[helene_t]

I voted pass but I suddenly realize that Lary Cohen would have bid 2NT. Don't u think so?

[luke warm]

helene_t, on May 6 2005, 05:25 AM, said:

I voted pass but I suddenly realize that Lary Cohen would have bid 2NT. Don't u think so?

if still playing with bergen, by all means he would... remember, it was bergen who named them OBAR bids

[mikestar]

Double is perfect. It should be takeout as we have not found our fit but they have found theirs. Partner will bid his better minor and we will get to the right spot. I don't like 2N even if we are sure it's good/bad--partner will bid 3C whenever he would have passed a natural weak 3C bid, even with five or six diamonds. He has to bid this way as I mgiht be bidding 2N with good club support and nothing in diamonds.

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-001-G
West North East South
   Pass   1♦   Pass   1♥
   1♠    2♣    2♠    ?

---

The last hand presents several questions, would they raise diamonds, double or pass. Aces are good for both defense and offense, so the offensive/defensive ratio on this hand is roughly equal. But one thing for sure, partner does not have three card heart support since BBO-Advanced uses support doubles.

The majority of the panel choose to be active on this auction, and for most, that meant bidding 3♦. While many will open 1♦ with 4♦ and 5♣, so questions might exist about which minor would provide the best fit, Justin takes this question head on. Jlall voted for 3♦, saying “Interesting hand. Partner freely bid 2♣, so what does this suggest? No I'm not suggesting it shows extra values, however I do think partner has 5 diamonds. Why? Well if partner was 4144 he would have passed. If he was 1444 he would raise hearts. If he was 1345 he would have made a support double. If he was 2245 he would have opened 1C planning to bid NT. So that leaves, 3145. Well, I tend to open these hands 1♣ anyways, but even if partner likes 1♦ he should pass 1♠. So I think I can safely compete to 3♦. I don't really want to sell out to 2♠ especially since partner will most likely not balance with 2254 mins as he's said his piece. Not overly concerned about going for a digit with 2 bullets, however if they DBL I will get concerned.” Other voters mentioned the two aces as reasons to raise diamonds. Walddk’s by saying “Not exactly great cards in partner's suits, but I have enough to compete because of the 2 aces. Give me KJ, KJ instead and I have no errand.” And Cascade, with “With two aces and a fit we are worth another competitive effort.” Beverly considered 3♦ here the conservative action (other thought pass was the conservative one). Phicro echoed the bid of 3♦ for the simplest of reasons, “Non forcing, to avoid opponents playing 2S”.

The two odd men out on bidding 3♦ were Luis and Ng, who both decided against raising ♦’s. Gabor, went with a double, explaining, “[i] Not penalty. Partner has 0-2 hearts, because Support Dbl is on. This Dbl promises good hand without 4-card support in minors. 3♦ would be fatal, if partner has 4 diamonds and 5 clubs (I would open 1♣ in that case, but you never know). 5m is possible, if partner have cards and/or shape (65m's), aces are important at 5 level and I have 2 of them.” So Gabor was aggressive with the double, Luis, on the other hand went more passive by choosing to pass, explaining, “[i] Pass; I have nothing in the minors and I don't really think xxx vs xxx is a good reason to show a preference. The two aces are tempting but unless partner can bid something again I don't think we have anything. Other bids will tend to force this hand beyond what is worth. I like the chances I have defending a spade parts-core especially if partner has short hearts. ”

You know, Luis’s position makes a whole lot of sense to me, and on the real hand, pass here worked out best. But still, phicro’s view about not letting them play 2♠ carries the day here and gets the full score.

The scores on this hand are…
Votes, scores, Panel, Members
3♦      100       7   
Dbl     40       1   
Pass      40       1   

[mike777]

Interesting, the issue of Good/bad 2nt was not mentioned by one Master and gets zero score.

For a convention that has been around over 20 years and not get mentioned is interesting.

[luke warm]

and luis' excellent pass only got 40

[helene_t]

I wonder why nobody bids 2NT. Is it natural in this situation?

