Why Not Bad/Good (as opposed to Good/Bad) 2NT?

[Nick]

Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.

For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.

Reversing the approach can cause some difficulties if the opponents
blast when opener has a good hand, but wouldn't the frequency of
occurrence of "good" versus "bad" hands suggest that you're still
better off playing "bad-good"?

Has anyone experimented with "bad-good"? Were your results more bad
than good?

Cheers.

Nick

[Tim Goodwin]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do.

He knows opener has a minimum-ish opening bid, that seems like
something.

Post by Nick
By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.

He'll know that opener has extra values, but he won't know whether he
was intending to show hearts, clubs or diamonds -- responder doesn't
know if there is a fit.

Post by Nick
Reversing the approach can cause some difficulties if the opponents
blast when opener has a good hand, but wouldn't the frequency of
occurrence of "good" versus "bad" hands suggest that you're still
better off playing "bad-good"?

Often times with the bad hands, your side is just trying to
compete/bump the opponents up a level. In that situation, it is not
really important to know where the fit is if the opponents take the
push before you've had a chance to uncover your fit. you've done your
job of getting them up a level.

With the good hands, it is more likely that you will want to compete
over the opponents next level bid and when you may want to compete
further it is important to know whether there is a fit.

Tim

[Andrew Gumperz]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.
Reversing the approach can cause some difficulties if the opponents
blast when opener has a good hand, but wouldn't the frequency of
occurrence of "good" versus "bad" hands suggest that you're still
better off playing "bad-good"?

Yes.

Post by Nick
Has anyone experimented with "bad-good"? Were your results more bad
than good?

Marshall Miles recommends Bad-Good 2NT in his writing and implies that
some other expert players have also reversed the meaning.


Andrew

[Thomas Dehn]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.

"2NT=any good hand" is a reasonably popular treatment in Germany,
after it had been heavily promoted by Wolf Stahl.
I think it is better than the classic approach, mostly because
opponents frequently do not have the bullets to interfere
with your strong hands bidding after the "good" 2NT.


Thomas

[Nick]

Post by Thomas Dehn

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.

"2NT=any good hand" is a reasonably popular treatment in Germany,
after it had been heavily promoted by Wolf Stahl.
I think it is better than the classic approach, mostly because
opponents frequently do not have the bullets to interfere
with your strong hands bidding after the "good" 2NT.
Thomas

Presumably in Germany the scope of "2NT=any good hand" is limited by
opener's failure to choose another descriptive bid. For example, if
opener held x-AQx-KQxxx-AQxx would he 'double' at his second turn in a
1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-? auction?

On a separate note, in Germany, in the same sequence, what is the
difference between opener's direct jump to 4H and getting to 4H via
2NT?

Cheers.

Nick

[Rob Tamlyn]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.
Reversing the approach can cause some difficulties if the opponents
blast when opener has a good hand, but wouldn't the frequency of
occurrence of "good" versus "bad" hands suggest that you're still
better off playing "bad-good"?

We reverse the approach as you suggest except for clubs.

This causes complications when the opp's bid as you describe which is not
what you were looking for. But we usually land on our feet. Often you can
figure out what is going on given a particular hand.

If responder passes, showing a minimum negative X then X (or 4NT for
takeout) by opener shows the good hands at this point.

If responder has a good hand with clubs, he may have to double and we may
end up defending 4SX when we belong in 5C. Responder can bid 5C with clubs
and diamonds expecting opener to correct to 5H/5D if he has the good hand.
Obviously responder must be prepared for the diamond correction.

Rob

Post by Nick
Has anyone experimented with "bad-good"? Were your results more bad
than good?
Cheers.
Nick

[Frances Hinden]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.
Reversing the approach can cause some difficulties if the opponents
blast when opener has a good hand, but wouldn't the frequency of
occurrence of "good" versus "bad" hands suggest that you're still
better off playing "bad-good"?
Has anyone experimented with "bad-good"? Were your results more bad
than good?
Cheers.
Nick

In my most regular partnership we don't play good/bad (or bad/good) at
all. We haven't noticed much loss, and it's nice to have a natural
2NT bid available.

