hrothgar, on Mar 12 2004, 10:02 AM, said:
It seems strange that your 2NT response is weaker that an immediate 3D raise.
Is this based on some assumption regarding the relative frequency of the two bids?
Not really. A natural 2NT is not needed, because if you had a balanced hand, no real fit, and enough for 2NT, you can start with REDOUBLE. I mean, that is sort of what the redouble is for (if you are not playing as DrTodd does).
Ok, once a natural 2NT is gone, what do you do with really good raises? You can start with the 2
♣ transfer to 2
♦ and then bid again. If you want to invite, rebid 2NT. If you want to force, bid something else. So in fact, your 2
♣ bid shows a lower limit, but not an upper one when a fit exist.
Thus 2NT as a forcing
♦ raise isn't needed either. Now if you decide to play 2NT as a weakish raise, say to separate really preemptive raise to 3
♦ from mildly preemptive based upon LOTT, which one should be weaker? Some of the time when you raise weakly, you will catch your partner with a very good hand. And if you do, what is the most likely game contract? 3NT. But to make 3NT you will probably have to have the stronger of the two weak raises. If you use 2NT for this bid, in all likelyhood, however, you have wrong-sided the contract, with the opening lead coming through your parnter and up to the strongest opponent hand. In addition, the opening leader (assuming his partner is 4441 distribution), will have a fair idea which is their longest suit on defense, and is likely to get off the the best lead.
So there you go, that is the bridge logic we used to decide to play it this way... little to do with frequency, and more to deal with constructive raises and mildly preemptive versus bold face weak preempts, and right-siding 3NT when it is availlable to be played.
Ben