[The_Badger]

---

MPs. What contract do you fancy ending up in on this auction? And if you make a bid below game level, is it forcing or not?

(When I asked what 2♠ showed on this auction, it could be 4♠ support with few points at this vulnerability, or semi-constructive (6-9) with 3 card ♠ support.)

[wank]

i'd bid 3h. assuming 3c was nf, so is this.

[wank]

partner is either 4531 or 3631.

[GrahamJson]

Why is Pass not an option? How much more bidding can you do on a nine count when partner has shown minimum values?

Having said that, I would have passed 2NT, but not having done do I would bid 3H now in case partner is showing preference with 3631 distribution, or similar.

[gszes]

pass (other)

U decided to not play 2n and your p has decided to correct your 3c to (a probably) more makeable 3d. It is a simple suit preference nothing more. We have nothing special in our hand to suddenly make game look any more palatable than it did over 2n.

[wank]

GrahamJson, on 2017-October-14, 11:07, said:

Why is Pass not an option?

because a 7 card fit is not as good as 8 card fit.

[LBengtsson]

red i will bid 3n, partner have qxx aqjxxx axx x 3631? 50/50 make game?

[msjennifer]

Assuming you play 3C as a completely NF passable bid ( I would never have bid 3C after partners 2NT) Partner is now suggesting 3D contract.So Pass is the only option for me.Frankly,I would have passed the 2NT bid.

[GrahamJson]

wank, on 2017-October-14, 16:07, said:

because a 7 card fit is not as good as 8 card fit.

Yes, but which suit is which? At least two others think that diamonds is the eight card fit. As I said, I would bid 3H as I am not sure, however I don't think partner should suggest playing in a seven card diamond fit if he has a robust six card heart suit. So, does partner have, say, KJx KQJxx Axxx x or KJx KQJxxx Axx x? I think it should be the first, but I'm bidding 3H as it should be a playable contract with either hand opposite, whereas 3D might not be so comfortable with the second hand. Then again, 3NT looks like a pretty good contract with either hand, so perhaps Mr Bengtsson is correct.

[maartenxq]

The_Badger, on 2017-October-14, 10:01, said:

---

MPs. What contract do you fancy ending up in on this auction? And if you make a bid below game level, is it forcing or not?

First question: what is 2 nt? Apparently 3541 or 3532, but does this promises extra values? Apparently not because then you would bid 3 nt right away.
Second question: what is 3 ♣? Appears to be sign off, so logic would dictate pass of on 2 counts. Now I will vote and view other comments.

Maarten Baltussen

[PhilG007]

The_Badger, on 2017-October-14, 10:01, said:

---

MPs. What contract do you fancy ending up in on this auction? And if you make a bid below game level, is it forcing or not?

(When I asked what 2♠ showed on this auction, it could be 4♠ support with few points at this vulnerability, or semi-constructive (6-9) with 3 card ♠ support.)

4♦ Partner is showing a red 2 suiter and is asking for preference so its obvious which suit to support. It's not forcing but game invitational.
If partner holds something like ♠5 ♥KQJ542 ♦ AQJ876 ♣- 5♦ is eminently payable.

[GrahamJson]

PhilG007, on 2017-October-15, 08:20, said:

4♦ Partner is showing a red 2 suiter and is asking for preference so its obvious which suit to support. It's not forcing but game invitational.
If partner holds something like ♠5 ♥KQJ542 ♦ AQJ876 ♣- 5♦ is eminently payable.

If partner held a red two suiter he would have bid the other suit (or cue bid if strong) not bid 2NT which, barring agreements to the contrary, is natural. As for the example you give, I think few here would imagine this monster opposite.

[JanisW]

GrahamJson, on 2017-October-14, 11:07, said:

Why is Pass not an option? How much more bidding can you do on a nine count when partner has shown minimum values?

Having said that, I would have passed 2NT, but not having done do I would bid 3H now in case partner is showing preference with 3631 distribution, or similar.

+1

[wank]

GrahamJson, on 2017-October-15, 04:34, said:

Yes, but which suit is which? At least two others think that diamonds is the eight card fit. As I said, I would bid 3H as I am not sure, however I don't think partner should suggest playing in a seven card diamond fit if he has a robust six card heart suit. So, does partner have, say, KJx KQJxx Axxx x or KJx KQJxxx Axx x? I think it should be the first, but I'm bidding 3H as it should be a playable contract with either hand opposite, whereas 3D might not be so comfortable with the second hand. Then again, 3NT looks like a pretty good contract with either hand, so perhaps Mr Bengtsson is correct.

if he had as much as either of those he wouldn't have made a non-forcing bid the previous round. if he didn't have enough to force and 4 diamonds, he would have bid 3 diamonds and waited for you to check for a spade stop with extras. in other words, he doesn't have 4 diamonds.

this isn't akin to, for example, (1s) x (p) where one will often bid 1NT rather than a suit so as to accurately show the point range. here partner's already shown a reasonable minimum point count by overcalling at the 2 level and 2NT doesn't show any extra, so partner's priority is showing shape and getting to the best partscore.

[Palladian]

PhilG007, on 2017-October-15, 08:20, said:

4♦ Partner is showing a red 2 suiter and is asking for preference so its obvious which suit to support. It's not forcing but game invitational.
If partner holds something like ♠5 ♥KQJ542 ♦ AQJ876 ♣- 5♦ is eminently payable.

Don't you play Michaels or Ghestem or in your example Super Ghestem?

[wank]

Palladian, on 2017-October-15, 10:11, said:

Don't you play Michaels or Ghestem or in your example Super Ghestem?

he doesn't really believe what he writes. he just says obviously ridiculous things to generate a reaction - some sort of childish game. there's no point replying to him.

[msjennifer]

wank, on 2017-October-14, 16:07, said:

because a 7 card fit is not as good as 8 card fit.

Partner never guaranteed Aa 6 carder heart suit going by the sequence.

[PhilG007]

Palladian, on 2017-October-15, 10:11, said:

Don't you play Michaels or Ghestem or in your example Super Ghestem?

Nope Terence Reese detested these gadgets And he was a big influence on me as a student player.

[PhilG007]

wank, on 2017-October-15, 10:21, said:

he doesn't really believe what he writes. he just says obviously ridiculous things to generate a reaction - some sort of childish game. there's no point replying to him.

Fair enough. But that doesn't stop me from replying to you....as I'm now doing.....

[PhilG007]

wank, on 2017-October-15, 10:21, said:

he doesn't really believe what he writes. he just says obviously ridiculous things to generate a reaction - some sort of childish game. there's no point replying to him.

On the other hand,snubbing is a two edged sword(!)