Help
Recently I was bumming around the internet and ran across a site that discusses bridge - and within that site there is a board devoted to favorite conventions and treatments. Instead of taking a survery, I wanted to ask the general questions:
1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
3. Which ones are totally unnecessary?
4. Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
5. Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
Favorite Conventions
#1
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-February-14, 01:45
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,395
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2003-February-14, 06:16
>1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
From my perspective, the I can't live without fit showing jumps and fit showing non-jumps. I strongly dislike playing systems with wide ranging opening bids [SAYC, 2/1, etc.]
Overall, I think the most usefu convention ever developed was the artificial first step asking bids. For example, Stayman, Trump Queen ask following RKCB, and various relay asking bids.
>2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
Sound opening bids
I've always had a pet peeve regarding two suited methods that show a limited contiguous range that don't open in one of the suits.
As an example, many people use a 2NT opening to show a weak 2 suited with both minors. This is a completely innane use of bidding space. [Its much better to substitute use a 3C opening to show the minors and use 2NT to show something else]. I'd lump the Precision 2D opening into this same camp and note that serious Precision pairs typically use 2H to show three suited hands with short Diamonds.
From my perspective, the I can't live without fit showing jumps and fit showing non-jumps. I strongly dislike playing systems with wide ranging opening bids [SAYC, 2/1, etc.]
Overall, I think the most usefu convention ever developed was the artificial first step asking bids. For example, Stayman, Trump Queen ask following RKCB, and various relay asking bids.
>2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
Sound opening bids
I've always had a pet peeve regarding two suited methods that show a limited contiguous range that don't open in one of the suits.
As an example, many people use a 2NT opening to show a weak 2 suited with both minors. This is a completely innane use of bidding space. [Its much better to substitute use a 3C opening to show the minors and use 2NT to show something else]. I'd lump the Precision 2D opening into this same camp and note that serious Precision pairs typically use 2H to show three suited hands with short Diamonds.
Alderaan delenda est
#3
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-February-14, 08:25
My favorite treatments...lots to choose from but here's a small list:
1. The Romex Forcing Club 2D opening - one little bid, so much use and utility.
2. RKC Kickback, Redwood, and Spiral Scan - if you can keep the meanings straight, adds so much room to the auction.
3. 2 Way Checkback Stayman - a nice tool to tell partner the good news.
4. Meckwell over strong NT - easy to remember, doesn't violate LOTT principles, and its simplicity is its strength.
5. Romex Major Suit Raises and Martel-Stansby 2NT G/F Raise - these two treatments intertwine to make a wonderful structure of bids that show shape, trump support and range in ONE bid.
6. Lastly, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this one: L-e-b-e-n-s-o-h-l. This is extremely valuable - a definite must have.
Now, for the treatments that I really hate (because of misuse or not being clearly understood):
1. Capp or any other defense that uses a penalty double vs. strong NT - why punish yourself defending 1NTX? Declarer can double dummy most of the hand and poor partner can't tell what's what.
2. Texas transfers - too often used to start a slam try. Why not a simple transfer, followed by a 4C keycard ask, or maybe better, simple cuebidding?
3. Splinters - again, too often used to start a slam try. Frankly should only be used to show game interest and no more, otherwise use your G/F 2NT raise.
4. 4NT ALWAYS being ace asking - sometimes you got to have a place to stop and ask the important question, "Can we make 6 of anything?".
5. 4NT as being RKC for last suit bid - if you have fit why aren't you showing it at a lower level?
6. Lastly, Precision 2D opening - rarely comes up, responses after the 2NT force are hard to remember because you don't have it come up often, and a waste of bid.
1. The Romex Forcing Club 2D opening - one little bid, so much use and utility.
2. RKC Kickback, Redwood, and Spiral Scan - if you can keep the meanings straight, adds so much room to the auction.
3. 2 Way Checkback Stayman - a nice tool to tell partner the good news.
