[rg14]

1 C / 1 D. 2NT. What is the point range of 2nt in this sequence ? 11-12 or 13-15 ?

[helene_t]

Hi rg14,

this depends on your system. In the Robot system it is about 11 points. In SAYC, it is 13-15 or so.

[akwoo]

Whichever you have agreed with partner.

I see 11-12 probably twice as often than 13-15, but this information is useless to you unless you're around the same area I am.

[rmnka447]

As Helene_t indicated, SAYC defines the 2 NT response as a balanced 13-15. This conforms to the long time default Standard American meaning of the bid. It was forcing to at least 3 NT but allowed opener to make another rebid if distributional. Along with the 13-15 2 NT call, then an immediate 3 NT call was defined as a balanced 16-18 quite often a 4-3-3-3 hand. Both bids imply no 4 card or longer major suit. Unfortunately, the 3 NT call seldom comes up and finding a way to bid an invitational balanced 11-12 could become a bit convoluted.

So over the years, Standard American bidders have generally migrated to using 2 NT as 11-12 balanced and 3 NT as 13-15 balanced. That structure makes more efficient use of both bids and gives away the least information when the target contract is 3 NT. The invitational 2 NT response also makes it more difficult for the opponents to compete in a major or identify their major holdings for defense.

If you are playing strict SAYC then the former definition of a 2 NT response should be followed. But if you aren't, but are playing some bidding system based on Standard American, it is a matter of partnership agreement.

[Stephen Tu]

rmnka447, on 2018-August-14, 19:07, said:

As Helene_t indicated, SAYC defines the 2 NT response as a balanced 13-15. This conforms to the long time default Standard American meaning of the bid. It was forcing to at least 3 NT but allowed opener to make another rebid if distributional. Along with the 13-15 2 NT call, then an immediate 3 NT call was defined as a balanced 16-18 quite often a 4-3-3-3 hand. Both bids imply no 4 card or longer major suit. Unfortunately, the 3 NT call seldom comes up and finding a way to bid an invitational balanced 11-12 could become a bit convoluted.

So over the years, Standard American bidders have generally migrated to using 2 NT as 11-12 balanced and 3 NT as 13-15 balanced. That structure makes more efficient use of both bids and gives away the least information when the target contract is 3 NT. The invitational 2 NT response also makes it more difficult for the opponents to compete in a major or identify their major holdings for defense.

3nt rarely coming up is a feature if anything, not "unfortunate". Bidding 3nt immediately with the min GF hand is really bad in theory because opener has no room with a shapely hand to explore alternatives. 9 tricks may be the limit in NT, so moving might be disaster. But if NT is doomed, because opponents have 9/10 cd fit in a major and partner's stopper is inadequate, passing might be wrong also. 2nt GF allows opener to show shortness and find the hands where 5m makes or 4M on a 4-3 fit but 3nt doesn't. One can also do things such as allow 4cdM in 2nt and conceal the holding when opener doesn't have a 4cdM. And if opener has a slammish hand the extra space can also be helpful.

The 2nt inv / 3nt 13-15 is kind of a simple kludge so that people can play 1d-2c as an absolute game force; from a theoretical perspective it's rather poor. The only saving grace is that the bids rarely come up since responder usually has a 4 cd major to bid, and 3nt will happen to be right most of the time. That's why some top pairs do something else with 11-12 bal (e.g. put it into a multi-way 1d-2h bid) to be able to retain 2nt as a GF.

[rmnka447]

Stephen Tu, on 2018-August-15, 05:21, said:

3nt rarely coming up is a feature if anything, not "unfortunate". Bidding 3nt immediately with the min GF hand is really bad in theory because opener has no room with a shapely hand to explore alternatives. 9 tricks may be the limit in NT, so moving might be disaster. But if NT is doomed, because opponents have 9/10 cd fit in a major and partner's stopper is inadequate, passing might be wrong also. 2nt GF allows opener to show shortness and find the hands where 5m makes or 4M on a 4-3 fit but 3nt doesn't. One can also do things such as allow 4cdM in 2nt and conceal the holding when opener doesn't have a 4cdM. And if opener has a slammish hand the extra space can also be helpful.

The 2nt inv / 3nt 13-15 is kind of a simple kludge so that people can play 1d-2c as an absolute game force; from a theoretical perspective it's rather poor. The only saving grace is that the bids rarely come up since responder usually has a 4 cd major to bid, and 3nt will happen to be right most of the time. That's why some top pairs do something else with 11-12 bal (e.g. put it into a multi-way 1d-2h bid) to be able to retain 2nt as a GF.

I don't find many top pairs who play 2 NT as GF in response to a minor opener whether they play 2/1 or Standard in the US. Since some other agreement to show the invitational NT hand would be alertable here, I don't recall encountering virtually any such alerts, so have to conclude any such agreements are pretty rare here. Just for the record, I play in something like 20-25 tournaments each year here including 7-8 regionals and now consistently compete in the top flight/strata of events with a modicum of success.

[Stephen Tu]

rmnka447, on 2018-August-15, 09:41, said:

I don't find many top pairs who play 2 NT as GF in response to a minor opener whether they play 2/1 or Standard in the US. Since some other agreement to show the invitational NT hand would be alertable here, I don't recall encountering virtually any such alerts, so have to conclude any such agreements are pretty rare here. Just for the record, I play in something like 20-25 tournaments each year here including 7-8 regionals and now consistently compete in the top flight/strata of events with a modicum of success.

I said "some top pairs", not most top pairs. You aren't going to see it a lot, because most people tend to go along with the herd, using common but less than optimal treatments, it's just easier when playing with clients and non-regular partners. Plus the bids just don't come up a lot because opponents act or responder has a 4 cd major to bid at the 1 level.