Responder's 2NT vs. 3NT

[hammberry]

We play a simple 2 over 1 game-forcing system.

After 1S - 2C; 2H - ??

what's the difference between responder's 2NT and 3NT?

One view is that 3NT = 15-17 (which means a 5-5 opener must guess whether to rebid his hearts)

Another view is that 3NT means "I really want to play here; I'm 12 - 14 with great stoppers and no desire for further exploration" (which leaves 2NT covering a lot of ground)

 

Which view is more commonly held, and which makes more sense?

[Guest Jlall]

3N showing extras is much more common (I think 15 is too light though). I also don't think opener has to guess regarding major suit shapes, responder should always be 2-3 in the majors.

[Cascade]

My usual disclaimer that I am no 2/1 expert.

 

On general principles you want 2NT to be much more common than 3NT. Since we have already established a game force we want to preserve the bidding space to enable us economically to find our best fit.

 

Therefore jumping to 3NT on some non-descript minimum seems completely wrong to me.

 

In similar situations (e.g. over a 4th suit force) we use the jump to show extras - 15-17 for us and a simple bid is 12-14 or so OR 18-19. With the 18-19 hand we will freely raise to 4NT to make a quantitative invite later. I notice that Justin says people play the jumps a bit stronger than 15-17 - he would know better than I do what works.

 

Another possibility for the jump to 3NT is a hand with a strong desire to play there based on a good (double or better) stopper in the unbid suit. Ideally you would also have a narrow range for this jump.

[brianshark]

I think 2NT would show 12-14 or 18-19 and 3NT would show 15-17.

[finally17]

I think 2NT would show 12-14 or 18-19 and 3NT would show 15-17.

This is how I do things, which probably "speaks for itself" that it's not the best way (that is to say, I have no sense of what is best). With the noted 4N rebid on the big hand.

[han]

I also play 3NT as 15-17 but a descriptive hand. As Justin says, 2-3 in the majors on this auction.

 

So 2NT does not deny 15-17 points.

[helene_t]

I think 2NT would show 12-14 or 18-19 and 3NT would show 15-17.

Yes, that's what Lawrence says and I think it's quite universal. Agree with Justin and Han that it should be 2-3 in the majors. Not sure if I saw that explicitly in Lawrence's books but it is common sense.

[han]

That would contradict with what Lawrence says apparently because if you play that then 2NT does not show 12-14 or 18-19.

[helene_t]

Well at least 2N must be 12-14 or 18+ if it is a 2344 or 2335 :)

 

Not sure what Lawrence would do with a 2245 or 1345 15-17 count. Maybe 2♠ with the first one and 3♦ or 3♣ with the second. Maybe 2N. Just guessing, I don't have his book here.

[Guest Jlall]

Where did this 15-17 point range come from, it seems like people are just copying the 1N opening range lol.

 

I just like to play it as 16-17, I do not view 15 as a problem hand type, and would like a 2 point range a lot given the amount of room this jump takes up (leading partner to have to guess, so the narrower the range the better). It seems like 16-17 are really the problem ranges where you feel awkward in the auction, 15 I'm quite content to treat as a minimum basically. If we have enough for a slam partner will do something.

 

As a side note, with my strong club partners we play this as 17-18 since we open quite light and cannot have as much as 16 points anyways. But in a standard system forcing to 4N with 18 should work out fine.

[jdonn]

Where did this 15-17 point range come from, it seems like people are just copying the 1N opening range lol.

I'm quite sure I have seen it written a number of times and incorporated into systems. Not saying I agree.

[jdonn]

That would contradict with what Lawrence says apparently because if you play that then 2NT does not show 12-14 or 18-19.

Well if you are not 2-3 in the majors then you either have six in your minor or four in the other minor that you can bid, so it's possible to incorporate both styles. Although I would hate that lol as I'm sure most of us would.

[EricK]

The answer to the OP might depend on what 1♠ 3NT shows. if this shows some balanced range then it seems wasteful to have 1♠ 2♣ 3NT (or 2NT) show the same range.

[ArcLight]

From my notes on Mike Lawrences 2/1 books and his CD.

 

The 1M 2C - 3NT bid:

Tough one! 2NT shows 12-14 or 18,19, so what’s left is 15-17. But that’s covered by a 1NT opener. Mike Lawrence suggests it shows 2 small cards in pards suit. (1H – 2D – 3NT). However this will not occur frequently.

[Cascade]

The answer to the OP might depend on what 1♠ 3NT shows. if this shows some balanced range then it seems wasteful to have 1♠ 2♣ 3NT (or 2NT) show the same range.

That doesn't necessarily follow since on the slower auction you have emphasised a suit.

[EricK]

The answer to the OP might depend on what 1♠ 3NT shows. if this shows some balanced range then it seems wasteful to have 1♠ 2♣ 3NT (or 2NT) show the same range.

 

That doesn't necessarily follow since on the slower auction you have emphasised a suit.

 

That is true, but since 1♠ 3NT can only show a single range, it seems perverse that for that range you have two ways to get there, one of which emphasises a suit, but for other ranges you only have one way of getting there and that way mentions a suit you may not want to emphasise!

 

Of course, if you play 1NT as absolutely forcing then you can send one range via ...1NT...3NT (13-15?) and another by a direct 3NT(16-18?) without emphasising a suit. If you were playing something like that, then going via 2♣ emphasises the ♣ suit. Referring back to the OP, I would say that after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3NT says "I want to play in 3NT I am not interested to hear anything more about your hand" (so probably not many extras, not 3♥, but well stocked in the minors) and 2NT shows any hand which wants to hear more.