atb

[gwnn]

The hand editor doesn't seem to like me. Sorry

 

N:

-

Txx

Jxxxx

AKxxx

 

S:

KQTx

A9xx

K

JTxx

 

West deals at love all MP's and

 

1♥-2NT-p-3NT

x-p-p-p

 

-800

[Bbradley62]

Does the partnership have an agreement as to the strength of the 2NT call?

[gwnn]

no sorry. in particular, neither of NS were under the impression of "split range".

[barmar]

Assuming the common minimax agreement about Unusual 2NT, I put all the blame on South. North has a normal white 2NT bid. South took a gamble on 3NT, but once it gets hit, he should run to the known club fit.

[Bbradley62]

North has his bid; I agree that South should run after the double.

[nigel_k]

South needs a lot more than a minimum in North for 3NT to be good. The 3NT bid was optimistic but sitting the double was foolhardy. The double looks unwise as well but maybe West just knew his customer.

[bluecalm]

I am not a fan of 2NT at all but the blame goes to South cause 3NT isn't even remotely sane.

[barmar]

3NT is so insane that my guess is that South forgot that 2NT is unusual, or maybe he thought North bid 1NT.

[mtvesuvius]

Everyone is VUL I thought?

 

I would never dream of 2N with the north hand. I'd be tempted by 3♣ though.

 

3N was aggressive, but assuming partner has a real 2N call it's not too bad. Sitting for the double is silly though.

 

I'd say 35% for North, 65.00001% for South

[aguahombre]

I think "love all" means nobody vul.

[JLOGIC]

2N is a joke.

 

3N is a very bad bid not because it's an overbid, but because south has a much better hand for clubs than NT opposite the minors. I would just try for 6C before stopping in 5.

[whereagles]

South should have trusted LHOs dbl and pull to 4♣ :rolleyes:

[Finch]

Mainly seems to be a disagreement about what strength 2NT showed.

But I would also prefer to have my majors the other way round as South before bidding 3NT. A9xx in their suit is a suit that is suitable for playing in a suit.

[gwnn]

I was N but now that I see my hand written on paper, it does look rather weak. Mainly what I was interested in is: should I pull 3NTx? I know it's not nice to doubt partner, but I was kind of sure we would get a bad score :)

[aguahombre]

As North, if you are content that 2NT with that hand is within style (I disagree that it is a "joke", and probably would do it, too) ---then trusting partner is a good thing, rather than trusting the opponents. Maybe THIS pard should not be trusted, but I don't like running from my own preemptive bids. Having chosen the preemptive 2NT, the ball is in CHO's court.

 

South, however, should rethink his/her 3NT bid when the opponents' double shows the folly of it. The poll doesn't suggest you are to blame.

[pooltuna]

I was N but now that I see my hand written on paper, it does look rather weak. Mainly what I was interested in is: should I pull 3NTx? I know it's not nice to doubt partner, but I was kind of sure we would get a bad score :)

 

 

In spite of JLall's disapproval IMO the call meets any normal inference into the strength and card length showed. It is after all primarily a preemptive call and like most preemptive calls it makes partner the captain so any action over 3NT has to be from partner. You got a bad score because partner had different rules for 2NT (albeit idiotic).

[ArtK78]

I have no problem with the 2NT call.

 

3NT was, to put it mildly, "optimistic." Once it gets doubled, to do anything but pull to 4♣ would be foolhardy.

 

I would never consider pulling with the North hand.

[barmar]

The only possible excuse for the 2NT bidder pulling would be if you has more extreme shape and less strength than expected, e.g. a very weak 6-5.

[mfa1010]

I need significantly more for a 2NT bid. 3NT doesn't seem like such a hot bid either, but it depends on partner's style how bad it is.

[cherdano]

In spite of JLall's disapproval IMO the call meets any normal inference into the strength and card length showed. It is after all primarily a preemptive call and like most preemptive calls it makes partner the captain so any action over 3NT has to be from partner. You got a bad score because partner had different rules for 2NT (albeit idiotic).

The main problem is not that the hand is too weak. The problem is exactly that the values are not preemptive enough. Jxxxx in one suit and AKxxx is about the worst combination in values you can have in your suits, you have a bit of defense, but still such a terrible diamond suit that often you won't get to set up your second suit. It's the kind of hand where you could be down 4 doubled in 3♣ with no game their way.

[mfa1010]

The main problem is not that the hand is too weak. The problem is exactly that the values are not preemptive enough. Jxxxx in one suit and AKxxx is about the worst combination in values you can have in your suits, you have a bit of defense, but still such a terrible diamond suit that often you won't get to set up your second suit. It's the kind of hand where you could be down 4 doubled in 3♣ with no game their way.

