[Flame]

1M-2X-2NT like 1S-2C-2NT
I think when invented sayc they ment this to show 15-17 bal and therefore made this bid forcing yet i teach my students to open 1NT with 5 card majors.
"naturally" this 2NT become 12-14. This 12-14 is a bad range over sayc 2/1 since responder will be guessing if we have game with his most freqent hands.
We have a paralel way to get to NT, opener rebid his major and respoder bidding 2NT to show 10-11(12) hcp, now opener can pass or bid 3NT.
The benefit of bidding 2NT directly instead of this 2M-2NT is playing the hand from opener's side when its right.
We could narrow down the range or change the meaning completly.
What do you think is the best use for this 2NT. (and should it be forcing ?)

[david_c]

1M : 2x , 2NT = single-suited hand (6+ M), better than minimum (forcing to game)

This is probably the best convention that nobody plays It fits very neatly into a SAYC-like system (though you can also play it in 2/1), giving you a way to show a type of hand which is very difficult to describe otherwise. Continuations are completely natural; this is one of the easiest conventions to add to your system, requiring very little further discussion after the basic definition.

If your style is to open 1NT with a 5-card major frequently, I couldn't recommend this convention more highly.

[helene_t]

This is a murky spot in SAYC. It is forcing, but at the same time defined as a minimal ballanced hand and therefore logically can't be forcing.

I like David's idea.

[Codo]

I like davids idea too and I really hate the 12-14 balanced sh...
I play it as balanced gf in any system, so mostly 15+ or 18+ if 3 NT is defined as 15-17 with 5332.
(Okay I don´t play 5 card majors in a strong NT opener, in that case 2 NTshould be defined different. F.E: in davids way)

[Flame]

david_c, on Oct 12 2006, 06:38 AM, said:

1M : 2x , 2NT = single-suited hand (6+ M), better than minimum (forcing to game)

This is probably the best convention that nobody plays It fits very neatly into a SAYC-like system (though you can also play it in 2/1), giving you a way to show a type of hand which is very difficult to describe otherwise. Continuations are completely natural; this is one of the easiest conventions to add to your system, requiring very little further discussion after the basic definition.

If your style is to open 1NT with a 5-card major frequently, I couldn't recommend this convention more highly.

Sounds interesting, can you define it more precisly, i mean after 1S-2C and i have a 6 cards spade suit, when will my bid be 2NT when 2S and when 3S ?

[david_c]

Flame, on Oct 12 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

david_c, on Oct 12 2006, 06:38 AM, said:

1M : 2x , 2NT = single-suited hand (6+ M), better than minimum (forcing to game)

Sounds interesting, can you define it more precisly, i mean after 1S-2C and i have a 6 cards spade suit, when will my bid be 2NT when 2S and when 3S ?

The difference between 2♠ and 2NT would be mainly a matter of strength. If you have enough to force to game opposite a 2-level response then rebid 2NT; if not, then rebid 2♠. A borderline hand would normally bid 2♠: you can always bid game later, and you want to keep 2NT up to strength to help with your slam bidding.

Basically this 2NT convention is a replacement for the 3♠ rebid in SAYC. However 2NT does not promise a good suit: any six-carder will do. Of course the advantage compared to rebidding 3♠ is that you have so much more space. For example, after 1♠:2♦,3♠ is a 4♣ bid now natural, or is it a cue for spades? After 1♠:2♦,2NT it's so much easier: if you want to set spades as trumps and start cue-bidding you would bid 3♠ now, so 3♣ is natural and 4♣ would probably be a splinter.

1M : 2x , 3M would be defined as something more specific: for example you could play this as showing a solid suit.

[Flame]

Thanks
Do you think with this 2NT its might be better to play 2M as non forcing now ?

[MickyB]

I agree that 2NT as 12-14 is *awful*. With one (relatively inexperienced, Acol-bred) partner I play a 2NT rebid as 15-19 GF (edit: and 3NT as NF, 4 card support, extras, that can't/doesn't wish to splinter) this is better IMO, but I'd rather play 2NT as a GF single suiter as David is advocating.

The first decision is whether to play Acol style or SAYC style 2/1s. Acol 2/1s are forcing only to two of opener's suit, so a 2♠ rebid and a 3♣ raise are both NF; SAYC 2/1s promise a rebid, so 1♠:2♣, 3♣ is GF showing some extras and 1♠:2♣, 2♠ is F1R and could be a min with 4 card ♣ support.

