BBO Discussion Forums: 2NT ask in response to a weak 2 - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2NT ask in response to a weak 2

#41 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,163
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-March-08, 07:21

View PostFrancesHinden, on 2012-March-08, 05:52, said:

Oh I see. Yes that might work, it makes more sense to show doubt about one suit, than to show doubt about two.

but you can't really play 2S-3H-3S-3NT as cog. Well, you can, but not if opener has already bid 4S over 3H.


Well, 3 is then either a good raise or a choice of game hand. If Opener wants to goto game opposite an invitational raise but prefers 3NT then they have to bid it. Responder would then have to take it out if they were never interested in 3NT. As with the 3NT rebid after the other transfers, if 3NT from Opener over 3 is too important to use in this way then the whole thing falls apart.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#42 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-March-09, 13:50

View PostTMorris, on 2012-March-05, 08:57, said:

In response to a weak 2 I currently play Ogust. I see people playing 2NT as - asks for a feature if you are not a minimum. I am trying to find out if there is a clear consensus as to which is better and why. I can see the advantages of both but am not convinced as yet that I should change. Does anyone have any views?

If it makes a difference I play a weak NT and a weak 2 range of 5-9.


There is a heck of a lot of responses to this thread with very little actually addressing the question in the OP. The OP wants to know which is better and why?
1. OGUST, or
2. Feature Showing

The OP correctly states that both have their merits. The question not adequately answered yet is, “which is better?”

Your weak 2 range barely cuts the grade for using either of the 2 asking methods above. Many play a weak 2 in the 5-11 HCP range. A minimum response shows 5-8 HCP and a maximum response show 9-11 HCP. When partner makes the 2NT asking bid, he is showing around 15 HCP and a fit with the suit opened. More helpful input here would be this, “what is regarded as a fit?” Is 2-card support enough, or do the experts recommend 3-card support?

Partners request is simple: If you have 9-11 opposite his 15 HCP, game is on. If you are minimum, a 3-level signoff is required. With a minimum, you simply return to 3 of the weak 2 suit when playing “Feature Showing.”

So to answer what you actually asked, here is my take on the 2 options available:
OGUST
1. Ogust has this advantage: It does not give information away to the opponents as to where your other HCP are located if you are max (9-11 HCP). This can be both positive and negative (see Feature Showing below).
FEATURE SHOWING
2. Feature Showing has this disadvantage: If you have a max and bid a side suit King, LHO has a cue-bid double demanding his partner lead the suit through you should his partner get the lead at any stage. The doubler is advertising the AQ sitting behind your King.
3. But the double of your side suit King can also be advantageous. Your partner has been alerted to a bad layout in the suit and 2 sure losers. Seeing a poor fit with the rest of his hand, he can signoff in 3 of the weak 2 suit.
4. The advantage of a Feature Showing bid is obvious: Partner can decide whether the feature you have shown fits in with the rest of his hand. It assists partner to signoff in 3 or to bid game.

Which is better?
In the end it will come down to personal choice. My personal choice is Feature Showing because of point 4 above.
1

#43 User is offline   Statto 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 636
  • Joined: 2011-December-01
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, but not in conflation.
    Statistics, but not massaged by the media.

Posted 2012-March-09, 23:04

View Post32519, on 2012-March-09, 13:50, said:

There is a heck of a lot of responses to this thread with very little actually addressing the question in the OP. The OP wants to know which is better and why?
...
Which is better?
In the end it will come down to personal choice. My personal choice is Feature Showing because of point 4 above.

Most of the posts addressed the question. It's not a matter of personal choice, but of style, that being the style of your opening weak 2 bids, which may depend a lot on vulnerability...
A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem – Albert Einstein
2

#44 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,682
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2012-March-10, 11:02

Strength range (ie weak/strong) AND feature/shortage are both important, and as the suggestions show, you can combine them. However, maybe if you have to choose between feature or shortage (singleton or void) then it is more useful to show a shortage. In a weak hand there is never going to be a feature with significant strength, and responder if slam seeking can always use a specific asking bid to see if there is an ace or king in a particular suit, before going above game. Conversely, in a hand with a long suit there is quite often a shortage, and knowledge of it can make a significant impact on a game or slam decision. It could be a 30 point pack. So shortage is more useful.

If you have a weak 2 that may be 5 or 6 cards, then it is more important to show which of those than it is to show a shortage. Ideally you want to show (a) 5 or 6 (b) weak or strong © shortage or not. That is 8 options, and to identify the shortage suit it is 16 options. Naturally you can't do everything lower than game ...

However, if you accept that responder will not make the 2NT asking bid over 2S unless he is going to be in game opposite a strong 6, then it is possible to safely identify (a) 5 or 6, and (b) weak or strong, and © identified shortage when it is a 6 card suit. By "safely", I mean stop at the 3 level if one of these is the wrong one. You can do this with the first 4 step replies, and still keep a 3NT response as AKQxxx.

So show both strength and shortage.
0

#45 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,806
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-March-10, 19:38

Over 2M:

New suit: natural, forcing (except 3)
2NT: Asks for hand strength and suit quality (i.e., Ogust responses)
3: asks for a side shortage
jump in a new suit: Control Asking Bid (CAB) in that suit
jumps to game in a new suit: to play (except that 4 over 2 is a CAB).

See Andersen and Zenkel, Preempts From A to Z.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#46 User is offline   fromageGB 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,682
  • Joined: 2008-April-06

Posted 2012-March-11, 04:58

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-March-10, 19:38, said:

Over 2M: ...

