Question to weaknotrumpland

[han]

I have a question for our Brits and other weak notrump experts. What is the best meaning for 2NT in this auction:

 

(1NT) - p - (2H) - Dbl

(p) - 2NT

 

1NT shows 12-14 and 2H is natural and non-forcing.

[Guest Jlall]

I would play leb here (3x forcing)

[655321]

I would play leb here (3x forcing)

I play 2NT as minors.

 

2NT as lebensohl I can understand. But if 3X is forcing, 2NT could be quite strong, I assume? What are the gains from this?

In my lebensohl sequences, 2NT would be no more than about 7HCP - hence 3x, while showing some values, would not be forcing.

[Codo]

Better discuss it with your partner, but it is never natural.

I have played it as lebensohl and as scrambling (=minors), both makes sense, but I prefer lebensohl.

[Gerben42]

Lebensohl as this is a bit like (2♥) X Pass

[helene_t]

I voted minors but I don't think strongly about it. Lebensohl may be better if a natural 2♦ overcall was not available so that advancer can have a wide range of ♦-hands.

 

Playing Lebensohl is less obvious here than against a 2♥ opening, though, since opps have promised more defense

[paulg]

Lebensohl, although my wife is the only person (in the UK) I know who does not play transfers after a weak NT.

 

Paul

[MomoTheDog]

Without specific agreements, I can't see any other way other than this to be natural IMO. Whether this is the best use of the bid is of course an entirely thing altogether.

[Finch]

lebensohl, but 3 new suit is constructive, not forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I voted Minors, or Scrambling, which would be the

same.

 

It does matter, which convention you play against

the weak NT, e.g. if you play something like Lionel,

which allows you to act with fairly light values, you

dont really need Lebensohl, if you require sound

values for a direct intervention, Lebensohl gets

more useful.

 

The only thing which does not make a lot sense would

be natural. You wont reach game on pure HCP power,

but this would be the exact purbose of natural 2NT.

And just because 2H is nonforcing, does not mean that

the 2H bidder is broke.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Lebensohl for me too

[Walddk]

lebensohl, but 3 new suit is constructive, not forcing.

What Frances said.

 

To Paul (cardsharp): I support your wife. It makes a lot of sense to play 2MA as natural in combination with two-way Stayman. Danish internationals Dorthe and Peter Schaltz have done that for years and it seems to work very well.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

 

To Paul (cardsharp): I support your wife. It makes a lot of sense to play 2MA as natural in combination with two-way Stayman. Danish internationals Dorthe and Peter Schaltz have done that for years and it seems to work very well.

 

Me too. I stopped playing transfers after a weak NT two years ago and don't want to go back! In the Nuremberg region the strong players using weak NT (most of them do) play 2-way Stayman.

[Echognome]

 

To Paul (cardsharp): I support your wife. It makes a lot of sense to play 2MA as natural in combination with two-way Stayman. Danish internationals Dorthe and Peter Schaltz have done that for years and it seems to work very well.

 

Me too. I stopped playing transfers after a weak NT two years ago and don't want to go back! In the Nuremberg region the strong players using weak NT (most of them do) play 2-way Stayman.

It seems like you're implying that the weak players thus play transfers.

 

Consider, for example, that Martel and Stansby play a weak NT and play transfers.

 

There are many different well-thought out systems after a weak NT. I don't think transfers are critical, but there is certainly nothing wrong with them. They do buy space on the auction for some tricky hands. If you have say 5-5 in the reds and GF values, you don't have to start with GF stayman.

[dburn]

The reason people play natural 2M responses to a weak no trump is that it increases the chances they will be able to stop the opponents from bidding constructively. But they don't have to worry about doing this if second hand has to bid 3NT every time it has a natural 2NT bid (which is what it has to do if you play lebensohl or scrambling in this position). What in the name of wonder is second hand supposed to do with, say:

 

♠J32 ♥Q1065 ♦K84 ♣Q65

 

after the given sequence? Bid 3NT? Pass out 2♥ doubled? Bid 2♠?

 

Of course, the same considerations would apply if the bidding were to start (2♥) Double (Pass) to a hand such as I have given. You would like to be able to bid a natural 2NT, but your methods preclude it. However, the need to differentiate between hands with some values and hands without them is far more pronounced in that sequence than in a sequence beginning with a weak no trump, because far less is known about the opponents' combined strength (third hand could have almost anything). So it makes some sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences beginning with a weak two bid. It makes considerably less sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences where the opponents start with a weak no trump and a weak takeout.

[Walddk]

It seems like you're implying that the weak players thus play transfers.

I don't, and I don't think Gerben does either. I read his comment as strong players in his area play two-way Stayman and no transfers over a weak NT. He is not saying anything about what they do in California.

 

There are upsides and downsides attached to both treatments. I have always felt that no one is entitled to say "this is right and that is wrong."

 

Roland

[Walddk]

♠J32 ♥Q1065 ♦K84 ♣Q65

 

after the given sequence? Bid 3NT? Pass out 2♥ doubled? Bid 2♠?

