2NT opening

[Jlall]

It's strange that you reference the ekeblad, granovetter, and rubin structure as evidence that your opening structure is good when you're actually changing that opening structure heh.

 

It is also strange you don't want to use a natural 2N if you have no other use in mind for 2N. I could see giving it up if you thought there was something very beneficial you could play, but if you don't have anything in mind then giving it up then why don't you use the same thing that ekeblad, granovetter, and rubin use playing your same structure.

[olien]

Well let me start off by saying we do not expect the new 2N opening to be beneficial when compared to a natural 2N opening. We expect to gain by not having to open a 20-21 pt or whatever range hand with 2N. We believe that it negatively affects our decision making ability in the slam area. I do not think that there is one person who would disagree with the statement that a 2N opening hurts slam bidding. That is why we think it would be more advantageous to have another meaning for a 2N opening, so we don't have to open those hands 2N, but rather 1C and get to relay on slam hands.

[cherdanno]

Well let me start off by saying we do not expect the new 2N opening to be beneficial when compared to a natural 2N opening. We expect to gain by not having to open a 20-21 pt or whatever range hand with 2N. We believe that it negatively affects our decision making ability in the slam area. I do not think that there is one person who would disagree with the statement that a 2N opening hurts slam bidding. That is why we think it would be more advantageous to have another meaning for a 2N opening, so we don't have to open those hands 2N, but rather 1C and get to relay on slam hands.

The last time I played a set against a precision pair, I won a game swing on the first board when the auction went (1C) 2H all pass, as RHO passed it out with his balanced 20 count. Of course he could bid 2N now but that would be more dangerous than opening 2N, as my partner might be able to double.

I am not claiming to know whether this issue is more important than the missed minor suit slams after opening 2NT, but it is interesting to note that Meckwell seem to have the opposite opinion - they like opening 2N so much that they play a comparatively wide range (they explain it as 19-21 I believe).

[straube]

http://usbf.org/index2.php?option=com_team...fid=221&pid=706

 

weak 5/5 majors by Weichsel Granovetter

[athene]

Meckstroth in his book ('Win the Bermuda Bowl with me') says that opening 2NT on balanced 19-counts isn't something that is particularly desirable but they do it because it solves other problems in their system. Basically after 1♣ - 1♦ they don't use 1♥ as a strong relay so they would have trouble with all the balanced hands otherwise - especially as they like to play tight ranges for all NT bids.

 

Designing a strong club relay system you are best-off sorting out everything else and then thinking "what hands am I stuck with?" and trying to use 2NT for those. This is better than hunting for germ warfare for 2NT, since (as has been pointed out) most destructive uses aren't that wonderful. For example I use 2NT as 10-15 HCP and 7+ hearts in my current relay system as I can't unwind all the extreme shapes after opening 1♥ (my 1♥ opener is 1♠ ;) ).

 

If you really want a "fun" use for 2NT, play it as 5/5 with hearts and a minor. Good for pre-empting spades, and you have a bit of room to invite (3♣ pass/correct, 3♦ = game-try in hearts for example).

[joshs]

Personally I have had lots of success playing 2N as 5-5 in the minors and about 10-12 HCP in the context of similar systems. Yes it doesn't happen that often but you are well places when it does, and the opps have to guess a little.

 

Since you don't want to play this as minors, then I really have no good suggestion. How about 18-19 semi-balanced with a 6 card minor?

[jdonn]

I think the point was to not use it for any hands that could otherwise be opened 1♣.

[Apollo81]

I believe 2NT strong is the best possible meaning, even in a relay system. My experience is that if you don't play strong 2NT, you will lose about 3 boards from opponents interfering over 1c for every 2 boards you gain from starting lower.

[benlessard]

I believe 2NT strong is the best possible meaning, even in a relay system. My experience is that if you don't play strong 2NT, you will lose about 3 boards from opponents interfering over 1c for every 2 boards you gain from starting lower.

I disagree 80% If your relay system is well designed the last thing you want to do is to open 2Nt with a strong hand and when i hold a big balanced hand interference does not bother me at all, its almost welcomed.

 

However there is almost always a gap that is difficult to cover. So i can accept a strong 2NT because the other uses arent wonderful. But to say that youre going to have 3 bad board for 2 good board is laughable.

