Opening 2NT And Responses

 

The opening bid of 2NT sits in the twilight zone between ordinary opening bids and forcing strong openings. It has a reputation for being a “slam-killer”, in that it can be difficult to identify slam potential when the optimal contract depends upon fit. Responder knows that opener has a big hand, but 21 hcp or so can have more than one weakness, especially in a balanced hand, so he can’t go hog-wild. And there is very little room for investigation before you find yourself past game and heading into dangerous territory.

An additional complicating factor is that the distributional requirements for the 2NT opening tend to be somewhat lax. These days, the 1NT opening gets used on semi-balanced hands or maybe even with a singleton, and that sort of thing would have been heresy 30 or 40 years ago (and still is frowned upon in some quarters). But even back then, it was routine to bend the “balanced hand” rules for the 2NT opening, because the grey area between opening 1suit and opening 2C needs the help in Standard American and similar systems. (For a while, one of the cornerstone advantages of Acol as a system was its intermediate 2-bids, because they specifically addressed this region of hand-strength. But as people were seduced by weak 2-bids, that advantage was surrendered by many Acol players.) So whatever responding scheme you choose, you have to be aware that both opener and responder may not exactly be balanced.

Nevertheless, the usual responses are similar to those used over the 1NT opening. Stayman, transfers, and think of something to do with the 3S response and some way to handle minor-suit responding hands. Puppet Stayman addresses the possibility that opener has a 5-card major suit, as well as making the stronger hand declarer, so that sees quite a lot of use over 2NT. I play it with Elwood, but not with Agent 99. To be honest, I’m not as thrilled with it as I might be. I just can’t recall any hand I’ve played where we finished up in the wrong contract and I said to myself “if only we’d been playing Puppet…”. The last time I opened 2NT with a 5-card spade suit, playing with Agent 99, she answered 3H (transfer)! I bid 4S, just to make sure we got there, and we played quietly in game like everybody else. There is a memory-burden attached to Puppet, not a large one, but still, it was something that Agent 99 didn’t want to add to her repertoire when we were starting out, so we play just regular 4-card Stayman.

There are other possible approaches. I came across an old scheme of Jeremy Flint the other day. After 2NT – 3C; opener rebids:

3D = no major OR flat major OR 4-4 with diamonds

3H = hearts and clubs

3S = spades and clubs

3NT = 3334 or 3325

4C = majors, minimum

4D = majors, good controls (7+)

4H = majors, maximum points, <7>

Notice that all bids from 3H to 3NT show C, and all bids over 3NT show both majors. 3D is basically natural.

2NT – 3C – 3D – 3H (natural)

3S = 4333, 4243, 4342

3NT = no major

4C = H and D **

4H = 3433

2NT – 3C – 3D – 3S (natural)

4C = S and D **

** Note that the 4C bid shows support and D, allowing partner to bid 4D control ask (4H=5).

2NT – 3C – 3D - 3NT = 54xx.

This is kind of interesting. The opening has limited opener’s high-card strength, and the 3C inquiry seeks elucidation of his distribution. Although it looks a bit intimidating at first glance, a lot of the bidding is actually pretty natural, and the provision of control counts or inquiries for slam investigation is quite economical. The biggest weakness I see straight off is that it doesn’t seem to take account of off-shape openers, not even a 5-card major. So I don’t think anybody will be taking this up these days.

On the other hand, the other part of Flint’s responding scheme uses the 3S response to account for various minor-suit hands. Opener has to make the puppet bid of 3NT, and then responder has

4C/D = invitational

4H = xx45

4S = xx54

4NT = good 5-5 minors. 

In the original, 2NT – 3NT showed a moderate hand 5-5 in the minors, so to simply raise to 3NT you would make the 3S response, and then pass the forced 3NT rebid. This multi-purpose 3S response is still used today in some circles. At the Manhattan, the version that is sometimes taught has 2NT – 3NT as natural. The 3S response followed by 4NT shows 5-5 in the minors but is non-forcing, and 3S followed by 5C is 5-5 minors forcing to slam. Depending on who is doing the teaching, the 4C and 4D bids may be natural or may indicate the opposite minor (that is, 4C shows diamonds and 4D shows clubs). The advantage of leaving the bids as natural is that it’s one less thing to remember, and opener may be able to use Redwood or something conveniently. The idea of not bidding your suit is, of course, to allow the strong hand to be declarer. This whole thing isn’t that great, but it provides a relatively simple “one-stop shopping” solution for various hands, so it’s definitely better than nothing.

In his columns written for OKBridge, Marc Smith advocated using 3S as Minor Suit Stayman. In conjunction with this, he suggested 4C/4D as Texas transfers (for H/S, respectively), thus freeing the 4H and 4S responses to show single-suited hands with clubs and diamonds, respectively. I haven’t tried that arrangement, but if he suggests it, it must be somewhat playable.

To be honest, the best solution for the 2NT opening may be to stop using it. In ACBL territory, one of the best uses of the 2D opening may be to replace the 2NT opening. The Mexican 2D is a known convention, originally part of the Romex system. This opening shows a big balanced hand, usually 18-19 hcp, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t make that 20-21 or 21-22, or whatever your usual 2NT range is. The extra couple of bids available to responder may not seem like much gain, at first glance, but if you check out Martin Johnson’s ideas at Bobby Knows Bridge (http://www.freewebs.com/bobbybridge/), you can see how to use (in effect) four-suit transfer responses. You actually gain quite a lot of flexibility, responder being able to stop in lower part-scores when he has a bust, and also able to show more below 3NT when he has some distribution. It seems to me that the 2D opening looks much better than 2NT.

So then what do you do with the 2NT opening? Well, Alder pre-empts look good, but the ACBL would have the vapors. Transfer pre-empts are relatively innocuous, but even they are listed as a mid-chart convention. Or you could just go with 2NT showing a minor two-suiter – that actually made it to the General Convention Chart.