[Shugart23]

so, I open 2NT with 11-15 HCP and at least 5-5 in the minors (which I suppose is 'old-school ') . A few questions are coming to mind with this approach, and I'd like to see a discussion on it. 1) would it make more sense to use 3NT as an opening bid to show minors so that opponents are forced to be at the 4 level to find a Major fit and then use 2NT opening to show 5-5- in the Majors? Is 11-15 the optimal range? Would it make any sense for the strength to be unlimited and not capped ? Should the lower bound of the range be lower than 11 ?

I'd be i=very interested in hearing about other's approaches to the 2NT and 3NT opening bids under a precision system

[mw64ahw]

2N as both minors is relatively easy to defend against so you could try switching 2N and the 3♣ pre-empt. This then gives you 2N-3♣-3♦ as both Majors.
I'm not sure what is optimal in a Precision sense, but I treat the 2N/3C as purely pre-emptive.

[awm]

In general opening 2NT (or above) leads to an auction with significant amounts of guessing for both sides. You don't really have a way to invite game or sensibly investigate fits outside opener's suit(s). Of course, opponents are under a lot of pressure also, so we want to reserve these openings for times when either:

1. The hand is much more likely to belong to the opponents (so they are the ones guessing).
2. Our side's best suit and level is usually easy to determine.

11-15 with both minors seems to fail on both counts; we could easily belong in 4M if responder has the right hand but there is no sensible way to explore. It's also fairly likely that we want to play game opposite a max opener and 3m opposite a minimum. I'd prefer a weaker range if I'm playing this opening. In fact, Sam and I use:

2NT = 5+/5+ minors and weak (like 5-9)
3NT = 7+ in a major, better than 4M preempt but not enough to open 1♣ (typically 4-5 losers, 11-15 high card points).

[awm]

Our 3nt bid is actually quite valuable; say you pick up a hand like:

♠KQJxxxx
♥x
♦AQxx
♣x

If you open one spade, your chances of missing a game are quite a bit more than in standard, because partner may pass your limited opening with some 6-8 point hands. You have the playing strength for 1♣ but very little defensive value and it’s easy to imagine a bad result (or getting into trouble with directors for “upgrading”). The 3nt bid pressures the opponents and still makes it possible to find out spade slam if partner has some controls.

[steve2005]

If you plan on using 2NT constructively may i suggest constricting the range so you have some hope of finding the right level.
So 10-12 hcp or 11-13 hcp.

[Shugart23]

steve2005, on 2024-November-22, 15:34, said:

If you plan on using 2NT constructively may i suggest constricting the range so you have some hope of finding the right level.
So 10-12 hcp or 11-13 hcp.

This is our current agreement:
2NT - partner bids 3C or 3D to play; 4C or 4D to invite to 5; 3H initiates slam search om Clubs and 3S initiates a slam search in Diamonds; any game bid is to play

2NT-3C - Opener can cue bid a Major to show stop and in interest in 3NT; can bid 3D to show interest in 3NT but no Major suit stopped. Partner retreats or bids 3NT

2NT-3D - Opener can cue bid to show interest in 3NT, can bid 3NT showing interest but no stops. Responder sets the contract

[DavidKok]

I think 2NT is too high to start a constructive auction sensibly. By requiring 5-5 you decrease the frequency, and you can decrease it even more by narrowing the range, but then of course you need a different way to show that hand type outside of your normal opening range. As far as I'm concerned, needing this openingn is a minor systemic downside.

You mention that your use is very old school. In some previous threads I think you presented other old school aspects of your Precision variant. That doesn't make them good or bad, but I want to mention that a lot of these system bids can't be changed in isolation but instead require more system adaptation. This can be uncomfortable - either you change a lot, or you change nothing, but changing a little will likely not improve matters.

Previously I've written quite a lot about different Precision systems, with particular emphasis on the notrump ladder and the nebulous diamond opening. I think these are pivotal decisions for the bidding system, and other design choices stem from this.

Lastly regarding your question itself: I know of several uses for the 2NT opening in a strong club system. Below are some of my thoughts on each of them:

• 20-21 balanced (or the likes): I do not see the appeal at all. It helps split the strong NT ranges in 1♣ and can avoid difficulties in competitive auctions after opening 1♣, but in my experience this is not that common when we have such a big balanced hand and also we survive quite well in competition with this many values. In return the self-preemptive effect of a 2NT opening is significant, so I prefer to open 1♣ with this hand type even if it would mean leaving 2NT idle.
  
