[Ant590]

MISTYPED HAND:

Scoring: IMP

---

ACTUAL HAND:

Scoring: IMP

---

(1♦) - pass - (1NT) - dbl - (pass) - 2NT - all pass

[cherdano]

Double is an overbid. 2N is just weird. No scores from me.

[mikeh]

double of 1N is, as cherdano said, weird... we are red at imps with a poor hand... so my initial reaction was that West made a blunder... which I still think it correct.

But East..... wow. Maybe East should have thought that the odds that his side could take 8 tricks in notrump when the opps get to make the opening lead were less than the odds that his side could, on the same layout, take 7 tricks with the advantage of the opening lead.

And, of course, if 8 tricks were available on both offence and defence... well, 500 beats 120, and 800 beats 600 should partner raise.

I do think that East has a tough call, but 2N isn't amongst the solutions in my universe

[Echognome]

mikeh, on Sep 10 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

I do think that East has a tough call, but 2N isn't amongst the solutions in my universe

In fact, isn't 2NT irrational as to play? So shouldn't it be artificial? Maybe a 2-suited GF.

[rbforster]

It looks like West is playing his double as takeout (not sure if this is normal). 2N seems way out of line - it shouldn't be on balanced values (else pass), and East can't have very many distributional decent hands or he would have bid earlier over 1♦. I'd bid 2♥ as East.

[kenrexford]

Echognome, on Sep 10 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 10 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

I do think that East has a tough call, but 2N isn't amongst the solutions in my universe

In fact, isn't 2NT irrational as to play? So shouldn't it be artificial? Maybe a 2-suited GF.

I was thinking similarly, but my thought was that 2NT should show hesitant clubs with diamond cards. The double could be showing SPADES, HEARTS, and, ugh, yeah sure! clubs. Responder could have 2254 with minor cards, plus values to bid at the three-level, of course.

[han]

Isn't that standard these days?

[EricK]

Echognome, on Sep 11 2008, 12:00 AM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 10 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

I do think that East has a tough call, but 2N isn't amongst the solutions in my universe

In fact, isn't 2NT irrational as to play? So shouldn't it be artificial? Maybe a 2-suited GF.

Can there be a 2-suited GF hand which passes over 1♦?

[zasanya]

I am always intrigued by the seriousness with which people whom i consider experts answer questions regarding partnership misunderstandings between strangers.How can we assign blame or interprete bids when we know nothing about systems played by the 2 players? And (a little rude perhaps but ) why should we?

[P_Marlowe]

zasanya, on Sep 11 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

I am always intrigued by the seriousness with which people whom i consider experts  answer questions regarding partnership misunderstandings between strangers.How can we assign blame or interprete bids when we know nothing about systems played by the 2 players? And (a little rude perhaps but ) why should we?

Well: Passing the t/o double instead of bidding 2NT
has nothing to do with specific partnership agreements,
it is basic: If you can make 8 tricks in a 2NT contract
declared by you, most likely you will also take 8 tricks,
if they declare 1NT, passing the t/o is at least as good as
bidding a natural 2NT.
.. and even the vulnerability does not suggest otherwise.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ochinko]

zasanya, on Sep 11 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

I am always intrigued by the seriousness with which people whom i consider experts  answer questions regarding partnership misunderstandings between strangers.How can we assign blame or interprete bids when we know nothing about systems played by the 2 players? And (a little rude perhaps but ) why should we?

Did you check the name of this particular forum? Said experts are indeed trying seriously to help newcomers to the game to avoid such blunders, and to properly assess their values. I would say they are doing a great job, whereas your post is pure noise.

[Ant590]

Sorry everyone - I missed a rather important card from West (see OP).

Dbl was indeed "takeout", but we have little discussion after that.

[Simplicity]

2N is clearly awful, East has no particularly attractive options but 2♥ it is

[TimG]

mikeh, on Sep 10 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

I do think that East has a tough call, but 2N isn't amongst the solutions in my universe

Pass, and we don't even have a tough lead (since partner will be on lead).

[rogerclee]

West bid very normally. I would bid 2♥ with the east hand, it looks very suit-oriented to me. As others have pointed out, 2NT obviously makes no sense.

[ArtK78]

I agree with the takeout double.

I would pass with the East cards. Even if 1NT makes (without any overtricks) it is only 180. Since I have no good call over the double and reasonable defense, I might as well play for 7 tricks in notrump.

I agree with the other posters that 2NT cannot be natural. But whatever it is, it does not match the cards that East holds.

[jtfanclub]

rogerclee, on Sep 11 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

West bid very normally. I would bid 2♥ with the east hand, it looks very suit-oriented to me. As others have pointed out, 2NT obviously makes no sense.

I think 2NT should show a good hand with diamonds well stopped (had enough points to bid over 1♦ but was stuck for a call). Add the, I dunno, QJ of diamonds to the 2NT bidder and it makes more sense.

[rogerclee]

jtfanclub, on Sep 11 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Sep 11 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

West bid very normally. I would bid 2♥ with the east hand, it looks very suit-oriented to me. As others have pointed out, 2NT obviously makes no sense.

I think 2NT should show a good hand with diamonds well stopped (had enough points to bid over 1♦ but was stuck for a call). Add the, I dunno, QJ of diamonds to the 2NT bidder and it makes more sense.

add the QJ of diamonds and I would PASS.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Sep 11 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Sep 11 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

West bid very normally. I would bid 2♥ with the east hand, it looks very suit-oriented to me. As others have pointed out, 2NT obviously makes no sense.

I think 2NT should show a good hand with diamonds well stopped (had enough points to bid over 1♦ but was stuck for a call). Add the, I dunno, QJ of diamonds to the 2NT bidder and it makes more sense.

How can you not pass with that hand?

[matmat]

jtfanclub, on Sep 11 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Sep 11 2008, 09:33 AM, said:

West bid very normally. I would bid 2♥ with the east hand, it looks very suit-oriented to me. As others have pointed out, 2NT obviously makes no sense.

I think 2NT should show a good hand with diamonds well stopped (had enough points to bid over 1♦ but was stuck for a call). Add the, I dunno, QJ of diamonds to the 2NT bidder and it makes more sense.

you mean we would rather try to take 8 tricks than 6? very logical.