Curious about 2NT ranges

[thepossum]

Hi all

 

Apologies for raising a possible inappropriate deviation from a system. Also this relates to the GiB 2/1 system but more broadly to No trump target point ranges for game.

 

Lets start with an assumption. You need 25 points for a NT trump game - just an initial assumption (not a hard and fast rule)

 

The 2NT ranges I often read about online are 20-22 points with 4-5 points response giving enough for game

The 2NT range in GiB 2/1 is 20-21 points with anything from 5-10 points leading to a 3NT response

 

I have found these to be far too conservative and occasionally (not often :) ) will open with a nice 19 or even 18 point 2NT

 

If you run Sims on 5-10 point range surely 20-21 is far too conservative. I appreciate with only 4 points opposite you may be struggling

 

Would be interested in any discussion. Similar considerations for 1NT I guess

 

I should add that I am thinking of things like match points where I believe there is a 50% target for game bids. Then of course that percentage depends on your opponents does it not

 

etc

 

P

 

PS I hate to be seen as causing trouble for Novices and Beginners but when I read pages on the Internet about such matters that say "***** is far too complicated for beginners and we aren't going to discuss it" a bit annoying. But I'm not a teacher so don't patronise my students in that way. I remember annoying teachers at primary school with questions outside their skill level

[helene_t]

The idea behind 20-21 is that it has to be narrow since responder can't invite over it. Obviously the price you pay is that 2♣...2NT becomes 22-24 but that is maybe less of an issue as responder will usually have enough to bid game opposite 22.

 

Personally, I prefer to have at least 21 for a 2-level opening (unless playing something like Mexican that allows us to stop in 2-of-a-suit after a 2♣ or 2♦ opening). Opening 1♣ with 20 points is ok, if partner passes we usually haven't missed anything, and there are plenty of follow-up schemes that allow us to differentiate between 18-19 and 20 points.

 

Opening 2NT with 19 points is quite bad IMHO (obviously even worse than opening 2NT with 20 :) ) but of course, you have some 19-walrus-points that evaluate as 20.

[hrothgar]

Meckwell used to open 2NT with 19 quite frequently

[smerriman]

Generally, you have a way of showing every balanced hand down to a narrow range:

 

12-14: open 1 of a suit, rebid 1NT

15-17: open 1NT

18-19: open 1 of a suit, rebid 2NT

20-21: open 2NT

22-24: open 2C, rebid 2N

 

So there's no real need to increase the range of one of these bids - all that's going to do is decrease the range of another.

 

*Responses* to your bid are far more wide-ranging, because of the gap between game and slam - if you're both balanced, it doesn't matter whether you have 25 points or 32 points, you're generally not going to want to go any higher than 3NT. (33 is typically what you want, though some hands are better than just their HCP).

 

- If partner has a 7 count, partner is going to game when you show the 18-19 point hand anyway, so starting with 2NT with these won't gain anything.

- If partner has a 3 count, you're better off starting low, and opening 2NT will cost you.

- If partner has a 13 count, you'll be in a 31-32 point slam if you overbid initially - which on average will cost you.

 

The main difference is the very small range where partner would do one thing opposite 20-21 and a different thing over 18-19 - those are hands where describing your hand accurately will result in a better score in the long run.

 

Of course, some 19 point hands (eg ones with strong 5 card suits) are better than some 20 point hands - this is where upgrading comes into play. But once you decide how many points your hand is actually worth, then you bid it consistently based on the system, and leave the rest in the hands of your partner.

[Cyberyeti]

One thing to remember, 20 (or 19 if you open those) is MUCH more frequent than 21 or 22, so bid on the basis that partner has 20-21 if you play 20-22. Also remember 22 opposite 3 usually plays worse than 20 opposite 5.

 

Smerriman's system is VERY different to mine although mine is unusual

 

12-14 open 1N

15-bad 19 rebid 1N

good 19-21 open 2N

2♣ with Kokish in 2 point ranges thereafter

 

this allows 1x-1y-2N to be artificial GF unbalanced and solves the hand of death issue.

[pescetom]

Smerriman's system is VERY different to mine although mine is unusual

 

12-14 open 1N

15-bad 19 rebid 1N

good 19-21 open 2N

2♣ with Kokish in 2 point ranges thereafter

 

this allows 1x-1y-2N to be artificial GF unbalanced and solves the hand of death issue.

 

I think Smerriman's system is the current gold standard in 90% of the world.

Certainly what we teach our beginners.

Obviously intermediates and advanced can usefully insert Kokish in which case 22-24 becomes 22-23 u.s.w.

