[beatrix45]

Neither side vul. Partner deals and opens one ♦. Your RHO passes. Your call with:

---

[Vampyr]

Is 2NT in this system natural and invitational, or is it some sort of raise?

Edit: sorry, I think that this is what the OP was wondering, and I cannot say for certain as I have not read the system notes.

[chasetb]

According to this write-up from 10 years ago (the system hasn't changed since then), 1m - 2NT is INV 10-12. In Bridge Base Basic (essentially SAYC), 1m - 2NT is GF bal. 13-15 HCP.

Here's a FD card that covers everything in Bridge Base - Advanced as well.

[mgoetze]

chasetb, on 2015-February-05, 00:11, said:

According to this write-up from 10 years ago (the system hasn't changed since then), 1m - 2NT is INV 10-12. In Bridge Base Basic (essentially SAYC), 1m - 2NT is GF bal. 13-15 HCP.

Here's a FD card that covers everything in Bridge Base - Advanced as well.

I don't think anyone plays BB - Advanced anymore. "BBO 2/1" probably means "GIB 2/1".

[Vampyr]

chasetb, on 2015-February-05, 00:11, said:

In Bridge Base Basic (essentially SAYC), 1m - 2NT is GF bal. 13-15 HCP.

Wow when and where was that standard?

[PhilKing]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-05, 02:29, said:

Wow when and where was that standard?

In the USA since the 1930's. It is part of Culbertson and Goren (which became Standard American). The European style of playing it as limit only made started to make inroads from the late fifties. Even BWS did not adopt the invitational treatment till at least the late 80's.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would go with 2NT, as long as it is inv.
But if I am not 100% sure, I would downgrade the hand, or if you are in the downgrading business
at all, treating this hand as 10HCP should work out reasonable well most of the time.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[NickRW]

P_Marlowe, on 2015-February-05, 04:43, said:

Hi,

I would go with 2NT, as long as it is inv.
But if I am not 100% sure, I would downgrade the hand, or if you are in the downgrading business
at all, treating this hand as 10HCP should work out reasonable well most of the time.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Meh. Well, treating it as a 10 may well work out, but, if I was being water tortured to call this 10 or 12, I'd be closer to the latter.

[Vampyr]

PhilKing, on 2015-February-05, 04:05, said:

In the USA since the 1930's. It is part of Culbertson and Goren (which became Standard American). The European style of playing it as limit only made started to make inroads from the late fifties. Even BWS did not adopt the invitational treatment till at least the late 80's.

Right. Then probably that was what I played when I was young. After all, I played that 1M-3M was GF. It wasn't until the late 80s that I began playing duplicate bridge, and of course I knew that I was way behind the times, so I suppose that I assumed that everything I was learning was always so. Not literally always, but you know.

[Bbradley62]

I learn 1m-2N as invitational in the 1970s, along the lines of "bid what you can make".

[Bbradley62]

There are stock convention cards on BBO called "GIB 2/1", "BBO Advanced 1.3", and "BBO Advanced (2.1 GF)"; all three indicate that 1m-2N is invitational.

There are three stock convention cards that purport to be variations of SAYC (which should be a contradiction in terms), and those three give conflicting answers for this auction.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-05, 15:32, said:

I learn 1m-2N as invitational in the 1970s, along the lines of "bid what you can make".

This is what I thought learned in the 1970s too, but Phil King's comment planted doubt in my mind, so I am not sure. My system was definitely based on my old Goren's Bridge Complete

[PhilKing]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-05, 17:18, said:

This is what I thought learned in the 1970s too, but Phil King's comment planted doubt in my mind, so I am not sure. My system was definitely based on my old Goren's Bridge Complete

http://www.bridgeguy...dingSystem.html

I don't like quoting an indirect source, but these guys seem to have read the books concerned.

[neilkaz]

In typical American 2/1 where 2♣ is GF this is a WTP 2NT bid.

[Vampyr]

neilkaz, on 2015-February-05, 19:58, said:

In typical American 2/1 where 2♣ is GF this is a WTP 2NT bid.

Yes, it is textbook; I think the OP was just wondering whether natural 2NT was available.

Or is going to come back and tell us all why a lead-inhibiting heart bid is obvious.

[rhm]

neilkaz, on 2015-February-05, 19:58, said:

In typical American 2/1 where 2♣ is GF this is a WTP 2NT bid.

I can easily see 3NT making from partner's side and being chance-less from ours.
In a nutshell I want to reach contracts with a high success rate, not describe my HCP.
Bidding systems may describe meaning of bids, but they are no substitute for judgment

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

rhm, on 2015-February-06, 02:39, said:

I can easily see 3NT making from partner's side and being chance-less from ours.
In a nutshell I want to reach contracts with a high success rate, not describe my HCP.
Bidding systems may describe meaning of bids, but they are no substitute for judgment

So what do you bid - some number of diamonds depending on whether inverted raises are being played?

[rhm]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-06, 03:04, said:

So what do you bid - some number of diamonds depending on whether inverted raises are being played?

Yes, given the deficiency of the system (I presume 1♦-2♣ being game forcing and 1♦-3♣ showing long clubs invitational) I would bid 2♦, assuming inverted is standard nowadays. I know this is not ideal.
If you can not get partner to bid notrumps, it is doubtful you belong there in spite of your flat distribution.

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

rhm, on 2015-February-06, 04:04, said:

Yes, given the deficiency of the system (I presume 1♦-2♣ being game forcing and 1♦-3♣ showing long clubs invitational) I would bid 2♦, assuming inverted is standard nowadays. I know this is not ideal.
If you can not get partner to bid notrumps, it is doubtful you belong there in spite of your flat distribution.

A simulation with a weak NT opposite would be interesting. I wish I knew how to do one

[Siegmund]

Should clarify that my 2C vote was based on the linked FD card saying 1D-2C was inv+, not GF (it's very new for me to see anyone playing it GF, so it's still not the first thing I think of.)

Given the systems a lot of BBOers are playing, sure, 2NT inv is the practical system bid.

Have to say I am a big fan of 2NT still being forcing, and of having 1D-2C and 1D-2D be played more-or-less the same way. But I realize that's not what people are doing here.