[Gerardo]

In the Euro Bulletins an asterisk is used for alerts, but I saw "!" in lots of places.

[helene_t]

EarlPurple, on Jul 2 2004, 08:10 AM, said:

I do not know why, by the way, so many players here have criticized the use of a double of a 1♥ overcall to be used when holding only 4 spades, while the bid of 1♠ promises 5. Personally I find this very useful.

Since you are English, may I supose you play Acol? In that case, if pd's 1♣ is overcalled with 1♥, you can usually either support clubs, bid notrumps, double [4 spades] or bid spades [5+spades].

If you play 5-card majors, you can support clubs less often, and it is nice to have the double available when you are stuck. Some people actually define the double differently after a 1♣-opening as opposed to a 1♦-opening.

[Cascade]

Doubling to show four spades and bidding 1♠ to show five is an inefficient use of bidding space.

After 1♣ (1♥)

if double shows four spades you can :

Show four spades
Show five or more spades
Show a heart stopper 6-9 or so (and probably higher ranges)
Raise Clubs
Bid Diamonds 10+

But you have no way to bid weaker hands with long diamonds

♦ KQJxxx and out would be worth a bid in my opinion

Giving up double to show four spades you can:

Show spades 6+
Show diamonds 6+
Show a heart stopper
Raise Clubs

There are no longer any problem hands.

This must be more efficient

[Gerben47]

Well even better is double to show 4 or more spades. Opener can support with 3 cards. Support doubles are on after double
Then 1♠ = less than 4♠ but none of the other bids.

[helene_t]

Another devastating convention is fourcards-up-the-line.

As most other conventions, it is fine when restricted to the right situations, such as when responding to a 1♦ opening. However, it is contraintuitive that a fourcard minor should have presedence above a 4-card major (except for the opening bid in 5-card majors, of course), and the convention is abused very often. I've seen experts opening and rebiding 3-suited hands with this aproach, opening a poor 4-card clubs instead of a good 4-card diamonds when playing 5-card majors, and even (believe it or not) applying the principle when responing to a t/o double.

[Chamaco]

Cascade, on Jul 5 2004, 09:51 PM, said:

Doubling to show four spades and bidding 1♠ to show five is an inefficient use of bidding space.

----

This must be more efficient

And it can be more efficient with semiconstructive hands with a long minor, using xfers:

1♣-(1♥)-?

X = 4♠
1♠= 5+♠
1NT = xfer 7+hcp to clubs, if then rebid, hand is inv+, if xfer is passed out, 7-9 hcp. If opener has a reverse, he refuses the xfer or he superaccepts.
2♣= xfer to diamonds, obviously with self sufficient suit if weak (same logic).
--------------

Giving up natural 1NT in competition is not so bad, actually most top pairs use it after opps takeout dbl and using it after ovrecall is not so different.
Opener will have to reopen more liberally accounting for hands where responder may have a "natural" 1NT response but had to pass.


In this xfer-oriented framework, the question then becomes: do I prefer to show exactly 4 and 5+ cards with separate bids OR do I prefer to use X with a balanced hand with no spade length (possibly to substitute the 1NT bid) ?

I do not think there is a clear answer. I like to know my pard spade length if bidding goes:
1♣-(1♥)-1♠-(4♥)
? and i have 3 card support in spade. Using support X here is awkward.
As you go up in level, easy enough to miss a slam because X gives only shape (3 cd support) but not the strength of a reverse (say 19 hcp balanced).

CASE 1 IF YOU DO PLAY SUPPORT X up to 4H
Say you double opps 4H with a 19 count with 3 card support; pard would bid 4S with a 5 bagger in spades, either with a 9/10 hcp OR with 5/6 hcp (cos he ignore whetjher you hold a 13 count or a 18/19 count).

Now, holding 19+ balanced, after pard's 4S, you cannot know whether it is right to look for slam: it may be right if he has a 8/9+ count, but wrong if he has a 5/6 count that just had to bid 4S cos the auction was too high.

CASE 2 IF YOU DO NOT PLAY SUPPORT X up to 4H

Then you will not know whether pard has a 5 or 4 card spade and will have to decide between bidding 4S or not risking a Moysian without elements, except the poor thinking that "they preempted in hearts, we MUST have the 8+ longer fit in spades" (everytime I used it I ended up in a bad contract, the fit was in a minor ).

