[effervesce]

You hold as west

Scoring: IMP

---

South passes, you open 1NT, 11-13, may have a 5 card major.
North doubles (pen). Partner passes (forcing to redouble - either to play or to scramble a fit).

South bids 2♣. You pass, north bids 3♣. Partner bids 3♦.
You and south both pass, and north bids 4♣.

What is going on here? Do you X? Or do you pass.

NB: The 4♣ poll option was is for after p's 3♦ bid.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure that I have all of the information.

Does a pass from Responder, and then 2♦, show a one-suiter? Normally, I would expect XX to relay 2♣ for a correction to 2♦ with that hand. But that seems odd for the developments so far. What should I expect from partner's 3♦ call, then?

[effervesce]

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

I'm not sure that I have all of the information.

Does a pass from Responder, and then 2♦, show a one-suiter?  Normally, I would expect XX to relay 2♣ for a correction to 2♦ with that hand.  But that seems odd for the developments so far.  What should I expect from partner's 3♦ call, then?

You are correct, we play DONT escapes. 3♦ there does look to be a singlesuiter.

1NT - (X) - 3♦ would be to play, however - making this sequence quite hard to figure out. Seems that partner has at least an invitational hand with diamonds?

[kenrexford]

Is there a hand with diamonds and a major that cannot easily be handled? Or, could 3♦ even be an undiscussed "Cheaper Minor Stayman?"

The pass of 4♣ seems strange, unless he thinks you know his hand. But, your pass of 3♦ suggests otherwise, if he has the stronger variety. He might be making an ethics-based WTF guess with his pass, also.

[effervesce]

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

Is there a hand with diamonds and a major that cannot easily be handled? Or, could 3♦ even be an undiscussed "Cheaper Minor Stayman?"

The pass of 4♣ seems strange, unless he thinks you know his hand. But, your pass of 3♦ suggests otherwise, if he has the stronger variety. He might be making an ethics-based WTF guess with his pass, also.

For crap hands 1NT - (X) - 2♦ would be diamonds and a major. For stronger hands - no we dont have cheaper minor stayman and there is no way of handling diamonds and a major easily.

[kenrexford]

effervesce, on Apr 16 2008, 10:13 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

Is there a hand with diamonds and a major that cannot easily be handled?  Or, could 3♦ even be an undiscussed "Cheaper Minor Stayman?"

The pass of 4♣ seems strange, unless he thinks you know his hand.  But, your pass of 3♦ suggests otherwise, if he has the stronger variety. He might be making an ethics-based WTF guess with his pass, also.

For crap hands 1NT - (X) - 2♦ would be diamonds and a major. For stronger hands - no we dont have cheaper minor stayman and there is no way of handling diamonds and a major easily.

Well, if partner makes a call that makes NO SENSE, unless, of course, he has a hand pattern that cannot easily be bid with the existing system, and if he later makes a natural call that makes sense as a possible solution for that trouble hand, then assume he has that hand.

Making this assumption, I think passing 3♦ was probably a bad move. You probably should have bid 4♣, asking partner to bid his hidden major. Now that 4♣ has come back to you, hopefully he will take 4♥ as "I'm slow partner, but now I get it -- pass or correct, please."

[effervesce]

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

effervesce, on Apr 16 2008, 10:13 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

Is there a hand with diamonds and a major that cannot easily be handled?  Or, could 3♦ even be an undiscussed "Cheaper Minor Stayman?"

The pass of 4♣ seems strange, unless he thinks you know his hand.  But, your pass of 3♦ suggests otherwise, if he has the stronger variety. He might be making an ethics-based WTF guess with his pass, also.

For crap hands 1NT - (X) - 2♦ would be diamonds and a major. For stronger hands - no we dont have cheaper minor stayman and there is no way of handling diamonds and a major easily.

Well, if partner makes a call that makes NO SENSE, unless, of course, he has a hand pattern that cannot easily be bid with the existing system, and if he later makes a natural call that makes sense as a possible solution for that trouble hand, then assume he has that hand.

Making this assumption, I think passing 3♦ was probably a bad move. You probably should have bid 4♣, asking partner to bid his hidden major. Now that 4♣ has come back to you, hopefully he will take 4♥ as "I'm slow partner, but now I get it -- pass or correct, please."

What does partner do with a diamond suit, no club stopper?

[kenrexford]

He might bid 3♦ here, as well.

But, I don't like my club stopper, either. If, after 4♣, he bids 4♦, I know that he does not have a major. That's why I would bid 4♣ as choice the first time.

Having failed this, there is a problem. So, I bid 4♥ as pass=or=correct to clarify that I should have bid 4♣ the first time. If we play in a Moysian, fine. If he bids 5♦, that's weird, but GLP!

[TimG]

I think you need an agreement about what 3♦ shows. I would expect that with a runout hand, partner would simply pass over 3♣ happy that your side is off the hook. So, 3♦ must be a hand that was going to pass out 1NXX -- at least an invitational hand here. If he was going to gamble on 1Nxx, he should just pass and hope the opponents have guessed incorrectly.

I would have bid 3N over 3♦, trusting partner to have an invitational hand (though I'm not especially proud of my 13 count). Having passed, I'll pass 4♣.

[helene_t]

P most likely has a semipositive with diamonds only. It's tempting to double, but p could have done so as well. It's too risky at IMPs. Maybe p was trying to convey a weak two-suiter.

[effervesce]

I passed. The winning action was double. South actually ran out to a two card suit, and dummy couldnt get to hand, leading to two spade losers and thus two down.

Scoring: IMP

---

[kenrexford]

Funny thing.

Partner has the diamond-heart two-suiter, like I predicted. A 4♣ call early on, or a 4♥ call late as a wkae up, would have placed us in 4♥.

However, as you mentioned, the strange call from South meant that the opponents had fewer clubs than they should, giving partner more clubs than he should have. If the opponents had their bids, partner would have one fewer club, one more spade, otherwise identical. In that event, 3NT would be hopeless, but 4♥ would make.

I like these problems!