Scary we've never discussed this

[paulg]

When you've been in a partnership for a long time, it's occasionally scary to discover the sequences that you've never discussed. Ours was:

 

1♣ (2♦) Pass (Pass)

2NT (Pass) ?

 

Presumably this means that it's never come up and so it is pretty rare, even though it looks simple enough. And it's still not come up, as this was a question from a team mate.

 

So, what do you play here? Transfers, your 2NT methods, or natural. And if natural, is 3M forcing?

 

Of course it's easier over 2♦ than 2♠.

 

1♣ (2♠) Pass (Pass)

2NT (Pass) ?

 

In this sequence the chances of partner having a better hand are higher (xx KQxxx Jxxx xx easily possible) but you'd really like to play the same methods given the lack of frequency.

 

Paul

[jukmoi]

2NT is 18-20 bal hcp. I have not discussed methods either but by default 1♣-(2♦)-pas; 2NT-3♦ asking 4c majors GF, and 1♣-(2♠)-pas; 2NT-3♠ shows 4c ♥ GF. Anything else natural NF. 4♣♦ SA-Texas.

[pooltuna]

When you've been in a partnership for a long time, it's occasionally scary to discover the sequences that you've never discussed. Ours was:

 

1♣ (2♦) Pass (Pass)

2NT (Pass) ?

 

Presumably this means that it's never come up and so it is pretty rare, even though it looks simple enough. And it's still not come up, as this was a question from a team mate.

 

So, what do you play here? Transfers, your 2NT methods, or natural. And if natural, is 3M forcing?

 

Of course it's easier over 2♦ than 2♠.

 

1♣ (2♠) Pass (Pass)

2NT (Pass) ?

 

In this sequence the chances of partner having a better hand are higher (xx KQxxx Jxxx xx easily possible) but you'd really like to play the same methods given the lack of frequency.

 

Paul

Play whatever you use over a 2NT opener with a transfer (assuming you use this) into the opps suit as slam interest.

[hanp]

I would assume everything is natural and NF except for 3D which creates a GF. May not be optimal but I would expect any sane bridge player to assume everything is natural in the absence of agreements.

[PhantomSac]

I had a good agreement with a partner once, transfers over all value showing 2N bids (with a couple of exceptions). Worked well. Barring that I'd agree with Han.

[whereagles]

han is da playa

[gnasher]

I think you really need to be able to play in 3♣ here.

 

I also sometimes have the agreement that transfers apply opposite a value-showing 2NT rebid, but only if responder has bid.

[PhantomSac]

I think you really need to be able to play in 3♣ here.

 

I also sometimes have the agreement that transfers apply opposite a value-showing 2NT rebid, but only if responder has bid.

Is the ability to play in 3C more important than the ability to show both 5 card major and force and to get out in 3 of a major?

[cherdanno]

I think you really need to be able to play in 3♣ here.

 

I also sometimes have the agreement that transfers apply opposite a value-showing 2NT rebid, but only if responder has bid.

Is the ability to play in 3C more important than the ability to show both 5 card major and force and to get out in 3 of a major?

Obviously Andy is playing transfers starting with 3♦, so he gets all 3 of them.

Also obviously, Han meant to say "3♦ is forcing, and opener is required to bid 3-card major suits" aka inverted puppet stayman, so he also gets to do everything.

[PhantomSac]

Oh I see, so he just loses finding 4-4 major fits via 3C transfer to diamonds aka stayman.

 

I guess that is fine. TBH it's hard to have a blanket rule for every auction, but if I did I would agree with 3C NF and 3D/3H transfers.

[kayin801]

Oh I see, so he just loses finding 4-4 major fits via 3C transfer to diamonds aka stayman.

 

I guess that is fine. TBH it's hard to have a blanket rule for every auction, but if I did I would agree with 3C NF and 3D/3H transfers.

With a 4 card major could opener X first and then "retreat" to 2NT when partner replies in our shorter major (as expected) or would X promise an unbalanced hand here? 4432 I'd probably X rather than bid 2NT... or are you advocating bidding 2NT with those kinds of hands too?

 

If we can have a balanced hand for X, does 2NT show something like a 3334 or 3235 19 count and make us lean away from the majors?

[PhantomSac]

Oh I see, so he just loses finding 4-4 major fits via 3C transfer to diamonds aka stayman.

 

I guess that is fine. TBH it's hard to have a blanket rule for every auction, but if I did I would agree with 3C NF and 3D/3H transfers.

With a 4 card major could opener X first and then "retreat" to 2NT when partner replies in our shorter major (as expected) or would X promise an unbalanced hand here? 4432 I'd probably X rather than bid 2NT... or are you advocating bidding 2NT with those kinds of hands too?

 

If we can have a balanced hand for X, does 2NT show something like a 3334 or 3235 19 count and make us lean away from the majors?

I would think that something like 2434 might bid 2N rather than X but I don't know. As I said if I was just going to make an agreement for every specific auction it would definitely be 3C NF + transfers here and forget about 4-4 fits, because as you say partner will often double with a 4 card major. Maybe he would always double with (42) in majors, I'm not sure.

[gnasher]

Obviously Andy is playing transfers starting with 3♦, so he gets all 3 of them.

You give me too much credit. In this auction I'd just play 3♦ as an ill-defined game-force.