Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:21 PM

Hand Evaluation – Godfather 2NT ( Logic )

 

PITBULLS:

 

4^th suit forcing at the two level is ugly. Every Bridge player has had bad experiences with that bid. Quoting Susan Culham among others “ I hate 4^th suit forcing”.  Confusion over stoppers , wrong siding 3NT , pre-empting partner out of minor suit games , slams & Moysean by leaping to 3NT. Poorly defined quantitative auctions due to the ambiguity of 4^th suit forcing. We need a tool to prevent jumping to 3NT by responder to show a good hand & violating the “fast arrival” concept. Responder pre-empting the auction from opener  & leaping to game to show strength is a silly concept.

 

            In our opinion , the best way to improve 4^th suit forcing is to play 2NT by responder as a “new suit”  forcing one round. The positive Bridge logic stems from many factors.  The NT is right sided by having stoppers in the 4^th suit. The 2NT bid allows the auction to remain under 3NT to pattern out , get to minor slams  & major suit Moyseans. The godfather 2NT allows opener to “show where you live”  so you can escape to a partial. The 3NT bid by responder as a fast arrival “picture bid” emerges. You do not pre-empt opener by leaping to 3NT when alternative contracts , games or slams are still possible.

 

            Tom & I do not play this new godfather 2NT understanding . Tom held ♠KJxx ♥Ax ♦Qxx ♣ QJxx , I opened 1♦. Tom bid 1♠ & I bid 2♦ . Given the diamond fit , distribution & soft values , Tom’s hand is a 3NT bid with Standard methods so he bid 3NT as did everybody else in the field . 3NT pre-empts partner so usually ends all auctions.  Leslie led a heart & 3NT goes from 4 down vul to 6 down vulnerable depending on the defense 5♥’s , 2♠ & a ♦ for sure & responder may get squeezed in spades for some more down tricks.

 

            Some of my partner’s & I have had a lot of experience playing this “godfather 2NT”  treatment & we originally had a relay by the opener to escape out of 2NT. We have now changed that & only have repeating the suit & a few other 6-4 or 5-5 understandings  as a way of escaping from 2NT.  With this hand , I would have bid 3♣ over 2NT which is showing where I live & supposedly showing a weak 6-4 since I rebid diamonds first . ♠10xx ♥Q ♦KJ1098x ♣AKx . Tom would look at his ♥Ax of hearts  so noting that I am “scared” of a 3NT game for some reason should infer that I have a heart singleton since my bidding showed 10 minor suit cards. Tom corrects the contract to 3♦ & that’s where we play it. -400 ( down 4 vul ) & +130 is a lot of IMPS to win because your system is just more accurate that that of the field. Essentially , we would have got to a 11 ( stiff queen ) opposite 13 HCP diamond partial.

 

            Leaping to 3NT with a flat 13 HCP opposite an opening bid is an educated guess but a guess nevertheless. This approach does not have to be that way. By bidding 2NT as a one round force , you bring partner’s opinion whether 3NT should be the final contract but escaping under the 4 level. Remember all opener has done is made a simple bid at the two level. This could be any kind of distribution with controls or soft values , with 12 HCP’s - 17 HCP’s or with a partial fit for responders first suit. The Goren leaping to game contradicts partnership Bridge & is a single handed “taking a shot”. When you use up bidding space to arrive at your contract, you are taking partner out of the decision making process. Depending on your partner’s abilities , this may be a good or bad thing J . 3NT should end all auctions unless opener wanders into the 4 level which is dangerous.  3NT is not pulled from a position of weakness so you are investigating alternative contracts at the 4 level beyond your 3NT game.

 

            Seeing the logic of a bidding treatment is a huge advantage in Bridge. You play Jacoby 2NT & inverted minors as invitational hands or better so why not 2NT as responder ?  According to the Bridge World , 2NT was forcing to game by responder for the first 35 years of Bridge . 2NT changed to invitational after that when 4^th suit forcing was invented. This change was probably made due to matchpoints & matchpoint scoring. In IMPS , why not have the 2NT bid show invitational plus as so many other modern bids are defined ? You get to a lot of Meckwell type games which are positively re-enforced in IMPs.  These games make quite often. I have written many articles on this subject & my partner’s & I have field tested the concept for well over a year. We have no complaints & have won many IMPS since we implemented the bid. We both fail to see the down side in improving an ugly bid like 4^th suit forcing & preserving bidding room under 3NT. The first 35 years of Bridge  2NT by responding was forcing to game , the next 35 years 2NT by responder was invitational . Now the next era,  a compromise . 2NT by responder is defined as an “either/or” bid of invitational plus.

 

            2NT by responder as a “new suit” goes along away to improve 4^th suit forcing at the two level as 2NT describes a class of NT hands which otherwise would have to be bid with an ambiguous 4^th suit or a dramatic ambiguous leap to 3NT . Leaping to game with good hands violate fast arrival principles so inaccurate bidding is the norm. XYZ is an excellent fix for 4^th suit forcing at the one level. This allows the Cabay 2 way NMF to repair 4^th suit forcing at the one level.. The godfather 2NT should be extended to cover all 2NT bids by responder 4^th suit or not , directly bid or in competition. The new concept remains the same.

 

            2NT as a contract in IMPS is a silly place to play a hand !. 2NT is usually tougher to make than 3 of a minor & there is no game bonus for making 2NT. The decision in IMPS to pass 2NT invitational is dangerous as you have +600 riding on your decision. People get off to the wrong opening lead , finesses are on side or opponents misdefend. You are weighing all this against trying to make exactly +120 ?? In modern bidding , 2NT is hardly ever defined as a place to play a contract. Lets make it complete & having 2NT to play a contract by responder only exist in match points. In IMPS,  it is too dangerous to play 2NT as they may be in 3NT making at the other table. Also in IMPs , we can escape to 3 of a minor as a contract instead of 2NT which is dangerous in matchpoints as +110 vrs +120 is a zero. I think this is the aversion that players have against playing this concept. They are still thinking matchpoints where their Bridge roots are. With matchpoints , play 2NT by responder the old way. In IMPS , you have mathematics on your side. Play 3NT down one instead of 2NT making  , lose 4. Play 3NT again down instead of 2NT making lose another 4. The 3^rd time lucky , you make 3NT so win 12 recouping all your losses & then some. Get really lucky & make two out of 3 of these close games & a blitz comes your way.

 

            We have taken 2NT completely  from our system bid by responder as a place to play a contract. Even a direct jump to 2NT after a minor opening , is invitational plus ( godfather ) . A direct 2NT in competition is limit raise plus. Even a forcing 1NT can not play a 2NT contract as this is invitational plus also. Opener must escape somewhere via a relay or bid game. The only time we can play 2NT is after an aborted 2NT invitation ( opening 1NT ) or by passing a 2NT opener. 2NT in competition is quite often systemic either Lebensohl or a two suiter. We just avoid playing 2NT as a contract.  We have also reversed captaincy in these auctions. As openers are quite variable when making a 2 level rebid , the opener is no longer captain with responder describing a flat invitational hand to her. Opener now describes her hand to the 2NT bidder, so responder is captain of the auction. Opener can show her pattern & range & let responder captain the auction to the right contract.