[dickiegera]

---

Partner and I are having a disagreement on my 2NT bid.

I meant it as a take out for my minors and partner said I needed 5-5 for this bid.

Partner bid 5♦ as a sac over openers 4♠ bid.
Down 1 too many.

Comments.

[whereagles]

The standard meaning seems to be for the minors, but I'm not aware of any "standard" for shape. In fact, I think 44 and a couple hcp is quite enough.

[neilkaz]

Maybe I am too cautious, but I'd rather be 55 or certainly not 5422 with a defensive ace in their suit to bid 2nt here.

[billw55]

I really thought the hand shown was 2255 = 14 cards. IMO the hand viewer should display a ten as T, not 10. The two digits just visually look like two cards to me.

/rant

As for the bid on the actual hand, I am ok with it nonvul.

[helene_t]

Normally 5-5 but yeah you have some lower honours in your suits (and not in the majors) and you are white against white. So it's ok.

Five hearts + a five-card minor may be a better agreement, but both minors is standard. And against some opponents you might occasionaly wish you played 2NT as natural

[rmnka447]

I would expect my partner to be at least 5-5 for an unusual NT bid.

[kuhchung]

2N on the actual hand seems fine to me

[mikeh]

I think 2N should be any two-suiter (not spades, obviously). Note that over 2♥, one can bid the other major at the 2-level so it makes some sense to reserve 2N for the minors, but over spades, using 2N as any 2-suiter greatly increases the number of holdings one can bid....and who wants to bid 3♥ on a 5 card suit?

As for the shape promised, I think, quite strongly, that it should be 5-5 or better, precisely because on this auction it is common for opener to bid some more, and now we need partner to be able to assess the situation with more precision than is possible when it could be less shapely.

One needs to consider how auctions, and play, will proceed. IMO, far too many people like to 'get busy' with poor shape and poor values, without properly assessing the issues that this strategy poses for partner.

When we rate to be outbid, and thus are probably bidding to go down less than the value of their contract, we need to be careful.

Consider: if our hand is random,, then partner will be passing many times when he ought to be bidding, because he can't assess risk. Not only do we now miss a good contract, but we have drawn a roadmap for declarer who can play almost double-dummy on many hands. Conversely, when he bids expecting 5-5 and we disappoint him, we rate to have what happened to the OP.

It can see 'macho' and 'expert' to bid on crap, and there are times when one should/can, but this seems not to be one such case. After all, responder has limited his hand, and our 2N takes away no useful bidding space from the opps. That means that there are limited upsides to semi-random bidding against strong opps. 2N on random hands seems to me to be tactics that do well against bad players, but everything does well against bad players.

Edit: the above is aimed mostly at imps. IMO, one saves more rarely at mps than at imps, so getting in the auction more frequently at a low level and pushing them to the 3=level makes more sense at mps.

[aguahombre]

If partner knows from experience that you can be 5-4 either way, or 4-4, fine. He will have fun guessing what to do about it, but that is your partnership choice.

I don't make bids like that unless I want partner to take knowledgeable action; otherwise, why bother. So, I will be 5+ 5+.

Hah, once again I overlapped with Mr.H who is much more eloquent.

[MrAce]

It's at least 5-5 for me.

[the hog]

You made a really bad bid with this hand. I would not dream of 2NT with this shape and trash.
I play it as minors/

[BillPatch]

mikeh, on 2014-August-13, 15:57, said:

I think 2N should be any two-suiter (not spades, obviously). . . .

I like this convention devised by Marty Bergen who named it "super unusual no trump." Unfortunately, as written on Bridgewinners.com recently, this is not ACBL compliant per the General Convention Chart. This prohibits Unusual No Trump Overcalls below 4NT unless one of the suits is specified. So, like the "Multi 2♦", it is barred from 98% of ACBL competition, including all ACBL games online.

