32519

The Gerber Convention was created by the late John Gerber in 1938. It has since been superseded by Minorwood, Redwood and RKCB. One could make an argument to include Gerber being superseded by cue-bidding as well (encompassing Serious 3NT, Non-serious 3NT and Last Train to Clarksville [LTTC]). Yet there are players still playing the Gerber convention. We have a small club in the town where I live. Two of the women players here still play their version of Gerber. They swear by it and simply aren’t interested in switching to anything more modern. Both are in fact competent players, though certainly not world-class by any stretch of the imagination. I have kibitzed many BBO Live Broadcasts where the commentators often make reference to how obsolete the Gerber convention is. For the benefit of newcomers to bridge (and the two women from my hometown) let us tackle Gerber OBJECTIVELY. Let us start unravelling this topic in as much depth as possible – 1.) Giving clear concise explanations as to why Gerber is so outdated. Then we go on to the following – 2.) Providing better methods to ask for aces and keycards. 3.) Providing a whole list of better uses for the 4♣ bid. Hopefully the end result of this thread will raise the standard of play amongst bridge newbie’s. I certainly intend passing the info on to the two women in our club. I know that this is a much hated convention, but please respond objectively. Thanking you all in advance.

Mike's reply here has touched on another very interesting topic: Showing shape early versus showing strength. Awm started a topic titled "Shape First." You can find it here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/9814-shape-first/ Here is an extract from his thread: But one thing that seems almost universal in bidding trends is that showing shape early is good. Readers of these forums are encouraged to see the rest of awm's post. It is very thought provoking.

Flannery has been discussed before. I came across this thread by Yzerman in the Advanced and Expert Forum http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/508-the-utility-of-flannery/ This is what he had to say about Flannery: I was prompted to write a small argument for the Flannery cause because of the recent Multi thread (in beginners section). Personally, I have found the gains of playing Flannery far outweigh the risk and my opportunity cost (with respect to other conventions is at a minimum). I have been repeatedly bashed over the years for playing this "archaic" and "simplistic" and "ineffective" convention, but guess what, I have NEVER got to wrong contract because of Flannery. Why do I like Flannery? a) I REFUSE to rebid a 2 card club suit after forcing NT b) I REFUSE to rebid a relatively poor 5 card heart suit c) Constructive preemptive value d) The ability to play 4H or 4S from either hand (via South African xfers) e) Responder has a roadmap regarding hand evaluation f) Constructive game/slam bidding Why do I prefer Flannery over Multi? a) My suits are disclosed (no guessing or asking) b) Luxury of playing @ 2 level in a misfit (4/3 or 5/2) c) I don’t really care about preempting a hand with 5 card major and 4 card minor (In the back of every bridge players mind when they open 2H or 2S Dutch Multi, there is the fear of going for phone number - not the case with Flannery). Over my 4 years of playing Flannery and experimenting with different caveats, I have found that a few additional conditions optimize the overall effectiveness; a) NEVER open 2D with a void (4504, 4540, 4603, 4630) b) NEVER open 4513 or 4531 with 2 bad suits (rebid fragment upon forcing NT) c) Have sound agreements with respect to game tries d) Overall, have a good Flannery structure, don’t just play Flannery for the sake of playing Flannery And a quick story to support my argument. Playing in a regional swiss event a year or two ago, we were paired against one of best teams in field (Roman/Grosvenor team). My partner opened 2D and as my RHO passed, he commented in his usual jovial, humorous way, "Flannery is the worst convention ever created". We proceeded to have a constructive auction to 7S as my partner was able to describe a picture 4612 hand (AQxx AKxxxx). The pair at the other table (two professional players) got to 4S (obviously not well bid, but I am not sure they will get to 7 even if they bid past 4S). Yzerman’s thread received 26 replies for anyone else interested in this topic and wanting to read them. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/508-the-utility-of-flannery/

Blue Team Club used an opening 2NT bid to show 5♥+5♠ with 8-12 HCP. I found it on Dan's website http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/ The continuation bidding allowed you to describe 6-5 or 5-6 holdings in the majors. BTC’s continuation bidding structure could easily accommodate showing a 6-6 holding in the majors as well e.g . After 2NT-3♣ (game force relay) opener can jump direct to 4♥ to show 6-6 in the majors. The BTC continuation bidding structure is actually very effective. Some time ago I set up a "Teaching Table" and ran through quite a few random hands to test the effectiveness of the continuation bidding of BTC. Sure you get hands playing in a 5-2 fit at the 3-level but the results were seldom bad.

