best way to play 2nt as weak with the minors

[Mbodell]

So in one partnership my partner and I play an opening 2nt as a weakish hand with the minors. In one other partnership, I also play this 2nt bid as very tightly defined with it promising 55 or longer in the minors and 4-8 if nv or 8-12 if v. But in the partnership under discussion my partner is suggesting adopting a much more wide ranging definition of the preempt (more like 0-10 and 54 or better). I don't mind increasing the point range, and in general our partnership style is for wide ranging single suited preempts without worrying about suit quality or other constructive issues. But I'm not sure that should spread to a two suited preempt.

 

Advantages of the wide range 54 or better approach include that it will come up much more frequently and we'll be able to cause some amount of problem for the opponents in sorting out their fits and level in ♥ or ♠ or nt or defending.

 

Advantages of promising 55 or better is that advancer can often bid 5m with very little knowing we have either a great fit or a good double fit. As little as 33(34) opposite xx55 can often profitably bid 5m in the 9 card fit knowing the side 8 card fit will often play very well.

 

Any one have much experience with either a 54 or 55 version of this bid and have opinions on which is better in general?

[kenrexford]

Just weird.

 

But, a few thoughts anyway.

 

1. Wildly expand the range in third seat.

2. Don't be silly in 1st/2nd seat; have a workable range.

3. Obviously, values in 4th seat. Probably RvW too.

4. Reverse 3♥ and 3♠; you can work out why.

5. Don't play 3♣ as 3-card stayman. It works, strangely, but it's just too stupid for words. You will be embarassed too much.

6. Pass 2NT a lot more than seems to make sense (meaning even with great fits).

[dake50]

What does 1D opener with a 2C/3C rebid show? I handle 13+ well, so the only want is get above their Major(s). Prefer wide range with the test being Qx +Qxx fit in minors cheaper than their major game.

[Tola18]

I, as I rule of thumb, dont like if the 55-bids are allowed to "occasionally" be 54, or such.

Be it 2nt minors opening, or defensive unusual NT or Michaels.

 

If I can rely it is always at least 55 (unless when the bidding shows it can be 44 feks reopening) - I can bid accordingly. Ie having a 4-card fit I can bid out the hand on quite weak values - and even hope to make. I will always have much play for the money.

It is no fun to do this leap and find pard had only 4 cards... 44 on weak cards is not good enough, get often very costly. Not to mention playing on 43 on weak cards. Brrr.

 

 

Thus. 55+.

Next question: I tend to think - not too weak - this way it will be a fine constructive weapon. Say points alike an opening, but too weak to jump in next round.

Although I understand if you want to play it destructive with few points.

Idea: Perhaps nonv weak destructive, and vulnerable-constructive?

 

 

Ken´s advice to pass of the 2NT now and then isnt bad, but BOTH partners must know it and expect. It is no fun to expect a suit play = preference by partner - but suddenly partner passes and leaves one in a makeable but difficult 2NT. It is psychologically hard to "be let down by partner" and often costs tricks - although the contract WAS makeable.

[helene_t]

It gives opps two cuebids and LHO usually gets two shot, I don't think it makes life particularly hard for them. So I think it should be used with discipline.

[NickRW]

I, as I rule of thumb, dont like if the 55-bids are allowed to "occasionally" be 54, or such.

Be it 2nt minors opening, or defensive unusual NT or Michaels.

5/4 when its 2C over 1C seems to work ok - play it like many people play Landy - i.e. 2D response = tell me your longer/better major. But otherwise, yes, I tend to agree 5/5 seems better to me - if we must do it 5/4 I'd rather play - or at least assume 4/4 - which weakens things considerably.

 

Nick

[kenrexford]

It gives opps two cuebids and LHO usually gets two shot, I don't think it makes life particularly hard for them. So I think it should be used with discipline.

With discipline is right, but I think you underestimate the problem. One of my favorite years-ago, younger-days deals was the 2NT-P-P-P against Rodwell-Seligman where this worked.

 

It's awfully difficult to venture into the three-level with a mediocre hand if Responder might be passing out of fear, with a massive misfit, or may be shooting low, because of a massive misfit. Plus, two opportunities for the opponents is often better than three (2NT-decision-pass-decision, or 2NT-decision-3minor-decision-pass-decision).

[Mbodell]

Yeah, so I was asking in the context of a strong club system. We really don't need it to be constructive hands because 10+ hcp 55 minor hands would be starting with 1♦. So it really is weak/preemptive. And the usual disagreement is on something like (31)(54) with 4 or 5 points nv.

[whereagles]

To open on a mere 54 gains on frequency, but feels unsound. Not only you lack the necessary distributional safety, you also risk playing the wrong minor when pard has 3-3 minors (a common situation).

 

You can land in the right minor if you tweak the opening bid, e.g.

 

2♠ = 54 minors, weak. Now 2NT asks for the better minor.

 

or

 

2NT = 5 clubs, 4+ diamonds

3♣ = 4 clubs, 5 diamonds

 

but you probably don't want to do this. And you'll still be opening with a considerably less safe 54. Finally, note that a 2NT minors opening is relatively easy to defend against.

