WHEN TO GO ON TO 3NT (2024)

shyams, on 2024-February-28, 11:57, said:

My post was intended as a gentle reprimand to Knurdler who posted an empty thread.
I imagine he will catch up sooner or later

pescetom, on 2024-February-28, 12:19, said:

Or Knurdler lost interest after the first few replies. This thread has surpassed most N/B discussions.

"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." MikeH
(still learning)

jillybean, on 2024-February-28, 14:43, said:

Not difficult, but I still don't think so.
The Law of 16 is the only new idea and looks unlikely to me (15-17 HCP has on average well more than 6 honours and an unsupported 9 is no compensation for 8 HCP rather than 9 HCP).
I agree that a simulations can decide that, also that hand evaluation is more important in any case.

I have my own duplicate bidding rules which try to balance up probabilities, the strength of the field, and trying to score positive

You will occasionally find me around the middle on 2NT+1 for example (especially pairs but even at IMPs)

I am so sorry about the blank post. I have been trying to reply to other posts and to fix this one for ages but keep getting errors.

The question is not about 1NT opening, it is when the bidding starts 1 anything, 1 something else, 1NT, 2NT....?
To me this sequence says the opener has 12-14 (maybe 11 -14) points and the responder has 11-12.
It seems that, as opener with 13 points, I get the decision to pass or go on to 3NT wrong more often than right.

Thank you for the clarification. The truth is that this is a sensitive and complicated topic. Some thoughts in no particular order, and then a recommendation at the end:

• In general I think invites like this 2NT bid are much worse than is commonly accepted, and partner should often blast or pass rather than pass the buck to opener. I think this 2NT bid is a blame transfer quite frequently.
  
• This sequence has already leaked a lot of information (opener has denied 4-card support, responder has denied being interested in 3-card support or 4oM, the points are known to within a 1-2 point range, and in many standard systems opener's longer minor suit is known as well). All of this can be used to help inform your decisions, but there's less of an upside in aggressively bidding game compared to bidding it through other routes as the defenders have much more to go on.
  
• In general you are expected to accept the invite with 13-14 and pass with 12 at IMPs. However, you can use the information of the auction to decide to downgrade bad 13s or upgrade nice 12s, and you may decide to be a touch more conservative at MPs.
  
• Personally I think many players will invite far too often, opposite which it is not unreasonable to accept the invite practically always.

Edit: I forgot to add one of the most important points, so here it is. On this auction you and your partner have not done a great job in evaluating whether or not 3NT will make, which is very often dependent on the degree of a minor suit (conditional on having 24-26 HCP and no major suit fit) or the interior strength of your suits. Opener is left with a blind guess. Since there's no way back (you have to pass now or go past 2NT) you will inevitably end up getting this wrong a good amount of the time, which is why I consider 2NT a blame transfer. Responder might well not know whether or not game is on, but demanding that opener makes the decision only gains if opener does know, and 2NT is not descriptive enough to clarify this reliably.

This may be too simplistic (or overly conservative) but we just don't invite with 11 in that situation.

DavidKok, on 2024-March-03, 12:42, said:

No invite bridge is of the best kind for the two relatively balanced hands and the hand evaluation in such cases was buried inside of pyramids in secret chambers.

Knurdler, on 2024-March-03, 12:33, said:

Seems to be a problem with the forum software more than anything else.

I finally manged to post a reply and apology last night without an error message.
But this morning my reply is not here.
When I contact support they quickly ask the problem and even ask for feedback on how thye did but nothing gets fixed.
Sorry guys

A full description of the forum issue and an annoying workaround you can use is in this thread: https://www.bridgeba...to-forum-posts/

A better handviewer
Reverse engineering GIB, part 1: A treatise on the insanity of bidding simulations

The software has been terrible lately, that's not your fault. If anything you are owed an apology for not being able to ask your questions.

For what it's worth, it might be caused by comments with special characters. Avoiding those tends to work, or temporarily posting a dummy message and then using the 'edit' function to post the actual message.

Here goes typing with no odd characters
My question was not about a NT auction

My problem or question is finding guidance on when should opener go on to 3NT afer starting 1 something 1 something else 1NT by opener and then 2NT by responder
That suggests opener has 11 to 14 and responder has 11 to 12 (open to corrections and suggestions)

If opener has 11 it is easy to pass and 14 easy to go on
With 12 or 13 I seem to get it wrong more often than right

1C 1S
1nt 2nt

This appears to be a generic game try sequence, responder gives you no more information about their hand.

With no further information, bidding on with 12 or 13 is largely a guess. Is your 12/13 a "good" 12/13 concentrated values, Ace and Kings or a "bad" 12/13 with scattered values, Queens and Jack's ?

There are conventions that partner can use to make a game try after 1x 1y 1nt. More information is available to help partner make the decision to bid game or not.

"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." MikeH
(still learning)

Thank you JB
What are the conventions you allude to?
If 1 is checkback, then I now realise we can use 1x 1y 1NT 2NT to show 12 points and going via checkback to show 11 (oe vice versa).

My previous answers were for this sequence, there was no misunderstanding.

People commonly play two-way checkback here (i.e. XYNT or XYZ). I would not split responder's routes to 2NT by HCP. In fact, I think you're trying to gild the lily.

Returning to try asking again.
Great forum but I can rarely get it to accept posts.

MY question on going on to 3NT was after 3 (unopposed) suit bids and responder bids 2NT. eg 1H 1S 2D 2NT...

I guess the responder has a balanced hand, 4S (possibly 5) and 11 to 12 points.
With 14 I will bid 3NT. With 12, I will pass.
With 13 I always seems to guess wrong - hence the question.
Thanks

Knurdler, on 2024-June-02, 08:05, said:

I'd like to encourage folks to try posting beginner-to-intermediate level questions in the Intermediate Forum on Bridgewinners - https://bridgewinner...rmediate-forum/

No forum is perfect but that one doesn't have as many technical issues as these forums seem to have and IMO it has a nice clean interface that makes for easy reading. It also has a hand diagram tool and a poll feature. My main criticism of that forum is that there's very little traffic. Maybe if enough people migrated over there, it would become a good, robust, site for intermediate players.

Knurdler, on 2024-June-02, 08:05, said:

I'd just bid game. If you're playing IMPs, you only need to make 45% of the time (non-vulnerable) or 38% of the time (vulnerable) to make a profit - i.e. you can still make a profit even when making the contract less than half of the time. If you're playing MPs it's of course 50%; obviously hand evaluation is a complex topic that comes down to significantly more than just HCP, and thus there will be some hands where it's better to pass, but I'd just keep things simple here rather than trying to "guess" and think you've made a mistake when you've "guessed wrong".

A better handviewer
Reverse engineering GIB, part 1: A treatise on the insanity of bidding simulations

Thanks for the replies.
David Kok on 3 March - your reply makes so much sense.