[1eyedjack]

Scoring: IMP

W...N...E...S
2♥..P...P...?
The 2♥ is a normal weak 2

---

[whereagles]

Easy 2NT in my book lol.

[Furlan]

2NT.

[gnasher]

Pass. I think 2NT should show the same values as a direct 2NT. I know that in theory that means I might defiend 2♠ with 14 opposite 14, but it's never happened yet.

Did three people really vote for douible?

[JLOGIC]

I didn't vote but I'd double, not enough for 2N

[JLOGIC]

I don't understand pass at all. Aside from the obvious risk that we are cold for a vul 3N (and it doesn't have to be 14 opp 14, it can be 14 opp 13, 14 opp 12, 14 opp 11, 14 opp 10...), when we have this many points it's not that unlikely that it's just our hand for a partial because partner had a long suit but couldn't bid over a preempt because he didn't have enough points. Like he could have 8 points and 6 spades for an extreme example, or even 7 clubs etc etc.

But really we don't need such extreme hands, if he has 5 spades and a smattering of values it's probably right to play 2S instead of defending 2H.

Obv the most likely bad thing to happen is that we were beating 2H and go down 1 or 2 in whatever we play, and that's not negligible, but it doesn't seem that much more likely than making a partial when they were making which is about the same (or a little bit better).

We could also go for a number, but I think it's far more likely we just reach a making 3N. I guess I feel like bidding and making 3N is much more likely than gnasher thinks it is. We have Axx of hearts which is perfect (maybe we can shut them out and make a low HCP game), and we might just have it on power. If partner bids 3 of a minor (playing lebensohl) I am bidding 3N and am optimistic about my chances. If partner cuebids or jumps to 3N, I'm really optimistic.

I think this upside more than outweighs small net losses on partial hands (which could go either way, but probably we lose some) and the rare number.

Bidding 2N targets 3N even more but it eliminates our chance of playing 2S or 3 of a minor when partner doesn't have much, and gets us to even more aggressive 3Ns that we don't want to be in (because partner has no invite, and will always bid 3N with 8 and 9). It also makes us more likely to go for a number. It seems like we have the perfect range to X and get to game opposite a lebensohl bid when partner shows values, or stop in a suit partial (possibly 2S) when he doesn't have values.

[Siegmund]

2NT>P>>X in my book.

A dead minimum balancing 2NT so I have some sympathy for pass.

Axx is better than Qxx for doubling, but still, we are going to be playing a LOT of 4-3 fits taking the tap in the wrong hand. I feel better about defending than I do about playing a shaky semi-fit at 2S or 3m.

[helene_t]

whereagles, on Jul 11 2010, 08:18 PM, said:

Easy 2NT in my book lol.

Why "lol"? Does 2NT deny a stopper in your book?

[JLOGIC]

Siegmund, on Jul 11 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

Axx is better than Qxx for doubling, but still, we are going to be playing a LOT of 4-3 fits taking the tap in the wrong hand. I feel better about defending than I do about playing a shaky semi-fit at 2S or 3m.

I don't understand this as you're a 2N bidder. Surely you'd rather play 2S in a 4-3 (when it could be a 5-3), or in a 4/5-4 club or diamond fit at the 3 level than in 2N when partner has a weak hand.

Of course, 2N will probably play better than 2S in a 3-3 fit lol.

Obviously if you bid you risk getting to a poor contract sometimes. Personally I'd always rather play a shaky 2S than a shaky 2N, especially when the latter is so much easier to X.

[Siegmund]

At this vulnerability, if partner is weak, I expect an awful board in just about any contract whether I am doubled or not. (Yes, I know it matters how far down we go at imps... but by doing ANYthing other than pass, we are gambling on finding partner with values.) That's why I rank pass in 2nd place and would rank it nearly tied with 2N at MPs. If partner is strong, on the other hand, I'd like him to know what my hand looks like so we reach the right contract

[jdonn]

I double. And I think I recognize this hand...

[Free]

Dbl for me, for various reasons already stated by jlogic

[Cascade]

Double for me.

I don't shade my 2NT in fourth seat over a weak two.

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Jul 11 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 11 2010, 08:18 PM, said:

Easy 2NT in my book lol.

Why "lol"? Does 2NT deny a stopper in your book?

lol because I'm sure others will laugh of it, so I laugh before ahah

[gwnn]

lol at whereagles

Spoiler

to make him happy

[whereagles]

see what I mean? (LOL)

[Codo]

When I voted pass, I had the impression that the bidding had been 2 ♠ pass pass so far.

After 2 ♥ I would double and glady reach my 3-3 fit in 2 ♠.

[1eyedjack]

Yes, I am sure that jdonn and others recognise this hand. I waited a couple weeks to post it, by which time you would either have forgotten it or never would
The action in the protective seat is probably not the most interesting action, but I thought it the best one to "poll" as the reasonableness of this action has a bearing I think on the reasonableness of earlier actions by the opposing direction.

The hands have been rotated, sorry about that, but it is from board 83 of the 2010 USBC final, segment 6 of 8.

20 Imps ride on whether or not you decide to protect, which of course is not to say that either decision is necessarily wrong in the long term just because of that.
Anyway, keeping the rotation as per the original post:

Scoring: IMP

W...N...E...S
2♥..P...P...X
P...2♠..P...P
X...P...P...2N
X...P...P...P
Lead ♥K, result -5, 1400
14 Imps (v 3NT +1)

---

Of the commentators, Kit Woolsey was dismissive of the decision to protect. Although he is in a minority among the voters in this poll, it is a significant minority (although one wonders if those voting pass recognise the hand, apart from jdonn wo recognised it and still protects).

To me, the massive swing results from a series of borderline but reasonable decisions, none of them cancelling out, starting with the decision to open 2♥ contrasted with 1♥ in the other room. I assume that the 2♥ is a normal weak 2 by agreement, given partner's decision to pass it and risk missing a game (which is by no means a racing certainty at single dummy, but one to be in).

The commentators were even stronger in their condemnation of the decision to pull 2♠X to 2N, and I would be interested in others' views on this. One poster acknowledged the possibility of landing in a 3-3 Spade fit, which I think is a tad unlikely. But the way the bidding develops I would not surprise me RHO had at least 5 Spades, in which case you may be able to scramble a bit more in the minors in NT, but willing to be convinced otherwise.

[jdonn]

I blame the 2NT bid. I think north is the one to run with 3 spades, maybe to 2NT then redoubling when that gets doubled. 2♠ doubled is just a bad board not a 1400 disaster. Obviously protecting is bad when partner has a 2 count!

[JLOGIC]

I might have been commentating when this happened lol, totally forgot.

In that case I pass!