[manudude03]

I had an argument with a reasonably strong player over this one:

---

What do you bid now at matchpoints?

[Lord Molyb]

2♣ to show general strength, then raise diamonds.
Or, you could just bid 1NT, since it's a minor suit fit and it's matchpoints.

[bigbenvic]

I'm in the 1NT camp.

We may not have enough for 3NT but I surely show better than a strong NT here, which is what I have. If partner has 6 ish points he can bid 2 or even 3NT.

[mike777]

1nt


2c shows much more.

[lipeng2076]

yes，of course 1nt rebidding

[mr1303]

I miscounted when I voted 2nt. 1nt is clearly right. Although it might play better by partner.

[rhm]

3♦

If partner is weak I doubt that a notrump partial plays better from my side than a diamond partial from partner.
If 3NT is on, it probably needs to be played by partner and West should be on lead.
There are some exceptions where notrump bids from my side will do well, e.g if partner turns up with the ♦A and ♠JTx. I bet against that.

3♦ gives the right encouragement. It is not a preemptive bid.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I am scared to admit that my first thought was the same as Rainer's - 3♦. 1NT seems like a proper MP gamble and while it might be great, it might also be a total disaster. Assuming the argument was between these 2 calls, I do not think it is a big deal. They both have upsides and either might work on a given hand. Of course ideal would be the agreement that 3♣ shows a 3♦ raise with (or without) a club stopper - does anyone do that? What is your agreement for a jump cue manu?

[gwnn]

Nobody has an agreement on what 3C shows here Zel, do you?

3D seems interesting but aren't we a bit strong for it? Maybe 2C and then raising 2D to 3D would be better (to stop sitting on the fence: that's what I would do). It seems that this sequence is not too often discussed.

[helene_t]

I would bid 2♣ and then pass 2♦. If partner has ♦A and out, I count 8 tricks in notrumps with the spade finesse on. With more than that I think he would make a move most of the time.

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2012-December-03, 07:13, said:

Nobody has an agreement on what 3C shows here Zel, do you?

3D seems interesting but aren't we a bit strong for it? Maybe 2C and then raising 2D to 3D would be better (to stop sitting on the fence: that's what I would do). It seems that this sequence is not too often discussed.

Hey, I am sure Justin, Andy, Frances and Mike do, inter alia. With my current partner I do not; with the previous I did. One option is for a jump cue to be a GF raise with 4+ card support to remove that from the cue bid. I never played it as a good raise showing (or denying) something a stop in their suit but it might be reasonable when our suit is a minor - am genuinely interested in what others are playing. I guess that most people would understand some splinter if their partners did it on the "any unnecessary jump" meta-rule but I find it hard to believe that could be good.

As for the strength, I learned that a simple raise invites game if partner is a maximum while a jump raise invites game if partner is a non-minimum. So no, I do not consider this hand too strong. Would the route via 2♣ not suggest 3 card support rather than 5?

[gnasher]

Without discussion, I'd assume 3♣ was a splinter for diamonds.

At IMPs I'd agree with 2♣ planning to pass 2♦, but at matchpoints I want my 120.

[gwnn]

Care to bet Zel ? Apparently even Meckwell had a misunderstanding on a basic strong club interference sequence and this really seems to be a rare situation. Anyway yes it would only suggest 3-card support if the suit in question were a major, I don't think it's so specific when it is a minor suit.

[PhilKing]

1NT. Partner is sometimes 3334 here (as he was when I had this sequence with Wank 3 weeks ago) and opening leader often fishes out a major suit lead anyway.

[wyman]

@Mike, Helene, gnasher:

Is 2C really that strong (Mike)? And (Helene/gnasher) are we expecting pard to rebid 2D that often?

Maybe I'm way off -- please let me know if so, since I haven't thought about or discussed this sequence much -- but I would have assumed that 2C either shows a strong hand or an off-shape tox (we're dbling with a lot of 4423, right?) looking for a major fit. And in particular, I would have expected that advancer's priority was to show a 4- or chunky 3-card major.

I guess we can bid 2N over 2C-2M, but that sounds really strong to me. Maybe I'd bid differently if I had incredibly sound agreements about auctions that start this way (what's forcing? how high? what calls agree diamonds? what are advancer's priorities? ...), but I'm bidding 1N on this hand.

[helene_t]

No, 2♣ can't be based on an offshape double without extras. We are inviting p to bid game with top of his range so we should have some 17 points.

I think partner will bid 2♦ over our 2♣ fairly often. If he bids something else then he has extras. With a minimum and 4M5♦ he would bid his major first. So if he bids 2M now he has extras, i.e. 4-8 points or such.

With 3334 and no club stopper I think he will have to rebid 2♦. Maybe he can't swallow that and tries 2♥ instead. In that case we will get too high.

[billw55]

helene_t, on 2012-December-03, 07:17, said:

.... If partner has ♦A and out, I count 8 tricks in notrumps with the spade finesse on. With more than that I think he would make a move most of the time.

gnasher, on 2012-December-03, 07:50, said:

At IMPs I'd agree with 2♣ planning to pass 2♦, but at matchpoints I want my 120.

Agree with both. Helene, did you see it is matchpoints?

Also in general, I thought that double then 1NT shows a notrumpy hand that is too strong to overcall 1NT directly. Isn't that exactly what this hand is? OK it got better when partner bid diamonds, but partner is still limited and slam seems unlikely. Or maybe you are thinking that 5♦ could be on while 3NT is down on a club lead?

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2012-December-03, 09:44, said:

Agree with both. Helene, did you see it is matchpoints?

Also in general, I thought that double then 1NT shows a notrumpy hand that is too strong to overcall 1NT directly. Isn't that exactly what this hand is? OK it got better when partner bid diamonds, but partner is still limited and slam seems unlikely. Or maybe you are thinking that 5♦ could be on while 3NT is down on a club lead?

3NT from partner might be cold while 3NT from us go down.

[manudude03]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-03, 06:08, said:

I am scared to admit that my first thought was the same as Rainer's - 3♦. 1NT seems like a proper MP gamble and while it might be great, it might also be a total disaster. Assuming the argument was between these 2 calls, I do not think it is a big deal. They both have upsides and either might work on a given hand. Of course ideal would be the agreement that 3♣ shows a 3♦ raise with (or without) a club stopper - does anyone do that? What is your agreement for a jump cue manu?

No agreement, and partner doesn't know a lot about bidding theory.

[wyman]

helene_t, on 2012-December-03, 09:34, said:

No, 2♣ can't be based on an offshape double without extras.

So are we supposed to pass 1D holding KJxx / Q109x / Qx / Axx? Or are we just not making off-shape dbls of minor suit openings?

edit: or if you object to my hand choice, feel free to vary it as you like so that it's 4423 or (45)13 or (45)22 or 4414 or whatever you want.