2N opening for the minors

[rbforster]

Playing a strong club I've often seen this suggestion for a 2NT opening:

 

2NT - 5/5+ minors preemptive (5-10 points or so)

 

While I'm not sold on this opening, it does seem like a lot of precision systems use this as their opening 2NT bid. Since 2NT is (presumably) forcing, it seems reasonable to consider including strong options with both minors as well. Do any of you do this, and if so, how do you change your followups (if at all)?

 

The hand that got me thinking about this was this one:

 

---

x

KQJTxx

KQJxxx

 

P-P-? (IMPs)

 

which admittedly isn't as "strong" as I was thinking, but opposite a passed partner, I was thinking 2N followed by 5 of partner's minor preference might be a reasonable auction. 2N has the advantage of preempting the 4th seat hand much more than a normal 1♦...4-5♣ sequence.

[jtfanclub]

Since 2NT is (presumably) forcing

Why?

 

I'll happily pass with any 6-, even those with a fit. Why give RHO another bite at the apple? Go ahead, pass it out, I double dare you.

 

I also pass if I think that 2NT is the best place to play, usually 8-13 hcp and a stopper in each major or one major well stopped and the other wide open, with good fitting cards in at least one minor.

 

Edited to add: 3rd hand, 2NT should be very wide range- anything that doesn't want to be in game across a 4333 10 count. 4th hand, it has only the upper end of the range.

[keylime]

I play this currently with Larry, but admittedly I'm starting to swing towards using 3C as the both minors instead of 2NT due to the trouble a double of 3C causes in terms of context (or maybe playing a 19-21 NT - dunno yet).

 

Over a regular 2NT opening, LHO gets a shot to show using our minors 3C/D for takeouts of hearts/spades respectively. This is a concern of mine.

 

If you play weak/strong variant here, I think the concern you'd have is when both hands are of good strength and you hear an invite - that's why I tend to like it as a weak hand only.

 

If you choose to use this opening, have very clear followups in terms of forcing calls versus signoff calls.

[whereagles]

3♣ as minors is much better than 2NT because of the tremendous pressure it puts on LHO. But that takes away the club preempt, which is VERY important and should not be put into anything other than 3♣. You have to decide which you prefer.

 

As for the 66, well, that's a 4NT opener if you play that for the minors. If you haven't agreed on what a 4NT opener shows, you can try a 5♦ opener. Or perhaps 4♦, intending to rebid 5♣ over opps' 4M.

[Al_U_Card]

Frequency and usefulness. 3C as a 6+ card preempt happens a lot more often than 5-5 in the minors.

[awm]

It does sometimes work to open 2NT on good hands with the minors. However, I'd keep in mind with this that:

 

(1) Because 2NT is normally limited, partner will occasionally make a tactical pass or psych in a major. Of course you can agree formally that 2NT has strong options, but for reasons below you may not want to do this.

 

(2) It is difficult to have a constructive auction over 2NT when it's usually preemptive. Partner will often bash to a contract like 4m, 5m, or 3NT over which you have very little space to communicate the nature of your strong hand.

 

(3) Because of this, opening 2NT with a good hand is best when you simply want to bash game or slam in partner's better minor without conducting a delicate investigation for the best contract. This tends to shut out the opponents when they might often bid over a simple 1♦ or a strong 1♣ opening.

 

I should also note that in ACBL-land, most of the "useful" meanings for a 2NT opening have been banned below the super-chart level. Assuming you don't need it for strong balanced hands (most strong clubbers don't use it this way), you can play 2NT as weak with minors, 2NT as weak with one minor (mid-chart, and likely to wrong-side many notrump contracts) or 2NT as a transfer preempt (kind of silly method in general, and also mid-chart). There aren't a lot of legal preemptive options for the bid that are any good, to be honest...

[jdonn]

During the time I played it in the past, the 2NT opening came up about 15 times, and my experience was that it got very good results. I don't think I ever passed it, but it could be passed if partner had, say, 5422 14 count or something along those lines then he might as well play 2NT.

