[Quantumcat]

During the pairs of the recent NZ nationals.

Never having discussed it since it hardly ever comes up, the opponents open 2NT and I hold something like ♠AJ ♥KQ765 ♦KJ7 ♣AK3. I double, and other opp bids 3♣, over which partner bids 3♥. 4♠ should definitely be keycard since 3♠ looks forcing but not being 100% certain I opt for the practical bid of 6♥. Unfortunately it went three off as partner had six hearts and not much else .

Just wondering what a good defence is? It shouldn't be hard to come up with something extremely effective, since all the club and diamond bids are free to show something as well as the heart and spade bids, and you get double dipping (passing and bidding meaning something different to bidding immediately), rather like over multi 2♦. It might be a waste of time agreeing a defence since it hardly ever happens but it would be nice to know what we're doing.

[ggwhiz]

I defended against this 2nt bid just yesterday in our Regional with the only agreement that double can penalize one or both minors.

It went 3♦ and pard with

Jxxx, KT9x, Qxxx, x knew which one I was after and bid 4♦. I had

AKx, QJx, x, AKQJTxx and picked 4♥ making on a stiff club lead having picked the moyse that split 4-2 instead of the one that split 5-1

We had no idea what we were doing either but I think your double in that context should be forcing, pard passing in case that was something you wanted to hammer and then if you do and pard removes to 3♥, that's weaker than a direct bid in this case but agreeing that a direct 3♥ bid says I don't care what you "think" you are beating, I don't has a lot of merit.

Similar to 1x - dbl - rdbl by pard, then pass back to me. We play a bid as I don't care if you think you've got them, I don't.

[kenrexford]

One approach is to include 3C as lighter with one or both majors, such that 3M and 3D (both) are stronger.

[32519]

Ken’s approach is moving in the direction of my own agreements –
A direct 3♣ overcall = both majors, longer ♥
A direct 3♦ overcall = both majors, longer ♠
A direct X = both majors, majors equal in length
A direct X followed by a suit bid = a powerful 1-suited hand
A direct X followed by 3NT = natural balanced (if partner can make a bid showing some life).

[This post has been edited]

[Antrax]

What if the auction goes (2NT)-2NT-(Director)? What is X here vs. a suit bid?
[edit] It was funnier before 32159 edited out the part about 2NT and continuations.

[paulg]

We use Kit's method:

Double = strong balanced
3♣ = majors
3♦ = weak single-suited major
3M = constructive overcall

The 3♦ overcall is defined as a hand that does not really have the values to bid at the three-level but cannot face passing.

[helene_t]

Most people here play something like
3♣: take-out with equal length or longer hearts
3♦: take-out with longer spades.

I suppose 5-3 or 4-4 is enough.

Not sure about the 4-level overcalls, but I think it would be sensible to play
4♣=both majors
4♦/♥= transfer
Alternatively, 4♦ could be multi which would allow you to distinguis between a weakish 4♥ overcall and a stronger one. But if opps compete to 5m it is good for partner to know which suit you have. So I think I would prefer transfers.

[Zelandakh]

I think what helene posted for 3m overcalls is reasonably standard without special agreements, although most would require more shape than 5-3/4-4. To that I would add X as balanced or semi-balanced values and 3M as natural and constructive. At the 4 level, 4♣ as a general cue and 4♦ as pick a major with 4M as a GOSH seems sensible to me. Using this method you have to pass and compete next time around with a weaker hand and a long major, which is a loss against the defence Paul posted. Against that you are better placed if it starts, for example, (2NT) - 3♣ - (4♦).

[SteveMoe]

A wrinkle you might enjoy:

Double = strong balanced hand with one or both minors covered. 14+

3♣ = full value plus ♥ overcall
3♦ = full value plus ♠ overcall
3♥/♠ = to play. Usually 6 cards with little else.
3N = BOTH Majors Forcing

Over 3♣/♦ advancer uses ♦/♥ (the sandwich strain) to accept game and induce control bidding (serious). Minor suit calls by advancer are nonserious. 4 Other Major to play (unless you like something else here).

[JanM]

We like:
Directly over 2NT:
DBL Balanced, 14+, or 18+ with a Major
3♣ Majors, 5+ Hearts + 4+ Spades (3♦ asks for 5 Spades).
3♦ Majors, 4 Hearts + 5-6 Spades
(2NT) 3m (any): 4m is a slam try in the corresponding Major
3M NAT overcall
3NT Tricks
4♣ 6+ hearts + 4 spades (2+ card disparity), FG
4♦ 6+ spades + 4 hearts (2+ card disparity), FG

NOTE: with 1-suited Major, weakest auction is P then bid the Major, middle is bid the Major immediately, strongest is DBL then bid the Major

(2NT) DBL (3♣):
DBL Resp
3R Inv+ transfer
3♠ Short clubs, 4-4 (rarely 4-3) Ms

(2NT) DBL (3♦):
DBL Cards, no clear action

(2NT) Pass (3m):
DBL T/O oriented
Cheapest cue bid Majors, usually limited
Other cue-bid Majors, FG
Others NAT

(2NT) Pass (3M) ?
DBL PEN (anti-psychic device)
3NT NAT

Incidentally, I think it's important to realize that when you're talking about defenses to things like this, you need to consider what happens after responder acts (either over DBL or over P) as well as what you do in immediate position. And I don't think you can take the risk of passing 2NT with a strong hand, because responder CAN pass (if NV) with some hands.

[gwnn]

3C/3D=5 card major in H/S, 4 card major in the other one
3M=natural
3NT=natural
4C=strong 4M bid
4D=5-5 or better majors
4M=4M bid

[PhilKing]

There's a common hole in a lot of the defences suggested above - when we show 5-4 in the majors, partner can basically either sign-off in three or bid game - he can't invite. What is he supposed to do with eight or nine points and a modest fit?

You end up with defences that are worse than playing nothing. In the "nothing" defence, you would tend to double on all decent hands (pass and double weak take out) with next double take-out. So you generally start (2NT)-x-(3m), and partner can make a responsive double or bid 3M invitational with a five-carder. Starting with double gives partner the otion of making a voluntary action over 3m, which exposes the principle weakness of artificial preempts. Direct actions with poorly defined ranges force partner to bid and thus remove our ability to invite. Playing the "nothing" defence also gains when partner passes our follow-up double of 3m when we had 54M and a decent hand.

Now obviously the "nothing" defence is also terrible, but there are several solutions that solve the range and suit length issues trivially.

[CSGibson]

My own defense:

X = balanced hand, 14+, or normal X & pull hand.
3♣ shows both majors, 5-4 or better. After 3♣, 3♦ or X asks opener to bid their better major. You can make some follow-ups at 3N & higher to show really strong 5=5 or 6+4+ hands in this, too, though we haven't gotten around to it.
3♦ is a single-suited major hand in the intermediate range - not quite good enough for a direct 4M, but close. Major suit responses are pass or correct.
3♥/3♠ - normal overcall