[zenko]

Looks like bread and butter sequence but I am sure some will be surprised with what's consensus opinion. My opinion is that d is clearly superior but only playing strong NT. Playing weak NT, 1st seat I vote c, 2nd b, and 3rd/4th obviously a.

[awm]

The "standard" meaning is probably that you accept with the upper half of the range and reject with the lower half. That seems to be somewhere between your b and c answers.

I suspect that the "right" answer is to be slightly more aggressive in most situations because this reduces the odds that you play in the lousy contract of 2NT. Thus I'd say somewhere between c and d would usually be correct, and I picked answer c.

You're right that there's some additional inference playing weak notrump in 3rd/4th when partner is a passed hand, but I'd still say that partner should really only bid a 2NT invite like this with an absolute maximum passed hand and that the answer is still more like b.

Note that tendencies opposite a sequence like 1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT may be a little different, because partner might push somewhat to look for a major suit fit.

[nigel_k]

Aren't b and c the same? The only way they can be different is if the the hand is exactly average, which for me anyway is almost never the case. But it may depend on how you evaluate.

Maybe there is way to answer this mathematically or using simulation but nothing obvious springs to mind.

Count me for b (or c). The desire to avoid playing 2NT means that you might lean towards accepting slightly more than half the time, but still I really doubt it can be optimal to accept with any non-minimum (whatever that means). I'd guess the optimal strategy would lead to accepting on more than 50% of hands and less than 60% of hands.

[aguahombre]

we have the stayman thing, and probably don't pass enough like Adam suggested.

[gwnn]

well you could make up 10 alternatives and it's still not going to be such a complicated question. I think it's only interesting if you really like high card points.

[Elianna]

gwnn, on Jan 26 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

well you could make up 10 alternatives and it's still not going to be such a complicated question. I think it's only interesting if you really like high card points.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

[plaur]

With one partner I have these agreements:

At Imps: bid 3NT with any non minimum.
At Pairs: bid 3NT with an above average hand.

It conflicts with this meta agreement we have to avoid both hands going nuts at imps:
At imps any invite is agressive and the 'accepting' hand should not compensate at all, since the invitee has already done that! We struggle to keep this agreement, but we dont miss many games

[Siegmund]

What, no option in the poll for "pass all my balanced 8s and raise to 3NT with all my balanced 9s, so 2N is an idle bid"? Seriously not a terrible idea.

Assuming we are playing standard 2NT bids, I generally go with almost all 16s and pass with almost all 15s - and wish partner had asked me a more useful question about my hand.

[gwnn]

Rob F proposed something like that:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=23489

[babalu1997]

my pet peeve:

i already bid 1nt, leave me in peace
pass like a man
or bid 3nt like a man

Just dont invite me because i never pass, 2nt is the crappiest contract, i aint playing it.

[peachy]

It is no fun playing 2NT. Could be down 1 when everyone else is in 1NT making, or making three when everyone else is in 2NT making three. So at IMPs, I typically either Pass or bid 3NT even when I had an invitational sequence or a 2NT invite available.

What opener should do, depends on what your strategy is: invite heavy, accept light. Or invite light, accept heavy. In the first, accept with all non-minimums and in the second, accept with maximums and anything that looks like maximum. It is not only HCP that matter.

[campboy]

nigel_k, on Jan 27 2010, 06:10 AM, said:

Aren't b and c the same? The only way they can be different is if the the hand is exactly average, which for me anyway is almost never the case. But it may depend on how you evaluate.

No, because the average is not exactly in the middle of the range.

[Gerben42]

I voted "accept with an average hand" since partner only asks if I'm a minimum or not, and average isn't minimum. I learned that bridge is like dinner parties. Invite seldom, accept often.