[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

1S-P-?

Is it of more value to have 2N available as natural on these types hands than to have an artifical major-suit raise?

The ripples: If 2N is a major-suit raise, then a 2/1 cannot promise 5 cards, and in some cases may be only a 3-card suit. Obviously, if 2N is natural, then balanced forcing raises must fall outside of 2N.

Which method is better?

---

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Fred likes to play 2NT as GF natural.

I play a Big Club system and 2NT shows either 11/12 'value' with 4+ trumps or a GF hand.

Since my opening major bid is limited and I also 'split' that range 'when showing shortness after 1M-2NT*, I can show any shortness 'plus the range 'at or below' three of our bid major. My 1M-2NT-3S* shows 'max.' values(in a 1C context)
with an undisclosed shortness(3NT relays...)

I try and avoid bidding a weak 4(3?) card suit over 1M. I also use an unlimited
1M-1NT auction to avoid bidding bad suits in a possible slam type auction.

Fred and I share the same concerns. We both cope with the same problem by using different methods to get to the same goal.

Regards,
Robert

[mikestar]

Robert's method is excellent. In order to use 2NT artificially, it is necessary for 1NT to be forcing (not semi-forcing). Then with your typical 13-15 balanced, you respond 1NT and follow up with 3NT unless partner makes a strong rebid which puts slam in the picture. As long as 1NT won't be passed, the structure can be extended--now 1NT followed by a natural 4NT can show very strong balanced hands.

[glen]

Interesting subject stirred up this month by Ercan Cem's Bridge World article "A Responding Catalog", which suggests:

2♣: GF, either ♣s or big balanced or major fit
2NT: natural balanced GF, not big

As compared to the well used:

2♣: GF, either ♣s or 3 card major fit with ♣s or balanced with some ♣s, using other 2/1 to handle other balanced hands
2NT: GF 4+ major fit

and the sometimes used:

2♣: GF, either ♣s or balanced or 3 card major fit with ♣s
2NT: Game Invite+ with good major fit

I believe that Ercan Cem's analysis is correct.

My wife and I currently play "3NT to play, can be a variety of hands, do not pull it unless very distributional or very big hand", and 2NT Jacoby GF major raise (which I dislike as it is but was put in so she could play with others). 3NT has been a big winner, except it would be considerably better to be able to bid a natural GF 2NT instead, to allow opener to then show a distributional hand on the three level so choice-of-game can be accurate.

At strong levels of play the 2NT Jacoby bid attracts blockage bids by the opponents (you have a nice fit and values, let's stop your exploring for slam and let's get lead directional bids in). Moving the major fits into 2♣ will still face interference, but now one knows when this occurs that their bidding is serious, as the opponents risk the situation where your side has GF values with no good fit. Over recent years (almost always thanks to wonderful BBO vugraph) I've seen the Italian World Champs use the 2♣ responder with a good major fit, not have any interference, and be able to exchange a lot of useful information to reach the best spot, while the space consuming 2NT response seems to result in a little more guesswork.

In summary, I like the approach where the 2♣ handles most of the GF major fits (except for those with a good suit elsewhere, then bid that suit first, then show support) and handles ♣s or big balanced hands, while the 2NT response is a natural GF.

[Winstonm]

Quote

3NT has been a big winner, except it would be considerably better to be able to bid a natural GF 2NT instead, to allow opener to then show a distributional hand on the three level so choice-of-game can be accurate.

I hardily agree that the 3-level should be used naturally in these auctions - a flaw (IMO) of Jacoby 2NT is that it assumes the major is the best suit in which to play when that may not be the case. With Jacoby it is difficult to find an attractive alternative 4/4 minor suit fit that may produce 12 tricks.

In my views, 2N is much better used as a natural bid with natural continuations by opener - the reason being that the 2N natural expresses GF values and allows then an exploration of the best choice of game or even slam contracts.

[goodwintr]

The Flint-Pender system (Flint, Tiger Bridge, 1970) featured a 2NT response that had it both ways: it was either a traditional (in America) game-forcing balanced hand OR a strong game-forcing raise. Opener rebids on the assumption that 2NT is balanced. If responder has the strong raise he comes out of the bushes with a cue-bid on the next round. (Not by taking simple preference: that shows the balanced type with three-card support. Responder can also cue-bid with lesser support if opener rebids his own suit, so that four-card support isn't as important.)

Flint and Edgar Kaplan were on a panel at the Fall Nationals in Pittsburgh in 1966, and someone asked about this 2NT response. Kaplan offered, "That's fine, until somebody bids 4D over your 2NT." Flint -- who had played with Pender in a National or Regional tournament just about every week for the past year (they were one-two in masterpoints in 1966) -- replied, "Well, it hasn't happened yet."

I've used this method in a number of partnerships (not at the Flint-Pender level, to be sure), and it hasn't happened yet to me, either. The convention seems to be eminently workable, with a lot of the advantages you get from an old-fashioned balanced forcing 2NT response.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The Flint-Pender system (Flint, Tiger Bridge, 1970) featured a 2NT response that had it both ways

I believe it quite playable to use these 2-meaning type bids - maybe even necessary due to the limited vocabulary available in bridge.

[awm]

It's quite important to have an artificial raise. Some people use virtually all jumps as artificial raises. Those who prefer 2NT to be natural typically use other jump shifts to replace jacoby (Fred uses 2♠ and 3♣ for hearts and spades respectively). So this isn't really a question that can be answered without looking at the rest of the system.

If I was told that none of my other jump shifts could be raises, my preference would be to play 2NT as a raise (probably limit+) and use 2♣ as multi-meaning (clubs or balanced). Generally I find that if one bid is going to carry multiple meanings, it's often better to let this be a relatively low bid because you have more room to sort things out. In fact you can play pretty good relays over 1M-2♣ if you want. It's also good for bids that are raises to clearly be raises, because competition is more likely over a raise and partner needs to be able to judge what to do, whereas bids that are "good hands without fit" tend to be very dangerous to compete over and usually you get an unobstructed auction (or a big number).

[david_c]

I like to put all balanced GF hands into 2♣ as Adam suggested. I used to play this as denying 4-card support, but nowadays I agree with Glen that if you have decent continuations after 2♣ then that's the best way to start on many hands with support, particularly fairly balanced ones. So this takes care of both the "natural 2NT" type and also most of the hands which would respond a Jacoby 2NT. And so actually I can use 2NT for something completely different - probably another sort of raise, as you can never have too many ways of raising partner (provided that you choose something better than "Bergen").

I'm intrigued that Glen now thinks there should be a 2NT bid available for minimum GF balanced hands. I'm not sure what the reason would be but I'm fairly sure I would disagree with it if I knew I'd prefer to be bidding 2♣ on these hands even without taking into consideration the fact that it frees up the 2NT bid.

[Winstonm]

Pointing out the obvious, but a 2C catchall eliminates the natural 2C meaning.
Wouldn't it be better to sacrifice the meanings of less-used bids, i.e., the jump shifts?