BPO-002C

[Gerben42]

2NT for the minors.

[inquiry]

2♠, the minors.

Interesting idea.

 

On my partnership this would show 4♠+4-5 in a minor with probably 3♥ since no take out double is possible, but 2♠ might do the trick also.

I play 2♠ on this auction, or two of a major over a natural minor, as four in the bid major and five in a minor (or other minor) as well.... But 2♠ for the minors seems unnecessary (what else is 2NT?), and even if someone played 2♠ for the minors with their regular partnership, there is no way that is part of BBO advanced, or that partner would be able to figure it out (as an expert might be able to do if you bid 2NT for the minors).

[Gerben42]

Well I would assume on this auction that:

 

2♠ = take out with 4♠

Dbl = take out with 3♠

[cherdano]

Well I would assume on this auction that:

 

2♠ = take out with 4♠

Dbl = take out with 3♠

Interesting. I would have assumed X = takeout for all suits, 2♠ = 4 spades and one minor.

 

Arend

[mike777]

Still think x should be card showing not takeout.....let us give p the option of playing 2hx if opener has less than 4h?

[P_Marlowe]

2 NT for the minors.

 

Hopefully my regular partner would will understand this. as well.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[HeartA]

I voted for pass.

[Rebound]

I really don't see any reason to do other than pass.

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=a&s=s63ht3dkq82cj9874]133|100|Scoring: IMP

BPO-002C

West North East South

S----------W----------N--------E

Pass………..Pass……….1NT………Pass

Pass………..DBL……….Pass………2♥

? your bid

[/hv]

 

The question on this problem was would the panel risk bidding on with a possible misfit when vulnerable at imps. If they do bid on, would they choose 2NT, as a scramble looking for a minor suit fit, or would they pick 3♣. Luis explains the reason why you should pass at imps, but bid 2NT at matchpoints much better than I could, so let’s listen to his sage advice. “ Pass; At MPs I would bid 2NT automatically, at imps and being vulnerable I don't see the need to look for gold. Pd may have 4 hearts, the hand can be a complete misfit and 3 of a minor is only lawful when pd has 5 diamonds or 4 clubs. ” Mark (awm) agreed with Luis’s assessment, “Pass. I expect that most of the time 2♥ will be one down. Doubling or bidding 2NT (presumably for minors) both seem like quite a position at IMPs.” Ng, also understood the real problem on this problem, which isn’t that 2NT is for the minors, but that even if you know that, doesn’t need you must use the 2NT bid. Ng explained, “I assume they have no agreement about passed hand double [editor note, this is Richards major complaint with the problem]. 1NT had a good chance to make, so opponents took some risk in the bidding. We probably have a minor fit, and 2NT would be for minors. It’s very close between 2NT and Pass. If we can make 3m, 2H will be down a lot of the times, BUT there are cases, when BOTH 3m AND 2H ARE DOWN (in case of 3m-1 and 2H= both Pass and 2NT are OK). So I’m on the Pass side.”

 

Some readers will remember a hand last week where they might have chosen 2NT to be scramble/good bad and found that the convention was not being played. But here we see that even without a specific convention, the panel is certain their expert partner would understand the logic of a 2NT bid here not being “natural”. The logic is actually very simple. If you had enough value to want to risk 2NT and a heart stopper, you would take the sure plus, and maybe huge plus, of doubling them. Ergo, 2NT can not be natural

 

Fluffy explained it this way, “2NT, this is IMPs so 2NT competitive has no reason to exist, this has to be minors.[/b]”. Reisig simply said, “2NT - minors -might work ..don't like 3♣” No one did Rich. Fred also bid 2NTwith the majority of the panel, let’s see how the other panelist explained their bids.

 

Walddk ”2NT. For the minors. You need not have an agreement here. It is bridge logic in an expert partnership that 2NT is not natural on this auction. The club suit is too bad to insist on, so I will let partner choose. The risk is of course that we don't have a fit, but I can't sit still when I have values to compete.”

 

Jlall “2N. I think my expert partner will interpret this as minors (hopefully!) even without agreement as I would never want to bid 2N natural in this sequence. Bridge logic should prevail. If he misinterprets my bid and passes it's not the end of the world.” Ritong is on the same wavelength as Justin, voting for 2NT explaining. “2NT: attack/defense, if my partner passes, it is ok, and if he picks a minor, that is ok too.” And finally,

 

Cascade “2NT Minors. With over half of the high cards I want to compete. This is not Lebensohl since range is not an issue - we have no game since I have already announced that by passing 1NT. Double is an alternative intending to bid 2NT for the minors over partner's 2♠. It is possible that this sequence could be used to show a slightly different hand than a direct 2NT. The fallacy with this though is that if the opponents compete further opener will never know what we have.”

