what are your methods here?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sthqjt2daq8765c96&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c1sd2spp]133|200[/hv]

[Cascade]

Dbl = takeout

2NT = natural invite

3♣ = competitive

3♦ = whatever 2♦ wasn't on the previous round - standard is NF now since 2♦ is forcing

3♥ = NF as for 3♦ above

3♠ = General force directional ask. Usually i would play this as something specific - perhaps with club support - and prefer to start with double on more normal hands

3NT = to play

4♣ = forcing

[mike777]

2nt scrambling.

I give up 2nt natural.

 

will correct 3c to 3d.

 

 

that means direct 3d is nat and gf.

[mikeh]

double = cards, this is passable with a suitable holding.

 

2N = natural and invitational. There is some overlap in shape with double, but double would tend to deny a stopper in spades, and otherwise be about the same hand.

 

3♣ = competitive

 

3♦: long diamonds, 4 hearts, competitive. Not enough to have bid 2♦ last time.

 

3♥: long hearts, not enough to have bid 2♥ last time, so the upper end is defined by your lower end for an initial 2♥

 

3♠ gf, asking for intelligent call......3N would usually be the target, but not necessarily

 

3N to play

 

4♣ very shapely, invitational.....with gf clubs, bid 3♠ and pull the hypothetical 3N or make another call over whatever else partner did.

 

Note we don't have a pure takeout double, but the need for one is diminished...we already made one takeout double and partner passed over 2♠. He won't convert our 'action' double with 4 hearts, nor with any hand that doesn't look defensive.

 

Here, I bid 3♦.

[jillybean]

Wayne, MikeH,

 

Do you play 2N as good/bad 2N in other situations? GB2N is one of the conventions my partner would like to

add, I'm struggling to find auctions where it applies.

[mike777]

Wayne, MikeH,

 

Do you play 2N as good/bad 2N in other situations? GB2N is one of the conventions my partner would like to

add, I'm struggling to find auctions where it applies.

 

 

 

great question to ask jill.

 

 

I think good/bad 2nt is a very complicated/difficult convention

 

when is it on.off?

how do you play it?

[Cascade]

Wayne, MikeH,

 

Do you play 2N as good/bad 2N in other situations? GB2N is one of the conventions my partner would like to

add, I'm struggling to find auctions where it applies.

 

For me only in fairly standard Lebensohl situations. (Although we don't play those auctions in a standard way.)

 

In theory you could play Good Bad in any competitive situation. The cost is that you would lose a natural invitational 2NT.

[CSGibson]

I play a variation of good/bad 2N (we use 2N to show the better hands, and direct bids as competitive). We have strict rules when it applies, as follows:

 

1.) Opponents must have bid and raised a suit. This applies with implied fits as well (one opponent has doubled, another bid a suit in response to the double, we count that as bid & raised)

2.) Your partner must have previously bid in the auction. For example, on the auction 1♦-(1♠)-P-(2♠), a 2N rebid by opener would simply suggest two places to play with longer diamonds (an example being 6 diamonds & 4 clubs) for us, and not be good/bad even though the suit has been bid and raised by opponents

 

With your example hand, and within the framework of our good/bad 2N structure, I would bid 3♦ as non-forcing & competitive (avertable in ACBL land).

[Free]

I play Switch after 1♣-1♠ (2♦ shows ♥, 2♥ shows GF with ♦). I can now safely bid a natural 3♦ showing less than GF.

[Finch]

I do play good/bad 2NT by opener, but don't see the need for it in this auction, so I would also simply play

 

dbl = takeout

2NT = natural invitational

3C/3D = natural and weak

 

If I have a hand that wants to bid 3D game forcing, I would have bid 2D last round.

[wyman]

2N would have been nat for me on the last round, so it's a scramble for me here. Especially at MP, there are hands where I don't want to sell to 2S, but I'm really unhappy if pard passes my dbl. 3Y shows a hand not strong enough for 2Y on the last round.

[helene_t]

I agree with Mike777 that 2NT followed by 3♦ is weaker than a direct 3♦.

 

But I am not sure if a direct 3♦ is a game force. If it is, is 3♦ via 2NT invitational or not?

 

What about this: with four hearts and longer diamonds, you bid:

- with gf strength: don't make a negative double, make a 2♦ freebid and hope to be able to reverse.

