All News

The “unusual” Unusual 2NT.

The Unusual 2NT overcall is a popular convention which often produces good results in either pushing one’s opponents to an uncomfortably high level or even guiding one’s partner into a successful game at the 5-level. Being able to describe one’s hand in one bid as having at least 5 cards in each minor is a big plus, better of course if one finishes as the declaring side. The point count of the hand varies a lot. Some like it “weak or strong”, others at least constructive, say 10+ hcp and vulnerability too plays its part.

What though of today’s North hand? It could have created an absolute disaster for our North-South pair who, at equal nil vulnerability, were on the verge of a -800 score at the 5-level. We gave the Panel the North-South hands and asked what they thought of their bidding, up to the point when West “saved” their opponents by bidding 5.

 

The North hand has the high-card points and the shape, at least in the minors, to satisfy most but does that mean the North-South bids are justified? There is no question that North’s double of 5 is correct.

There are questions raised of both the previous bids:

Bruce Anderson “ I would not have bid 2NT with the North hand: it lacks the playing strength for that bid in my view given half the hand's high card strength is outside the minor suits, both of which are not that strong: with a 6/5 shape, I would have bid 2NT.

 

I would have bid 5 over 4 as that contract may well be making and 5 should not be too expensive if doubled. With 3 aces and partner having shown something, it must be right to double 5. N/S were a little unlucky that 5 x was going for 800 but that reflects the ill- advised bid of 2NT over 1 more than anything else."

 

Nigel Kearney “The 2NT bid is very ugly. I have some sympathy as pass or 2 are also unattractive. But partner is going to be expecting a much more offensively oriented hand and the likelihood they will bid too much in response is so high that you can't bid afford to bid 2NT on something like that. The difference in expected tricks for each side between this and xx A KJ9xx AQ9xx (also 14 HCP) makes partner's task impossible. I would pass but could live with a 2 overcall. 

South's 5 bid is marginal but fine. I'm not sure it's the percentage action but that kind of thing that can easily work even when it shouldn't. It would be wrong to bid opposite this North even if the South hand was quite a bit better.”

 

Therein lies the problem. Opposite Nigel’s North hand, 5 should not be more than 2 down and 4 would probably be making. However, there is another view:

Wayne Burrows “2NT is hardly ideal with two anaemic suits. However, the hand has 14 hcp and some distribution so I am not going to sit by and pass when we might have a part-score or less often a game. It is not like 2 (or 2) is a great description of my hand. So as flawed as it is, it is 2NT for me. At least partner will pick the better minor. 

5 is lunacy in my view. A typical constructive minimum 2NT has around six losers, as does this hand. This North hand is better than bare minimum with more aces than queens. South contributes one and a bit cover cards. So, even with good breaks, South can expect to go down three a decent percentage of the time and that is without considering the possibility of very bad breaks. 

 

Also at IMPs, the odds favour defending over sacrificing often. Here the K rates to be at least half a defensive trick. The K is worth something on defence and we have a partner with a constructive hand who might contribute some defensive cards. Let's say optimistically that the sacrifice pays at -300. We gain 3 IMPs. If 4 could be defeated, we would be losing 8 IMPs. That means we only need to defeat 4 three times in eleven to break- even defending. Obviously, if there are chances of -500 or -800, we are worse losing in both scenarios (but there is the chance we push them into a making game - that would need to happen often to compensate the risk of a big penalty.)”

and somewhere in the middle:

Andy Braithwaite “I dislike 2NT on a hand with such great defence but no fillers in the two long suits. So, I would prefer a 2 overcall even though this is also hardly a classic bid. It would have saved a sacrifice from partner though.

South’s 5 bid was also dubious- too flat for my liking. So, both North and South contributed to the phantom sacrifice but were unlucky in that the misjudgement would have been so expensive in theory.”

 

After bidding 2, North might still be able to introduce their club suit if the bidding remained low though, certainly, South would be less inclined to bid 5 as there was no Unusual 2NT call and North may have only 4 clubs.

 

As to whether 5 was a phantom- sacrifice, we will see shortly.

 

Peter Newell  “ I don't like North's 2NT much as the hand has a lot of defence, not just the 3 aces, but the Q will often be a trick on defence, too.  Further, partner is a passed hand, so cannot have too much and could easily bid too much as here expecting a more offensive (more playing strength and less defensive strength) hand. 

 

However, to be fair on North, the alternatives to 2NT are hardly appealing either, overcalling on a hand with a poor 5 card suit and with an equivalent second suit is hardly an appealing alternative. I don't like passing on these hands particularly either as usually coming into the auction later is even more problematic.  So while I sympathise with 2NT, given the lack of suitable alternatives, I would likely bid 2. 

 

Yes, I think South should have passed 4. I would have expected 5x to go down 300, sometimes 500, which is hardly a bargain even when 4 makes and I wouldn't have expected to push them into 5 often as at Teams which is usually wrong.

 

Yes, 5 was a bit unlucky to go down 800  on bad breaks. However, bad breaks were highly likely given that E/W had only 20 hcp and 9 spades...so only a bit unlucky and maybe South felt that West liked to bid and thought there was a good prospect of West bidding 5.”

 

 

Stephen Blackstock “I'm not in love with 2NT: the suits are anaemic, the defence good, and North has the wrong major doubleton for playing purposes also.

On the other hand, if not 2NT, then what? 2 isn't attractive either, and might lose the club suit altogether. After 2NT, South simply has to guess, and both pass or 5 could be very wrong.

 

Given a poor trump break and the fact that South's K would have saved a trick if in spades or diamonds, the damage in 5x could well have been only 500 with 4 making the other way - not a big loss, and as here 5 might induce an indiscretion. Despite my doubts about the merits of 2NT, I am inclined to rate N/S as unlucky here.”

 

Some sympathy therefore for both partners. The Panel all agree that 2NT is far from ideal though they do not agree on what action, if any, North should have taken at that point. 5 by South is certainly questionable but has the added advantage of, even though being the wrong action this time, it induced another wrong action from West:

 

West had a minimum opener and even with the void club, they had defence to 5, diamond cards. They could hardly underwrite 5. We know what East would have said to 5 had the decision been left to them.

Would 4 have made? There are three certain losers and in theory, trumps can be played from the top. Yet, with at least 10 known cards in the minors, a West declarer could be forgiven for playing K and then playing small to 10.

Yet, look at North’s defence to 4. A lead, followed by a minor ace.That A looks very much like a singleton. Therefore, unless North has a 6-card minor, they will have 2 spades. So, perhaps declarer will get the spade position right.

North had the wrong honours for 2NT and really very poor minor suits. The irony is if they had not bid, or even had just overcalled, they may have been no story, with West making 10 tricks in 4. If 2 wrongs do make a right, then we may have had “3 wrongs” here and in the end all worked out well for North. Oh, 5x was 2 down while 2 losers in 3 suits would have made a rather unpleasant outcome for North-South in 5x.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items