• 11-15 55(+) in the minors: Unpleasant but tolerable. Usually this is played to fill a system gap. Having constructive auctions over this opening is near impossible, so normally you just guess what you might make and hope that the shape information was enough to guess correctly. Some continuation schemes exist but there's nothing great.
  
• 11-13 (or 13-15, you pick) 55(+) in the minors: better in isolation than the above, but puts strain on your other openings (specifically the nebulous 1♦). This may or may not fit in your system. Alternatively you could decide to pass 11-12 hands with this shape.
  
• 4-10 (or 4-8, or 6-9, or your other favourite weak range) 55(+) in the minors: plays well, using 2NT as a preemptive bid with both minors makes sense as we're taking away the 2-level while allowing a degree of flexibility in choosing the final contract. The bid has a few downsides for a preempt though: 1) 5-5 is very rare, so this doesn't come up much; 2) we are telling the opponents that either they have the majors or we have a misfit, so the effectiveness as a preempt is reduced compared to 1-suiters; 3) as an artificial practically-forcing preempt the LHO can do all sorts of things like double-then-pass, pass-then-double, double-then-double, double-then-bid etc. so good opponents can convey a lot of information; 4) if we try to combat point number 1 by picking a wide HCP range for the opening, responder can be the one making an uncomfortable guess.
  
• Weak (see above for ranges) 5(+)♥5(+)m: I have never played this but think it is a very sensible idea. We double the frequency compared to 'both minors' and we derive the opponents of their 2♠ overcall. Hearts don't beat spades anyway so in practice this type of hand doesn't win the partscore battle at 2♥, meaning that the downside of forcing to the 3-level is limited. We are also not giving up the majors without a fight with this opening. Downsides 3) and 4) above still apply though, and as mentioned I have no experience with this opening. The continuation scheme is easy though, just use the same as you would over a Muiderberg 2♥.

[hrothgar]

Couple comments

As other's have suggested, if you want to play this opening, I recommend using 3!C to show the hands with 5/5 in the minors

Its a more efficient use of bidding space

Second

I personally like to use 2NT as showing a bad three level preempt in either clubs or diamonds and use 3m openings as constructive

This makes it a bit easier to identify good 3NT games based on tricks in a minor

[DavidKok]

Unfortunately such a 2NT opening is not legal under ACBL rules at the Open level, though it is permitted at the Open+ level, and is a Brown sticker under the WBF rules. This greatly limits which events you'd be allowed to play this in.

While opening 3♣ with both minors gains compared to opening 2NT with that hand, opening 2NT with a club preempt loses compared to opening 3♣ with that hand for purposes of applying pressure. Since the club preempt is much more frequent I personally prefer to have them the standard way around. In addition, if you care about rightsiding 3NT, this is less frequently your best contact facing 5-5 minors compared to facing a single-suiter. Personally though I think the 'applying pressure' argument is more important.
You could sacrifice the club preempt entirely to put 5-5 minors in 3♣, but this doesn't quite answer OP's question on how to use 2NT.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-24, 03:41, said:

I think 2NT is too high to start a constructive auction sensibly. By requiring 5-5 you decrease the frequency, and you can decrease it even more by narrowing the range, but then of course you need a different way to show that hand type outside of your normal opening range. As far as I'm concerned, needing this openingn is a minor systemic downside.

You mention that your use is very old school. In some previous threads I think you presented other old school aspects of your Precision variant. That doesn't make them good or bad, but I want to mention that a lot of these system bids can't be changed in isolation but instead require more system adaptation. This can be uncomfortable - either you change a lot, or you change nothing, but changing a little will likely not improve matters.

Previously I've written quite a lot about different Precision systems, with particular emphasis on the notrump ladder and the nebulous diamond opening. I think these are pivotal decisions for the bidding system, and other design choices stem from this.

