[quiddity]

Matchpoints

---

I'm interested in whether anyone would "compete" to 2NT with this sort of hand. So:
- Do you have an agreement about 2NT here, and if not would you take it as natural or scrambling?
- Would you choose a different call at imps or a different vul?
- If this is not a good hand for a natural 2NT, can you give an example of a hand where you might consider it?

[gszes]

IMO 2n natural here serves no purpose. I would much
rather save 2n as minor suit TO Axxx x QJxx Qxxx
and use X as a way of showing I was max for my 1n
and p can expect a couple of tricks from me on
defense. If p made a distributional TOX, with less
than say 4 tricks, they should bid 2n as a run out
and I would then bid 3d.

P heard your 1n bid and passed over 2s dont compete
to 2n it is bidding the same values twice. At least
using x will be a ton more flexible. If you dont
feel the hand is good enough for an x pass

[dake50]

Having not jumped to 2N last round to assure my partner
S-stops and 10-12, I've fixed myself.
I have 10 opposite his T/O Dbl but have bid an
amorphous 1NT. I owe another bid.
Does he fear only 1 S-stop so 3NT won't make?
Or is he minimal - so would always would pass a minimum?
Or is he stuck with some good stuff
- warned off by my previous 1NT?
His rebid was handcuffed by my bid.
Do I now mastermind this auction after I said
limited weak last round?
Some people love doing this sort of bidding, so they
allow something wrong to criticize partner.

[whereagles]

Just pass. RHO is broke, so it's pretty good odds we're making 2 trump tricks.

Dbl (if penalty) also comes to mind, especially if I'm in need of a top.

[gnasher]

In most such auctions I'd play 2NT as scrambling, but here it seems unlikely that I'd want to bid that. Partner made a takeout double of 1♠, primarily showing interest in playing in one of the other suits. If I had 4-4 in the minors and a hand that preferred 3m to defending 2♠, I wouldn't have bid 1NT.

On the other hand, I can't think of a hand where I'd want to bid 2NT naturally either. With a maximum and a source of tricks I would have bid my source of tricks on the previous round; with a maximum and no source of tricks, I would double.

Hence I don't think 2NT exists.

[quiddity]

gszes, on 2012-January-12, 17:49, said:

P heard your 1n bid and passed over 2s dont compete
to 2n it is bidding the same values twice. At least
using x will be a ton more flexible. If you dont
feel the hand is good enough for an x pass

I don't agree with this. The 1NT bid has a very wide range (probably 5-11 or something) and can be bid on a variety of spade suits. As for flexibility, IMO a double is extremely inflexible. For all partner knows, you are doubling on a spade stack with few outside values. After all, you are doubling 2♠ for penalty sitting in front of someone who opened and rebid spades! I think he pretty much has to pass.

dake50, on 2012-January-13, 09:20, said:

Having not jumped to 2N last round to assure my partner
S-stops and 10-12, I've fixed myself.
...
Some people love doing this sort of bidding, so they
allow something wrong to criticize partner.

Strongly disagree with this. I think jumping to 2NT at matchpoints is bad; I really don't want to go down inviting on a balanced 10-count.

whereagles, on 2012-January-13, 10:59, said:

Just pass. RHO is broke, so it's pretty good odds we're making 2 trump tricks.
Dbl (if penalty) also comes to mind, especially if I'm in need of a top.

Maybe.. but if we're making 8 tricks in NT or 9 tricks in diamonds then we'll probably get a bad score defending a white 2S.

gnasher, on 2012-January-13, 11:09, said:

In most such auctions I'd play 2NT as scrambling, but here it seems unlikely that I'd want to bid that. Partner made a takeout double of 1♠, primarily showing interest in playing in one of the other suits. If I had 4-4 in the minors and a hand that preferred 3m to defending 2♠, I wouldn't have bid 1NT.

On the other hand, I can't think of a hand where I'd want to bid 2NT naturally either. With a maximum and a source of tricks I would have bid my source of tricks on the previous round; with a maximum and no source of tricks, I would double.

Hence I don't think 2NT exists.

I tend to agree that a scrambling 2NT is less useful here, and I think it can be useful as a natural bid, or at least a 2-way bid. Take the example hand - this spade suit will probably produce two stoppers in notrump. It might produce zero tricks in spades. The opps are not vul, so defending is less desirable, and in a close low-level contract I'd definitely prefer to declare anyway. I actually think that 2NT is the most flexible call. If partner has a good hand for notrump (Hx in spades for example) he can pass, and if he has a really good hand he can bid 3NT. If he has something like a minimum 1444 he can pull to 3♣ and let you place the contract.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2012-January-13, 11:09, said:

If I had 4-4 in the minors and a hand that preferred 3m to defending 2♠, I wouldn't have bid 1NT.

I don't really agree, I think 1N is normal with a hand like Axx Jx Qxxx Kxxx. For starters bidding 2D doesn't show any values and 1N does, a big plus for 1N when your hand is this good (as partner will pass 2m with a lot of points sometimes like 2434 16). Secondly it's possible if you bid the wrong minor you will just play it there in a 4-2 or 4-3 fit when 1N was much more sensible. Lastly, if the opponents are going to let you play in 1N or 2m, it's likely your partner has doubled 1S with 3 spades and unlikely he has a stiff spade, so our hand is actually NTy. If the opps compete to 2S, we can then just bid 2N knowing partner is more likely to have short spades and thus competing in a minor is probably ok. I do not find this at all inconsistent.

I also just noticed it was matchpoints, which makes 1N even more clear rather than 2D to begin with imo.