2NT ask in response to a weak 2

[antonylee]

In fact any response structure works that includes 3 hand types in 3♣ and 2 in 3♦ so long as you are careful with which hands have to be shown with 3NT. It is just a matter of deciding which hand types you might want to hide after a 3m response. For this purpose I think the negative responses (minimum or no feature) are best suited). Obviously you could substitute "shortage" for "feature" here if desired although in that case the immediate 3NT response really needs to be the "max without shortage" hand.

I just noticed that actually you can also include 2 hand types in 3♥ (e.g. hearts, min and hearts, max), as long as 3♠ can be used as a NF ask over the two meanings. So a scheme such as

2♠-2N!...

3♣: ♣ or non-solid max (3♦: ask => 3♥, 3♠=♣ min, max; 3N=non-solid max; 3♥: ask "please bid 3N only with ♣ max and signoff otherwise")

3♦, ♥: nat (next step=strength ask)

3♠: min no feature

3N: solid

allows to show both a side feature (or shortness, it doesn't matter) and strength, always below 3NT in the necessary cases.

[Vampyr]

I just noticed that actually you can also include 2 hand types in 3♥ (e.g. hearts, min and hearts, max), as long as 3♠ can be used as a NF ask over the two meanings.

 

This doesn't allow you to mix up the 2NT response though; I think it is important to be able to do that once in a while.

[1eyedjack]

I have usually pinpointed (or denied) shortages in response to the enquiry. At the risk of repetition of some of the points already mentioned

 

1) It helps partner to evaluate wastage or lack of wastage of values, for both borderline game and slam potential

 

2) It helps stear partner into 3NT on some hands where there is an 8 card fit in the weak 2, or away from 3NT where the hand is not fitting so well but suit wide open.

 

3) I have even had occasion where it has steared us into a difference suit strain than opener's weak 2, where as responder I am confident that opener does NOT have a shortage opposite my long suit.

 

It is also sensible to include more hand types in the cheaper rebids than in the more expensive ones.

[32519]

No-one has yet (I think) mentioned the alternative approach which is for responder to show, rather than ask. In one partnership we play transfers, and I know we aren't the only people who do this because it's been independently suggested on BBF more than once.

 

2♠ -

 

2NT = clubs. Opener must complete.

3♣ = diamonds. Opener must complete.

3♦ = hearts. Opener must complete.

3♥ = balanced high card limit raise, Opener can choose what to bid.

3♠ = pre-emptive raise

3NT = to play

4♣ = keycard ask

4♦ = fit bid

4♥ = to play

 

The idea of the transfers is that responder can transfer to his suit and then bid 3♠ to show a raise with a 'long suit trial bid' in the suit shown, and opener evaluates based on that information.

Of course, the big advantage is that responder can show his own suit(s) - can sign off, or can show a 2-suiter. This is more useful playing an undisciplined style of weak two.

How would this structure work over a Weak 2♦ bid? Or is it just limited to the majors? What do you do with a good hand but no fit in the ♦ suit?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't see how this (adding the 10 to AKQ) helps. It comes up rare enough as it is. The main point is to find 3NT when responder has 3 tricks in hand and stops in every suit. If responder has a smallish doubleton, by the time they've discovered the suit breaks 4-1 onside it's too late anyway.

 

It helps change the odds significantly opposite stiff or stiff J.