Lastly regarding your question itself: I know of several uses for the 2NT opening in a strong club system. Below are some of my thoughts on each of them:

• 20-21 balanced (or the likes): I do not see the appeal at all. It helps split the strong NT ranges in 1♣ and can avoid difficulties in competitive auctions after opening 1♣, but in my experience this is not that common when we have such a big balanced hand and also we survive quite well in competition with this many values. In return the self-preemptive effect of a 2NT opening is significant, so I prefer to open 1♣ with this hand type even if it would mean leaving 2NT idle.
  
• 11-15 55(+) in the minors: Unpleasant but tolerable. Usually this is played to fill a system gap. Having constructive auctions over this opening is near impossible, so normally you just guess what you might make and hope that the shape information was enough to guess correctly. Some continuation schemes exist but there's nothing great.
  
• 11-13 (or 13-15, you pick) 55(+) in the minors: better in isolation than the above, but puts strain on your other openings (specifically the nebulous 1♦). This may or may not fit in your system. Alternatively you could decide to pass 11-12 hands with this shape.
  
• 4-10 (or 4-8, or 6-9, or your other favourite weak range) 55(+) in the minors: plays well, using 2NT as a preemptive bid with both minors makes sense as we're taking away the 2-level while allowing a degree of flexibility in choosing the final contract. The bid has a few downsides for a preempt though: 1) 5-5 is very rare, so this doesn't come up much; 2) we are telling the opponents that either they have the majors or we have a misfit, so the effectiveness as a preempt is reduced compared to 1-suiters; 3) as an artificial practically-forcing preempt the LHO can do all sorts of things like double-then-pass, pass-then-double, double-then-double, double-then-bid etc. so good opponents can convey a lot of information; 4) if we try to combat point number 1 by picking a wide HCP range for the opening, responder can be the one making an uncomfortable guess.
  
• Weak (see above for ranges) 5(+)♥5(+)m: I have never played this but think it is a very sensible idea. We double the frequency compared to 'both minors' and we derive the opponents of their 2♠ overcall. Hearts don't beat spades anyway so in practice this type of hand doesn't win the partscore battle at 2♥, meaning that the downside of forcing to the 3-level is limited. We are also not giving up the majors without a fight with this opening. Downsides 3) and 4) above still apply though, and as mentioned I have no experience with this opening. The continuation scheme is easy though, just use the same as you would over a Muiderberg 2♥.

Some of the stuff we are doing is probably not old school, but crazy school. For hands in the 11-15 HCP range, our 2H and 2S openings show precisely 4 cards in the Major along with an undisclosed 5+ minor, and all 5332 hands are opened either 1NT or 1D (depending upon colors and seat_). We seem to be having pretty good success with these unusual agreements.

I do like the constructive 2NT bid we are using, because otherwise, we would have to opening the hand 1D leaving opponents lots of room to jump in (one reason why I prefer canape as an aside). I don't know why a couple responders think one has to make a 'guess' as to the final contract, however. 4M games are highly unlikely, and 3NT games are going to be rare. I would submit that a large percentage of the games will end up in Clubs or Diamonds when opener has the 5+5+ shape. Having said that, I'm sure my opinion is a minority opinion. I will continue to mull over

[DavidKok]

The uncertainty is about level as well as strain - there is no room to investigate between 2NT and 3m.

I think with the above I understand your opening structure better. There are multiple choices to make here, and personally I am very uncomfortable with the 11-15 openings of 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT, as well as what I hope I remember correctly of your NT ladder. But these choices are so deeply rooted in the system design that I'm not sure it is very productive to debate them.

[foobar]

 Shugart23, on 2024-November-24, 12:39, said:

Some of the stuff we are doing is probably not old school, but crazy school. For hands in the 11-15 HCP range, our 2H and 2S openings show precisely 4 cards in the Major along with an undisclosed 5+ minor, and all 5332 hands are opened either 1NT or 1D (depending upon colors and seat_). We seem to be having pretty good success with these unusual agreements.

I do like the constructive 2NT bid we are using, because otherwise, we would have to opening the hand 1D leaving opponents lots of room to jump in (one reason why I prefer canape as an aside). I don't know why a couple responders think one has to make a 'guess' as to the final contract, however. 4M games are highly unlikely, and 3NT games are going to be rare. I would submit that a large percentage of the games will end up in Clubs or Diamonds when opener has the 5+5+ shape. Having said that, I'm sure my opinion is a minority opinion. I will continue to mull over

FWIW, SCUM uses the same 2M openings and has had excellent results (per Ulf Nilsonn), and the 1♦ / 1N treatment is the same as well.