4. Meckwell over strong NT - easy to remember, doesn't violate LOTT principles, and its simplicity is its strength.
5. Romex Major Suit Raises and Martel-Stansby 2NT G/F Raise - these two treatments intertwine to make a wonderful structure of bids that show shape, trump support and range in ONE bid.
6. Lastly, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this one: L-e-b-e-n-s-o-h-l. This is extremely valuable - a definite must have.
Now, for the treatments that I really hate (because of misuse or not being clearly understood):
1. Capp or any other defense that uses a penalty double vs. strong NT - why punish yourself defending 1NTX? Declarer can double dummy most of the hand and poor partner can't tell what's what.
2. Texas transfers - too often used to start a slam try. Why not a simple transfer, followed by a 4C keycard ask, or maybe better, simple cuebidding?
3. Splinters - again, too often used to start a slam try. Frankly should only be used to show game interest and no more, otherwise use your G/F 2NT raise.
4. 4NT ALWAYS being ace asking - sometimes you got to have a place to stop and ask the important question, "Can we make 6 of anything?".
5. 4NT as being RKC for last suit bid - if you have fit why aren't you showing it at a lower level?
6. Lastly, Precision 2D opening - rarely comes up, responses after the 2NT force are hard to remember because you don't have it come up often, and a waste of bid.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#4
Posted 2003-February-14, 13:27
Playing something like 2/1 2C and 2D checkback are great, allowing the development of invit and GF auctions at a low level to explore the best contract.
Serious or frivolous 3NT is very effective.
Ron Klinger's Keri is an excellent addition to bidding theory and will/should totally change bidding theory over 1NT openings.
Rubensohl and Lebensohl are useful conventions.
Worst: Well there are many.
Gerber
The abuse of splinters - when you have a good long (5+) side suit as a potential source of tricks, or when people splinter with a stiff A or K.
Using 2NT as some Jacoby raise when playing 2/1. 2NT should be reserved for 13-15 flat hands without a 4 card fit.
Serious or frivolous 3NT is very effective.
Ron Klinger's Keri is an excellent addition to bidding theory and will/should totally change bidding theory over 1NT openings.
Rubensohl and Lebensohl are useful conventions.
Worst: Well there are many.
Gerber
The abuse of splinters - when you have a good long (5+) side suit as a potential source of tricks, or when people splinter with a stiff A or K.
Using 2NT as some Jacoby raise when playing 2/1. 2NT should be reserved for 13-15 flat hands without a 4 card fit.
#5
- Group: Members
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:louisiana
Posted 2003-February-14, 14:29
i agree with almost all of wotan's list... serious 3nt is a great tool, as is 2nt showing the 13-15 balanced range instead of the jacoby treatment (over 1M)... i hate gerber, love nmf or checkback... i much prefer either minor suit rkc or kickback to using 4nt as rkc all the time, but then i like exclusion and not everyone does
i've grown fond of kokish lately, but it's easy to misuse... and i think lebensohl is a must for anyone... to me, udca with 2/4 leads are musts also
i've grown fond of kokish lately, but it's easy to misuse... and i think lebensohl is a must for anyone... to me, udca with 2/4 leads are musts also
#6
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-February-14, 14:57
Serious 3NT is an excellent treatment I agree - but Jacoby 2NT is lacking (that's why I use Martel-Stansby's 2NT G/F raise). Also it is prime for abuse - if you have a hand that seeks slam then yes it's a good tool, but if your hand is a pudding raise with most of your values in trumps and one other suit, it's a poor bid to make. I have strict requirements that are met before I enter a 2NT response within Key Lime Precision.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#7
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2003-February-15, 06:17
1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
By set of conventions, I assume what you can not live without. I love multi 2D and Muiderberg, when playing precision I like the greek asking bids and of course 1C forcing. But the I can do without all of those, and in the BBO often have to. To play the game, the "must" have conventions are the basic bidding ones virtually everyone uses and some "conventional" carding. Here is my "must have" list. The lettered ones are in order of preference, and the group at the end are unranked.
a. Stayman. Yes, it has to be number one.
b. 2C forcing and artificial (or forcing 1C system)
c. 1NT forcing to a major (thus 2-over-1 game force) a must!
