Do you get in there?

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqt964hat7653dq7c]133|100|Scoring: MP

P-(2N)-?[/hv]

 

2N is 20-21, and you are playing a standard 2/1, with rule of 2-3-4 preempt style in 1st & 2nd seat. You can use 3 diamonds to show the majors if you wish.

 

Do you think it is right to get into the bidding?

[rogerclee]

Yes, I like bidding. We could easily have a good save/make or scare them out of 3N or eliminate a tough guess for ourselves regarding what to lead. It's possible they can't make 3N but I'm willing to risk it.

[dicklont]

If not now there is no point in having that 3♦ convention.

This hand is better than the example we used when we discussed and agreed to it.

[CSGibson]

If not now there is no point in having that 3♦ convention.

This hand is better than the example we used when we discussed and agreed to it.

The 3 diamond convention is an extrapolation of the agreed defense over 1N. It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

[Gerben42]

It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

 

Unfortunately, partner thought this auction was not discussed, and thus by definition natural...

 

With some partners I've bothered to discuss a confusion-generating defense to all strong 2-level opening bids that do not show a specific suit (2♣, Benji / Mexican 2♦ and of course 2NT). In this case I would bid 3♦, showing ♦ OR the majors.

[dicklont]

The 3 diamond convention is an extrapolation of the agreed defense over 1N.  It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

Or by some other logic partner will rightfully say that undiscussed bids are natural.

Pass this hand and discuss the agreements over 2NT afterwards.

[Finch]

If not now there is no point in having that 3♦ convention.

This hand is better than the example we used when we discussed and agreed to it.

The 3 diamond convention is an extrapolation of the agreed defense over 1N. It actually was not discussed in this instance, but it seems logical that the same defense should apply over 2N as over 1N.

I have to admit it would never occur to me to use the same defence against 2NT as I do against 1NT without discussing it.

 

It wouldn't occur to me to use the same defence after discussion either, but that's a different matter (not least beacuse I play double as penalties)

[Codo]

I would show if I could show, but I couldn't, so I wouldn't.

3 ♦ sounds horrible natural to me too.

[655321]

Like most responders so far:

 

1) Yes, if we have an agreed bid to show both majors, I am delighted to use it here.

2) But since we don't have an agreement, I certainly won't invent some system at the table.

[joker_gib]

No agreement so 3♦ is .........guess.......... ♦'s :) :blink:

[kenrexford]

This reminds me of a silly auction some friends of mine had, where one partner thought Cappelletti applied here (like seems to be the case, maybe -- unless 2♣ would be minors and 2♦ majors?). They stumble-bunnied into a making 4M (cannot remember which). I joked that the range was 20-21, not 21-22, making this perhaps a "weak 2NT."

 

I would overcall here, but I would like better agreements, of course. Few seem to discuss or to take advantage of this possibility, which I think is a (minor) mistake.

[CSGibson]

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant. Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

[TylerE]

Couldn't partner have ♠x ♥ x ♦ JTxxxxxx ♣ xxx?

[rogerclee]

Couldn't partner have ♠x ♥ x ♦ JTxxxxxx ♣ xxx?

1) No, whenever I have an 8-card suit, I bid something.

2) Even if it were possible, I don't see how this is relevant. You constructed a hand where we needed to pass 3♦x! GREAT JOB MAN!!!

[jdonn]

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

[rogerclee]

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

Do you think it is reasonable for a director to force me to play 3♦x?

[Free]

Doesn't anyone play DONT? :blink:

[TylerE]

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

Do you think it is reasonable for a director to force me to play 3♦x?

Yes. You have UI from partners presumed lack of alert. You must take partners pass as long with diamonds. Inventing bids sucks some time, doesn't it? If the ♣ and ♦ holdings were reversed, I can see some logic in allowing a pull.

[gwnn]

That's not what you need to assume. For example if you play that (1NT)-2♦(=majors)-(X)-p asks for the longer/stronger major, it makes 0 sense to think (2NT)-3♦(=majors)-(X)-p wants to play 3♦.

[rogerclee]

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

Do you think it is reasonable for a director to force me to play 3♦x?

Yes. You have UI from partners presumed lack of alert. You must take partners pass as long with diamonds. Inventing bids sucks some time, doesn't it? If the ♣ and ♦ holdings were reversed, I can see some logic in allowing a pull.

I thought he said lefty cracked 3♦, in which case partner's pass would (without discussion) show indifference between majors to me.

[han]

I have to admit it would never occur to me to use the same defence against 2NT as I do against 1NT without discussing it.

 

Agree

 

Also, wouldn't you think that the actual auction suggested a psyche? I would. I would suspect my partner had hearts and bid 3D as a joke. I think it is quite a stretch to assume that partner has the majors for this auction.

 

(Edit: This exact auction did occur not so long ago in a BBO team match I played in, the 3D...3H bidder had a weak hand with long hearts, no second suit.)

[gnasher]

I don't care what my agreements are: even if I had a method to show 5=6=2=0 with an honour in each suit and better spots in spades than in hearts, I still wouldn't bid with this hand. The chances of making anything are remote, and there is a large risk of going for a penalty against a game that isn't making.

[gnasher]

[Duplicate post]

[dburn]

That's not what you need to assume. For example if you play that (1NT)-2♦(=majors)-(X)-p asks for the longer/stronger major, it makes 0 sense to think (2NT)-3♦(=majors)-(X)-p wants to play 3♦.

If you can show to the Director's satisfaction that in your methods after (1NT) 2♦ (Dble), pass asks for the longer major, then you can argue that after (2NT) 3♦ (Dble), pass also asks for the longer major.

 

But if you cannot show this (and it would be rather an odd way to play - what does redouble show? and how does advancer actually get to play in diamonds if this is what he wants to do?) then you must indeed play in 3♦ doubled. After all, what would you do if partner alerted 3♦ and said "That shows at least 5-6 in the majors, and I pass?"

[CSGibson]

I would like to say that I did choose 3♦, and partner did pass, but it was inevitable that someone double me, so when I ran to 3♥ the light went on as to what I meant.  Because of the vulnerability, there seems little risk in 3♦ even undiscussed unless partner raises diamonds, which is also unlikely given that RHO has half the deck.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance...

In person.

 

I see where you're going, but I think that I can successfully argue that, since partner did not preempt and LHO did not make any noise (indicating that partner has some values, at least), that bridge logic indicates that partner didn't understand what I was trying to do, rather than that he wanted to play in 3 diamonds. This is especially true since we didn't make agreements regarding interference over 2N, though I hoped partner would be on the same page, or would get there quickly. (also helps that I haven't psyched with this partner, so it probably wouldn't be part of the logic process).

 

Anyway, it was moot, partner figured it out, correcting to 3 spades, I left the table so that partner could explain our agreements without giving me the benefit of her thought process, and all was well (going down 1 in 3 spades undoubled was a top, as it would have been if we were doubled, also).

 

All that being said, I wouldn't argue with a director who ruled against me after hearing what I had to say, either. I would deserve what I got for making up a bid as I went along and hoping that partner understood.