 

I can't say I like the idea of opening the 2NT on any strong hands without such an agreement.

[jtfanclub]

3♣ as minors is much better than 2NT because of the tremendous pressure it puts on LHO. But that takes away the club preempt, which is VERY important and should not be put into anything other than 3♣. You have to decide which you prefer.

IMHO, it's a lot more likely for 2NT to be a good contract with both minors than with just clubs. 2NT, like 1NT, is often a good contract with one suit completely devoid of length or points in both hands while the other three suits have all of the length and strength: opponents can usually only rattle off 4 or 5 tricks in the bad suit, and it makes it much less likely that 3NT is a good place to be. In order to have three solid across a 2NT-for-the-minors opener, you only need one major stopped.

[pclayton]

This is a very sensible treatment, but I think you are defeating its purpose if you try to add in strong hands. Why should pard worry about what hand types you have when he makes a tactical bounce to 4 or 5m? I think this is a different argument to weak and strong michaels.

 

I see nothing wrong with bidding the strong hands slower.

 

Also, I have had a very poor record with stretching this call to include hands with 5-4 in the minors. Unless you are playing against total idiots who panic when they hear a 2N opening, I think I have negative equity with opening this on only 9 cards.

[Echognome]

It depends a lot on what strong options you include. I played for a couple of years that 2NT was both minors weak or GF. The intermediate hands opened in the minor. (1♦ in one system, 1♠ in the other) We liked this as it took away some of the problems of opening the hand 1♣ when you had the strong option. On the other hand, the strong type hand came up only twice I believe in two years of playing it.

 

This solves the tactical jump problem as partner can make a two-way bid. At least he knows we have both minors.

[helene_t]

I play 2N as two-way in one partnership but won't really recomend it. The strong variants must be very specific because of the lack of bidding space, so the usefulness is limited. With only the weak variant

- p can pass

- p can preempt or psyche

- you can bid again to show extra shape without fear that p thinks you have the strong variant.

 

A GF minor two-suiter is the best strong variant to put into it I think. Then if p preempts at least the fit is established.

[Free]

I used to play 2NT as both minors, either weak or GF (4NT openings were also weak). This obviously made the opening forcing for a round. We didn't have much problems, it's easy to show the difference between these 2 types of hands, but I still prefer to have NF preemptive openings rather than forcing. This makes your preemptive bidding more flexible.

[the hog]

A bid to show 7-10 and 5/5 minors is useful, but to play 2NT as this bid is foolish. Use 3C instead. Against 2NT any useful pair will have assigned meanings g\for 3C /3D /3M. We play 3C = long H+4S, 3D = long S and 4H, 3M natural for example.

Play 2NT as a C pre empt - you now only give the opps one option instead of 2 above.

[Ant590]

But doesn't 2NT as a club pre-empt give LHO two bids rather than the one that a natural 3C pre-empt gives? A good pair will surely have defined meanings for moving over 2NT and balancing over 2NT-p-3C-p-p-?

[helene_t]

2N is an impractical preempt because it may wrong-side 3NT and because it gives opps an almost-free double (p will rarely suggest playing 2N doubled). If it promises clubs it also gives a cue-bid.

 

2N as a minor two-suiter has a low frequency and you're less likely to play 3N with a two-suiter than with a one-suiter. Besides, if you play

2N=opps have two cuebids, (3♣ and 3♦)

3♣=opps have no cuebid

the rule of deminishing returns suggests that opps are poorer placed than if you play

2N=opps have on cuebid (3♣)

3♣=opps have one cuebid (3♦)

 

Of course this doesn't "prove" anything. Which use of 2N is better obviously depends on the rest of your preempt structure and other factors.

[MickyB]

Agreed, 2NT as minors and 3♣ NAT is better than inverting them - overall, you will give the oppo more options and wrong-side more 3NT contracts if you play them the other way around, partly due to the higher frequency of a natural club preempt.

 

My preferred meaning for a preemptive 2NT opening is 5♥5minor.

[jtfanclub]

My preferred meaning for a preemptive 2NT opening is 5♥5minor.