With David, I played Acol style 2/1s, and we were forced to open 1NT on any 5332 in the 15-17 range.

- 2NT shows a GF single suiter. If either hand bids 3♠, that sets trumps.

- One step above responder's suit (so 3♦ in this case) is a GF raise.

- Opener jump-rebidding his own suit shows a splinter in the "lost" suit, so diamonds in this case.

- 3NT shows 18-19 balanced, now 4♣ is enquiring how suitable opener is for slam in responder's suit.

If you want to play that a 2/1 promises a rebid, then you obviously have more options.

[david_c]

Flame, on Oct 12 2006, 03:13 PM, said:

Do you think with this 2NT its might be better to play 2M as non forcing now ?

That is definitely playable.

If you make the 2M rebid non-forcing then that gives you some problems on particular types of hands: mainly minimum hands with support, and balanced hands which are good enough to force to game but unsuitable for a 1NT opening. As you can see from Mike's post, when we played 2M as non-forcing we played a lot of unusual system to try to get around this. That might not be to your taste. Playing 2M as forcing also has the advantage that opener does not need to commit himself to a GF immediately with a borderline-GF hand.

On the other hand, playing 2M as non-forcing leads to a lot of very nice 2M contracts when the field is getting too high. And it makes life easy for responder when holding a hand of about 10 HCP with a doubleton in opener's major: these hands are really tough in other systems.

[Flame]

nice might try it in a new partnership one day.

[MickyB]

Flame, on Oct 12 2006, 06:55 PM, said:

MickyB, on Oct 12 2006, 09:24 AM, said:

- One step above responder's suit (so 3♦ in this case) is a GF raise.

- Opener jump-rebidding his own suit shows a splinter in the "lost" suit, so diamonds in this case.

1♥-2♦-3♥ is ?

GF raise

[Elianna]

Both 2M and 2NT rebids by opener are forcing in SAYC, because responder PROMISED a rebid by making that 2-level call.

[Flame]

Elianna, on Oct 12 2006, 01:16 PM, said:

Both 2M and 2NT rebids by opener are forcing in SAYC, because responder PROMISED a rebid by making that 2-level call.

I know but we didnt promiss to play exactly syac

[awm]

Of course in SAYC the 2NT bid is forcing. I would play it as showing extras. In fact it's nice to be able to bid this with the 18-19 balanced hand (which always opens 1M) to preserve space to explore. I also think one of the advantages of natural bidding is the choice of opening 1M or 1NT with a 5332 hand in range. I wouldn't want to force myself to always open 1NT, so the 2NT rebid can cover these hands too. A 2NT call is also useful after for example 1♠-2♥ when you have a 51(34)-ish game force pattern and don't want to introduce a mediocre four card suit at the three-level.

As for using 2NT to show a six-card suit, there are certainly advantages to this. But the big disadvantage is that it often wrong-sides a 3NT contract.

[MickyB]

awm, on Oct 12 2006, 08:32 PM, said:

As for using 2NT to show a six-card suit, there are certainly advantages to this. But the big disadvantage is that it often wrong-sides a 3NT contract.

I'm not convinced this is true.

You are reasonably likely to land up in 4M; When you do not, the contract will frequently be right-sided because the 2NT bidder is likely to have doubleton honours that will appreciate being led up to.

[awm]

I've actually played the 2NT rebid showing 6-card suit substantially in the context of a strong club or diamond system, and have noticed some serious wrong-sideing issues. The problem is that the long suit hand is also likely to have a singleton or small doubleton, and that this is a suit partner needs to guard.

In general the most important time to right-side the 3NT is when one hand has shortness in a suit and the other hand has some high cards there but not extreme length. If you're not playing in 4M, the responder hand normally has shortness in the major (opposite opener's extreme length). So if there's one of these "problem suits" it's almost inevitably opener who has the shortness and responder who has the high cards but not great length.

[keylime]

I play 1M-2C-2NT as the 18-19 balanced hand. Thusly I rebid 2M with any minimum hand.

[mr1303]

Since we're talking about 1 of a major openings (and not 1♦) how about this:

With a hand that would decline a game invitation, rebid your major. Then if partner bids 2NT (natural and invitational), or raises your suit, or rebids his suit (which I believe are all invitational in SAYC) you can pass.

If you would accept partner's invitation (with a good 13-14 or so), you can bid 2NT natural and forcing.

This seems a bit more straight forward than David's good 6 card major rebid, sound though it is.