I merely posed a question to something which I am passionate about; the future of our planet (including nature). This is my first venture into The Water Cooler. It is here for the discussion of any non-bridge related topics. More people who are hungry and unemployed does lead to bad things. Just like Mother Earth, Mother Nature is also crying out for help. Some Eastern cultures believe that the rhino horn contains medicinal properties leading to poaching. Just over two months ago the Sumatran rhino has been poached to extinction for its horn. The same thing happened in Western Africa. In South Africa the rise in rhino poaching over the past three years has been staggering. Zero progress has been made to stem the tide. If the current rate of poaching remains unchecked it’s only a matter of years before the rhino is poached into extinction here as well. The unemployment rate in South Africa is disproportionately high. Additionally an unskilled labour force equates to low wages. One poached rhino horn sells for roughly USD 7,500 (R60 000 in South African rands). That is a huge amount of money for the unemployed and the unskilled. The Eastern countries in turn sell the horn for roughly USD 125,000. Poaching will only stop once the rhino is extinct here as well.

On the 31st of October 2011 the world’s population passed the 7 billion mark. We are already faced with rising unemployment, rising pollution (both water and air), rising food prices, rising starvation, dwindling resources (minerals, rain forests, fish, etc) etc. Habitable land is decreasing as deserts enlarge. Since the year 2,000 natural disasters appear to be increasing in both number and intensity. Scientists blame this on climate change. Countries such as the USA are doing their bit in food production. In my own country, South Africa, we have a government obsessed with land redistribution. We have close to a 100% failure rate on all farming land redistributed. Our neighbours, Zimbabwe, were once known as the bread basket of Africa. Now they have become a basket case. Continued civil war across the continent has seen food production drop to production for own consumption in many places. Social unrest is often seen in places where rising food prices isn’t matched with a rise in income. Other forms of social unrest have seen the governments of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya toppled. The Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan remain on a knife edge. How many years do we have left before Mother Earth implodes upon herself saying, “I can’t go on. I’ve given everything I have to give.”

The responses to this topic are very informative. It would appear that Flannery has grown some additional arms and legs since its inception. Almost without fail every new convention undergoes modifications by other players who identify a potential use for it, though not in its current or original format. I am undecided whether the amount of modifications a convention undergoes is a good sign or a bad sign. If the basic idea is sound and accepted by the bridge playing community in general, that is a good sign. An example which comes to mind is Stayman. The basic idea was accepted and played by all. From the basic idea extensions for its use were created e.g. Garbage Stayman, Acol players have a game invitational Stayman and a game forcing Stayman (2♦ instead of 2♣ being game forcing), Precision players use Transfer Stayman, etc. On the other end of the scale we have Blackwood which became RKCB (either 0314 or 1430) before evolving into 6-card RKCB. There are literally dozens of alternate uses for a 2♦ opening bid. What anyone uses it for is a matter of personal choice. If someone’s choice differs from your own it is probably unfair to criticize them. Thank you for explaining Reverse Flannery to me. I had it incorrect as Anti-Flannery believing it to be a bias against the Flannery convention. Any additional information which can be added is always appreciated. The myriad possibilities that the game of bridge offers truly fascinates me. I hope to continue improving as a player. Thanks again.

Flannery is played by many top internationals, most noticeably from the USA. Here are some I know about: 1. Hamman / Zia 2. Levin / Weinstein 3. Martel / Stansby 4. Katz / Nickel 5. Welland / Bramley 6. Boyd / Robinson 7. Others at some or other stage = Wolff / Morse / Soloway / Weischell Yet Flannery remains the subject of much dispute. Some players swear by it. Others say along with Gerber it rates as the worst convention ever created. Can anybody help me with the following - 1. What is THE ARGUMENT in favour of Flannery? 2. What is THE ARGUMENT against Flannery? 3. Is Anti-Flannery someone's attitude towards Flannery in general or is it some convoluted convention to counter Flannery players? If the latter, how does the convention work? 4. For 2/1 players what is the best way to show a 4522 hand pattern once the auction has gone: 1♥ (pass) 1NT (pass)?