1♦ 11-13 bal OR single suited minor
1M: Unbalanced in 1st and 2nd (includes all 4441s)
1N: 14-17
2♣: 5-4 (either way) or 5-5 in the minors
2♦: Multi
2M: 4M, 5+m
2N: 6m4m (either way)

[foobar]

 DavidKok, on 2024-November-24, 03:41, said:

I think 2NT is too high to start a constructive auction sensibly. By requiring 5-5 you decrease the frequency, and you can decrease it even more by narrowing the range, but then of course you need a different way to show that hand type outside of your normal opening range. As far as I'm concerned, needing this openingn is a minor systemic downside.

You mention that your use is very old school. In some previous threads I think you presented other old school aspects of your Precision variant. That doesn't make them good or bad, but I want to mention that a lot of these system bids can't be changed in isolation but instead require more system adaptation. This can be uncomfortable - either you change a lot, or you change nothing, but changing a little will likely not improve matters.

Previously I've written quite a lot about different Precision systems, with particular emphasis on the notrump ladder and the nebulous diamond opening. I think these are pivotal decisions for the bidding system, and other design choices stem from this.

Lastly regarding your question itself: I know of several uses for the 2NT opening in a strong club system. Below are some of my thoughts on each of them:

• 20-21 balanced (or the likes): I do not see the appeal at all. It helps split the strong NT ranges in 1♣ and can avoid difficulties in competitive auctions after opening 1♣, but in my experience this is not that common when we have such a big balanced hand and also we survive quite well in competition with this many values. In return the self-preemptive effect of a 2NT opening is significant, so I prefer to open 1♣ with this hand type even if it would mean leaving 2NT idle.
  
• 11-15 55(+) in the minors: Unpleasant but tolerable. Usually this is played to fill a system gap. Having constructive auctions over this opening is near impossible, so normally you just guess what you might make and hope that the shape information was enough to guess correctly. Some continuation schemes exist but there's nothing great.
  
• 11-13 (or 13-15, you pick) 55(+) in the minors: better in isolation than the above, but puts strain on your other openings (specifically the nebulous 1♦). This may or may not fit in your system. Alternatively you could decide to pass 11-12 hands with this shape.
  
• 4-10 (or 4-8, or 6-9, or your other favourite weak range) 55(+) in the minors: plays well, using 2NT as a preemptive bid with both minors makes sense as we're taking away the 2-level while allowing a degree of flexibility in choosing the final contract. The bid has a few downsides for a preempt though: 1) 5-5 is very rare, so this doesn't come up much; 2) we are telling the opponents that either they have the majors or we have a misfit, so the effectiveness as a preempt is reduced compared to 1-suiters; 3) as an artificial practically-forcing preempt the LHO can do all sorts of things like double-then-pass, pass-then-double, double-then-double, double-then-bid etc. so good opponents can convey a lot of information; 4) if we try to combat point number 1 by picking a wide HCP range for the opening, responder can be the one making an uncomfortable guess.
  
• Weak (see above for ranges) 5(+)♥5(+)m: I have never played this but think it is a very sensible idea. We double the frequency compared to 'both minors' and we derive the opponents of their 2♠ overcall. Hearts don't beat spades anyway so in practice this type of hand doesn't win the partscore battle at 2♥, meaning that the downside of forcing to the 3-level is limited. We are also not giving up the majors without a fight with this opening. Downsides 3) and 4) above still apply though, and as mentioned I have no experience with this opening. The continuation scheme is easy though, just use the same as you would over a Muiderberg 2♥.

One unique variation used by SCUM (albeit in the context of 2♣ as 5+m4+m) is 2N as 6m4m (either way). The single suited minor hands are folded into the 1♦ opening.

