good/bad 2NT

[kgr]

I'm interested to have an explanation of (or links to) good/bad 2NT. How/when does it work and what are the advantages. Only used for 2NT or also other?

 

Thanks,

Koen

[CSGibson]

Here is my understanding of the convention: It is only applicable in competition, when opponents have bid and raised a suit. You can include negative doubles, takeout doubles, and inferred bids in that.

 

When you are in a competitive situation as defined above, then a bid of 2N by either opener or responder asks partner to bid 3♣, like lebensohl. The 2N bidder will then either pass if they want to play 3♣ or bid another suit with the intention of playing in that suit at that level. Going through 2N shows no additional values, but just indicates a desire to compete.

 

That means that a direct bid at the 3 level by either opener or responder in a situation where good/bad 2N is applicable shows extra values in context of the auction, and is forward-going.

 

The theory is that the natural 2N bid does not give much benefit in competition. Using the convention may force you to stretch and bid 3N occasionally when you don't have the values, or choose a slightly less descriptive bid, but the proponents of the convention feel that the value of distinguishing between a competitive and a forward-going bid in competition is worth the sacrifice of the natural 2N.

 

Just for the record: My understanding of the convention is from one source only, a local pro. I believe what I have written to be accurate and complete, but if it isn't, please correct me.

[rbforster]

I'm sure you can find people who espouse the 2N = Good as well as the 2N = Bad version of the convention too.

[mike777]

I'm interested to have an explanation of (or links to) good/bad 2NT. How/when does it work and what are the advantages. Only used for 2NT or also other?

 

Thanks,

Koen

Good/bad 2nt is a very complicated convention for most nonexperts. The write up by Bergen over 20 years ago is confusing and incomplete but I cannot cite one book where the write up is better.

 

You can go back over the forums where many people in fact play it in auctions that I have never seen in a book or magazine article, yet they will claim that the style is standard.

 

In general if your side opens the bidding and your side bids 2nt in competition it is g/b not natural. The few times it is natural takes practice, Bergen lists 11 exceptions (p. 115). In general 2nt in competition is never natural to play or invite.

 

See page 112 in Better Bidding with Bergen Volume Two 1986.

[gwnn]

Robson-Segal advise people to use lots of 2N lebensohl in competition, I think it's not much different than G/B used by the expert community (except they advocate it a bit more often I think). Apart from many "opps interfered over our various doubles" situations, they also say it should be played in 1♦-p-1♠-(2♥); 2NT. Download the book if you're interested in their structure.

[han]

I play very few G/B 2NT auctions. In many auctions where 2NT is useful as artificial I prefer it as scrambling.

[gnasher]

I prefer not to play Good-Bad 2NT at all, because it's too vulnerable to further competition.

 

If the idea is to distinguish between a forcing bid and a non-forcing bid, transfers are obviously better. If the idea is to distinguish between two non-forcing bids of different strengths, I'd rather make natural bids which are ambiguous as to strength than a 2NT bid which defines my strength but doesn't say which suit I'm trying to bid.

[TimG]

Robson-Segal advise people to use lots of 2N lebensohl in competition, I think it's not much different than G/B used by the expert community (except they advocate it a bit more often I think).

The Robson-Segal book is freely available in .pdf form. It shouldn't be too hard to find it using your favorite search engine. It is well worth the read even if you don't adopt all the methods.

[sathyab]

I prefer not to play Good-Bad 2NT at all, because it's too vulnerable to further competition.

 

If the idea is to distinguish between a forcing bid and a non-forcing bid, transfers are obviously better.  If the idea is to distinguish between two non-forcing bids of different strengths, I'd rather make natural bids which are ambiguous as to strength than a 2NT bid which defines my strength but doesn't say which suit I'm trying to bid.

Most often the suit you're trying to compete to the 3-level is your own, although GB 2nt can be used to compete with a 5-5 that's not strong enough to introduce a second suit at the 3-level in standard methods. When you prefer to make natural, ambiguous bids rather than a conventional 2nt, you will be bidding 2nt with Ax KJx xx KJTxxx when it goes 1c-(1s)-p-(2s) as well as xx AKx xx AKQxxx. All your partner meeds is a slow stopper and slow trick somewhere for 3nt on the second hand, while giving you the option of staying at the 3-level without a stopper and on the first hand all you want to do is to compete to 3c without overstating your hand. I'm curious how you would bid these two hands and how your partner would divine which kind it is in your methods.

[gnasher]

Most often the suit you're trying to compete to the 3-level is your own, although GB 2nt can be used to compete with a 5-5 that's not strong enough to introduce a second suit at the 3-level in standard methods.

I agree that if 2NT always shows a "bad" bid in specified suit, the convention becomes usable and potentially useful.

