2/1: 2NT rebid opposite passes hand

[helene_t]

pass-1♦

2♣-2nt

 

What is 2NT? Assuming we play naturalish 2/1, 1NT would be 15-17

 

Maybe "12-14" is canonical but what sense does it make? Response with 11 points can't raise a 2nt rebid that only promises 12 points. If responder is always going to pass 2NT, we might as well have passed 2♣.

 

Maybe it should be exactly 14 points? Or maybe a stronger hand, threesuited short in clubs?

 

If we were playing SAYC or SEF it would maybe be easier since 2♣ is autoforcing so 2NT must logically show extras, regardless of whether p is a passed hand. Maybe 2♣ should be Drury in 2/1?

 

Maybe it depends on whether 1♦ promised 4. If that is the case then responder will have five clubs (would have bid either 2♦ or 2NT with 3334) so opener can pass 2♣ easier and there is no need for 2NT as a contract improvement.

[Evies Dad]

2C could be 6cs with a certain range, since it can't be 2/1. In which case 2NT shows a strong bal hand that wants to play 3NT opposite whatever the max range of 2C is.

[Evies Dad]

I voted for forcing since 2C would normally suggest a hand with a rebid. So opener has more than minimum with Diamonds

[LBengtsson]

It's a good question. 2NT said to me that where I want to play after 2♣. No more. Partner is a passed hand, you may be minimum (12-13) with 4432 shape.

[smerriman]

2NT is never to play in any sequence for me, so invitational. If we do have a minimum 4432 I'm happy to play in 2♣, given partner chose to bypass possible NT bids themselves.

[DavidKok]

In my favourite 2/1 style this auction does not exist. 1♦-2♣ is a hell of a start to the auction, and one of the first places I would recommend introducing artificiality to make up lost ground.

 

In 'standard 2/1', or if not discussed, I think 2NT is contract improvement. Responder is narrowly limited, if opener wants to play in 3NT they can bid it.

[mw64ahw]

For me 2♣ is 6+♣ with 2NT being a super-accept inviting 3NT opposite a good holding

[apollo1201]

Partner is a passed hand. 2C is therefore not « auto-forcing » and not even forcing at all. It should show a 6-cd suit of good enough quality (else 1NT might be preferable unless too shapely) and some 8-10 or bad 11.

 

So all really min balanced (or misfitted) hands should pass 2C in a flash. Our likely best strain at the lowest level.

 

Bidding again over that should therefore be either an extreme allergy to C, but you’d repeat your D, or a game invite (or more).

 

2NT (one of the worst contract to be in) is just looking for 3NT, maybe 14 with all stopped and a complement in C, or more (could be an unbalanced NT opener strength with a sg C honor looking for trouble). Asking partner do you like your hand, do you think we’ll make 9 tricks running your suit. If yes, raise me, if no, bid 3C. If I bid again, a greater destiny awaits us.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Regarding 2C showes a good 6 card suit: He did not open 3C.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

Hi,

 

Regarding 2C shows a good 6 card suit: He did not open 3C.

 

This would depend on vulnerability and shape for me so for example red vs white I would need 7+ playing tricks to make the 3♣ bid

[helene_t]

Partner is a passed hand. 2C is therefore not « auto-forcing » and not even forcing at all.

Obviously it is not forcing, but I think that it should be auto-forcing in the sense that if opener bids again, responder must also bid again. Otherwise we end up having to design a completely different system for 3rd-hand bidding.

 

For example, in systems with auto-forcing 2/1 such as SEF,

1♦-2♣

3♦*

do not merely show a couple of points extra (as they do in Acol, where 2♦ would be NF) but show a really good suit. I would like to play that way opposite a passed hand also.