Good-bad 2NT

[whereagles]

Hi. I play the good-bad 2NT gadget, but only in the bad variant. e.g.

 

1D (1S) X (2S)

2NT = competitive hand

 

Opener may have :

1. Weakish 55 minors

2. Weakish 1-suiter diamonds

3. Weak 3H bid

 

Responder takes a preference in the minors, or bids something else if he's strong.

 

I was wondering if some of you play this gadget, and if so, what more "variants" you put in it.

[inquiry]

Marxhzl Miles suggest reversing the meaning. Bidding the suit you want directly with minimum values, and letting 2NT be the stong bid. With one partner I play it that way (he insist), others I play the good old fashion way you described. Wasn't this a Bergen invention?

 

Ben

[whereagles]

I think it's Bergen's idea, yes. I'm curious how people play the strong variants, but discussing when 2NT is good-bad might also be a good idea. I play it only by opener and then RHO bids something.

[pclayton]

We play it too, but not as Miles suggests. About the only rule we've formally developed (besides the obvious) is that its never over 2♦; only a direct 2♥ and 2♠.

 

I've toyed with the subtleties of a direct 3N vs a delayed 3N. Same with a Q bid. Never gotten around to it though.

[whereagles]

Hum... I see. I've also looked for good-bad over the net, but all definitions used it only for bad hands. Perhaps "good-bad" means only 2NT is used to distinguish good from bad hands, not that it has good AND bad variants.

[han]

Bergen has an extensive list of situations where GB2NT should not apply (see better bidding with bergen II). I would try to make simpler rules, like:

 

2NT is GB-2NT when bid directly over the opponents 2H or 2S and the following are true:

 

1) The 2NT bidder has not limited his/her hand.

 

2) It has not been established yet whether game is possible. (for example: no game force).

 

3) We have no other specific agreement for the 2NT bid.

 

I'm most familiar with the variant where bidding 2NT shows a competitive hand (though one of my partners also insist on playing the other variation). Bidding directly at the three level shows serious extras (but is not necessarily forcing).

 

 

I don't think that 2NT could show hearts in the example that was given.

[whereagles]

Hum.. now that I think of it, since 2NT is forcing, it can be used to show distributional hands that are either competitive OR game-forcing:

 

1D (1S) X (2S)

??

1. 3m/H = invitational

2. 2NT + 3m/H = competitive

3. 2NT + 3S = distributional and game forcing

 

Possible hands with, say, a diamond 1-suiter:

1. xx Ax AKJTxx Kxx

2. xx Ax AKJTxx xxx

3. xx Ax AKJTxx AQx

[EarlPurple]

The reason for playing 2NT to show the weaker hand is as follows.

 

When I have the weaker hand, my main aim is to push the opps up one more level. If they do this before I have bid my suit, I have done my job anyway, and it might not matter so much if I never get to show my suit.

 

If I have the stronger hand, my aim is to win the hand. I want to show partner where my cards are so he can decide whether to raise them further or double the opponents should they go on bidding.

 

Thus I prefer making the more descriptive bid with the stronger hand, in this case bidding what I have.

 

By the way, I have a whole feature about this particular auction, particularly from the overcaller's partner's point of view, on my bridge pages.

[Gerben47]

I use good bad in the classical meaning: either a bad hand (almost always) or a very strong hand.

With the bad hand you're content to let the opps play, with the very good hand you can afford them to bid again (or perhaps even want them to?).

 

In my experience the good-bad 2NT is almost always bad as it applies when there is much bidding from the other players.