[FrancesHinden]

Playing a long IMPs event, is it right to protect (or pre-protect) on any of these?
(You are South)

Scoring: IMP

1NT P 2♦ P
2♥ ?

1NT = 10-13
2♦ = transfer to hearts

---

Scoring: IMP

1NT P 2♦ P
2♥ ?

1NT = 10-13
2♦ = transfer to hearts

---

and the last one...

Scoring: IMP

1NT P 2♦ P
2♥ ?

1NT = 10-13
2♦ = transfer to hearts

---

[Chamaco]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 12 2005, 12:43 PM, said:

Playing a long IMPs event, is it right to protect (or pre-protect) on any of these?
(You are South)

1) Yes, I would. Hand is good in offense.

2) No. Neither shape nor values are worth competing in direct seat.

3) yes, I'd bid 2S both in direct and balancing seat.

[pbleighton]

Pass on the first. I would bid at any other vulnerability, or at MPs.

Pass on the second. Kind of close, but too flat.

2S. I don't like the hearts or the shape, but I still bid.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Yes (With understanding teammates)

No

Never (This is the hand that you can NEVER explain away the -500 to even
very understanding teammates)

[mike777]

1) Would have bid 2C DONT over 1nt. Bid early and then zip it for me .
2) Pass, I seem to balance less and less.
3) Pass, Ditto.

[pclayton]

1. Not on your life. They are in a live auction. Pard can balance with trump length.

2. Yes but its close and only in a short match. I wouldn't if I was playing KO's. They may be in a misfit and your suits aren't great. Against this, we could have a fit in 3 suits. If they nail us for 300, its not the end of the world.

3. Yes! Yeah I know they are on a 5-2, but on balance everything is is great. Pard rates to have a few cards here, and they even might be stealing from us.

[jillybean]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 12 2005, 05:43 AM, said:

Playing a long IMPs event, is it right to protect (or pre-protect) on any of these?

Errr, what do you mean by protect?

tyia
jb

[awm]

(1) Definitely bid, too easy to be stolen from after the 10-13 notrump. Partner doesn't always have a decent hand here (and could easily go for a number if he doesn't) but I think the odds do favor partner with something like 10-12 high.

(2) I'd have doubled 1♠ on the previous round. As a passed hand my values are limited and partner won't push too hard. I don't think it's all that likely we will be doubled nonvulnerable in TWO of a minor, and bidding earlier will save me from the balancing decision later. Having made the decision to pass on the first round of bidding, I will pass again here.

(3) Well, I might ask some questions about the opponents' methods, or look at their card. My inclination is to pass (this doesn't seem like a fit-showing auction to me, and I'm not eager to see partner table three-card hearts). I'd probably want to know some things like: what sorts of hand start with 2♣ and rebid 2♥ (does this sequence normally show extras? guarantee clubs? show six card hearts?), do opponents often respond 1NT with 3♥ and weak (constructive raises).

[mike777]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 12 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

1) Would have bid 2C DONT over 1nt.

Unfortunately that would also mean that you played X as artificial against a 10-13 NT which would just be asking to lose imps. Perhaps the partnership in question did not play DONT vs 10-13

ooops did not see weak nt

[whereagles]

1. Yes. Dbl.
2. No.
3. Not now. Might try 2S first round, but now I pass.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2005, 09:17 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 12 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

1. Pard can balance with trump length.

He can? Why would that occur to him?

Because his trump length is often the key to the hand, not my shortness.

As many of you know, I've never believed in the OBAR approach, especially in live auctions. I think its losing bridge, and wouldn't be surprised if there is a sea change in this approach in the coming years.

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2005, 07:22 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 12 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

1) Would have bid 2C DONT over 1nt.

Unfortunately that would also mean that you played X as artificial against a 10-13 NT which would just be asking to lose imps. Perhaps the partnership in question did not play DONT vs 10-13

Not necessarily. Let double be for penalty versus the weak and mini NT and give up on showing the one-suited hand. You can still use the DONT concept with two-suiters.

Roland

[mike777]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2005, 12:22 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 12 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

1) Would have bid 2C DONT over 1nt.

Unfortunately that would also mean that you played X as artificial against a 10-13 NT which would just be asking to lose imps. Perhaps the partnership in question did not play DONT vs 10-13

BTW does anyone know "Recommended" a defensive scheme versus mini nt? I think this is something Passell and Wold have played for years?

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Sep 12 2005, 09:19 PM, said:

Jlall, on Sep 12 2005, 07:22 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 12 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

1) Would have bid 2C DONT over 1nt.

Unfortunately that would also mean that you played X as artificial against a 10-13 NT which would just be asking to lose imps. Perhaps the partnership in question did not play DONT vs 10-13

Not necessarily. Let double be for penalty versus the weak and mini NT and give up on showing the one-suited hand. You can still use the DONT concept with two-suiters.

Roland

Great. This combines inability to show one-suiters with a bad way of showing 2-suiters! Seriously, each to his own, I don't have that many strong opinions on conventions, but I can't imagine being persuaded to play this..

[pigpenz]

1.no
2.no
3.no

imps i can take the small losses in a long exteded match, just dont want the large ones.

[coyot]

1) No, I have a partner with 4 spades to reopen for me. He will be able to determine my heart length and visualize the ruffs (the position is good, my shortness is placed behind the declarer's guaranteed doubleton - so partner with his 4 hearts and 4 spades and 10 HCP will bid 2♠. If he has 2-3 spades only, I'm asking for a slow death by bidding on my own and then getting forced on the wrong side

2) pass. Not good enough to go onto 3rd level with a minor

3) bid 2♠ - it is quite likely that we have at least 5-2 misfit.