[dealmegold]

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2010, 04:36 AM, said:

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Yeah, you should have opened 1S!

[mcphee]

Lets for one moment consider what partner had to dble 1S. Surely this dble does not need to be 10 hcp, could it not be some 6 HCP hand which contains 4H, in other words a hand that says "I would have responded and want to compete". For me the dble of 1S does not include the "I always have 4H" photo but more I have a reason for bidding. After all what does poor partner do with 10 hcp and 2-3-4-4 pass over 1S? I suppose you could argue that they might try 1N with no S stop and this particular hand or bid 2C. The problem also finds a few less values with 2-3-5-3 and 7-8 pass suggested over 1S?

I would not have opened this hand and I think to now bid 3H is begging to go for a minus which may or may not be greater than 110, thats if they can even make 110. Bidding 3H is to me bad, partner is still there if you pass. We made the problem when we eopened, do not make it any worse than it already is.

[Codo]

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Ron, If you had listen to Ron, you had reached 3 ♥ for + 140 or 3♠ -1 for + 100 which had been much better then the zero you had brought back.

[the hog]

Codo, on Mar 25 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Ron, If you had listen to Ron, you had reached 3 ♥ for + 140 or 3♠ -1 for + 100 which had been much better then the zero you had brought back.

roflmao. That is the comment of a true result merchant. No, they got a d ruff, or perhaps partner was missing one of the vital queens and you went down or partner had the K of S instead of the A and you went down. Note that pd has perfect cards for you.

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Codo, on Mar 25 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Ron, If you had listen to Ron, you had reached 3 ♥ for + 140 or 3♠ -1 for + 100 which had been much better then the zero you had brought back.

roflmao. That is the comment of a true result merchant. No, they got a d ruff, or perhaps partner was missing one of the vital queens and you went down or partner had the K of S instead of the A and you went down. Note that pd has perfect cards for you.

and, as shown before....if you bid 3H, and it is making --pard will bid four.

[jdonn]

If 3♥ shows a minimum and partner has an average balanced 10 count he shouldn't bid 4. The original problem was essentially a misunderstanding over the strength shown by 3♥.

[TimG]

Isn't this a good/bad 2N situation?

Edit: sorry missed Adam's reference to this.

[fred]

FWIW:

1) I have always played that 3H here suggests the equivalent of a strong notrump in support of hearts (ie it would be somewhat unusual to bid 3H with a balanced minimum). Klinger rules

2) I thought that this view was the mainstream view, at least among experts in Canada and the USA. Some of the comments in this thread suggest that I may be wrong about this.

3) I would not be worried about passing because partner still has another chance and he also knows that it is matchpoints and that "The Law" does not look favorably upon those who defend 2S when the opponents have a fit.

4) Opening 1H with hands like this seems to have worked well for me.

5) I agree with Adam's general sentiments regarding both "good/bad 2NT" and the concept of using DBL to solve this problem.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[aguahombre]

fred, on Mar 25 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

5) I agree with Adam's general sentiments regarding both "good/bad 2NT" and the concept of using DBL to solve this problem.

I think it to be a bit strange that Adam, Fred, and other expert posters dislike using good/bad with 4 card heart support in an auction like this.

Other hands, without 4H can handle using good/bad on this one --plus, it is the only way to get to 3H without inviting four. I think of good/bad as a close relative of Leben and have found this approach to be quite useful.

I say this with all due respect to my superiors, whom I just think are wrong in this instance.

[mohitz]

fred, on Mar 26 2010, 06:41 AM, said:

5) I agree with Adam's general sentiments regarding both "good/bad 2NT" and the concept of using DBL to solve this problem.

Fred,

If it's not too much effort, I would like to understand why you dislike good bad 2NT.

Thanks,
Mohit

[awm]

Fred can speak for himself of course, but here's why I dislike good/bad 2NT especially in an auction like this one:

(1) 3NT by responder is a fairly likely final contract after this start, given what people overcall on. Bidding 2NT artificially will wrong-side the contract.

(2) Opener sometimes has 18/19 balanced. Given what people make negative doubles on at the one-level, leaping to 3NT does not appeal. Double is responsive of course, so if 2NT is artificial then you have no sensible bid with this common hand type.

