Home EBU TDs

How to word this announcement?

In my main partnership, an opening bid of 2NT shows a balanced(ish) hand with at least 23 HCP and is forcing. There's no normal upper limit (although if we had 7NT in hand we'd just bid it, so the bid shows a weaker hand than this).

As a natural 2NT opening, I think this is announced rather than alerted, but it doesn't have a "range" in the normal sense. What is the correct wording for the announcement?

(I'm currently using "23 to 36" but this doesn't seem quite right, especially as I've never held a 36-count and am not sure how I would bid it.)

Comments

  • edited July 2022

    I've figured it out – it's an alert, not an announcement. A forcing 2NT bid, even if it shows a balanced hand, counts as non-natural by BB 4C1b. (The bid is legal by BB 7C1a, but is treated as artificial rather than natural, and thus is alerted not announced.)

  • The current draft of Blue Book 2022 (effective September 1) removes the announcement of nat (NF) 2NT opening.

    Not strictly relevant to balanced forcing 2NT opening but ...

  • Does that mean it will have to be alerted or that opponents will have to ask for the strength.

    Seems a retrograde step for 90% of bridge players.

  • @weejonnie said:
    Does that mean it will have to be alerted or that opponents will have to ask for the strength.

    Seems a retrograde step for 90% of bridge players.

    It means they would have to ask for the strength if they wanted to know, which in my experience no-one ever does. However, the current arrangement allows the players to ensure they are on the same page about strength, which they might well not be.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @weejonnie said:
    Does that mean it will have to be alerted or that opponents will have to ask for the strength.

    Seems a retrograde step for 90% of bridge players.

    It means they would have to ask for the strength if they wanted to know, which in my experience no-one ever does. However, the current arrangement allows the players to ensure they are on the same page about strength, which they might well not be.

    Fair enough - although to my mind 2NT should be used as an estimate of trick-taking capability rather than an absolute HCP range.

  • @weejonnie said:

    @gordonrainsford said:

    @weejonnie said:
    Does that mean it will have to be alerted or that opponents will have to ask for the strength.

    Seems a retrograde step for 90% of bridge players.

    It means they would have to ask for the strength if they wanted to know, which in my experience no-one ever does. However, the current arrangement allows the players to ensure they are on the same page about strength, which they might well not be.

    Fair enough - although to my mind 2NT should be used as an estimate of trick-taking capability rather than an absolute HCP range.

    All the more reason not to state the HCP range.

  • Is there a minimum strength for a natural 2NT opening bid (such as strong according to the 12+ with 5 controls or 16+ HCP)?
    If not, why not start opening 2NT with a balanced 12-14? Might work for a while as people are not likely to ask and not likely to be doubled for penalties etc...?
    Thinking about local bridge club level bridge here, where it is the norm to not have convention/system cards

  • At level 2 2NT is basically forced to be natural - although there are no limits as to its strength. This is because it must either show 4+ cards in the suit opened or a three-suited hand, short or long in the suit opened and showing the minors or multi-style bids are out. (Not sure if that forbids 2NT being used as e.g. 17-18 or 24-25). You could use 2NT as showing a variety of strong hands of course, but never heard anyone using that method since usually 2 Clubs and/ or 2 diamonds are used. The regulations are inconsistent here: you can't use 2NT opening bid showing the minors (6D3) BUT you can use 2NT showing the minors and 16+ points (or 12+ and five controls) (6D1)

    I think you would have to alert 2NT as 12-14 as it has "unusual information about strength".

    At level 4 there is more flexibility

  • In the draft Blue Book for September, "strong" changes to 16+ HCP or 13+ HCP concentrated in two long suits, so a natural balanced 2NT will have to be 16+ HCP.

  • Thanks Robin, seems that an unalerted 2NT bid would have to show a strong/balanced hand then. Anything else is alertable.

    I can see the reasoning behind the change to not announcing point ranges, but would those same arguments not hold true for 1NT opens too?

    Re the definition of strong including 13+ HCP concentrated in 2 long suits... does that mean then that a hand such as

    Akqxxxxx
    -
    Aq109
    X

    No longer qualifies for a strong open?

    Does the concentration part mean that the high cards need to be in the long suits too... how much can be outside of the long suits and still qualify? Would this for example:

    109876
    Ak
    K10987
    A

    Cheers

    Martin
  • If all 15 HCP are in the two long suits then then it is "strong", because 15 >= 13.

    If a hand has 14HCP, and only 3HCP are in the long suits, it is not "strong".

  • edited July 2022

    @gordonrainsford said:

    @weejonnie said:
    Does that mean it will have to be alerted or that opponents will have to ask for the strength.

    Seems a retrograde step for 90% of bridge players.

    It means they would have to ask for the strength if they wanted to know, which in my experience no-one ever does. However, the current arrangement allows the players to ensure they are on the same page about strength, which they might well not be.

    The strength of a 2NT opening can be relevant after (2NT), P, (P) – this is often a close "pass or double" situation and knowing how the opponents' honours are likely to be split is helpful in determining whether they're likely to make it or not. However, in practice it's rare for a 2NT opening to get passed by responder, so probably the best course of action is just to add (2NT), P, (P) to my list of "always ask" auctions (to avoid giving away to partner whether I'm considering a double or not).

  • @Martin said:

    I can see the reasoning behind the change to not announcing point ranges, but would those same arguments not hold true for 1NT opens too?

    People rarely forget their 1NT opening range, whereas it's not uncommon for them to fail to discuss their 2NT opening range. In addition, quite a number of pairs vary their defence to a 1NT opening bid depending on its strength, but I've not encountered any who do this for 2NT.

    1. Opponents play different defences depending on the range of 1NT, so they had to ask, and when they did/didn't ask this created UI, so announcing 1NT was introduced.
    2. Alerting transfers meant opponents ignored the alert and assumed, so announcing transfers after 1NT was introduced.
    3. Much the same as 2 applied after 2NT. so announcing transfers after 2NT was introduced
    4. Announcing strength of 2NT was introduced to complete the set of 1,2,3. But the arguments in 1 do not apply to 2NT, and this announcement only seems to have down-sides, so is to be withdrawn.
  • Presumably, a forcing natural 2NT will continue to be alertable? With the announcement removed, the alert seems more important.

  • @ais523 said:
    Presumably, a forcing natural 2NT will continue to be alertable?

    The alerting rules have not changed (except where there is a new/removed announcement). A forcing 2NT is unexpected and so would (continue to) be alerted

Sign In or Register to comment.