[sfi]

smerriman, on 2022-November-11, 20:38, said:

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]

jillybean, on 2022-November-11, 19:22, said:

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, on 2022-November-11, 19:41, said:

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.

jillybean, on 2022-November-11, 20:02, said:

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.

smerriman, on 2022-November-11, 20:38, said:

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.

jillybean, on 2022-November-11, 21:57, said:

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]

DavidKok, on 2022-November-12, 04:10, said:

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!

[mycroft]

sfi, my issue with G/B (besides the name, which really is a horrible description - except for David's version, which I have never heard of or seen at the table), is "specifically, in a way we can point to and get an identical Yes/No answer in any auction, when is 2NT G/B (conversely, when is it NOT G/B - whatever it is)?"

The same way "1x-something-1y-bid, when 1y is 4+ cards, double shows exactly 3-card support for y iff bid <= 2y AND bid != 1NT" is precise and unambiguous for my pairs' agreement on support doubles (even if it isn't *your* agreement for a support double). Again, this does not define the double in the many cases supportX doesn't apply, but at least I know it's not support.

Instead, I get "in competition, when we're both bidding suits, ..." handwavey nonsense. Even from people who I *know* have it down pat.

Do you have such a statement I could use as a starting point (and then, for instance, with my partner who is one of the above "people", discuss whether it matches her understanding or preferred agreement, and then play it with her)?

I have to admit I'm currently falling back on Robert Todd's "in competition, 2NT is a convention, not a contract" combined with 20+ years of Lebensohl experience to "hope we're on the same page".

[DavidKok]

Here is my preferred agreement regarding when Good/Bad 2NT is on:

• We have opened on the 1-level.
  
• Partner has shown signs of life.
  
• On opener's second opportunity to bid, the opponents have competed (at or) above 2 of the opening suit, but below 2NT.

As examples, 1♣-(P)-1♥-(2♦); ?, but not 1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♣); ?. I include a negative double in 'signs of life', for example 1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠); ?. If you have meta-agreements for when the opponents make an artificial cuebid of opener's suit you can overrule the "(at or)" part of the third line.

For simplicity's sake I would also play G/B on, for example, 1♥-(P)-1NT-(2♠); ? and 1♣-(P)-1♦-(2♠); ?, although I think it is probably superior to play Lebensohl (to the extent that your treatment of these two are different).

Auctions like 1♣-(2♥)-X-(P); ? are ambiguous, I would say G/B is off in situations where opener has a duty to bid, but it might be very good to include these. I don't know.

[ali quarg]

How many play 1♣ - 2♠ as weak?; say 3-7? Stops you getting too high in this case, assuming North isn't blinded by their good ♣ suit.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2022-November-11, 19:22, said:

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.

Genugsohl?

[sfi]

Caveat: This entire post is unsuitable for the Novice and Beginner Forum. Apologies for that.

mycroft, on 2022-November-12, 10:09, said:

sfi, my issue with G/B (besides the name, which really is a horrible description - except for David's version, which I have never heard of or seen at the table), is "specifically, in a way we can point to and get an identical Yes/No answer in any auction, when is 2NT G/B (conversely, when is it NOT G/B - whatever it is)?"

[...]

Do you have such a statement I could use as a starting point (and then, for instance, with my partner who is one of the above "people", discuss whether it matches her understanding or preferred agreement, and then play it with her)?

Yeah that's the other difficult bit. Sometimes 2NT is a useful natural bid so you are actually giving up something valuable at times. David has provided one set of guidelines, but my current notes have:

Quote

The most likely meaning [of 2NT] is a weak way to get to the three-level, similar to Lebensohl. This applies when:

• RHO bids 2♦, 2♥, or 2♠, whatever the meaning OR LHO bids 2♦, 2♥, or 2♠ and partner doubles, and
  
• the auction is not yet game-forcing, and
  
• game is still a possibility, and
  
• 2NT is not needed as a raise.

If you want to show a fit for partner’s suit, a simple raise does not promise extras. We show the fit immediately to avoid being pre-empted.

This is pretty broad because we've gone for simplicity in the rules. It includes auctions like 1♣ - (2♠) - 2NT and 1♣ - (P) - P - (2♠); 2NT. But not 1♣ - (2♠) - P - (P); 2NT.

