[zenbiddist]

---

You're playing IMPs with a thoughtful expert, but you have essentially no agreements.

[echo25]

2NT shows minors.

[Zelandakh]

echo25, on 2016-May-19, 02:15, said:

2NT shows minors.

It might but playing with an expert it might also be taken as Lebensohl. One reasonable approach would be to bid 2NT and convert to 3♦ if 3♣ comes back. The implied agreements depend quite a lot on the level of the "expert" opposite and their perceived level of us, so it is not a simple matter of saying "such-and-such is the best approach."

[helene_t]

I would bid 4d followed by 5c.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2016-May-19, 03:27, said:

I would bid 4d followed by 5c.

Are you not worried about partner thinking 4♦ might be some pointy 2-suiter type of thing? I think if forcing to 5m I would be inclined to start off with 3♦. Seems simpler with little chance of it backfiring.

[ahydra]

I'll try the simple 3D as well.

ahydra

[sfi]

3D looks clear. I'll find out if it's forcing soon enough.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-19, 03:39, said:

Are you not worried about partner thinking 4♦ might be some pointy 2-suiter type of thing? I think if forcing to 5m I would be inclined to start off with 3♦. Seems simpler with little chance of it backfiring.

Sorry I missed the "thoughtful" thing. If p can be trusted to play Lebensohl then yes, 3♦ of course.

[zenbiddist]

Are there any other options that come to mind?

Ps: For those talking about Lebensohl - it would be a fairly safe bet that pard would presume Lebensohl, but of course other treatments abound so he might presume natural. Partner is in fact a bidding forum moderator

[nige1]

zenbiddist, on 2016-May-18, 21:34, said:

You're playing IMPs with a thoughtful expert, but you have essentially no agreements.

---

I rank

• 3♦ = NAT An expert won't pass Ahydra's choice and is likeyly to interpret it correctly.
• 4♦ = NAT. followed by 5♣ as Helene_T suggests might OK. (Can't be Texas but might be SAT).
• 4♥ = CUE. Probably should show a 2-suiter.
• 3♥ - CUE Might work but partner is likely to think this shows ♠ s.
• 2N = UNT? But an expert might worry that Echo25 thinks this is Natural or Rubensohl or Lebensohl.
• 4N = UNT? But might be treated as quantitative.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2016-May-19, 05:01, said:

• 4N = UNT? But might be treated as quantitative.

I would love to see the hand that would qualify for this one!

[gwnn]

not sure if I want to force to 5m but if I wanted to, shouldn't I just bid 5D? the suit is better than clubs and it is missing the ace, making it more likely to be the right trump suit (in case they have a defensive ruff).

[GrahamJson]

Unless I'm playing with a partner with whom I have a good understanding I would bid 5D. True, 5C might be better but 5D will almost certainly have good chances, especially if the distribution is not disclosed. It's the old story, go for the best result possible, not the best possible result.

[lycier]

First 3♦ to force a round, then 4♣, let partner decide.

[Tramticket]

It feels to me as if the opponents are likely to have a double fit in the majors, and we have a double fit in the minors.

I'll bid 5♦

[PhilG007]

3♦ Softly Softly...

[Caitlynne]

There are 3 reasonable bids available: (1) Lebensohl 2NT if you think it is standard (and I think it is among experts); (2) 3D; and (3) 4NT - which, given that you are a passed hand cannot be natural and quantitative so must be unusual for both minors.

I think the hand is not good enough for 4NT - partner might have a lot of wasted values in hearts - so I think you must choose between 2NT (followed by 3D) and an immediate 3D.

My preference is the slight overbid of 3D immediately. Aside from the benefit of avoiding the peril of a partnership misunderstanding over the use/non-use of Lebensohl, an immediate 3D has the advantage of starting to get my suits in quickly in their natural order. In general, when the auction becomes competitive, I believe it is more important (in the long run) to get to the right strain than to the right level, so I am comfortable with this slight overstatement of values.

Given this philosophy that right strain takes priority over right level, if the opponents compete to 3H, I will follow with 4C. If partner should ever double their heart contract, I will cooperate with partner's double only at the 4 level or higher since my ODR seems high.

Caitlynne

[fromageGB]

2♠.
Thoughtful partner will realise that
(a) I failed to open a weak 2 so it is probably not natural.
(b) A double from me cannot be penalty, given that my heart length is closely known, so therefore it would be a transfer to spades with a takeout hand that forgot to open a weak 2 or was too weak for that.
© 2♠ is therefore a takeout playable in 2 suits.
(d) 2NT would be assumed Lebensohl, or a transfer, but not "both minors", so 2♠ is likely to be both minors.
(e) 2♠ is commonly used as minor suit stayman.

I would expect partner to bid his longer minor, or 2NT if equal.

[gwnn]

fromageGB, on 2016-May-19, 07:38, said:

2♠.
Thoughtful partner will realise that
(a) I failed to open a weak 2 so it is probably not natural.
(b) A double from me cannot be penalty, given that my heart length is closely known, so therefore it would be a transfer to spades with a takeout hand that forgot to open a weak 2 or was too weak for that.
© 2♠ is therefore a takeout playable in 2 suits.
(d) 2NT would be assumed Lebensohl, or a transfer, but not "both minors", so 2♠ is likely to be both minors.
(e) 2♠ is commonly used as minor suit stayman.

I would expect partner to bid his longer minor, or 2NT if equal.

[helene_t]

2♠ is absolutely natural. The fact that I didn't open 2♠ is insuficient evidence for me not having six spades, but anyway five spades would be enough, especially at this vulnerability.

Dbl could be t/o or penalty or optional. It would be a very strange agreement that it was a transfer.