marcD Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 2NT Natural not scrambling. Think priority is to describe hand type. Hope partner does not pass but even if he does it does not have to be worse than player 3♦ in a 4-2 fit if i invent 3♣ or 4♥ if partner raises my 3♥ call . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB 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: I think bidding is against the law. Give them 9 trumps, and the total number of tricks is 17. We have at least a 23 count, many commentators reckon more. OK, I concede they may make the contract, but I would say the odds are against it. I would also say the odds are against us making a contract unless partner is stronger, but of course if he is stronger then the double is better than a part score, and if game is available, double is better than our game. Yes, I don't like doubling opponents into game in IMPS, but this is a time I would be happy(well, not ecstatic) to do so. OK Vesuvius, time to own up and tell us what partner had for his double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) OK Vesuvius, time to own up and tell us what partner had for his double.OK, I guess I gotta come out with it :unsure: Partner held K65 KQJ4 983 AKT. 2♠ is down one instead of the easy 3NT. Redit: The Full Deal: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...egative)P3C{The Bid in Question; 2S is only -1}P3NPPP&p= Edited February 20, 2009 by mtvesuvius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn 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 :) I think bidding is against the law. Give them 9 trumps, and the total number of tricks is 17. We have at least a 23 count, many commentators reckon more. OK, I concede they may make the contract, but I would say the odds are against it. I would also say the odds are against us making a contract unless partner is stronger, but of course if he is stronger then the double is better than a part score, and if game is available, double is better than our game. Yes, I don't like doubling opponents into game in IMPS, but this is a time I would be happy(well, not ecstatic) to do so. I don't understand a law argument. We know almost nothing about the trump length of either side. Sometimes the partner of the 2♠ bidder doesn't raise with 3. Partner could negative double with 4 or 0 spades. He could have 6 card support for diamonds or a void in diamonds. I mean there are crapshoots and then there are crapshoots... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I play 2NT as lebenshol here, so I can bid that and pass pard's suit, hoping it's a 5 carder. On a good day I'll just pass :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I play 2NT as lebenshol here *Ahem* Lehbensohl by opener? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I play 2NT as lebenshol here *Ahem* Lehbensohl by opener? Just pretend he said good/bad. Same effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Partner held K65 KQJ4 983 AKT. 2♠ is down one instead of the easy 3NT. Thank you for the hand. Yes, an easy 3NT but I cannot see spades making more than 6 tricks. Only -500. I lose on this one. Jdonn - I'm glad I don't play with your partners :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar 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. Totally correct and it bears mentioning that weak NT hands are far more frequent than strong NT hands, so weak NT is likely to be a winner even if the problems for a 15-17 hand are equally difficult in competition after opening a suit. 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.