The threads you are referring to are: Bidding is 80% of bridge http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44497-bidding-is-80-of-bridge What’s the best way to improve your play? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46705-whats-the-best-way-to-improve-your-play/ Developing Bidding Judgement http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46344-developing-bidding-judgement/ I am not arguing against any of this. At Match Points an overtrick can be the difference between an above average board or an average board. At IMPs an overtrick gains 1 IMP. However a missed game or slam substantially increases the lost IMPs. Board 19 Round 4_21 from the recent 2011 Bermuda Bowl I kibitzed the players from my home country, South Africa, landing in inferior contracts (or having to defend after failing to enter the auction). Here is an example http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=20560 In the open room either a bidding error or a partnership misunderstanding led to an inferior contract. In the closed room the South player chose not to open the bidding. Nobody knows how the auction would have continued in the closed room if South had opened the bidding. However in the open room East could have saved the board by bidding 5♠ over 5♥. Had E/W bid the excellent ♠ slam instead of the ♣ slam the 13 IMPS lost on the deal would in fact have been a 13 IMP gain. An inferior contract resulted in a double IMP swing. The Bermuda Bowl showcases the top players from their respective countries. Yet even at this level the gap between the teams who made the quarter finals and the rest quickly opened up. The hand above is an example of how the gap opened so quickly. Landing in the right contract is the first step to progressing further in the tournament. These forums have plenty of ATB threads (assign the blame) and How Do You Bid This threads. They all have to do with bidding. Berkowitz and Manley didn’t do their survey in the BBO Forums. Most likely they surveyed USA’s top players. Conclusion: Maybe Berkowitz and Manley’s survey wasn’t wrong after all.

Not entirely sure if I understand what is meant here. The foundation of any building (the opening bid identifying into which category the hand falls) needs to be layed first before the walls can be added (the continuation bidding in the auction) before the roof can be added (the final contract). The foundation of any building is probably the most important part. A poorly constructed foundation will lead to the premature collapse of the entire building (the final contract failing).

There is a quicker (easier) way to draw your conclusions. Below is an extract from David Berkowitz and Brent Manley’s book “Precision Today”. In a survey of the nation’s top bridge players a few years ago, the experts were asked what they consider the most important aspect of bridge play. Just about everyone said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game. No matter how well you play, your results will be bad if you do not reach reasonable contracts. You can limit the tourney to a bidding tourney: Multi versus other methods. It will need to take place as an Open Room / Closed Room tourney. That way it is easy to compare the final contract reached in both rooms. If the final contract is the same, obviously no gain has been made using Multi versus other methods. Where the final contract differs the four players at each table can simply agree if the contract is makeable or not (without actually playing each hand). After the opening lead is made declarer can claim exposing all four hands. Now everybody can see all the cards. The players can simply agree amongst themselves if the final contract is makeable or not. This way you completely eliminate both declarer's ability to play the hand as well as the defensive ability of the opponents. Keep a hand written summary next to you containing those hands where a different final contract was reached and whether it was makeable or not. Record which method was used to reach the final contract. Easy!

Gwnn posted: 2N=10-14, 5+♥5+♠ (I know, weird) Straube posted: I also would use 2N for something else...probably to show a strong balanced hand; this might help you anyway because your 1C opening has to deal with a wider range of strengths. Notice that Meckwell use 2N as 20-21 or so and their club is stronger than yours by 2 points when balanced. Btw, I wouldn't want to open a 5/5 major suit hand in such a way as to force to the 3-level. The point of having majors is you don't have to bid as high. Chasetb posted: I have been smacked enough times in 2♥ or 2♠ with the Majors to greatly dislike your 2NT (though Symmetric a la Andrei Sharko uses it). Opening 2NT to show 5♥+5♠ actually works quite well. It was used by the Blue Team Club showing 8-12 HCP (2 HCPs lower than yours). I found it on Dan's website http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/ I have no idea what your continuation bidding structure looks like but the one used by BTC is actually very effective. I set up a "Teaching Table" some time ago and ran through quite a few random hands to test the effectiveness of the continuation bidding of BTC. Sure you get hands playing in a 5-2 fit but the results were seldom bad. You get my thumbs up for this approach if your continuation bidding is as effective as BTC.

Weighing up the pros and cons of using the Multi, it appears as though there are more cons. Yet it is pretty obvious that the Multi is here to stay. So why not re-invent it into something new where the pros outweigh the cons? The Bermuda Bowl CCs indicate the following: 25,8% of the participants used the 2♦ bid as a natural weak 2♦ 22,7% of the participants used the 2♦ bid as value showing (Flannery, Mexican, Precision, Acol) Some of the pairs who never used the Multi instead used a Multi type 2♥ and 2♠ bid where 2♥/2♠ showed a natural weak 2 in the suit or 5 cards in the suit and 4(5) cards in a lower ranking suit. Seat number sometimes also affected the meaning of the bid. Amongst the current top 20 players ranked in the world, I found 3 who play the Multi: Helgemo ranked 12, Helness ranked 14 and Fredin ranked 20. Further down the rankings the number of players using the Multi 2♦ increases. Finally: Would re-inventing the Multi into something new require it go through all the red tape once again to have it accepted in ACBL/other international tournaments?

According to the WBF Systems Policy HUMs are allowed in category 1 Championships (see paragraph 3) http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp Unless you are a truly top class player you will never get to use your HUM system anywhere else. The number of players who get to represent their countries at the Bermuda Bowl are few. The document doesn't say if HUM systems are allowed during the zonal qualifications. Naturally I would presume the same rules apply there as those which apply in the Bermuda Bowl itself. So yes, I agree with The Hog. It is unlikely that SP systems will be allowed in enough competitions to make it worthwhile for any serious pair to play it on a regular basis.

The Hog posted: 2) The opening pass is the greatest weakness in the system. Flameous posted: Pass (13+ or so) vs. 1♣ opening (15+) Obvious advantage of the pass is that it saves one step and loses in definition only a little. This loss of definition might also work to your advantage, once it becomes more likely your opponents have game of their own and you must dedicate bids for constructive purposes instead of destructive. This point has been debated a lot for optimum strong club opening range but I don't think there is any conclusion. I think the advantages of stronger opening are obvious so I'm not listing them. Seems like the opening pass 13+) is not such a great idea after all. One wonders then why the governing bodies don’t unban Strong Pass systems. Other posters have this to say about the defense to SPs – Stratto posted: I've learnt this about symmetric relays. Playing a strong ♣ system, opps will want stick an oar in so that they know their fit and push the level high before we're anywhere close to knowing the shape of P's hand. SRs would seem to exacerbate this...? The Hog posted: They are a huge amount of fun to play, both for those playing the systems and those playing against them. Simple defenses are the best. Interestingly LOLs had little difficulty and were far less belligerent and hostile at the table than mid rank players. Mid rank players, who usually have an inflated opinion of their abilities, are often too lazy to think through a sensible, generic defense. This really puts the lie to those on this site and elsewhere who often argue that these systems should "be banned for the good of the game". So with a little bit of thought it would appear that the defence to these types of systems shouldn’t really pose a problem for any regular partnership. Here I want to toss a stone into a bush and see what jumps out / comes flying out. Is it possible that money (entrance fees to competitions at all levels) is the real reason lurking in the background for banning these sorts of systems? Most intermediate/advanced players are quite willing to enter various tournaments where they come up against other players who play a similar system to their own or other more widely recognised systems in general. Getting consistent bad results against HUMs may scare them away from entering these tournaments again. Result: Drop in money for the organising body. [ :rolleyes: Just a thought LOL :D ].

Richard I really appreciate this. May I be so bold as to ask you to forward a copy of your notes to my e-mail address: andrew32519@gmail.com I could use Paul Marston's booklet. However the first paragraph of his document clearly states that it is a first draft. Regards Andrew Lee

My interest in these two systems started when I came across this thread: Forcing Pass Systems: Should they be allowed? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/28746-forcing-pass-systems/ The thread received an amazing 20340 views and 802 replies. That is possibly a forum record? Other threads included: Forcing Pass Systems: Do they work? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/3035-forcing-pass-systems/ Some Thoughts on Forcing Passes http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/4218-some-thoughts-on-forcing-passes/ Moscito wasn't nearly as popular. Moscito questions http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42340-moscito-questions/ Both still sound like fun systems and I intend putting in the time to learn them.

I have been browsing the forums and found a lot of very interesting posts/threads on Forcing Pass Systems and Moscito. The arguments were sufficient to convince me to experiment with both. My regular partner is an extremely lazy learner but is willing to experiment along with me. I found a 10 page article on Bridge With Dan's website dealing with Moscito http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/ Thus far I have been unable to find a more recent version of Forcing Pass Systems (the one I did find dates back to 2001). Can anyone direct me to a newer version. Even better, upload your own latest version to this site for the benefit of anyone else wishing to experiment. Which leaves the question to be answered: Forcing Pass Systems versus Moscito. Which system is better, and why? P.S. If anyone can upload a detailed version of Moscito as well it will be hugely appreciated. I have absolutely no idea as to the completeness of the 10 page copy on Dan's site. Thanking you all in advance for your assistance.

The Magic Club & The Sparkling Diamond was posted as a separate thread under General Bridge Discussions http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49537-the-magic-club-the-sparkling-diamond/ Regular SAYC partnerships may find using this approach http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/MAGICCLUB.pdf beneficial to their minor suit openings. Partner knows on your first bid whether you hold a 4-card major or not (sure the opponents are given exactly the same info, but this is about you and not them). Regular partnerships can sit down and reach their own agreements as to how the bidding should continue (you are limited by your own creativity). This document can form the starting point for your continuation bidding structure.

Never before had I heard of the MAF System until Zelandakh,s post above. So I did a Google search and looked it up. This is what I found http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/M.A.F/index0.htm MAF stands for Majors Always First. So we have yet another system fighting for a place in the sun. What makes one system better than another? Personally I believe it has more to do with the quality of the player playing any particular system than what it has to do with the system itself. Thanks Zel

I found this article on BridgeGuys website http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/MAGICCLUB.pdf Theoretically these gadgets all sound nice. This one doesn't say how the partnership must cope with opposition interference. This forum has had a number of threads on a Big Club system / Big Diamond System versus Better Minor opening bids. Are there any regular contributors to these forums who have at some point played THE MAGIC CLUB & THE SPARKLING DIAMOND? What are your thoughts on this approach?

Has any new data on the Multi been gathered yet from those who agreed to assist Han? Its almost two weeks on since this project was started.

I often see newcomers to bridge executing the "Elvis Coup" with monotonous frequency. E.g. As declarer you hold Kx in a side suit. LHO holds the AQx over you. To your immense relief LHO leads the Ace. The King is no longer dead. The "Elvis Coup" has given declarer a free trick. :D

I am really intrigued by these myriad versions of Precision. I have recently been playing a version called CONTROL PRECISION. For all intents and purposes the bidding structure is the same as standard Precision (1♣ = 16+ HCP, 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ = 11-15 HCP etc). The difference comes in where partner of the opening bidder becomes the CONTROL PARTNER (controlling the auction). Apart from the 1♣ opener, all other opening bids limits opener's hand to 15 HCP. Opener becomes known as the BLIND PARTNER. The basic idea is that the CONTROL PARTNER is in a better position to sign off in a part score, make game decisions or slam decisions (he can see what's in his own hand, combining this with the information from partner places all decisions with CONTROL PARTNER). To try and simplify this even further, after two bids from the Opener, the CONTROL PARTNER has the following information about Opener's hand: 1.) The category into which the hand falls (1st bid) 2.) HCP count and distribution within the category (11-12 HCP minimum, 13-15 HCP maximum) The creator of this approach to Precision is someone called Ray Bermeister from Israel. Has anybody else heard of this approach? Has anybody else used this approach before? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

Fluffy I have absolutely no idea how you managed to open this thread under my name. I didn't believe that was possible. The BBO Support team may need to look into this. I am not trying to belittle anyone. I would like to get closure on this discussion just as much as many others surely are. I just don't believe that it is necessary for a selected group of individuals to keep track of their own results using the Multi. All the data you could possibly want is available on the Vugraph Project to sift through. You need to find someone with the time and dedication to sift through all that data. I don't know if Han (who started the original thread) or you or anyone else is going to make the sacrifice. I am going to send an e-mail to the BBO help desk to delete this thread as I never started it!