[plaur]

(1♠) - 2♣ - (pass) - 2♥
(pass) - 2NT

We have agreed to play 2♥ as non-forcing, invitational. What should 2NT mean and why?
Is there any logic to apply here on different bids by overcaller or is it down to agreements?

[TylerE]

2N should be *accepting* the invite but without a heart fit. What 2N is definatly NOT is no points and no fit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2NT is natural, i.e. a stopper and a semibal. hand and showes some add. live,
it would still be NF for us.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[plaur]

I guess the question really is: Is 2NT forcing?

In a teams match i got 13 tricks in 2NT and partner did not agree when I said 2NT was forcing, looking for best game with one spade stop, say Kx, and some tolerance (Hx) for hearts. She said: bid 2♠ if you want to force.

[jdonn]

I agree with your partner. 2NT shows more than a minimum but I don't believe it's forcing.

[aguahombre]

something to discuss, all right. We choose to use 2H as non-forcing but decent inviting.
After 2h: pass, 3c, and 3H are not forcing (3H can be raised to game).

2NT is a good 2m overcall with a stopper and accepting game in NT or hearts (HX, probably). But that is just us. We have discussed it. Other answers about 2NT being forcing or non-forcing are fine, too, if you and your partner agree.

Start with how weak 2H can be, then decide.

[the hog]

I think 2NT should be forcing. Are you really happy to contract for exactly 8 tricks. I agree with the above post.

[jdonn]

I don't get the exactly 8 tricks logic. Perhaps I would rather be in 1NT but if I can't be any more then 2NT is still better than >2NT. Just like if I make some crappy bid and partner later makes a penalty double then I'm probably not happy about it but that's not a very good reason for me to pull it.

[nigel_k]

jdonn, on Feb 2 2010, 01:20 PM, said:

I don't get the exactly 8 tricks logic. Perhaps I would rather be in 1NT but if I can't be any more then 2NT is still better than >2NT. Just like if I make some crappy bid and partner later makes a penalty double then I'm probably not happy about it but that's not a very good reason for me to pull it.

Of course there are many hands where your expectation from playing 2NT is higher than from playing 3NT. But the issue there is whether there are many hands where where your expectation from playing 2NT is higher than from playing either 3NT or 3♣.

I think maybe there aren't that many but I could be wrong. A forcing 2NT will be useful on a lot of hands and if responder wants to stop they can still bid 3♣.

[the hog]

"I don't get the exactly 8 tricks logic."

Well if one of your suits runs then you are more likely to make 9 tricks rather than 8. If your suit doesn't run, you probably won't even make 8 tricks. Hence why contract for exactly 8?

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 1 2010, 09:37 PM, said:

"I don't get the exactly 8 tricks logic."

Well if one of your suits runs then you are more likely to make 9 tricks rather than 8. If your suit doesn't run, you probably won't even make 8 tricks. Hence why contract for exactly 8?

You're repeating the same logic I don't understand, except this time throwing in facts you can't possibly prove to back it up. Unless I have a 9 card suit I didn't see?

[Codo]

There are many partnerships out there, who define 2 NT different, but without an agreement it is natural and non forcing.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Feb 2 2010, 04:11 AM, said:

You're repeating the same logic I don't understand

I think what he is saying is that it is very hard, in general, to predict that 2NT will be an exact make - a lot of the time it is over or under - further it requires very little more to make 3NT. Thus, particularly in an IMP context, where a) stretching to game can pay a dividend and b] there is virtually no difference between +120 for 2NT and, say, +110 for 3m, giving up on 2NT as a possible contract makes sense on a lot of sequences.

Matchpoints are a different kettle of fish, +120 can be a top.

Nick

[hotShot]

I would expect 2NT to be non forcing, good (semi)balanced hand and without a fit.

[jdonn]

NickRW, on Feb 2 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 2 2010, 04:11 AM, said:

You're repeating the same logic I don't understand

I think what he is saying is that it is very hard, in general, to predict that 2NT will be an exact make - a lot of the time it is over or under - further it requires very little more to make 3NT. Thus, particularly in an IMP context, where a) stretching to game can pay a dividend and b] there is virtually no difference between +120 for 2NT and, say, +110 for 3m, giving up on 2NT as a possible contract makes sense on a lot of sequences.

Matchpoints are a different kettle of fish, +120 can be a top.

Nick

Who says every time we make 2NT we make 3 of a minor? From what I can see there is no reason we must even have a fit.

[aguahombre]

Hence, it is a subject for agreement with your partner. Some of us can't thread a needle worth a damn. We just don't have the vision for it. So, with a weak overcall we pass 2H or rebid 3C. And when we extend our meager abilities and stretch to 2NT--and partner bids 3NT on the theory that it isn't making exactly two-- we hope one of three good things happens:

It is cold
We get friendly defense
We, one time, play brilliantly.

So the odds are 3 to one in our favor

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Feb 2 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

we hope one of three good things happens:

It is cold
We get friendly defense
We, one time, play brilliantly.

So the odds are 3 to one in our favor

Um the odds are 3 to 3. It could go down if

It's unmakeable
You get brilliant defense
You play it, um, friendlily

[aguahombre]

yes, josh. attempt at humor

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Feb 2 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

Who says every time we make 2NT we make 3 of a minor? From what I can see there is no reason we must even have a fit.

I didn't suggest that 2N should be forcing on this particular sequence, whether IMPs or otherwise - indeed I am quite open to hearing opinions - I was trying to explain the reasoning - or what I think it is anyway.

Nick

[Old York]

plaur, on Feb 1 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

I guess the question really is: Is 2NT forcing?

In a teams match i got 13 tricks in 2NT  and partner did not agree when I said 2NT was forcing, looking for best game with one spade  stop, say Kx, and some tolerance (Hx) for hearts. She said: bid 2♠ if you want to force.

I guess the real question should be: Is your 2♣ overcall limited?

Your 2♣ bid seemed to hide a great deal of extra strength.

It is normal to play a 2 level overcall as 10-15hcp. Double or bid No-trump with a stronger hand (unless playing strong jump overcalls etc).
An immediate 3NT shows a long, solid minor with a stopper in the enemy suit (Gambling 3NT Overcall)
With this agreement, your partner's 2♥ bid is non-forcing but constructive, showing 8-14hcp. This way, your 2NT rebid is non-forcing and shows about 12-15hcp.
If your partner has a strong hand, she should bid the enemy suit, jump shift or bid no-trump at the appropriate level

If you need to create a Game Force, it is normal to double first and then bid the enemy suit.

Tony