[PrecisionL]

I have reached a similar conclusion about 20-21 2NT openings.

I teach local players that opening 2NT is 21-22 hcp to avoid the bad 2NT contracts.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Too many 2NT contracts are going down. The opening bid of 2NT followed by three passes is doing very poor, only 40% of these contract are made. You might consider making the 2NT opening stronger. 2NT contracts are often down.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong with the system.

There is no such thing as a hand type that is very likely to take exactly 8 tricks. The only time you ever play in 2NT is when you attempted to get to 3NT, failed, and are in serious danger of already being too high.

With ~24 combined HCP and two semibalanced hands, you'll get 7 or fewer tricks about 30% of the time, 8 tricks about 40% of the time, and 9 tricks about 30% of the time. With 25 HCP, you would be making 3NT often enough that you should bid it. By the time you are down to 22 combined HCP, the chance of making even 8 tricks drops off fast.

Indeed, I would say that if 2NT made more than about 40% of the time, it would be a sign of serious underbidding; the best of the hands you are stopping in 2NT are almost surely good enough to attempt 3NT.

On the other hand, if you were making only 20 or 30% of the time, it might be a sign you were getting too high too often.

[jdeegan]

I think you make an illuminating point about the so-called HCP range of the 2NT opener. One could argue that the well-known 40-60% loss on 19+ to 21 HCP 2NT openers that go all pass is more than compensated for by supposed gains on the remaining hands where it doesn't go all pass.

My personal take on this is a little different. The data quoted are imo. based on hand evaluations done mostly by weak players. Counting high card points is only the start or first step in hand evaluation. Some 19 HCP hands need to be opened for 2NT like this brute:
AK10x
Q109
AQ98
Ax

Some 20 HCP hands should be opened for a one bid, like this pussycat:
KJxx
Kxx
AQxx
AK

Personally, I am not a great fan of the 2NT opener (except when playing rubber bridge for money and I hold it). Minor suit slams can be hard to bid. I guess the easiest way to cater to the advancing players is to up the HCP range by a point.

[benlessard]

Quote

The vast majority of the time I open 3S and it ends the auction it goes off (much more than 60%). I have no intention of opening 3S less often.

Bad argument IMO When i have a good 19-21 pts I have great expectation to go plus, while when i have a weak 3s my expectation to go plus are so so.

What I think is a valid alternative is just 2Nt 21-22 and 1m--1??--2NT is 18-20. IMO the 3pts range is annoying and also playing 1m rather than 2NT is sometimes painful. But comparing the 2 methods shouldnt be that hard.

[han]

I think the arguments brought forth by Frances are exactly right. Drawing these conclusions from this data is very foolish.

[phil_20686]

han, on 2012-March-30, 06:01, said:

I think the arguments brought forth by Frances are exactly right. Drawing these conclusions from this data is very foolish.

Yes. The conclusion to draw is that people raise 2N to 3N very aggressively. Therefore when they pass they have a truly terrible hand.

It has been accepted wisdom that responder cannot evaluate his hand very well, and when he has any shape at all, like xx xxx Qxxxx xxx he should raise a 20-22 NT to game, because if partner has the right cards can have ten tricks, and only 5 when he has the wrong ones. 8 exactly is rare and that is the only time it costs to raise realistically. No one cares about 3 imps.

Given this, it is entirely possible that raising the HCP for a 2NT bid will make the problem worse, as partner will raise yet more aggressively.

[mycroft]

2NT is a horrible contract; 2NT with all the points in one hand is even more horrible. My argument for raising 2NT openers to game is "do I have what looks like an entry?" If the answer is yes, we're going to game; if partner can get to my hand once, that should be enough. As Phil says, the problem with that is that when it does go 2NT-AP, it's not making.

The other problem with 2NT as an opener is that it's a slam-killer - you're massively preempting yourself, especially if the end contract is 6m. But you have to have a call for this hand; and you have to be able to pull it out of your other calls.

2NT is a sucky opening, no matter what it is. It's a horrible contract if you're left in it, and it frequently leads to sub-optimal contracts. But the damage to the rest of the system of changing it is higher than that (or it would have been changed).

[mgoetze]

mycroft, on 2012-March-30, 10:32, said:

The other problem with 2NT as an opener is that it's a slam-killer

Can't be that bad, apparently playing 2NT-3NT as artificial isn't worth it.

[gwnn]

2NT actually has the unlikely upside that it preempts opponents out of nice lead-directing actions like

1♣*-p-1♦**-1♠***

*-some alternative opening that includes 20-21 bal
**-negative or waiting or what not
***-LOLOLOL

[32519]

Yet another spectacular failure of a 2NT opening bid promising 20-21 HCP. This hand was played in the Main Bridge Club earlier today.

---

Partner and I have moved these hand types into our 1♣ bid (forcing for 1 round) after suffering similar losses of our own as here. 1♦ response is negative (0-4 HCP). Anything else promises 5+ HCP. The downside is that many 3NT contracts get played from the wrong side of the table. The upside is that we get to play in 1NT, either making or going down less than the rest of the field. We don't mind the downside as it's not hurting us yet.