d. fourth suit forcing/new minor forcing
e. five card majors
f. Lebenhsol (or Rubenshol) and good/bad 2NT equal
g. DONT or Hamilton (or the very similar Cappelletti)
h. inverted minors
i. negative doubles
j. Jacoby transfers
With those top 10 agreements, I am ready to go. Others: Support Doubles and Fit jumps, Serious 3NT, unassuming cue-bid, reverse flannery by responder, Josephine (and reverse Josephine if your system shows keycards including trump Q as one of the key cards), Jordan 2NT, Unusual versus unusual, Bergen, RCKB, LACKWOOD, western Cue-bids (in well defined auctions), splinter bids, UDCA carding, lavinthal (or odd even) discarding.
2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
I could do without Gerber and super gerber.
Preemptive jumpshifts
Jacoby 2NT
Ougst: with my weak twos, distribution is better
3. Which ones are totally unnecessary?
Baron
Rosenkrantz redbl at any level other than one.
4. Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
I am not completely sure what the difference between 3&4 are, but here you go.
Landy, becker, ripstra and others that are not DONT or Hamilton
Fishbein
5. Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
Jean-Rene Vernes discovery and explanation of The Law of Total Tricks
By set of conventions, I assume what you can not live without. I love multi 2D and Muiderberg, when playing precision I like the greek asking bids and of course 1C forcing. But the I can do without all of those, and in the BBO often have to. To play the game, the "must" have conventions are the basic bidding ones virtually everyone uses and some "conventional" carding. Here is my "must have" list. The lettered ones are in order of preference, and the group at the end are unranked.
a. Stayman. Yes, it has to be number one.
b. 2C forcing and artificial (or forcing 1C system)
c. 1NT forcing to a major (thus 2-over-1 game force) a must!
d. fourth suit forcing/new minor forcing
e. five card majors
f. Lebenhsol (or Rubenshol) and good/bad 2NT equal
g. DONT or Hamilton (or the very similar Cappelletti)
h. inverted minors
i. negative doubles
j. Jacoby transfers
With those top 10 agreements, I am ready to go. Others: Support Doubles and Fit jumps, Serious 3NT, unassuming cue-bid, reverse flannery by responder, Josephine (and reverse Josephine if your system shows keycards including trump Q as one of the key cards), Jordan 2NT, Unusual versus unusual, Bergen, RCKB, LACKWOOD, western Cue-bids (in well defined auctions), splinter bids, UDCA carding, lavinthal (or odd even) discarding.
2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
I could do without Gerber and super gerber.
Preemptive jumpshifts
Jacoby 2NT
Ougst: with my weak twos, distribution is better
3. Which ones are totally unnecessary?
Baron
Rosenkrantz redbl at any level other than one.
4. Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
I am not completely sure what the difference between 3&4 are, but here you go.
Landy, becker, ripstra and others that are not DONT or Hamilton
Fishbein
5. Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
Jean-Rene Vernes discovery and explanation of The Law of Total Tricks
--Ben--
#8
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-February-15, 08:55
To elucidate, some of the treatments that have contributed to the game:
1. Negative doubles. In the time of converting the masses to 5 card majors, you didn't have a bid to promise a 4 card major anymore. Sputnik doubles (created in 57-58 during that time) helped solve that problem.
2. Support doubles. Created by Eric Rodwell, this card-showing doubled allows a 5-3 fit without losing economy of space.
3. Roman and Roman Key Card Blackwood. Created to show the colors, rank, and shape of your aces, and to show the trump Q when a 10 card fit does NOT exist respectively.
4. DONT, Brozel, Meckwell. Created on the principles of LOTT, which is superior than points schmoints.
5. Jacoby Transfer Bids (and adjuncts). Created to allow the lead to come into the close, limited, NT opening hand, thus normally gaining a trick.
1. Negative doubles. In the time of converting the masses to 5 card majors, you didn't have a bid to promise a 4 card major anymore. Sputnik doubles (created in 57-58 during that time) helped solve that problem.