[Cyberyeti]

I think Smerriman's system is the current gold standard in 90% of the world.

Certainly what we teach our beginners.

Obviously intermediates and advanced can usefully insert Kokish in which case 22-24 becomes 22-23 u.s.w.

 

Well if you play a strong no trump, you can't play what I play.

[TylerE]

I haven't seen 20-22 in anything published in the last 50 years.

[Cyberyeti]

I haven't seen 20-22 in anything published in the last 50 years.

 

It's what's played by a large majority of non big city club players here

[LBengtsson]

Also remember 22 opposite 3 usually plays worse than 20 opposite 5.

 

This is valid point as responder does not know whether to 'stick or bust' with many hands that add up to anything from 24-26 points total. Even hands that have 26 points between them may not play well as there not enough entries to establish tricks, lead towards the strong hand or may be run a dummy suit, and so on.

 

Since you cannot invite 3NT with small values in a balanced hand as responder, after opener opens 2NT, or evaluate a hand's trick taking potential opposite a 2NT opener as you do not know opener's exact shape, you are left to guess whether you have enough to go to game with the (usual) small values that responder has opposite a 2NT opener.

 

I think the problem is solved some way by restricting the stronger balance hand range to just 2 points - 20-21, 22-23, 24-25 and using both 2♣, 2♦ in a SEF(France)/Benjamin(British) way and a basic 2NT opening to cover the difference point ranges.

 

Just my opinion.

[AL78]

It should be noted that the 25 HCP requirement is a little optimistic when there is a huge disparity in the strengths of the two hands (e.g. flat 22 opposite flat 3), since communication with dummy will likely be an issue, so nudging this up to 26 is probably wise.

[DavidKok]

Most of what is said here is great, I'd like to add three minor points (one of which goes against what some others have said):

 

• Many of the 19-or-weaker hands open on the 1-level, so opposite e.g. 5 HCP or lower you get to play a 1-level contract (presumably partner passes, or sometimes makes some artificial call but the system gets you out at a low level). Opening these hands with 2NT can be a big loss when the limit of the hand is 7 tricks, or 8 in a suit but not in notrump, or even if it is 6 or fewer and you are destined to go down but you are going down more than the field. It helps to think of opening 2NT as having already invited partner to game, and game tries are less popular than ever.
  
• Contrary to what others have said about e.g. 22-opposite-3 games, I will readily raise partner to 3NT with 3-4 HCP opposite 20-21. It's not that I expect it to make, but that I expect 2NT to fail most of the time anyway. We might as well risk the game bonus, since there's no way back to the safe 1NT. Similar to the previous point: if I have a garbage hand and partner has chosen to open 2NT, most of the time we are in a bad position. It's really not clear to me that passing (gambling on 2NT being the limit of the hands) is better than shooting for the stars.
  
• In line with the above two, I play any new call over 2NT as forcing to game (including the Jacoby transfers). I'm never contracting for exactly 9 tricks in a suit opposite a big balanced hand, so I prefer to salvage as much as possible of our slam auctions. It's just poor bridge to first open 2NT, preempting partner by two levels, and then try to land on a dime after. Even with my 20-21 range this too much of a gamble.
  

All things considered, opening 2NT tends to make life difficult for partner, compared to 1-level auctions and the systems people play over those. So at least you want it to be narrowly defined. As others have pointed out, you can reasonably comfortably fit 22+ balanced hands into artificial 2-level bids (I prefer 2♣ with Kokish continuations, but there's other systems as well).

[Cyberyeti]

Most of what is said here is great, I'd like to add three minor points (one of which goes against what some others have said):

 

• Many of the 19-or-weaker hands open on the 1-level, so opposite e.g. 5 HCP or lower you get to play a 1-level contract (presumably partner passes, or sometimes makes some artificial call but the system gets you out at a low level). Opening these hands with 2NT can be a big loss when the limit of the hand is 7 tricks, or 8 in a suit but not in notrump, or even if it is 6 or fewer and you are destined to go down but you are going down more than the field. It helps to think of opening 2NT as having already invited partner to game, and game tries are less popular than ever.
  
• Contrary to what others have said about e.g. 22-opposite-3 games, I will readily raise partner to 3NT with 3-4 HCP opposite 20-21. It's not that I expect it to make, but that I expect 2NT to fail most of the time anyway. We might as well risk the game bonus, since there's no way back to the safe 1NT. Similar to the previous point: if I have a garbage hand and partner has chosen to open 2NT, most of the time we are in a bad position. It's really not clear to me that passing (gambling on 2NT being the limit of the hands) is better than shooting for the stars.
  