 

A perhaps better use of 2NT is as multicolor for the minors, with a good 6 card (with 7 cards open 3m).

[hrothgar]

If I were going to devote an opening to show a weak hand with both minors, I'd strongly prefer to use a 3♣ opening rather than 3♦

 

When I am playing Midchart events, I normally use

 

2N = "bad" three level preempt in either minor

3♣ = Constructive preempt in clubs (two of the top three honors)

3♦ = Constructive preempt in diamonds (two of the top three honors)

[Big_Tomato]

To open on a mere 54 gains on frequency, but feels unsound. Not only you lack the necessary distributional safety, you also risk playing the wrong minor when pard has 3-3 minors (a common situation).

 

You can land in the right minor if you tweak the opening bid, e.g.

 

2♠ = 54 minors, weak. Now 2NT asks for the better minor.

 

or

 

2NT = 5 clubs, 4+ diamonds

3♣ = 4 clubs, 5 diamonds

 

but you probably don't want to do this. And you'll still be opening with a considerably less safe 54. Finally, note that a 2NT minors opening is relatively easy to defend against.

 

A perhaps better use of 2NT is as multicolor for the minors, with a good 6 card (with 7 cards open 3m).

The drawback with 55minors is the frequency, no matter what the HCP range - it just don't come up often enough to justify its place on a bidding card.

 

However, if you are not risk adverse - and your rules allow it - try 2NT as 5/5 shape, weak and denying spades (C/D, C/H or D/H). You treble the frequency and significantly increase the problems for the defence.

 

Partner scrambles in the minors and bids 3H as invitational and 3S as a GF artificial enquiry.

 

Big T

[NickRW]

The drawback with 55minors is the frequency, no matter what the HCP range - it just don't come up often enough to justify its place on a bidding card. 

 

However, if you are not risk adverse - and your rules allow it - try 2NT as 5/5 shape, weak and denying spades (C/D, C/H or D/H).  You treble the frequency and significantly increase the problems for the defence.

 

Partner scrambles in the minors and bids 3H as invitational and 3S as a GF artificial enquiry.

 

Big T

I tend to agree.

 

The only drawback from my point of view is that I can play 5/5 minors in most competition, but have to reserve the 5/5 not spades version for level 4 events. Two cards = :blink:

 

Nick

[benlessard]

If legal in the type of events you play I strongly suggest to use 2Nt as a garbage preempt in an unknown minor (there is an acbl defense on the website).

 

So that 3m is a semi-constructive bid. The frequency is much higher than 5-5. You also bid some nice 3Nt that are otherwise unbidabble. Meckstroth use to prefer this over 5-5 in the m but since they switch to strong 2Nt.

[whereagles]

A non-spadeish 55 is a nice gadget indeed, but yeah unfortunately it's banned from most events.

[NickRW]

If legal in the type of events you play I strongly suggest to use 2Nt as a garbage preempt in an unknown minor (there is an acbl defense on the website).

 

So that 3m is a semi-constructive bid. The frequency is much higher than 5-5. You also bid some nice 3Nt that are otherwise unbidabble. Meckstroth use to prefer this over 5-5 in the m but since they switch to strong 2Nt.

Depends quite a bit on exactly how you define the bids of course, but my simulation shows 2nt as 5/5 minors similar in fequency to a normal (7 card) 3C preempt. And 2nt as 5/5 not spades as - well 3x more frequent of course - and I still have the 3 level preempts open - admitedly I don't have 2nt for relatively "random" preempting.

[benlessard]

but my simulation shows 2nt as 5/5 minors similar in frequency to a normal (7 card) 3C preempt.

 

I agree that 5-5 non spades are more frequent than single suiter bad preempt and they are tougher to defend. So if they are legal its of course a nice gadget.

 

but for both minors, 5-5 or 6-5 hand are about 5.5% but there is 6 2 suiters so both minors are less than 1%. But in practice its worse than that because a good part of them are better opened at 2D and many of them cant stand the 3 level even if they have the HCP. Also from pts perspective they tend to have higher pts count and higher defense making them less suitable for preempts.

 

 

7&8 carder are slightly over 4% and there is 4 suit so its slightly over 1%. But in practice they tend to have lower pts count, less defense but with more purity in the trumps suit (note that i dont care that much purity in the trump suit) . Also a good part of the preempts are 6421 and 6331 wich lead to doubling the frequency of the bid. In short a 6-7-8 card preempt is in practice more safe from bad boards than a both minors preempt.

 

It of course depend on how you split your preempt between good and bad and safe and unsafe. In our case we are putting light opening hands in 3m (so that our opening hands tend to have defense) and a lot of disgusting preempt in 2Nt.

 

xxx

x

xx

Jxxxxxx

 

NV

 

xx

x

xx

QJxxxxxx

 

vul

 

 

From a frequency standpoint we should open 3m with the weak hand and open 2Nt with the good hands (like Meckwell used to do) but from rightsiding and for lead we prefer 2nt as garbage.