Ew. What's the Pre-Alert Suggested Defense for this bid? Or do you not play it in ACBL games?

 

Actually, the Ew is for me having to play against that. That's just a vicious pre-empt. Wow.

[MickyB]

My preferred meaning for a preemptive 2NT opening is 5♥5minor.

Ew. What's the Pre-Alert Suggested Defense for this bid? Or do you not play it in ACBL games?

 

Actually, the Ew is for me having to play against that. That's just a vicious pre-empt. Wow.

I live in England, no idea about the legalities of it in the ACBL.

[hrothgar]

My preferred meaning for a preemptive 2NT opening is 5♥5minor.

Any reason that you don't use as 5+ Spades and 5 cards in a red suit?

 

Over your (original) scheme, it seems trick yo fit in a low level ask bellow 3M. You pretty much need to use 3♣ as pass or correct and 3♥ is to play. In theory, you could use 3♦ as a range ask or some such, but I can think of other reasonable interpretations.

 

If you use 2N as Spades and a Red suit, you get to use 3♣ as an artificial ask. I can't help but think that this would improve the accuracy of your constructive sequences.

[MickyB]

My preferred meaning for a preemptive 2NT opening is 5♥5minor.

Any reason that you don't use as 5+ Spades and 5 cards in a red suit?

 

Over your (original) scheme, it seems trick yo fit in a low level ask bellow 3M. You pretty much need to use 3♣ as pass or correct and 3♥ is to play. In theory, you could use 3♦ as a range ask or some such, but I can think of other reasonable interpretations.

 

If you use 2N as Spades and a Red suit, you get to use 3♣ as an artificial ask. I can't help but think that this would improve the accuracy of your constructive sequences.

A 2NT opening showing spades and a red suit would be more likely to go past par on the hand. If both sides can make 8 tricks in their respective major-suit fit, you are happy to preempt to 3♥ but not to 3♠. It's less useful to preempt holding both majors (oppo are less likely to have game) and the well-defined major-suit lengths often allow responder to place the contract immediately.

 

Also, 2NT is often free in structures with a multi 2♦ and a two-suited 2♠ opening. 2♥ may show a weak hand with both majors, if that is to your taste, or in Swedish/various strong club systems it is useful to have it available to show a three-suiter short in diamonds.

[hrothgar]

A 2NT opening showing spades and a red suit would be more likely to go past par on the hand. If both sides can make 8 tricks in their respective major-suit fit, you are happy to preempt to 3♥ but not to 3♠. It's less useful to preempt holding both majors (oppo are less likely to have game) and the well-defined major-suit lengths often allow responder to place the contract immediately.

Perfectly reasonable answer:

 

Another possibility would be to use 2N as Diamonds and a major...

This would still permit 3♣ as an ask, eliminate the two suiters with both majors, and halve the frequency that partner holds Spades.

 

Any chance that you could post the response schedule that you use over the Hearts + a minor variant?

[MickyB]

A 2NT opening showing spades and a red suit would be more likely to go past par on the hand. If both sides can make 8 tricks in their respective major-suit fit, you are happy to preempt to 3♥ but not to 3♠. It's less useful to preempt holding both majors (oppo are less likely to have game) and the well-defined major-suit lengths often allow responder to place the contract immediately.

Perfectly reasonable answer:

 

Another possibility would be to use 2N as Diamonds and a major...

This would still permit 3♣ as an ask, eliminate the two suiters with both majors, and halve the frequency that partner holds Spades.

 

Any chance that you could post the response schedule that you use over the Hearts + a minor variant?

I think uncertainty over which major suit opener has would make it harder to reach 4M quickly when it is the right thing to do.

 

The responses to 2NT -

3♣/4♣/5♣ pass-or-correct

3♦ ART enquiry, now 3♥ = any MIN, 3♠ = MAX with ♣, 3N = MAX with ♦, 4m = 5♥6m max

3♥/4♥ to play

3♠ natural invitational

[Free]

A bid to show 7-10 and 5/5 minors is useful, but to play 2NT as this bid is foolish. Use 3C instead. Against 2NT any useful pair will have assigned meanings g\for 3C /3D /3M. We play 3C = long H+4S, 3D = long S and 4H, 3M natural for example.

