Competing over a WkNT

[sheepman]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxxxxhaxxxdq987xc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Pard passes, wknt on right, your bid?

 

Methods are Woosley, but X of a wknt is pen (2C = majors, 2D = a major, 2M = major + minor)

[ArtK78]

My initial response to this question is "This is a joke, right?"

 

But I see from the vote that someone has already voted to bid.

 

Good luck. Pass seems 100% clear.

[han]

Sheep, I'd pass.

[jdonn]

Art probably knows he passes more than most, in general. But it's hard to disagree in this case. Eeeeeasy pass.

[ArtK78]

Art probably knows he passes more than most, in general. But it's hard to disagree in this case. Eeeeeasy pass.

I don't pass more than most in the real world. But the participants on this Forum are hyperactive.

 

:)

[han]

True, the little old ladies at the Madison bridge club pass at least as much as Art, likely more.

[dburn]

Could work to bid, but most of the time it will end up helping declarer in the play of the hand, and some of the rest of the time it will induce partner to do the wrong thing either in the auction or in the defence.

[finally17]

Personally I think this is one of those hands that shows why weak NTs work at some levels...too many people want to interfere over them and don't know when they should (not referring to you Sheep, or anyone in particular). It's easy to feel like you're being robbed from, so people get involved on hands like this and just end up in trouble.

 

Pass.

[nick_s]

Since I resumed playing bridge in the US, I've noticed that Americans are far more aggressive about intervening over a weak NT, than ever used to be the case when I played in the UK 25 years ago.

 

No doubt things have moved on on both sides of the pond. 25 years is a long time - and perhaps my memory is playing tricks too.

 

I think the reason for Americans being more aggressive has to do with playing against a strong no-trump more often. Against a strong no-trump, you can pretty much forget about reaching game, and just bid competitively on good shape and a fair number of points. This approach works very well because partner is just looking for a fit, and very rarely will have any interest in game.

 

Against a weak no-trump, it's not so simple. Surprisingly often you do have a game on, so you have to keep your overcalls a little bit more respectable to prevent partner from getting too excited when holding a half decent hand.

 

Enough rambling... This is a clear pass.

[the hog]

Art probably knows he passes more than most, in general. But it's hard to disagree in this case. Eeeeeasy pass.

I don't pass more than most in the real world. But the participants on this Forum are hyperactive.

 

:)

You do pass more than most Art, but I agree bidding here is poor.

[gwnn]

I'd bid over a strong NT if I had Ripstra available.

 

Bids over weak NT's should be CONSTRUCTIVE.... nothing constructive about our hand, unless we want to construct large negative integers and very low non-negative percentages.

[MickyB]

I wouldn't need a huge amount more to bid 2♣, this seems a bit much though.

[Free]

It's a poll where the options should be:

- pass

- something else + stupid

 

Pass is clear

[P_Marlowe]

Pass, but 2C is an option.

 

2C is an option, as long as partner knows

you are taking liberty, if he is a passed hand,

the hand is sightly too weak, but replace

the Queen with the Ace and I would bid.

You play MP, you are green, and you have the

shape.

 

It is a matter of partnership style.

 

Facing a partner, who did not have a chance to

speak I would pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: And of course, bidding would get more attractive,

if you would be able to play in all of your suits at the

2 Level, at least theoretically.

[Halo]

Wondered if I was completely out of touch with MPs rather than just mostly.

 

Reassured that pass is still possible.

[barmar]

I've just started reading Sabine Auken's book, I Love This Game. The first chapter is about how great the mini NT (10-12) is, and one of the features is opponents getting into trouble by competing with weak hands. And it's not just LOLs who do this; most of the example deals she gives in the book are from high-level international tournaments (Bermuda Bowls, Venice Cups, etc.). She gave an exampe where it went 1NT-P-P and 4th hand balanced with a mediocre 7 count.

 

She makes the same point that Nick does -- compete with shape against strong NT, but against weaker NTs you should actually be expecting to make your contract, and be looking for potential games.

[dake50]

2C as I want to get to 2M-X and add 3 C-ruffs killing CAKQ of doubler. That's my slim hope.

[whereagles]

But the participants on this Forum are hyperactive.

 

:)

it's a bidder's game :)

 

but yeah, not this time :P

[Gerben42]

2♣? My reality check just bounced!

 

If you even consider bidding, reread "I love this game".

[jdonn]

2C as I want to get to 2M-X and add 3 C-ruffs killing CAKQ of doubler. That's my slim hope.

It's hard to ruff 3 times after the defense draws your trumps.

 

I have never read Sabine's book although I do intend to. But I couldn't agree more. When you play a weak notrump you are praying for the opponents to bid on hands like this.

[Codo]

Obviously bidding was correct at the table.

Something like: Pd passed with x,x, AKxxxx, xxxxx and we missed our 5 Diamond game?

 

But even knowing that the question here implies that bidding is correct, this is a "no look" pass.

[helene_t]

Bids over weak NT's should be CONSTRUCTIVE.... nothing constructive about our hand, unless we want to construct large negative integers and very low non-negative percentages.

A good case against constructivism. If you can prove the existence of negative numbers without actually constructing one, you're much safer :P

[Apollo81]

There's not much point to interfering. We are clearly not going to declare this hand.