[Badmonster]

I've never played steps. I've never learned them. My theory was if STEPS were the way to go more experts would be playing them. But some people seem to really like them, and heck, maybe the experts are using them, and I just don't know it. So, I wanted to get some feedback on this convention from people who have tried both. What's preferable, and why?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

natural, i.e. 2D as waiting, is easier to learn.
Step responses (controll showing) is probably
better, but more compliated, because to get
the most out of it, you would need a complete
structure, which gets fairly omplicated.
I have never played step responses, but watched
a pair, who mastered such a system, but it took
time. And if you dont play often, it is no worth the
effort.

Marlowe

[luke warm]

i'm not sure whether you're talking about control responses or steps as in point count (2d=0-3, 2h=4-6, etc)... i've played both and both have pluses and minuses... of the two, i prefer the control showing

[Double !]

The major liability of playing step/ control-showing responses is the risk of wrong-siding a contract, especially a major. It is also necessary to have special responses built in for responder (advancer?) to show certain types of hands with long suits.