2NT in competition?

[gwnn]

1♠-x-2♠-2NT

 

Right now, I like 2NT as "good 3H" (analogous to a 2NT "good raise") as advancer's strength is most important when they have hearts. But what do you play this as?

[fromageGB]

First what would it mean if overcaller actually bid hearts? As (1♠) 2♥ for us may simply be 5 cards and a 10 count, the continuation (2♠) 2NT would be 3 hearts and an opening hand, so invitational or better, while a "transfer" of 3♦ would be 4 card support and invitational or better, ie a strength 3♥ bid as opposed to a weaker fit bid of 3♥.

 

In the given sequence we would treat the double as guaranteeing 4 hearts, so advancer needs one more. Therefore for us 2NT is 4 hearts and an opening hand (ie invitational or better) while 3♦ is 5 card hearts and invitational or better.

 

It may be more common to play these bids the other way round, with 2NT being the longer support, but I prefer it this way as the longer support cuts out a shape showing opener new suit, which could be useful to them in more distributional hands. (If you are going to 3♠ you may as well show clubs if that lets partner better make the decision of 4♠ or not over a possible 4♥.)

[nige1]

1♠-x-2♠-2NT

Right now, I like 2NT as "good 3H" (analogous to a 2NT "good raise") as advancer's strength is most important when they have hearts. But what do you play this as?

 

Rubensohl is another possible treatment. I prefer Lebensohl, requesting 3♣ from partner. Then

• Pass/3♦/3♥ = NAT weak
• 3♠ = 4♥ and ♠ stop.
• 3N = NAT with ♠ stop.

[mikeh]

(1S) x (2S) 2N

 

To me, in my established partnerships, this is lebensohl: I want to bid something at the 3-level but I have NO interest in game.

 

That reserves (1S) x (2S) 3y as forward-going: not forcing by any means, but partner should feel free to raise with extras.

 

The downside is that opener can cause issues by bidding 3S, but this can be catered to by having doubler double again with extras, and now advancer can bid 4y with some confidence.

 

Note that advancer has a responsive double available in addition to 2N and 3y, so this structure is quite flexible, within the constraints imposed by their bidding.

 

 

While the OP did not ask this, it may be useful to compare this sequence to the analogous, but fundamentally different, sequence of (1S) P ((2S) x P 2N

 

Here, we play that 2N is a scramble or grope: advancer has at least 2 places to play, and doubler is expected to bid his cheapest 4 card suit.

 

The rationale is that in the OP sequence, advancer was free to pass 2S if he has nothing to say, but in the second, if he passes, because he has nothing to say, he then has to find a lead against what is likely to be a cold contract.

 

So in the OP sequence the partnership need not worry about those hands where survival is the objective...nobody is forcing advancer to commit to the 3 level on some 4333 1 count. In the second, however, advancer will fairly often want, more than anything else, to find the best fit possible.

[gwnn]

Rubensohl is another possible treatment. I prefer Lebensohl, requesting 3♣ from partner. Then

• Pass/3♦/3♥ = NAT weak
• 3♠ = 4♥ and ♠ stop.
• 3N = NAT with ♠ stop.

Rubensohl (as Lebensohl) was an option in the poll already (I only asked about 2NT).

[fromageGB]

The downside (2NT as unspecified suit, no interest in game*) is that opener can cause issues by bidding 3S, but this can be catered to by having doubler double again with extras, and now advancer can bid 4y with some confidence.

(*I added the brackets insert)

 

The problem is that this 3♠ possibility is a huge downside. Overcaller may have a decent fit with you, but as you haven't told him what your suit is, he cannot support. If he has "extras" you say he can double, but you may have no fit and yet you are doubling them into a good game or forcing yourself too high.

 

This is why it is important with no support to show your suit immediately. Showing it by transfer gives more options and has other benefits, but if you have an aversion to transfers, surely a "no interest" 3y is a better bid than 2NT.

[msjennifer]

Sir, the way we play it this 2NT bid is a LEBENSOHL bid asking partner to bid 3 CLUB.Advancer may pass or bid 3D,3H.,all competitive bids ,3S ((with a stopper in spade and 4 cards in hearts) OR 3NT(with a guaranteed spade stopper) Doubler is free to ignore the request to bid 3C and bid as normal with any strong distributional hand. This is why I have voted for "transfer to clubs" Thanks.

[gwnn]

Sir, the way we play it this 2NT bid is a LEBENSOHL bid asking partner to bid 3 CLUB.Advancer may pass or bid 3D,3H.,all competitive bids ,3S ((with a stopper in spade and 4 cards in hearts) OR 3NT(with a guaranteed spade stopper) Doubler is free to ignore the request to bid 3C and bid as normal with any strong distributional hand. This is why I have voted for "transfer to clubs" Thanks.

