What can I say?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=shq32dt864cakq962&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp1s2h?]133|200[/hv]

[HardVector]

Pass. What's the problem?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=shq32dt864cakq962&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp1s2h3c]133|200[/hv]

 

Is there any value in playing 3♣ as non forcing, would you want to with this hand? (bear with me!)

[P_Marlowe]

[hv=pc=n&n=shq32dt864cakq962&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp1s2h3c]133|200[/hv]

 

Is there any value in playing 3♣ as non forcing, would you want to with this hand? (bear with me!)

Sure. As it is, we play it that way.

But this is no N/B question N/B agreement.

But to give a short incomplete answer: The trick is to ask yourself,

what hands would bid 2NT in the given seq., how valuable is it to

keep the natural meaning, or if it is more valuable to use the bid

in an artificial way, e.g. as some sort of Lebensohl to differnatiate

between min opening and opening with add. strength, you may search

for Good/Bad 2NT.

 

The bid gets discussed in

https://www.amazon.com/Competitive-Bidding-Century-Marshall-Miles/dp/1894154134

 

A book I can recomment, but use it with care.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

[hv=pc=n&n=shq32dt864cakq962&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp1s2h3c]133|200[/hv]

 

Is there any value in playing 3♣ as non forcing, would you want to with this hand? (bear with me!)

3C would not usually be considered as forcing. It would, however, usually be considered as showing a far better hand than this one. I would never bid 3C with a void in partner’s suit and 11 hcp.

 

I play something known as good-bad 2N here, in one partnership. 2N would say ‘I want to bid but don’t take me for a strong hand’. Partner is expected to bid 3C, even without true support, unless he has a good hand (where he’d be worried that 3C would be passed)

 

That’s not a N/B treatment. But even in that partnership, I’d not do it on this hand. It isn’t good enough…again,the void in partner’s suit is a huge flaw.

[jillybean]

Good Bad 2nt would have been very useful but we are still learning to walk.

 

[hv=pc=n&n=shq32dt86cakq9642&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp1s2h3cp3sp4c]133|200[/hv]

oof

 

Let's say that you did want to play 3♣ as non forcing. stop bidding here, without GB2nt or any gadgets.

My next question would be, what do you bid with this hand? An impossible question perhaps.

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sJ6hK75dQ6cakqj96&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp1s2h?]133|200[/hv]

[jillybean]

3C would not usually be considered as forcing. It would, however, usually be considered as showing a far better hand than this one. I would never bid 3C with a void in partner’s suit and 11 hcp.

 

My use of forcing / non forcing is perhaps wrong, I mean - partner isn't expected to bid again

[mikeh]

Forcing means partner must bid again no matter how bad his hand. Non-forcing does NOT mean that partner must pass. Partner is unlimited. If 3C is ‘non-forcing’ all that means is that partner is allowed to but far from obliged to pass. Nor does it mean that partner is ‘expected’ to pass

 

Your 1C opening was ‘non forcing’ but, with a void and only 11 hcp, you probably ‘expected’ partner to bid something

 

Same here: if you bid a non forcing 3C, you have no reason to have any ‘expectations’ of partner. You’re supposed to be describing your hand…long clubs, some extra values (otherwise pass and let partner decide whether to keep the auction alive).

 

There is zero reason to bid with your hand. If the hand belongs to your side, it is extremely unlikely that partner will pass out 2H. Never try to make every decision for partner

[mikeh]

With Jx Kxx Qx AKQJxx, playing no gadgets, the decision is between 2N, 3C, and 3N

 

.2N shows a hand too strong for 1N. With a weaker hand…hoping to bid 1N had RHO passed, it’s very simple. Pass. Let partner make the next decision

 

3C isn’t terrible since it shows extra values and long clubs without real spade support. You need help to make 9 tricks in notrump or to make any other game and partner is still there. For example, he may be able to bid 3H, giving you an easy 3N

 

3N is, imo, too much. One stopper and no obvious route to 9 tricks unless partner has either a magic hand (say xxxxx xxx AKx xx) where you have 9 tricks and he can’t really act over 3C and may not after 2N). I’d bid 2N. So I don’t have 18-19 hcp. So what? This hand has far more playing strength than say Qx Kxx AJx AKJxx

 

