[the hog]

Agree with fluffy. Q of Ds for me.

[mcphee]

I have a reasonable hand which I have announced with 1NT. Partner has opened in 3rd but this does not mean an automatic pail. We had options when RHO bid 1S, dble or 1N. Lets assume for a moment we had elected to dble negative and it went 2S which rolled back to us, would we want to dble again is the question I ask myself, (I think I would). I like to compete for a partial, but at the same time I am not in favor of 3rd seat trash openings especially holding only 2S or less.

When we chose to bid 1N there was no reason for partner to bid in front of us with a minimum hand should they hold 5-4-2-2 shape for example. If I were to dble here to insist it's penalty is not my cup of tea and I think this sort of hand is very reasonable. The problem is might I be stepping into the do do not something I want to risk frankly.

2NT to show minors now has absolutely zero appeal to me.
P first choice
dble second, what I term an action dble.

[bid_em_up]

gwnn, on Jul 27 2009, 11:49 PM, said:

I think 2NT should be natural in the same way as

1♥-1NT-2♥-p
p-2NT

and

3♥-3NT-4♥-p
p-4NT

are natural. You may argue that the above 2 examples are extremely different from this one but I think it's best to have the same agreement cause it would be difficult to draw the line somewhere.

(i'd pass though.)

We could agree on the 2nd auction, as the 3N bid is made under pressure and may have extra values (or tricks) in reserve that partner will be unaware of. It is also a game bid.

To insist on using 2N as natural in the first auction is not optimal, imo. You already said you had 15-17 with a heart stop or two, why do you need to be able to say the same thing again and when you are only competing for a part score? Absolutely none. Better to use it to show a minor suit oriented hand such as xx AQx AKxx KJ10x where you cannot reopen with a double, takeout or otherwise.

jmoo.

[awm]

The pass of 2♠ involved a significant break in tempo. Then the person holding the hand from the poll balanced with a double, allowing them to reach a making 3♣. The director was called and polled a number of flight A players. All of them bid over 2♠, with most doubling and one bidding 3♣! So the director ruled that passing was not a logical alternative and the table result stood.

[aguahombre]

So, 60% of us don't exist. I am still content to be in the insignificant majority.

[gwnn]

bid_em_up, on Jul 28 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

We could agree on the 2nd auction, as the 3N bid is made under pressure and may have extra values (or tricks) in reserve that partner will be unaware of. It is also a game bid.

To insist on using 2N as natural in the first auction is not optimal, imo. You already said you had 15-17 with a heart stop or two, why do you need to be able to say the same thing again and when you are only competing for a part score? Absolutely none. Better to use it to show a minor suit oriented hand such as xx AQx AKxx KJ10x where you cannot reopen with a double, takeout or otherwise.

jmoo.

there was a long thread about this that i can't find. most people thought 2nt should be natural and i was convinced. i don't remember why.

[Fluffy]

awm, on Jul 29 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

The director was called and polled a number of flight A players. All of them bid over 2♠, with most doubling and one bidding 3♣!

I think this is a problem with people being biased by knowing the real hand.

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on Jul 29 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

awm, on Jul 29 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

The director was called and polled a number of flight A players. All of them bid over 2♠, with most doubling and one bidding 3♣!

I think this is a problem with people being biased by knowing the real hand.

? It was IMPS, how did the people on-scene know the hand?...and I still don't know the hand.

[Fluffy]

Because they have played the same board at another table.

You don't know the hand but they do know it and know that 3♣ is the best contract.

[awm]

Fluffy, on Jul 30 2009, 04:31 AM, said:

Because they have played the same board at another table.

You don't know the hand but they do know it and know that 3♣ is the best contract.

This was from a swiss teams event where the cards were shuffled and dealt before each round. Since presumably the director did not ask our teammates or our opponents' teammates about this board, no one polled had played it or seen any of the hands.

The 3♣ call does seem bizarre, and lead me to believe that the director might be polling the hand of the 1NT bidder's partner rather than the proper hand. The director denied that this was the case however.

Perhaps the 3♣ bidder thought that double would be penalty and 3♣ is some kind of takeout for the minors? It's hard to know since I was not the one conducting the poll.

[Cascade]

Maybe 1NT was wrong the first time and double better. At least then if we have no fit we play a 5=2 at the two-level.

I am not going to risk that outcome at the three-level with most of my values in their suit.