[Mbodell]

You play DONT at the 5th call. Your 2nt showed both minors.

---

[MrAce]

Why don't you guys set the polls with options only and let the commentary part to people?

[Bbradley62]

The posted options are not commentary, they are shades of gray, which are perfectly reasonable in this type of poll.

[trevahound]

Balancing vs a weak NT with this hand wouldn't have even occurred to me, but the fact that it occurs regularly to others is a great reason to play a weak NT. Opps were likely not in their best strain, and now they have lots of additional winning options they didn't have before. Sometimes preempts work.

Edit: To be fair, though, I'd have opened 1d at the first call, and wouldn't have had to think about whether or not to balance. Likely no rebid problems, either -- but I realize that isn't to most people's taste.

[Bbradley62]

I wouldn't have passed the South hand in first seat, so I don't know how to make up for this later.

[Cyberyeti]

Bbradley62, on 2014-May-22, 15:42, said:

I wouldn't have passed the South hand in first seat, so I don't know how to make up for this later.

Exactly, easy opening bid which may shut the weak no trumper up and avoid this problem.

Your minors are the wrong way round too for intervention if you bid clubs with equal length.

[neilkaz]

Why didn't South balance with a DONT 2♣ bid?

[gszes]

Unsure why 2NT (to show extra values?) instead of 2c if that is how you
start showing 2 suited hands. Having decided to balance this way (you knew
it was a gamble) just sit with it.

[akwoo]

trevahound, on 2014-May-22, 15:37, said:

Balancing vs a weak NT with this hand wouldn't have even occurred to me, but the fact that it occurs regularly to others is a great reason to play a weak NT. Opps were likely not in their best strain, and now they have lots of additional winning options they didn't have before. Sometimes preempts work.

I don't understand balancing against a weak NT with this hand at this vulnerability. If +110 is there, it's likely +200 would be as well. And if passing is -90, it's quite possible bidding puts you at -100, even not doubled. If +400 is there declaring, it's also there defending. I don't think you're likely to be 2 tricks better declaring a minor than defending NT. I guess maybe if opps are known to be incompetent on defense but reasonable declarers it might make sense.

With opps nonvulnerable, I probably still don't balance, but it does seem worth consideration then.

(BTW, there are some advantages to playing 2♣ in DONT as showing clubs and a major.)

[sfi]

Winding up in this situation seems pretty masochistic. Given that, 3D looks likely to increase the pain, so I choose that now.

Maybe redouble will achieve that better...

Seriously - no 1D opening? No 2C reopening? No obvious pass after the double? Do I hate partner that much?

[whereagles]

Bid 3♦. Maybe one of the following happens:

1. Pard bid 3♣ with 3-3 minors.
2. Pard has 2-3 minors, but the 5-2 fit plays better.

Of course pard may have 1-3 minors, but in that case he has 54 majors. With such a hand he might have bid a DONT 2♥. Since he didn't, he's very likely to have some minor suit stuff.

By the way, I can hardly imagine pard having 2-4 minors... LHO has 2 clubs, so if pard has 4 clubs, RHO has doubled on at best AJx sitting under. Unlikely....

[Zelandakh]

If we were not willing to accept clubs as a strain from partner, we should not have overcalled 2NT. In any case, this call seems considerably clearer than either of the two that came beforehand.

Also, to WE, I very much doubt we were also playing DONT in 3rd seat - what our defence is is certainly relevant information though. Any reason why our partner cannot have 4414? Or worse and not enough values to have overcalled a weak NT? The analysis here looks more suited to a strong NT - did you notice the alert on the opening bid?

[Mbodell]

So as some might have guessed, although I didn't see anyone say anything, this was a UI situation. The 2nt agreement was both minors, but was announced as a relay to 3♣. At our table the 2nt bidder then pulled to 3♦ over the X which seemed a pretty blatant UI usage to me. We hit 3♦ and set them 2 but 3♣ would have been down at least 3. I didn't call the director, and as often happens to me when that is the situation and I don't call the director, it nagged on my mind in later rounds. It turns out there was no match point damage as +300 was a top since a number of tables passed it out or played low partials. The 1nt opening was a 3=4=2=4 with 3 T including AT98 of clubs over the 2nt bidder. Partner of the 2nt bidder had Axxxx Axxx xx xx.

