[losercover]

P P 1NT (weak) what do you bid?

♠ Q 6 5 2
♥ K J 9 2
♦ A J 10 7 6
♣ —

We don't have a lot of experience over weak NT, so we play 2C for majors, double with equal strength hand and everything else is natural. I bid 2D, went down and missed a 5-4 spade fit.

[barmar]

3-suiters are tricky, over both weak and strong NT. There are lots of conventions for showing various 2-suiters, but they all fail to deal with 3-suiters.

You could play that a jump to the 3 level is a splinter showing shortness in the suit bid and support for the other 3 suits, but that could easily force you to the 4 level if your shortness is in a major. I think I even have this on my CC with one partner, but I can't recall it ever coming up (we only play together at NABCs).

With a hand like yours you could just ignore the diamonds and bid 2♣, hoping for the best.

[blackshoe]

Brozel deals with 3 suiters, but it does so by jumping to the three level.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the simple advice is usually, if one holds a 3-suiter, one should treat it
as a 2-suiter.

Overcalling 2D treat the 3-suiter as a 1-suiter, and a 1-suiter showes a 6 card
suit.

Given your options, I would go with 2C, if p responds 2D, asking for your better
major, you still have the option to pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

With this particular three-suiter, I like to bid 2♣ (majors). If partner has a four-card (or longer) major we find our fit. If partner bids 2♦ (asking me to pick the major) then I can pass! Obviously I will occasionally play a 4-3 major fit when I have a better diamond fit (i.e. partner is 3-2 in the majors) but I get to 2♦ when partner is 2-2 or 3-3.

[whereagles]

as above

[Gerben42]

I would pass over a weak (or strong btw) NT, hoping for a transfer to Clubs, so I can Double 3♣. If not, partner may have wasted values there and my pass was best. Pass becomes more clear even when my alternative is bidding 2♣ for the majors. If partner passes, which is a realistic scenario, we will be playing in a 6-0 fit.

It's not that I have huge values. Give me another Ace and this would be a real problem.

[han]

awm, on 2011-January-13, 02:40, said:

With this particular three-suiter, I like to bid 2♣ (majors). If partner has a four-card (or longer) major we find our fit. If partner bids 2♦ (asking me to pick the major) then I can pass! Obviously I will occasionally play a 4-3 major fit when I have a better diamond fit (i.e. partner is 3-2 in the majors) but I get to 2♦ when partner is 2-2 or 3-3.

You also get to 2D when partner wants to invite game in a major.

[MickyB]

han, on 2011-January-13, 12:52, said:

You also get to 2D when partner wants to invite game in a major.

In spades, sure, but I don't think an invitational hand with four hearts should be starting with 2D. Bidding 2C then passing 2D is the percentage action IMO.

[cherdano]

han, on 2011-January-13, 12:52, said:

You also get to 2D when partner wants to invite game in a major.

MickyB, on 2011-January-13, 13:04, said:

In spades, sure, but I don't think an invitational hand with four hearts should be starting with 2D. Bidding 2C then passing 2D is the percentage action IMO.

I disagree. I think it's normal to play that a jump to 3H a more distributional invite, and 2D->3H is an invite based on hcp.
In any case, 2D is what partner will bid with equal length in the majors with any strength (and any lengths in the majors). I don't see how that argues for playing 2D.

[Echognome]

han, on 2011-January-13, 12:52, said:

You also get to 2D when partner wants to invite game in a major.

Given that partner is a passed hand, that is less of a worry.

[awm]

Echognome, on 2011-January-13, 14:13, said:

Given that partner is a passed hand, that is less of a worry.

Indeed. I would not bid this way over a weak notrump opposite an unpassed partner.

Typically I would not ask for "better major" holding 4-4 in the majors, since quite frequently the 4-4 fit would play better than the 4-5 fit in any case. An invite with a four-card major is possible, although I think there are better agreements to show such a hand (2NT perhaps?) than starting with 2♦. In any case an invite by a passed hand will be relatively rare.

Bidding 2♣ and passing 2♦ is very much a "playing the odds" type of strategy. Certainly there are cases where it works out poorly (partner passes 2♣, partner for some reason bids 2♦ with 4-4 in the majors, partner bids 2♦ on a major suit invite, partner bids 2♦ with 3316, etc). But I like my chances of reaching a good partial this way.

[Free]

Echognome, on 2011-January-13, 14:13, said:

Given that partner is a passed hand, that is less of a worry.

Partner passed in second seat, why can't he have an invite? He expects us to have a decent hand.

Also, why would an invite with ♠ go via 2♦, but not an invite with ♥? For me any M bid is to play. Bidding 2♦ means no preference or an invite in either Major. You can invite ♠ at 2-level, and ♥ at 3-level. Simple and efficient.

I would just pass over a weak NT, my alternative is 2♣ (and not passing partner's 2♦).

[mfa1010]

I like 2♣ then pass to 2♦. Not perfect but nothing is with this awkward hand. I strongly believe that 2♣ is better than pass.

[Echognome]

Free, on 2011-January-19, 08:19, said:

Partner passed in second seat, why can't he have an invite? He expects us to have a decent hand.

Also, why would an invite with ♠ go via 2♦, but not an invite with ♥? For me any M bid is to play. Bidding 2♦ means no preference or an invite in either Major. You can invite ♠ at 2-level, and ♥ at 3-level. Simple and efficient.

I would just pass over a weak NT, my alternative is 2♣ (and not passing partner's 2♦).

I think you are missing something here. The issue I was discussing is the risk of passing 2♦ when we bid 2♣. The risk if partner is an unpassed hand is that he may have an invite or a game force. If he has an invite, what's the invite in? NT? Do we really want to play 2NT rather than 2♦ on our hand? I don't know why we would want to play 3NT. I don't really see how it really hurts if partner does have an invite.

[Free]

Echognome, on 2011-January-19, 15:42, said:

I think you are missing something here. The issue I was discussing is the risk of passing 2♦ when we bid 2♣. The risk if partner is an unpassed hand is that he may have an invite or a game force. If he has an invite, what's the invite in? NT? Do we really want to play 2NT rather than 2♦ on our hand? I don't know why we would want to play 3NT. I don't really see how it really hurts if partner does have an invite.

I agree that the risk is lower when partner passed already. He can however have an invite in one of the Majors as well (not only in NT), in which case we want to play 4M. But that depends a lot on opening style, playing precision or fantunes this is pretty much impossible.