• In line with the above two, I play any new call over 2NT as forcing to game (including the Jacoby transfers). I'm never contracting for exactly 9 tricks in a suit opposite a big balanced hand, so I prefer to salvage as much as possible of our slam auctions. It's just poor bridge to first open 2NT, preempting partner by two levels, and then try to land on a dime after. Even with my 20-21 range this too much of a gamble.
  

All things considered, opening 2NT tends to make life difficult for partner, compared to 1-level auctions and the systems people play over those. So at least you want it to be narrowly defined. As others have pointed out, you can reasonably comfortably fit 22+ balanced hands into artificial 2-level bids (I prefer 2♣ with Kokish continuations, but there's other systems as well).

 

One advantage of the scheme I gave above is that 18-bad 19 opposite 5 plays in 1N not the 2N most people play in.

 

Point 2, this is true at IMPs, going an extra one off at MPs can be disastrous

 

I would much rather be able to get out of 2N at the 3 level with 6 small and out unless partner breaks the transfer.

[DavidKok]

I also get out at the 1-level with 19 opposite 5, that wasn't the question. The general point is that the more you open 2NT, the more you won't be able to get out at the 1-level (or in 2-of-a-suit). So if you play, for example, 19-21 (or 'good 19 to 21'), I think you lose compared to a narrower 2NT range and more complicated system over 1m (in my case always 1♣).

 

It seems I haven't made points 2 and 3 clear. I think that, at both IMPs and MPs, if you are looking at a lousy 0-3 count and partner opens 2NT, you are going to have a bad board no matter what. My 'solution' is to both shrug and go to the next board, and to make sure 2NT is opened infrequently by narrowly restricting the range. I think having a bidding system that caters to getting out at 3M, even at MPs, is a loser in the long run. Kind of like having a system to get out at 3M/4m over 2♣ - if that's where you wanted to go, you should have opened on the 1-level. It wins in the specific cases that you can't make anything (or can make 9 tricks in a major), but loses on game and slam auctions that start with 2NT. Weak-opposite-big-balanced is not frequent enough to disrupt my responding system at the 3-level, and when it does come up it doesn't win enough (even at MPs, there is always the possibility of a defensive slip-up or favourable card position).

[Cyberyeti]

It seems I haven't made points 2 and 3 clear. I think that, at both IMPs and MPs, if you are looking at a lousy 0-3 count and partner opens 2NT, you are going to have a bad board no matter what. My 'solution' is to both shrug and go to the next board, and to make sure 2NT is opened infrequently by narrowly restricting the range. I think having a bidding system that caters to getting out at 3M, even at MPs, is a loser in the long run. Kind of like having a system to get out at 3M/4m over 2♣ - if that's where you wanted to go, you should have opened on the 1-level. It wins in the specific cases that you can't make anything (or can make 9 tricks in a major), but loses on game and slam auctions that start with 2NT. Weak-opposite-big-balanced is not frequent enough to disrupt my responding system at the 3-level, and when it does come up it doesn't win enough (even at MPs, there is always the possibility of a defensive slip-up or favourable card position).

 

What we play is more not so much more than a 2 point range as we upgrade really good 21s, it's like 2.25 points.

 

Also if say you play 19-20, there's significantly more reason to have a way out than if you play 21-22 for example. Over here it's not that uncommon to play strong balanced in your multi, in which case you may have both 19-20 and 21-22 ranges, and you don't want to play different systems over them, hence you play the one appropriate to the lower (more common) range.

[DavidKok]

It could be argued that's an excellent reason to not play those ranges in your multi. Also it doesn't much matter which convention you use to unilaterally show 19 balanced by the 2NT-level, you've already missed the 1-level.

[paulg]

I haven't seen 20-22 in anything published in the last 50 years.

I was taught 20-22 only just short of 50 years ago and it has been the norm in the UK for most of my life. I still play 20-22 because it really doesn't seem to matter very much.

 

Where life has changed is transfer responses allow me to rebid 1NT with 18-19, over which we have space and methods to really explore if required whereas 2NT is a real slam killer, so I rarely upgrade from 19.

 

As Fred Gitelman said once, our constructive bidding methods over 2NT are awful so why upgrade to it?

[bluenikki]

I was taught 20-22 only just short of 50 years ago and it has been the norm in the UK for most of my life. I still play 20-22 because it really doesn't seem to matter very much.

 

Where life has changed is transfer responses allow me to rebid 1NT with 18-19, over which we have space and methods to really explore if required whereas 2NT is a real slam killer, so I rarely upgrade from 19.

 

As Fred Gitelman said once, our constructive bidding methods over 2NT are awful so why upgrade to it?

