[Poky]

(1♣) - 1♠ - (pass) - pass
(Dbl) - 2NT

What means 2NT in your partnership?

[whereagles]

Strange indeed. With my live partner we play it as a sort of good/bad, so it should show something like

KJTxxxx
KQJ
xx
x

e.g. playing strenght to the 3-level, but few defensive tricks, warning against a double by pard. Not a two-suiter because we like to overcall michaels on all of those (1C-2ST = diams + maj). A bid of 3S instead of 2NT would show something more like

KJTxxxx
AKx
xx
x

There are many other interpretations to 2NT, though.

[Chamaco]

weird bid, only reasonable explanation which comes to my mind is that pard has 5440 void in clubs, and 2NT is "pick a suit".

Still, there must be very few circumstances when such a bid will payoff

[inquiry]

It depends an alot on if you double with a great spade one suiter hand and then rebid spades to show the stregnth. If the answer to that is YES, then good/bad "traditional good bad 2NT" with a spade one suiter can not be used here (else you would have started with a doouble with the good hand).

Also, it depends upon what type of two suited overcalls you use. Here with a spade-heart or spade-diamond two suiter, you could rebid your red suit over the double at the two or the three level. But you didn't use michaels or some other two suited overcall, were they available? I assume michales at the very least was.

So, it depends a little upon vulnerability, but I would say that this is a two suiter with longer spades... an immediate 3♥ or 3♦ over the double would be based upon overall playing stregnth, and 2NT would be weaker, based upon distribution. Partner bids 3♣, to find out the second suit, can jump to 4♦ as pass/correct based upon second suit opener has, can bid 3♦ as pass/correct, and can bid 3♥ as pass correct, suggesting good diamond values.

As far as opener having a three suiter, 2♣ or 3♣ over the double handles that ok. BTW, with some partners, I would play this jump to 2NT to be "natural" showing a five card spade suit, club stopper(s) and a general balanced hand 18 to 20 points. But those would be partners who I suspect "don't know any better".

[Free]

Poky, on Oct 11 2004, 02:42 PM, said:

(1♣) - 1♠ - (pass) - pass
(Dbl) - 2NT

What means 2NT in your partnership?

2NT = "I don't want to play with you anymore"

[inquiry]

Free, on Oct 11 2004, 12:42 PM, said:

Poky, on Oct 11 2004, 02:42 PM, said:

(1♣) - 1♠ - (pass) - pass
(Dbl) - 2NT

What means 2NT in your partnership?

2NT = "I don't want to play with you anymore"

Hardly fair.. consider your partner is not a fool...

S-KQTxxx H-void D-AJTxx C-xx, I would jump to 2NT....

S-AKT9xx H-void D-AKJxx C-xx I would jump to 3D....

S-KQTxx H-x D-AJTxx C-xx I would bid 2D...

[Flame]

I used to play this as strong with two no equal suiter , something like 6-4.
So 3D would show equal spade and diamond while 2nt would show better spades.

[luke warm]

i'd normally agree with ben here, it seems this bid is the same type he'd have made had his partner bid without ops' interference.. like 1d : 1h : 2nt... but the problem here is that his partner has already passed... so if 2nt is 18, 19 balanced, he's likely too high for no real reason

i can't see this being gb with NO prior agreement, so i'm saying it's a 2nt opening with clubs stopped, but with some sort of flaw that prevented a 2nt original opening... but to me, even this might land them in trouble

hell i don't know

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Oct 11 2004, 01:17 PM, said:

i'd normally agree with ben here, it seems this bid is the same type he'd have made had his partner bid without ops' interference.. like 1d : 1h : 2nt... but the problem here is that his partner has already passed... so if 2nt is 18, 19 balanced, he's likely too high for no real reason

i can't see this being gb with NO prior agreement, so i'm saying it's a 2nt opening with clubs stopped, but with some sort of flaw that prevented a 2nt original opening... but to me, even this might land them in trouble

hell i don't know

Simply rebid 1NT with the very good balanced hand (18 to 20, clubs stopped)... No need to risk getting too high, and 1NT has to already show the extra values...

Ben

[pclayton]

Hadn't thought about it, but it should be good/bad with a single suiter with spades.

Direct 3♠ (i.e., good): AQJxxxx, Axx, Qx, x

Delayed 3♠ (i.e, bad): KQTxxxx, Axx, xx, x

If you take the position that you want to just overcall on these hands; and try to catch up later, I think using 2N to differentiate between a hand that needs just a little (and one that needs a lot) for 4♠ is sensible way to go.

By the way, in overcall structure, we generally are not making a straight overcall with a 2 suiter (at least one to commit to the 3 level), so 2N is out for a 2 suiter I think.