[EarlPurple]

helene_t, on Jul 5 2004, 05:11 PM, said:

EarlPurple, on Jul 2 2004, 08:10 AM, said:

I do not know why, by the way, so many players here have criticized the use of a double of a 1♥ overcall to be used when holding only 4 spades, while the bid of 1♠ promises 5. Personally I find this very useful.

Since you are English, may I supose you play Acol?

No you may not assume that. I dislike Acol, I dislike 4-card majors.

I played 5 card majors with a weak NT for 3 years and it worked very well, in spite of the opinions of many that they do not mix. They do. 5 card majors with a weak NT means that when partner opens 1♣ he guarantees either shape or extra values, and it's nice to know that when the auction becomes competitive.

[EarlPurple]

Cascade, on Jul 6 2004, 05:51 AM, said:

Doubling to show four spades and bidding 1♠ to show five is an inefficient use of bidding space.

After 1♣ (1♥)

if double shows four spades you can :

Show four spades
Show five or more spades
Show a heart stopper 6-9 or so (and probably higher ranges)
Raise Clubs
Bid Diamonds 10+

But you have no way to bid weaker hands with long diamonds

♦ KQJxxx and out would be worth a bid in my opinion

Giving up double to show four spades you can:

Show spades 6+
Show diamonds 6+
Show a heart stopper
Raise Clubs

There are no longer any problem hands.

This must be more efficient

With better hands I can bid 2♣ (not weak) or 2♦, or even cue-bid their suit with 2♥. With a weak hand and a string of clubs I can bid 3♣. I guess you could even agree, in that auction, to make 2♣ a general force without spades and possibly no heart stops and 2♦ as a weak bid showing just long diamonds.

With weaker hands I can pass first. It's not much better to double rather than pass holding 7-8 points and 6 diamonds to the KQJ. If the next hand bids 2♥ or 3♥ I have to come in high anyway to show my diamonds.

If I can double to guarantee 4 spades then partner will know to compete on the hands in which we hold the suit where we can outbid them at the same level.

After 1♦ (1♥) you'd have to decide what 2♣ and 2♦ mean but partner will usually have diamonds here.

[EarlPurple]

Chamaco, on Jul 6 2004, 06:10 PM, said:

And it can be more efficient with semiconstructive hands with a long minor, using xfers:

1♣-(1♥)-?
1NT = xfer 7+hcp to clubs, if then rebid, hand is inv+, if xfer is passed out, 7-9 hcp. If opener has a reverse, he refuses the xfer or he superaccepts.

Giving up natural 1NT in competition is not so bad, actually most top pairs use it after opps takeout dbl and using it after ovrecall is not so different.
Opener will have to reopen more liberally accounting for hands where responder may have a "natural" 1NT response but had to pass.

I do not think it is a good idea to make 1NT conventional here as it is your most likely game contract when your side has the minors. And if you do not have a heart stop, the lead will come through your partner's hand into that of the overcaller's.

You will no longer be able to play in 3NT when the hand is:

---

[PriorKnowledge]

Use 1C (1H) X = 4s and 1C (1H) 1S = 5+ is useful because the auction is likely to get out of hand quickly and we don't want to misunderstand the spade suit.

Playing Negative Free Bids solves the problem of a weak hand and good diams.

I will agree that using 1C (1H) X = both minors is also useful, but to label the X=4s as a "Worst Convention" seems harsh.

[luke warm]

Cascade, on Jul 5 2004, 11:51 PM, said:

Doubling to show four spades and bidding 1♠ to show five is an inefficient use of bidding space.

After 1♣ (1♥)

if double shows four spades you can :

Show four spades
Show five or more spades
Show a heart stopper 6-9 or so (and probably higher ranges)
Raise Clubs
Bid Diamonds 10+

But you have no way to bid weaker hands with long diamonds

♦ KQJxxx and out would be worth a bid in my opinion

why not 1C (1H) 2D showing the hand you suggest? i know neg free bid is another treatment that people either love or hate, but truthfully what's wrong with it? i'd love to see some examples of where it costs more than it helps

[McBruce]

My nominee for the worst bridge convention is still unbridled Gerber, and I made my point in 2001 in r.g.b. thus:

