[Zelandakh]

So this came up recently and I wondered if anyone had put any thought into it. My LHO opened a weak 1NT and partner overcalled 3NT.

1. What would you take this to mean with a random intermediate partner?
2. What would you take this to mean with a random expert partner?
3. What do you think it should mean in an established partnership?

If your answers to 1 or 2 depend on what your own hand looks like then do your best to explain.

[Cyberyeti]

I expect it to mean "I have a long solid minor, some stuff outside and I don't fancy allowing opps to find their easy escape or the right lead against 3N".

[helene_t]

Some twosuited hand. With cyberyetis hand I double. Usually opener won't make any lead directing calls after that.

With an unknown intermediate I just pass.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2014-August-18, 10:00, said:

Some twosuited hand.

Don't most people play conventions to show 2-suiters? Cappeletti is popular against weak NT.

[helene_t]

Capelleti is not popular here but yes some people play ml or astro. Anyway, with a weak 65 or 66 hand you might want to bid more aggressively

[kenrexford]

Whether it makes sense or not, a strong contender is a sort of super-michaels major two-suiter with great playing strength.

[Wackojack]

1. A strong balanced hand 20+
2. Running minor 8-9 playing tricks
3. ditto

[gwnn]

I've never thought about this but I'd take and mean it as natural with anyone. I'd be quite upset if anyone tried to spring it on me and it wasn't natural (without discussion of course -- I wouldn't agree to any artificial meaning). It's right up there with meaning a 4♥ overcall as Texas.

[PhantomSac]

natural in all cases

[mikestar13]

PhantomSac, on 2014-August-18, 13:13, said:

natural in all cases

The best and safest rule there! My preferred meta-agreement: 3NT in competition is to play unless manifestly impossible. In constructive bidding, 3NT is to play if we have no eight-card major suit fit (may be to play in some sequences even then, but these sequences need to be agreed on).

[blackshoe]

To play, natural or just possibly a long suit and stoppers. If not, then after the session partner and I are going to have a serious discussion about the future, if any, of this partnership.

[Antrax]

helene_t, on 2014-August-18, 10:00, said:

Some twosuited hand.

What's wrong with 2NT for that, assuming you want a conventional NT over NT opening?

[fromageGB]

I take it to mean that partner does not want me to even think about what it means, as he wants me to pass. Being a good partner, I switch my brain off and just sort the cards ready to put down when the lead is made.

[helene_t]

Antrax, on 2014-August-19, 00:42, said:

What's wrong with 2NT for that, assuming you want a conventional NT over NT opening?

True, you could use them for different suit combinations but obviously that requires discussion. Without discussion I would just think that 3NT is more extreme, and that 2NT is specifically the minors. But if it just shows any two-suiter with at least one major it is probably useless.

Apparantly the concensus is that I am wrong. Anyway, I would never make that bid undiscussed unless 1NT was some kind of transfer opening.

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-18, 09:08, said:

So this came up recently and I wondered if anyone had put any thought into it. My LHO opened a weak 1NT and partner overcalled 3NT.

1. What would you take this to mean with a random intermediate partner?
2. What would you take this to mean with a random expert partner?
3. What do you think it should mean in an established partnership?

If your answers to 1 or 2 depend on what your own hand looks like then do your best to explain.

1. & 2. Natural.

3. It depends on the partnership's agreements about other calls. Is there a hole which can usefully be filled at this high level?

In a couple of partnerships where 2NT means something other than a game forcing 2-suiter, I have suggested playing this as 6-6 in the majors. Why? If you start with Landy or Asptro, there is a danger than partner will pass, (mis)guessing that 2m is the best contract.

Some people can't double 1NT for penalties, so for them 3NT = natural seems the obvious meaning.

[Cthulhu D]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-18, 23:27, said:

To play, natural or just possibly a long suit and stoppers. If not, then after the session partner and I are going to have a serious discussion about the future, if any, of this partnership.

Isn't the point of random club games to hone your partnership? Me and my partner recently had a situation where we both simultaneously realised mid action that in completely undiscussed sequence X with interference there was a logical and artificial way to arrange the available bids, but I wimped out from implementing that artificial scheme without discussion, partner assumed I had, and a result we got a poor board. If I had of sprung the artificial bids on him and he got it wrong I'd feel slightly bad, but it's just some random match-points game that neither of us care about.

The line of logic for (1NT)-3NT to be 66 majors in a game going hand isn't torturous, so if partner meant it as that I'd roll with it.

Anyway, random assumptions

1) Strong
2) Gambling style (thinks he can rattle off a bunch of tricks but that they have an easy escape)
3) Probably 66 majors because X is penalty.

[blackshoe]

I tend to put a meta-agreement in place with most partners: if we haven't discussed a call, it is natural. I might be willing to agree something else, like "if we haven't discussed it, take your best guess" after several years playing with the same partner and some strong evidence we're usually (always?) on the same page in such sequences, but it would take a long time to get there.

[gordontd]

helene_t, on 2014-August-19, 03:25, said:

True, you could use them for different suit combinations but obviously that requires discussion. Without discussion I would just think that 3NT is more extreme, and that 2NT is specifically the minors.

Without discussion, the traditional meaning of 2NT is an unspecified two-suiter in a strong hand.

[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-August-20, 00:23, said:

1) Strong
2) Gambling style (thinks he can rattle off a bunch of tricks but that they have an easy escape)
3) Probably 66 majors because X is penalty.

This was basically similar to how my thinking went. I encountered this in situation 1 and took some time to evaluate my partner. From that I guessed they had a big balanced hand - and they did! I realised that I would still have passed in case 2 but now I would be certain the hand would be different - it has to be some freak that can rattle off tricks but has wide open suits that would not stand a penalty double. In truth though, I would think this auction simply does not exist under these conditions. And for case 3 my thoughts were also going to an extreme 2-suiter, which 2-suits probably depending on the 1NT defence in use. Jallerton's point about defences without a penalty double is also well taken.

In any case, it felt like an interesting exercise and goes to the heart of being a good indi/pick-up partner - being able to judge the thinking of your partner with limited experience. Not interesting enough for IBH and not theoretical enough for NBD - but good for a quickie in General.

[mycroft]

Pet peeve: it's either spelled with double p's, double l's, and double t's, or "H-A-M-I-L-T-O-N"...