Good hand no stoppers

[nige1]

imps w/w Jx xx AJx AKJxxx

Starting on left:

P P 1S 2C

2H X p ?

First time partnership, partner is a very good expert, most doubles in competitive auctions are cards.

IMO 3♣ = 10, 3♦ = 6, 2♠ = 3, 3♥ = 2, 2N = 1.

It is a mattter of style: A playable agreement, when opponents have bid 2 suits naturally, is that a cue bid shows a stop in that suit (or substantial extra values to be clarified later).

[WesleyC]

I don't like your partner's double - with a nice holding in both majors and only 4 diamonds, 2NT seems auto.

[OleBerg]

Being in a mischievious mood:

 

2♠ = Show stopper/ask for stopper = Advanced.

2♠ = Shows extras = Expert.

 

Our objective in these sequences is not to get to 2NT; it is to figure out whether to stay in 3♣, or go to 3NT. Or the occasional 5m.

 

So our first objective is to find out, whether we have the playing strength to go past 3♣. For that, 2♠ is used.

 

If it is concluded that the needed strength is present, 3♥ and 3♠ is used to check for stoppers.

[Jlall]

Our objective in these sequences is not to get to 2NT; it is to figure out whether to stay in 3♣, or go to 3NT. Or the occasional 5m.

 

So our first objective is to find out, whether we have the playing strength to go past 3♣. For that, 2♠ is used.

 

If it is concluded that the needed strength is present, 3♥ and 3♠ is used to check for stoppers.

Good post, agree totally.

[ArtK78]

Opposite a passed hand, 3♣ should be sufficient.

 

On the other hand, if partner had bid 2NT over 2♥, I could bid 3NT. This assumes that 2NT is a natural call (you never know in these Fora).

 

WesleyC suggested that partner should have bid 2NT rather than double, and no one has commented on his post. Why? I don't see why players should have to invent "theory" on the fly to cover the possibility that partner did not make a totally natural 2NT call which he needs to have for there to be any chance of making 3NT. I have no major suit stoppers. I need for partner to have both major suits stopped and values. With that hand, he should have bid 2NT.

[Phil]

I bid 3C which I think is a pretty hopeless bid. 2S is much better. Partner had Qxx KQxx KTxx Tx and 3N makes.

I like this agreement, but I would not spring on partner undiscussed. Without discussion, our 2♠ shows a spade stopper.

 

Could you blame partner for bidding 3N on: xxx, KQxx, KQxx, Qx?

[gnasher]

WesleyC suggested that partner should have bid 2NT rather than double, and no one has commented on his post. Why?

I didn't comment on it because I had nothing to add to what he'd said - it appeared to be a complete and accurate explanation of why the bidding went wrong.

[Echognome]

I'm still not convinced whether partner's double should be snapdragon or values.

[MFA]

It's easy to say when everything is exposed, but I like 2♠. Of course we can have game, when we have so many tricks in our hand.

 

I think partner's double was perfect. Less encouraging towards 3NT than 2NT would have been, and that seems just right with somewhat soft values and no fitting club high card. We, not partner, have the good hand here, so to say.

[Codo]

But he has the NTtish hand, so maybe especially with his soft vaules a NT bid had worked well.

 

So again it is a matter of style. When we (Like Wesley et al) think that partner cannot have two stoppers, 3 Club is more then enough. When we think like Justin 2 Spade is mandatory.

 

I have no idea which style is better, but I am glad that my partner has the same.

[Cascade]

I bid 3C which I think is a pretty hopeless bid. 2S is much better. Partner had Qxx KQxx KTxx Tx and 3N makes.

Couldn't partner have bid something more helpful like a natural 2NT with that.

[WesleyC]

I think partner's double was perfect. Less encouraging towards 3NT than 2NT would have been, and that seems just right with somewhat soft values and no fitting club high card. We, not partner, have the good hand here, so to say.

 

This thinking seems backwards to me. Surely hands with soft values in the Majors ARE the ones that want to declare an NT contract?

 

I also don't understand why you want to be "Less encouraging towards 3NT". Looking at [Qxx KQxx KTxx Tx] you can tell that 3NT is the only game with a chance. All you need is partner to have some pointy cards and good suit.

 

For me double would be a hand like [Axxx xx Kxxxx Qx] which IS flexible about strain. 5C or 5D could be right opposite a shapely overcall and if partner has a little extra including some soft stuff in the Majors, we'll easily find our way to 3NT (played from his side of the table).

 

Playing your 'double-just-shows-values' style, what does a 2NT bid look like?

[MFA]

Codo

But he has the NTtish hand, so maybe especially with his soft vaules a NT bid had worked well.

 

WesleyC

This thinking seems backwards to me. Surely hands with soft values in the Majors ARE the ones that want to declare an NT contract?

 

Soft values are not good enough for NT when it's all about tempo. We need fast tricks, a running suit and aces. We will be bidding 3NT on 21-23 a lot of the time, so there is simply not time to get all the deep tricks.

 

So while the responding hand is NTish, it's not particularly 3NTish opposite a 2♣ overcall. Partner needs to provide an excellent suit, a little help in spades + even more tricks, since 6 club tricks + 1 spade trick is only 7. The actual overcall is very good in that department and should make a constructive move if at all possible.

 

A good hand for 2NT instead of X would contain a club honour, (at least) one ace + of course reasonably good stoppers in both majors. Very solid stoppers in both majors could compensate, but the actual ♠Qxx is not at all like that.