I guess the message I want to convey is that bridge is a partnership game. Neither you nor your partner will ever become good bidders if you don’t exercise discipline. Learn to describe your hand. When you aren’t able to do so….as with your OP hand…..pass and let partner participate in the decision making process. Will this sometimes lead to a poor outcome? Of course it can but in the long run both you and your partner will become more reliable and more successful

 

Far too many non experts don’t use the pass card enough…probably because they don’t trust partner

[jillybean]

Here's the full deal.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjt8432ht5da5c74&w=sa76hkj9876dk72ct&n=shq32dt864cakq962&e=sk95ha4dqj93cj853&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp1s2h3cp3sp4cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I'm south here and while I agree with partner's opening bid I think pass/2♥ is automatic. I'm not ashamed of the opening bid but the resulting auction has me reaching for the green card without a second thought. As at times I'm accused of "my way or the highway" (it's true!) I'm trying to understand partners approach here and see if we could make it work.

 

 

I guess the message I want to convey is that bridge is a partnership game. Neither you nor your partner will ever become good bidders if you don’t exercise discipline. Learn to describe your hand. When you aren’t able to do so….as with your OP hand…..pass and let partner participate in the decision making process. Will this sometimes lead to a poor outcome? Of course it can but in the long run both you and your partner will become more reliable and more successful

Far too many non experts don’t use the pass card enough…probably because they don’t trust partner

I think pass is the hardest bid to master.

[smerriman]

I'm trying to understand partners approach here and see if we could make it work.

I've had this exact issue with a partner in the past. They always wanted to compete to the three level with distributional hands, without realizing that you need to be able to show extras with the same bid.

 

The good/bad convention mentioned above is the perfect solution, letting you have both. As long as you have clear rules about when it applies (eg only second bid by opener after RHO has made a 2 level bid), it is quite easy to remember/use.

 

But without it, you simply have to give up the weak bids, as there's no alternative for the stronger ones.

[jillybean]

I've always disliked the convention name Good/Bad 2nt, it's confusing as there is nothing Good about it, you have a Bad hand and are wanting to get out at the 3 level without getting partner excited.

[mikeh]

I've always disliked the convention name Good/Bad 2nt, it's confusing as there is nothing Good about it, you have a Bad hand and are wanting to get out at the 3 level without getting partner excited.

Not quite accurate

 

One should NOT use good-bad with a ‘bad’ hand. One passes with bad hands.

 

However, there is a world of difference between, say, Kx xx Axx AKxxxx, where one hates to pass over 2H but doesn’t want partner to get excited, and, say, Ax xx AJx AKJ10xx, on which one wants partner to know that I have a ‘good’ hand

 

The problem is the terminology. Good-bad is dependent on context. If one understands that real ‘bad’ always passes, and that one has to have a positive reason for bidding in this situation, the distinction is really: 2N says I have the playing values to want to bid at the 3-level but nothing more than that while 3C says I have a clear 3C call with extras.

 

Btw, there is (of course) a variant called bad-good in which 2N shows the strong hand (with no inference about stoppers) while 3C shows the weaker (bad but not really) hand.

[akwoo]

As a Kaplan-Sheinwold-derived-weakNT-2/1 player, this would be simple in a similar system.

 

With the weak distributional hand, bid 3C, which does not promise extras.

 

With the strong hand, pass, which shows a strong NT. (Actually, I think that hand is good enough to chance 2N - at least it's close.)

 

Yes, this approach loses on something like ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣AQxxx where partner would expect more strength for your pass and more shape for a 3C bid. But things could still work out.

[akwoo]

As a Kaplan-Sheinwold-derived-weakNT-2/1 player, this would be simple in a similar system.

 

With the weak distributional hand, bid 3C, which does not promise extras.

 

With the strong hand, pass, which shows a strong NT. (Actually, I think that hand is good enough to chance 2N - at least it's close.)

 

Yes, this approach loses on something like ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣AQxxx where partner would expect more strength for your pass and more shape for a 3C bid. But things could still work out.

[jillybean]

 

One should NOT use good-bad with a ‘bad’ hand. One passes with bad hands.

 

Agree! It's poor convention name all around.

 

All this raises another question. Do we add a bandage convention , which likely won't be used often and vulnerable to forgets or do we practice disciplined bidding and add the gadgets when we are competent in our standard bidding.

[jillybean]

As a Kaplan-Sheinwold-derived-weakNT-2/1 player, this would be simple in a similar system.