The fourth point rules out a bunch of auctions where we've opened or overcalled a major, since 2NT is a cue raise with 4+ support most of the time. Point 3 is the hazy one, and there is a lot of experience in interpreting that one. A simple example is 1♣ - (1♠) - P - (2♠); X - (P) - 2NT. Game is clearly still some sort of a possibility, but we argue that since responder has shown a weak hand (by not acting over 1♠ and then not passing the t/o double) that point 3 is not met. So 2NT there is two places to play.

For completeness we need another point which is something like "the hand bidding 2NT has shown a weak hand with a limited range." Still a lot of experience and discussion in that though.

Here's another set of rules for when it applies, from a different pair. This is closer to David's description.

Quote

Good/bad 2NT applies when we are not in a game force, we don’t have a specific agreement and either

• We have both shown some values
  
• They interfere with a 2 level bid which is higher than 2♣ OR
  
• They interfere with a 2♣ cue bid of our suit or an artificial 2♣ bid
  
• We bid 2NT as the next bid

Or

• They interfere with a 2 level bid which is higher than 2♣
  
• One partner doubles, the next hand passes, and then the other partner bids 2NT

Yes, there are sequences where 2NT G/B is illogical or poor. But we've made a conscious decision to live with that in exchange for simplicity of application. If you do introduce it, my advice is to use a simple set of rules so that everyone can get used to it. And follow the rules rather than trying to apply logic to work out the agreement at the table. Once you're happy, then you can play around with it. For instance:

• You can start adding exceptions where 2NT means something else, to get rid of some of the quirks.
  
• 2NT as a raise is useful in a lot of places, even for minor suits. Although in minors you may want to use 2NT as the bad raise, to only steal NT when you're unlikely to play in 3NT.
  
• There's a strong argument that 2NT should be the "good" part of G/B in a lot of places (rightsiding NT and getting your suit in quickly when they might compete) and "bad" in others. Theoretically better, but you have to really want that small advantage.

[thepossum]

Sounds like a recipe for confusion 😊

[mycroft]

Thank you both. I think those are very good starts to an agreement.

As people are saying, at least to start with, "unambiguous" is much superior to "right". "It shouldn't be this time, even though rules" is all well and good, but only requires one "didn't work it out at the table, sorry" to kill 5 or 6 such right decisions.

[sfi]

thepossum, on 2022-November-12, 17:22, said:

Sounds like a recipe for confusion 😊

Indeed. To quote:

sfi, on 2022-November-12, 12:07, said:

Caveat: This entire post is unsuitable for the Novice and Beginner Forum. Apologies for that.

[mycroft]

While I agree about this - very strongly, in fact, and I should apologize for the digression - it came about because the answer to the question was "pass, it's too weak. But even with slightly stronger hands, your only solution is G/B" - and then it went off into G/B land, not N/B land.

I do note the first people who mentioned it explicitly said it's not N/B - but then: "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*" (my emphasis).

To me, an A/I -> A/E who has in the past been a bit of a gadget freak, and who has up to now never been given, even not at the table and by partners who would want to play this with me as they do with their other partners, a good enough explanation of when it applies that it doesn't trigger "yeah, so either you are deliberately misleading me, or you have internalized so many meta-rules, probably from 'oopsies' playing it at the table. Because this isn't playable without 'oopsies'."

Which, to put my other hat on, is a classic case of the kind of half-explanations that "Standard, Expert" players get away with because their peers fill in the blanks and the weaker players don't notice or challenge, that were it something not "Standard, Expert", those same players would be on That Other Site whining about "incomplete explanation, you were hard done by when the director not only didn't decapitate your opponents at the table, he didn't even award an adjusted score. This is the kind of thing these players do all the time, and usually get away with their bamboozling". Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit. Not all that much, though. </Other Hat>

In N/B, this is one of those things where you say "you've started to notice that there aren't enough bids for all the hands you want to show. Give it a bit more to get a better idea of the frustrations, and then come back, because there's a tool that helps. But it's not easy to understand, it's not easy to catch at the table, and you need a partner who also is there and can handle it, so Not Now." Which is useful information. And the later discussion - yes, marked "not N/B" - should be a good way to reinforce that point, especially if it hits MEGO territory.