2. Support doubles. Created by Eric Rodwell, this card-showing doubled allows a 5-3 fit without losing economy of space.
3. Roman and Roman Key Card Blackwood. Created to show the colors, rank, and shape of your aces, and to show the trump Q when a 10 card fit does NOT exist respectively.
4. DONT, Brozel, Meckwell. Created on the principles of LOTT, which is superior than points schmoints.
5. Jacoby Transfer Bids (and adjuncts). Created to allow the lead to come into the close, limited, NT opening hand, thus normally gaining a trick.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#9
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Location:San Jose, CA
- Interests:bridge, poker, literature, boardgames, computers, classical music, baseball, history
Posted 2003-February-16, 01:00
> 1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
Before I answer this, I think it is important that I define what I mean by "must-have", or "mandatory". I consider a convention mandatory if it is :
1. Effective. It must significantly improve one's bidding if used correctly.
2. Frequent. It must come up often enough so that it will be used correctly. (Around once every three sessions.)
3. Costless. It replaces a bid of little use.
The conventions that I believe satisfy these requirements are (in order of importance) :
1. Takeout doubles.
Effective? Try defensive bidding without it!
Frequent? Heck yes.
Costless? Who needs a penalty double of a direct bid?
2. Cue-bid (bid of the enemy suit) as artificial raise (or great hand).
Effective? Try competitive bidding without it!
Frequent? Very.
Costless? You rarely want to play in the enemy suit.
3. Fourth suit forcing and artificial (after three natural suit bids).
Effective? Try constructive bidding without it!
Frequent? At least once a session.
Costless? When was the last time you wanted to play in the fourth-bid suit?
4. Control-showing bids.
Effective? Try intelligent slam bidding without it!
Frequent? Almost every slam hand (once a session).
Costless? After you've agreed upon a suit, further suit showing (beyond a source of tricks) is not useful.
5. Negative doubles
Effective? I can't imagine competitive bidding without it. (Note: would be higher but some systems aren't 5-card-majors.)
Frequent? Very.
Costless? With opener's frequent reopening double, juicy penalties are usually not missed.
6. Splinter raises
Effective? Few bids can describe so much with one bid. And pinpointing shortness is critical to distributional slam bidding.
Frequent? Yes.
Costless? With a jump-shift as forcing, what is a double-jump good for?
7. Stayman
Effective? Finds those 4-4 major suit fits after you "preempt" your side with a NT bid.
Frequent? Definitely.
Costless? You lose the ability to play 2C and the opponents may gain some lead-directing inferences/information about declarer's major-suit lengths. These are minor costs, but significant compared to the other conventions above.
8. lebensohl principle (using 2NT to differentiate hand-types in competition)
Effective? Giving responder two ways to reach a contract is huge when bidding space is consumed by the opponents.
Frequent? Fairly frequent (once every two sessions).
Costless? Stopping in 2NT is rarely the right thing to do.
9. The transfer principle, especially for major suit responses to 1NT
Effective? Similar to lebensohl.
Frequent? Yes.
Costless? Same as Stayman.
10. Unusual Notrump
Effective? Try finding a sac with the lowest ranking suits after they've got a head start, without this!
Frequent? Fairly frequent.
Costless? There's a reason why they call it "unusual" notrump.
I think practically every good system has these 10 conventions, and for good reason. That's why I consider them the mandatory conventions. Note that simplicity is not a criteria for me -- else Stayman would be higher and Blackwood would be on this list over lebensohl.
>2. What treatment(s) could you live without?
This is the inverse of #1. Obviously any non-mandatory treatment/convention is one I could live without.
That being said, if you want to know about the conventions I consider in the "second tier", I would say that I find the following treatments/conventions extremely useful in most systems. Any convention not listed here or above is one I could happily live without.
