[whereagles]

Echognome, on Nov 6 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

1NT - 2♣
2♠ - 2NT
3♣

Which I would take as more of a semi-balanced hand with good clubs, offering a better place to play than 2NT. I don't see why this cannot be the case given a potentially short 1♣ opening in third.

Maybe because a min 4225 is way more rare than a max 4333/4243/4342? Your reasoning makes sense in the unconstested case, but, for the above statistical reasons, I'd be weary to transpose it to this particular situation.

Anyway, 3♦ for me. Maybe 3NT if I feel lucky.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Nov 7 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

For all the curiosos out there partner held KQJx JTx AJx AQx. Don't ask me why he bid 3♣ but essentially he was going for the bad-stopper interpretation in the sense that he meant it as "forcing, wants to explore other contracts." Why, I don't know.

so the meaning is: I know we belong in 3 N but I want to bid a little more just in case that a 4-3 major fit is better and if pd makes the wrong descission I win the post mortem?
In German the expression for this kind of 3 ♣ bid is: God please let it rain brain.

[Fluffy]

mike777, on Nov 6 2007, 11:01 PM, said:

I would just take it as natural and to play. Not an invite of somekind. Partner just hates to play in 2nt ever.....

AKxx...xx....xx....AKJ9x

If partner doesn't like 2NT why did he bid 1NT?

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on Nov 6 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Why not something like ♠AKJx ♥Qx ♦AKxx ♣xxx?

Why would one overcall 1NT on these cards. Surely 1♠ or even 1♦ makes more sense.

[mike777]

Fluffy, on Nov 7 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 6 2007, 11:01 PM, said:

I would just take it as natural and to play. Not an invite of somekind. Partner just hates to play in 2nt ever.....

AKxx...xx....xx....AKJ9x

If partner doesn't like 2NT why did he bid 1NT?

I am not sure what is your point?

Partner often bids 1nt......it does not mean he still does not hate to play 2nt as natural and to play in competition. In fact we never or almost never do.

In fact this one OP hand seems to scream.....pass 1nt or play 3nt but never 2nt....

[helene_t]

Oh, p thought 2N was Lebensohl, of course

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on Nov 7 2007, 04:16 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 6 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Why not something like ♠AKJx ♥Qx ♦AKxx ♣xxx?

Why would one overcall 1NT on these cards. Surely 1♠ or even 1♦ makes more sense.

It is better to lie about tertiary things like stoppers than about primarity things like shape and strength.

In other words, to bid 1♠ or 1♦ on those cards is, from the above point of view, technically WRONG.

[mike777]

whereagles, on Nov 7 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 7 2007, 04:16 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 6 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Why not something like ♠AKJx ♥Qx ♦AKxx ♣xxx?

Why would one overcall 1NT on these cards. Surely 1♠ or even 1♦ makes more sense.

It is better to lie about tertiary things like stoppers than about primarity things like shape and strength.

In other words, to bid 1♠ or 1♦ on those cards is, from the above point of view, technically WRONG.

I prefer 1D or 1s or even double over 1nt.

[whereagles]

If you seriously believe stoppers are more important than shape and strength, why don't you invent a bidding system that goes:

1♣ = "I have a club stop"
1♦ = "I have a diam stop, and no club stop"
etc...

[mike777]

whereagles, on Nov 7 2007, 12:07 PM, said:

If you seriously believe stoppers are more important than shape and strength, why don't you invent a bidding system that goes:

1♣ = "I have a club stop"
1♦ = "I have a diam stop, and no club stop"
etc...

Wow you mean play a system where we pass or try to very often have hcp in our opening bid suit..hmmmm what a concept.

[pclayton]

I agree with Josh. The common sense interpretation of this call as a run out just doesn't make much sense.

I think the best interpretation is a weak or single club stop, and maybe 4 chunky ♠ / 3 decent hearts: ♠KQJx ♥AQx ♦xx ♣A432 that wants to explore alternative contracts.

[Yogeshdg]

Obviously has points but not good stopper(s) in ♣

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Nov 7 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 6 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Why not something like ♠AKJx ♥Qx ♦AKxx ♣xxx?

Why would one overcall 1NT on these cards. Surely 1♠ or even 1♦ makes more sense.

Practical calls that place points and shape on the table seem to work, especially if you have a partnership where assuring each other of stoppers in situations like this is not deemed esoteric but common sense.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Nov 7 2007, 05:34 AM, said:

In German the expression for this kind of 3 ♣ bid is: God please let it rain brain.

And I thought Hannie's Dutch expressions made no sense