[HeartA]

I strongly disagree with 3♦ unless pd opens 1C even with ♠Kx, ♥xx ♦AKQx, ♣JTxxx. Double is clearly better and flexible if pd has 5♣s.

[Walddk]

HeartA, on May 9 2005, 01:59 AM, said:

I strongly disagree with 3♦ unless pd opens 1C even with ♠Kx, ♥xx ♦AKQx, ♣JTxxx. Double is clearly better and flexible if pd has 5♣s.

I beg to disagree as you have seen when I voted. It is his problem if thinks we have adopted canape in our system. Occasionally, he may have chosen to open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors, but in that case he will not bid a free 2♣ now, and if he does, he should not expect me to understand that clubs are longer than diamonds.

I prefer to trust what I see when he opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I am a strong believer in opening your longer suit.

Roland

[HeartA]

Walddk, on May 9 2005, 02:13 AM, said:

HeartA, on May 9 2005, 01:59 AM, said:

I strongly disagree with 3♦ unless pd opens 1C even with ♠Kx, ♥xx ♦AKQx, ♣JTxxx.  Double is clearly better and flexible if pd has 5♣s.

I beg to disagree as you have seen when I voted. It is his problem if thinks we have adopted canape in our system. Occasionally, he may have chosen to open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors, but in that case he will not bid a free 2♣ now, and if he does, he should not expect me to understand that clubs are longer than diamonds.

I prefer to trust what I see when he opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I am a strong believer in opening your longer suit.

Roland

I am, too, a strong believer in opening longer suit. But 1D-2C is a special case. I believe that quite a good propotion of 5♣-4♦ hands you have to open 1D. And I disagree with the statement that with 5♣-4♦ hands, one should not freely bid 2♣ even if open got extra? How about 5D-6C?

[helene_t]

Walddk, on May 9 2005, 09:13 AM, said:

It is his problem if thinks we have adopted canape in our system. Occasionally, he may have chosen to open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors, but in that case he will not bid a free 2♣ now, and if he does, he should not expect me to understand that clubs are longer than diamonds.

I prefer to trust what I see when he opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I am a strong believer in opening your longer suit.

This is not Canapé, it's just American: Open 1♦ with both minors. I would assume this to be the agreement when playing with an American but when playing with a European I try to avoid such neboulous rebids.

But even if this is the partnership understanding, I agree that a voluntary 2♣ bid should either promise 5 clubs or 5 diamonds (by this scorring and vulnerability maybe even both) but certainly not either 5 clubs or 5 diamonds

[Walddk]

HeartA, on May 9 2005, 02:45 AM, said:

And I disagree with the statement that with 5♣-4♦ hands, one should not freely bid 2♣ even if open got extra? How about 5D-6C?

I don't mind that you open 1♦ with longer clubs, but don't expect me to figure it out if I were your partner. I don't want to guess. The same goes for some strong club systems when the bidding goes

1♦ - 1MA
2♣

That shows 5-4 or 4-5. I don't play those systems, sorry. If we play Blue Club, fine, then I know that you (in some cases) have longer clubs if the bidding goes

1♥ - 1♠
2♣

depending on minimum or maximum within the 11-16 hcp range.

Roland

[mike777]

Wine here, but I am ROFL... ROFL

I am one one the very very few Canape players here.
Assuming 2/1...I expect partner to have 5d but .....
No one has discussed Good/bad 2nt.......
Perhaps this bid deserves..minus zero.

[Walddk]

mike777, on May 9 2005, 02:58 AM, said:

No one has discussed Good/bad 2nt.......
Perhaps this bid deserves..minus zero.

It deserves very little. There is no need for a 2NT bid. I will show that I have support for his longer diamond suit (maybe 5-5) by bidding 3♦. I don't want to invent bids that ask partner:

"Are you sure that you have what you already told me?".

It's like bidding 4NT asking for aces, and after a 5♥ response, use 5NT as asking: "Are you sure you have 2 aces?".

