Another mini-Moisian

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=s73hakjtdkj853cqj&n=st65h942dq74cat52&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=ppp1s(West%20was%20actually%20dealer)p2s(Constructive)d(Misguided%3F)p3c(Not%20much%20choice%20really.%202NT%20would%20be%202%20places.%20)pp(3!D%20would%20show%20a%20much%20stronger%20hand%20with%20diamonds%2C%20not%20a%204-5%202%20suiter.%20)p]266|200[/hv]

 

West was dealer.

 

Anyway, trumps broke deeply unpleasantly and this went a load off. Suggestions?

[Bad_Wolf]

2NT "two places to play" by north

[smerriman]

Your bidding diagram has the wrong opener, which was a little confusing.

 

Otherwise, agreed with the above. While 2NT normally shows two 4 card suits, there's no harm in bidding in here too to catch partner with a 5 card minor.

[sfi]

2NT "two places to play" by South as well.

[PrecisionL]

South should correct to 3♦ (I have the reds.)

[mikeh]

As others have suggested, North should bid 2N.

 

It’s useful to consider two different sequences:

 

1. (1S) x (2S) ?

 

Here, since 4th seat is not forced to bid, 2N is usually played as a form of lebensohl. 3x would be constructive. With a weaker hand that doesn’t want to sell out to 2S but doesn’t want doubler to get excited, bid 2N. It asks doubler to bid 3C, if possible, and advancer intends to pass with clubs or bid a red suit.

 

2. (1S) P (2S) x (P) ?

 

Now, second seat can’t pass (unless he has a trump stack) so is basically forced to bid. Now lebensohl is less useful, and 2N (often called either ‘grope’ or ‘scramble’) is more useful. 2N asks doubler to bid his cheapest 4+ suit.

 

This allows 3C to promise 5+ clubs (an exception would be if North were 4=3=2=4 but here doubler, with two spades, knows this isn’t likely), and, on this hand, south absolutely should pass notwithstanding holding 5D. A bid of 3D would show a stronger hand, probably the same approximate shape.

[sfi]

South should correct to 3♦ (I have the reds.)

Their agreement is shown in the bidding diagram above - "3D would show a much stronger hand with diamonds."