3NT – Everyone’s Favourite Contract

Players at all levels know the advantages of bidding and making 3NT. A priori this is the most desirable and accessible game. System designers devise ways to get the users to 3NT with a reasonable chance of success. Accomplishing this with a minimum release of information increases the chance of success as declarer may benefit from a faulty defence. Systems that define their structure on the basis of HCPs are geared towards this approach as HCPs are useful in gauging the potential for success in NT contracts, whereas they are not nearly as good at gauging the potential for success in suit contracts.

Another approach is to bid informatively in the hopes of finding a better contract. It usually doesn’t pay to bid with a view of avoiding a close game, so what is meant here is bidding to a minor suit slam. A making slam is rarer than a making 3NT, so this approach is working against the a priori expectations. Information by its very definition is what separates prior expectations from reality. If information is exchanged and the expectations are fulfilled, the bidders have to some extent reduced their chances of success in 3NT, especially when they have stretched to their limit. Many inferior players have a phobia against describing their hands and look for ways to win by guile.

The Bias towards 3NT
Here is a real-life illustration of a systemic failure which came up on BBO in a Portuguese tournament. As the opening bidder how do you view the following hand: ♠ — ♥ A53 ♦ K64 ♣ AKQ9763? Would you think of it as a hand that will play well in 3NT if partner has the semblance of a spade stopper? Or would you see it as a 4-loser hand for which slam is probable if partner has cover cards in the red suits? The best contract depends on whether partner’s honors lie primarily in the red suits or in spades. A priori one would bet on spades as an honour in one suit is more probable than honours in two, but it pays to find out, if the system allows you to do so. This was the auction at one table.

6NT was doubled for a spade lead, and the contract was down off the top as the ♠AQ sat behind the ♠KJ86. One might consider this an unlucky result, but actually it was lucky because at the other table the contract was 7NT, down 2, doubled! Nonetheless the result was horrible as 7♣ is an obvious lay-down contract. 6NT played the other way was cold, so why did the opening bidder bid NT with a void? The system made him do it. His incredible tunnel vision followed as a consequence of his view that his was a 3NT rebid.

Rather than opener trying to describe his highly unusual, strong hand it is better if responder describes his hand. A 4-4-3-2 shape is not unusual. Here is a sequence we could use starting with a Precision 1♣, that says nothing about clubs.

1♣	2♠	flat hand, 14+HCP
3♣	3♦	natural
3♥	3♠	natural
4♣	4♦	natural
5♦	5♥	control cue bids
5♠	6NT
7♣	Pass

Opener has the option of bidding 2NT/2♠ to ask for a 4-card major. Instead he is able to set the priorities towards a club slam in the knowledge that responder has at least 2 clubs. Natural control bids follow until responder shows a preference for 6NT, which would have scored well in Portugal. From his point of view 6NT is in keeping with the general nature of his hand. Opener should know enough by this time to bid the Grand Slam.

1NT within the 2/1 System
1NT is the anchor bid with regard to reaching 3NT contracts. In the past the lower limit for 1NT was 16 HCP. The average number of points opposite was 8, so 3NT was within grasp nearly half the time. With the passage of time the lower limit has decreased so that today , playing 14-16 limits I find this 13-point hand worthy of 1NT: ♠ Q8 ♥ KT7 ♦ KJ96 ♣ AT93. The most likely contract will be in NT, but the hand contains decent support for the majors. The average number of points opposite is 7, so game is available less than half the time which means one is bidding primarily to win the part score battle. If partner proceeds to 3NT on 10 HCP, it’s true that an extra Jack might make a difference, but a sequence of 1♦ – 1♥; 1NT doesn’t appeal to me at all. Exchange the minors with the majors and there is too great a chance of missing a major partial on a 4-4 fit, so I open 1♦.

In the 2/1 system described by Max Hardy (1989), a higher range of HCP is maintained, which leaves a gap between the rebids after a light minor suit opening bid. To remedy this, Hardy includes some very good hands with a 6-card minor in the 1NT category, presumably to benefit from a bolstering of the lower limit from 11 HCP to 15 HCP. The effect of this is to place a poison pill within the 1NT bid, for example, ♠ A7 ♥ K6 ♦ 942 ♣ AKQ965 – a 5-loser hand with 6 controls, the equivalent power of  20 HCP. To show such power opener must bid 2NT freely at his next turn. Most of the time, this will work in giving a good description of the exceptional holding, however, there is a theoretical problem. For responder to show interest in a diamond slam this sequence is recommended: 1NT – 2♦; 2♥ – 2♠; 2NT – 3♦, where 3♦ is the first meaningful bid. It shows a 6-loser hand with a broken 6-card diamond suit. 2♦ normally shows hearts, but 2♠ cancels that meaning and says responder is about to show a hand with a good minor suit. However, opener may have the big hand folded into 1NT and he must bid 2NT/2♦ to show it. Here is a possible outcome.

