[fromageGB]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-21, 09:30, said:

I would be very surprised if anyone (unless they are confused) plays a 2N balance after:
(2M) p (P) as Good/Bad and/or calls it Lebensohl.

 quiddity, on 2012-August-21, 12:39, said:

Because ditching the 2NT bid makes more sense when partner's hand is better defined with known values.
What do you do with 16 balanced, jump to 3nt?

Call it what you like, I do get confused over terminology. I don't see where the "Good" comes into "Good/Bad" and I still don't know what is meant by "mixed" raise. However, I explained the use.

As to whether you think this is a good or bad idea, it's a question of preference. With a strong hand I might like to make a bid showing strength, inviting game if not absolutely forcing, and with a weaker hand I like to bid to play. I get more mileage out of that than I would a natural 2NT, I think. If you have a good minor suit and a strong hand, it is a bit unilateral to X, then rebid 4 of the minor. An immediate bid of 3m gives more options.

With a balanced 16 over hearts, I think I would probably X and pass a simple minor or bid 2NT over spades, but over spades I would wish I was playing natural 2NT, then pass or X.

[aguahombre]

Just for information, the term "good/bad" simply means one route shows a good hand, and the other route shows a bad (merely competitive) hand. Depending on agreement in your partnership 2nt can be the relay to show the good one, or can be the relay to show the bad one (more common).

It is a cousin of ---and often confused with ---lebensohl, because direct bids beyond 2NT are stronger in Leben and weaker hands slow things down with 2NT.

[Zelandakh]

 ggwhiz, on 2012-August-17, 10:51, said:

your obligation is to bid as if partner had made a smooth pass.

This common misunderstanding is not quite correct. Your obligation is to assess which logical alternatives you have (bids that a certain percentage of your peers would consider plus anything else you want to throw into the mix) and then to remove from the list any that are suggested by the unauthorised information that you have. Then you select your call from the remaining options. It is sometimes the case that the call you would have made without the UI is also suggested by it and therefore you must choose an alternative LA, should one exist.

 fromageGB, on 2012-August-21, 14:05, said:

Call it what you like, I do get confused over terminology. I don't see where the "Good" comes into "Good/Bad" and I still don't know what is meant by "mixed" raise.

Agua has explained Good/Bad so I will have a go at the mixed raise. A mixed raise is a hand that wants to raise to the 3 level but is too strong to be preemptive and too weak to be a limit raise. An example over an opening 1M bid might be 4 card trump support with ~7-9 support points. Obviously the exact definitons depend on what you require for your limit and preemptive raises, and what partner has shown from the previous bidding.

[hrothgar]

 Phil, on 2012-August-16, 11:57, said:

The hitch suggests he wanted to take action but didn't. I'm guessing 6 spades and a 9 count for instance.

3♦ would be suggested by the pause, but I'm going with 3N.

Hmmm

My thought is that the pause suggests bidding either double or 3N.

Partner has something but can't find a bid.
This suggests that he holds values in Spades.
This makes both 3NT and a balancing double more attractive.

I'da thunk that 3♦ is the bid not suggested by a tank...

[hrothgar]

delete duplicate post

[Codo]

I have these legal informations: My partner is not totally broke and he has some spades, usually at least four. I can see this from the opponents bidding and the look in my hand.

One good reason for the hesitation would be that he holds a hand with spades but is too weak for a bid. The other is that he is looking at a take out double, again with a hand not really strong enough for this bid.

If we agree that 3 ♦ and 3 NT are the candidates, then 3 ♦ (the low road) is suggested, because he seems to have the shape but not the HCPS for a bid. That leaves me with 3 NT as the not suggested alternative.

I would choose this at the table and it is not close to me- but I would bet that some TD will disagree.

[billw55]

 Codo, on 2012-September-05, 07:54, said:

I have these legal informations: My partner is not totally broke and he has some spades, usually at least four. I can see this from the opponents bidding and the look in my hand.

One good reason for the hesitation would be that he holds a hand with spades but is too weak for a bid. The other is that he is looking at a take out double, again with a hand not really strong enough for this bid.

If we agree that 3 ♦ and 3 NT are the candidates, then 3 ♦ (the low road) is suggested, because he seems to have the shape but not the HCPS for a bid. That leaves me with 3 NT as the not suggested alternative.

I would choose this at the table and it is not close to me- but I would bet that some TD will disagree.

Interesting reasoning, but I am not sure about conclusion. If the hesitation suggests that partner holds spades (and likely a stopper), I would think that this would encourage me to bid 3NT, rather than discourage. 3NT with a void in an unbid suit strikes me as a somewhat peculiar choice absent any UI. After all, there are two unknown hands. RHO could just as easily have the spades as partner, and LHO would certainly not be first player ever to not lead his own bid suit around to a 3NT overcall, missing at least two honors.

[helene_t]

As a TD I wouldn't be hard on a player who bid either 3♦ or 3NT (or anything else) here since it is not clear at all which calls are suggested by the BIT.

Maybe the BIT suggests long spades and now our concern is how to avoid that he pulls 3NT to 4♠. Maybe a direct 3NT is more likely to get pulled than 3♦ followed by 3NT (partner bidding 3♠ in the meantime). This would mean that 3♦ is suggested by the BIT and we have to bid 3NT.