What does this sequence mean?

[awm]

Opponents passing, you bid 1♦-2NT-3♣. What do you think is the standard meaning for 3♣, and what do you prefer to play?

[mike777]

fwiw I play any ..any bid over 2nt is gf

--

 

2nt is strong invite, natural

--

 

 

at least clear if forcing

[Yu18772]

I dont blame partner for opening x,xx,AQxxx,KJxxx at 1 level..... and see no reason to leave partner in 2NT (10-12 balanced) that probably goes down.So for me 3♣/♦ over 2NT are weak distributional not forcing at all (I would say asking to pass.....). :)

[mike777]

for me 2nt is not random 10-12 ...b ut much much more

 

 

that means when pard opens on 8-10 hcp he passes with shapely nothing......

 

--

 

 

 

 

In any event that means 3c=gf

\pass when you have shape but nothing.....

[qwery_hi]

I would play it differently at IMPS and MPs - forcing at IMPS, NF at matchpoints. This is of course if one plays 2NT as 11-12 .

 

Opponents passing, you bid 1♦-2NT-3♣. What do you think is the standard meaning for 3♣, and what do you prefer to play?

[aguahombre]

I wouldn't presume to know what Standard is or should be on this.

 

But, it seems we need to have our cake and eat it, too; plus we need a forcing diamond rebid.

 

Perhaps the majors can be used for the forcing two-suiters and one-suiter, leaving both 3C and 3D to be weak. Alternatively, we could frag a major with the forcing 2-suiter and just bid 4D with strong one-suit.

[WGF_Flame]

Imo standard is forcing.

I think its possible to change this meaning to nf, if we also change the other meaning of bids so that 3D=focing, 3M= something in the major with 4+C

[benlessard]

I would play it differently at IMPS and MPs - forcing at IMPS, NF at matchpoints. This is of course if one plays 2NT as 11-12 .

 

Doing the opposite make more sense IMO. Its more likely that 3m is a better partscore at imps than at MP. At imps if 3m has a slighty better % to make than bidding 3m make sense. At MP you probably need 2NT to go down, so 3m as a target is much narrower.

 

For a game perspective i agree that looking for the superior game is more important in imps vs MP (where just blasting to 3NT wich is often the correct strategy). But i feel that hte hands where 3m is better that 2Nt are more frequent than the hands where 5m are better than 3Nt. Also if 5m is better than 3Nt opener can still manage by bidding a shortness with 3M while hands where 3m is better than 2Nt you have no options.

 

Im pretty sure standard meaning is

 

3C- Forcing 3D not forcing (wich make little sense)

 

i however like to play both NF at imps and both forcing at MP.

[aguahombre]

Im pretty sure standard meaning is

 

3C- Forcing 3D not forcing (wich make little sense)

Whether that is the standard meaning or not, I certainly agree with you that 3C-F makes little sense. Languishing in 2N when the opponents have nine or ten cards in one of the majors is probably not overall winning strategy at any form of scoring, so there is a need to be able to get out in 3m ---and a need to go forward in a minor with more strength.

 

Of the two, 3D non-forcing seems marginally o.k., because we might be more comfortable just raising to 3NT with the stronger single-suiter. But, even then, with shortness in a major there are dangers.

[gwnn]

slightly related:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/31492-2nt-poll/

[Phil]

Its definitely NF for me, but I also play 3M as shortnesss, so I suppose I have this 'luxury'.

[mikeh]

Firstly, while 2N as non-forcing, invitational is very common, and may these days be more common than the forcing treatment I (far) prefer, I'm not sure that we can assume that there is any 'standard' meaning to 3♣.

 

I voted 3♣ nf for all the obvious reasons, but I have no idea if this is common...I don't think I've ever seen this call made!

 

To me, the reason for non-forcing is simple. We will often need to play 3minor on these auctions and we can't get to 3♣ if 3♣ is considered forcing.

 

Otoh, if we want to force, we have lots of other calls available....these may not be ideal, but they cover most situations: unlike when we hold a weak hand and have zero options other than a nf 3♣. Thus we can play 3M as shortness, forcing, and 4♣ as natural, forcing (please....no gerber comments....opener cannot have a hand that can place the contract merely by asking about Aces and yet have no other opening bid or second round action)

[Siegmund]

If 2NT is nonforcing it pretty firmly denies a 4CM.

On that basis, I expect opener's pass, 3C, or 3D to be an offer to play, while opener's 3H or 3S is available to force (whether you agree to play it as shortness or fragment.)

 

What do I prefer? Not to play 2NTNF.

 

Seems mikeh and I are on close to the same page today.

[helene_t]

If 1♦-2♣ is forcing only to 2NT then the direct 2NT is not mandatory and will probably be made only with very soft-valued hands that have a strong desire to declare. If so then 3♣ as forcing is playable I think. I still prefer 3♣ to be NF (and also prefer 2NT to mean something else than natural invitational) but wouldn't object strongly to 3♣ forcing.

 

OTOH if 1♦-2♣ is gf so that 1♦-2NT is mandatory with (332)5 and 3334 11-counts, then I think 3♣ really has to be nf.

[JLOGIC]

Strongly prefer NF with 3M as shortness as others have suggested. No idea what is standard.