[Siegmund]

Suggestions welcome for a situation that led to a goose egg for my partner and me Friday night.

If the auction begins 1♣-(pass)-1♠-(2♥), our agreements are X=support, 2NT=bad half of good/bad, opener would pass with balanced 12-14s, heart stacks, etc.

Suppose it continues pass-pass.

What do you think is the best way to play responder's rebid? Especially his double and his 2NT?

Edited to add: at the table, it was r/w MPs. (I'd be hesitant to vary the system according to vul or scoring here, but it can certainly affect our strength ranges by a point or two.)

[karlson]

Double: takeout (though could be the start of a GF sequence)
2N: I think natural would be the standard, but I think it's a good place to play good/bad since 3c covers a very wide range.

[PhantomSac]

I don't play good/bad but this seems like a very good auction for it since you want a NF 3D bid as well and you want ways to raise clubs etc. Normally I would just play 2N natural and double takeout, 3D forcing.

[karlson]

I thought 3d NF was becoming standard, shows what I know.

[PhantomSac]

karlson, on Feb 8 2010, 01:39 AM, said:

I thought 3d NF was becoming standard, shows what I know.

It might be, you can X and bid diamonds with a forcing hand, the problem with that is sometimes you can't stand a pass from partner which is a big problem imo, so I am not really a fan of NF. Certainly a lot more people are playing it as NF than used to, dunno if that's standard yet.

[karlson]

PhantomSac, on Feb 7 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

karlson, on Feb 8 2010, 01:39 AM, said:

I thought 3d NF was becoming standard, shows what I know.

It might be, you can X and bid diamonds with a forcing hand, the problem with that is sometimes you can't stand a pass from partner which is a big problem imo, so I am not really a fan of NF. Certainly a lot more people are playing it as NF than used to, dunno if that's standard yet.

Yeah, if you can't stand a pass you have to bid 4♦. Not the worst thing ever as it's reasonably descriptive and if you can't stand a pass probably 3n is out of the picture too.

[Siegmund]

Our accident involved a 2NT bid, that one person thought was currently agreed to be good/bad but shouldn't be, while the other person thought it should be good/bad but currently wasn't.

[gnasher]

Double should be for takeout. You need a way to show a 5233 10-count, and you'll very rarely have a penalty double opposite a hand that couldn't make a support double.

If the "good" hands are forcing hands, and your memory can stand it, you should play 2NT and higher as transfers. Transfers are always better than GB2NT if you're distinguishing between a forcing hand and a non-forcing hand. GB2NT is appropriate only if you're trying distinguishing between two non-forcing hands of different strength.

If you want to be really clever, you might start the transfers at double, so: double = 5+ spades, forcing 2S; 2S = balanced invitational+. The trouble is that these sequences have subtle differences, so making rules to cover them all will require care.

[Ant590]

In my (limited) experience with GB2NT, it seems the greatest problem with it is deciding when it is on. Consequently in one partnership we play "no GB2NT" and the other "if it could be GB2NT, it is". Both seem to work ok...

[mich-b]

I suggest that in order to avoid misunderstandings involving G/B 2NT agree to play it only in some very specific situations. For example : only by opener , in his 1st rebid. Don't leave it to "flexible" understanding , this you will very likely get it wrong.