[kanchi]

I विल क्ष एंड पास इफ़ स इन्साइड बाई प अधर्वायज़ I विल टके आउट तो क

[The_Badger]

kanchi, on 2018-October-02, 02:20, said:

I विल क्ष एंड पास इफ़ स इन्साइड बाई प अधर्वायज़ I विल टके आउट तो क

Any Indian players who can translate this into English better than Google Translate welcome

[dokoko]

helene_t, on 2018-September-30, 14:48, said:

2NT for me. In terms of strength this hand is borderline between a discouraging 3♦/3♣ and an encouraging 2♠/2NT. I don't think partner has promised five diamonds and I don't want to bid this poor club suit at the 3-level, so I round up rather than down in order to to bid the most convenient strain.

Why would 3♦ be discouraging?

[dokoko]

For me it's an obvious pass.

Partner promises 4+♦ and a limited hand (~11-15); if stronger he would jump to 3♦(nonforcing!) on a shapely intermediate hand or otherwise redouble. With a limited semibalanced hand he should pass, but if he is interested in competing over 2♠/3♣ he must bid while he has the chance.

BTW: Some posters tried to show values with a 2♠ bid which IMHO would need explicit agreement.

[pescetom]

dokoko, on 2018-October-03, 02:14, said:

BTW: Some posters tried to show values with a 2♠ bid which IMHO would need explicit agreement.

Why do you think this needs explicit agreement?
It looks perfectly natural to me.
1NT already denied both 3-card hearts and 4-card spades, so 2♠ must show good 3-card spades and deny 4-card diamonds, thus also showing weak 5+card clubs.

[masse24]

pescetom, on 2018-October-03, 05:59, said:

It looks perfectly natural to me.
1NT already denied both 3-card hearts and 4-card spades, so 2♠ must show good 3-card spades and deny 4-card diamonds . . . .

In my corner of the globe, 2♠ would show a good ♦ raise. In other words . . . not natural.

[hrothgar]

Mark me down for pass

With luck partner can score a Heart ruff or two

[Winstonm]

The hand is more valuable on defense than offense - pass and hope to go plus somehow.

[dokoko]

pescetom, on 2018-October-03, 05:59, said:

Why do you think this needs explicit agreement?
It looks perfectly natural to me.
1NT already denied both 3-card hearts and 4-card spades, so 2♠ must show good 3-card spades and deny 4-card diamonds, thus also showing weak 5+card clubs.

I would take it for a good diamond raise except with a very weak partner.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2018-October-03, 05:59, said:

Why do you think this needs explicit agreement?
It looks perfectly natural to me.
1NT already denied both 3-card hearts and 4-card spades, so 2♠ must show good 3-card spades and deny 4-card diamonds, thus also showing weak 5+card clubs.

You are seriously mistaken. Using 2S to show a very good raise in diamonds is so common, amongst good players that I would assume that my partner would play it that way, were I playing with an unknown expert. Btw, I have seen it used in a more restrictive fashion, as being a very good diamond raise but with Hx in hearts, the idea being to allow opener, with 5 decent hearts, to try for the 10 trick game, but this is so low frequency that I don’t know anyone who plays it that way today.

[fromageGB]

masse24, on 2018-October-03, 09:48, said:

In my corner of the globe, 2♠ would show a good ♦ raise. In other words . . . not natural.

An interesting expression. How many corners does your globe have?