Several pairs in the suburban clubs around here have combined this one
with another beaut: not only do they play GerberUberAlles (4C is
ALWAYS Gerber), but the 4C bid initiates what they call "Roman Keycard
Rolling Gerber." This means that they are not satisified with the
extra space Gerber affords, they need even more! So when the initial
response is received, the next bid up asks for kings. Unless it is
the trump suit. If this is the case, as far as I have been able to
determine, opinion is split. In this auction:

Opener: 1H
Responder: 3C
(Bergen reversed, this is the limit raise and 3D is the four card
single raise. Don't ask me why.)
Opener: 4C
(RKCRG--that is, Roman Keycard Rolling Gerber)
Responder: 4D
(Zero or three, or perhaps one or four. Probably one or four: they've
reversed Bergen; they probably reversed this too.)

This is the Moment of Uncertainty. Some people play Option One to ask
for kings:

Opener Wishing To Sign Off (turns over convention card and places
cards face down on table): 4H.
Opener Requesting A King Count (looks at ceiling for five seconds):
4H.

Option Two recognizes the problem with Option One: when you bid 4H,
partner may be looking the other way! In Option Two, to ask for kings
you bid the next suit up, 4S in this case. (To sign off you still
flip your convention card and put your cards down before bidding 4H,
for improved clarity.)

The best defense against this convention is in three parts:

a> Identify it on the opponent's convention card as you arrive at the
table and admire it with a few comments about how nice it must be to
learn about aces and sometimes even kings without going past game.
(Don't go too far and speculate that one could get to a grand knowing
how many eights partner held--that would be a bit too sarcastic and
your devious plan might actually be figured out.)

b> Continue by noting the checkmark in the DOPI box, and make some
comment such as "that must save space too--do you play it over doubles
as well?" If they don't, teach them.

c> As soon as you hear 4C from RHO (or a response to LHO's 4C,
assuming partner doesn't know the defense), focus your eyes on your
own cards and forget the vulnerability and the auction thus far. If
you have a seven card suit or a good six card suit, bid it. If you
have a balanced hand of zero HCP or more, double. If you are
unbalanced but have no suitable suit to bid, bid your shortest suit.
Trust me; it works.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,
Re 1C-(1H)- and the two discussed alternatives to std (X = 4+ spades, 1S = something else; X = something else, 1S = 4+ spades), I have seen Balicki-Zmudzinski extend this to 1C-(1D).

1C-(1D)-
X = hearts
1H = spades
1S = both majors (what a negative double would have been).

And this allows opener to accept the transfer low with just 3.

I have played this style for about a year at the table, including
1C-(X)-
XX = diamonds
1D = H
1H = S
1S = NT!
1N = something else.

And the ratio between gain by design and gain by sewn confusion among enemy ranks is like 1:20. It just pays to be as close to illegal as possible. Sorry to say. Why do you think Meckwell play upside-down suit preference? It's legal and it's one more ball for the enemy to mentally juggle.

Later,
Dan

[pclayton]

This thread has REALLY gotten off track.

10 worst conventions of all time - in order of uselessness:

1) Mini-Roman 2♦ - with an 11-15 range and no known suit. How about we devise a convention that tells the defense how to defend (double and lead trump). I have seen so many instances where the trump was necessary - the latest was pard held Kx and didn't lead it - yep the trump lead got back 2 tricks for the trick lost with the lead. What inferences do these pairs take when they don't open 2♦ and rebid two other suits?

2) 4N Key Card for clubs. Gets you overboard more often than not. At least adjust the responses and play 0314 (if you play 1430). Redwood or kickback easily solves the problem. 4N can even be problematic for ♦ / ♥'s.

3) Takeout or Balancing Doubles with 4333 hands. Hand is always overrated in terms of playing strength.

4) Michaels Q. Why preempt when holding BOTH majors?

5) 13-15 NT's. Worst NT range ever - a carry over from Goren Precision. Next worse - 16-18. Then: 11-13.

6) Natural 2N opener. Real smart - start your slam auctions at the 3 level. Have had much success with playing this as unusual. Other pet peeves - three point ranges for a 2N Opener (22-24) or a natural 3N Opener showing 25-27

7) Fast Arrival in 2/1 Auctions. 1♠-2♥-2♠-4♠. Great - Opener has a 17 count; now what? Picture jumps are a lot more useful.