* Strong, forcing, artificial club opening (and followup structure)
* Some sort of weak two-bid structure
* Blackwood/Roman Keycard (and followup structure)
* 2/1 responses game-forcing (and structure)
* Some sort of game-try structure
* Lightner doubles
* Responsive doubles
* Support doubles
* Checkback Stayman/New Minor Forcing/Wolff
* Inverted minor-suit raises (in a standard american-type system)
* Jordan 2NT limit raise over takeout double
* Two-suited cue-bid overcall
* A major-centric notrump overcall structure (I dislike DONT, for example, because it is minor-centric)
* Forcing pass agreements
* Majors first in responding to a natural 1C
* Kokish Relay
* 5NT pick-a-slam
* Serious 3NT/Last Train
>3) Which ones are totally unnecessary?
Anything that isn't in #1 or #2 is unnecessary, but not totally unnecessary. Most well-known conventions (even Fishbein!) have some application somewhere (over a Multi in 4th seat, I like to think Fishbein).
>4) Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
The Culbertson 4-5NT (superseded by Blackwood). Really, most popular conventions have some use , somewhere. Even conventions like Landy, mentioned elsewhere, are at least effective, simple, and costless (if not as effective or frequent as other conventions).
>5) Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
Practically every treatment has, but some treatments have contributed more than others. They're mostly described in #1 and #2.
Eugene Hung
Before I answer this, I think it is important that I define what I mean by "must-have", or "mandatory". I consider a convention mandatory if it is :
1. Effective. It must significantly improve one's bidding if used correctly.
2. Frequent. It must come up often enough so that it will be used correctly. (Around once every three sessions.)
3. Costless. It replaces a bid of little use.
The conventions that I believe satisfy these requirements are (in order of importance) :
1. Takeout doubles.
Effective? Try defensive bidding without it!
Frequent? Heck yes.
Costless? Who needs a penalty double of a direct bid?
2. Cue-bid (bid of the enemy suit) as artificial raise (or great hand).
Effective? Try competitive bidding without it!
Frequent? Very.
Costless? You rarely want to play in the enemy suit.
3. Fourth suit forcing and artificial (after three natural suit bids).
Effective? Try constructive bidding without it!
Frequent? At least once a session.
Costless? When was the last time you wanted to play in the fourth-bid suit?
4. Control-showing bids.
Effective? Try intelligent slam bidding without it!
Frequent? Almost every slam hand (once a session).
Costless? After you've agreed upon a suit, further suit showing (beyond a source of tricks) is not useful.
5. Negative doubles
Effective? I can't imagine competitive bidding without it. (Note: would be higher but some systems aren't 5-card-majors.)
Frequent? Very.
Costless? With opener's frequent reopening double, juicy penalties are usually not missed.
6. Splinter raises
Effective? Few bids can describe so much with one bid. And pinpointing shortness is critical to distributional slam bidding.
Frequent? Yes.
Costless? With a jump-shift as forcing, what is a double-jump good for?
7. Stayman
Effective? Finds those 4-4 major suit fits after you "preempt" your side with a NT bid.
Frequent? Definitely.
Costless? You lose the ability to play 2C and the opponents may gain some lead-directing inferences/information about declarer's major-suit lengths. These are minor costs, but significant compared to the other conventions above.
8. lebensohl principle (using 2NT to differentiate hand-types in competition)
Effective? Giving responder two ways to reach a contract is huge when bidding space is consumed by the opponents.
Frequent? Fairly frequent (once every two sessions).
Costless? Stopping in 2NT is rarely the right thing to do.
9. The transfer principle, especially for major suit responses to 1NT
Effective? Similar to lebensohl.
Frequent? Yes.
Costless? Same as Stayman.
10. Unusual Notrump
Effective? Try finding a sac with the lowest ranking suits after they've got a head start, without this!
Frequent? Fairly frequent.
Costless? There's a reason why they call it "unusual" notrump.
I think practically every good system has these 10 conventions, and for good reason. That's why I consider them the mandatory conventions. Note that simplicity is not a criteria for me -- else Stayman would be higher and Blackwood would be on this list over lebensohl.
>2. What treatment(s) could you live without?
This is the inverse of #1. Obviously any non-mandatory treatment/convention is one I could live without.
