[Cyberyeti]

1N-2N (nat invite)
3♦

A simple but odd auction, any suggestions what it means ? In a major I've used it as "I'm accepting and have a 5 card major in case you want to play 4M", but that meaning seems unnecessary in a minor.

[eagles123]

I would imagine it's a suggestion to play 3D

[silvr bull]

My use for that auction is a hand that will bid 3NT if responder has a missing top honor in the minor I bid, but that will play in 3m if no fit. I would have a hand something like Axx KJx AQJxx Tx, or switch the minors for 1NT-2NT, 3C.

[gordontd]

eagles123, on 2017-April-12, 04:13, said:

I would imagine it's a suggestion to play 3D

I think it shows that responder hasn't realised that they're meant to be playing 2NT as a transfer to diamonds

[fromageGB]

More than a suggestion. A decision.

I have something vaguely similar over a balanced 1♣, the bidding going 1 - 1♠(balanced or minor) where a typical 12-14 opener bids 1NT. If instead he bids 2♦ (equally 2♣) he is saying that he is probably a 2353 sort of hand, and that fact that responder does not even have a 4 card major means he thinks it highly likely 2♦ will score better than 1NT.

In your situation, this seems identical. "Weak, think ♦ is better". I can't imagine a hand suggesting 5♦ as an alternative to 3NT, but maybe somebody can. However, if it is weak long diamonds then responder can do no other than pass. Not a "suggestion".

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2017-April-12, 04:24, said:

I think it shows that responder hasn't realised that they're meant to be playing 2NT as a transfer to diamonds

That's exactly what it means, particularly when partner alerted 2N and is why I'm asking the question as to what it means without UI

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-12, 04:40, said:

That's exactly what it means, particularly when partner alerted 2N and is why I'm asking the question as to what it means without UI

I think the fact that no-one has seen this action over a natural 2N means that responder is probably entitled to base his next call on the assumption that there has been a misunderstanding.

[Cyberyeti]

WellSpyder, on 2017-April-12, 04:58, said:

I think the fact that no-one has seen this action over a natural 2N means that responder is probably entitled to base his next call on the assumption that there has been a misunderstanding.

I've seen it a couple of times where the 1N is a sub minimum with 6 diamonds, I was trying to establish whether this was normal. I can completely understand it where the diamonds are not very good so you may not have the time to get them going in NT.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-12, 05:01, said:

I've seen it a couple of times where the 1N is a sub minimum with 6 diamonds, I was trying to establish whether this was normal. I can completely understand it where the diamonds are not very good so you may not have the time to get them going in NT.

Bidding 3♦ would seem to me be such a rare event, that I would think you would be "woken-up" by the 3♦ bid regardless of whether there was an alert or not.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-12, 04:40, said:

That's exactly what it means, particularly when partner alerted 2N and is why I'm asking the question as to what it means without UI

I once lost an appeal (as a player) in a case on this point. I was playing as a host with a pickup partner and we had agreed to play "Young Chelsea Standard" which includes four suit transfers. I alerted her 2NT and bid 3D after which she bid 3NT. Since she had a maximum NT with some diamond cards, I thought that Pass was not a logical alternative. The AC disagreed.

Certainly I think it's contradictory to imagine that 3D would be non-invitational. If I wasn't prepared to play in 2NT or to raise to 3NT, why did I open 1NT rather than 1D?

[gszes]

something like KQ Axx QTxxxx KJ where opening 1n seemed better than starting with 1d and trying to figure out how many dia to rebid. does not wish to accept invite and feels 3d safer especially since responder rates t have at least 3 of them.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 first impulse, depending on your offshape opening style, long diamonds.
But this makes no real sense, if opener has a long weak suit, why should he
believe 3D plays better than 2NT, if the suit is brilliant, why not use the
suit in 2NT / 3NT.
#2 second impulse, it is accepting game, but showing worries about majors,
responder is short in the majors (lack of transfer / stayman), and if opener
is 44 / 54 in the minors (maybe even 5m4M), he can be sure about a minor suit
fit, although it is unclear, why he should want to go looking for the 11 trick
game, when 9 tricks may be there for taking.

#3 final impulse: shoot partner.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

gszes, on 2017-April-12, 07:36, said:

something like KQ Axx QTxxxx KJ where opening 1n seemed better than starting with 1d and trying to figure out how many dia to rebid. does not wish to accept invite and feels 3d safer especially since responder rates t have at least 3 of them.

I think this hand is particularly ugly and not worth 15 but this was the hand type I'd first thought of.

The hand opposite was xxx, Qxxx, AQx, xxx and bid a making (when I failed to switch to a spade early from KJx) 3N. It openly admitted that it bid 3N to avoid playing in a potential 3-2 diamond fit, and had used the interpretation that 3♦ was 15-16 in the decision.

[rmnka447]

I'd take it as a minimum showing 5+ ♦ and worried about at least one of the majors because of a probable worthless doubleton. It probably also carries some inference that ♦ aren't solid. With the opponents holding 8+ cards in a major, even with one stopper there, making NT might require enough running tricks once the stopper is removed.

[Phil]

I like 3D better than 2N. Partner may like 3N more than 3D.

[aawk]

Partner gave a invite so 3 in a minor is to play with a 6 card and a minimum, any other agreement adds no value to find the best contract. And a bid of 3 in a major shows a 5 card with a maximum as you already suggested.

[msjennifer]

The sequence,with correctly understood bids,looks indeed an unusual one.Perhaps it expresses that 3D may be a better contract.It is suggestive of weakish 6 card suit.Playing,some years back, Precision I opened 1 Diamond in the 4Th seat and got a response of 2NT(11/12 balanced).When I signed of in 3D with a six carder weakish suit and only 11HCP, partner was impudent enough to bid 3NT which went three down.An international expert lady who was kibitzing taunted him, " your partner could have made 3D ,a cold contract ,easily".We got the zero we deserved.This deal looks somewhat similar to me.

[fourdad]

The times I have seen this the 1N opener has bid the diamonds because they felt panicked over bidding 1N with a 6 card suit and weak major stops. The solution is not to play bridge with people who open 1N with a 6 card suit and weak stops....put otherwise, opening 1N with 2 doubletons also qualifies for my blacklist.

[aguahombre]

gszes, on 2017-April-12, 07:36, said:

something like KQ Axx QTxxxx KJ where opening 1n seemed better than starting with 1d and trying to figure out how many dia to rebid. does not wish to accept invite and feels 3d safer especially since responder rates t have at least 3 of them.

I am not accustomed to my partner choosing to open 1nt, and then realizing it was such a bad choice she steers out of notrump. However, there is a possibility that is reasonable: she resorted her hand after discovering her 3-3 in the red suits were all Diamonds. So, bidding 5♦ by Responder over 3♦ seems a logical alternative.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2017-April-14, 07:27, said:

I am not accustomed to my partner choosing to open 1nt, and then realizing it was such a bad choice she steers out of notrump. However, there is a possibility that is reasonable: she resorted her hand after discovering her 3-3 in the red suits were all Diamonds. So, bidding 5♦ by Responder over 3♦ seems a logical alternative.

I've done the mis-sort, the hand in question was ♣AKxx ♦QJx ♥xx ♣QJxx I realised this after partner transferred to spades over my 1N.