Join Bridge Winners
Confusion over "Good/Bad 2NT" and competitive double

My partner and I use the "good/bad 2NT" convention in many competitive auctions when opponents have bid at the 2-level above our suit(s) in order to help our side distinguish between "competitive" 3 level suit bids vs. "game-invitational" 3 level suit bids. 

But it is sometimes not entirely clear when this convention should apply vs. when 2NT should have a different meaning.

We had such an auction yesterday playing matchpoints.

This deal has the further feature of a "double" whose meaning may, perhaps, also be unclear.

I was North.

Our methods are 5 card majors w/ 1NT forcing, 2/1 GF, 15-17 1NT, Walsh style with relatively "sound" opening bid requirements.

We also play "support doubles and redoubles" by opener to show 3 card support for responder's suit with indeterminate strength.

I'll show all four hands and our actual (highly unsuccessful) auction:

West
7
K65
K9632
K765
North
K632
QJ103
4
QJ103
East
Q1084
984
AQJ108
8
South
AJ95
A72
75
A942
W
N
E
S
P
1
P
1
X
XX
2
3
3
X
P
P
P
D
3X West
NS: 0 EW: 0

This resulted in -870 for our side after I led a (I'll readily admit that a is a better choice and would have resulted in "only" -670).

My partner believed that "Good/Bad 2NT" applied to me over West's 2. Thus he believed my 3 showed a "good" (i.e. fully game invitational values) hand, while 2NT would have been "Good/Bad" showing a mere competitive hand with s (s is the only suit which a G/B 2NT could possibly show on this auction since I could bid any other suit at the 2 level).

He further believed that his final double was not for penalty--just a "do something intelligent" type double based on what he believed to be "extra values" in his hand beyond what he'd already shown.

My view was that his final double was for penalties.  As to whether my 3 should be considered "Good" with 2NT available to show a competitive hand with s:  at the table I did not intend my 3 this way.  I thought there had already been enough bidding by both sides that the competitive nature of my 3 should be clear.  Thus, I suppose 2NT would be "natural", although I'll admit that at the table I did not really think explicitly about what 2NT would mean.  Further, even if "G/B" does apply, I think that my hand is arguably adequate for a "good" 3, although that was not my intended meaning at the table.

You might also notice that our side can make 3 as well as 3, but that somehow s were never in the picture for our side. 

The suit was "lost" to our side by the combination of South's support re-double for s and East's 2-suit (s/s) TO double.

I'm interested in your views both on whether "G/B 2NT" should be "on" here for North over West's 2 and also how you would interpret South's final double of 3.  You can also vote as to whether N/S should have found their fit and competed to 3.

Please select up to 3 choices.

Good/Bad 2NT should apply. North should have bid 2NT
Good/Bad 2NT should apply. North's hand adequate for a "good" 3
Good/Bad 2NT should not apply. North's hand is adequate for 3
Good/Bad 2NT should not apply. North's hand is not good enough for 3
South's double of 3 should be for penalties
South's double of 3 is "do something intelligent" and his actual hand is OK for that call
South's double of 3 is "DSI", but his actual hand is NOT suitable for that call
N/S should have found s and competed to 3
N/S probably cannot find s after the TO X and Support XX

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
59 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top