eyhung

Don't have time for a full analysis, but at the table I would duck trick 1 and win the second spade trick (I assume spades are 2-5 -- if the spade ace is not knocked out at trick 2, my line changes). Then I would run 6 diamonds (assuming diamonds not 5-0) and try to throw LHO in with a club (ace of clubs, ten of clubs) to lead a heart. (Of course, if LHO bares his HA and keeps his clubs, I lead a low heart from hand). Wins whenever LHO has HA and RHO does not have a doubleton club honor -- and if RHO has HA and spades are 2-5, I'm down no matter what so the first assumption is mandatory. Eugene Hung

This line assumes there are no voids in either enemy hand. Ruff opening lead, heart to jack. If it loses, I will take 3 long trump tricks, 1 diamond ruff, 6 clubs, and 2 spades. If the jack wins, I lead the ten of hearts and duck in dummy. (Finessing backwards into the hand that supposedly has the queen!) If RHO wins the queen, he can do nothing. I will win any return, draw trump, and run the clubs for 3 hearts, 1 diamond ruff, 6 clubs, and 2 spades. If the ten also wins, I draw trump and take 13 tricks (4 hearts, 1 diamond ruff, 6 clubs, 2 spades). The key is to try to lose to the trump queen on one of the first two rounds of trump, while a trump remains in dummy to take care of diamonds. If the first two rounds are ducked, then I can draw all the trump and never have to lose the lead. Eugene Hung

I agree with Hrothgar. Rigal is a wonderful reference and I think no serious Precision player should be without it. That being said, it is not a very good introduction to the system. There are just too many treatments and gadgets covered that get in the way of learning the basic ideas. (Yes, I know Rigal divides the book into basic and advanced sections -- but even the basic section is intimidating, although thorough). Better to get Rigal after you have played Precision for a while and are comfortable with it. Jannersten is frequently cited as the best introduction, but one of my friends who wanted to learn Precision thought it was atrocious -- he felt the translation into English was dense and impenetrable. I didn't think it was that bad, but then again, I learned Precision from Goren (see next paragraph). From personal experience, I found the Goren/Wei book on Precision to be a good introduction. Despite our present-day association of him with antiquated bidding methods, Goren in his time was a masterful teacher and it shows: he clearly outlines the opening bid structures and the basic responses. You may want to look there and buy Rigal once you are more comfortable with the basic structure. Finally, David Berkowitz (and Brent Manley, probably for the writing) has recently come out with an introductory Precision book (_Precision Today_). As he is one of the most successful practitioners of a Precision system in the world today, I would seriously consider taking a look at Berkowitz/Manley -- both Jannersten and Goren were published some time ago. Perhaps they will do a good job of describing which treatments have fallen by the wayside without overburdening the beginning Precision player with gadgets like Rigal. However, unlike the other books I mentioned above, I don't own it so I can't give it a personal recommendation. Eugene Hung

Well, one of my favorite phrases is that bridge is a partnership game, and those who lie when there is no point to lying are shooting themselves in the foot! First, Roland, I believe the discussion was about Standard American, not Majeure Cinqueme. In Standard American, a reverse promises unequal lengths. You may not like the words I use, but you are lying about the distribution of your hand when you reverse from 1C to 2D in a pickup American partnership with 15-16 HCP and equal length in the minors. Perhaps you are not doing so in a French partnership, but then you must worry about partner having equal lengths and this affects your later bidding. You may not think this is much of a loss, but it is a loss nonetheless (for reasons we have both described earlier). Now, sometimes we must pay a cost in one area in order to get better results in another area. However, neither of you have convinced me that 1C - 2D with a medium-strength opener is necessary to find games that will not be reached with 1D - 2C! Again, I reiterate my unanswered point : If you bid 1D - 2C and partner passes, you will not have game. The only time partner passes 2C is when he has no diamond fit, longer clubs than diamonds, and either an absolute minimum in high cards (6-7 HCP). or a complete misfit. Show me a hand where partner passes 2C and game is good on the two hands, and I will show you a hand where responder should have bid over 2C, or where the HCP is a poor indicator of the rebid (for example, a highly concentrated hand full of playing tricks is worth a jump-shift, such as x xx AKJT9 AKJT9.) Finally, I am not against lying to partner if that is best for the partnership. After all, I am jump-shifting on a highly concentrated 16 HCP hand as above, even though I said earlier such a bid promises 17 HCP -- in fact, any good player would think that hand to be just as good, if not better, than a normal 17-HCP hand such as A Kx AQJxx QJxxx. But it is important to choose your lies carefully. I never lie about HCP if I am 4333 or 4432, because HCP are so important in balanced hands. Similarly, in a constructive auction, I never lie about my shape if I am heavily unbalanced, because such information is critical to good bidding with those. Eugene Hung