- with an invitational hand: bid 3♦ now

- with a weak hand: bid 2NT now and correct 3♣ to 3♦.

 

Playing 2NT here as scrambling means that we can't make a weak competitive bid in clubs now. If we had a weak hand with primary club support, maybe we should start with a raise of clubs instead of the double.

[jillybean]

I do play good/bad 2NT by opener, but don't see the need for it in this auction, so I would also simply play

 

dbl = takeout

2NT = natural invitational

3C/3D = natural and weak

 

If I have a hand that wants to bid 3D game forcing, I would have bid 2D last round.

Hi Frances,

 

Is your GB2N *only* used by opener? The negative double by responder here limits the hand but if that auction had been 1♣ (1♥) 1♠ (2♥) P (P) ?

could GB2N not apply here where a direct 3♦ is game forcing and 3♦ via 2N competitive?

[Finch]

Yes, it is quite possible to play g/b in 7th seat (count 'em!), the trick is to be careful to agree when it applies and when it doesn't.

[jillybean]

Yes, it is quite possible to play g/b in 7th seat (count 'em!), the trick is to be careful to agree when it applies and when it doesn't.

Yes, 7th seat :) In your methods, 1♣ (1♥) 1♠ (2♥) P (P) ?

3♥ is used to force game and 2N is natural?

[Fluffy]

I'd assume the same meanings as Wayne.

[mikeh]

Hi Frances,

 

Is your GB2N *only* used by opener? The negative double by responder here limits the hand but if that auction had been 1♣ (1♥) 1♠ (2♥) P (P) ?

could GB2N not apply here where a direct 3♦ is game forcing and 3♦ via 2N competitive?

 

I agree with Frances that one could use g/b 2N in this situation, but the reason I am responding to your post is that you stated that 'The negative double by responder here limits the hand'.

 

It doesn't.....a negative double has NO upper limit. You could hold 21 hcp here and still have a negative double.

 

AJx AKJx AQxx Qx is a negative double over 1♠.

 

In response to an earlier question, I don't play g/b by responder. g/b is a solution for a problem, and imo opener is far more likely to have a problem that needs a solution than is responder.

 

That doesn't mean one cannot have agreements that include g/b by responder....just that I've never seen the benefit from using it here as enough to offset the loss of the natural approach I espoused above.

[mikeh]

2N would have been nat for me on the last round, so it's a scramble for me here. Especially at MP, there are hands where I don't want to sell to 2S, but I'm really unhappy if pard passes my dbl. 3Y shows a hand not strong enough for 2Y on the last round.

Do you really bid 2N over 1♠ with an invitational hand that includes a 4 card heart suit? Maybe you do, but, if so, you are in a tiny minority of negative double users.

[jillybean]

I agree with Frances that one could use g/b 2N in this situation, but the reason I am responding to your post is that you stated that 'The negative double by responder here limits the hand'.

 

It doesn't.....a negative double has NO upper limit. You could hold 21 hcp here and still have a negative double.

 

AJx AKJx AQxx Qx is a negative double over 1♠.

 

In response to an earlier question, I don't play g/b by responder. g/b is a solution for a problem, and imo opener is far more likely to have a problem that needs a solution than is responder.

 

That doesn't mean one cannot have agreements that include g/b by responder....just that I've never seen the benefit from using it here as enough to offset the loss of the natural approach I espoused above.

 

Bear with me for a while,

 

1♣ (1♠) X (2♠)

P (P) 3♣/♦/♥ competitive, 2N natural invitational and with a gf hand & 4♥'s (AJx AKJx AQxx Qx) you must force with 3♠?

 

This is clearing up a lot of misconceptions I've had regarding GB2N, I'm going to the club, will check on this later.

[mikeh]

My 21 count example was to prove a point.....you won't have such a hand when all the other players have calls, unless at least one of them is psyching :D

 

In the bad old days, before negative doubles were developed, if you had an opening hand, with no 5+ suit, and rho overcalled, you had to either bid a 4 card suit or you had to cuebid. Cuebids therefore didn't, if you used this approach, promise support...they simply forced to game. This had obvious problems, especially as opponents learned to bid on scant values.....the auction could be very high before responder had a second call.

