[jdonn]

helene_t, on Nov 24 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

Yeah the arguments are quite obvious. However,
2NT-3♣
3♦-3♠(dbl)
3NT

How often does it take a spade lead to defeat a 3NT contract when the 2NT opener has four spades?

Of course it's not frequent, but it's those particular times where it's especially damaging since a spade is a very unlikely lead to be chosen on that auction without the double.

[eyhung]

stegenborg, on Nov 24 2009, 05:45 AM, said:

I think Granovetter makes quite a good case against puppet stayman here:

http://www.scribd.co...y-november-2006

Stegenborg

To be fair, he also tries to make a case against lebensohl here:

http://www.scribd.co...Today-june-2006

I don't buy it. The lebensohl principle is incredibly useful in my experience.

I wonder what other conventions he wrote against.

[awm]

Well, one has to take what Granovetter says with a grain of salt. One of his big issues in these articles is lead-directional doubles, yet with one of his regular partners (Russ Ekeblad) he plays a complex relay system with lots of artificial calls that opponents could double for the lead...

On the other hand, he certainly makes some good points. It's nice to see someone arguing coherently against popular conventions regardless of whether you agree with him.

In the case of puppet, I agree with the point that you can always open 1M with a five-card major when in the 2NT point range, and that this rarely causes you to miss a game, sometimes helps to reach better partials, and makes some slam auctions a lot easier. I also agree that 3NT often plays better than a 5-3 major fit when both hands are balanced, which greatly reduces the utility of playing puppet.

In the case of lebensohl, I think it's a huge win over the weak two bids. Granovetter is right that you sometimes get the hand where you wish you had a natural 2NT. But it's incredibly frequent that doubler has some hand with mild extras (like a good 16 to 19) and needs to guess whether to bid on after 2M-X-P-3Y. The wins there have to outweigh the mild losses from lacking the natural 2NT.

[eyhung]

awm, on Nov 24 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

On the other hand, he certainly makes some good points. It's nice to see someone arguing coherently against popular conventions regardless of whether you agree with him.

Agreed, that's why I wanted to see what other "sacred cows" he was targeting. But I strongly disagreed with his attempt to discredit lebensohl or "artificial 2NTs". I think after the splinter bid, the trend towards artificial 2NTs is the best concept of modern bridge.

Full disclosure : I don't play puppet and don't like it. But compared to other prominent bridge authors, I find myself disagreeing with Granovetter a lot, and I can't imagine not having lebensohl over 2M. (Over 2D, I find the natural 2NT is more useful -- you now have two ways to show the majors anyway.)

[ArtK78]

In his now departed bridge magazine, Bridge Today, Granovetter railed against numerous popular conventions. In addition to those already mentioned, he railed against Checkback, Drury and others.

I have many of his Bridge Today issues saved on my computer at home (the magazine morphed into an online publication after a couple of years of being a physical magazine, but even that cost savings did not save it). If I get a chance, I will look through some issues and get a longer list of conventions that he argued against.

[aguahombre]

eyhung, on Nov 24 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

(Over 2D, I find the natural 2NT is more useful -- you now have two ways to show the majors anyway.)

Referring to (2d) x (P)..and the available advances.

Those who like Leben 2NT in that situation feel two ways of showing the majors is not enough. They need bad hand, invite hand, GF hand --plus exploration with 4-4 in majors and invite or GF, etc.