[ajm218]

---

Matchpoints playing strong and 5

[jillybean]

2N but I can live with 3♣

[pooltuna]

surely 2NT shows this hand

[billw55]

Does 2NT show this much strength over 2♣? If so, how would you show a balanced minimum? And 3♣ surely must be an underbid.

I kind of like the "fake" reverse 2♥. Or maybe just 3NT.

[wyman]

 billw55, on 2010-October-20, 08:29, said:

Does 2NT show this much strength over 2♣? If so, how would you show a balanced minimum?

Pass.

(at least on my card: Over opps t/o double New Suit Forcing [x] 1 level [ ] 2 level)

[billw55]

 wyman, on 2010-October-20, 08:31, said:

Pass.

Surely 2♣ is forcing.

[wyman]

 billw55, on 2010-October-20, 08:33, said:

Surely 2♣ is forcing.

see edit above, and don't call me shirley

...and count me in the 2N crowd

[billw55]

 wyman, on 2010-October-20, 08:34, said:

see edit above, and don't call me shirley

...and count me in the 2N crowd

Interesting .. so as north, holding a decent hand with clubs, I suppose you redouble?

I suppose it depends on agreements like many things do. If I had those agreements, great. But I would certainly not be confident that a pickup partner would understand 2NT to show this hand.

[jillybean]

 billw55, on 2010-October-20, 08:29, said:

Does 2NT show this much strength over 2♣? If so, how would you show a balanced minimum? And 3♣ surely must be an underbid.

I kind of like the "fake" reverse 2♥. Or maybe just 3NT.

2N describes my hand and is forward going, partner won't pass. If I was a balanced minimum without stoppers in the majors, I would reluctantly rebid ♦'s. I don't know what else I can do.
3♣ is simply showing ♣ support and is forcing. No need to fake it with 2♥ or jump to 3N, I have a partner.

[TimG]

 jillybean, on 2010-October-20, 08:51, said:

2N describes my hand and is forward going, partner won't pass. If I was a balanced minimum without stoppers in the majors, I would reluctantly rebid ♦'s. I don't know what else I can do.
3♣ is simply showing ♣ support and is forcing. No need to fake it with 2♥ or jump to 3N, I have a partner.

It sounds to me like you are ignoring the double and treating 2♣ as GF. I think that is far from standard. Even if you have the agreement that 2♣ is forcing over a double, that generally only means for one round so that a raise to 3♣ or a 2N rebid would be non-forcing.

If you treat 2♣ as forcing, then I would rebid 2N with any balanced minimum (without club support) without much regard for major suit stoppers.

[paulg]

I feel the choice is between 2♥ and a direct 3NT. At matchpoints I probably chose the latter as it may not be clear to LHO which major is the best lead. At imps I'd definitely bid 2♥ as I want to be in the best contract - less concern about directing a lead in 3NT as we'd only be in the contract when it's (probably) right.

I'd expect most would play 2NT as showing a balanced 12-14 here. I would also expect 3♣ to be non-forcing in a competitive auction - that would certainly be standard in the UK where 3♣ is non-forcing without intervention (!).

Paul

[billw55]

 jillybean, on 2010-October-20, 08:51, said:

2N describes my hand and is forward going, partner won't pass. If I was a balanced minimum without stoppers in the majors, I would reluctantly rebid ♦'s. I don't know what else I can do.
3♣ is simply showing ♣ support and is forcing. No need to fake it with 2♥ or jump to 3N, I have a partner.

It sounds like you have a partner with whom you have well understood agreements. With such a partner, the correct bid is .. whatever you have agreed .

I was only addressing the situation with an unknown pickup partner. In which case, I am not at all sure that either 2NT or 3♣ would be taken as forcing. 2♥ obviously misleads about length, but at least the strength should be clear. With a random partner, 3NT might be the least likely bid to be misunderstood.

[jillybean]

 billw55, on 2010-October-20, 10:09, said:

It sounds like you have a partner with whom you have well understood agreements. With such a partner, the correct bid is .. whatever you have agreed .

I was only addressing the situation with an unknown pickup partner. In which case, I am not at all sure that either 2NT or 3♣ would be taken as forcing. 2♥ obviously misleads about length, but at least the strength should be clear. With a random partner, 3NT might be the least likely bid to be misunderstood.

Yeah, I ignored the X. 2♥ or 3N is correct.

[Phil]

1. 2♣ (hey, where is my black club symbol?) is non-forcing in standard.

2. 2N is called for. Partner will retreat to 3♣ (does "cl" work? - crap - still green ) with KJxxxx and bid 3N with AQxxxx.

[gwnn]

♣? no it's green but why do you want black clubs? they're ugly.

[Cascade]

 gwnn, on 2010-October-20, 11:49, said:

♣? no it's green but why do you want black clubs? they're ugly.

You have no respect for traditions.

[Cascade]

 wyman, on 2010-October-20, 08:31, said:

Pass.

(at least on my card: Over opps t/o double New Suit Forcing [x] 1 level [ ] 2 level)

Even if 2♣ is not forcing we surely want to bid here.

Usually a non-forcing bid is showing a decent suit or compensating values.

Here we have extra values and a fit. Unless something bad happens I am bidding game over a non-forcing 2♣. In fact I may do so immediately.

[bucky]

 billw55, on 2010-October-20, 08:47, said:

Interesting .. so as north, holding a decent hand with clubs, I suppose you redouble?

I suppose it depends on agreements like many things do. If I had those agreements, great. But I would certainly not be confident that a pickup partner would understand 2NT to show this hand.

I expect a pickup partner to treat 2NT as value bid (and 2♣ after the X to be non-forcing). That is quite standard (of course being standard doesn't mean it is the only way to play, but it means that's what we play without discussion). But if you are referring to "pickup partner on BBO", then all bets are off, anything can happen, ANYTHING...

[paulg]

My SAYC system booklet says that 2♣ is non-forcing, but it is not a method that I've ever played (so would claim that it has never been standard in the UK, don't know about Europe). So I'd be wary of US-UK partnerships, perhaps including those involving the OP

[bucky]

Of course people can make up agreements (or impression of agreements). All the bridge books I've read teach me that 2♣ here is non-forcing. Maybe many do treat it as forcing in practice, but I've also learned that many don't know what's standard when they think they do (I am not referring to any particular person)...