[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     1♣    2NT   Pass
 3♠    4♥    Pass  5♣
 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass
 

hi a kibber told me my hand was not suitable for unusual 2nt, can someone tell me why please?

[the hog]

Simple answer Wayne, your H suit is too tatty. Incidentally, what on earth was your partner thinking when (s)he bid 3S?

[helene_t]

Your 2NT bid would be considered normal here in the Netherlands and my impression is that English bridge players are even more liberal that the Dutch. Note that if your suits had been reversed you should have bid 1♥ (or 2♥). Therefore, 2NT implies that the diamonds tend to be at least as good as the hearts.

There is a (growing, I think) school of thought according to which 2NT should be strictly constructive, since if you end up defending, the information that you're 5-5 will be more valuable to the declarer than to partner.

So it may be good advice not to bid 2NT with such weak hands, especially if the opps have good agreements about defense against the convention.

[Gerben42]

Agree with helene. I would have bid 2NT myself showing either a weak or a strong hand as I play it (this being the weak variation).

3♠ is from another planet. 3♦ is obvious!

[whereagles]

I would have bid 1♦. With some remorse, I should add... lol.

[bearmum]

sceptic, on Jul 6 2005, 06:52 PM, said:

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AK83 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AKJ3 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 6 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> A985 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> QJT4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Q5 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> J93 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Q763 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 5 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> T9874 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AKQ82 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> T2 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 9762 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 62 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> T754 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KJ4 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

West  North East  South

 -     1♣    2NT   Pass
 3♠    4♥    Pass  5♣
 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass
 

hi a kibber told me my hand was not suitable for unusual 2nt, can someone tell me why please?

I personally think that in THIS case your hearts are a little weak for the 2NT overcall ( points ok but I prefer to have more or less equal strength -- just MY opinion ) So I would overcall 2♦ (I mean 1♦)

Having said that I think your partner either
1. was away with the fairies bidding 3♠
2. More likely misclicked and really meant to bid 3♦

This post has been edited by bearmum: 2005-July-06, 18:02

[Winstonm]

Quote

There is a (growing, I think) school of thought according to which 2NT should be strictly constructive, since if you end up defending, the information that you're 5-5 will be more valuable to the declarer than to partner.

I find this interesting as years and years ago after having declarer after declarer play the hand double dummy after my 2-suited bids that it was dumb to give up all this information freely - so I adopted this method: with a weak hand, it must be extremely sacrifice oriented, much more likely to be 6/5 than 5/5 and with absolutely zero defense; otherwise, the bid shows a fairly strong hand as it allows me to in both my suits in 1 bid. The only thing it doesn't show is an in between hand. With those, if I feel the need to get involved, I do so with a simple overcall and later bid my other suit if the auction warrants further action.

A bid I'm toying with now is Sandwich NT - another useless bid IMO that usually only helps declarer's play. I'm considering that a 1N bid should be a natural overcall in responder's suit. That would allow the following meanings: 2 of opener's minor=natural. 1N=natural in responder's suit. 2 of responder's suit as Michael's.

The nice thing about this is that I wont' be able to use the two worst meanings: Sandwich and natural.

WinstonM

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2NT is ok.

I would bid 2 NT also in case diamond and
hearts are reversed.
Not perfect, and maybe misleading in case
partner is on lead, but it kills space, which is
my main purpose, if I bid 2 NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Double !]

Of all the conventions that IMO a person could do very nicely without, it's the UNT. It usually creates partnership confusion, it helps the opps with the play of the hand, with the advent of numerous versions of U/U, more and more players can field it better, and I have seen more zeros and poor results because people have adulterated the convention almost as often as blackwood, and it is just great to make the UNT bid only to find that the hand is a misfit.

Please don't tell al roth that I wrote this.

[Gerben42]

what is confusing about the UNT if played "weak or strong". Either you want a sacrifice or say "partner I want to have a shot at game here even if your hand is not great". It's playing the middle hands that make you both guess. Like it or not, 1x (2NT) still takes away a lot of room, even if it also takes away 2 suits.

[luke warm]

yet another tip from one of klinger's book, attributed to a friend of his... use the 'rule of 15' for UNT and michael's... add cards in two suits to honors in the 2 suits.. here, 10 + 3... if total is 15, bid it.. the 10 counts as an honor only when another honor is present in the suit

[the hog]

Interesting posts all. I would argue that anyone who bids 2NT on this has a lot to learn about the game.

[inquiry]

Well, 2NT is not that bad, despite what Ron says.

I however, would ovrecall 1NT (polish/raptor) showing 5+diamonds and one of the majors (generally a four card suit). After all, this heart suit DOES look like a four card one.

