[JanisW]

---

X in the hope Partner can convert it? (-2 would yield 500)
4NT to show the ♦-suit?
Pass is out of the question I guess

BTW I got stuck in 4NT, my pick-uo-partner took it as stopper with solid 7 card minor Ever heard of that?

regards
JW

[Cyberyeti]

 JanisW, on 2018-June-13, 14:12, said:

My pick-up-partner took it as stopper with solid 7 card minor Ever heard of that?

regards
JW

What you mean a hand that would have bid 3N first time ?

I'd also bid 4N

[Winstonm]

This looks like the exact hand defended by Wolff-Hamman with Hamman refusing to over-ruff with 3 trump. Even knowing that result, I would still bid 4NT.

[apollo1201]

4NT. Way too much offensive potential and lengths to make 500 a likely shot. Plus sometimes partner bids 5H...
Partner could figure out that with 7C and stoppers you’d have bid 3NT and not 3C at your 1st turn. So unless you discovered the SA between the 2 rounds of bidding, 4NT is clearly a 2-suiter with longer C (6-4, 7-5, usually 2-cd difference unless you can’t show all 2-suiters 5-5 in one bid, as would have done 3S for me with your hand for minors)

[ggwhiz]

With a pickup pard I might grit my teeth and bid 4nt over 2♠. At least they should bid 5♣ with 2-2 in the minors and I dare them to say they thought that was natural. Otherwise I agree with the above.

[SelfGovern]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-June-13, 16:32, said:

With a pickup pard I might grit my teeth and bid 4nt over 2♠. At least they should bid 5♣ with 2-2 in the minors and I dare them to say they thought that was natural. Otherwise I agree with the above.

The problem with a direct 4NT bid is... I've actually had a hand where I wanted to ask for aces over their preempt.
Not having 4NT available for this can be a problem -- and a reasonable partner should read you for 3!C followed by
4NT as this hand, I think.

[GrahamJson]

Is it just a choice of two? I’d certainly give 5C serious consideration. I’m not sure that I want to play in 5D unless partner has four of them. I certainly don’t fancy my chances in 5D if partner has 3-2 or 3-1 in the minors, with the prospect of being forced at trick one and then facing a 4-1 trump break.

[Tramticket]

 SelfGovern, on 2018-June-13, 23:29, said:

The problem with a direct 4NT bid is... I've actually had a hand where I wanted to ask for aces over their preempt.
Not having 4NT available for this can be a problem -- and a reasonable partner should read you for 3!C followed by
4NT as this hand, I think.

ggwhiz was suggesting a direct 4NT overcall, I believe. So the auction suggested is (1♠), 4NT. This should definitely two-suited in the minors (probably 6-6). You don't need it as Blackwood - with a hand that strong you probably start with a 3♠ cue bid. I wouldn't bid 4NT as the hand is 7-5 and I think it is better to emphasise the clubs.

The actual auction - (2♠), 3♣, (4♠), Pass, (Pass), 4NT shouldn't be Blackwood either. You haven't agreed a suit and partner has shown nothing. The auction should also show the minors, but with longer clubs. I think that Janis's partner treating 4NT as natural has more logic than Blackwood.

[Tramticket]

 GrahamJson, on 2018-June-13, 23:59, said:

Is it just a choice of two? I’d certainly give 5C serious consideration. I’m not sure that I want to play in 5D unless partner has four of them. I certainly don’t fancy my chances in 5D if partner has 3-2 or 3-1 in the minors, with the prospect of being forced at trick one and then facing a 4-1 trump break.

Doesn't 3♣ followed by 4NT tend to show this 7-5 shape? With 6-5 you probably bid 2NT at the previous turn?

[PhilG007]

 JanisW, on 2018-June-13, 14:12, said:

---

X in the hope Partner can convert it? (-2 would yield 500)
4NT to show the ♦-suit?
Pass is out of the question I guess

BTW I got stuck in 4NT, my pick-uo-partner took it as stopper with solid 7 card minor Ever heard of that?

regards
JW

I would have shown the diamonds first then rebid the clubs over 4♠ Partner now knows you are asking
for his better minor and will act accordingly.

[Cyberyeti]

 PhilG007, on 2018-June-14, 03:47, said:

I would have shown the diamonds first then rebid the clubs over 4♠ Partner now knows you are asking
for his better minor and will act accordingly.

Yes and good luck playing in diamonds when he's 2-2 (3-2 might not be fun either) in the minors after a trick 1 force

[Tramticket]

 PhilG007, on 2018-June-14, 03:47, said:

I would have shown the diamonds first then rebid the clubs over 4♠ Partner now knows you are asking
for his better minor and will act accordingly.

This is a new and fascinating bidding concept - Canapé overcalls.

[manudude03]

This is an easy 4NT bid for me. It just says you can compete in a higher suit than what's been shown, and you need to be able to do it with 6-5 as 5d would force to 6c with preference. The 2 card discrecency rule is when the second suit is a lower rank.

[cherdano]

 Tramticket, on 2018-June-14, 01:28, said:

Doesn't 3♣ followed by 4NT tend to show this 7-5 shape? With 6-5 you probably bid 2NT at the previous turn?

That would be a novel use of 2N in this auction!

[Phil]

 cherdano, on 2018-June-14, 05:40, said:

That would be a novel use of 2N in this auction!

This has been discussed elsewhere and its not that novel. I suspect there is somw well known teacher showing it to n00bs.

[Tramticket]

 cherdano, on 2018-June-14, 05:40, said:

That would be a novel use of 2N in this auction!

It was also a slip intended to type 4NT.

[pescetom]

 Tramticket, on 2018-June-14, 01:26, said:

ggwhiz was suggesting a direct 4NT overcall, I believe. So the auction suggested is (1♠), 4NT. This should definitely two-suited in the minors (probably 6-6). You don't need it as Blackwood - with a hand that strong you probably start with a 3♠ cue bid. I wouldn't bid 4NT as the hand is 7-5 and I think it is better to emphasise the clubs.

I would prefer the direct 4NT overcall, even holding 7-5. It speaks volumes, and partner with equal length in both minors is probably going to bid ♣ anyway.

[PhilG007]

So what was the full deal?(assuming you either have or remember it) Let everyone here draw their
own conclusions. I'm itching to see the North hand.

[rmnka447]

I'm another who would opt for 3 ♣ followed by 4 NT.

[neilkaz]

 rmnka447, on 2018-June-14, 09:08, said:

I'm another who would opt for 3 ♣ followed by 4 NT.

Same here as I have 7♣ and 5♦