BBO Discussion Forums: good-bad 2nt variation - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

good-bad 2nt variation bad with clubs or good other

#1 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,243
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2015-September-02, 23:14

I'm seeking some additional information on a good-bad 2nt variant. In "regular" good-bad, direct bids at the 3 level show good, invitational hands, while 2nt shows shapely minimums that wish to compete. But I am interested specifically in clarification of a variant I've heard of, where instead 2nt is weak with clubs or the good hands, and 3 red suit directly is weaker competitive.

auctions along the lines of: 1-(1)-dbl-(2)-2nt! or 1[d]-(p)-1-(2)-2nt!
where opener is typically showing a minimum 5+-5 minors, or a good hand with 6+ diamonds.

I'd like to know how the auction continues after this.
-If responder prefers diamonds to clubs, does he bid 3 over 2nt ?
-Over 3 is the "good with diamonds" hand expected to bid again or is 3 a weak preference?
-If 3 is a weak preference, I suppose responder must cue or something with stronger hand with support then opener will clarify the hand type?
- If responder has say a good club fit if opener has clubs, but is not so great opposite a diamond one suiter, no way to show this I suppose? Might play 3 with 2 overtricks?

Anyone out there play this who can help me out?

#2 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,792
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-September-19, 12:56

My teammates play this method and there is no easy answer to your questions. Perhaps the best solution to the first question is to play that Opener is expected to big again on the 'good' hand with diamonds. At least Opener has some comfort from the fact that Responder does not have a marked preference for clubs over diamonds.

In practice, the direct 3-level bids should be a wider range that the options which go through 2NT, so at least Opener has made a reasonable description of his or her hand. The reason why my teammates prefer the 'reverse' good-bad is that the weaker 3/3 bids come up more often that the stronger varieties.

These ambiguities are the price you pay for putting many hand types in 2NT (whether you play 'standard good bad' or 'reverse good bad'). For this reason I am far from convinced that multi-way good-bad is the best use of 2NT.

#3 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,239
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2015-September-19, 15:06

I think the "good" 2NT is superior, and ideally it should be restricted to one basic hand type (at least an invitational rebid in the suit opened).

In this scheme, a direct rebid of 3 of our suit is competitive and 2NT is either invitational or better. In my methods, having opened 1, I use double to show 18-20 balanced (because I play 1 as natural or 18-20 balanced), so things are not always smooth, but if one does not do this, the "good" 2NT works extremely well - you can play three of a lower suit as non-forcing and stronger hands with a second suit just go through double.

The basic reason why 2NT good is structurally better is that you can use it on invitational or better hands, whereas with good/bad it only covers the weakies. But also, 2NT is less likely to wrong-side the contract when we are strong, which is a big plus. Strong hands that have nothing in the opponent's suit can start with a take-out double to avoid wrong-siding.

#4 User is offline   BRBanger 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 2012-January-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midlands, UK

Posted 2015-September-21, 04:04

I also play 2NT as weak in clubs or strong elsewhere (and play Lebensohl this way too). Other reasons for this, as well as those already mentioned are:

a) With weaker hands I get the suit in immediately, so that if oppo's bid again, partner is better positioned to compete. Less ambiguity.

b) Oppo's are less likely to bid over 2NT (where 2NT is strong).

c) 2NT is just assumed to be weak with clubs, if not, opener will surely bid again.

However, I like Phil's idea of playing 2NT as just strong in opener's suit.

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users