8) Solid suit preempts. Nothing like opening a one bid with a preempt. Similarly; Gambling 3N. As others have mentioned; instantly wrong sides the hand.

9) Precision 1♦ Promising no more than ZERO in suit.

10) MUD Leads; although I'm coming dangerously close as I convert to 2/4 leads

[luke warm]

ooooooooo i hate seeing your ranking for mini-roman... i sorta like it, but prefer the version where the hand is either 0454, 0445, 1444, 4450, 4441.. shortage in a black suit, in other words.. only real drawback i've seen is an inability to play in 2S (which is the gf bid), but it's a rare hand when coupled with opener's bid

[Cave_Draco]

The_Hog, on Jun 28 2004, 07:40 AM, said:

Flannery and Cappelletti to name but two that should be consigned to the scrapheap of obscurity.

Agreed, Ron,

I would twist the question and ask...

If you could pick your opponent's conventions, not their basic system, just their conventions. What would you inflict on them?

On that basis, I would include DONT & Multi.

[Chamaco]

Cave_Draco, on Jul 10 2004, 02:19 PM, said:

If you could pick your opponent's conventions, not their basic system, just their conventions. What would you inflict on them?

Contiguous range two-suited overcalls.

People using them never know who the hand belongs to, whereas opener and responder tend to know better because opener has guaranteed opening strength and responder knows his own strength.

They claim to be able to solve this by relays but the auction gets quickly crowded and your relays go down the sink.

[EarlPurple]

luke warm, on Jul 10 2004, 02:47 AM, said:

why not 1C (1H) 2D showing the hand you suggest? i know neg free bid is another treatment that people either love or hate, but truthfully what's wrong with it? i'd love to see some examples of where it costs more than it helps

Negative free bids are great when that's what you hold, but are bad when you have a stronger hand if that means you have to start with a double. Even if the stronger hand has to cue-bid I don't think it's as good as showing your suit.

example:

1♣ (1♠) X or 2♠ (3♠)

And 3rd player has a decent hand with 6 hearts. What to do now? What does 3rd player do with:

x AKxxxx Kxx Jxx

and with

x AKxxxx Axx Kxx

[EarlPurple]

pclayton, on Jul 10 2004, 08:02 AM, said:

5) 13-15 NT's. Worst NT range ever - a carry over from Goren Precision.  Next worse - 16-18. Then: 11-13.

I disagree. I have played both 13-15 NT and 11-13 (my preference).

13-15 is played with precision club being 16+ and with 11-12 balanced you open 1D which enables you to also raise partner's 4-card major. You also have the option of nmf when responder has a better hand after the bidding starts 1D=1M=1NT.

11-13 is a "mini+" NT and works well when I play strong opening as 17+ and the other minor for balanced hands of 14-16. When I used to play 12-14 I was always tempted to open 1NT on 11-point hands. Playing 11-13 I can. I'm also allowed to promote a very good 10-point hand without it being considered a "psych". But playing 10-12 NT I am never allowed to open 1NT on 9 points.

16-18 1NT is used in "variable 1♣" systems like Polish club, where a 1♣ opening can be a powerful hand or one of many weaker options. I've never played it myself.

[luke warm]

EarlPurple, on Jul 11 2004, 12:17 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 10 2004, 02:47 AM, said:

why not 1C (1H) 2D showing the hand you suggest? i know neg free bid is another treatment that people either love or hate, but truthfully what's wrong with it? i'd love to see some examples of where it costs more than it helps

Negative free bids are great when that's what you hold, but are bad when you have a stronger hand if that means you have to start with a double. Even if the stronger hand has to cue-bid I don't think it's as good as showing your suit.

example:

1♣ (1♠) X or 2♠ (3♠)

And 3rd player has a decent hand with 6 hearts. What to do now? What does 3rd player do with:

x AKxxxx Kxx Jxx

and with

x AKxxxx Axx Kxx

nfb should show up to 11 hcp, anything over that can be considered game force (depending on p'ship philosophy)... with the hands shown i'd bid 2H on the first and X on the second

if 4th hand jumps in spades, a decision has to be made... but that's true no matter what you do.. say it goes 1C (1S) 2H (forcing) (3S).. same scenerio exists

it doesn't matter though, we can all construct hands where nfb comes off better and where non-nfb does... i like it because the hands where it can be used seem to outnumber those where it can't.. the hard to bid, intermediate strength ones