[nige1]

2/1, Imps, Both vul, You deal. Your call?

---

[Zelandakh]

What would 2NT mean for this partnership? And why would I consider 3♦ rather than 3♣?

[nige1]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-December-15, 10:57, said:

What would 2NT mean for this partnership? And why would I consider 3♦ rather than 3♣?

• I don't know what 2N means but I think it would be natural. Please feel free to ascribe it an alternative meaning,
• I should have written 3♣ rather than 3♦. I've corrected the typo. Thank you Zelandakh,

[eagles123]

too much chance partner has a trap pass to not x imo, and even if pard bids 3d he'll usually have 5 and kq is hardly the worst holding we could have

[paulg]

I think that whenever you have a normal opening bid and shortage in LHO's suit, double should be your default action unless there is a clear reason to do something different. I don't see any clear reason here.

[MrAce]

What Rowland and Paul said.

+1

[Zelandakh]

 nige1, on 2016-December-15, 14:21, said:

I don't know what 2N means but I think it would be natural. Please feel free to ascribe it an alternative meaning,

I would think the default meaning of 2NT would be some kind of Good/Bad but we have discussed before on BBF how this is a good spot for transfers.

As others mention the easy call here is double but I do think that anyone making that choice should also say what they are doing over 3♦ from partner because that is surely the real question at the end of this. Optimal for this hand would possibly be the agreement that partner's 2NT over double is Scrambling essentially showing diamonds with tolerance for a black suit. That avoids us ending up in a 5-2 fit at the 3 level or, worse, a 4-2 if partner has a 1543 that is too weak to pass. We should also discuss how we are finding our games if partner has a nondescript 9 count that was unable to take action over 2♥. We surely cannot expect that hand to drive to game over a double? But 0-9 is clearly too large of a range for sensible decisions at this level so perhaps using 2NT as Lebensohl over double (as over a weak 2) should be the default, in which case we can happily continue over partner's 3♦ continuation with some safety.

[MrAce]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-December-16, 04:32, said:

As others mention the easy call here is double but I do think that anyone making that choice should also say what they are doing over 3♦ from partner because that is surely the real question at the end of this.

Rowland said it already and said it very well imho.

[nige1]

Scottish international, John Mclaren castigated actions by partner, of which he disapproved, as being "outside 3 sigma". I'm told that this was the expert consensus on the call found last weekend, by the player at the table: 3♣. All agreed with most BBOers that double is automatic and, in practice, it would have been the winning call. I confess that I thought 3♣ was reasonable although I'm now persuaded that double is better.

[Zelandakh]

 MrAce, on 2016-December-16, 04:35, said:

Rowland said it already and said it very well imho.

Yes, and I would expect doubling and passing 3♦ to be the popular choice. Nonetheless this does not address the two concerns I raised, playing in a 5-2 diamond fit rather than a solid club fit, for example opposite 1354 and missing game if partner has a maximum for 3♦. Using Responder's 2NT to help with one of these seems like a reasonable point of discussion to me that would also help to reduce the potential downside of a double.

[Zelandakh]

 nige1, on 2016-December-16, 09:28, said:

Scottish international, John Mclaren castigated actions by partner, of which he disapproved, as being "outside 3 sigma". I'm told that this was the expert consensus on the call found last weekend, by the player at the table: 3♦. All agreed with most BBOers that double is automatic and, in practice, it would have been the winning call.

3♦ would definitely be "outside 3 sigma" without some special agreements!

[nige1]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-December-16, 09:38, said:

3♦ would definitely be "outside 3 sigma" without some special agreements!

Sorry, again, I meant 3♣. Corrected above.

[rmnka447]

Double should be almost automatic with this specific hand. The stiff ♥ and RHO's lack of a raise suggests that partner might have a ♥ stack and be trap passing.

I'd reserve a 3 ♣ call for something like AKQ10x Jxx - KQJxx.

[mr1303]

If partner has 1354 shape, I would suggest he bids 2NT over the double (2 places to play).

[ggwhiz]

 mr1303, on 2016-December-17, 20:31, said:

If partner has 1354 shape, I would suggest he bids 2NT over the double (2 places to play).

I play 2nt as lebensohl here to cater to the 8-10 counts that don't have a bid over 2♥