Then I do not understand your argument. I thought you were arguing that it was more important to show strength through reversing, even if it meant lying about distribution. I am saying that showing strength and forcing partner left and right is unnecessary and you do not need to sacrifice the extra accuracy that results from having a reverse promise unequal lengths. You are saying that the first suit should never be shorter. I agree, unless you are playing a canape-style system (which Standard American is not). But there are can be problems if your sequence does not specifically show a longer suit. Remember, I was responding to your query as how often it was important to show 6-5. I had a strong 1-5-1-6. I opened 1C, rebid 2H over 1S, then 3H over 2S (which promises only 5 spades). Partner preferenced to 4C, making 4, when 3H was down, but he knew bidding 4C was right because I promised 5-6 (or 5-7!) in the round suits. If I could have a 5-5 hand from a misguided attempt to "force" partner on the second round (again, if partner passes your rebid -- you should not have a game!), then he will have to guess to make the right decision at this point. Eugene Hung

I do not understand what you are saying. First you say that if you are reversing with equal length, it is only with a minor two-suiter. Then, you say for minor suit hands it is important to preserve bidding space (by not reversing) because reversing gets you past 3NT. Make up your mind? In any case, reversing with equal length in the minors is fundamentally unsound. If you have 5-5 in the minors and only 15 HCP, there is even more of a reason to open 1D and rebid 2C instead of reversing into 2D after opening 1C. If 3NT or 5 of a minor is a good contract, partner will need to have a fit and/or 10 HCP. In either case he should not pass 2C with a hand where you should be in game. Eugene Hung

There is no dilemma unless you open an incredible range of balanced hands. In Standard American, balanced hands with 0-11 HCP are passed. With balanced hands of 12 HCP to 21 HCP, you open some number of notrumps (15-17, 20-21), or rebid notrumps at your first turn, in a manner that describes your HCP range accurately(12-14, 18-19). With a balanced hand with 22+ HCP, open 2 clubs and rebid notrump according to your agreements. Now, when I am talking about reverses, I am not talking about doing so on balanced hands (4333, 4432, 5332). A reverse should be made on an unbalanced hand, a hand that is not oriented towards notrump, and therefore one that does not need as much accurate description in terms of high cards. Note that I treat most semi-balanced shapes (5422, 6322) as unbalanced, and bid the suits first. But as others have pointed out, semi-balanced hands with poor long suits and honors in their short suit should be treated as balanced and bid according to the notrump structure. Yes. A sectional I was playing in approximately three weeks ago. I had 6-5 shape, and after bidding and rebidding my suits, partner was able to confidently choose the 6-1 fit instead of the 5-1. It was a complete misfit, as you can tell, but it would have been a terrible result if partner had preferenced me to the 5-1. Lying about the relative lengths of your suits is not worth it if partner cannot make a good decision. In any case, I see no problem with the inability to reverse with 19+ HCP hands that have at least 5 cards in the higher suit and 4 cards in the lower suit. Open your higher suit, and rebid with a jump in the lower one. You lose a little space compared to the reverse, but you gain the benefits of a game-forcing auction and thus more space "on top". Also, hands with 55 distribution can jump in the second suit with 17+ HCP, as extra shape compensates for the high cards. Under this approach, you should rarely miss a good game and still retain correct distributional information from reverses. So why not have the best of both worlds? Eugene Hung

I agree 100% with easy. Accurate distributional information is far more important than accurate high card information when you are dealing with highly unbalanced hands. After all, we've all seen slams that make with 18-22 HCP when there are voids and singletons about, and without good distributional information, your partnership won't be able to bid these slams with a high degree of confidence. In Standard American, with 5-5, you should always open the higher-ranking suit and rebid the lower suit. (Exception: some players like to open 1C with 5 cards in each black suit, because then you can bid both suits at the 1-level and the alternative of opening 1S practically guarantees you will have to rebid clubs at the 3-level). Opening the lower-ranking suit and bidding the higher one once promises at least 4-5, and rebidding the higher one promises at least 5-6. While there are very few absolutes in bidding, I cannot recall the last time I needed to reverse with equal length in my two suits (unless I opened 1C with 5-5 in the blacks). Barring that exception, if you ever find yourself planning a reverse with equal length, you should probably plan on another sequence, for a good partner will never read you for equal length and then your constructive bidding will be less effective. Under this approach of only reversing with unequal lengths, you will have to rebid at the 2-level, not the 3-level with 5-5 hands that are significantly better than minimum but not worth a game force opposite a 1-level response. That is not a problem -- if partner cannot find another rebid over your 2-level rebid, you are not making game unless the cards or opponents are very friendly. Finally, as inquiry pointed out, it's usually a bad idea to reverse with 4-4-4-1 hand patterns. Such hands generally do not play well on offense despite their singleton. With 1444 and great high-card strength I open 1D and over a response of 1S, rebid 2C, 2NT, 3C, or 3NT depending on the texture of my hand -- I never open 1C and reverse into diamonds because I do not want to promise a 5th club. Eugene Hung