In my second most regular partnership we play bad/good in every suit
except clubs (so 2NT = bad with clubs or good elsewhere). This is
because it can be hard for responder to find the right bid over 2NT.

so 1D - 1S - x - 2S - 2NT is a good 3D bid or a bad 3C bid. In
principle it can also be a good heart raise, but we often prefer to
bid hearts (or cue-bid) at once to stop the fit getting lost.

This seems to work fine, but it doesn't come up very often (see above
remarks about playing 2NT as artificial at all).

[Ron Johnson]

Post by Frances Hinden
This seems to work fine, but it doesn't come up very often (see above
remarks about playing 2NT as artificial at all).

Worth noting though that Meckwell has never had many sequences
where they can get out at 2NT. And they're in the auction a lot
more than most players.

For them it was no big deal to give up a natural, non-forcing
2NT. They'll try to make 3NT on those hands.

[Frances Hinden]

Post by Ron Johnson

Post by Frances Hinden
This seems to work fine, but it doesn't come up very often (see above
remarks about playing 2NT as artificial at all).

Worth noting though that Meckwell has never had many sequences
where they can get out at 2NT. And they're in the auction a lot
more than most players.
For them it was no big deal to give up a natural, non-forcing
2NT. They'll try to make 3NT on those hands.

We don't all play 3NT contracts as well as Meckwell (well, I don't, maybe you do).

[Ron Johnson]

Post by Frances Hinden

Post by Ron Johnson

Post by Frances Hinden
This seems to work fine, but it doesn't come up very often (see above
remarks about playing 2NT as artificial at all).

Worth noting though that Meckwell has never had many sequences
where they can get out at 2NT. And they're in the auction a lot
more than most players.
For them it was no big deal to give up a natural, non-forcing
2NT. They'll try to make 3NT on those hands.

We don't all play 3NT contracts as well as Meckwell (well, I don't, maybe you do).

Heh. Thanks for even considering that I might.

But you know it isn't just that they're superb declarers with
lots of practice at contracts the seem hopeless at first glance
that makes their methods work.

Most partners will accept without complaint the +600 for
bidding and making 3NT on two balanced hands with a total of
22 HCP.

When the contract fails -- as it tends to -- though, generally
there will be words. Not for Meckwell. It's a price they're willing
to pay for their agressive style.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Frances Hinden

Post by Ron Johnson

Post by Frances Hinden
This seems to work fine, but it doesn't come up very often (see above
remarks about playing 2NT as artificial at all).

Worth noting though that Meckwell has never had many sequences
where they can get out at 2NT. And they're in the auction a lot
more than most players.
For them it was no big deal to give up a natural, non-forcing
2NT. They'll try to make 3NT on those hands.

We don't all play 3NT contracts as well as Meckwell (well, I don't, maybe you do).

I certainly don't, but then again I don't play 2NT contracts all that
well either. :)

-- Adam

[Frances Hinden]

Post by Ron Johnson

Post by Frances Hinden
This seems to work fine, but it doesn't come up very often (see above
remarks about playing 2NT as artificial at all).

Worth noting though that Meckwell has never had many sequences
where they can get out at 2NT. And they're in the auction a lot
more than most players.

They play strong club. When the opening bidder has already limited
their hand, they don't need a bid to show 18-19 balanced in the later
auction.

Post by Ron Johnson
For them it was no big deal to give up a natural, non-forcing
2NT. They'll try to make 3NT on those hands.

[Nigel]

[Pumpkin]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands
greatly outnumbers the "good",it seems there
should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener
at his second turn shows the "bad" hand. This
would allow partner to make an informed decision
(e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the
auction with his second bid.

[Nigel]
IMO, Pumpkin is right for the reasons he states.
We play what we call "Reverse Lebensohl" in all
partnerships. In relevant auctions, 2N is game
forcing (or invitational), 3 of a suit is just
competing. The advantage is that we can sometimes
indicate a lead or sacrifice. The disadvantage
is that we soemtimes have to make wild leaps to
3N. It is possible, however, that Rubensohl-like
transfers would work even better.

