[CSGibson]

Scoring: MP

P-(2N)-?

---

2N is 20-21, and you are playing a standard 2/1, with rule of 2-3-4 preempt style in 1st & 2nd seat. You can use 3 diamonds to show the majors if you wish.

Do you think it is right to get into the bidding?

[rogerclee]

Yes, I like bidding. We could easily have a good save/make or scare them out of 3N or eliminate a tough guess for ourselves regarding what to lead. It's possible they can't make 3N but I'm willing to risk it.

[dicklont]

If not now there is no point in having that 3♦ convention.
This hand is better than the example we used when we discussed and agreed to it.

[CSGibson]

dicklont, on Oct 17 2008, 01:00 AM, said:

If not now there is no point in having that 3♦ convention.
This hand is better than the example we used when we discussed and agreed to it.

The 3 diamond convention is an extrapolation of the agreed defense over 1N. It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

[Gerben42]

Quote

It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

Unfortunately, partner thought this auction was not discussed, and thus by definition natural...

With some partners I've bothered to discuss a confusion-generating defense to all strong 2-level opening bids that do not show a specific suit (2♣, Benji / Mexican 2♦ and of course 2NT). In this case I would bid 3♦, showing ♦ OR the majors.

[dicklont]

CSGibson, on Oct 17 2008, 03:05 AM, said:

The 3 diamond convention is an extrapolation of the agreed defense over 1N.  It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

Or by some other logic partner will rightfully say that undiscussed bids are natural.
Pass this hand and discuss the agreements over 2NT afterwards.

[FrancesHinden]

CSGibson, on Oct 17 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

dicklont, on Oct 17 2008, 01:00 AM, said:

If not now there is no point in having that 3♦ convention.
This hand is better than the example we used when we discussed and agreed to it.

The 3 diamond convention is an extrapolation of the agreed defense over 1N. It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

I have to admit it would never occur to me to use the same defence against 2NT as I do against 1NT without discussing it.

It wouldn't occur to me to use the same defence after discussion either, but that's a different matter (not least beacuse I play double as penalties)

[Codo]

I would show if I could show, but I couldn't, so I wouldn't.
3 ♦ sounds horrible natural to me too.

[655321]

Like most responders so far:

1) Yes, if we have an agreed bid to show both majors, I am delighted to use it here.
2) But since we don't have an agreement, I certainly won't invent some system at the table.

[joker_gib]

No agreement so 3♦ is .........guess.......... ♦'s

[kenrexford]

This reminds me of a silly auction some friends of mine had, where one partner thought Cappelletti applied here (like seems to be the case, maybe -- unless 2♣ would be minors and 2♦ majors?). They stumble-bunnied into a making 4M (cannot remember which). I joked that the range was 20-21, not 21-22, making this perhaps a "weak 2NT."

I would overcall here, but I would like better agreements, of course. Few seem to discuss or to take advantage of this possibility, which I think is a (minor) mistake.

[CSGibson]

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant. Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

[TylerE]

Couldn't partner have ♠x ♥ x ♦ JTxxxxxx ♣ xxx?

[rogerclee]

TylerE, on Oct 17 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

Couldn't partner have ♠x ♥ x ♦ JTxxxxxx ♣ xxx?

1) No, whenever I have an 8-card suit, I bid something.
2) Even if it were possible, I don't see how this is relevant. You constructed a hand where we needed to pass 3♦x! GREAT JOB MAN!!!

[jdonn]

CSGibson, on Oct 17 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Oct 17 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

CSGibson, on Oct 17 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

Do you think it is reasonable for a director to force me to play 3♦x?

[Free]

Doesn't anyone play DONT?

[TylerE]

rogerclee, on Oct 17 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 17 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

CSGibson, on Oct 17 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

Do you think it is reasonable for a director to force me to play 3♦x?

Yes. You have UI from partners presumed lack of alert. You must take partners pass as long with diamonds. Inventing bids sucks some time, doesn't it? If the ♣ and ♦ holdings were reversed, I can see some logic in allowing a pull.

[gwnn]

That's not what you need to assume. For example if you play that (1NT)-2♦(=majors)-(X)-p asks for the longer/stronger major, it makes 0 sense to think (2NT)-3♦(=majors)-(X)-p wants to play 3♦.

[rogerclee]

TylerE, on Oct 17 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 17 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 17 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

CSGibson, on Oct 17 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

Do you think it is reasonable for a director to force me to play 3♦x?

Yes. You have UI from partners presumed lack of alert. You must take partners pass as long with diamonds. Inventing bids sucks some time, doesn't it? If the ♣ and ♦ holdings were reversed, I can see some logic in allowing a pull.

I thought he said lefty cracked 3♦, in which case partner's pass would (without discussion) show indifference between majors to me.