I don't see what this gives you that
2NT(or maybe 2M+1) = asks about hand strength and quality AS WELL AS showing a shortage
3 any (including clubs) = natural forcing
doesn't.
After finding about a shortage/strength/etc., you can then bid an asking bid in a particular suit. Do all three, not just one.
After a natural forcing bid you can even bid game, too. Even in hearts.

Simplicity it gives you, but at a cost.
0

#47 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,806
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-March-11, 06:35

<shrug> Everything has a cost. :P
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#48 User is offline   mr1303 

  • Admirer of Walter the Walrus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,269
  • Joined: 2003-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bristol, UK
  • Interests:Bridge, surfing, water skiing, cricket, golf. Generally being outside really.

Posted 2012-March-12, 18:02

Just a quick question, how often does new suit natural and forcing come up usefully?

The last time I used it, I held:

AQ10xxx
Qx
AKJxx
void

after partner opened 3C, vulnerable against not. I tried 3S (natural and forcing) which caught a raise to a no-play game. Partner had AQJxxxx in her club suit as well as a small doubleton spade.

Natural and encouraging but not forcing seems a lot more useful than natural and forcing to me.
0

#49 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,684
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2012-March-12, 18:30

Being able to correct the strain after CHO has opened 3m has not proved very useful; natural and forcing has worked well on a few occasions.

Natural and forcing is used by us with more strength or more "outs" than the example above.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
1

#50 User is online   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,463
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-March-13, 02:20

View PostfromageGB, on 2012-March-11, 04:58, said:

I don't see what this gives you that
2NT(or maybe 2M+1) = asks about hand strength and quality AS WELL AS showing a shortage
3 any (including clubs) = natural forcing
doesn't.

It gives you a way to reach the right contract with less information leakage. On most hands where you're considering game opposite a weak two, you don't need much information.
A poster: How would you continue?
JAllerton: I continue by inspecting the vulnerability and form of scoring. Then I remind myself of what methods I am playing.
0

#51 User is offline   antonylee 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 276
  • Joined: 2011-January-19
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-02, 02:26

View PostZelandakh, on 2012-March-06, 03:07, said:

In fact any response structure works that includes 3 hand types in 3 and 2 in 3 so long as you are careful with which hands have to be shown with 3NT. It is just a matter of deciding which hand types you might want to hide after a 3m response. For this purpose I think the negative responses (minimum or no feature) are best suited). Obviously you could substitute "shortage" for "feature" here if desired although in that case the immediate 3NT response really needs to be the "max without shortage" hand.

I just noticed that actually you can also include 2 hand types in 3 (e.g. hearts, min and hearts, max), as long as 3 can be used as a NF ask over the two meanings. So a scheme such as
2-2N!...
3: or non-solid max (3: ask => 3, 3= min, max; 3N=non-solid max; 3: ask "please bid 3N only with max and signoff otherwise")
3, : nat (next step=strength ask)
3: min no feature
3N: solid
allows to show both a side feature (or shortness, it doesn't matter) and strength, always below 3NT in the necessary cases.
1

#52 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,513
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-May-03, 10:01

View Postantonylee, on 2012-May-02, 02:26, said:

I just noticed that actually you can also include 2 hand types in 3 (e.g. hearts, min and hearts, max), as long as 3 can be used as a NF ask over the two meanings.


This doesn't allow you to mix up the 2NT response though; I think it is important to be able to do that once in a while.
London, England
0

#53 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,336
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2012-May-03, 13:58

I have usually pinpointed (or denied) shortages in response to the enquiry. At the risk of repetition of some of the points already mentioned

1) It helps partner to evaluate wastage or lack of wastage of values, for both borderline game and slam potential

2) It helps stear partner into 3NT on some hands where there is an 8 card fit in the weak 2, or away from 3NT where the hand is not fitting so well but suit wide open.

3) I have even had occasion where it has steared us into a difference suit strain than opener's weak 2, where as responder I am confident that opener does NOT have a shortage opposite my long suit.

It is also sensible to include more hand types in the cheaper rebids than in the more expensive ones.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
0

#54 User is offline   32519 

  • Insane 2-Diamond Bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,454
  • Joined: 2010-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mpumalanga, South Africa
  • Interests:Books, bridge, philately

Posted 2012-December-03, 08:05

View PostFrancesHinden, on 2012-March-08, 03:55, said:

No-one has yet (I think) mentioned the alternative approach which is for responder to show, rather than ask. In one partnership we play transfers, and I know we aren't the only people who do this because it's been independently suggested on BBF more than once.

2 -

2NT = clubs. Opener must complete.
3 = diamonds. Opener must complete.
3 = hearts. Opener must complete.
3 = balanced high card limit raise, Opener can choose what to bid.
3 = pre-emptive raise
3NT = to play
4 = keycard ask
4 = fit bid
4 = to play

The idea of the transfers is that responder can transfer to his suit and then bid 3 to show a raise with a 'long suit trial bid' in the suit shown, and opener evaluates based on that information.
Of course, the big advantage is that responder can show his own suit(s) - can sign off, or can show a 2-suiter. This is more useful playing an undisciplined style of weak two.

How would this structure work over a Weak 2 bid? Or is it just limited to the majors? What do you do with a good hand but no fit in the suit?
0

#55 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,936
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2012-December-03, 08:34

View PostStatto, on 2012-March-05, 18:24, said:

I don't see how this (adding the 10 to AKQ) helps. It comes up rare enough as it is. The main point is to find 3NT when responder has 3 tricks in hand and stops in every suit. If responder has a smallish doubleton, by the time they've discovered the suit breaks 4-1 onside it's too late anyway.


It helps change the odds significantly opposite stiff or stiff J.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users