We do not play canape here, so partner does not have longer clubs than diamonds. That's why no panelist voted for 2NT.

Roland

[mike777]

Your post may make much sense but I am lost.
What does any of the Master discussion have to do with good/bad 2nt and my post?
1) Canape is irrelevant so......
2) To repeat I see no relevant discussion on good/bad 2nt....to repeat the very obvious...3d shows a strong hand which we do not have..repeat...3d shows "strongish" hand, so why are all the Masters bidding it when they can bid a "weakish" Bergen 2nt? If they hate the bid ok...but at least discuss it.

[Walddk]

mike777, on May 9 2005, 03:10 AM, said:

Your post may make much sense but I am lost.
What does any of that have to do with good/bad 2nt and my post?

I thought you implied that by bidding 2NT you would show equal length in the minors to give partner the chance to tell you if he really has longer clubs. If not, I am sorry that I misunderstood.

As to the good/bad 2NT (puppet to 3♣) to show a competitive hand by bidding 3♦ afterwards, I don't think that this is part of our system. I can't find it anywhere.

If it was part of the system, I agree. Then 3♦ would be game invitational, and responder doesn't have the values for that.

Roland

P.S. I now see that you added something to your post. Good/bad 2NT was invented and described by Jeff Rubens in his articles on USP (Useful Space Principle).

[mike777]

Thanks for reply. As I said, good/bad 2nt has been around over 20 years. I doubt Jeff invented it, but that is a fun discussion for later. As a Player from Illinois, Bergen says he got idea from our state in his book..in any event..off shoot of Lebensohl....


Many conventions not listed in BBO...I expect Masters to tell us what to add or delete.......

To repeat the obvious, with good/bad 2nt we can show strongish or weakish 3D.
On this hand perhaps this is not important, if so, expect Masters to tell us why in more detail. If this is poor convention ignore, if it is very helpful ok.

[pclayton]

Good / bad 2N would be a sensible call if available. I hope Ben has some problems for the future that would help clarify good / bad and to intergrate it into the system.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on May 9 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

Good / bad 2N would be a sensible call if available. I hope Ben has some problems for the future that would help clarify good / bad and to intergrate it into the system.

I like good/bad 2NT. and I insist on playing it even with casual partners. But I think Fred left it out of the system for a very specific reason: BBO-ADVANCED is meant as a system you can use on line with a pick-up partner. Knowing when 2NT should be good/bad versus something else requires considerable agreement.

So the question is not does BBO-Advance play good/bad 2NT (it does not), but should we expand BBO-Advanced to something else (BBO-expert?, BBO-GOLD?, BBF-Advanced?) that does include it. The fact that not one of the panelist cried about not having it available suggest the answer is no.

We did get some answers on how to respond to micheals when partner promised a major and a minor. Cheap club bid = pass/correct, 2NT = tell me more. But we didn't solve the meaning of the cue-bid by advancer, nor the responding schedule by the overcaller after 2NT. Also, what some of you may have missed in the michaels question, the panel agreed that michaels when vul versus not, is a GOOD HAND. Almost all the panel were looking for game, and a few for slam (slam actually makes in clubs on the hand from which this problem was taken).

Which brings me to the theme for the first quiz... it was minimum values for different actions.

Question A, for fourth seat opening
Question B, for light opening with bad suit
Question C, for a 2♣ opening bid
Question D, for a new suit response versus a raise in competition
Question E, for a michaels cue bid at unfavorable vul
Question F, For a rebid with great suit, but no clear direction
Queston G, With modest values in support of both partners suit (I too wondered if G/B 2NT would be choose, or 2NT for scramble instead of dbl, and if dbl, how the panelist would mean it).

[pclayton]

If you want to have a lithmus test for g/b 2N, I'd suggest:

1x (1y) - double - (2y)
?

This is the most common good/bad situation and I would guess the panel will bemoan the lack of good/bad.

I'd suggest a hand like: Axx, x, Kxx, KQxxxx.