 

With the weak distributional hand, bid 3C, which does not promise extras.

 

With the strong hand, pass, which shows a strong NT. (Actually, I think that hand is good enough to chance 2N - at least it's close.)

 

Yes, this approach loses on something like ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣AQxxx where partner would expect more strength for your pass and more shape for a 3C bid. But things could still work out.

I'm a weak nt - 2/1 player with another partner , I like this, if we can remember it.

[smerriman]

All this raises another question. Do we add a bandage convention , which likely won't be used often and vulnerable to forgets or do we practice disciplined bidding and add the gadgets when we are competent in our standard bidding.

My experience with the aforementioned partner was that this situation where G/B applies came up surprisingly regularly. And they forgot it every single time :( But at the same time, they also forgot every time that bidding at the 3 level required extras either way, so the hands often turned out badly regardless of whether there was a convention in place or not.

 

2NT is such a nonexistent natural bid in this sequence, so remembering to pass isn't much different than remembering to bid 2NT. But if you can teach your partner to pass the distributional hands without extras then you'll have made more progress than me :)

[jillybean]

My experience with the aforementioned partner was that this situation where G/B applies came up surprisingly regularly. And they forgot it every single time :( But at the same time, they also forgot every time that bidding at the 3 level required extras either way, so the hands often turned out badly regardless of whether there was a convention in place or not.

 

2NT is such a nonexistent natural bid in this sequence, so remembering to pass isn't much different than remembering to bid 2NT. But if you can teach your partner to pass the distributional hands without extras then you'll have made more progress than me :)

 

I can certainly share your frustration but then I've inflicted the same on my partners while I learn new conventions.

I'm actually not hoping to "teach partner to pass the weak, distributional hands" but rather to improve our hand evaluation and understanding of the auction, bid, or pass. :). I think it's the "rules" that we learn at the start that make progress very difficult.

[mikeh]

Agree! It's poor convention name all around.

 

All this raises another question. Do we add a bandage convention , which likely won't be used often and vulnerable to forgets or do we practice disciplined bidding and add the gadgets when we are competent in our standard bidding.

It’s long been said, and I think generally borne out by the evidence, that a good pair playing simple methods well will usually beat an equally good pair playing methods that are on paper far superior but that in real life are difficult to remember.

 

Tournament players in NA are now almost all old, but 30+ years ago it was normal to sit down against a young pair whose convention card was crammed with tiny handwriting…..almost always they had no idea how to play bridge.

 

When I came to Victoria, where I’ve lived for 36 years, we had an imp league. One pair, both really good people, played a homemade strong club/relay method. To their credit they rarely forgot what the bids meant but unfortunately, for them, they couldn’t see the forest for the trees. It wasn’t unusual for them to take five rounds of bidding, every call an alert, and end up in a silly contract…

 

So keep it simple. Add gadgets not because they look cool or sexy but because they solve a problem and the gain is greater than the loss….never, ever add a gadget without thinking seriously about what doing so costs….every convention costs something. Stayman, for example, means you can’t run from 1N to 2C with a very weak hand and five or six clubs. I suspect few people ever think about it that way. Obviously stayman offers gains far exceeding the cost, and I mention it only to emphasis that there are no free lunches when it comes to adding conventions.

[sfi]

My experience with the aforementioned partner was that this situation where G/B applies came up surprisingly regularly. And they forgot it every single time :( But at the same time, they also forgot every time that bidding at the 3 level required extras either way, so the hands often turned out badly regardless of whether there was a convention in place or not.

 

2NT is such a nonexistent natural bid in this sequence, so remembering to pass isn't much different than remembering to bid 2NT. But if you can teach your partner to pass the distributional hands without extras then you'll have made more progress than me :)

My experience with adding Good/Bad into a practiced partnership of experienced players, but who have not already played G/B in another serious partnership, is that it takes a long time to fully understand and internalise the implications of the convention. I warned the last pair before we added it that it would take a year before it became natural. They both laughed at me, but it was almost exactly a year later when they said they were comfortable with it. And these pairs all practiced seriously and placed well in major tournaments, so it's one of the bigger changes you can make.

 

The reason it takes so long is that you have to recognise all the times when it's right for you to bid 2NT, right for you to skip 2NT, and then recognise all those times when partner had the same decision to make. You also have the hands where you actually want to bid a natural 2NT and you have to remember in time to work out that's not an option. When you're learning it and playing in the middle of a serious event, it's really easy to miss the situations.

