Weak or intermediate

[kgr]

We play:

1♥-(2♣) : 2♣=5+c♣ and 4c♠

1♥-(3♣) : 6c♣ and intermediate strength (10-16)

Because we don't have a natural 2♣ overcall we need the jump to 3♣ to be intermediate and not weak. The above is an example as we also have other 2 suit overcalls.

Given the above:

(Pass)-1♥-(3♣): Would you still play 3♣ intermediate here or do you think it is more usefull to have it preemptive if partner passed and have not bid for a good hand with only ♣.

[kenrexford]

Partner as a passed hand would tend, IMO, to suggest intermediate more than if partner was not a passed hand. Why? Because I'll have an intermediate hand more often than otherwise, I think.

[helene_t]

Agree with our best theorist.

[kgr]

Partner as a passed hand would tend, IMO, to suggest intermediate more than if partner was not a passed hand. Why? Because I'll have an intermediate hand more often than otherwise, I think.

Makes sense.

...But because partner is a passed hand we can bid a lot of intermediates as weak because game will be very unlikely on a lot of these hands. Maybe that makes weak a better agreement with a passed partner?

[kenrexford]

Partner as a passed hand would tend, IMO, to suggest intermediate more than if partner was not a passed hand.  Why?  Because I'll have an intermediate hand more often than otherwise, I think.

Makes sense.

...But because partner is a passed hand we can bid a lot of intermediates as weak because game will be very unlikely on a lot of these hands. Maybe that makes weak a better agreement with a passed partner?

The best answer is an example.

If the range is 10-16 (not sure I like that range), let's assume an average intermediate hand:

 

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦Ax ♣AQJxxx

 

What does partner need for game?

 

If he has the club King, where we do not rely on a club finesse, we can see seven tricks already. Add in the diamond King and spade Ace, and nine tricks are there. So, it looks like Responder can have a fairly assured 3NT contract when he has a 10-count. If the finesse is OK with Advancer, then a 7-count works.

 

This idea suggests that the "range" should be less a matter of high card points, or even distributional strength, but more a matter of "notrump amenability."

[P_Marlowe]

Well, I would say, 3C is still intermediate, but

partner is allowed to play games.

 

So in effect, I am saying, partner wants to bid 3C

for what ever tactical reason, and expects action

only, if I have a fit.

 

This means basically, you give up bidding game in

this seq., but facing a passed partner, an opponent,

who opened, I say, it will be seldom, and partner is

allowed to bid 3NT with club honors.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[H_KARLUK]

I liked Kenrexford's words :

 

"What does partner need for game?"

 

Questionable and reasonable.