[Free]

I had 95-93-K98762-T84 and bid 2NT. My reasoning was that it definitely showed both minors and was just competitive + early showing a possible sacrifice without committing to it when opps would actually bid 4♠.

My partner bid 3♥ with A642-AK52-void-A7653, I corrected to 4♣ and he raised to 5♣.

Needless to say it was a very poor result. I was blamed for the poor score because passing or bidding 3♣ wouldn't result in such a disaster. We don't have a 100% clear agreement about the 2NT call, but I thought my partner should've been able to deduct a useful meaning to the call. I haven't had the chance to talk to him about it and ask him what he thought it meant, so I still don't understand why he bid this way. I suspect his reasoning is something like: "We don't have an agreement so I must consider this natural, however unlikely it is".

We have good system notes with a lot of agreements about 2NT in all sorts of situations (lebensohl, scrambling, INV+ with support,...), but this sequence has never come up.

Here's a principle question: Suppose you agree with bidding 2NT with this hand (if that's too hard, suppose I have a 2=1=7=3), should I still refrain from bidding 2NT because we lack a clear agreement or should I just bid it because it's the right call?

[fromageGB]

Free, on 2011-March-07, 08:52, said:

Needless to say it was a very poor result. I was blamed for the poor score because passing or bidding 3♣ wouldn't result in such a disaster. We don't have a 100% clear agreement about the 2NT call, but I thought my partner should've been able to deduct a useful meaning to the call. I haven't had the chance to talk to him about it and ask him what he thought it meant, so I still don't understand why he bid this way. I suspect his reasoning is something like: "We don't have an agreement so I must consider this natural, however unlikely it is".

Or it could simply be that he interprets it as I do, namely that the 2NT bid showed both the other suits, ergo the 3♥ bid. When you bid 4♣ he can see a chance of game. You can't have many spades to make the bid (just one or two) and the cross ruffs look great.

[mtvesuvius]

Facing a partner who thinks outside the box a bit, I'd certainly bid it. Facing a student or inexperienced player, I'd bid 3♣. I think partner should be able to work out what this is though, after all, if you had a penalty of spades you would double 2♠, and what other hand types are there?

Fromage, I still don't think that 5-5 in the reds can bid this way, and even if they could, partner should assume minors, and if you happen to have reds, you can always correct 3♣ to 3♦... Not any different than any other 2 places to play 2N. Therefore I think partner has to bid 3♣.

[awm]

It seems to me that there's no real reason to compete on total garbage without a club fit here. It's just asking for trouble.

What types of non-awful hands pass over 1♠: (1) Trap passes. These can double now. This double should be penalty, since a decent hand with red suits would double 1♠. (2) Balanced hands without a clear bid. These hands usually include 3♣, so you can just raise here. If you have doubleton club and no spade control bidding 2NT now seems silly anyway. (3) Hands with primary diamonds, assuming you play forcing free bids. These hands can actually be fairly good (say up to 8 or 9 hcp) since 2♦ would show better values, double would show hearts, and 3♦ (if weak and not fit or splinter) might show a better/longer suit.

Seems clear to me that 2NT should therefore show diamonds, constructive values, and some degree of club fit (often doubleton). Hands with really long diamonds can just bid 3♦ here (or maybe 3♦ right off, if that's natural and weak). I think 5-6♦ + 2♣ would be the normal hand. On Free's hand I would've bid 3♣; usually with three-card support bidding 3♣ seems better than putting partner to a guess.