[magwheels]

What methods do you use after partner opens and RHO makes a weak jump overcall, example 1D - (2S) - ? I was playing with a new partner who took my 2NT (intended as natural with 11 HCP, 3-3-2 5 with KQx in spades) as something like a negative double showing hearts, a method that I've never seen. What agreements do you use? Actual hand:

---

[Cyberyeti]

We use 1m-2♠-2N as natural, 1♥-2♠-2N as a 4 card raise inv+

[DavidKok]

Using 2NT as hearts on this auction is definitely non-standard.

I play:

1♦-(2♠):

• Pass: catchall, weak.
  
• X: Takeout, usually but not always exactly 4 hearts.
  
• 3♣: Natural, 5(+), forcing to game.
  
• 3♦: Natural, invitational, not forcing.
  
• 3♥: Natural, 5(+), forcing to game.
  
• 3♠: Stopper ask, game forcing.
  
• 3NT: Natural, offer to play, promises a spade stopper.

I deliberately skipped 2NT. Some people play this as Good/Bad, i.e. a form of Lebensohl where hands too weak to force to game can still enter the auction artificially. Some people use this as a natural NF bid. Some people use it a different way entirely! I think most of these are fine, and I don't have a strong preference (though I do think having a misunderstanding here is more costly than the artificial uses tend to gain, in the long run).

In my personal case there is a significant difference between a 1♦ opening and a 1♣ opening, and in fact it'd also differ by seating and vulnerability, but I think that distracts from the main point.

Your partner should definitely not have sprung some unorthodox treatment on you without prior discussion.

[mw64ahw]

I play a a variation of what David describes above, but without agreement with a pickup partner I would suggest a natural invite as you made.
In this case sitting to the left of the overcaller with KQx♠ I would consider three options including 3N to play.
Perhaps the most interesting option is X as negative or invitational with a minor rather than a pure takeout.
Now after 1♦-(2♠)-X-(P)
.. 2N min. no 4♥
.. 3♣ min. with 4♥
.. 3♦ GF without 4♥
.. 3♥ GF with 4♥
.. 3♠ GF s46x
.. 3N GF x46s

[Huibertus]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-10, 09:21, said:

Your partner should definitely not have sprung some unorthodox treatment on you without prior discussion.

Nothing to add, except to emphasize the last sentence. SPOT ON!

[jillybean]

And until you have this level of agreement with your partners, just bid your hand and hope for the best.
Absent any agreements, 2nt is obviously natural.

[magwheels]

David,

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I like your approach.

[mikeh]

I like David’s post. The only quibble is his reference to some people playing 2N as good bad. There may well be people who play this, but my understanding (based on reading the original good bad 2N article and subsequent ones advocating for bad good 2N) is that it’s a convention used by OPENER, and never by responder.

There are, imo, a number of reasons why playing it by responder in the given or similar sequences is a bad idea, but since nobody is actually advocating for its use here I won’t elaborate

[harikannan]

 mikeh, on 2025-June-10, 11:34, said:

There are, imo, a number of reasons why playing it by responder in the given or similar sequences is a bad idea, but since nobody is actually advocating for its use here I won’t elaborate

Mike, can you please list them for the benefit of intermediates like me. Thanks in advance.

[WasWinM]

In case Mike doesn’t see your ask maybe this will help.

It is of benefit to understand the purpose of good/bad 2NT. The idea is that after an auction such as 1C-2S-P-P to be able to distinguish between hands that want to compete like xx, Axx, J, AQJ10xxx and hands that still have game prospects like xx, AQ, AKJ9xx, KJx.

As for responder, the main reason against is the loss of 2NT as natural along with little need to differentiate between good and bad raises to the 3-level, especially after one opponents has described his hand to his partner.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we played 2NT in the given seq. as Good-Bad. This was recommended in Marshall Miles book "Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century".
https://www.amazon.c...s/dp/1894154134

It worked. But I agree, I have not seen this getting played by our opponents, not even a single one. So in short: it did not get traction,
for what ever reason. If I understood it right, Miles had a Maverick reputation.
His fav. system ... bal. club, unbal. diamond seems to get some followers, as far as I understood.
https://www.bridgewe...ced_Diamond.pdf

He died 2013 at the age 87.

At the time we played this method, we also played NFB. Usually NFB only apply to suit bids on the 2 and 4 level, but using 2NT as a Good-Bad
allowed bidding suit at the 3 level in a non forcing manner. It may help, if you play a weak NT system, which we do and did at the time,
..., although I am not quite sure, when we did switch to weak NT.

As it is, we no longer play this, we switched to xfer, ... have a look at Rubens Adv., again xfer come with plus and minus, understand the plus
and the minus, make up your mind, and go for it, or dont.
https://en.wikipedia...Rubens_advances

Using 2NT as art. in the given seq. is not uncommon, there are schemas out there to use it as part of major suit raises, to differentiate between
3/4 card support.

Yes, you loose the natural usage of 2NT as showing a bal. inv, but the question as always is: do you ever want to play 2NT in this kind of seq?
Obv. it also helps, if you know, that nonforcing does not mean garbage.

The main cons. if you give up the bal. inv-. meaning of 2NT: Those hands go into the negX, which weakens the impl. that the negX. showes 4 cards
in the unknown major, or you are forced to overbid.

With kind regards
Marlowe