2NT should not be seen as a preempt. It is a two-suited overcall to the 3-level, so we need values for the 3-level.

But I understand your point.

[aguahombre]

2NT should not be seen as a preempt. It is a two-suited overcall to the 3-level, so we need values for the 3-level.

 

I don't believe the majority would agree that a two-suited bid which jumps the level must have the values for the level forced. I could wait a long time for X XX AKQXX KQJTX to use the unusual NoTrump, but would prefer to use it more frequently.

 

Of course it is a "preempt", since it elminates the opponents' and partner's bidding space ---whether weak or strong.

[mfa1010]

I don't believe the majority would agree that a two-suited bid which jumps the level must have the values for the level forced. I could wait a long time for X XX AKQXX KQJTX to use the unusual NoTrump, but would prefer to use it more frequently.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#strawman

 

Of course it is a "preempt", since it elminates the opponents' and partner's bidding space ---whether weak or strong.

So does opening 2♣. ;)

[JLOGIC]

Wow. Don't remember posting in this thread but gotta say I agree with myself still! I was getting a hernia reading the initial replies.

 

I guess Frances hit the nail on the head with:

 

Mainly seems to be a disagreement about what strength 2NT showed.

 

We see this in:

 

As North, if you are content that 2NT with that hand is within style

In spite of JLall's disapproval IMO the call meets any normal inference into the strength and card length showed.

I have no problem with the 2NT call.

 

OK, fair enough. I guess I should amend what I said to "I think a style where the north hand is consistent with a 2N bid is a complete joke." I cannot imagine it being a winning style or employed by anyone. Apparantly south is with me, since he drove to game (also in a completely misguided way). Despite this thread, I think it is a non standard bid.

 

2 people described it as a preempt. Why is it a preempt? And don't preempts show sufficient constructive values to preempt to that level anyways? Maybe this is just semantics, but north does not have enough values to "preempt" to the 3 level to me, any more than jack fifth of clubs can overcall 3C.

 

Overcalling the minors should have a constructive goal since it gives away so much information to the opponents, and is incredibly easy to double, and we often don't end up declaring anyways since minors suck. This is not like a 1 suited preempt which still leaves much of your hand unknown, and can take sufficient tricks on it's own in the suit most of the time, and is much harder to double (they don't have a bid to say "I've got them!"). Doing so on hands this weak just leads to going for a number a fair amount of the time, and the times you don't the opponents get to play double dummy against you. On top of that, partner will never have any idea of whether he can try for game or not, or even save/compete, since your hand can be so bad, so it hurts you on the times when you have a legit 2N overcall.

 

Here we have a lot of defense, a lot of hearts, and very little offense. I just cannot wrap my head around 2N being a serious bridge bid.

 

It has become a pet peeve of mine that things like this start when people hear something like "You should play michaels as split range." OK, stupid enough concept already but it became standard through some good marketing, whatever. But then, it becomes "You should play unusual 2N as split range also for the same reasons!" OK, not the same, nor is 1C-2C vs 1S-2S, but fine let's lump them together. But then, we lose common sense and we hear the words WEAK or STRONG, and the weak variety just becomes utterly absurd, simply because WE ARE SPLIT!

 

I mean no one would bid on -- xxx xxxxx xxxxx, we all know that's kind of retarded, even though it's WEAK. Surely we can comprehend that even a weak variety driving to the 3 level in a MINOR in a dangerous way ought to be more like xx -- QJTxx KQTxxx, and how this hand is much different than that. But no, somehow we've just come to, this is 5-5 weak, standard!

 

To me it is common sense that bidding 2N with the north hand is ludicrous, and will result in our side losing imps, and that is even if partner knows exactly that we can have this hand and judge perfectly (which of course he will not, since he has no room at all to maneuver). Similarly, if I played a 2N overcall as showing 4-6 balanced, I would expect to lose imps when I bid it, despite it being my "style" or "agreement."

 

Lastly, as usual, I agree with everything MFA said here.

[the hog]

Well, I don't like the 2NT bid either. Not because you are going to get doubled as you will probably be able to find some sort of fit somewhere, but rather because of the ridiculous disparity in the two suits. And, also, of course, because you are presenting the opponents with a blueprint of the hand shapes.

 

I would MUCH prefer opening a hand like this with a 2 suited bid, as at least you are forcing the opps to start their bidding at a higher level. Here they may well have found a fit already.