[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

in a training session, all green, being dealer,
you hold

♠Q
♥Q53
♦J75
♣AJT964

You play a 5 card major system, with weak NT.

For better or worse you decide, that this is not an hand
to enter the bidding, and pass.
The good thing is, the opponents remain silent.

The auction develops

Pass (0) - 1D (1)
2C (2) - 2D (3)
??? (4)

(0) Feel free to disagree, remove / exchange a card, e.g. T9 in clubs and
replace those two cards with 23.
(1) 3+, a weak NT is possible, in case p has a 4 card spade suit.
(2) hopefully you agree, the alternative would be a semiforcing 1NT response
or 3C, showing 6 clubs and invitational values, but why jump to 3C, if
2C sends a similar message?
(3) default, if partner would have opened the bidding, it could be 4+, but
2C would be promising a 2nd bid
(4) Your bid? Do you think 2D is forcing? What does your partner think?

As always reason is more important than being right with the given layout.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

I would agree with the initial Pass and playing my esoteric unbalanced ♦ the 2♣ bid (weak) would be passed unless opener had a strong hand. So in this case if 2♦ was bid I would now show shape/strength.
In other partnerships/approaches 2♣ would be GI denying a Major. 2♦ would be looking for something in the Majors . I would be a touch more inclined to bid 3♣ given the 'quacks' and wanting to keep the ops. out of the Majors.

[DavidKok]

I agree with the bidding but not with 2♦. The initial pass is close but I think it's good. Bidding 2♣ is better than 3♣.

However, partner's 2♦ should not be on just a 4 card suit. With a weak NT partner should have opened 1NT, but even if for some reason partner opened 1♦, which I would much prefer to systemically disallow in this bidding system, partner can now pass 2♣ without much concern or bid(/upgrade into) 2NT.

Speaking of, what does 2NT show here? We're a passed hand, if partner has a strong NT why not bid 3NT?

Putting this together, 2♦ really ought to show a minimum unbalanced hand, either 5(+)♦ or the dreaded 4=4=4=1. Partner knows we don't have a major, and the lack of interference makes me place partner with a 11-13 count 4=3=5=1 as the most likely distribution. With more strength partner should force to game (with a forcing 2M rebid or a jump) opposite our known 10-11.
I think pass is percentage. Partner made a minimum opening in third seat and we diagnosed the club misfit. We could bid 3♦ as a blocking bid as the opponents are known to have an 8(+) card spade fit, but on this auction that shows a more forward-going hand instead.

Your comments seem to imply that 2♣ is forcing. As a passed hand I think that is not a good agreement.

[mike777]

Fwiw

1. Agree strongly with pass

2. Agree strongly with 2c response (deny 4 card major)

3. Agree strongly 2D shows 5+ often 6+, definitely not forcing, forcing would be 2H or 2S or 4C or some jump splinter over 2c.

4. I would probably pass now, though tempted to bid 3D at imps.

[pescetom]

I am more tempted than others to open 3C, depends a lot upon partner's expectations.
But having passed, I agree with successive 2C and then pass again.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 I passed at the table, I was a bit surprised as p told me, he considered 2D to be forcing.
#2 2D was a reasonable contract, it made 1-2 overtricks.
#3 The comment I made, that 2D could be based on a 4 carder was in the context of p having opened the bidding,
and not my hand.
Given the system in place, it is nearly 100% sure, that the 2C bid showed 6+ clubs.
It certainly denies a 4 card major, and I would also have made a minor inv. raise with 4 diamonds.
This leaves 5332, and given that we would open 1NT with 11, why should one bid 2C, if 1NT is a valid option,
a bid, that also heavily implies club length.
But we never discussed thoses seq.

With kind regards
Marlowe