[inquiry]

What is 2NT in the following auction

a) With no discussion
What is your specific agreement that may have required discussion


(1NT)- Pass - (2♣) - Pass
( 2♠)- 2NT!



( may also be interpreted to be what should it be. And if it is something fancy, how would a 2♥ instead of 2♠ affect the bid. Does what you play over 1NT affect the meaning?

[Hanoi5]

I would take it as showing minors. But it's weird. And yes, your agreements over 1NT would influence the meaning of it.

[hanp]

Doesn't exit, shouldn't exist.

[mtvesuvius]

Misclick

[whereagles]

1. Anyone's guess. Mine is the minors.

2. Some 0544, in my system, e.g.

--
QJTxx
KQJx
QJxx

I have no bid for this over 1NT and I prefer now 2NT to, say, dbl, which would be a more defensive hand.

[jdonn]

DNE

[inquiry]

mtvesuvius, on Jun 6 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Misclick

That is as good an explaination as I have heard.

I ran across this auction today for the first time that I recall where it wasn't described as "the minors". I think to allow the opponents to investigate their fit then show the minors is a huge mistake unless you play the delayed auction showing a monster minor two suiter.

In the auction today, it was explained as "red two suiter."

I considered this totally odd, since 2♣ was stayman, so this really isn't a sandwich auction, and decided the bidders must be either totally novice or something else funny.

Upon reflection, however, we know it shouldn't show spades, and if you had a minor two suiter and felt like bidding, you would not have waited until they found their fit, you could have bid 2NT directly. So it clearly shows hearts as part of a two suiter seems like a reasonable first approximation. This has to be more useful than showing the minors (unless you play DONT). But what failed me logically is why diamonds instead of clubs. Or why not hearts and a minor (with pass/correct responses).

I could not come up with a suitable reason for why the two suits had to be red (other than as a memory tool perhaps). But I wondered if you could carry this a tad further, considering 2NT forces (almost certainly) a three level response, over 2♠, you could have played an 3♣ delayed bid to be hearts and clubs, and a 3♦ one to be the red suits. So this frees up 2NT to be something unusual like a swan with four hearts and a minor.

Anyway, I know the two suited applications of 2NT make no sense if you play DONT, but I wondered if anyone else has seen such an agreement. They knew their agreement, because with long clubs, short hearts, and 3 diamonds, the advancer bid diamonds (not clubs). 3♦ was a GREAT contract that won the board.

[gwnn]

6 clubs, 4 diamonds

[peachy]

It is bizarre. As others have said, probably misclick if online, no matter what the agreements over opponent's 1NT.

[Phil]

I feel I'm morphing into K-Rex here.

It can't be the minors; that hand takes a call directly over 1N. If its too weak for direct action, its too weak to jump into a live auction later.

However, say you had a hand with six solid clubs and a spade stop. You might pass 1N, since you are beating 1N. When LHO bids stayman, he might have a garbage type hand and prepared to pass 2x.

So, I would expect Ax, xx, xxx, AKQJxx. Pard can run back to 3♣ with drek, or can raise to 3 with two QT's in the reds and adequate stops.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Jun 7 2009, 09:42 AM, said:

6 clubs, 4 diamonds

My thoughts as well. Maybe some other 4-6 type could also be possible, depending on what our immediate interventions over 1NT show. Playing Woolsey it must definitely by 4♦6♣

[FrancesHinden]

peachy, on Jun 7 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

It is bizarre. As others have said, probably misclick if online, no matter what the agreements over opponent's 1NT.

Obviously the opponents' agreements over 1NT matter. For example, mine include 2NT overcall as showing a good 3m overcall (with an immediate 3m as pre-emptive). Thus 2NT here shows the minors for me.

Some people play an immediate 2NT overcall as a game forcing 2-suiter. For them 2NT shows the minors here as well I would guess.

[MFA]

Natural and quite strong. With values I would raise to 3. I suspect that partner likely would have led a 4th best J against a NT contract.

TOish doesn't seem sensible to me, especially not if invented at the table without discussion.