[wank]

---

2NT is strong balanced. 3♣ is just to play with a weak hand. what's partner's double? opps are zia and sabine auken fwiw.

---

what's your plan here? you play a version of ghestem whereby you can bid 3♣ to show the black suits (no need to tell me it's not the most efficient version of ghestem).

if you bid 2♣ the bidding continues 2♦ on your left, pass from p, 2♥ on your right.

if you overcall 3♣ the bidding continues similarly, i.e. 3♦ on your left, 3♥ on your right

[Hanoi5]

If 2NT is strong the double would be a competitive action. Maybe it also shows 4 diamonds?

I'd go 3♣ and 4♣ on the second one.

[bluecalm]

Penalty imo. With 5-5 or 6-4 I could bid 3♦ now. Partner made t/o double of clubs and we are both passed hands. I can't see what kind of "competitive" double makes sense here as he will never leave it and I can bid my side suit naturally.
With both majors I could've bid 2♦ round before.

[CSGibson]

First one: Double is penalty. No other interpretation makes sense to me, though I have a tough time visualizing the 4 hands that bid like this.

2nd one: 2♣ then 2♠

[gnasher]

Penalty on the first one. Both of our hands are well-defined in strength, shape and fit.

I'm surprised and disappointed to learn that Wank plays Ghestem, but as we've got it we should definitely use it. Maybe we'll get back some of the IMPs we lost on all the hands where we couldn't make a natural 3♣ overcall.

[bluecalm]

Quote

but as we've got it we should definitely use it. Maybe we'll get back some of the IMPs we lost on all the hands where we couldn't make a natural 3♣ overcall.

!?
As all Italian elite pairs play it I would be more worried about not playing it

[paulg]

Penalty on the first one.

Many of the Italians do play, or have played, this version of Ghestem. Generally they reserve the jump cue bid for a very strong hand with the black suits so that 3♣ can be non-forcing. It looks normal to overcall 3♣ and continue with 4♣ in this style.

[JLOGIC]

Definitely penalty imo, you don't need a double for any other purpose.

2C on the 2nd one seems obvious, I will bid spades next.

[dake50]

What would the bidding plan be with 4xSpades with 5xHearts?
Bid 2H over 1D, to take space as X implied MM,
(this may win if 2H ends this auction)
then X over 3C to show also Spade fit.
Willing to 3-level with likely double fit.
**
Since you told me the auction won't come back to me at 5H,4NT,4C(spl),
I guess I overcall 2C, to rebid even to 4S.
I think 1S overcall to get our most likely game fit
(keep this 6xC hidden) started.
May have tough guess 5+C sac later if no 4S.

[Poky]

1st board:
The double is just saying that 2♥ wasn't thin and that the board belongs to us (suggesting that Zia is bidding tactically, which is pretty clear anyway - noone invites the game, where opponents are inviting the game). But even if we do not know anything about the double, the doubler's continuation is very easy:
- 3♦ = cuebid, I am interested in game;
- 3♥ = I'm not interested in game.

2nd board:
I'm bidding 3♣ and passing the rest.

[gnasher]

Poky, on 2011-May-04, 06:39, said:

1st board:
The double is just saying that 2♥ wasn't thin and that the board belongs to us (suggesting that Zia is bidding tactically, which is pretty clear anyway - noone invites the game, where opponents are inviting the game). But even if we do not know anything about the double, the doubler's continuation is very easy:
- 3♦ = cuebid, I am interested in game;
- 3♥ = I'm not interested in game.

Didn't we decide we weren't interested in game when partner made a non-forcing 2♥ bid and we made a non-forcing pass of 2NT? I know that sometimes one should reevaluate after further compettion, but I don't see how the subsequent auction can have taken us from a hand that couldn't even compete over 2NT to one that would want to make a game-try.

[whereagles]

1. Dbl = may not have clubs, but sure have points.
2. 3♣ and follow up with 4♣, maybe 5 if feeling lucky. Very descriptive and should be safe enough.

[wank]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-04, 05:49, said:

2C on the 2nd one seems obvious, I will bid spades next.

by which you mean what?

the route followed at the table was 2♣ followed by 3♠ over 2♥. I, as this hand's partner, took this as showing the nuts and we subsequently went for a fat penalty after I jumped to 5♣ then assumed this hand's pass of 5♦ was forcing (obviously debatable, but we had just jumped to a vul v not game which passes most meta rules for forcing passes) so bid again. this isn't to say what i did would necessarily have been right even opposite the nuts admittedly.

My team essentially said I was talking out of my arse and that one couldn't only bid 2♣ >>> 2♠ with this collection as it doesn't do it justice and you may not get another opportunity to bid again at a comfortable level.


on the first one, partner's double was penalties but you're only getting it 1 off and we made 3hearts so it didn't make much difference. ironically if rho supports her partner's diamonds over 3cX, they play in a 5-3 fit, not a 4-3 fit, but go 1 extra off.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-May-04, 02:04, said:

I'm surprised and disappointed to learn that Wank plays Ghestem, but as we've got it we should definitely use it. Maybe we'll get back some of the IMPs we lost on all the hands where we couldn't make a natural 3♣ overcall.

If you have an alternative bid available to show a black 2 suiter, surely it makes sense to bid clubs then spades as:

(i) Partner will appreciate that we have a marked preference for clubs over spades
(ii) Partner can show preference for spades at a lower level if you bid 2♣ followed by 2♠/3♠/4♠ compared with bidding 3♣ followed by 4♣/5♣.

If partner had a hand worth a jump to 5♣, it hard to see why the penalty in 6♣ should be particularly "fat".