Exactly!

 

2NT is a *bad* opening.

 

Do you have methods for reaching a minor-suit slam in a 4-4 or even 5-4 after a 2NT opening?

 

Indeed, there is no good reason to make the 2NT opening weaker than 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT. We should all be doing the opposite to make the 2NT opening rarer!

 

Carl

[Douglas43]

Exactly!

 

2NT is a *bad* opening.

 

Do you have methods for reaching a minor-suit slam in a 4-4 or even 5-4 after a 2NT opening?

 

Indeed, there is no good reason to make the 2NT opening weaker than 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT. We should all be doing the opposite to make the 2NT opening rarer!

 

Carl

 

3♠ as Stayman for the minors is a reasonable option for seeking a minor suit fit.

[smerriman]

3♠ as Stayman for the minors is a reasonable option for seeking a minor suit fit.

More common is that 3♠ forces 3NT, with responder then able to show both 1 and 2 suited minor hands.

[AL78]

More common is that 3♠ forces 3NT, with responder then able to show both 1 and 2 suited minor hands.

 

I'm used to playing 3♠ as showing five spades and four hearts, although I can't rememeber it ever coming up in the last decade, so using it en-route to investigating a minor suit slam sounds reasonable.

[pescetom]

3♠ as Stayman for the minors is a reasonable option for seeking a minor suit fit.

 

 

More common is that 3♠ forces 3NT, with responder then able to show both 1 and 2 suited minor hands.

 

I prefer to have my cake and eat it, 3NT is the response with no 5 card minor over which responder is now able to show both 1 and 2 suited minor hands.

 

But isn't this a discussion in Novice and Beginner Forum?

If so then the reply of smerriman should be enough IMO, the rest is pretty esoteric.

[johnu]

[*]Contrary to what others have said about e.g. 22-opposite-3 games, I will readily raise partner to 3NT with 3-4 HCP opposite 20-21. It's not that I expect it to make, but that I expect 2NT to fail most of the time anyway. We might as well risk the game bonus, since there's no way back to the safe 1NT. Similar to the previous point: if I have a garbage hand and partner has chosen to open 2NT, most of the time we are in a bad position. It's really not clear to me that passing (gambling on 2NT being the limit of the hands) is better than shooting for the stars.

2NT being a bad contract likely to go down in this situation has been a popular thought. There was even an idea that if 2NT was opened and responder passed that the opponent in pass out position should double to collect a bigger penalty since 2NT was likely going down, possibly a lot.

 

I've done some rough simulations. If responder has 3 HCP (opposite 20-21), you make 8 tricks ~50%, and 9 tricks about ~15% so game prospects are pretty dismal. If responder has 4HCP, you make 8 tricks about 68%, and 9 tricks ~35%. 2NT doesn't seem to be a bad contract opposite 3-4 HCP.

 

It seems clear that bidding 3NT at matchpoints is a losing strategy since you aren't close to 50% for 9 tricks. Also there is no reason to believe that the field will be in a better contract than 2NT, especially if you have a classic 2NT HCP and shape.

 

Playing IMPs with 4 HCP, your game prospects are closer to being good enough for game only if vulnerable.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm used to playing 3♠ as showing five spades and four hearts, although I can't rememeber it ever coming up in the last decade, so using it en-route to investigating a minor suit slam sounds reasonable.

 

Depends on which version of 2N-3♣ you play.

 

The version we play is 2N-3♣-3M shows 5, 2N-3♣-3N is 2-2 or 2♠3♥ this means if you bid 3♦ over 3♣ there is a known 8 card fit if you're 5-4 as partner has either 3 spades or 4 hearts or both, hence no need for 3♠ to show 5-4.

 

We use 2N-3♠ to show a slam inv+ hand with one or both minors.

[johnu]

[*]In line with the above two, I play any new call over 2NT as forcing to game (including the Jacoby transfers). I'm never contracting for exactly 9 tricks in a suit opposite a big balanced hand, so I prefer to salvage as much as possible of our slam auctions. It's just poor bridge to first open 2NT, preempting partner by two levels, and then try to land on a dime after. Even with my 20-21 range this too much of a gamble.

If you have a method to stop in a suit at the 3 level, you aren't contracting for exactly 9 tricks. You are contracting for 9 tricks or less and if you have less than 9 tricks, hoping that you'll go down less than if you stayed in 2NT.

 

For common methods, why wouldn't you just pass with a nothing HCP hand after a Jacoby transfer and partner just accepting the transfer? What is the point of bidding a terrible or hopeless game when you can stop a level lower?