That would be "good/bad (any bad hand)" in my poll. "Transfer to clubs" was meant to cover hands with clubs. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[msjennifer]

That would be "good/bad (any bad hand)" in my poll. "Transfer to clubs" was meant to cover hands with clubs. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Sir,the two options you provided are quite clear.Your way of saying good/bad hand is OK but that means that opener is free to bid anyway even if he has any minimum hand also..Is 2NT, which as you say good/bad hand , forcing or NOT.?May opener bid even 3NT with a minimum flat hand with a spade stopper.?In order to cater for a weak hand with responder the mandatory 3C bid is abssolutely necessary.which is what a LEBENSOHL 2NT bid is,The 2NT bidder hence can play in 3 of his choice.The way you suggested leaves the whole auction ambiguous .What is the advancer to do do if opener now bids 3C/D/H/S/NT ? IS any of these bids,except 3NT, forcing or not? Sorry but the bidding shall be uneasy unless the mandatory 3C bid by opener with a minimum hand is available.Thanks.

[Zelandakh]

I am fairly confident that Mike's explanation, both for Lebensohl in the main sequence and scramble in the other, is relatively standard. The problem of using Rubensohl here, as well as in another similar sequence, (2M) - X - (P) - 2NT, is that here we are differentiating between weak and constructive hands, whereas Rubensohl works best when differentiating between weak (or INV) and GF hands, which allow the Advancer to bid beyond the transfer acceptance with the bigger range.

 

One reasonable option is a mixture that combines a bad 2NT with transfers, sacrificing accuracy with clubs for better accuracy with the other 2 suits:-

 

(1♠) - X - (2♠)

==

X = responsive

2NT = competitive in any suit; or some other GF hand (4 hearts and a spade stop perhaps?)

3♣ = constructive in diamonds

3♦ = constructive in hearts

3♥ = GF with clubs

3♠ = GF with a spade void

--

 

This structure would also allow for the weak and invitational hands to be switched, giving another possibility for 2NT - weak with clubs; or INV with a red suit; or some GF hand. More important is to point out that option D in the poll is compatible with both Lebensohl and modified Rubensohl, meaning that if you want specific system recommendations you probably need to ask about 3♣ as well as 2NT. In any case, whatever you do here, I think you should as far as possible use the same method (minus the responsive double) in the equivalent Weak 2 auction, which comes up much more often and is therefore rather useful in avoiding forgets.

[gwnn]

Sir,the two options you provided are quite clear.Your way of saying good/bad hand is OK but that means that opener is free to bid anyway even if he has any minimum hand also..Is 2NT, which as you say good/bad hand , forcing or NOT.?May opener bid even 3NT with a minimum flat hand with a spade stopper.?In order to cater for a weak hand with responder the mandatory 3C bid is abssolutely necessary.which is what a LEBENSOHL 2NT bid is,The 2NT bidder hence can play in 3 of his choice.The way you suggested leaves the whole auction ambiguous .What is the advancer to do do if opener now bids 3C/D/H/S/NT ? IS any of these bids,except 3NT, forcing or not? Sorry but the bidding shall be uneasy unless the mandatory 3C bid by opener with a minimum hand is available.Thanks.

What? If 2NT shows any bad hand, opener will bid 3C on a minimum. If both sides have minimums, you shouldn't be in 3NT or anywhere higher.

 

I didn't discuss opener's follow-ups because those are opener's follow-ups and the poll was about what the 2NT itself shows.

[gwnn]

This structure would also allow for the weak and invitational hands to be switched, giving another possibility for 2NT - weak with clubs; or INV with a red suit; or some GF hand. More important is to point out that option D in the poll is compatible with both Lebensohl and modified Rubensohl, meaning that if you want specific system recommendations you probably need to ask about 3♣ as well as 2NT.

That's fair enough :D but I had to make a choice somewhere. I didn't want to have a poll with 121 options, each getting 0 or 1 votes.

 

In any case, whatever you do here, I think you should as far as possible use the same method (minus the responsive double) in the equivalent Weak 2 auction, which comes up much more often and is therefore rather useful in avoiding forgets.

Minus the responsive double and minus pass! That's a huge difference IMHO. In the weak 2 situation, one is forced to play something like (say, if our suit is clubs):

 

2NT = 0-7 points, (3)4+ clubs

3C = 8-10 points, 4+ clubs

 

whereas here you could have something like:

pass = 0-7 points, 3-4 clubs

X = 8-10 points, 4 clubs

2NT = 5-7 points, 5 clubs

3C = 8-10 points, 5 clubs

 

Obviously my point ranges are just an illustration, but my point is that the two situations are very different and agreeing to have the same structure in both seems a bit too simple.