Rebound

I really only like option 1. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. Just my $0.02.

I have read where, when the Dallas Aces were first formed, they were brought together and forced to practice for hours on end, days at a time. Whenever they were not practicing, they were analyzing the hands that were played for errors, holes in the system, etc. To paraphrase, "How do you get to the Bermuda Bowl? Practice practice practice." Just my $0.02

I'm afraid I must disagree with this statement, at least insofar as the treatment I have learned is concerned. Our method is to use the system to find the best contract (typically for IMP play), opponents be damned. Theoretically, the opponents can have all the info they can get but it won't make any difference if we're in the optimal contract. I realize interferance makes this more difficult but where game or slam is available, there is generally little the opponents can do if we have found our best contract. Further, we have agreed that any double above 2♣ is penalty, allowing us to punish "just a bid" calls against us. I admit, the fully constructive style is old-fashioned compared with damn the torpedoes - bid anything to screw up the opponents - methods. However, it makes for great fun playing it against those methods. I take great joy from scoring +300 when we know from the opening bid we are unlikely to make game. Of course, opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one. This method works for me but I can understand how many would find flaws in it. Incidentally, back to the topic, I agree with those who say that a weaker hand or another spade is needed to pass 1 ♠; 1NT seems right whether it is forcing or not.

I'm no expert, as I am sure anyone who has read my previous posts will attest. However, using standard bidding, the auction that seems most likely to me is p-(1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-3♥-(4♥)-p-(5♠)-p-(6♠) Since a negative double is available, 1♠ must promise 5 imo. 3♥ seems right given 4-card support and little defense. 4♥ would seem to be the best call to show slam interest. With a singleton opposite partner's singleton or void heart and a club control I would take a shot at 5♠. Wadda ya think?

#1. Quantitative, invites grand opposite max 1NT, else bid 6 #2. Same as above #3. GSF ♠ - else why transfer? #4. Same as #3 #5. To me, 4♣ is gerber, so same as #1 #6. Pick a slam

I think this sums up my feelings on the enitre subject very well. There are many people who use these methods, not because they are superior, but because they are unfamiliar. I mistakenly included psychic bids in this category, and have since recanted. B)

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=skq98xxh10xxdjxxxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This may seem a bit obvious but I'm just curious to know everyone's choice of opening bid for this hand. Back in the day, it was suggested to me open this hand 3 ♠ because of the shape. In the event I opened it 2, but I would like to know if there are any dissenters.

I guess I have been out of circulation for too long. Minorwood seems to be common knowledge but I don't know anything about it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Man, it could become a full time job just keeping up with this thread. There have been too many points raised since my last post to respond to them all so I'll stick to one. The ACBL makes no secret of its agenda. It believes it has a mandate to nurture and grow the game of bridge through support of beginning and junior players. Now, I don't know about you, but when I was a rookie, playing in my first tournament along with several other rookies, I observed several pairs' deliberate use of intimidation tactics against us to obtain better results because they knew they would work against inexperienced players. Do you really think this is good for bridge? This is the sort of thing the ACBL's restrictions are intended to prevent. They do not want rookies to drop out of bridge after getting smacked around by a room full of bridge players for 4 days. So, whether to coddle new players for a while until their confidence grows to the point where they can learn from running into unusual methods rather than be intimidated by them, that seems to be the central question. Perhaps, you favor a more darwinian approach. However, I have seen with my own eyes how well a nuturing approach can win dividends for the game of bridge.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa5hj984dak10653cq&s=s8ha7dj842cak9852]133|200|Scoring: IMP How best to get to 7♦ after (P) 1♣ (P) 1♦ (1♠) 2♦?[/hv] The actual auction was: ...4NT - 5♥ - 6♦ I would suggest- 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♥ - 4♣ - 7♦ So, does this auction seem at all plausable or am I just giving myself the benefit of hindsight? And if you don't like this auction, what would you suggest? Can you get to 7?

