong for double.

I feel very strongly that you have to pass with a balanced 19 and the wrong shape to double. How likely is it that you miss game when partner cannot act with 2 spades? Much more likely that 2N will cost 500 IMO.

In fact I am very surprised that a player as good as Adam would think otherwise.

[kenrexford]

My take is minors, diamond preference, as with others.

On the concept of 2NT being strong, balanced. First seat openings of 2NT these days, by WCP's, seem to cover many hands where 2NT might be contemplated here. 1M...2NT seems to be reserved for broken and balanced, a slow-values hand. With enough quicks for 2NT to be safe, in other words, 2NT might have been the opening bid because of the high control count. The alternative hand type, a semi-gambling hand, can be handled on conservative days with 3♦, on aggressive days with 3♠ or 3NT. The final strong balanced hand type is handled with X, and possible an ELC or cue or 3N follow-up.

[1eyedjack]

I would take it as natural, with a source of tricks (Diamonds) and Spade guard. I would not assume Club length.

Problem is, responder can have values to respond in an uncontested auction but be fixed over the 1S overcall. Advancer can multiply the fix by bidding 2S if opener cannot then bid 2N as a 3N probe. OK, the good-bad 2N might cope with that, but if you are not playing it ....

[inquiry]

Bridgebrowser search for this auction shows by FAR the most common meaning is balanced 17 to 19, it is not even close. Of course these were not world class bidders.

Limiting the lehmans of the players to 55 or more greatly reduced the frequency of the balanced 17-19, but gave no consensus. An extremely few had the 6/7-4 hand pattern but some of these the 4 card suit was hearts (guess planned on pulling 3C to 3D to show the other suit...). Some had solid diamonds and a spade stopper. Some clearly meant it as good/bad as they had just diamonds with no spade stopper. The group with the best average imps/mp was the 6/7-4 two suiters, but the number of hands was too small to add any credit to the bid (although those with great diamonds and 4 poor clubs who rebid 3C on this auction did horribly on average--rebidding the great diamonds turned out better than rebidding 3C).

[the hog]

inquiry, on Dec 17 2006, 02:01 AM, said:

Bridgebrowser search for this auction shows by FAR the most common meaning is balanced 17 to 19, it is not even close. Of course these were not world class bidders.

Well that is not surprising, Ben. I would guess that a weaker player might be more likely to misvalue the hand and bid 2NT on a bal 18-19 here. I can understand bidding 2NT here on a solid D suit, a stopper and an outside trick, where you want partner to bid 3NT holding 1 trick, but doubt whether that is as useful a treatment as showing a holding in the minors.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Dec 16 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 17 2006, 02:01 AM, said:

Bridgebrowser search for this auction shows by FAR the most common meaning is balanced 17 to 19, it is not even close. Of course these were not world class bidders.

Well that is not surprising, Ben. I would guess that a weaker player might be more likely to misvalue the hand and bid 2NT on a bal 18-19 here. I can understand bidding 2NT here on a solid D suit, a stopper and an outside trick, where you want partner to bid 3NT holding 1 trick, but doubt whether that is as useful a treatment as showing a holding in the minors.

Well, i am convinced it should show great diamonds and only so-so clubs. I was just reporting what i found...

[Cascade]

I play long (six or more) diamonds and four clubs. With five-five we would bid 3♣. And we can't have 18-19 Bal and open 1♦.

But with a world class partner ... maybe you don't have any more information but maybe you do.

If you have no history of similar auctions - using 2NT to show two suiters or strong hands that want to play NTs then you are on a guess. Personally I try to avoid possibly ambiguous auctions and assume things are natural unless discussed. But then again I don't get to play with world class partner's very often.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Dec 15 2006, 06:26 PM, said:

World Class partner but undiscussed auction...

1D (1S) p (2S) 2N.

What about "I can probably make 2NT"

If you have a trick, raise to 3.

Maybe this is based on a single suited diamond hand.