[32519]

When in 1st seat partner passes and the auction continues, P-(1M)-?, AGAINST GOOD OPPONENTS I no longer bid the Unusual 2NT promising 5/5 in the minors. Good opponents have demonstrated time and again that they can use the information given (the hand layout) to nail me. Nowadays I choose to pass instead. Sure the opponents may now have an uncontested auction but declarer doesn't have the hand layout. This only becomes apparent by trick 4 or 5 and by then he sometimes has chosen a wrong line of play.

I still use it against weak opponents as they appear unsure how to deal with the bid.

How about you?

[Trinidad]

I suppose your convention cards says: "2NT: unusual against weak players, does not exist against strong players".

Rik

[nigel_k]

Dumped inverted minor raises long ago and have never regretted it. I've lost count of the number of times the other table has gone down in a silly 1NT from the wrong side while we were getting a plus score. Being one step higher on the good hands is immaterial because there is plenty of space.

[manudude03]

I've pretty much dropped Gerber from the convention card completely, it's very rare we need to use gerber to stop at the 4 level, while it is taking up valuable space. In my weak NT partnership, we play 4C as a transfer to 4H, 4D transfer to 4S, 4M to play.

[paulg]

We no longer play Good/Bad 2NT. Although good in theory, we found it came up infrequently and, when it did, the definition of Good and Bad was too imprecise. Two notrump in competition is still rarely natural, but it no longer has strength implications.

We haven't missed it.

[mike777]

paulg, on 2013-June-21, 01:45, said:

We no longer play Good/Bad 2NT. Although good in theory, we found it came up infrequently and, when it did, the definition of Good and Bad was too imprecise. Two notrump in competition is still rarely natural, but it no longer has strength implications.

We haven't missed it.

good/bad/2nt may indeed be the most confusing convention
AS YOU note

[Zelandakh]

I guess I have tried and dropped as many things as anyone over the years. Some examples:-

FILM (loved this as a junior)
SJOs and Strong 2 openings (proper old school)
1M-3M and 1M - 4♦ as GF raise (from my first ever 2 bridge books)
1NT as 16-18 (from the same books)
Lebensohl-style 1NT in response to a takeout double
"2♣ Asking Range" (insisted upon by my first partner until I talked him out of it with a compromise agreement)
SJSs and Mixed JSs (the latter incorporating invitational fit jumps)
Gerber, Rolling Gerber, Roman Gerber, modified Gerber (the latter using 4NT as the king ask)
1NT - 2NT natural (such a waste of bidding space since it is a terminal sequence)
1NT - 2♠ as Baron range ask (more efficient to filter this through 2♣)
2NT - 3♣ Baron; and later Skip Baron (Puppet is more useful, more often)
2NT - 3♠ as 5♠4♥ (waste of a bid and wrong-siding all in one)
2NT - 4♣ as both majors (but it is still there for 1NT - 4♣)
any sort of discipline for tactical bids facing a passed hand
1♣ opening as 4+ hearts, 1♦ opening as 4+ spades
Lebensohl over 1NT - (2X) and a reverse (transfers are so nice)


I daresay I could fill a couple of pages if I thought of every little thing.

[Cyberyeti]

We dropped most of our defences against weak bids and moved to straight ToXs with lebensohl where appropriate.

So Dixon, 3x4x etc bit the dust.

[32519]

paulg, on 2013-June-21, 01:45, said:

We no longer play Good/Bad 2NT. Although good in theory, we found it came up infrequently and, when it did, the definition of Good and Bad was too imprecise. Two notrump in competition is still rarely natural, but it no longer has strength implications.

We haven't missed it.

I had to Google Good/Bad 2NT. The theory certainly sounds good.

[manudude03]

32519, on 2013-June-21, 04:34, said:

I had to Google Good/Bad 2NT. The theory certainly sounds good.

It is a good convention, you just need very solid agreements on when it applies. Playing the reverse of this is probably better (you're probably more worried about getting pre-empted out of your competitive bid, while at least if you've shown a good hand, you can afford to go higher and be more likely to penalise).

[Cyberyeti]

manudude03, on 2013-June-21, 04:49, said:

It is a good convention, you just need very solid agreements on when it applies. Playing the reverse of this is probably better (you're probably more worried about getting pre-empted out of your competitive bid, while at least if you've shown a good hand, you can afford to go higher and be more likely to penalise).

We do this, in all suits other than clubs, the immediate 3 bid is the worse version.

[helene_t]

Generally in each of my partnerships, agreements have become more and more complex and artificial with time. When one gadget was dumped it was generally just to replace it with another gadget.

There were two gadgets that Shogi and I replaced with more natural methods, though. One was to get rid of G/B 2NT. The other was to replace Multi-Landy with Landy.

[barmar]

Good/Bad good? No, bad.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-20, 23:39, said:

I suppose your convention cards says: "2NT: unusual against weak players, does not exist against strong players".

If he uses it against you, you know what he thinks of your expertise.

Does that make it a violation of Law 74A2 ("action that might cause annoyance or embarassment to another player") for him to bid Unusual 2NT against someone?

[awm]

To name some that seem popular here:

Fit jumps by UPH
Puppet (and muppet) stayman over 2nt
2nt asking after 1m-1M-2M
Kaplan interchange
Suction as a defense to strong club
Woolsey as a defense to notrump
2c drury

[CSGibson]

I dumped puppet stayman in most of my partnerships. I've also stopped playing any conventional first discards in favor of straight UD attitude or standard attitude (if partner won't play UD). In one of my partnerships, we've abandoned count signals except for potential hold-up situations, preferring suit preference instead.

I play a similar thing with two-suited calls - I won't make a two-suited call unless I think we are more likely than not to take the bid. It tends to favor acting with pure non-crap hands NV, and constructively when red.

[jdeegan]

nigel_k, on 2013-June-21, 00:23, said:

Dumped inverted minor raises long ago and have never regretted it. I've lost count of the number of times the other table has gone down in a silly 1NT from the wrong side while we were getting a plus score. Being one step higher on the good hands is immaterial because there is plenty of space.

I will second your motion. Maybe it is just that I never learned to play it properly. In any event, I got to the point I hated them so bad that I was bidding 1♦ over 1♣ instead.

[the hog]

What have I abandoned?
My last partner, an ex British International and Tollemache, Pachabo and Gold Cup winner convinced me to not bid 3NT in an auction such as
(3X) P (P) 3NT on a balanced 15-16 count with no source of tricks - the sort of bid that is popular with certain posters on this forum.
Before playing with this partner I too made the error of bidding 3NT here. I was sceptical about not bidding game, arguing as Rainer did in a recent post "I can make 3NT with my high cards added to those of partner. After reluctantly following partner's advice and analyzing '000s of hands it became obvious that partner was correct. This was not his theory, but rather that of his partner, Nicola Smith.

[Free]

I dumped the blood RDbl in most cases and replaced it by the extreme opposite hand: SOS

In one partnership we dropped Smolen and haven't regretted it. This needs some adjustment of the rest of the NT system ofcourse.

[GreenMan]

Free, on 2013-June-22, 10:47, said:

In one partnership we dropped Smolen and haven't regretted it. This needs some adjustment of the rest of the NT system ofcourse.

I can't remember who it was, but someone posted on RGB years ago that in years of observing national and WC events he had never seen the presence or absence of Smolen make a difference on a board. Regardless of theory, it appeared, the number of deals where it actually matters is vanishingly small. I'm generally willing to play it if a partner wants to, but I never suggest it.