[Eric Leong]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.
Reversing the approach can cause some difficulties if the opponents
blast when opener has a good hand, but wouldn't the frequency of
occurrence of "good" versus "bad" hands suggest that you're still
better off playing "bad-good"?
Has anyone experimented with "bad-good"? Were your results more bad
than good?
Cheers.
Nick

I read in a Bridge Today article, years ago, that Marty Bergen liked
to play 2NT showed the bad hand. When he first played 2NT to show the
good hand, LHO would almost certainly jam the auction up by bidding
and partner couldn't be sure what type of good hand opener had. But if
he used 2NT to show the bad hand instead, he cared less about LHO
bidding as the object of bidding 2NT was to compete and push the
opponents higher anyway. Consequently, Bergen switched.

Eric Leong

[David Collier]

Post by Nick
Given that the frequency of the "bad" hands greatly outnumbers the
"good",it seems there should be a case for reversing the meaning of
the bids, so the direct natural call by opener at his second turn
shows the "bad" hand. This would allow partner to make an informed
decision (e.g.whether to sacrifice) when LHO crowds the auction with
his second bid.
For example, if it goes 1D-(1S)-D-(2S)-2NT (good-bad)-(4S)-?, pard
hasn't a clue what to do. By contrast, if you were playing "bad-good",
opener has accurately described his hand at his second turn to bid.
Reversing the approach can cause some difficulties if the opponents
blast when opener has a good hand, but wouldn't the frequency of
occurrence of "good" versus "bad" hands suggest that you're still
better off playing "bad-good"?
Has anyone experimented with "bad-good"? Were your results more bad
than good?

The answer is likely to be that good-bad is optimal in
some sequences and not in others. But let's take the example
above, 1D-(1S)-X-(2S)-?. Playing the usual good-bad here has
the advantage that you can bid a "good" but *non-forcing* 3C.
You probably lose this option if you're playing it the other
way round, because I suspect that you'll be disinclined to
pass if you bid a good 2NT and partner rebids 3C.

Thus, playing "bad-good" makes more sense if you have the
opinion that "good" bids ought to be forcing. But in this
case, as Nigel suggested, you may well find that you're
better off playing transfers.

For a more clear-cut example, try contrasting the two
classic positions where 2NT good-bad is played:

(2S)-X-(p)-? Here the traditional good-bad has a distinct
advantage in that you can play 3C as invitational. If 2NT
instead shows the good hand, opener has real rebid problems
if, for example, he has good help for clubs but not diamonds.

1NT-(2S)-? Here it may well be better to play "bad-good",
but if it is, it's almost certainly even better to play a
transfer method.

(I realise that this is not all there is to it. The most
important consideration is how important it is to name
your suit, but others have been discussing that already.)

[Thomas Dehn]

Post by David Collier
The answer is likely to be that good-bad is optimal in
some sequences and not in others. But let's take the example
above, 1D-(1S)-X-(2S)-?. Playing the usual good-bad here has
the advantage that you can bid a "good" but *non-forcing* 3C.
You probably lose this option if you're playing it the other
way round, because I suspect that you'll be disinclined to
pass if you bid a good 2NT and partner rebids 3C.

Obviously you cannot play a simple 3C relay after a "good" 2NT.
3C after a "good" 2NT would show that responder does NOT
want to play game if opener's "good" bid is 3C.


Thomas

[David Collier]

Post by Thomas Dehn

Post by David Collier
The answer is likely to be that good-bad is optimal in
some sequences and not in others. But let's take the example
above, 1D-(1S)-X-(2S)-?. Playing the usual good-bad here has
the advantage that you can bid a "good" but *non-forcing* 3C.
You probably lose this option if you're playing it the other
way round, because I suspect that you'll be disinclined to
pass if you bid a good 2NT and partner rebids 3C.

Obviously you cannot play a simple 3C relay after a "good" 2NT.
3C after a "good" 2NT would show that responder does NOT
want to play game if opener's "good" bid is 3C.

I don't believe it's that simple though. Presumably 3C implies
preference for clubs over diamonds, as well as showing a bad hand
for a minor two-suiter. So you'll need to play 3D as a weak rebid
too. But then, what if your hand is useful opposite a minor two-
suiter but less useful opposite just diamonds? (Perhaps you have
a nice club holding yourself.) Also, if you think you've got enough
for game anyway, you've got to bid at least 3H, and then you won't
find out what opener has unless you go past 3NT.

And in sequences where there are three suits in the picture
(say the opening bid is 1H rather than 1D), it gets even nastier.