 

Of course, the same considerations would apply if the bidding were to start (2♥) Double (Pass) to a hand such as I have given. You would like to be able to bid a natural 2NT, but your methods preclude it. However, the need to differentiate between hands with some values and hands without them is far more pronounced in that sequence than in a sequence beginning with a weak no trump, because far less is known about the opponents' combined strength (third hand could have almost anything). So it makes some sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences beginning with a weak two bid. It makes considerably less sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences where the opponents start with a weak no trump and a weak takeout.

That's the price you pay for playing Lebensohl. You don't get any convention without giving up on the natural meaning of the call. Although I agree with David that one defender has announced that he has something (12-14 hcp) when opening 1NT and that a weak two hand has less, it is not entirely true that third hand is very weak when he takes out into his 5 card major.

 

He could be weak, but he could also have up to 9-10 hcp. Same applies after a sequence like 2♥ pass pass. Third hand could be very strong (up to 15-16 hcp with a misfit for hearts).

 

David has, intentionally I assume, given us the only shape, 3433, that creates a problem when 2NT is not natural. Right, it is a problem which you must live with if Lebensohl is what you think is best in these situations. I think it is in the long run.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

I don't, and I don't think Gerben does either. I read his comment as strong players in his area play two-way Stayman and no transfers over a weak NT. He is not saying anything about what they do in California.

 

That's exactly what I wrote... BTW it is turning out that Germany is becoming more and more Weak NT among tournament players. The masses play French standard (strong NT).

[miguelm]

Minors 2NT or Natural 2NT allows you to bid only one hand type each (okay, we all know how flexible the Natural 2NT can be lol).

 

In a position such as the presented, we want to have options, and the more the better.

 

I like both Leb and Rubinsol (hope I spelled that right) here.

[Wackojack]

My first reaction was that it should be Lebensohl. But I why should I care anyway because nobody out of the kitchen plays that way? Now after reading Gerben's post telling me that ain't so, and David's analysis I am not so sure.

[gnasher]

The reason people play natural 2M responses to a weak no trump is that it increases the chances they will be able to stop the opponents from bidding constructively.

Yes, but are they right about this?

 

If responder makes a natural sign-off in 2M, both opponents know that he is limited, so either player can act in reasonable safety.

 

If responder signs off via a transfer, fourth hand gets an extra chance to bid: he can act directly over the transfer, or he can pass and then act when 2M is passed around to him. Second hand, however, can only act when the auction is still live.

 

Doubling with a 1444 11-count is considerably riskier after 1NT-p-2H-p-2S than after 1NT-p-2S-p-p. Furthermore, if you do act under the gun and the opponents then bid game, you are likely to have helped them to play it.

 

It seems to me that the extra options available to fourth hand after a transfer are roughly balanced by the constraints on second hand's actions.

 

As others have noted, in England, where a weak no trump has been the norm for decades, almost everyone plays transfers. This may not mean that much - you should see some of the other stuff that is standard here - but it at least suggests that transfers have merit.

[Walddk]

As others have noted, in England, where a weak no trump has been the norm for decades, almost everyone plays transfers. This may not mean that much - you should see some of the other stuff that is standard here - but it at least suggests that transfers have merit.

I don't think anyone disputes the view that transfers have merits, but so has the no transfer approach. While many looked towards England regarding bidding theory 50-60 years ago, I think it's fair to state that this is not the case any more ... unless you live in the UK of course.

 

But even there more players, at least at top level, have seen the light :P

 

Roland

[dake50]

. . .'and 2H is natural and non-forcing' with opponents clever enough to psych 2H?

NOW try to untangle the possible problems. Do we need H-stop/suit to bid 2NT? Or just scramble and hope?

I do like 2NT good 11+/bad 0-5, leaving 3-suit good 6-11 that promotes on fit.

[gnasher]

I don't think anyone disputes the view that transfers have merits, but so has the no transfer approach. While many looked towards England regarding bidding theory 50-60 years ago, I think it's fair to state that this is not the case any more ... unless you live in the UK of course.

 

But even there more players, at least at top level, have seen the light  :(

I'm not sure who you have in mind when you say this. Most of the top players in England now play a strong notrump, whereas a weak notrump is still common amongst the hoi polloi - in other words, the opposite of what Gerben describes as happening in Germany.

[Walddk]

I don't think anyone disputes the view that transfers have merits, but so has the no transfer approach. While many looked towards England regarding bidding theory 50-60 years ago, I think it's fair to state that this is not the case any more ... unless you live in the UK of course.

 

But even there more players, at least at top level, have seen the light  :(

I'm not sure who you have in mind when you say this. Most of the top players in England now play a strong notrump, whereas a weak notrump is still common amongst the hoi polloi - in other words, the opposite of what Gerben describes as happening in Germany.

Oh, I meant bidding theory as a whole. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with either approach (weak or strong NT), but it the Acol concept I am referring to. That's a system of the past which still more players at top level seem to have realised.

 

I am not so sure when it comes to club level.

 

Roland