That being said, if you want to know about the conventions I consider in the "second tier", I would say that I find the following treatments/conventions extremely useful in most systems. Any convention not listed here or above is one I could happily live without.
* Strong, forcing, artificial club opening (and followup structure)
* Some sort of weak two-bid structure
* Blackwood/Roman Keycard (and followup structure)
* 2/1 responses game-forcing (and structure)
* Some sort of game-try structure
* Lightner doubles
* Responsive doubles
* Support doubles
* Checkback Stayman/New Minor Forcing/Wolff
* Inverted minor-suit raises (in a standard american-type system)
* Jordan 2NT limit raise over takeout double
* Two-suited cue-bid overcall
* A major-centric notrump overcall structure (I dislike DONT, for example, because it is minor-centric)
* Forcing pass agreements
* Majors first in responding to a natural 1C
* Kokish Relay
* 5NT pick-a-slam
* Serious 3NT/Last Train
>3) Which ones are totally unnecessary?
Anything that isn't in #1 or #2 is unnecessary, but not totally unnecessary. Most well-known conventions (even Fishbein!) have some application somewhere (over a Multi in 4th seat, I like to think Fishbein).
>4) Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
The Culbertson 4-5NT (superseded by Blackwood).
Really, most popular conventions have some use , somewhere. Even conventions like Landy, mentioned elsewhere, are at least effective, simple, and costless (if not as effective or frequent as other conventions).>5) Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
Practically every treatment has, but some treatments have contributed more than others. They're mostly described in #1 and #2.
Eugene Hung
Eugene Hung
#10
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 2003-March-10
Posted 2003-March-12, 10:00
Hi
Can you explain to me what the meckwell serious No Trump is? (my belief is that its some kind of slam try).
Two way checkback stayman also merits an explanation
with thanks
bobhamman
Can you explain to me what the meckwell serious No Trump is? (my belief is that its some kind of slam try).
Two way checkback stayman also merits an explanation
with thanks
bobhamman
#11
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2003-March-12, 16:51
I responded to your question about Serious NT in another thread. Here I will try to address your comment about two way stayman.
There are at least two conventions I have heard referred to as two way stayman, no doubt there are more.
The simple version, I first discovered in CC Wei's precison book, is a bid of 2C as non-game force stayman and 2D as game forcing stayman. Thus, any auction beginning 1NT-2C is game invite or less (EXCEPTION, with game going hand and terrible !Diamonds, bid 2C to avoid a lead directing double then jump to appropriate game).
The more complicated version also uses both 2C and 2D as a kind of "new minor forcing...even though one of them is not techically not a new minor. The auction in question is something like
1c-1H -1NT -?
This comes from Kit Woolsey article in Bridge Today. Here 2D is game force but 2C is a puppet, forcing opener to rebid 2D. Opener is suppose to bid 2D to allow responder to show his type hand... Some of responder rebids (after openor rebids forced 2D) are: [index]
[*]2Major-5+ game invite
[*]3C = to play
[*]3D = invitational (you could have passed 2D)
[*]3M = strong game try
[*]3 of partners major = strong game try, etc
For more detail, Jeff Goldsmith's page has a nice write up on the full details of this two way check back. You can check it out at: http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/system/2wa...ycheckback.html
There are at least two conventions I have heard referred to as two way stayman, no doubt there are more.
The simple version, I first discovered in CC Wei's precison book, is a bid of 2C as non-game force stayman and 2D as game forcing stayman. Thus, any auction beginning 1NT-2C is game invite or less (EXCEPTION, with game going hand and terrible !Diamonds, bid 2C to avoid a lead directing double then jump to appropriate game).
The more complicated version also uses both 2C and 2D as a kind of "new minor forcing...even though one of them is not techically not a new minor. The auction in question is something like
1c-1H -1NT -?
