mtvesuvius Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 All Vulnerable, as dealer at IMPs you hold: ♠ T97♥ A62♦ AQ75♣ Q96 1♦ - (2♠) - X* - (P)? *Negative I always have trouble on these kinds of hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 3♥ although 3♣ might work best. In fact I rushed my answer, 3♣ is clearly best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't have the stomach for pass, so 2NT it is. I really can't believe bidding a suit here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't really have a preference between 3♦ and 2NT, 3♣ distant 3rd choice. I am curious to see what other people say. At the table I'd probably bid 3♦ but I can definitely be convinced why this is awful. If partner bids something after this though I'm happy. If he bids 3NT over 2NT I am very unhappy and I guess we'll just have to wait to see dummy. It seems like 3♦ leaves us better placed for later actions but maybe poorly placed in a 4-2 fit or something :P At MPs I think I'd pass. Maybe it's right here too. But agree with JDonn... too scary. I think 3♥ is bad bad bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT...this problem doesn't exist. On the given hand..probably 2NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT Me too, but I cannot always get what I want :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 2NT seems normal. Partner does know that we are likely to have a minimum balanced hand and that it is possible we have no stopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 2NT seems normal. Partner does know that we are likely to have a minimum balanced hand and that it is possible we have no stopper. I think this is a bit backwards. If I'm partner generally I assume that we DO have a stopper, especially in this auction. Maybe not so much at the one level. You would have to dissuade me of that belief, not persuade me that you actually do have a stopper. In this auction how do I check? 3♠ 'are you sure partner?' Now wtf am I going to do? This is even worse. I'm not saying I disagree with 2NT. I just am not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT...this problem doesn't exist. On the given hand..probably 2NT. True. Playing weak notrump the problem exists when you hold the strong notrump on a similar hand to this and partner passes instead of doubling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fachiru Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I'm going with 3♥, but I have a feeling that Pass is the winning bid.If we buy it there, at least we'll have more trumps then them and hopefully, if bidded promptly I won't get X-ed, which is my primary goal on this beauty seq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 My choices are either 3H or 2NT. Given that I'm 4333 think I'll lean towards 2NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I play 2NT as scrambling here, so that is what I would bid. Without that agreement, 3C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT...this problem doesn't exist. On the given hand..probably 2NT. I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT...this problem doesn't exist. On the given hand..probably 2NT. I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT. I think the implication was there are no awkward strong notrump hands here since if they don't have a stopper they are good enough to cuebid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT...this problem doesn't exist. On the given hand..probably 2NT. I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT. I think the implication was there are no awkward strong notrump hands here since if they don't have a stopper they are good enough to cuebid. Yeah, of course this is a better auction to be playing weak NT on, though you will occasionally get into trouble with 18-19 balanced and no spade stopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT...this problem doesn't exist. On the given hand..probably 2NT. I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT. I think the implication was there are no awkward strong notrump hands here since if they don't have a stopper they are good enough to cuebid. Yeah, of course this is a better auction to be playing weak NT on, though you will occasionally get into trouble with 18-19 balanced and no spade stopper. Not really, because then you will play the hand in game or 4 of a minor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 This hand is one of the main things I like about playing weak/mini NT...this problem doesn't exist. On the given hand..probably 2NT. I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT. I think the implication was there are no awkward strong notrump hands here since if they don't have a stopper they are good enough to cuebid. Yeah, of course this is a better auction to be playing weak NT on, though you will occasionally get into trouble with 18-19 balanced and no spade stopper. Not really, because then you will play the hand in game or 4 of a minor. I think he was saying you get in trouble with 18-19 because you are bidding it the same way as 15-17 if you cuebid on this auction with both. Lol sometimes I think I'm the only one here who always understands what everyone else means. Except shubi of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Yeah ok.... Shubi knows best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 gotta love shubi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 2NT didn't even cross my mind O_o, I voted for 3♦, but I think 3♣ could be better. But 2NT?. I am not afraid of 3♦/♣ being a bad contract, I expect partner to have game values most of the time on this sequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I chose 3♣ and partner bid 3NT, so it is really a moot point, but I thought that this was in interesting problem that rarely comes up... My case for 3♣ was that if partner had a GF it didn't matter, but NT would play better from his side. If partner had a weaker hand with equal length in the minors partner would correct to 3♦, if partner has longer ♣ then ♦ then we usually want to play ♣ or ♥, and if partner has longer ♦ than ♣ then we want to play ♦. The trouble is when partner is 4=4=2=3 or 3=5=2=3 or other similar hands where we have a 4-3 or 5-3 ♥ fit and play 3♣ in our 3-3 fit. The disadvantage to 3♥ is when partner has 4♦ or 5♣, but 3♥ is reasonable imo. What will partner do over 2NT though? This is the problem that I have because with a 2=4=3=4 without a ♠ stopper, partner will pass. If my logic is wrong somewhere please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlam Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Are you guys saying that a 15-17 NT without 4 heart and without stopper is good enough to force to game on this auction? In my experience this is rather the sort of hand where we have 23-24 hcp and even 26 hcp wouldn't be enough for game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I can't believe the votes for 2NT. Given that partner made a takeout double he won't have many spades, so give him a good one and they make 5 spade tricks in NT. That means we have 7 solid tricks elsewhere off the top with no long suit trick ??? No way. If 2NT was intended as a sacrifice, then I prefer a sacrifice in clubs.If 2NT or 3C has even a glimmer of making, then 2S is going off miles.Pass seems so obvious to me. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 pass obvious?, opponents have 8-10 trumps and are palying at the 2 level, you might go to jail for playing against the law :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Hi, 2NT assuming this is some sort of scrambling,not 100% sure about this one. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.