[kenrexford]

3H value with hearts
3D diamonds and hearts
3C clubs and hearts
2NT one minor, or weak with just hearts
X as at least both minors, but Advancer can bid 2NT to preference hearts in case doubler has 1444 type

You can even add in an equal level conversion to the double, though. This makes X both minors or three suit or hearts with longer diamonds.

[johnu]

whereagles, on 2014-August-13, 13:30, said:

The standard meaning seems to be for the minors, but I'm not aware of any "standard" for shape. In fact, I think 44 and a couple hcp is quite enough.

4-4-3-2 and about 6-7 HCP could certainly be enough, for about -1100 or -1400 when partner has no sense of humor and makes a "good" sacrifice at the 5 or 6 level.

[akwoo]

I think your 2N would be fine in balancing seat, but in direct seat you should have better ODR. I wouldn't insist on 5-5 when nonvul, but with this hand it's quite likely bidding 2N could induce a phantom sac from partner over 3♠ or 4♠. Given the same hand with the majors changed to a singleton spade and Axx in hearts, and acting (either by 2N or double) looks better. Also, if partner is a known wimp who fails to balance when they should and fails to advance preempts as much as they should, I can see bidding 2N here.

You can set 4♠ opposite ♠x ♥KQxxx ♦xxxxxx ♣x. This is an extreme construction, but I don't think you want to encourage partner to sacrifice.

[aguahombre]

Arguments involving the respective vulnerability don't cut it, IMO, when deciding what distributions to have when you make your OBAR bids. You still should want partner, the one who will really be making the later decision, to have some semblance of useful information upon which to make her choice. The rule of 2 & 3 appears again: interference bids should make life difficult for two, not three people.

[SteelWheel]

Well, it's not the worst bid I've ever seen with a hand where one is 5-4 but is supposed to be 5-5--but I'd still prefer actually to be 5-5 in these situations...

As for some of the cross-talk about playing this call as any two-suiter and similar chatter: Many moons ago, I played a "meta-agreement" with one or two regular partners (which I believe we cribbed from an article in "Bridge Today") called "Cubic Zirconium". The basic idea was that any time the opponents had agreed on spades as their suit, and we balanced (or as in this case, pre-balanced) with 2NT, we had a two-suiter, but one of those suits had to be diamonds.

When the opponents have agreed on hearts, everything is easy: You can bid spades directly or double to suggest interest in spades (depending on length/strength), while 2NT can be for the minors. Spades are obviously tougher, since you need to be able to show the more typical takeout double hand (three-suited, or even just hearts and "cards" but unwilling to bid to the next level without some consultation with partner), as well as indicate the two-suiters.

With Cubic Zirconium, we guaranteed a two-suiter with diamonds, and double became general takeout or a club/heart two suiter. Obviously, "6th hand" (partner of advancer) had to be aware of this hand type and tread carefully when responding to double, as a takeout into diamonds had to be made of some pretty strong stuff, with diamond tolerance being a somewhat less likely possibility than "normal" for this kind of auction.

As I recall, it worked pretty well in practice...but it's been years...

[johnu]

I think there was a thread last year or maybe 2 years ago about 2NT showing hearts and a minor, which brings hearts into the picture.

[Zelandakh]

I have posted Ken's idea a few times on BBF already and it appeals to me. It seems like it should also be extendable to the 4 level. The problem with it, at either level, is the loss of another use for the 2NT (4NT) advance, since this is required to show hearts.

In the OP case, the default for me is what Mike wrote, that is 2 places to play. I would also suggest 5-5 be the benchmark.

One other option that I thought was popular amongst BBF posters is for 2NT to show hearts and a minor, in effect a form of Michaels. I seem to recall someone posting here that that method was also becoming popular in expert circles, although I cannot remember who and have no idea if it is true. 2NT as minors only just feels wrong here somehow...

[dpa1969]

2NT shows minors. It should be 5-5. If non vul against vul, then 5 - 4 is ok with an honor elsewhere.