[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

---

I opened the following hand 2NT (20-21 bal) and the following auction occurred:

2NT - (P) - 3♣ (1) - (X)
3♠(2) - (X) - P - (P)
3NT - (P) - 4♦ - (P)
?

(1) 4 card puppet stayman
(2) No 4 card major, but has 5 diamonds

We have agreed to open all hands with a 5 card major in another way. I believed my partner's 4♦ was a slam try and asking for keycards. He believed he was "getting out" into 4♦. I believed if that were the case then he should just have passed 2NT (which would have been down 2). He claimed that against decent pairs, they would always double 2NT and that we should have a runout. I can see this reasoning over 1NT, but does anyone play this over 2NT? Is this a legitimate concern? By the way, the cheapest we could make a runout is at the 4-level.

[awm]

I've only seen 2NT doubled in direct seat a few times, and only once when the opening wasn't a psych. On the other hand, 2NT-P-P-X is a popular auction especially with the junior crowd.

However it seems pretty clear to me that 2NT-P-P-X; P-P-3♦ is an attempt to play there. What else would it be? I think partner would be better off to pass 2NT and wait for the double. When the double comes, then he can worry about where to run.

[coyot]

Play with the field. If partner opens 2NT against yarborough, bad luck, let him live with it, knowing that most other pairs end up in the same mess. Make runouts only when doubled. 4♦ after stayman MUST be reserved for good hands, preventing an occasional bad result is not worth losing slam-exploration.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Aug 31 2005, 02:32 AM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 109 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 82 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 108532 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> 10953 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AK </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K43 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AKJ97 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> QJ4 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

I opened the following hand 2NT (20-21 bal) and the following auction occurred:

2NT - (P) - 3♣ (1) - (X)
3♠(2) - (X) - P - (P)
3NT - (P) - 4♦ - (P)
?

(1) 4 card puppet stayman
(2) No 4 card major, but has 5 diamonds

We have agreed to open all hands with a 5 card major in another way.  I believed my partner's 4♦ was a slam try and asking for keycards.  He believed he was "getting out" into 4♦.  I believed if that were the case then he should just have passed 2NT (which would have been down 2).  He claimed that against decent pairs, they would always double 2NT and that we should have a runout.  I can see this reasoning over 1NT, but does anyone play this over 2NT?  Is this a legitimate concern?  By the way, the cheapest we could make a runout is at the 4-level.

3c is just goofy , too much science.

Pass or use 3s as minor suit stayman. At the very worst you end up in 5-2 d fit or pass 2nt if you are too scared.


Sorry very late I am so tired of the c**p my pick up partners are bidding.

[mikeh]

In my two most detailed partnerships, we have extremely detailed (and completely different) structures over our 2N openings, but neither method includes runouts after 2N (P) ?

This is completely unlike methods over 1N, for obvious reasons to do with hcp

North should just say Pass: the most under-utilized bid in bridge.

I recall hearing of the suggestion that the auction 2N p p should invite a double, on the basis that dummy will be broke and declarer will be leading away from strength throughout the hand. Yet I have never actually seen anyone perpetrate that approach, again for obvious reasons.

[han]

I think running out of 2NT when it gets doubled is very simple: 2NT-p-p-X-p-p-3D, what's the problem?

Perhaps your partner plays some form of "higher bridge" that I don't understand.

[Double !]

don't understand why P didn't just pass 2NT. anything else is looking for more trouble. I do not agree with the 3C response as it suggests some values. Hence, P's 3NT bid. Pass is not a dirty word (only F-----y is/ lolol).

[1eyedjack]

If you regard 2N-P-P-X as being a near certainty, there may be a case for raising 2N direct to 3N. Same hand may not double that. And then next time pass the 2N with a 6 count, as you would rather play in 2NX (or XX) than in 3N