[Gerben42]

You could try MisIry transfer preempts :)

[jwmonty]

I believe 2NT strong is the best possible meaning, even in a relay system. My experience is that if you don't play strong 2NT, you will lose about 3 boards from opponents interfering over 1c for every 2 boards you gain from starting lower.

I disagree . . . [T]o say that youre going to have 3 bad board for 2 good board is laughable.

Why is it laughable? He wasn't expressing an opinion in his second sentence, he was stating a fact. He says it has been his *experience* that not opening 2NT on strong balanced hands loses more often than it wins. The only way that could be "laughable" would be if you believe it can't possibly be true, which is to say, if you believe he's lying about what his experiences have been. Is that what you mean to say?

 

I also believe that opening a strong 2NT is a useful "preempt," and my experience also supports that idea.

[gwnn]

I hate hate hate it when they get their little lead directors in and I go down 3 when the dufi are making +2 after 2NT-3NT :)

[awm]

My experience is rather the opposite of Noble's. While occasionally opening 1♣ allows the opponents to intervene effectively, I find that this is a win as often as a loss. For example, I may get to defend a doubled partial that outscores declaring the hand myself, I may be warned of what the opponents will lead and avoid a bad 3NT, I may simply reach a better contract because of the ability to place some key finesses in the bidding, or I might play the normal contract better because I can more easily count the opposing distribution. Of course, when the opponents don't bid over 1♣ I'm much better placed for having opened two levels lower.

 

I've noticed that there's some set of players who feel it's really important to "keep the opponents out of our auction." They seem to be really offended when the opponents bid, feel that their results would be much better if the opponents would just shut up every time it's "our hand" etc. Generally I feel the opposite. Even with a perfect relay method, you can't ask partner where the opponents cards are or how a particular suit breaks between the opponents hands or what the opponents are going to lead against your eventual contract (well okay you can ask, but partner won't know either unless he's peeking). When the opponents bid, sometimes they answer this question for you.

[akhare]

My experience is rather the opposite of Noble's. While occasionally opening 1♣ allows the opponents to intervene effectively, I find that this is a win as often as a loss.

I concur -- I have played strong ♣ systems for years with and without a strong 2N. Opening 2N may produce more compact auctions for game contracts, but it's great to play in say 1N when the field is langushing in an impossible 2N.

 

IMO, given the low frequency of the strong 2N type hands, the semantics assigned of the 2N opening come down to individual preference. That said, I can't recall too many hands when I have regretted opening such hands with 1♣.

 

My personal preference is to play it as some sort of intermediate bid with both minors.

[helene_t]

I have mostly bad experience with playing 2NT as minors, and playing it as an unknown minor doesn't sound better, although I haven't tried it. I thought maybe playing it as 5♥5m would make some sense. But I tend to agree with Noble. A natural 2NT is probably as good as anything.

 

I don't see why it matters whether you are playing a relay system. What's wrong with playing relays after 1♣ and playing something different over 2NT?

[blackshoe]

The best use of 2NT in a strong club context may well depend on the regulations in force where you're playing. For example, Rosenkranz suggested (in Godfrey's Stairway to the Stars) playing it as a weak 3 level preempt in either minor, allowing 3m to be a preemptive hand with a good suit, with which you'd be happy to see partner bid 3NT. In the ACBL, though, this is a MidChart convention (and it's BS under WBF rules), so hard (around here anyway) to find a place to play it without hassles. Both minors is GCC, iirc, so that would be okay. OTOH, Rosenkranz suggested that if you can't play it as either minor, play it as clubs. At least that way you get the benefit for one suit. :)

[Mbodell]

The best use of 2NT in a strong club context may well depend on the regulations in force where you're playing. For example, Rosenkranz suggested (in Godfrey's Stairway to the Stars) playing it as a weak 3 level preempt in either minor, allowing 3m to be a preemptive hand with a good suit, with which you'd be happy to see partner bid 3NT. In the ACBL, though, this is a MidChart convention (and it's BS under WBF rules), so hard (around here anyway) to find a place to play it without hassles. Both minors is GCC, iirc, so that would be okay. OTOH, Rosenkranz suggested that if you can't play it as either minor, play it as clubs. At least that way you get the benefit for one suit. :rolleyes:

I would think if you are only going to choose one suit, diamonds might be better. In many precision systems you already have an intermediate natural 2♣ bid. It is diamonds where 2♦ is usually not natural and 1♦ is usually already heavily overloaded. So if you could use 2nt to show some sort of diamond hand that is probably more useful than another club hand.