[Cyberyeti]

32519, on 2013-March-31, 11:55, said:

Yet another spectacular failure of a 2NT opening bid promising 20-21 HCP. This hand was played in the Main Bridge Club earlier today.

---

Partner and I have moved these hand types into our 1♣ bid (forcing for 1 round) after suffering similar losses of our own as here. 1♦ response is negative (0-4 HCP). Anything else promises 5+ HCP. The downside is that many 3NT contracts get played from the wrong side of the table. The upside is that we get to play in 1NT, either making or going down less than the rest of the field. We don't mind the downside as it's not hurting us yet.

OK if you play a forcing club, think I prefer playing something more traditional to play 2N than 1♣. I suppose in Acol at least I play 1♥.

[blackshoe]

North has about 13% of his "fair share" of the 20 points remaining in the three hands other than south. On top of that, the nineteen points held by the defense are extremely poorly placed for declarer. This is not a normal occurrence, it seems to me. IOW, you were unlucky.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-31, 22:25, said:

North has about 13% of his "fair share" of the 20 points remaining in the three hands other than south. On top of that, the nineteen points held by the defense are extremely poorly placed for declarer. This is not a normal occurrence, it seems to me. IOW, you were unlucky.

Besides that, he hasn't told us the actual result.

[mycroft]

Plus, given that it's a lot easier for E/W to find their heart partial opposite 20 vs 3 or 4 if you open 1♣,...

(Not the example hand, but one from the instant matchpoint game last year that I was reading this morning, in fact. 2NT-AP, down 2 NV after 5 hearts, an Ace and time to set up the ♦K; but E/W are *at least* +110 in hearts).

[32519]

billw55, on 2013-April-01, 09:07, said:

Besides that, he hasn't told us the actual result.

Declarer made 3 tricks. This is what happened -
Trick
1 - West led the ♠2 to East's queen, ducked by declarer.
2 - East continued with the ♠10, again ducked by declarer.
3 - ♣J, covered by the king, won with the ace.
4 - West read the spade situation correctly and played the ♠4, won by declarer with the ace.
5 - ♥A won be declarer
6 - ♥K won be declarer
7 - ♥9 won by East with the jack
8 - ♣10 won by East
9 - ♣8 overtaken with the 9 by West
10-13 4th ♣, 2X♠ won by West, ♦A won by East

Hows that for a spectacular failure of the 2NT opening bid?

[jogs]

32519, on 2013-April-01, 12:53, said:

Declarer made 3 tricks. This is what happened -
Trick
1 - West led the ♠2 to East's queen, ducked by declarer.
2 - East continued with the ♠10, again ducked by declarer.
3 - ♣J, covered by the king, won with the ace.
4 - West read the spade situation correctly and played the ♠4, won by declarer with the ace.
5 - ♥A won be declarer
6 - ♥K won be declarer
7 - ♥9 won by East with the jack
8 - ♣10 won by East
9 - ♣8 overtaken with the 9 by West
10-13 4th ♣, 2X♠ won by West, ♦A won by East

Hows that for a spectacular failure of the 2NT opening bid?

Didn't you misplay trick 1? Win with the ace.

Shouldn't you win 6 tricks?
2 spades, 2 hearts, and two diamonds.
Down 2.

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2013-April-01, 11:11, said:

(Not the example hand, but one from the instant matchpoint game last year that I was reading this morning, in fact. 2NT-AP, down 2 NV after 5 hearts, an Ace and time to set up the ♦K; but E/W are *at least* +110 in hearts).

Yeah, but it's 300 after the auto-double. (This was in fact the one and only time I've tried this.)

[MrAce]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-01, 14:39, said:

Yeah, but it's 300 after the auto-double. (This was in fact the one and only time I've tried this.)

Fortunately we do not have too many Joe Grue arround.

[32519]

jogs, on 2013-April-01, 13:26, said:

Didn't you misplay trick 1? Win with the ace.

Shouldn't you win 6 tricks?
2 spades, 2 hearts, and two diamonds.
Down 2.

I was sitting East here. The best declarer could do was 5 tricks the way I see it. Nonetheless, a poor result for N/S.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2013-April-01, 12:53, said:

Declarer made 3 tricks. This is what happened -
Trick
1 - West led the ♠2 to East's queen, ducked by declarer.
2 - East continued with the ♠10, again ducked by declarer.
3 - ♣J, covered by the king, won with the ace.

For this to be the play, Declarer would have had to duck the opening lead with the jack.

32519, on 2013-April-01, 12:53, said:

Hows that for a spectacular failure of the 2NT opening bid?

Blaming your bidding system for a bad score after playing the hand misere is more than silly. This goes back to the point often made on BBF that weaker players often think a bad score is down to their bidding because this is more visible to them, whereas the real culprit is often in the cardplay. Similarly, how many times does not having a natural 1♦ response to the 1♣ opening cost for every time where a 2NT opening goes down? How about that 20-21 point hand in competition - would you feel comfortable passing it out if the bidding came back to you in 2 of something? There are pros and cons of both approaches, even within a strong (or mixed) club framework; Meckwell use a natural 2NT opening for example. Within a natural system your case looks pretty thin, and no amount of cherry-picking is going to convince readers to the contrary.