advancer passes and then bids

[rbforster]

Team match, favorable, 3rd to bid I overcall 2♦ when RHO opens 1♠. The auction continues...

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saj8h92dajt9765c7]133|100|Scoring: IMP

P-(1♠)-2♦-(P)

P-(2♠)-P-(P)

3♣-(P)-?[/hv]

 

What do you make of partner passing your 2♦ overcall and then later balancing with 3♣ as a PH? Would you pull to 3♦?

[rogerclee]

I think partner is trying to tell us that he has....CLUBS!

 

And I think I will tell partner that I have....DIAMONDS!

[Finch]

Partner wants to play in 3C. I see no reason to disagree, I do have two aces.

He passed in first seat, he is likely either to be too weak to pre-empt, or to have a 4-card major.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3D.

 

3C implies diamond support, ... at least tolerance.

Partner could have opened 3C, and he could have bid 3C

after 2D direct, he did not.

If he now enters the scene, he has to have diamonds.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

If partner wanted to offer a choice between the minors, he would bid 2NT. This sequence offers clubs only, but exactly what he might have depends on your agreements about 3♣ on the previous round.

 

I would have avoided this problem by overcalling 4♦ on the first round.

[brianshark]

Partner wants to play in 3♣. I'll let him.

[han]

Partner wants to play 3C. I bid 3D.

[kenrexford]

The solution starts with distinguishing the immediate action of P-1♠-2♦-P-3♣. Many would play that as a fit-bid, showing diamond support with clubs as a trick source. Also, 3♣ opening, which is weak with clubs.

 

Three possible conclusions can be reached, IMO.

 

1. Snapdragon-like. Clubs, but diamond tolerance.

2. Clubs and hearts (probably 6-4 or so)

3. Just clubs but inappropriate for a 3♣ opening (maybe 3♣ first seat would show two of top three honors.

 

Deciphering which partner has requires understanding of the partnership GP's for situations like this, and partnership parameters for opening preempts.

[hotShot]

Partner did not open, so his ♣'s preempt is either too weak or somehow off shape.

RHO passed 2♦, so partner decided not to run from the ♦ misfit (undoubled/white) and his direct 3♣ bid would have required more strength than he has.

After LHO's 2♠-p-p he wonders where the HCP are and shows his long ♣.

 

I think he expects us to have 5 ♦, but we hold 7. On the other hand, he is weak and without trumps in his hand, we can never make 3♦. My 2 aces will work in 3♣ too, so I pass.

[Free]

If he has ♦ tolerance, he might as well bid 2NT. So imo p has ♣ only, and a weak hand. I'll pass, since my Aces will be worth 2 tricks.

(btw nobody mentioned the possibility that p didn't preempt because he has long ♣ and a 4 card M)

[hotShot]

(btw nobody mentioned the possibility that p didn't preempt because he has long ♣ and a 4 card M)

Frances did, doesn't she count?

[andy_h]

So it down to who's 6/7 card suit is better? I would've bid 2D and then 3D. But having passed and the auction as it is now, I'm still going to convert to 3D.

[655321]

3♦.

 

Agree that partner is just showing clubs. But he passed as dealer at favorable, and so for me this auction doesn't really exist. At this vulnerability side 4 card majors aren't really a concern, nor is having a weak suit, nor a weak hand.

[han]

I find it strange that some think this hand will be more useful for partner's clubs then for our diamonds. The argument mentioned (we have two aces) doesn't really cut wood since the spade ace will be just as useful for diamonds as for clubs. Our diamond spots are so good that diamonds is easily playable opposite shortness, we cannot expect such good clubs from our passed hand partner.

 

In short, I know partner has a single-suiter in clubs but I expect to take more tricks in diamonds than in clubs.

[Vilgan]

I expect partner has either 7 clubs to the T, or 6 clubs and 4 hearts (w/ 1 or 2 honors in hearts). Either way, I correct to diamonds. If partner has 4 hearts, they won't be roughing them on dummy whereas I don't have too much trouble w/ my spade losers. If partner has 7 clubs to the T, my suit is better and will have fewer losers. I also think it is not impossible partner has 1-2 diamonds, which will likely make diamonds a better suit regardless.

[brianshark]

The more I read, the more I'm convinced diamonds is probably a better spot.

[neilkaz]

3♦ for me as this 7 carder is a fine suit and I expect we have better chances here than in passing 3♣ on this auction.

[benlessard]

IMHO partner got only 2 types of hands where he want to bid over 2S after this seuqnce of bidding.

 

C+H at least 55 (probably 65), or long club suit + D tolerance. With 2416 or 1417 shapes i either preempt or pass forever.

 

1- my hand isnt strong enough to make a neg X

2. I have a stiff in partner suit.

 

So for me

X is take-out

2Nt is both rounded suit

3C is clubs + D tolerance.

[kenrexford]

(btw nobody mentioned the possibility that p didn't preempt because he has long ♣ and a 4 card M)

Frances did, doesn't she count?

I did too. That makes a substantial minority.

[Guest Jlall]

With 6 clubs and 2 diamonds partner could have bid 2N on this auction. Anyways, obviously we will play in diamonds with this hand.

[Apollo81]

Um, I have 1 club and 7 diamonds. Obvious pull.

[ArtK78]

As others have said, partner wants to play in 3♣. So I bid 3♦.

 

I am not going to ignore what is in front of my face. I have a seven-card diamond fit in my own hand.

[ArtK78]

Sorry - double post.

[rbforster]

Thank you all for your replies and thoughts on this sequence. It certainly seems there's no consensus on whether this 3♣ bid did or did not show diamond tolerance, but that you probably wanted a way to show this (either directly or via a delayed 2N). Having thought a lot more about this, it seems reasonable to play something like -

 

P-(1♠)-2♦-(P)-?

 

2♥ sound, probably a good 5 card suit

3♦/2♠ fairly sound/sound ♦ raises

2N sound, natural with stoppers

3♣ sound with a good suit 6+

 

After passing with a weaker hand, over 2♠ it seems reasonable to balance with

 

P-(1♠)-2♦-(P)

P-(2♠)-P-(P)-?

 

X weaker, but with good shape, responsive-style (5/5 ♥+♣)

2N weaker with both minors, probably 4 card difference (6-7♣/2-3♦)

3♣ weaker with long clubs 6+, and no diamond tolerance

3♦ competitive with 3+ but a weakish hand

 

I agree that 3♦ seems like a good bid in any case on this hand, although I did not bid it since we were NV and not doubled yet. This was the full hand:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s963ht854d3cak963&w=stha763dq42ct8542&e=skq7542hkqjdk8cqj&s=saj8h92dajt9765c7]399|300|Scoring: IMP

Result 3♣-4

-200 for -7.7 IMPS[/hv]

 

My partner thought this 3♣ would imply diamond tolerance, although I am certainly confused as to why a stiff constitutes tolerance opposite a potential 5 card suit and no promise of club support from me. I will also note that the defense here will actually set 2♠-2 for +200 due to the trump uppercuts resulting in South scoring all 3 of his AJ8 together with 3 top minor tricks and a diamond ruff by North. 3♦ should make easily and will often make an overtrick on the normal ♠ lead if West doesn't find the A♥ underlead for a ruff.

[CSGibson]

3♣ in this sequence should be a desire to play 3♣. Luckily for me, since ♦ outranks ♣, my desire to play 3♦ will overrule partner's desire to play 3♣