(3) If the opponents are going to compete to the three-level anyway, then bidding 2NT hides the nature of opener's hand. If the auction goes 1♦-1♠-X-2♠-2NT!-3♠ for example, responder has no idea what suit opener was trying to compete in (clubs, diamonds, even hearts) and is not well-placed to judge whether to bid one more.

(4) Partner is still there, and will usually balance in this auction after 1m-1♠-X-2♠-P-P unless he is very balanced and very minimum. Passing on minimum hands doesn't mean we can't compete later. In fact I would rather bid 1♣-1♠-X-2♠; P-P-X-P; 3♣-3♠ than bid 1♣-1♠-X-2♠-2NT!-3♠ since we have a lot more information in the former auction and are more likely to get the decision over 3♠ right.

[gnasher]

I dislike Good-Bad 2NT, and detest using Good-Bad 2NT with four hearts in this sequence. Awm's item (3) makes an unanswerable case IMO.

I don't, however, understand why everyone seems to assume that the only way to split the range of 3♥ is to play GB2NT. A simple but effective answer is to play 2NT as only a good (or bad) 3♥ bid. A better but more complex solution is to play transfers. Either way, you gain the ability to bid on this hand, without having to overbid on similar values with more shape.

All you lose is the ability to bid 2NT on 18-19 balanced. Some of these hands can double. With the wrong shape for that, it's not a disaster to have to bid 3NT.

[hanp]

Was going to post something similar as gnasher said, I agree with all of it.

[whereagles]

gotta bid 3♥ here... and agree to play good-bad 2NT with pard next hand

[fred]

mohitz, on Mar 26 2010, 04:32 AM, said:

fred, on Mar 26 2010, 06:41 AM, said:

5) I agree with Adam's general sentiments regarding both "good/bad 2NT" and the concept of using DBL to solve this problem.

Fred,

If it's not too much effort, I would like to understand why you dislike good bad 2NT.

Thanks,
Mohit

Read Adam's post that starts with "Fred can speak for himself". Turns out he did a good job of speaking for me

I will also add that it gives me a warm feeling inside whenever I hear unknown opponents alert a competitive 2NT bid (especially if playing behind screens which unfortunately is usually not the case). That is because, in my experience, more often than not people manage to screw up this convention.

Of course that isn't the convention's fault, but it does seem to be the case (at least to me) that many not-super-experienced pairs who use this convention don't do a very good job of discussing things like when it applies, when it doesn't apply, what hand types can be included, how other hand types should be bid, where the line is drawn between "good" and "bad", how bad can "bad" be, and what happens next.

The same is true of most conventions, but good/bad 2NT has the additional virtue (from the opponents' point of view that is) of being especially disaster prone if someone makes a mistake.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jjbrr]

Fred's post (and Adam's of course) is well said and the very reason I've never spent any time at all discussing good/bad 2NT auctions. I'm fine without it, I think.

[hijumper]

I would definetely pass with this hand, bad points (Aceless) and almost the worst shape 4432.

[whereagles]

Good-bad releases the pressure off responder and allows opening side to claim rights to hands that are rightfully theirs. Without it, you might get into lots of bad decisions trying to deal with very, very simple bids like overcall + single raise.

Good-bad is, in my opinion, a step into the right direction.

Plus, if you tweak your system so as to take 18-19 balanced out of the 1m openings (e.g. by opening a lighter 2NT or a mexican 2♦), the main downsides of good-bad 2NT totally disappear.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on Mar 26 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

Plus, if you tweak your system so as to take 18-19 balanced out of the 1m openings (e.g. by opening a lighter 2NT or a mexican 2♦), the main downsides of good-bad 2NT totally disappear.

Except that the loss of a natural 2NT isn't the main downside.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm surprised everyone feels so strongly about this.
I play in two different partnerships that each play a lot of system and have discussed a lot of auctions.

One of them plays bad/good 2NT in this sequence (2NT = good in hearts, good in diamonds or bad in clubs) which allows an immediate 3H bid on this hand type and conceals your hand only when you are strong and can bid again.

One of them doesn't like g/b (or even b/g) and would pass over 2S on this hand.

Having played both approaches for a long time now it's not obvious to me that one is massively better than the other.

Both partnerships would open in 4th seat playing matchpoints. I ALWAYS get a bad board when I pass a board out in 4th seat. ALWAYS. 100% record. Doesn't seem fair somehow, but that's how it is.