[Apollo81]

My experience is rather the opposite of Noble's. While occasionally opening 1♣ allows the opponents to intervene effectively, I find that this is a win as often as a loss. For example, I may get to defend a doubled partial that outscores declaring the hand myself, I may be warned of what the opponents will lead and avoid a bad 3NT, I may simply reach a better contract because of the ability to place some key finesses in the bidding, or I might play the normal contract better because I can more easily count the opposing distribution. Of course, when the opponents don't bid over 1♣ I'm much better placed for having opened two levels lower.

 

I've noticed that there's some set of players who feel it's really important to "keep the opponents out of our auction." They seem to be really offended when the opponents bid, feel that their results would be much better if the opponents would just shut up every time it's "our hand" etc. Generally I feel the opposite. Even with a perfect relay method, you can't ask partner where the opponents cards are or how a particular suit breaks between the opponents hands or what the opponents are going to lead against your eventual contract (well okay you can ask, but partner won't know either unless he's peeking). When the opponents bid, sometimes they answer this question for you.

The bad cases are where it goes 1♣ (p) 1♦ and then RHO directs a lead which wouldn't have occurred had we opened 2NT. Or you double them and only get them 1 or 2 (and you have game). 3:2 is about the ratio of these things happening to the good things, in my experience.

[lowerline]

In reply to jdonn's comment

 

This is a relay system, so probably best not to use natural 2N

 

1C-1D/ 1H=20+ any

So 1C-1D/ 1N=18-19 and stronger ones go via 1H.

 

We also chose the nt range we did so that the balanced hands that we open 1D tend to be slightly more sound.

What if partner bids something other than 1D over 1C? Can you still work out all your notrump ranges? Or does partner always respond 1D?

 

Assuming you can answer these questions, there still might be something to be said for 1C-1D-1H=22+ if balanced, else 20+.

 

I have never played a relay system so the above could well be nonsense :lol:

 

FWIW I am always happy to play against opponents who use 2NT as some bad preempt.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

example:

1NT = 13-15 (original precision range)

1♣ = 16+ relay --> 1♦ = 0-8

 

1♣-1♦

1NT = 16-18

1♥ = 19+ relay --> 1♠ = 0-5

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-1♠

1NT = 19-21

2NT = 22-23

2♣ = 23+ relay --> responder can no longer deny to show shape

 

The above can be played together with a natural 1♦ opening. Most Precision players however include an 11-13 balanced hand in their 1♦ opening, having their 1NT opening as 14-16. This makes bidding after the 1♦ opening harder (especially if you want to maintain the symmetry in the relay structure).

 

Steven

[gwnn]

Steven, Fred's point was that if responder bids something else than 1♦ to 1♣ then maybe sometimes you miss a slam when it is ~20+10 because opener can't show his little extras. Well I guess he's sort of a relay captain and he doesn't need to show anything but then it may become a problem that responder can't show his little extras. Anyway was just trying to clarify Fred's point, or what I thought was Fred's point.

[lowerline]

Steven, Fred's point was that if responder bids something else than 1♦ to 1♣ then maybe sometimes you miss a slam when it is ~20+10 because opener can't show his little extras. Well I guess he's sort of a relay captain and he doesn't need to show anything but then it may become a problem that responder can't show his little extras. Anyway was just trying to clarify Fred's point, or what I thought was Fred's point.

I see... If responder bids something else than 1♦, the relay sequence has started and usually continues until complete shape is shown. Then relayer has several options:

Relay (step) to show 19+ and ask for controls

Weak relay (step+1) to show 16-18 and ask for responders strength --> step = min; step+1 = not min with extra controls etc...

3NT to play (showing 16-18) --> pass = min; 4♣ = not min with extra controls etc...

 

Optionally one can play 4♦ as the end signal, showing a minimum and wanting to sign off in game. Then direct game bids are invitational. Without the end signal, game bids are sign offs.

 

Steven