[gwnn]

1NT-2♣-p-2♥
p-p-2N

what is this? 2♣ was both majors. 2NT in direct seat would be a signoff in a minor.

[mich-b]

Both minors - shapely and/or weakish.
Double here is t/o , but a more balanced hand which is ok with pd passing.
2♠ is natural.

[jjbrr]

both minors. doesn't have to be weakish necessarily

[TWO4BRIDGE]

jjbrr, on 2012-February-09, 07:30, said:

both minors. doesn't have to be weakish necessarily

If you play "systems on" over 2C interference, wouldn't you have a bid for the minors immediately ? ( It may be 2S! ).

[mich-b]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-09, 07:44, said:

If you play "systems on" over 2C interference, wouldn't you have a bid for the minors immediately ? ( It may be 2S! ).

"Systems on" over a 2♣ showing majors, does not seem optimal. For example a natural 2♦ bid , is surely more important to have than a transfer to hearts.

[jjbrr]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-09, 07:44, said:

If you play "systems on" over 2C interference, wouldn't you have a bid for the minors immediately ? ( It may be 2S! ).

i'm not necessarily convinced you need a bid to show weak with both minors immediately.

[BunnyGo]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-09, 07:44, said:

If you play "systems on" over 2C interference, wouldn't you have a bid for the minors immediately ? ( It may be 2S! ).

I agree with mich-b in that even though I play "systems on" over 2♣ interference, I play systems off when 2♣ is the majors.

As for the original question, I too would expect it to be for the minors.

[Phil]

Yes, minors.

I also think 2♠ is four good spades and a minor, and double is takeout, but tends to be sort of balanced by default.

[Phil]

doublepost

[pooltuna]

I would assume this was MPs and to play

[gwnn]

pooltuna, on 2012-February-09, 10:39, said:

I would assume this was MPs and to play

you should play with my partner more often this is the 'right answer', at least in this particular board.

granted, I misplayed 3♣ in a 4-3 fit quite badly for -100 instead of -50 (which you also get for 2NT).

My hand
xx AQJ Axxx A8xx, his hand Axxx xx T9xx Kxx. Ruffing spades would have been a clever way to play it but I discarded one on a heart. dom.

[kenrexford]

Interesting sequence for theoretical reasons.

First, I cannot imagine why, if you have a means of showing both minors without interference, you would not have similar methods moreso if 2♣ shows the majors. This would be backwards, IMO. If anything, I could imagine playing flags (unusual versus unusual), or something similar, to have more minor description options.

So, let us assume a rational set of agreements where most minor-oriented hands can be shown immediately. If so, then a delayed 2NT as minors has somewhat less utility. You could still play that way, but it seems somewhat anti-percentage.

One question, though, is what a double of 2♣ means, systemically. If stating a desire to defend some major (or both), then 2NT is further tailored and perhaps back to minors, perhaps 4-4. If there is no double as penalty option, then perhaps 2NT should show "takeout of hearts," strangely, with at least invitational values. You would have hit 2♠, but now you find yourself somewhat stuck.

[bluecalm]

I would expect most people wanting to play it as minors but I am not sure if just natural to play isn't better option, especially at matchpoints.
The more I think about such situations the more I want to get rid of lebensohls, good/bad's 2NT or t/o for minors and just play 2NT natural in as many auctions as possible.