 

With negative doubles, it became possible, and popular for good reason, to play the cuebid as showing support for opener.....originally gf, but more recently usually limit or better.

 

The otherwise unbiddable, due to no long suit, gf hands were dealt with by doubling.

 

Now, back to 1♣ (1♠) x (2♠) P (P)

 

With a gf hand, you have options.

 

You may be able to bid 3N.

 

You may be able to bid 3♠

 

And on some hands you may be able to double.

 

Double will be taken by partner as announcing ownership of the hand, but not gf. It allows partner to pass with a defensive hand and some useful spade holding (Hxx is often enough).

 

You may choose to double even with a gf hand on the basis that if partner passes, you rate to score better defending 2♠ than bu bidding what might be a close game. Some opps overcall with 4 card suits, and it isn't impossible to find that the opps are on a 4-3 fit!

 

If you do double with a gf hand, then you will presumably bid a game on your next call or, perhaps, cue with 3♠ next time.

 

As I say, you have a range of options.

 

All of this should assist in understanding why fewer players use g/b here than by opener.

 

Opener is often faced with a tough decision when holding a shapely hand. He may have a 16-17 count and 5-5 or a 6 card minor....say 1♦ (1♠) x (2♠).

 

He'd like to bid 3♦ with a decent 13-14 count and 6+ diamonds. He'd also like to be able to show a 17 count with 6 good diamonds. Having 3♦ cover the entire range of 6+ diamond suit opening bids leaves responder guessing at the 3-level. The same is true if opener has a 5-5 minor hand....he wants to bid with a decent 14 and he wants to bid with a good 18......and using 3♣ for both leaves responder guessing.

 

So g/b or b/g 2N was developed to allow opener to distinguish between 'power' hands wanting to bid over 2♠ and 'shape' hands, where opener still wanted to bid but competitively rather than from power.

 

As we can see, I hope, responder doesn't have the same issues as does opener, so doesn't, imo, need the same sort of solution. We have already, by invoking the negative double, eliminated gf hands with shape....we would have bid 2/1 in our long suit or one of our two-suits.

 

So we only have balanced gf hands, balanced invitational hands and competitive distributional hands to worry about. The natural scheme I outlined caters to all of these without serious difficulties, so using g/b or b/g is, as I said in another recent post in another thread, a solution in search of a problem.

 

It is common for advancing players to learn of a shiny new gadget and want to play it, including in situations for which it was not initially intended. Such modifications are common and have sometimes entered the mainstream. Puppet stayman, for example, was originally a 3♣ response to 1N, not 2N. And the negative double, itself, is a far different device today than it was when first invented. So there is nothing 'wrong' with using a gadget in a new way, but one should be very careful to make sure that it doesn't create more problems than it solves. Here, since I don't think there is a problem that needs solving, I wouldn't even attempt to use it.

 

Sorry for the long answer :D

[wyman]

Do you really bid 2N over 1♠ with an invitational hand that includes a 4 card heart suit? Maybe you do, but, if so, you are in a tiny minority of negative double users.

 

I stand corrected. I'm still sorting these auctions out in my head. Sorry for jumping the gun.

[Flameous]

Having first taken this idea up in the table, I guess I should expand a bit on my thoughts.

Even though I haven't agreed this to be GB2NT with anyone, I think I actually should but that is because I play negative freebids in all my partnerships.

This leads me to double with all hands with 4♥ here even though GF and even with longer diamonds. Under these assumptions GB2NT is much more useful.

 

2NT = Competitive raise in clubs or Competitive with 4♥ and 5+♦ (Or some undefined GF hand that bids 3♥ or higher next)

3C = Distributional inv with clubs (Balancedish hands just double)

3D = Nat, GF

3H = Nat (5♥), GF

3S = GF with club support

(Could actually reassign some sequences to also fit inv hands with ♦s here)

 

Of course I'm losing natural 2NT as do those playing scramble here. But I think this is one of the sequences where I don't even feel too bad doubling with all those hands.

 

Without NFBs, you don't need to show GFs with diamonds so only separation you might want to make would be between competitive and invitational. I'm not sure if it's worth it since with most inv hands you can just double quite happily.

[jillybean]

Thanks Mike, I can narrow my focus a lot now. 58.97% game today, no GB2N :)