[akwoo]

If this is your local club, I think you really ought to volunteer a 5 minute lesson on "How to play against the weak (or mini) NT" at the beginning of a club night. I might even say you ethically should to avoid continuing to derive an unfair advantage from playing an unfamiliar system. Even with you out of the picture, you're in an area where it's common enough that the players going to sectionals ought to be prepared.

Point number 1 (and maybe the only point in a 5 minute lesson) would be: Don't bid with marginal hands in either direct or balancing seat, because:

a) partner needs to have some clue whether game is on for you or not, and unlike opps opening a strong NT, this is a real possibility.
b) when opps are vulnerable, that stack of 100s can be quite valuable.

(I think this is more important than changing your system to have a penalty double available.)

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2014-May-24, 22:07, said:

I didn't call the director, and as often happens to me when that is the situation and I don't call the director, it nagged on my mind in later rounds.

If you know that your failure to call the director is going to adversely affect your later game, you should routinely call him. Aside from that, it seems likely that somebody drew attention to the irregularity at some point - and then calling the director is required. Yes, I know we Americans have this attitude that all rules are optional, but we're wrong.

[Mbodell]

akwoo, on 2014-May-24, 23:26, said:

If this is your local club, I think you really ought to volunteer a 5 minute lesson on "How to play against the weak (or mini) NT" at the beginning of a club night. I might even say you ethically should to avoid continuing to derive an unfair advantage from playing an unfamiliar system. Even with you out of the picture, you're in an area where it's common enough that the players going to sectionals ought to be prepared.

Point number 1 (and maybe the only point in a 5 minute lesson) would be: Don't bid with marginal hands in either direct or balancing seat, because:

a) partner needs to have some clue whether game is on for you or not, and unlike opps opening a strong NT, this is a real possibility.
b) when opps are vulnerable, that stack of 100s can be quite valuable.

(I think this is more important than changing your system to have a penalty double available.)

Believe it or not, despite this hand as evidence, the section I'm in at this club game is quite strong (there is a concurrent large 499er section that helps make the open game good). For instance, from power ratings the degree of difficulty is about an average of a regional pairs. And probably 25% of the field plays a non-strong nt (most weak, but counting some pairs that are variable weak/strong). IIRC the opponents that we were playing each plays weak or variable nt in other partnerships but don't tend to play together that often.

[the hog]

akwoo, on 2014-May-24, 23:26, said:

If this is your local club, I think you really ought to volunteer a 5 minute lesson on "How to play against the weak (or mini) NT" at the beginning of a club night. I might even say you ethically should to avoid continuing to derive an unfair advantage from playing an unfamiliar system. Even with you out of the picture, you're in an area where it's common enough that the players going to sectionals ought to be prepared.

Point number 1 (and maybe the only point in a 5 minute lesson) would be: Don't bid with marginal hands in either direct or balancing seat, because:

a) partner needs to have some clue whether game is on for you or not, and unlike opps opening a strong NT, this is a real possibility.
b) when opps are vulnerable, that stack of 100s can be quite valuable.

(I think this is more important than changing your system to have a penalty double available.)

I assume his is a joke post. It is not the op's duty or obligation to teach people how to play against his system. Ih his system is unusual, then it is up to the opps to work out a defence.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2014-May-25, 17:56, said:

Believe it or not, despite this hand as evidence, the section I'm in at this club game is quite strong (there is a concurrent large 499er section that helps make the open game good). For instance, from power ratings the degree of difficulty is about an average of a regional pairs. And probably 25% of the field plays a non-strong nt (most weak, but counting some pairs that are variable weak/strong). IIRC the opponents that we were playing each plays weak or variable nt in other partnerships but don't tend to play together that often.

We have a game here that has anywhere from two (though usually three) to four sections: one or two "A" sections and almost always two "B/C/D" sections. In theory the "A" sections are Open, and the "B/C/D" sections are 299er, but there are several people in the latter who are unwilling to move up, in spite of having over 300 master points, and the club lets them get away with it. (Same club owner has another game on another day which is supposedly 299er, but some of those still playing in that game not only have more than 300 MPs, they're Life Masters.

[the_clown]

Since I have already misbid twice maybe if I do it again I will be 3rd time lucky?

[whereagles]

Defending a weak NT properly is far more difficult than a "friday night club lesson"...

But ok, the basics can be learned in 15 mins.