Looks like a simultaneous double trump squeeze with both side threats in the same suit. We assume that East has the Ace of spades and West has the nine from the opening lead. (If not, we will have to play for a simple major-suit squeeze.) At trick one, cover the ten with the jack. Win the club return, cash four diamonds throwing a heart from dummy, and finish the clubs ending in dummy : Q8 A9 --- K --- KT4 9 2 On the lead of the final club, both opponents are squeezed in the majors. If East pitches a spade, baring his ace, South will ruff the eight of spades with his final trump, bringing down the ace; cash the king of hearts, and then lead a heart to the high dummy. So East must keep at least Ax of spades and therefore at most two hearts. Meanwhile West must also keep two spades to the nine. If he bares his nine, South will lead the spade queen from dummy next. East must cover with the ace (or South will run the queen, pitching a heart), South ruffs, and the nine is squashed underneath the queen and ace, making the spade eight high. So West must also keep at least 9x of spades and therefore come down to at most two hearts. Since both defenders have kept at least two spades, they will both have at most two hearts. Then, ace of hearts, king of hearts will draw the remaining hearts and the third heart (the four of hearts for maximum aesthetic value) will be a winner. Making 6. Note this line, in addition to requiring East holding the spade ace and West holding the spade nine, also requires declarer to carefully watch the spade discards and guess when a defender has bared his ace and/or nine. One note: the squeeze fails on a heart return by East at trick 2. However, such a heart return would expose the defensive heart honors to a potential finesse, when declarer guesses correctly. Of course, an expert East should return hearts in a game-theoretic manner so as to give declarer the greatest problems in guessing (he is forced to lead an honor from QJx(x) but he should also lead an unsupported honor some of the time to disguise this holding). But that is a topic that I am sure hrothgar knows more about than me. B) Eugene Hung

(i) Basic fundamentals were the Root books (Commonsense Bidding, How to Play a Bridge Hand, How to Defend a Bridge Hand, Modern Bridge Conventions). I believe they may have republished a lot of the material in a book called the ABCs of Bridge. (ii) Novice to Intermediate -- anything by Root or Kantar Intermediate to Advanced -- most books by Lawrence Good books for advanced players -- anything by Kelsey or Woolsey Good books for expert players -- Adventures in Card Play and Bridge with the Blue Team I also want to mention that I agree that Robson/Segal is a very special book, but it is horribly organized. Great material, but not for intermediates! Eugene

1. Approximately 100-150, but those are only the books I take the trouble to own. 2. Books are good books for different reasons. Some books are incredibly instructive, others are great references, others are a pure pleasure to read again and again. While there are not the only categories I use to judge a book, you limit me to three, so I'll describe the best in each of the categories I mentioned. Most instructive : Complete Book of Overcalls by Mike Lawrence. This book is not just about overcalls. It is about judgement. Lawrence gives the reader hand after hand in context with an auction and not only gives answers, but also the reasoning behind them. There is a huge difference between knowledge (what do I bid?) and understanding (why do I bid this way?), and this book, unlike many, provides this understanding. Many of his other books focus on understanding as well, but I believe Overcalls is the best because it concentrates on a specific, frequently occurring area uncluttered by treatments and gadgets. Note: some of the treatments he does discuss are a little out-of-date, but again, the real utility of this book is not the treatments themselves, but in the judgement used to arrive at a bid. Most frequently referenced: Modern Bridge Conventions by Root and Pavlicek. Clear, concise, and beautifully presented guide to common, useful conventions as played by two national champions. Less referenced now that I know the contents of the book inside and out, but it's a godsend for any intermediate player because it outlines not only the conventional responses, but does an excellent job on the followups as well. Most enjoyable read : Right Through The Pack by Darvas and Hart. A collection of exotic yet accessible hands, narrated by the cards themselves! In each hand, the narrating card plays an unusual role, and there are 52 hands, one for each card. 3. The last book I bought was Washington Standard by Steve Robinson so that I could have a reference for expert agreements in a 2/1 system framework. 4. The best bridge authors are Mike Lawrence for judgement; Victor Mollo for entertainment; Bill Root for fundamentals; and Hugh Kelsey for advanced cardplay. I do not find George Rosenkranz to have much utility unless you are a systems/conventions nut. Reese is an excellent cardplay author but I think Kelsey is more comprehensive. 5. Victor Mollo and Hugh Kelsey were British, although Mollo was technically Russian. Eugene Hung

