BPO-001-G

[luke warm]

and luis' excellent pass only got 40 :P

[helene_t]

I wonder why nobody bids 2NT. Is it natural in this situation?

[HeartA]

I strongly disagree with 3♦ unless pd opens 1C even with ♠Kx, ♥xx ♦AKQx, ♣JTxxx. Double is clearly better and flexible if pd has 5♣s.

[Walddk]

I strongly disagree with 3♦ unless pd opens 1C even with ♠Kx, ♥xx ♦AKQx, ♣JTxxx. Double is clearly better and flexible if pd has 5♣s.

I beg to disagree as you have seen when I voted. It is his problem if thinks we have adopted canape in our system. Occasionally, he may have chosen to open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors, but in that case he will not bid a free 2♣ now, and if he does, he should not expect me to understand that clubs are longer than diamonds.

 

I prefer to trust what I see when he opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I am a strong believer in opening your longer suit.

 

Roland

[HeartA]

I strongly disagree with 3♦ unless pd opens 1C even with ♠Kx, ♥xx ♦AKQx, ♣JTxxx.  Double is clearly better and flexible if pd has 5♣s.

I beg to disagree as you have seen when I voted. It is his problem if thinks we have adopted canape in our system. Occasionally, he may have chosen to open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors, but in that case he will not bid a free 2♣ now, and if he does, he should not expect me to understand that clubs are longer than diamonds.

 

I prefer to trust what I see when he opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I am a strong believer in opening your longer suit.

 

Roland

I am, too, a strong believer in opening longer suit. But 1D-2C is a special case. I believe that quite a good propotion of 5♣-4♦ hands you have to open 1D. And I disagree with the statement that with 5♣-4♦ hands, one should not freely bid 2♣ even if open got extra? How about 5D-6C?

[helene_t]

It is his problem if thinks we have adopted canape in our system. Occasionally, he may have chosen to open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors, but in that case he will not bid a free 2♣ now, and if he does, he should not expect me to understand that clubs are longer than diamonds.

 

I prefer to trust what I see when he opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I am a strong believer in opening your longer suit.

This is not Canapé, it's just American: Open 1♦ with both minors. I would assume this to be the agreement when playing with an American but when playing with a European I try to avoid such neboulous rebids.

 

But even if this is the partnership understanding, I agree that a voluntary 2♣ bid should either promise 5 clubs or 5 diamonds (by this scorring and vulnerability maybe even both) but certainly not either 5 clubs or 5 diamonds

[Walddk]

And I disagree with the statement that with 5♣-4♦ hands, one should not freely bid 2♣ even if open got extra? How about 5D-6C?

I don't mind that you open 1♦ with longer clubs, but don't expect me to figure it out if I were your partner. I don't want to guess. The same goes for some strong club systems when the bidding goes

 

1♦ - 1MA

2♣

 

That shows 5-4 or 4-5. I don't play those systems, sorry. If we play Blue Club, fine, then I know that you (in some cases) have longer clubs if the bidding goes

 

1♥ - 1♠

2♣

 

depending on minimum or maximum within the 11-16 hcp range.

 

Roland

[mike777]

Wine here, but I am ROFL... ROFL

 

I am one one the very very few Canape players here.

Assuming 2/1...I expect partner to have 5d but .....

No one has discussed Good/bad 2nt.......

Perhaps this bid deserves..minus zero.

[Walddk]

No one has discussed Good/bad 2nt.......

Perhaps this bid deserves..minus zero.

It deserves very little. There is no need for a 2NT bid. I will show that I have support for his longer diamond suit (maybe 5-5) by bidding 3♦. I don't want to invent bids that ask partner:

 

"Are you sure that you have what you already told me?".

 

It's like bidding 4NT asking for aces, and after a 5♥ response, use 5NT as asking: "Are you sure you have 2 aces?".

 

We do not play canape here, so partner does not have longer clubs than diamonds. That's why no panelist voted for 2NT.

 

Roland

[mike777]

Your post may make much sense but I am lost.

What does any of the Master discussion have to do with good/bad 2nt and my post?

1) Canape is irrelevant so......

2) To repeat I see no relevant discussion on good/bad 2nt....to repeat the very obvious...3d shows a strong hand which we do not have..repeat...3d shows "strongish" hand, so why are all the Masters bidding it when they can bid a "weakish" Bergen 2nt? If they hate the bid ok...but at least discuss it.

[Walddk]

Your post may make much sense but I am lost.

What does any of that have to do with good/bad 2nt and my post?

I thought you implied that by bidding 2NT you would show equal length in the minors to give partner the chance to tell you if he really has longer clubs. If not, I am sorry that I misunderstood.

 

As to the good/bad 2NT (puppet to 3♣) to show a competitive hand by bidding 3♦ afterwards, I don't think that this is part of our system. I can't find it anywhere.

 

If it was part of the system, I agree. Then 3♦ would be game invitational, and responder doesn't have the values for that.

 

Roland

 

P.S. I now see that you added something to your post. Good/bad 2NT was invented and described by Jeff Rubens in his articles on USP (Useful Space Principle).

[mike777]

Thanks for reply. As I said, good/bad 2nt has been around over 20 years. I doubt Jeff invented it, but that is a fun discussion for later. As a Player from Illinois, Bergen says he got idea from our state in his book..in any event..off shoot of Lebensohl....

 

 

Many conventions not listed in BBO...I expect Masters to tell us what to add or delete.......

 

To repeat the obvious, with good/bad 2nt we can show strongish or weakish 3D.

On this hand perhaps this is not important, if so, expect Masters to tell us why in more detail. If this is poor convention ignore, if it is very helpful ok.

