[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Feb 14 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

What's the functional difference between 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♠-2NT/3♣ and 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♦-3♥?  Simply the desire to maintain 2NT as a viable contract?

2NT is "used" as G/B with a fit often.  Consider, for example, a Jordan 2NT, or 2NT in a competitive auction by Advancer.  Sure, these set trumps where trumps has not yet been set, but the situation seems similar.

Is this a rule that just has been taught by oral tradition, the justification for which no one remembers, or is there a sound reason?

So, ignoring the question of terminology, you're suggesting using 2NT as an artificial game try, with 3C just competitive (or vice versa)? And your argument is that since you have only one game try available below 3C, you should use it as a generic game try rather than a descriptive one?

Here are some good reasons for playing 2NT as a natural game try:
- It's more likely that you can make 3NT than 5C.
- If opener is considering bidding 5C, he's probably happy to play in 4C, so can make a natural game try at the three level.
- If you're going to play 5C, side suit fits will usually be important, so opener will usually also want to make a natural game try at the three level.

I don't think that being able to play in 2NT is relevant. If the weak hand doesn't want to play in game it should return to 3C, where its small clubs will be useful as entries and controls.

[kenrexford]

I'm not advocating any specific meaning to 2NT. I'm just asking.

My thoughts on the issue, however, are that 2NT as natural seems somewhat strange with a spade bid-and-raise, as opposed to the utility of either a power 2NT or a power 3♣ to invite bigger and better things (probably a Power 2NT, 3♣ as weak, to allow Opener more flexibility). It seems that this approach allows the partnership to still find 3NT, as a Power 2NT would not say, "I have values, but I want to strangely rule out 3NT as a viable contract." That would be weird.

The downside is inability to stop on a dime at 2NT. That loss does not seem substantial, frankly.

[gnasher]

Whatever your strong bid shows, it seems obvious to use 2NT as the stronger bid, so as to ensure that 3NT is played from the right hand if that's where you end up.

If what you're suggesting is that a "power" 2NT bid says "bid 3C if you're minimum; otherwise bid 3NT unless you have something unusual to show in a side suit", it doesn't seem very far from what I would call a "natural" 2NT, though I suppose it's possible that the bidding would continue 2NT-3NT-5C.

If you're suggesting that with a non-minimum responder should routinely describe some feature of his hand, I can see that it might help on some hands, but I don't particularly like the idea of being forced to give the opponents information that may help them with the lead. With a hand such as the one that started this thread, or something similar but a bit stronger, opener will probably still prefer to investigate by making a natural game try at the three level.

[dake50]

2NT --just enough S-stop to expect opening leader tries to find RHO entry to lead S thru.
Besides, their 4S is on. Confusion wins.

[brianshark]

To answer the subsequent question, I don't think after 3♣ I can bid more. I would be extremely uncomfortable selling out, but I think I'd have to. My second choice of bid, if I feel I'm worth pushing to the 4-level, is 3♥. It's a mild overbid (someone mentioned the lack of A/K as a detracting factor - I agree) but at least if it is a double fit deal (as it turned out to be) then partner can know whether to defend or compete and I'll feel my hand is shown then and I can leave partner to make the call. I dislike 4♣ because that is a blind call and doesn't help our partnership tell if it's a double fit deal or a misfit deal. But it, at least, doesn't promise the extras that I don't think this hand has.

So a conservative 3♣ just ahead of an aggressive but descriptive 3♥ call in turn ahead of a right-on-values but otherwise undescriptive 4♣ call.