| Good/Bad NT bids |
|
Hi Ed & Peter, What are your general thoughts about the 2NT Good-Bad convention? And in a specific case (see end of topic) what would you rather play? Let's begin this topic to what I think is the basic situation: Advancer introducing a (higher than opening) suit at the two level (without making a jump) and thus making a pass by opener non forcing for responder. i.e. :
If South (opener) now: Some swap the meanings, playing 2NT 15-17 and 3♣/♦/♥ competitive. Others play that 2NT can only show the one-suited competitive hand. Is one method clearly better than the other? In some situations, a third kind of hand for a Good-Bad case can come up: opener has a fit in responder’s suit. For instance:
1 Negative double: 4+ hearts Many play that 2NT now can also show a heart fit in a competitive hand while 3♥ is invitational.A good player I know is convinced swapping the meaning of 2NT and 3♥ is better. I totally disagree. What choice would you root for, and on what bases? Patrick Bocken Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'): Dear Patrick, Since I am an expert in Bad (bridge) only - so they tell me - I feel way out of my league here. Therefore I pass your question on to Peter, fully expecting him to wriggle out as well. After all, his only competence is Bad bridge as well. Regards from Barcelona Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'): Dear Patrick, Of course Ed knew I was going to wriggle out since we have discussed how to react to your question. We have decided to call in a Dutch expert. Ed suggested asking Dutch international Maarten Schollaardt. He is a multiple Dutch champion and member of the Dutch team that won the silver medal during the 2004 Bridge Olympiad. An expert in Good (bridge) therefore! To begin with: I have illustrated your questions (see above) with actual bidding diagrams and have given some explanation here and there in italics. Below is Maarten's reply. His text too I have illustrated with actual bidding diagrams and again I have given some explanation here and there, all my comments are in italics. Answer by Maarten Schollaardt: It is questionable whether I am the right person to reply. After all: I do not see much in Good/Bad (Ed, did you know this when you asked Maarten?). If the opponents keep on passing (after having overcalled originally of course, since without overcall Good/Bad does not apply!) the convention is not so bad. But if they bid on to 3♠ or higher Good/Bad has a big disadvantage if the opener's suit(s) are not known. Suppose NS play Good/Bad in the situation below (it will turn out Maarten doubts whether this is a good idea):
1 negative double: shows one or both minor suit(s) Here it is very important for South to know which five card minor suit North has. In my opinion it is imperative therefore to bid one's suits. So in:
- 3♣/♦ should be competitive (so Maarten advices against Good/Bad here; this example is close to Patrick's first bidding sequence). These bids do not deny a nice hand but mostly show distribution. If South is too strong for such a 3♣/♦ bid he should double. This is ('we have not found a fit yet, while they have') a 100% take-out double so partner will not pass - unless passing is good... - 2NT the way I play it, is natural; often I have a long suit then; the bid is clearly an invitation for 3NT. There is one exception to all this, exactly Patrick's second bidding sequence:
1 Negative double: 4+ hearts Here South wants to be able to distinguish between bidding hearts competitively and invitationally. Therefore:- 3♥ is competitive - 2NT is an invitation for 4♥ (So Maarten agrees with Good/Bad in this particular situation - without the near-compulsory 3♣ bid that is, since the trump suit has been established - but has swapped the meanings: he bids the stronger hand via 2NT whereas usually 2NT shows the weaker hand). In a series of articles in IMP (Dutch bridge magazine for advanced players) I have written about this topic. Rule #1 was: 'whenever possible 2NT is both invitational and showing a fit in a major'. I hope Patrick is helped by this. Regards Maarten Postscript Peter van der Linden: we thank Maarten for his contribution. No answer has been given to Patricks question on swapping the meanings of the Good/Bad bids: why is 2NT better for either the stronger or the weaker type of hand? Maybe one of our visitors can enlighten us here? Regards from Orkanger |