[inquiry]

Well, I think your view is warped by playing overcall structure. Opposite a partner who could not keep the bidding open over 1♠, there is hardly a good reason to jump to a fast or a slow 3♠ with either of these hands. True there is some preemptive value, Any heart honor other than the King in partners hand will be dead. So you have two likely heart losers, on almost any contract. True partner might have honror=doubleton spade, but the fact that he didn't try to keep the bidding open suggest he will not have a whole lot more. Let's imagine some of the best hands where he is not singleton or void is spades.... thinks like

S-Ax H-Qxxxx D-Kxxx C-Kxx he would bid 1NT, so this good is out....

S-Ax H-Kxxxx D-xxx C-Kxx he would still try 1NT, so this is out....

S-Ax H-Kxxxx D-xxx C-xxx, ok here is one he would pass, but even opposite your "good" 3S hand, you ahve 1C, 2D, and 1H loser, so 3S is the limit, and if his heart is the queen? You lose 2H, 1C, and 2D.

S-Ax H-Kxxxx D-Kxx C-xxx I wouldn't pass with this one, but if your partner would, at least you have a play for 4S... But you are takking the perfect hand.

No, I think 3S/2NT can't logically be a dividing line between the slight good and slightly better 3S bid. The "real" 3S bid is not available becasue you didn't double then bid spades. You can hardly change your mind...and consider this hand worthy of a vrey strong 3S bid now. After all. WEST may be sitting there with five/six spades just waiting for the reopening double at the one level :-)....

Anyway, that is my view. :-)

Ben

[luke warm]

inquiry, on Oct 11 2004, 07:52 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 11 2004, 01:17 PM, said:

i'd normally agree with ben here, it seems this bid is the same type he'd have made had his partner bid without ops' interference.. like 1d : 1h : 2nt... but the problem here is that his partner has already passed... so if 2nt is 18, 19 balanced, he's likely too high for no real reason

i can't see this being gb with NO prior agreement, so i'm saying it's a 2nt opening with clubs stopped, but with some sort of flaw that prevented a 2nt original opening... but to me, even this might land them in trouble

hell i don't know

Simply rebid 1NT with the very good balanced hand (18 to 20, clubs stopped)... No need to risk getting too high, and 1NT has to already show the extra values...

Ben

hey, i agree... i was commenting on the 2nt bid tho... i honestly don't know what to make of it

[the hog]

Well we play this as good/bad as has already been described pretty well by Ben. Incidentally I regard both of the example hands given by Whereagles as bad, even his "good" one rofl.

Typical would be:
KQJxxxx
and some outside cards for going via 2N or with a 2 suiter
KJTxxx x x AQJxx or similar

Opposite a passed partner a direct 3S or 3? bid would show a much stronger hand.

As an aside, I am not sure of the value of this version of good/bad opposite a passed partner. Maybe an immediate 3 bid on both hands is a better way to make them guess.

[whereagles]

Mr. hog: the initial question is what would 2NT be in your partnership. I take it you read and understood that.

That being said, I'm not having you interfering in a derrogatory way on what is a private agreement between me and my partner. In the future mind your own business, please. Especially when that is explicitly asked for.

[Gerben47]

No agreement but in the logic I have with my partner it should be a 2-suiter with longer spades and maximum for the overcall. Something like:

AKJxxx
x
AQJx
xx

or the same thing with 4♥ instead.

Gerben

[inquiry]

Gerben47, on Oct 12 2004, 05:58 AM, said:

No agreement but in the logic I have with my partner it should be a 2-suiter with longer spades and maximum for the overcall. Something like:

AKJxxx
x
AQJx
xx

or the same thing with 4♥ instead.

Gerben

Right... only bridge logic if no agreement exist, and a great way to formalize an agreement.

[the hog]

Whereagles don't be so touchy. Ben and Eric frequently get stuck into my bids and often rightly so. So what? If you can't learn from criticism then don't post, especially if you take a stance that is far from the norm.

Incidentally, it's "Sir Hog" to you; only friends can call me Mr. Hog.

Ron

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Oct 12 2004, 03:33 PM, said:

Whereagles don't be so touchy. Ben and Eric frequently get stuck into my bids and often rightly so. So what? If you can't learn from criticism then don't post, especially if you take a stance that is far from the norm.

Incidentally, it's "Sir Hog" to you; only friends can call me Mr. Hog.

Ron

First of all, my stance is my own business. Second, there's a difference between criticism and mockery (the little 'rofl' in the end... I can notice details). Third and last, I'll spare you from public embarassment as to the "sir" pretentiousism.

[the hog]

Oh Whereagles, lets kiss and make up.

[whereagles]

eheh.. sure. No hard feelings. Cheers

Hey, a forum without flames is like bidding without spades!