 

Phicro: “ 2NT : for the minors. If double, showed majors, I'd said 2♠.” This would neatly solve any nagging question (see jlall response above) that partner might take 2NT as natural. In fact, if dbl showed the majors, should 2NT be more or less natural with the availability of 2♠ for the minors.

 

So all the panelist, even the passers (Luis, Gabor and awm) knew that 2NT would be pick a minor. However, at imps, the passers decided that pass was the prudent thing to do at this vulnerability. Here I absolutely agree, and I too would pass at imps, but bid 2NT at MP, where the frequency of 2NT being right (getting us to a better contract) outweighs the timidness of passing. At imps, bidding here, if the hands are a misfit, could convert your small plus or small minus for defeating 2♥ into a significant minus if they can double you in 3 of a minor. I guess we “passers” will just have to be satisfied knowing we made the right bid, but got a terrible score for it. But at least Luis should score high on the prediction scale, because he added the following in his email to me… “I must say these problems were a lot better and most of them are quite difficult. I think it's good that we don't score the panelists otherwise it would be a contest of guessing the most popular bid instead of the best bid :-). I'm sure I will never get many high scores...”. I think luis can sleep well tonight, at least he found the right bid here, if not the “correct” one as chose by the vast majority of the panel.

 

VOTES  Panel  Score

2NT       8       100

Pass      3      70

DBL        0      20

3♣        0      20

[luke warm]

i guess i am a little too conservative, vulnerable at imps... all i can see is going minus (maybe by a bunch) on a hand where i should be plus... true, they might make :)

[flytoox]

Nice analysis, Ben. Just a side note here. Another reason favoring biddiing 2N rather than pass is that we have 5c4d. Curiously, if we have 4c5d, I would vote for pass. This is because if pd has 33 minors, then he will bid 3c, so we are safe in 3c if we have 5c4d. However, if we have 5d4c, then 3c would be very difficult and yet we cannot risk to change 3c to 3d.

[Echognome]

Another consideration here is style. I am assuming we aren't opening 5332 hands with a five card major as 1NT. Then we would be less inclined to compete. I was a conservative passer.

[luke warm]

Another consideration here is style. I am assuming we aren't opening 5332 hands with a five card major as 1NT. Then we would be less inclined to compete. I was a conservative passer.

that would be a wrong assumption, playing the system under discussion

 

However, if we have 5d4c, then 3c would be very difficult and yet we cannot risk to change 3c to 3d.

that's true.. but so it's also true that partner could be 4432... where do you want to be after 2nt, vulnerable at imps?

[cherdano]

Silly question:

 

What would double followed by 2NT over 2♠ show?

Might be more flexible than the immediate 2NT...

How about the same meaning (minors), with the obvious difference that you can stand a penalty pass by partner? (Assuming take-out double of course.)

This might suit this hand pretty fine, actually.

 

Arend

[cherdano]

However, if we have 5d4c, then 3c would be very difficult and yet we cannot risk to change 3c to 3d.

that's true.. but so it's also true that partner could be 4432... where do you want to be after 2nt, vulnerable at imps?

Partner may be able to judge that pass is best.

 

Arend

[Echognome]

<snip> I am assuming we aren't opening 5332 hands with a five card major as 1NT. <snip>

 

that would be a wrong assumption, playing the system under discussion

I'm confused. In BBO advanced opener can have a 5 card major and open 1NT? We aren't playing any methods to find a 5 card major.

[flytoox]

However, if we have 5d4c, then 3c would be very difficult and yet we cannot risk to change 3c to 3d.

that's true.. but so it's also true that partner could be 4432... where do you want to be after 2nt, vulnerable at imps?

Partner may be able to judge that pass is best.

 

Arend

I agree. My 2N has to promise some strength and some shape, but not exceptional. Otherwise, I would transfer to minors or bid 3C showing weak minors after 1N.

 

If pd has 4432, he will pass my 2N.

 

I think richard's dbl follow by 2N is best solution. This caters to all possible problem and gives pd a chance to pass the dbl.

