[awm]

1♦ - X - 1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 2NT?

What does this 2NT mean in your partnerships?

[sfi]

A competitive raise to 3C. We've pretty much given up on 2NT being natural in competition, although this is one of those times you might actually want to have a natural 2NT bid.

This is actually true in two partnerships, but in different ways. In one, it is explicitly a bad raise. In the other it's just a competitive way to get to the 3-level, but nothing else but a club raise would make sense given the auction so far.

[ahydra]

Can doubler not have ~18-20 BAL? That or a club raise seem about the only logical options, and without agreement I would assume the former (currently without a regular partner so everything is "without agreement" ).

ahydra

[nullve]

sfi, on 2017-July-06, 09:51, said:

A competitive raise to 3C. We've pretty much given up on 2NT being natural in competition, although this is one of those times you might actually want to have a natural 2NT bid.

This is actually true in two partnerships, but in different ways. In one, it is explicitly a bad raise. In the other it's just a competitive way to get to the 3-level, but nothing else but a club raise would make sense given the auction so far.

ahydra, on 2017-July-06, 17:08, said:

Can doubler not have ~18-20 BAL? That or a club raise seem about the only logical options

You can have your cake and eat it too by playing 2N as NF with either a bad club raise or 18-20 BAL.

"NF lebensohl" (my name) is useful in other situations, too, e.g.

1♣-(2♠)-P; 2N = a) MIN 6+ C b) 18-19 BAL,

and is one reason for not playing Mexican 2♦ in a standard system.

[Phil]

When opps bid and raise, this should really be g/b.

[helene_t]

ahydra, on 2017-July-06, 17:08, said:

Can doubler not have ~18-20 BAL? That or a club raise seem about the only logical options, and without agreement I would assume the former (currently without a regular partner so everything is "without agreement" ).

ahydra

I think that with a balanced 18-20 it is ok to double again. Or maybe, if a 1NT overcall includes some 18 counts and the free 2♣ bid shows some (5)6 points, you can just force to game.

[nekthen]

awm, on 2017-July-06, 09:29, said:

1♦ - X - 1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 2NT?

What does this 2NT mean in your partnerships?

I will have to ask my partners! lol

Options at this point are
1 dbl Surely a penalty dbl we have advertised a heart suit
2 2♠ a good hand with a spade suit, too good for an initial 1♠ overcall
3 3♣ support for clubs nothing exciting
That leaves
2N, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ and 3N

3N looks like 19+ balanced, as my 1N overcall is 15 -18, with good red suit stoppers
3♦ looks like 19+ balanced, no ♦ stopper
3♥ looks like 19+ balanced, no ♥ stopper
3♠ GF I really like ♠

2N could then be "partner are you better than minimum" if not bid 3♣. If I then bid on we are GF. If partner bids something else we are GF

Effectively, this is reversing the suggestion that 2N is a competitive raise and 3C is forward going

[msjennifer]

If one bids double then will it not be a strongish hand with three card club support,( support double)reserving 2NT for the more usual 18/20 balanced with a 4 card spade suit?and 3Clubs only a competitive bid ?

[The_Badger]

I looked at this forum post before there were any replies, and thought best to see what other players thought of the auction before commenting. I particularly smiled at nullve's reply of 2NT being non-forcing Lebensohl - so 2NT is actually (for once) natural. And to be honest, why can't 2NT be natural in this auction - to play?

Using it as some Lebensohl-style bid to denote good or bad club support by the doubler just seems pointless to me (just my opinion).

As Helene_t indicates, that the free bid of 2♣ in this competitive auction is so limited in strength that the doubler should know where the auction is heading, and should bid accordingly.

[nekthen]

The_Badger, on 2017-July-07, 04:38, said:

As Helene_t indicates, that the free bid of 2♣ in this competitive auction is so limited in strength that the doubler should know where the auction is heading, and should bid accordingly.

