[awm]

Suppose partner opens a natural 1NT and you bid a natural, invitational 2NT. Partner now bids 3♣! What does this mean? Assume (if possible) that partner knows 2NT was natural and invitational and doesn't think it's a transfer or anything like that.

[pclayton]

It says: "I want out".

I think there's a good chance pard shaded the 1N opening too.

[keylime]

I tend to agree with Justin. Not a probable action here.

[bhall]

Obviously, its Stayman!

Opener is 4-4 in the majors and knows you frequently bid 2N with 4M-333.

[ArtK78]

Assuming that you don't play 2NT as a transfer to clubs or diamonds, or partner thinks you do even if you don't, then 3C says I have 6 clubs and I don't know whether to play in 3C or 3NT. Not forcing.

[Double !]

LOL
it can't show a legitimate or near-legitimate 1NT opening because, once partner decides to evaluate his hand as being worth 1NT, he can't change course in the middle of the bidding...................unless.

PARTNER PSYCHED 1NT!
I can't think of anything else that makes sense opposite a GI 2NT raise unless playing some form of checkback for unstopped suits.

DHL

[Echognome]

xx Ax KQJx KQTxx is a possibility.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

In KS(?) I think that it shows 4-4 minors and asks partner to pick a minor contract.
Strong minors and weak majors suggest the bid.

I do not bid this way, however, I have seen it in print. You should have a prior agreement before using this method, as the assorted guesses from other posts suggest that many other answers are possible.

Regards,
Robert

[awm]

Out of question, would you take:

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2NT
3♣

Any differently?

[kenrexford]

awm, on Aug 7 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Out of question, would you take:

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2NT
3♣

Any differently?

Yes. That's an Empathetic Splinter, of course.

I suppose that 3♣ in the direct auction must also be an empathetic splinter, of some variety.

Let's think this through again, for the direct 3♣. The idea of the Empathetic Splinter in this sequence is to make a bid that allows us to find and confidently bid a slam when Opener is limited and Responder is merely invitational. For that to occur, we must have a 4-4 fit, a 5-3 side fit, and shortness. So, we need Responder to have 5431 pattern, essentially. If we have the right fit, we need 9+9+4+4=26 HCP's combined to make this slam, and we may well have it.

If partner simply bids 2NT directly, then we know that his only possible holding of interest is 1345/3145/1354/3154. So, 3♣ (or 3♦) should show w blank major holding (xxx+), and five of the seven critical cards, being the other-major Ace and the A-K-Q of both minors.

I might have a COV in the minors for this, or a semi-COV with one major Ace. I might have a fifth or even sixth card in the minor, I suppose. A 5-3/3-5 minor scenario works as well as a 5-3/4-4, and I might even have a sixth card in a minor.

3♣ seems to show a COV in the minors, therefore. If partner cares and wants to agree clubs as a focus, he can bid 3♥ to ask about my xxx major (I bid the hole, or 3NT to show hearts, or above 3NT for both). If he has the catering stiff, he can then bypass 3NT naturally, and we can figure out which minor is the trump suit semi-naturally.

Opener bidding 3♦ would seem to show a diamond-dependent COV (only three clubs), with Responder bidding 3♥ to ask for the major xxx (3♠=♠, 3NT=♥, higher=both).

If Responder after 3♣ is only interested in a diamond-catering hand (double catering minors), he can bid 3♦, which allows Opener to show the major hole naturally if he caters diamonds, or bypass 3NT with both, or bid 3NT if he cannot cater diamonds.

Simple stuff, really. LOL

2NT as a delayed action (after 2♣-P-2♦) changes nothing if 2NT denied four spades. If it promised four spades, then we have a simple E.S. situation, with the minor call identifying the minor that can be catered as the side suit. If 2NT is ambiguous as to spades, it gets really complicated, but it seems that you must bid 3♠ and allow Responder to move if you want to address that issue.

[han]

I don't understand why partner can't just have a 14-count with a 6-card club suit. While it is true that partner doesn't know for sure that 3C plays better than 2NT, I think it is very likely. If I opened 1NT on Ax KJx Jx AJ9xxx then I would bid 3C over 2NT.

[han]

awm, on Aug 7 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Out of question, would you take:

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2NT
3♣

Any differently?

No, I'd say it is exactly the same.

To clarify, I am not encouraging partner to frequently bid 3C over 2NT, but if partner did then I'm sure he meant it as a minimal hand with long clubs. And if I did it then I'm sure that partner would interpret it as such without discussion (?).

[Fluffy]

I'm with Han, that makes sense, other options don't.

after 2♣ partner's expected ♣s are much less, it would have less sense, but still would have to be the same.

On any case 3♣ s not sing off, you are encoraged to bid 3 with ♣Kx or ♣Qxx.

[FrancesHinden]

I've never had this auction, but I've discussed it, (or rather its obvious relatives as we play 2NT conventional), with regular partners.

It is non-forcing, shows 6 clubs and asks if partner has a suitable club holding for 3NT.

In practice, we usually just bid game. But every now and then one of us might feel slightly conservative.

[TimG]

I would suspect it is a return game try: clubs with hopes of nine quick tricks if partner has a bit of help in clubs.

[Apollo81]

He upgraded a 13 count with 6♣