[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 27 2010, 12:03 AM, said:

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.

In the non-GB/BG partnership, I bet you play

  (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) 2NT

as a heart raise of some sort. Why is this sequence different?

[Codo]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 27 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

I'm surprised everyone feels so strongly about this.

words of wisdom as expected..

But I agree with Fred that you need a lot of time to discuss 2 NT in any partnership and at most if you play good/bad. But this is not just a matter of god/bad but true for Lebensohl/scrambling/Truscott raises/ etc. too.
I think that while disccussing the bidding, any given partnership should put most of its time into the discussion what espacially 2 NT, the cuebid and pass/double is.
Anything else in the bidding is easy compared to this...

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Mar 26 2010, 11:27 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 27 2010, 12:03 AM, said:

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.

In the non-GB/BG partnership, I bet you play

  (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) 2NT

as a heart raise of some sort. Why is this sequence different?

Because a 2H overcall is often a 6-card suit, always a 5-card suit and is of reasonably well-defined strength. The chance of you having a heart raise of some sort, given that you want to bid, is fairly high.

In the auction starting 1m (1S) x (2S), the doubler has only shown four hearts and might have the weakest hand at the table. The chance of you having a heart raise of some sort, given that you want to bid, is rather lower.

[dburn]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 26 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

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.

Brian Callaghan realised this a long time ago when he formulated Binkie's Second Law: you should always open the bidding in fourth seat, because if the hand belonged to the opponents, one of them would have opened the bidding in first or (especially) third seat.

This has served us well over many years, though it has not had quite the universal application of Binkie's First Law: both defenders should not unblock the same suit at the same time.

[whereagles]

gnasher, on Mar 26 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

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.

You're right.

It is the ONLY downside.

[Phil]

fred, on Mar 26 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

Of course that isn't (PC: g/b 2N)'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.

Agree! G/B 2N along with:

Undefined doubles;

Lead-stopping doubles that aren't defined;

Kickback / Minorwood and

2N - 3N as something other than 'to play'

are the most disaster-prone treatments around. And, yet, in a strong partnership, all of these can be effective.

[Fluffy]

Maybe at a lower level, but I see the most disasters with the 1♣-(2♣) and 1♣-(2♦) where nobody remembers if its nat or majors and alerts the contrary then ends up on a silly contract (sometimes enforced by director after the miss alert).

(1♣)-1NT-(p)-2♥ has some funny ones also.