[han]

Assuming that their double showed the majors, it is very likely that they have found their major suit fitt, and that we have a decent minor suit fit. 2NT for the minors for me too.

 

I agree that this would be much more obvious if we were playing matchpoints.

[Chamaco]

I'm confused.  In BBO advanced opener can have a 5 card major and open 1NT?

 

Yes

 

We aren't playing any methods to find a 5 card major.

 

The underlying assumption is that most of the times, even with a 5-3 major fit (which cannot be found anymore without specific methods), the hand will play at least equally well in NT.

So basically the idea is: "don't bother of the possibly lost 53 major fit".

 

Of course we can find plenty of examples supporting this and its opposite :-)

[hotShot]

I'll pass!

 

I could have shown majors using (weak) stayman, i could show ♠ probably with X over 2♥. So partner will expect me to have the minors.

I don't want to be on the 3 level.

[Echognome]

Opening a 5332 hand as 1NT without methods to find the 5 card major is perfectly fine if it's just a matter of judgment. Yesterday I opened this hand 1NT:

 

♠ 98642

♥ AK6

♦ KJ5

♣ J6

 

We were playing 11-13 NT and I thought "What five card spade suit?"

 

I'm just saying that opening ALL 5332's in the NT range is different. A lot of pairs do this and then play 5 card stayman. I was just making the point that we aren't opening these hands as 1NT by agreement.

[beatrix45]

I think 2N is best because our side has a majority of the HCP and we likely have a fit given that pard is unlikely to have 5 spades, and unlikely to have 4 hearts. If his max likely major suit holdings are 4-3 then we have 8 card fit in some minor. I think selling out to 2H is usually a losing option when you have a fit and half the deck. If 2H is making and 3m is down it doesnt matter. If 3m is making and 2H is down it doesn't matter. If 2H and 3m both make you need to bid. If 3m is down but they take the push to 3H, you need to bid (more likely in practice than theory). If 2H and 3m are both down you need to pass. The first 2 in my experience are much more likely than the last option, especially with a pure hand. Also consider they could have 9 hearts, or you could have a 9 card minor fit quite easily in which case bidding will definitely be right.

:D

Brilliant analysis as to why you ought to bid. We already know what 3 ♣ or 3 ♦ shows. The issue is the meaning of 2 ♠ and 2 NT. The overwhelming majority of a high level panel is willing to bid 2 NT on the grounds that their partner will work out this newly invented convention on the spot, at the table.

 

This situation comes up often enough that it might be worth an agreement. So, 2 ♠ advertises four, seems right, but what (if anything) else, a second suit? 2 NT is for minors, why not?

 

Comparable situations crop up in similar auctions. What about RHO bidding 2 ♣ or 2 ♦? Here, the permutations and combinations of possible bids get a little complicated. What am I supposed to do?

[awm]

Here's my analysis for pass.

 

Since it's IMPs, there's no difference between +110 and +100, or -110 and -100. So bidding only wins if opponents were making 2♥, and we are also making 3-minor. The law of total tricks indicates one side should have a nine-card fit for this to happen. But if opponents have nine hearts, partner will probably balance with a double. In fact the opponents may have only seven hearts, in which case bidding will be disastrous and 2♥ may be down multiple tricks.

 

Even in the case where we have nine in a minor and opponents have eight in hearts, we have the majority of the strength and it may be 10 tricks for us in the minor versus 7 for them in hearts.

 

Obviously the law of total tricks is not a hundred percent accurate, but with our relatively balanced shape opposite partner's balanced hand, a downward adjustment seems more likely than an upwards one.

[HeartA]

Here's my analysis for pass.

 

Since it's IMPs, there's no difference between +110 and +100, or -110 and -100. So bidding only wins if opponents were making 2♥, and we are also making 3-minor. The law of total tricks indicates one side should have a nine-card fit for this to happen. But if opponents have nine hearts, partner will probably balance with a double. In fact the opponents may have only seven hearts, in which case bidding will be disastrous and 2♥ may be down multiple tricks.

 

Even in the case where we have nine in a minor and opponents have eight in hearts, we have the majority of the strength and it may be 10 tricks for us in the minor versus 7 for them in hearts.

 

Obviously the law of total tricks is not a hundred percent accurate, but with our relatively balanced shape opposite partner's balanced hand, a downward adjustment seems more likely than an upwards one.

Agree.