[jillybean]

Mycroft thanks, this is why I posted the problem in the N/B forum and when GB2nt came up, I said nice, but we are still learning to walk.

I wish I had heard "you've started to notice that there aren't enough bids for all the hands you want to show. Give it a bit more to get a better idea of the frustrations, and then come back, because there's a tool that helps. But it's not easy to understand, it's not easy to catch at the table, and you need a partner who also is there and can handle it, so Not Now." rather than no,with 12 points you must do this or even, it's against the laws to do that. Your approach keeps the brain cells active. It is inevitable that the thread turns to introducing gadgets and that's fine if it's clearly marked as NOT N/B - we have more fundamental understanding to master first.

[thepossum]

sfi, on 2022-November-12, 20:42, said:

Indeed. To quote:

..<caveat>

I had noted the caveat. My comment was for all levels of Bridge

I thought we were playing Good-Bad. No its Bad-Good

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2022-November-13, 09:56, said:

Mycroft thanks, this is why I posted the problem in the N/B forum and when GB2nt came up, I said nice, but we are still learning to walk.

This situation can of course be easily rectified by an admin moving this useful thread to I/A (or E) and adding "Good/Bad NT" to the description.

[mycroft]

"Don't let Mycroft near the novices." True 25 years ago when Brad said it (and when you see him, say hello for me!), still true today.

Because the novices need "12 points and 5 hearts does <this>", not "there are options depending on the rest of your hand, and some of them you're not ready for. But think about ..." never mind the "there's a tool for every hand" people that leads to gadgetitis. There's way too much to learn in this game even to get to the point where you can effectively play it at a novice level; there just aren't brain cells available for options in most cases yet.

A sign of intermediate-hood (or at least not beginner-hood) is when you have internalized the basics of bidding and play to the point where there is room for "well, it depends". And frequently it's about at the level where you start saying to your mentors (or, at least, the players in the open game you go to dinner/the bar with after) "there doesn't seem to be enough bids for all the hands I want to show here"). Since this understanding is the key to avoiding gadgetitis (gadgets aren't bad; some of them are essential; but they're there to solve a problem you already understand exists, and can therefore understand what you give up by playing the gadget, not something to bolt on every time somebody mentions it) I'm pretty draconian about it.

It's why, even though I call lebensohl "the most complicated convention everyone should play", when the pairs come up to me concerned they don't handle interference over 1NT very well (or get caught on the Alertable Stolen Bid double nonsense and I tell them that besides getting into the crazy Alerting mire, it's also a flashing green light to me some pairs to compete on anything) I show them what I call half-lebensohl (or "lebensohl without lebensohl") first, and tell them when they're comfortable with that to come back and we'll talk about the other half (2NT, basically: slow and fast X bids). They still need "this bid means X" first, and they still need to see the problem to understand the solution, especially when we start talking about "now you can make the same bid two different ways, and here's what each means"

So, when teaching novices, we (well, other people, see above) give "the answer". We probably tell them we're doing that, and that the joy of the game is that there's often hands where there isn't "the answer", and you have to think - but that's another thing that "way too much to learn" leaves no brain cells available for yet, so they tend to forget until it happens. And some deal badly with it even when they get there - Feynman's gripe about education applies here as well as in his world.

But, even in the N/B forum, you have shown yourself at the "able to follow, at least away from the table, at least advanced level discussions" level, so it's not surprising I and others have put you in the "Not Now, but when you are ready, there's something to think about here" category, rather than "the answer" category.

[helene_t]

Since 2NT is forcing, there is no reason why it should always be weak - heck, you can bid 2NT and then jump to 5NT in the next round I also think that you will be running out of bidding space for the 18+ hands if you don't allocate some of them to the 2NT bid. So I thought that it is pretty obvious that it should be something like what David describes, although different partnerships may have different strong hands allocated to the 2NT bid.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2022-November-14, 08:41, said:

"Don't let Mycroft near the novices." True 25 years ago when Brad said it (and when you see him, say hello for me!), still true today.

I will