Thanks to inquiry for answering the question so thoroughly and correctly, but I believe there is also a simpler solution. With the "myhands" feature (at http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands) you can easily review all the hands and tricks played, not only from your session, but from other tables as well! (However, boards do not show up until they are played 16 times.) I agree that it is logical for the chat room to support handling of session log files so that all hands in the log file can be reviewed, instead of merely the first one. In future versions of BBO, perhaps this feature will be supported? Eugene

I think this hand brings up an excellent point. I believe that good defense is hard to achieve consistently if you adopt an attitude that partner's signals are commands instead of suggestions. Just because partner signals something does not mean that it is the best defense -- your own cards may tell you something different. It is up to each defender to use the information that partner gives him to find the best defense. Frequently, this means following partner's suggestions, but not always. In this case, partner does not know about the club king, so he cannot see that the Merrimac Coup is the right play. I find that playing without any signals at all can really sharpen one's game (although your time taken on defense will increase). It is surprising how much one can work out just with the information from the bidding and early play, especially if declarer and partner are good players who always have a reason for playing a certain card. (Bad players tend to be more random, revealing less information, but they will make significant technical mistakes to make up for the loss of defensive precision.) Signals are a helpful tool to eliminate some possibilities and speed up the defense, but they should not be used as a substitute for thinking. Eugene Hung

I second Maureen's excellent suggestion for splitting lounges into competitive vs. social. In addition to the many advantages she cited, I believe the "tabletalk" problem discussed on another thread would also be solved -- people would expect more tabletalk at a social table and less at a competitive one. Eugene Hung

Allowing autoplay of dummy's singletons is a good idea, but will the implementation also include autoplay of dummy's singleton at trick 1? I dislike it whenever declarer hurriedly plays a singleton from dummy at trick 1, be it automatic or not. It doesn't give third hand enough time to think about the hand, leading to problems of unauthorized information whenever third hand breaks tempo. I realize that such matters are not a great concern to most people, especially given the relaxed nature of online bridge and the vagaries of "tempo" in an online setting. Still, if there is ever a formal mode for play on BBO, I would like to see an automated 5-or-10 second delay between the time the dummy hits and the time the declarer plays a card from dummy. Since there is no formal mode right now, I do not think it is a high priority, but I want to make certain the ramifications of dummy autoplay are fully considered before it is implemented. Eugene Hung

Dwayne -- Maybe we do agree. If you read what I was saying in my last post, I emphasized I disliked the abundance of masterpoints given in stratified events, not necessarily stratified pairs as an event in itself. I think stratified events and even bracketed KOs are okay once in awhile, but they have proliferated to become the norm rather than the exception so that it is feasible to make LM without playing LMs. Indeed, there are few open pairs options at my local regionals, and I have yet to see an open knockout besides the Vanderbilt. Why the complete disappearance of open events? Because people don't think they can get as many masterpoints, and so turnout is low until they wait for their masterpoints at the stratified pairs till. Open games clearly increase the challenge of obtaining masterpoints, and hence their value, but people have voted with their wallets that they do not want to see that. Eugene

