You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That a raise to 2♥ has ‘preemptive value’ is not the whole story. By advocating a fit, it invites competition by ‘they a fit, we a fit’. 1NT followed by 2♥, on the other hand, is often based on a doubleton with neither side having a fit and thereby discourages competition.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT: this shows an invitational or better hand with six+ diamonds and three spades. We open all strong (around 18–19) balanced hands with 1♣, which frees 2NT after 1♦.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have never understood why I should be ‘forced to follow the field at matchpoints’ (actually, I believe it is baloney). Nearly the entire field is going to open 1NT, and I believe I am going to outbid the field.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
‘Losers’ in the sense of the Losing Trick Count (LTC) are not a ‘guesstimate’ but are formally defined, namely as the number of top honors (AKQ) partner must have for first, second and third round control in all four suits.
Of course, one may use adjustments (as with any metric for hand evaluation), if only because the LTC equates aces with queens as non-losers.
A raise of one of a major to two shows nine losers at best (if played as constructive, typically exactly nine losers). Therefore, a six-loser opening bid is usually a pass.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained because the meaning and strength of 2NT was not given. Please appreciate that not everyone is familiar with what you may consider ‘standard’.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is like stating that ‘you won't often go wrong with an agreement that 4NT is always ace-asking’, or that ‘doubles are always penalty’. You may not have misunderstandings, but you will often go wrong.
That said, I do play that 3NT bids not falling under agreed generic conventions (mainly Serious NT) are natural.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That 2NT for minors is a good idea only if you have a good way to handle the full range of strong balanced hands is the open door of the day but is no less true. My partnerships include up to 20 balanced in 1♣ (not forcing), 21+ in 2♣ and 2♦ Multi. Other methods abund.
By the way, above circa 20 HCP every additional point has about half the frequency; in other words: 21–23 HCP occurs about half as often and is therefore less of a disadvantage than 20–22 would be.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ‘very easy defense’ is true but in practice does not keep opponents from getting overboard or underboard. They invariably feel compelled to bid a major after our 2NT and do not have or ever get an idea of how high they belong in a major (if at all).
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played 2NT weak minors (5–10 HCP, 5-5+) for years. It does not come up very often – well, a few times a year – but when it does it tends to score points, perhaps more than any other opening bid I know. I have no experience with strong variants in the opening. 2NT is often raised preemptively, which I think would create problems opposite a strong variant.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that surely makes for a ‘split’ poll. Even the option ‘higher from two, lowest from three’, which I added just for completeness sake, got votes.
My partners and I have hitherto played ‘always highest’, which turns out the most popular vote in this poll. I am going to propose we keep it that way, mostly for the sake of simplicity, even though I realize that ‘lower from two, highest from three’, which got votes from many respected players, may be slightly better theoretically.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you do start such a poll, better have voters choose from among classes of systems (like ‘strong club’) rather than individual systems; or else you will get some eighty percent ‘other’.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any signal except count often turns out an ‘ethical minefield’. So does any bid except a response to a relay (such as Stayman). That in itself does not make it ‘accursed’ and should be not an argument against such signals or bids.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Of course, one may use adjustments (as with any metric for hand evaluation), if only because the LTC equates aces with queens as non-losers.
A raise of one of a major to two shows nine losers at best (if played as constructive, typically exactly nine losers). Therefore, a six-loser opening bid is usually a pass.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
That said, I do play that 3NT bids not falling under agreed generic conventions (mainly Serious NT) are natural.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
By the way, above circa 20 HCP every additional point has about half the frequency; in other words: 21–23 HCP occurs about half as often and is therefore less of a disadvantage than 20–22 would be.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
My partners and I have hitherto played ‘always highest’, which turns out the most popular vote in this poll. I am going to propose we keep it that way, mostly for the sake of simplicity, even though I realize that ‘lower from two, highest from three’, which got votes from many respected players, may be slightly better theoretically.
Thanks everyone for your input.
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld