Leaderboard

I suggest ditching that agreement that double shows 14+. It’s of no use to opener at all. Opener can’t know what to do based solely on hcp. Say opener has 6 hearts and 6 points. 2D (3C) x (P). Does opener pass or bid? On many hands the answer is: it doesn’t matter, we’re getting a bad board anyway because 3C is cold and we are going for 150 or more in 3H. On other hands, the answer is that we should pass because 3C is failing and either 3H fails or scores worse than passing On other hands, the answer is that we should bid because 3H scores better than 3C making or down one (if they are nv) Points don’t take tricks! Points are a tool that is used with the other important tool, distribution, to assess the likely trick taking potential of the two hands being described. Neither tool is of much use by itself outside of quantitative notrump bidding, where (to a reasonable approximation) hcp is dominant most of the time. They are not the only tools. Honour location, suit texture, controls are other tools. Having an agreement as simplistic as ‘over our weak bid, a double of an overcall shows 14+ points’ is, imo, not a good idea. Over our weak only multi, if they overcall 2M, double says ‘pass if they’ve bid your major (it does happen) but if not, I want to compete in yours’. If they overcall 3m, double says they’re going down. Obviously doubler has strength, but the most salient points about his hand are: He thinks defending, and beating, 3m will score better than declaring. He will usually be short in at least one major, and will assume (usually but not always correctly) that that is your suit. He also thinks that he can handle any run out by 4th seat, but he expects opener to feel free to double such runout if holding a useful hand in context.

1. Overview I am feeling nervous while writing this post. I have read bridge tales of 'the Naturalists', claiming to play "Everything natural. Well, Stayman and Blackwood, of course, but everything else natural!". I've previously expressed being unhappy with people's (ab)use of Blackwood, and now I'm challenging Stayman too. Maybe I am just contrarian for the sake of it. You be the judge. This topic will be quite lengthy - in part because I think a good introduction helps set the scene and explain what my gripes with Stayman are, what mini-Heeman helps to accomplish, and in part because I don't have the time to write a shorter topic. I did my best to split it into separate posts and label them so that you can skip ahead if you are just looking for the convention, not a short novel. The convention itself is quite simple, the challenging part lies in explaining just what makes this better than good old Stayman (or why there is a need for this in the first place). The entire approach is based on Wim Heemskerk's "Heeman" convention (www.jackbridge.com/pdf/eheeman.pdf), who mentions it was developed with the help of ideas by Lindkvist, Nilsland, Wirgren ("Notrump Bidding - the Scanian Way") and Leandro Burgay. I recommend reading the introduction but not the rest of the document - this may be harsh, but I think most of the Heeman system is poor, and it is trying to do too many things at once. So instead I started cutting, simplifying and condensing Heeman to get a few simple rules for bidding over partner's 1NT. This is the result of my efforts - it uses the 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ bids as well as their followups, and nothing else. You can play whatever you like for 2♠ and up - all hands with at least one four-card major or longer are taken care of by mini-Heeman. Table of contents: Overview Motivation and (dis)advantages The mini-Heeman system Example auctions I have some write-ups on four bonus topics; superaccepting, optimising mini-Heeman, transfer extensions and good old college game tries. For brevity's sake I have omitted them for now, but if people are interested I could add these at some future point.