I may be wrong but I think Helene meant that the minimum value of 2♣ was 6 hcp (5 at a push) I think there is a fair amount of upside before partner can do something more constructive like 2♦

After all with a 4414 hand the doubler can have only 13hcp

2N to play looks like trying to land on a sixpence (or dime) (or cent)

[Zelandakh]

it seems to me that we have 3 hand types here to fit into 2 calls:-

1. penalty for hearts (takeout for diamonds)
2. big, balanced with good hearts
3. big, balanced with poor hearts

Obviously if we want to take action with #1 then that has to be with a double. That would lead me to choosing #3 for 2NT. #2 then becomes the "unbiddable" type and we therefore have to choose between X and 2NT depending on the strength of our hearts and suitability for penalising. That would make 2NT neither completely natural nor completely artificial but a bit of both. If we instead were to use 3NT for that then there is no room left to check back for the quality of the stopper, which would seem to be a fatal flaw.

[sfi]

The_Badger, on 2017-July-07, 04:38, said:

I looked at this forum post before there were any replies, and thought best to see what other players thought of the auction before commenting. I particularly smiled at nullve's reply of 2NT being non-forcing Lebensohl - so 2NT is actually (for once) natural. And to be honest, why can't 2NT be natural in this auction - to play?

Using it as some Lebensohl-style bid to denote good or bad club support by the doubler just seems pointless to me (just my opinion).

As Helene_t indicates, that the free bid of 2♣ in this competitive auction is so limited in strength that the doubler should know where the auction is heading, and should bid accordingly.

You don't think there is some value in being able to show a hand that just wants to play 3C as well as a hand that wants to invite partner to bid on with a 10 count and pass with a 6 count? That's exactly what playing some sort of good/bad gains you here.

The thing is that adding any convention means you have to give up something. Often what you give up isn't that important (e.g. the ability to play 2C opposite a 1NT opener when you start playing Stayman), but good/bad 2NT means you can no longer bid 2NT naturally. Sometimes, and this is one of those auctions, the natural meaning is valuable. So you have a choice when you design your system. You can either make the rules simple to remember and straightforward to apply, or you can assign the optimal meaning in all situations.

If you try and find the best meaning for 2NT in all competitive situations, you will wind up with something that you can't remember. Especially because then someone will come along and point out (correctly) that in many cases the weak hand should be bidding directly at the three-level, while the good hands go through 2NT. But not always. And now you have a whole new thing to remember. So we've made some trade-offs and come up with rules we can remember and apply in a broad range of situations.

There are some times when we think it's not the best meaning for the auction, but we accept those. It's not that we've thought about this precise auction, but that our general rules lead this one to be a bad raise to 3C. I actually think having the two ways to get to 3C is good here, but it's probably not a huge difference one way or the other.

[nekthen]

I am interested to hear why 2N is the bad raise and 3C is good. That is how it would be with lebensol, but then the 2N bidder is the weaker hand. In this scenario the 2N bidder is the stronger hand, and I think fast arrival should mean that 3c is bad and 2N good.

[xbabarx]

3 card club suppot n stopper in opp suit..

[awm]

In general I am not a fan of good-bad, but in this particular auction it seems to have very little downside. Big balanced hands seem like they can double or just bid 3NT here?

It seems better for 2NT to be the weak raise, because when doubler actually has extras you might want to play 3NT, and it will be important to play it from the right side (often, but not always, advancer's side).

[nekthen]

AWM exactly! but it is doubler who is due to bid so he is the one to be playing NT, so 2N should be "good" hand in context and 3♣ bad

[mr1303]

I like 2NT to be a "I want to bid 3C but 9 tricks are required in clubs or NT, so if you have some extra length we may get to 9 in NT.

It is therefore forcing. Partner is asked to choose 3C or 3NT.

[sfi]

nekthen, on 2017-July-09, 01:52, said:

AWM exactly! but it is doubler who is due to bid so he is the one to be playing NT, so 2N should be "good" hand in context and 3♣ bad

If 3C is the good raise you can still arrange it so either hand can play 3NT. If 2NT is the good raise, you're locked into the doubler declaring. Often but not always the best person to declare.

[nekthen]

sfi, on 2017-July-09, 02:34, said:

If 3C is the good raise you can still arrange it so either hand can play 3NT. If 2NT is the good raise, you're locked into the doubler declaring. Often but not always the best person to declare.

True but does that make 3♣ forcing?

[sfi]

nekthen, on 2017-July-09, 03:39, said:

True but does that make 3♣ forcing?

No. 3H is the way to force.