[vodkagirl]

Hi all,

there are two standards for responder bidding no trump over a 1♣/1♦ opener.

Thus:

#1
1N = 6-12 hcp
2N = 13-15 hcp
3N = 16,17 hcp

and

#2
1N = 6-9 hcp
2N = 10-12 hcp
3N = 13-15 hcp

Both schemas deny a four-card major by the responder.

Some players appear to use #1 and others #2. I prefer #1 because with the declared shortage in the majors you need the higher hcp to ensure that you at least have a stopper or two.

My reasoning may be flawed. If so please point out what the correct considerations should.

Apologies if this has been addressed before.

[Codo]

Yes your reasoning is flawed.

You do not promise any kind of stopper in the unbid suits after 1 minor 1NT or 1 minor 2 NT, not even after 1 minor 3 NT. You just promise the right shape and point count.

Which NT rebid structure you prefer is part of your overall bidding structure. A lot of different schemes had been tried successfull.
Over 1 minor, the second scheme is much more frequent then your first one. The advantage is easy to see: You define the more frequent hands- 6-12 HCPS in two ranges and you are able to play 1 NT. In the first scheme, 1 NT is quite wide ranging, so 1 NT is nearly forcing. This is often used over a 1 in a major opening, but I do not meet if often over 1 of a minor.

[gwnn]

Some people play 1C-1D as a waiting bid, not promising diamonds necessarily. Then you can make 1NT 8-11, 2NT 12-14 and 3NT 15-17 or so. 1NT as 6-12 does not seem to work but maybe I'm missing something.

[Zelandakh]

Over a 1♣ opening there are 3 main ways of playing:-

#1 (standard in my part of the world) is
1NT = 8-10
2NT = 11-12
3NT = 13-15

With a weaker hand you simply make a 1 over 1 response or a weak club raise.

#2
1NT = 6-9(10)
2NT = (10)11-12
3NT = 13-15

#3
1NT = 6-9(10)
2NT = 13-15
3NT = 16-18

With the middle range you make a 1 over 1 response and rebid 2NT.


In addition, there are many schemes using some artificiality where either one or more of these NT responses is conventional, or that use alternative bids to cover some of the ranges.

Over a 1♦ opening, things are different, since a 1NT response now needs to cover a weak hand with long clubs. Some options here include

#1 (aka approach forcing)
1NT = 6-9(10) (bucket)
2NT = (10)11-12
3NT = 13-15

#2 (eg SAYC)
1NT = 6-9(10)
2NT = 13-15
3NT = 16-18

Again, with the middle range you respond in a new suit and rebid 2NT.

#3
1NT = 6-12 (bucket, either forcing or semi-forcing)
2NT = 13-15
3NT = 16-18

The 1NT response in #3 is usually used in combination with a GF 2♣ response. Differences (artificiality) in the 2NT/3NT responses are common.


Aside from #3 over 1♦, which is essentially a different system, all of these have their advantages and disadvantages. What I do not like is your suggestion of 1NT as 6-12 over a 1♣ opening. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Over a 1♦ opening this is fine, providing you are playing 2/1 and understand the repercussions of this and have, therefore, crafted your system around this.

[vodkagirl]

Thank you all for your considered responses.

I have decided to go for

1N = 6-10
2N = 11-12
3N = 13-15

I play 2/1 and employ inverted minors.

I am surprised at how much choice is there is in this spot.

[jallerton]

The answer to your question depends on the range of your 1NT opening.

[CarlRitner]

 vodkagirl, on 2012-October-05, 17:34, said:

Thank you all for your considered responses.

I have decided to go for

1N = 6-10
2N = 11-12
3N = 13-15

I play 2/1 and employ inverted minors.

I am surprised at how much choice is there is in this spot.

I use these ranges as well, 2/1 GF, 15-17 NT, trying my best to lose inverted minors.
I try to avoid using 3N if there is an alternative since it eats up so much space.

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think anyone actually plays 1m-1nt as 6-12. That's far too wide to handle. It's 6-9/6-10/7-10/8-10 depending on whether you opened 1c or 1d, and how strong your strong NT is. If you are playing a weak NT, there's case to be made for playing 1nt as 5-8.

The older style of bidding, with 2nt as a GF, you have to bid other minor or an inverted raise with the invitational range between 1nt and 2nt, 10-12 or so. This made some sense when no one was playing 1d-2c as a GF.

The newer style, 2nt 10-12, mainly came about because of people wanting to play 1d-2c game forcing. If you do that you more or less have to play 2nt as inv and 3c as inv, otherwise without a 4 cd major you are stuck over 1d without diamond support. (Plus some rarer alternatives like putting inv bal hands into say the 2h jump shift, as Martel-Stansby did).

The new way is arguably simpler, but it has some disadvantages. You are forced to bid 2nt without major stoppers with some frequency, which might wrong-side things; perhaps partner could have bid 3nt if it had started 1d-2c instead. You jump to 3nt more often, which is very often right with no major fit, but it removes the possibility of using the 3 level to explore for a better alternative (minor game or 4-3 major fit), with the ability to get back to 3nt if it appears you don't have a particular weak suit to worry about.

It's just that responder has a 4 cd major very often, and/or the opponents are bidding something, that one doesn't run into the disadvantages often enough to make it a noticeable factor.