This comes from Kit Woolsey article in Bridge Today. Here 2D is game force but 2C is a puppet, forcing opener to rebid 2D. Opener is suppose to bid 2D to allow responder to show his type hand... Some of responder rebids (after openor rebids forced 2D) are: [index]
[*]2Major-5+ game invite
[*]3C = to play
[*]3D = invitational (you could have passed 2D)
[*]3M = strong game try
[*]3 of partners major = strong game try, etc
For more detail, Jeff Goldsmith's page has a nice write up on the full details of this two way check back. You can check it out at: http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/system/2wa...ycheckback.html
--Ben--
#12
- Group: Members
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 2003-March-09
Posted 2003-March-17, 03:20
Quote
> 1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
[snip]
The Culbertson 4-5NT (superseded by Blackwood). Really, most popular conventions have some use , somewhere. Even conventions like Landy, mentioned elsewhere, are at least effective, simple, and costless (if not as effective or frequent as other conventions).
Eugene Hung
[snip]
The Culbertson 4-5NT (superseded by Blackwood).
Really, most popular conventions have some use , somewhere. Even conventions like Landy, mentioned elsewhere, are at least effective, simple, and costless (if not as effective or frequent as other conventions).Eugene Hung
Hi Eugene
I just want to inform you that the Culbertson 4-5NT has had a revival - at least among some of the Danish top pairs. The force of the convention is that it unlike Blackwood with all its derivations is not unilateral but invites both partnerships to cooperate.
While perhaps not being used in the original form, the new ace-showing cuebid (Formula Seven Check-back Culbertson) has shown its advantage in systems where the slam-bidding has been based on cue-bidding.
And now to my favorite conventions:
*) The artificial "informative double". You can not live with out it or all its derived cousins (responsive/negative/strength-showing doubles).
*) Lebensohl and all its varieties.
*) Defensive conventions - especially the length showing discards.
Stayman/Jacoby are important too, of course - but they are less important than any of the above.
Kind regards
Peter
#13
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 2003-March-18
Posted 2003-March-18, 01:51
1. mixed cue bids
2. 4nt turbo
3. roman discards
4. 2nt jacoby
2. 4nt turbo
3. roman discards
4. 2nt jacoby
#14
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 2003-March-25
- Location:Garden City, MI
Posted 2003-March-27, 08:26
Most people know me would probably guess my favorite convention.
Weak NT
As a novice player I never fully understood the utility of weak NT however having played them pretty much exclusively for 2 years now, I believe they are superior.
I will leave out all the details unless/until someone would like to debate or discuss the subject.
Weak NT
As a novice player I never fully understood the utility of weak NT however having played them pretty much exclusively for 2 years now, I believe they are superior.
I will leave out all the details unless/until someone would like to debate or discuss the subject.
MAL
#15
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-March-27, 17:46
Weak NTs are fun but micro NTs (a/k/a kamikaze NTs) are terrors to opponents. It's fun seeing them squirm with their 12-13 flat hands...
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2003-March-27, 22:16
As this is a poll, here are my votes:
1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
transfers, mixed controll cuebids, RCKB, nmf, DONT against strong NT, UDCA, supp. X and XX
2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
Capp and worst: Natural against opps NT, and I can live without anything else I did not mention above. Even if I like a lot like: Forcing major raises, multi, Tartan, weak NT, Splinter, minisplinter, Bergen, Rumpelsohl, good/bad 2 NT, unusal NT,
3. Which ones are totally unnecessary?
texas transfers, strong or intermedeate jump shifts,
4. Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
Nothing, that I know, you can use everything. Maybe there are better treatments now then lately, but you can still score f.e. with strong two openings. (Even if I prefer 2 H, 2 S as weak two suiters..)
5. Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
Every treatment, as every treatment give the players new challenges. The best improvement had been the 4321 point count, staymen, strong club systems and neg. double.
Kind Regards
Roland
1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
transfers, mixed controll cuebids, RCKB, nmf, DONT against strong NT, UDCA, supp. X and XX
2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
Capp and worst: Natural against opps NT, and I can live without anything else I did not mention above. Even if I like a lot like: Forcing major raises, multi, Tartan, weak NT, Splinter, minisplinter, Bergen, Rumpelsohl, good/bad 2 NT, unusal NT,
3. Which ones are totally unnecessary?
texas transfers, strong or intermedeate jump shifts,
4. Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
Nothing, that I know, you can use everything. Maybe there are better treatments now then lately, but you can still score f.e. with strong two openings. (Even if I prefer 2 H, 2 S as weak two suiters..)
5. Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
Every treatment, as every treatment give the players new challenges. The best improvement had been the 4321 point count, staymen, strong club systems and neg. double.
Kind Regards
Roland
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#17
- Group: Members
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Location:St Paul, MN USA
Posted 2003-March-30, 04:29
Quote
Recently I was bumming around the internet and ran across a site that discusses bridge - and within that site there is a board devoted to favorite conventions and treatments. Instead of taking a survery, I wanted to ask the general questions:
1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
3. Which ones are totally unnecessary?
4. Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
5. Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
1. What is your "must have" set of conventions?
2. Which treatment(s) could you live without?
3. Which ones are totally unnecessary?
4. Which ones have outlived their usefulness?
5. Lastly, what treatment(s) have contributed to the game in a positive, constructive manner?
1. Must have: take-out doubles. That's it (short list, eh?)
2. Can live without: most of them.
3. Unnecessary: Gerber
4) No longer needed: most of them <grin>
5) Contributions: 4th suit forcing, fit-jumps, lebensohl
Note: I limited my list to conventions, not treatments.
paul (guido onliine)
#18
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 2003-February-20
Posted 2003-March-30, 09:28
I wasn't going to post here cuz I don't play many esoteric gadgets... just the standard ones, but if I only had one convention I had to have it, too would be the various suit-showing doubles.
I do think some other ones are useful, particularly playing 2/1 GF. With that in mind, inverted minors are an almost 100% necessity. The ability to explore for 3NT after 1c-2c (instead of 1-3) is perhaps underrated by some.. and you get to look for those ever elusive minor suit slams.
Altho I partially covered this topic in another thread, let me say this: too many gadgets lead to too many bad results, particularly in casual partnerships. I cannot recall the number of times I've played vs. expert partnerships using every doodad under the sun and beaten the hell out of them because they couldn't keep their agreements straight.
Don't get me wrong, we need some gadgetry to distinguish certain holdings (NMF or checkback being a great example of this concept), but once people start trying to minutely improve bids that work fairly well by adding several layers of complexity to distinguish small differences in hand, then the gain is too often offset by the confusion the new bids create.
I do think some other ones are useful, particularly playing 2/1 GF. With that in mind, inverted minors are an almost 100% necessity. The ability to explore for 3NT after 1c-2c (instead of 1-3) is perhaps underrated by some.. and you get to look for those ever elusive minor suit slams.
Altho I partially covered this topic in another thread, let me say this: too many gadgets lead to too many bad results, particularly in casual partnerships. I cannot recall the number of times I've played vs. expert partnerships using every doodad under the sun and beaten the hell out of them because they couldn't keep their agreements straight.
Don't get me wrong, we need some gadgetry to distinguish certain holdings (NMF or checkback being a great example of this concept), but once people start trying to minutely improve bids that work fairly well by adding several layers of complexity to distinguish small differences in hand, then the gain is too often offset by the confusion the new bids create.
#19
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-March-30, 15:54
I think the secret of a great partnership is having the dedication, whether it's based on a "Freeman-Nickell" system (very basic, straight forward) or a "Meckstroth-Rodwell" system (LOTS of pages, LOTS of gadgets, LOTS of well...you get the idea), is having two like minds able to coordinate and systematically justified most situations.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2003-March-31, 01:57
Quote
Dwayne Hoffman: I think the secret of a great partnership is having the dedication, whether it's based on a "Freeman-Nickell" system (very basic, straight forward) or a "Meckstroth-Rodwell" system (LOTS of pages, LOTS of gadgets, LOTS of well...you get the idea), is having two like minds able to coordinate and systematically justified most situations.
I would very much like to have titles for the books describing above mentioned systems. If no books exists a web-site link will do.
Thank you in advance Dwayne!
Claus - csdenmark