[mtvesuvius]

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.

[Hanoi5]

3♥ although 3♣ might work best. In fact I rushed my answer, 3♣ is clearly best.

[jdonn]

I don't have the stomach for pass, so 2NT it is. I really can't believe bidding a suit here...

[kfay]

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

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.

[TylerE]

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.

[mtvesuvius]

TylerE, on Feb 19 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

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

[Cascade]

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.

[kfay]

Cascade, on Feb 19 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

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.

[jdonn]

TylerE, on Feb 19 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

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.

[fachiru]

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.

[andy_h]

My choices are either 3H or 2NT. Given that I'm 4333 think I'll lean towards 2NT.

[the hog]

I play 2NT as scrambling here, so that is what I would bid. Without that agreement, 3C.

[rogerclee]

TylerE, on Feb 19 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

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.

[jdonn]

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

TylerE, on Feb 19 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

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.

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Feb 19 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

TylerE, on Feb 19 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

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.

[the hog]

rogerclee, on Feb 20 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 19 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

TylerE, on Feb 19 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

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.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 19 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 20 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 19 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 19 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

TylerE, on Feb 19 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

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.

[the hog]

Yeah ok....

Shubi knows best.

[andy_h]

gotta love shubi

[Fluffy]

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.