Play 2NT as a C pre empt - you now only give the opps one option instead of 2 above.

I've played this approach as well. Doesn't work all that well as you think... Ok, a 3♣ opening for both minors is more efficient, but a 2NT opening for ♣s alone is worse. Since ♣ preempts occur more often, it seems logical to use 2NT for both minors.

 

Pressure bidding is one of the area's where you can win or lose lots of imps/MP. If you give more possible penalty doubles away, you're doing the wrong thing imo. After a 2NT opening showing a ♣ preempt, opps get penalty doubles, but they lose them after the 3♣ opening. Again, frequency is key. So swapping these openings doesn't make much sense.

[rbforster]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. I know 2N for the minors is a pretty rare opening anyway, but one in precision that doesn't have many good alternatives. I understand the issues about passing 2N making it less desirable to have strong options (how often do you really do this?), but including some sort of GF hands with both minors also seems reasonable.

 

3♣ opening for both minors is more efficient, but a 2NT opening for ♣s alone is worse.  Since ♣ preempts occur more often, it seems logical to use 2NT for both minors.

I agree. On the subject of where to put the club preempt and the both minors preempt (among 2N and 3♣), I think another point in favor of the "usual" version with 2N minors is that 3♣ natural makes it hard for the opponents to check on stoppers for 3N (typically one hand needs shortness for a takeout X and the opposite needs the full stopper, or else someone needs a huge hand to bid 3N directly). In contrast, over 2N for clubs, between a direct X, 3♣ cue, and a delayed X (and maybe a 3♣ cue in response to the X, or a X of a 3♣ if 3rd hand completes the transfer), I think the opps have plenty of options to sort out takeout, penalty, and whatever else they want. Furthermore, when we have just clubs, it's more likely the opps want to play in 3NT than if we have both minors (when they are more likely to have a major fit), again suggesting that a natural 3♣ is the way to go.

 

Besides, since 3♣ is more common than 2N in terms of shapes, it makes sense to have this be the "better" (NF) preempt.

[hrothgar]

I agree.  On the subject of where to put the club preempt and the both minors preempt (among 2N and 3♣), I think another point in favor of the "usual" version with 2N minors is that 3♣ natural makes it hard for the opponents to check on stoppers for 3N (typically one hand needs shortness for a takeout X and the opposite needs the full stopper, or else someone needs a huge hand to bid 3N directly).  In contrast, over 2N for clubs, between a direct X, 3♣ cue, and a delayed X (and maybe a 3♣ cue in response to the X, or a X of a 3♣ if 3rd hand completes the transfer), I think the opps have plenty of options to sort out takeout, penalty, and whatever else they want.  Furthermore, when we have just clubs, it's more likely the opps want to play in 3NT than if we have both minors (when they are more likely to have a major fit), again suggesting that a natural 3♣ is the way to go.

Couple quick comments here:

 

1. You can't analyze shape in isolation from strength. In general, when I have seen strong club pairs using a 3♣ opening to show both minors, the strength requirement is somewhere are 7 - 11 HCP. This hits the sweet-spot on the bell of hand strength. Typically, the single suited club preempts are substantially weaker. (You're opening 2♣ with the 10 and 11 counts - as well as some of the better 9 counts)

 

♠ Kxx ♥ x ♦ xxx ♣ AQTxxx

 

is good enough for 2♣ in my books)

 

This will have a significant impact on the relative frequency of the two hand types.

 

2. Just because weak single suited hands with clubs can be shown via a 2NT opening does not mean that a 2NT opening should be limited to weak single suited hands with clubs. Consider what happens when the 2NT opening shows either a weak single suited hand with Clubs or a weak single suited hand with Diamonds

 

* You don't put any noticable pressure on your constructive response structure

* You deprive the opponents of a known cue bid

* The opponents suddenly need to worry about showing hands with long clubs