[kgr]

Scoring: MP

(2C)-??
2C=Weak with 6cH or any GF

---

What do you bid?
(Your partner will take the 2C bid as a weak Heart, and take 2NT as 15-17 with stops, 3NT to play, 4NT as minors...)

[kenrexford]

3♣

[nige1]

kgr, on Jul 8 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

(2C)-??
2C=Weak with 6cH or any GF

---

What do you bid?
(Your partner will take the 2C bid as a weak Heart, and take 2NT as 15-17 with stops, 3NT to play, 4NT as minors...)

3♣ = 10, assuming that this shows less high card strength than delayed competition.

[Codo]

3 ♣, the alternative to pass and bid NT later to show a minor two suiter is worse because the clubs are so much stronger then the diamonds.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Jul 9 2008, 02:31 AM, said:

3♣ = 10, assuming that this shows less high card strength than delayed competition.

That's an unusual assumption. I'd assume that my methods were the same as those over a weak 2♥, with 2♥ taking the place of a takeout double.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jul 9 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

nige1, on Jul 9 2008, 02:31 AM, said:

3♣ = 10, assuming that this shows less high card strength than delayed competition.

That's an unusual assumption. I'd assume that my methods were the same as those over a weak 2♥, with 2♥ taking the place of a takeout double.

Why wouldn't double be takeout?

If 2♥ is conventional, I'd expect Michaels, myself. But, I think there is good cause for 2♥ being natural, and more of a preemptive hand. Which could be funny, if two weak two heart openings are present.

[andy_h]

Agree with the crowd 3C.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jul 9 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Why wouldn't double be takeout?

If 2♥ is conventional, I'd expect Michaels, myself.

I usually do that, but it seems not to be the default where I live.

What I found unusual was that you assume that a pass followed by action is stronger than immediate action.

[kgr]

---

(2♣!)-4NT-(5♥)-6♦
All pass
♦'s were 2-2 and 6♦ made.
Partner thought I was too weak for 4NT and you seem to agree
It would have been more clear over a 2♥ opening, but probably I was too much influenced by the first sight of the 2♣ opening...Or is it also no 4NT over a strong 2♣ opening?

[effervesce]

kgr, on Jul 9 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> ????? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> ???? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Axxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Ax </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Qxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KTx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KTxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQJxxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->
(2♣!)-4NT-(5♥)-6♦
All pass
♦'s were 2-2 and 6♦ made.
Partner thought I was too weak for 4NT and you seem to agree 
It would have been more clear over a 2♥ opening, but probably I was too much influenced by the first sight of the 2♣ opening...Or is it also no 4NT over a strong 2♣ opening?

Personally, 4NT was my first thought too. It's not like you weren't going to bid to 5m anyway. What was the vul? At IMPs 3♣ then 4NT showing this 6-5 could be a better route, but this is MPs.

[kgr]

effervesce, on Jul 10 2008, 12:32 AM, said:

Personally, 4NT was my first thought too. It's not like you weren't going to bid to 5m anyway. What was the vul? At IMPs 3♣ then 4NT showing this 6-5 could be a better route, but this is MPs.

We were Red, don't remember opps color

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jul 9 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

What I found unusual was that you assume that a pass followed by action is stronger than immediate action.

Huh? You inferred this from my two character statement "3♣"?

I'm simply stating that I would bid 3♣.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jul 9 2008, 11:51 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 9 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

What I found unusual was that you assume that a pass followed by action is stronger than immediate action.

Huh? You inferred this from my two character statement "3♣"?

I'm simply stating that I would bid 3♣.

Sorry - I got confused about whose post I'd been nitpicking. What I found unusual was that Nigel assumed that a pass followed by action was stronger than immediate action.