[helene_t]

What about 2nt = hearts and a minor? Strength and specific heart length (4? 5?) to taste.
- twice as frequent as c+d
- not a bsc
- many systems with multi have sp=spades +m but use 2h for something else (flanery, Precision, ekren, k2)
- 3-level more likely to be lawful when we have hearts , i e when both sides have an 8-card fit
- 3d can be used to something artificial, eg ostensibly an invite with hearts
- we dont offer them a 3m cuebid

[awm]

 helene_t, on 2024-November-27, 15:32, said:

What about 2nt = hearts and a minor? Strength and specific heart length (4? 5?) to taste.
- twice as frequent as c+d
- not a bsc
- many systems with multi have sp=spades +m but use 2h for something else (flanery, Precision, ekren, k2)
- 3-level more likely to be lawful when we have hearts , i e when both sides have an 8-card fit
- 3d can be used to something artificial, eg ostensibly an invite with hearts
- we dont offer them a 3m cuebid

A few points about this though:

1. Since we only know one of opener's suits, it may be harder to compete in auctions like 2NT-(4♠)-??? if our fit is in the minor.
2. Assuming we play either a weak two in hearts or multi, we can presumably open that with 5♥-5m hands so we already had a bid with this shape.
3. The really costly thing about the 2NT opening is the free double, not so much the second cuebid. This applies either way of course.

[DavidKok]

 helene_t, on 2024-November-27, 15:32, said:

What about 2nt = hearts and a minor? Strength and specific heart length (4? 5?) to taste.
- twice as frequent as c+d
- not a bsc
- many systems with multi have sp=spades +m but use 2h for something else (flanery, Precision, ekren, k2)
- 3-level more likely to be lawful when we have hearts , i e when both sides have an 8-card fit
- 3d can be used to something artificial, eg ostensibly an invite with hearts
- we dont offer them a 3m cuebid

This is the last option I listed, and I think it's quite interesting.

I also had one more hyperaggressive idea, but I left it out as I think it is likely unsound. But if you're opening the door to a 4c♥ suit: weak with 5(+)♣,4(+)♦. The idea is that with 5=4 the other way your can open a weak 2♦, and knowing which suit is longer gives a bit of protection at the 3-level.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2024-November-25, 08:38, said:

The uncertainty is about level as well as strain - there is no room to investigate between 2NT and 3m.

I think with the above I understand your opening structure better. There are multiple choices to make here, and personally I am very uncomfortable with the 11-15 openings of 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT, as well as what I hope I remember correctly of your NT ladder. But these choices are so deeply rooted in the system design that I'm not sure it is very productive to debate them.

For whatever reason, our 2H and 2S openings have great success at match points. It's preemptive and we have an escape and partner can pretty much gauge the correct place to play. Partner relays to ask where the minor is, can pass comfortably with a 7 card fit . IT's been a consistent winner

[shugart24]

foobar, on 2024-November-27, 12:03, said:

FWIW, SCUM uses the same 2M openings and has had excellent results (per Ulf Nilsonn), and the 1♦ / 1N treatment is the same as well.

1♦ 11-13 bal OR single suited minor
1M: Unbalanced in 1st and 2nd (includes all 4441s)
1N: 14-17
2♣: 5-4 (either way) or 5-5 in the minors
2♦: Multi
2M: 4M, 5+m
2N: 6m4m (either way)

I wish I could see the partner's responses; we have been making them up and tweaking. I don't know where to find 'SCUM' but it sounds like some of its aspects we are reinventing the wheel. A link would be greatly appreciated

[shugart24]

helene_t, on 2024-November-27, 15:32, said:

What about 2nt = hearts and a minor? Strength and specific heart length (4? 5?) to taste.
- twice as frequent as c+d
- not a bsc
- many systems with multi have sp=spades +m but use 2h for something else (flanery, Precision, ekren, k2)
- 3-level more likely to be lawful when we have hearts , i e when both sides have an 8-card fit
- 3d can be used to something artificial, eg ostensibly an invite with hearts
- we dont offer them a 3m cuebid

Our positive responses to 1C include a)_ 2H which shows 4 hearts and a longer minor, b) 2NT which shows 4 Spades and a longer minor, and c) 2S which shows 8-11 balanced

[foobar]

shugart24, on 2024-November-29, 07:43, said:

I wish I could see the partner's responses; we have been making them up and tweaking. I don't know where to find 'SCUM' but it sounds like some of its aspects we are reinventing the wheel. A link would be greatly appreciated

See https://sites.google.com/view/ulfn66 . You can try contacting the author for additional details if needed.