[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2018-July-20, 20:19, said:

It is often called a non-forcing relay. What's in a name ....

Useful to know, thanks. A name is just a name, but meaning is important, and I still find even "non-forcing relay" to be a mystification when the correct explanation is "pass with ♥ or correct to ♠".

Vampyr, on 2018-July-21, 02:04, said:

Well, it is an unusual term which can only confuse, especially if you have unusual methods over pass-or-correct bids (we play double for takeout or penalty). So if a bid were described as a relay partner and I might be on different wavelengths, which is obviously dangerous with a two-way double.

Exactly. We play double here as takeout of ♥ (with some artificial replies) and it is important to know if this is on or not.

[miamijd]

I'm believing partner -- 5C.

I'm going to assume no one has made a mistake in the bidding (otherwise, it's not a good question). In that case, the Multi bidder has a weak 2 in spades that his partner didn't want to raise. That's puzzling, because the opponents appear to have 19 cards in the majors (unless partner is making his bid on 2254). One would have thought that responder, holding lots of major cards, would have bid 3H or 4H (both pass or correct).

In the "standard" defense vs the Multi, a X of 2H is takeout, and 2NT is a standard 15-18 systems on. So unless partner has a moose (in which case he would have Xed), those options weren't available. He could have bid 3D and hoped to overcall 4C later with the right hand, but other than that, he had to pass at his first turn. So he could have a wide range of hands now.

If partner is 3055 or 2155 (the most likely possibilities unless he has bid 2NT on 9 cards in the minors), then game is a decent shot. If you can't make game, the opponents probably can. So I think I will just believe partner, bid 5C, and put the opponents to the guess.

Cheers,
mike

[Tramticket]

Interesting discussion. Do others have meanings agreed for 2NT in 8th seat?

Our notes do have 2NT in 6th seat as Unusual. I've no idea whether this is a good treatment, I don't think it has come up yet!

[PhilG007]

Pass With this motley collection there's nothing to get excited about.

[dokoko]

Vampyr, on 2018-July-21, 02:04, said:

Well, it is an unusual term which can only confuse, especially if you have unusual methods over pass-or-correct bids (we play double for takeout or penalty). So if a bid were described as a relay partner and I might be on different wavelengths, which is obviously dangerous with a two-way double.

You should accept that different people call the same thing differently. That's why you should not just name the convention used but explain it's meaning. And when opponents describe their bid with a term you are unfamiliar with ask for further explanation. That way you will learn that what they call "nonforcing relay" is in fact what you would call "pass or correct".

BTW I have sometimes even heard the term "weak relay". While technically this describes the same situation, as a TD I would judge this as MI when the weak relay happens to be bid with some misfitting 15-count.

[dokoko]

pescetom, on 2018-July-21, 07:31, said:

... I still find even "non-forcing relay" to be a mystification ...

Once you ask yourself what the term "non-forcing relay" could possibly mean, there is only one solution. In fact the expected answer "pass or correct" might suggest that partner's next bid is meant to set the final contract, what we all know isn't true.

The inability to put themselves in opponents' (or even partner's) shoes limits the possible improvement of many players. If you have no idea how other people are thinking how can you interprete their actions.

[The_Badger]

Hilver, on 2018-July-21, 03:52, said:

Well, first of all thank you for your replies.

As regards about 2♥, maybe I indeed should have used the term non forcing relay as OH may pass it.

Well, why posting this bidding problem? Just because I was wondering what bid you would make if 2NT really is unusual.
I do understand why some of you doubting whether 2NT really was unsual.

Some of you choose to bid 4♣ and some 3NT. But no one made a bid of 3♣!

In practice 2NT was alerted and explained by the 3♣-bidder as being unsual. But the holding of the 2NT-bidder was:
♠ A Q 10
♥ Q 10 8 3 2
♦ K J 9
♣ 5 4
So it was meant as natural.

In practice 3♣ was bid, and the 2NT-bidder now bid 3NT (?).

So I have my reservations against the bidding.
In my opinion, 3♣ is underbidding and 3NT isn't allowed after having heard partners explanation of your 2NT-bid.

So 2NT was an attempt at a balancing bid? Ah, it all makes sense now. Balancing bids against the Multi: I'd rather go shark fishing without the cage.