[keylime]

I overcall cheaply. 2NT isn't right at all, far too destructive here.

[Double !]

Gerben42, on Jul 7 2005, 04:10 AM, said:

what is confusing about the UNT if played "weak or strong". Either you want a sacrifice or say "partner I want to have a shot at game here even if your hand is not great". It's playing the middle hands that make you both guess. Like it or not, 1x (2NT) still takes away a lot of room, even if it also takes away 2 suits.

what is so confusing, you ask?

examine the posts that followed your post. differing opinions about what does and does not an UNT make.

partnerships needs some discussion about what does and does not qualify as an UNT hand, and the responses to be made by advancer (responder). (Weak/strong does not fully clarify whether or not a hand is appropriate for the use of the convention.) My point is, that until a partnership has discussed these issues, i have seen more poor than good scores result from the use of the "convention". And I love to receive +200 or +300 on a misfit partscore hand.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Jul 6 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

with a weak hand, it must be extremely sacrifice oriented, much more likely to be 6/5 than 5/5 and with absolutely zero defense; otherwise, the bid shows a fairly strong hand as it allows me to in both my suits in 1 bid.

I wonder how this can be helpful to partner. Would you show the strong variant by means of an action double later? Or would you show the weak sacrifice-oriented hand by taking out partner's penalty double? In the latter case, it might be better to overcall at a higher level (4NT against a major suit opening. Against a minor suit opening, you could agree to overcall 4 of opponents minor).

[mr1303]

The usual rule is to bid as far as you want to opposite the weak hand, and if partner has the Rock of Gibraltar then he bids again.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Jul 8 2005, 07:07 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 6 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

with a weak hand, it must be extremely sacrifice oriented, much more likely to be 6/5 than 5/5 and with absolutely zero defense; otherwise, the bid shows a fairly strong hand as it allows me to in both my suits in 1 bid.

I wonder how this can be helpful to partner. Would you show the strong variant by means of an action double later? Or would you show the weak sacrifice-oriented hand by taking out partner's penalty double? In the latter case, it might be better to overcall at a higher level (4NT against a major suit opening. Against a minor suit opening, you could agree to overcall 4 of opponents minor).

The main point of this treatment is to eliminate guesswork; partner will assume a weak hand unless told otherwise. If I had a big hand and partner passes, I would then compete again either with a double or a futher NT call, cue bid, etc, whichever is most descrptive of my hand. The main difficulty I have found is when these 2-suited bids are made on middling hands, then partner has great difficulty in determining correct action. Just my thoughts and experience, for what it's worth.

WinstonM

[Gerben42]

Quote

partnerships needs some discussion about what does and does not qualify as an UNT hand, and the responses to be made by advancer (responder). (Weak/strong does not fully clarify whether or not a hand is appropriate for the use of the convention.) My point is, that until a partnership has discussed these issues, i have seen more poor than good scores result from the use of the "convention". And I love to receive +200 or +300 on a misfit partscore hand.

Guess what: Everything you said here is true for every agreement you make in your partnership, and it's especially important for high-level bids. For example your partnership may want to take up the "preemptive 3♣" convention, in which a 3♣ opening bid shows a weak hand with a long club suit. But as long as you have not discussed what hands to actually use it on, you are going to get a lot of bad scores if you didn't automatically have a similar idea about what constitutes a 3♣ opening bid.

A typical bad score will be produced as follows:

3♣ pass pass pass (some game is cold)
3♣ pass 3NT pass pass pass (3NT is hopeless)
3♣ dbl 5♣ dbl pass pass pass (way too many down)

the list goes on and on...

[the hog]

The reason I made my last post is that I have spent a LOT of time discussing 2 suited overcalls with all my partners. We have got a very large number of good results from pairs who use 2 suited bids indiscriminently.

For what its worth, an analysis of our results over a period of at least 12 months showed the following:

1) It is a good idea to play specific 2 suited bids - hence we play modified Ghestem, and NO we don't forget it!

2) 2 suited overcalls are best played as either a hand that will genuinely win the contract or a hand that highly wants to encourage a sacrifice. Hence whether you use a 2SO depends on your hand type, the vul, and also what suit the opps opened. eg If pd is a passed hand and the opps open 1S, it is idiocy to bid 2NT on a weak 5/5 minors.

You are giving away far too much information. If opps get to a slam, they are likely to play the trump suit right.
This happened last Wed when an international in my seat at the other table opened 2NT in first seat nv on x x Kxxxx JT9xxx. Our pds bid to slam and made it by playing the Spades correctly. I passed throughout and our opps went 1 off by playing for S to be 2-2.

3) Whatever, the suit quality of both suits should be reasonable, hence the posted hand is a poor example of a 2SO in my opinion.