Responder plans to bid 2♠/2♥ as a forcing relay canceling the normal meaning and enabling him to bid 3♦ to show a broken diamond suit with 6 losers. Opener ruins this plan by showing a ‘solid’ minor, obviously clubs. Responder follows through showing diamonds, but opener can’t tell if this was his original intent. In these circumstances 3♦ could have several interpretations.

• a broken diamond suit, 6 losers
• a re-transfer to hearts
• hearts and diamonds

 Because the 2♠ cancellation has not occurred, the original intended meaning should be no longer a valid interpretation. In fact 6NT is a good contract on this particular placement of the major suit controls, but the bidding system is not helping the players to reach it. It is bad practice when one must fight one’s system. I would expect a gutsy responder to jump to 6♦ and hope partner makes the right choice.

Some players will not worry about missing the occasional slam because they use the hide-and-seek approach foisted on them by 2/1 designers. It appears many have a phobia about giving up information, which means they prefer to guess unnecessarily in order to take advantage of the uncertainty in the auction. The argument is that they gain overall on frequency. However, this is not an either-or choice as there are approaches that allow one to distinguish between situations for which one should take a flyer at 3NT, and for which one should go slowly and bid informatively.

Bidding within a Context
The system designer has given users guidelines to see him through under normal circumstances, but during a cooperative auction a player is free to choose one bid over another, in that way selecting the information he prefers to convey. The selection process begins at the first bid. It is best if a target contract can be assumed earlier rather than later in order to choose the information within in a particular context. If 1NT can be opened with a 5-card major, the bidding veers towards 3NT. It will be difficult for the opener to revert to his major. If one is bidding in the context of a NT contract, revealing the locations of stoppers is of prime importance, whereas in the context of a suit contract revealing controls is most relevant. It is well known that if the target is a suit contract, a player should ‘support with support’ immediately in order to set the agenda. A ‘worthless doubleton’, the anathema of a 3NT contract, can be quite useful in a suit contract.

In his book, The No Trump Zone, Danny Kleinman discusses at length the many aspects of an opening 1NT bid. Here is his guideline: ‘A 1NT opening should deliver a narrow range of value in support of partner’s suit or on defense against an opposing suit contract.’ That puts 1NT within the right context from the start.

If one opens 1♦, diamonds are not strongly suggested as trumps, and the search is just beginning with the contract of 5♦ being something of a last resort. The system designer works around the possibilities. If the best contract is 5♦, the only way to find out whether this is one of those rare occurrences, is to have the informative methods to discover the exceptional circumstances. Responder has need of a forcing raise, but where is it? As we have seen previously in the context of a weak NT system, Doug and Sandra Fraser play that a 3♣ response conveys this message. From this point on the auction is geared primarily to choosing between 3NT and 6♦. Subsequent bids have a meaning related to this task. It is much harder under a 2/1 system where 1♦-3♣ is nonforcing (10-12 HCP) showing 6 clubs, as it is uncertain as to where the auction is leading. Because it is difficult to establish a fit in either suit, 3NT looms large through the fog.

3NT ends most auctions. The bidding falls flat because the 3♥ bid is interpreted as showing a heart stopper and indirectly asking for a spade stopper, which responder has. Bidding 3♠/3♥ would deny a spade stopper, not show support for diamonds. One might consider this a rare, unlucky combination for the system. Most of the time 1♦ will be bid on a hand limited to at most 14 HCP, the top priority being given initially to finding a major suit fit. 3♣ will be useful in reaching a close 3NT without giving away information concerning the weaker major suit holding, or even the strength of the diamond suit. There is value in uncertainty in such cases, which the system designer planned to exploit.

The HCP limits on 3♣ are not a useful measure of the playing potential in a minor suit contract. Five controls are worth the equivalent of 16 HCP, which applies to both hands. Only 2 controls are missing. The worthless heart doubleton turns out to be a useful asset. The system should provide a way to exploit this strength in the cases where the 1♦ opening bid is not the expected flat minimum. Needless to say, a Precision 1♣ auction will reach 6♣ with ease, because the club fit will be revealed on the first response and the focus will be on controls not the total number (28) of HCP held. Opener can ask questions of responder without directly revealing his own holding, thereby hiding behind a veil of secrecy without having to put on a false mask