 

The circumstances I dislike are where it might be a bad one-suiter or a bad two-suiter. If it goes:

 

  1D (1S) something (2S)

  2NT (3S)

 

and 2NT is either "bad" with just diamonds or "bad" with clubs and diamonds, responder is rather worse placed than if opener had just bid his suit.

 

I can see a case for playing it after a 1♣ opening, where a two-suiter isn't possible. Similarly, after a 1♦ opening I could live with playing 2NT as specifically a "bad" diamond bid.

 

When you prefer to make natural, ambiguous bids rather than a conventional 2nt, you will be bidding 2nt with Ax KJx xx KJTxxx  when it goes 1c-(1s)-p-(2s) as well as xx AKx xx AKQxxx.

I don't think much of this example. It wouldn't occur to me to bid with the first hand facing a hand that couldn't bid over 1♠.

[kgr]

Do you prefer Good/bad 2NT or 2NT Good?:

 

2NT Good is played in about the same situations as Good/bad 2NT, but for Good 2NT then 2NT shows a Good raise in last suit (..also called Gorilla) and a direct raise is competitive.

 

for more info:

 

http://users.pandora.be/dirk.vancompernoll...ge/2NT_GOOD.htm

[sathyab]

I don't think much of this example.  It wouldn't occur to me to bid with the first hand facing a hand that couldn't bid over 1♠.

That's easy enough to fix; assume partner made a negative double. So it's gone 1c-(1s)-X-(2s). I think most people would not like to sell out to 2s now with Ax KJx xx KJTxxx.

[gnasher]

I don't think much of this example.  It wouldn't occur to me to bid with the first hand facing a hand that couldn't bid over 1♠.

That's easy enough to fix; assume partner made a negative double. So it's gone 1c-(1s)-X-(2s). I think most people would not like to sell out to 2s now with Ax KJx xx KJTxxx.

Indeed. A much better example.

[awm]

I agree with gnasher, have never liked this convention. In the auction 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠) it seems that:

 

(1) Negative double shows some values; it is fairly safe to cuebid with the good hand.

(2) Bidding 2NT will wrong-side 3NT on the weaker hand. While you're certainly more likely to have game when opener is stronger, responder's negative double is an unlimited call.

(3) In many cases you can use double to help distinguish the strong and weak options. A simple agreement is that bidding shows a good hand, whereas double is usually a weaker hand without very many spades. With spade length (i.e. 3-1-3-6) and a minimum passing is not too bad as partner will often balance.

[sathyab]

I agree with gnasher, have never liked this convention. In the auction 1♣-(1♠)-X-(2♠) it seems that:

 

(1) Negative double shows some values; it is fairly safe to cuebid with the good hand.

(2) Bidding 2NT will wrong-side 3NT on the weaker hand. While you're certainly more likely to have game when opener is stronger, responder's negative double is an unlimited call.

(3) In many cases you can use double to help distinguish the strong and weak options. A simple agreement is that bidding shows a good hand, whereas double is usually a weaker hand without very many spades. With spade length (i.e. 3-1-3-6) and a minimum passing is not too bad as partner will often balance.

If you give these problems a lot of thought you can devise alternatives such as having an agreement that bidding directly shows a good hand and doubling shows a weak hand. Not that any such agreement is without a price, you do lose the meaning of the double which can otherwise be used to show a hand of some strength, a six-bagger in your minor and 3-card heart support.

 

The idea of cue-bidding 3M with a good hand and winding up in 4m without a stopper doesn't appeal to me all that much as you would often have to bid 3M when pd hasn't shown any values and there's a real possibility of getting too high.

 

It's matter of trade-off. I'd happily give up the natural meaning of 2nt rather than a double. I don't remember holding a hand where I wish I had a natural 2nt available to me.

[gnasher]

So it's gone 1c-(1s)-X-(2s). I think most people would not like to sell out to 2s now with Ax KJx xx KJTxxx.

Although I said that this was a better example, I wouldn't, in fact, want to play Good-Bad here, because I prefer to use 2NT as an invitational heart raise. That would apply to any auction where responder had shown a suit which is lower than the opponents'.

 

After 1x-(1M)-1NT-(2M), responder is sufficiently limited that we should be trying to distinguish between forcing and non-forcing bids, so transfers are appropriate.

 

So, I think the only auctions where I might consider playing Good-Bad are:

- Responder has shown a suit which opener can support at the two level. eg 1m-(1♥)-dbl-(2♥)

- Responder has passed. eg 1m-(1♥)-pass-(2♥)

And even then, it would have to be with the agreement that with a two-suiter opener just bids his second suit.

[CSGibson]

So I take it that my explanation of the convention was accurate?

[gnasher]

So I take it that my explanation of the convention was accurate?

I don't think they have to have bid and raised a suit. The problems after

 

   1♦ pass 1♥ 2♠

 

are the same as those after

 

   1♦ 1♠ dbl 2♠