 

On the other hand, once you get it down you can easily add it in the next partnership. If you're serious and willing to put in the effort, it really does help competitive auctions.

[DavidKok]

I've always disliked the convention name Good/Bad 2nt, it's confusing as there is nothing Good about it, you have a Bad hand and are wanting to get out at the 3 level without getting partner excited.

Btw, there is (of course) a variant called bad-good in which 2N shows the strong hand (with no inference about stoppers) while 3C shows the weaker (bad but not really) hand.

The version I prefer is one where 2NT shows either a bad hand (distributional with at most 12-13 HCP or so), a direct 3-level bid shows extras but is NF (approximately 14-17) and the GF hands also bid 2NT but then bid on if partner accepts the relay. This way the 2NT is either 'bad' or 'good', hence the name Good/Bad 2NT.

There are many versions that are slightly different - weak passes, constructive bids at the 3-level, strong bids 2NT (sometimes called 'Reverse Lebensohl'), or weak bids 2NT, strong bids at the 3-level, constructive has to round up or down (sometimes called 'Lebensohl'), or even (very) weak passes, slightly stronger bids 2NT, constructive NF bids at the 3-level and very strong starts with a double (or unassuming cue bid, if that is your partnership agreement). If you call all of them Good/Bad, or if you are only familiar with some of these, it is not surprising that the name seems out of place.

 

All this raises another question. Do we add a bandage convention , which likely won't be used often and vulnerable to forgets or do we practice disciplined bidding and add the gadgets when we are competent in our standard bidding.

My experience with the aforementioned partner was that this situation where G/B applies came up surprisingly regularly. And they forgot it every single time :( But at the same time, they also forgot every time that bidding at the 3 level required extras either way, so the hands often turned out badly regardless of whether there was a convention in place or not.

 

2NT is such a nonexistent natural bid in this sequence, so remembering to pass isn't much different than remembering to bid 2NT. But if you can teach your partner to pass the distributional hands without extras then you'll have made more progress than me :)

My experience is also that this convention is almost always forgotten, despite coming up very often. I would recommend not playing Good/Bad 2NT (regardless of your choice of flavour) while there is still lots of room for improvement in the rest of your agreements.

 

I can certainly share your frustration but then I've inflicted the same on my partners while I learn new conventions.

I'm actually not hoping to "teach partner to pass the weak, distributional hands" but rather to improve our hand evaluation and understanding of the auction, bid, or pass. :). I think it's the "rules" that we learn at the start that make progress very difficult.

I have gotten a lot of mileage out of some books and written texts, some of which are available for free in digital form (but most are not). If you would be interested in some suggestions I'd be happy to recommend some places to start.

[jillybean]

I have gotten a lot of mileage out of some books and written texts, some of which are available for free in digital form (but most are not). If you would be interested in some suggestions I'd be happy to recommend some places to start.

Yes, thank you.

[DavidKok]

For improving your judgement in competition it's nearly impossible to do better than Robson & Segal's "Partnership bidding at bridge", which is available for free in pdf format (for example on Daniel Neill's website). I also greatly enjoy Kit's Korner, a weekly series by Kit Woolsey over at bridgewinners. Both of these go into great detail explaining not just the decision made, but also the reasoning behind them, plausible alternatives and the upsides and downsides of each choice.

 

Larry Cohen's "To Bid or Not To Bid" is a classic and I rate it very highly. It is famous for discussing "The Law", but also covers other topics including IMP and matchpoint odds and competitive judgement beyond 'add up the trumps and act accordingly'.

 

Then there are some other books that I highly recommend and enjoyed, but that might not be suitable and/or more difficult to find. "Winnende kaartwaardering - Losing trick count" by Kelder & van de Velde is a Dutch book on hand evaluation that surpasses the other books I've read on the topic. The second best book I've read on that topic is Terence Reese's "Develop Your Bidding Judgment". Harold Feldheim's "Tactical Bidding or how to wreak havoc in the auction for fun and profit!" is also good and comprehensive, although in my notes I have it listed as more advanced than some of the other texts above.

[jillybean]

Thanks, I like the title of the first Chapter in Partnership Bidding in Bridge, Support with support!