[pclayton]

Good / bad 2N would be a sensible call if available. I hope Ben has some problems for the future that would help clarify good / bad and to intergrate it into the system.

[inquiry]

Good / bad 2N would be a sensible call if available. I hope Ben has some problems for the future that would help clarify good / bad and to intergrate it into the system.

I like good/bad 2NT. and I insist on playing it even with casual partners. But I think Fred left it out of the system for a very specific reason: BBO-ADVANCED is meant as a system you can use on line with a pick-up partner. Knowing when 2NT should be good/bad versus something else requires considerable agreement.

 

So the question is not does BBO-Advance play good/bad 2NT (it does not), but should we expand BBO-Advanced to something else (BBO-expert?, BBO-GOLD?, BBF-Advanced?) that does include it. The fact that not one of the panelist cried about not having it available suggest the answer is no.

 

We did get some answers on how to respond to micheals when partner promised a major and a minor. Cheap club bid = pass/correct, 2NT = tell me more. But we didn't solve the meaning of the cue-bid by advancer, nor the responding schedule by the overcaller after 2NT. Also, what some of you may have missed in the michaels question, the panel agreed that michaels when vul versus not, is a GOOD HAND. Almost all the panel were looking for game, and a few for slam (slam actually makes in clubs on the hand from which this problem was taken).

 

Which brings me to the theme for the first quiz... it was minimum values for different actions.

 

Question A, for fourth seat opening

Question B, for light opening with bad suit

Question C, for a 2♣ opening bid

Question D, for a new suit response versus a raise in competition

Question E, for a michaels cue bid at unfavorable vul

Question F, For a rebid with great suit, but no clear direction

Queston G, With modest values in support of both partners suit (I too wondered if G/B 2NT would be choose, or 2NT for scramble instead of dbl, and if dbl, how the panelist would mean it).

[pclayton]

If you want to have a lithmus test for g/b 2N, I'd suggest:

 

1x (1y) - double - (2y)

?

 

This is the most common good/bad situation and I would guess the panel will bemoan the lack of good/bad.

 

I'd suggest a hand like: Axx, x, Kxx, KQxxxx.

[luke warm]

i could be wrong here, will read my better bidding book again, but i believe anytime obar, 2nt is not natural... neither is it necessarily a puppet to clubs

[HeartA]

I am not a big fan of conventions, and I don't think we need any convention to bid this hand. IMO, double is very clear: "pd, I want to compete, but not sure of which suit. I have 5-card ♥s, and can support for either of your minors. Please pick one"

[whereagles]

I don't mind that you open 1♦ with longer clubs, but don't expect me to figure it out if I were your partner. I don't want to guess.

I agree. I prefer bids that are clear. Regardless of the merits of opening 1D on a 4D 5C (which I think are close to inexistent, but ok), I would very much prefer to play 1D plus 2C rebid as 5D 4C.

[hrothgar]

I am not a big fan of conventions, and I don't think we need any convention to bid this hand.  IMO, double is very clear: "pd, I want to compete, but not sure of which suit.  I have 5-card ♥s, and can support for either of your minors.  Please pick one"

Funny, I always thought that double meant that we were going to set the opponents in their contract...

 

Oh, wait... When you're talking about not liking conventions, you're assuming that conventional doubles are "natural"...

[Chamaco]

Funny, I always thought that double meant that we were going to set the opponents in their contract...

 

Oh, wait... When you're talking about not liking conventions, you're asusming that conventional doubles are natural...

Agree.

I thought that unless specifically discussed this double had great probabilities to be penalty....

[hrothgar]

I don't mind that you open 1♦ with longer clubs, but don't expect me to figure it out if I were your partner. I don't want to guess.

I agree. I prefer bids that are clear. Regardless of the merits of opening 1D on a 4D 5C (which I think are close to inexistent, but ok), I would very much prefer to play 1D plus 2C rebid as 5D 4C.

Do you realize the sheer idiocy of this comment?

 

There are a number of players who favor opening 1♦ holding some hands with 4 Diamonds and 5+ Clubs. Typically, these are hands that strongly suggest suit play and are deemed unsuitable for a NT rebid.

 

In short, the decision to open 1♦ on an x=x=4=5 pattern is predicated on the decision to rebid 2♣.

 

You can't separate the issue...

[Gerben42]

I am not a big fan of conventions

 

I am a big fan of agreements. I've had too many misunderstandings with people who are not a fan of conventions and say "just play natural".

[pclayton]

Just a postscript to this problem:

 

Even if you buy into the idea that pard can't be 4-5 in the minors, as Justin indicates, there is no reason why pard can't be 5-6. Accordingly, I still think double has a lot of merit, since we will land on our feet in the right suit.

[Walddk]

In short, the decision to open 1♦ on an x=x=4=5 pattern is predicated on the decision to rebid 2♣.

And now you expect your partner to do something intelligent with a hand like

 

Axxxx

Qx

Jxx

xxx

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - ??

 

"Guess what I have partner, 5-4 or 4-5, or maybe even 6-4".

 

To me it is not at all natural to bid a shorter suit before a longer. I don't want to guess whether I have to pass or give preference to diamonds with the hand above. I bid 2♦ 100 times out of 100, and it really isn't my problem if you are struggling in your 4-3 fit, no matter at which level you decide to play.

 

You will never convince me that you have more clubs than diamonds. I will keep giving preference to diamonds.

 

Roland

[HeartA]

And now you expect your partner to do something intelligent with a hand like

 

Axxxx

Qx

Jxx

xxx

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - ??

In this situation, I would bid 2♦ to keep bidding going if pd so desired. But this is different from problem G, in which, opp's interference gave me the chance to not to pick one minor over the other.