[gwnn]

suppose you have a 3415 9 count in 4th seat, all vulnerable imps.

1NT(weak)-p-p-?

you can:

• double showing majors or minors
  
• bid 2♣ clubs and a major
  
• pass

sorry this was what I was given. If you don't like the description I will invent

Jxx Axxx x KJTxx

[gnasher]

2♣. I'm not sure why you'd consider anything else.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Jan 10 2010, 05:40 AM, said:

2♣. I'm not sure why you'd consider anything else.

This.

Also pls don't play non penalty Xs

[Jlall]

Also pls no one do a double dummy simulation here because part of the reason for bidding is that partner's lead is almost always an epic fail, and if it's not you probably have a fit. There are lots of hands where 1N is down and partial is on your way, but you do not actually beat 1N on whatever partner will lead.

[mcphee]

The methods shown fit the hand with 2C, defending we are possibly seeing a D lead and if not will face discards early which is unpleasant. It is also possible we may have a game. It may also not go our way and we might get doubled, not a really high risk imo.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Jan 10 2010, 05:36 AM, said:

suppose you have a 3415 9 count in 4th seat, all vulnerable imps.

1NT(weak)-p-p-?

you can:

• double showing majors or minors
  
• bid 2♣ clubs and a major
  
• pass

sorry this was what I was given. If you don't like the description I will invent

Jxx Axxx x KJTxx

I would consider 2♣ NV but not since we are V it is a free shot at -500 for them when the other table will not even be bidding game.

[mike777]

gwnn, on Jan 10 2010, 05:36 AM, said:

suppose you have a 3415 9 count in 4th seat, all vulnerable imps.

1NT(weak)-p-p-?

you can:

• double showing majors or minors
  
  
  
• bid 2♣ clubs and a major
  
  
  
• pass

sorry this was what I was given. If you don't like the description I will invent

Jxx Axxx x KJTxx

dont you want to play penalty double vs weak nt.

This looks like an easy pass even with more.

[Old York]

gnasher, on Jan 10 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

2♣.  I'm not sure why you'd consider anything else.

Because LHO may have 14hcp and RHO may have 10hcp, and you are vulnerable?

There is no such thing as "protective" bidding after 1NT-p-p
Bidding 2♣ may work, but it could be a total disaster
Also, if 1NT is failing, you are giving RHO the opportunity to escape to 2♦
Toss a coin and then decide

Tony

[P_Marlowe]

Go in => 2C

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Old York, on Jan 10 2010, 11:25 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jan 10 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

2♣.  I'm not sure why you'd consider anything else.

Because LHO may have 14hcp and RHO may have 10hcp, and you are vulnerable?

There is no such thing as "protective" bidding after 1NT-p-p
Bidding 2♣ may work, but it could be a total disaster
Also, if 1NT is failing, you are giving RHO the opportunity to escape to 2♦
Toss a coin and then decide

Tony

There is.

One of the main advantages to play weak NT is, that you make it harder
for the opponents to locate there fit.
If you go in, you attack the main strength - they may well have 24 HCP, *****
happens, but you may also win the part score battle.
If you have two part score swings on your side, that makes 10-11 IMPs.

The only real problem is, that 2Cx= is not game, and that is a real problem,
I would prefer to make them guess to double me in 2H or 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on Jan 10 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

2♣.  I'm not sure why you'd consider anything else.

given what 2c shows in OP's methods, this is a really easy 2C, as Gnasher says. I have a nice club suit, and a safety valve in hearts. Life is good.

In general, I have found that balancing after 1NT P P --when NT is weak -- is not a good idea without excellent offense. And, I am afraid if I didn't have the system to show clubs and a major I would wus out and pass this one.

[Rossoneri]

I'm passing.

[nigel_k]

This problem has no good answer which is why people play weak NT.

You could go for 500 or 800 against a partscore or unbiddable game, or you could have game your way. Even if 1NT fails, the defence to beat it may be hard to find. I would bid with your methods but agree with others that a penalty double is definitely better at IMPs and maybe at matchpoints. With a different defence where I could show hearts and another but not play clubs at the two level I would probably pass but still wouldn't like it.

[gwnn]

these are not my methods. I was given this problem by someone else.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jan 10 2010, 05:43 AM, said:

Also pls no one do a double dummy simulation here because part of the reason for bidding is that partner's lead is almost always an epic fail, and if it's not you probably have a fit. There are lots of hands where 1N is down and partial is on your way, but you do not actually beat 1N on whatever partner will lead.

Yes totally agree. Partner is just so likely to make a bad (diamond) lead here.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Jan 10 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

part of the reason for bidding is that partner's lead is almost always an epic fail

ditto

[gnasher]

Old York, on Jan 10 2010, 05:25 PM, said:

Because LHO may have 14hcp and RHO may have 10hcp, and you are vulnerable?

If you assume that both opponents have a maximum for their actions so far, you will almost never be able to compete effectively.

Quote

There is no such thing as "protective" bidding after 1NT-p-p

That's not completely true, but I wasn't suggesting bidding 2♣ only in fourth seat: I'd bid 2♣ in second too. You don't win by letting the opponents play where they want to play.

[MarkDean]

I would pass. It is true we might need to compete, but having wide ranging bids makes it pretty tough to find our games we when have a 3415 14 count and not get too high when we have a 3415 9 count. I played weak nt for years and I think people got into trouble more often than they successfully competed with such bids. (I also think this is an area where many pairs, hopefully subconsicously, used tempo to sort out competing hands vs decent hands).

[Codo]

At mps this is a no brainer 2 club, at imps it is closer, because partner may stretch to reach a game and you will fail in 3 of something instead of beating 1 NT. Or they have max and are able to double and you really fail for a number.

I would pass at imps because we have agreed to play constructive against 1 NT. This obviously fails if both have some 10 or 11 count but works better if you are still looking for game despite the weak NT opening.