Dwayne -- First you say we need to introduce conventions such as Multi and Muiderberg to the GCC to attract players, and then you say we need to protect the I/N players with stratified events. Make up your mind. Either more challenge is good for the game's popularity, or more challenge is bad. With the current environment, I believe people think more challenge is bad. Now, I personally would love to have a bidding free-for-all at all levels, but I don't think it would be very popular. From a similar point of view, I would love to reduce the awards for stratified events, but I know that would be unpopular. The ACBL is composed of people of many creeds and religions, but most share a common worship of the masterpoint and the rank of Life Master. If you disagree, take a look at the demographics of ACBL masterpoint holdings (http://www.acbl.org/misc/mbmp.htm). One of the largest clumps is from 300-400. Gee, I wonder why? They're not playing for the challenge. They're playing for the prestige of "Life Master"! You say that old-timers question stratification. I am hardly an old-timer -- I am the same age as you -- and yet I detest the overgenerous compensation given in stratified events (and bracketed KOs). Why? Because it is theoretically possible to become a LM without ever playing well against one! To support my views, around once a year, the ACBL Bulletin publishes a letter to the editor complaining about how bracketing is screwed up because they got a team of Life Masters in their bracket, or something similar. It's as if they expect masterpoints to be handed out on a plate. That attitude is not shared by everyone, but I believe it is shared by a large portion of the ACBL membership. I myself do not believe that everyone deserves to be a LM with minimal expense/effort/skill. But I recognize I am in the minority. By the way, you argue that the masterpoint/LM rank has not been cheapened from stratification. From that same demographic listing, of the 166000 ACBL members, including the large segment with less than a masterpoint (the people who try and decide they don't like duplicate bridge), 73000 are life masters. That's 44%, nearly half. I don't know what the ratio was in the "old days", but I'm pretty sure it was not near half. What has been the big change in bridge events since the Fifties? Stratified events and bigger masterpoint awards. So yes, I do believe stratification is a leading cause of the cheapened masterpoint. In conclusion, the ACBL can either foster an environment where people play the game for the challenge of it (Hrothgar's ideal, where the removal of convention restrictions and far lesser awards in stratified events makes sense), or foster an environment that maximizes masterpoint awards. They have gone the second route, and since that route makes them the most short-term money, I don't blame them, and thus, I don't blame them for restricting the GCC to what it is now, or for handing out significant masterpoints for placing 1st out of 3 in flight C with a 41% game. I would personally prefer they didn't, but it wouldn't be popular. Eugene Hung

Perhaps I was misunderstood. I am not saying the only way to increase the game's popularity is to dumb it down. I am saying that given general human nature, increasing complexity usually leads to a decrease in popularity. Thus, "complicating" bridge is unlikely to fix the problem of popularizing bridge at lower-levels (which was the argument I was criticizing). Note that the examples Dwayne cited do not really focus on the freedom of convention use -- I doubt any of those I/Ns care about being able to play transfer preempts -- but on the genial and friendly atmosphere. In fact, I agree that the <i>best</i> way to "grow" membership is to focus on schools (I myself am still in school), and I/N programs. Here one can foster a good attitude: where "challenge" equates to "fun", because, ultimately, people play games for "fun" (be it the fun of learning, competition, or winning). But in a league composed mostly of members who place a higher premium on masterpoints than skill, and where stratified events are the norm rather than the exception, any argument that reducing convention restrictions will lead to increased member growth seems far-fetched. The majority of ACBL members, even those beyond the "kitchen-bridge" stage, would rather win masterpoints in a sandbox environment than lose in an open one. To paraphrase Mencken, the members of the ACBL know what they want, and they're getting it, good and hard. This is an attitude problem, not a convention-based problem, and it can only be fixed through education and social pressure, not by ramming more conventions down people's throats. Eugene Hung

Although I personally prefer a less convention-restrictive game at higher levels, I disagree with your statement. I understand that you tempered your assertion with "possibly other changes", but if there's anything that needs fixing to attract people, it's hardly the restrictive convention environment. Bridge is not going to attract many more people just because it allows fancy two-bids in tournaments. Enough people have trouble understanding how to handle standard weak two-bids: see all the strong vs. weak two clarifications necessary on non-duplicate online bridge servers. No, bridge is only going to attract people if they feel they are having more fun playing it than other pursuits. While you and I may have fun experimenting with fancy two-bids, from my experiences it is safe to say the vast majority of people do not. Indeed, many of these people feel "cheated" when you wheel out a fancy convention/system that they do not understand how to defend against. ("The book says you need 16-18 points to open 1NT! How can he do so with 12-14?") Implying that loosening convention restrictions will attract more people is misleading. Yes, it will attract a few scientists who refuse to play tournaments as they currently stand, but for every scientist that would not have played, you probably drive away at least three simpler souls because "it's too complicated", "it's unfamiliar", or "they're cheating". The ACBL has a difficult task, trying to satisfy the die-hards like us while retaining the near-kitchen-bridge player that finds transfers confusing. I don't envy them this problem. Bottom line: I support an environment closer to "anything goes" at the highest levels, but I do not believe fixes to high-level bridge should be confused with fixing the problem of bridge's popularity. Whenever one speaks of increasing popular appeal, one must pander to the lowest common denominator, not the highest. Indeed, one could make a better case that restricting even more conventions would make the game more popular, because then it is simpler for the average person to understand! (Note that the most popular sport in the world is soccer/football, primarily of its simplicity.) Eugene Hung

> 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