Hmm, looks like I mis-spoke. Instead of "desructive bidding in general", I really should have said destructive bidding systems. They are generally restricted in their use, I think with good reason. And to clarify, when I stated they are frowned upon, "whether for good or ill," my intent was that I am not alone in having a dislike for these methods whether or not that view is "correct". The argument that they should be allowed at all levels so that opponents will get used to defending against them is specious. It makes the assumption that everyone agrees that they should be used in the first place; see above. It does not follow that because you can, you should. Incidentally, back to the spirit of the game remark, I accept it was presumptuous, and perhaps displayed a lack of understanding of the psychic bid itself. My personal dislike for them led me into la-la land. My apologies. I hope I haven't gotten too far off on the wrong foot with anyone. I appreciate the lively discussion. I have learned a lot from it. Thank you.

Well, look what I started, phew! ;) First, while I personally dislike psyches, I fully understand that the Laws permit them, and I would never cry foul against an opponent who psyched against me. I agree that would just be sour grapes. However, I am sure that many of you will agree that, whether for good or ill, destructive bidding in general tends to be frowned upon. Frankly, in the case of psyches, my opinion is that, as usual, given the opportunity for gain, too many people abuse the psychic bid, spoiling it's contribution to the game of bridge. Incidentally, there was an earlier thread I read which discussed a particular auction where the comment was made that given a particular hand a psyche is "almost automatic." I appreciate everyone's comments by the way. I wasn't in any way offended. I prefer honest and open discussion rather than, "if you don't agree you should go away." Falsecards, I have no problem with since they are far less open to abuse. As opposed to psyches, if your partner regularly falsecards, then falsecards his falsecards, etc, unless you are actually cheating by forming a partnership agreement, you are never going to know what his signals mean and will lose more than you gain (I think.) Cascade, to a degree, I agree that bad-mouthing a legal aspect of the game may unfairly bias people. However, isn't that what this thread - and the other asking people to post their least favorite conventions - is promoting (pot calling the kettle balck and all that)? Anyway, as long as it doesn't turn into a personal attack, debates of this kind are good for the game. One of the things that appeals to me about bridge is that, although the basic game has not really changed, it continues to grow and evolve. Some of the changes, however, psychic control asking bids, for example, may not be good for the game and re-evaluation of such things from time to time is important. I welcome your comments. ;)

An on-topic question for the experts: I would like your opinion of bidding 1H over 1D with the intention of reversing into spades. If you consider this a reasonable idea, I would also be curious to know how you would forsee the auction progressing from there.

Fair enough. It's purely preference. However, it also puts pressure on partner. Anyway, to me, opening with something like x Qxxxxx Qxx xxx (or worse) smacks of a psyche and no matter whether it shows that I am a mediocre player (cause i wouldn't know when to psyche or how to handle one if Eddie Kantar threw one of his books at me,) I detest psychic bids as being contrary to the spirit of the game. Incidentally, I'd still like your opinion of #1,#3 :-)

I wouldn't drag this discussion out any further if there wasn't something to add, however, although I agree that the classics are probably the best, e.g. t/o dbls, ace asking bids (Blackwood, RKB, Gerber), strong 2C, and Staymen, there are a couple I really like that no one else I run into on BBO seems to play. #1. Jordan. Over partner's 1M opening, I've found it the best tool for dealing with interferance. I love the idea of being able to double for penalties at the 2 level with confidence. #2. I'm not sure if this is Fishbein or not, frankly. It was taught to me by another player. Over opponent's weak 2, double is for penalty, overcall in nt is takeout, cue bid is Micheals, any suit is forcing for 1 round, jump in nt is natural. As above, I love to be able to double at the 2 level for penalties. You may not be happy about losing 2nt as natural, but I have found if you have enough for that you can either bid it anyway as takeout, or dbl for penalties. #3. SOS redbl, extremely useful, if rarely used. Incidentally, I hate super-weak 2 level openings, except maybe in 3rd seat. But #1 and #2 provide great defense against those who do open or overcall garbage. I prefer disciplined weak 2's showing at least 2/3 top honors with asking bids avail to determine min/max, solid, etc. I would love to hear from the experts what they think of the above.

Regarding hand #2 only, I have been wondering what happens if you pitch a club on the opening lead?

My 2 cents: First, I agree with all who say this hand is not suited to 2NT. It is too in between in strength. Second, has no one noticed that partner is taking a free bid at the 4 level vulnerable at IMPs? Partner can pass. This would incourage me to take a 5D call. Third, after 1D/2NT/3S, i agree that partner should also be more aggressive and bid 4S.

I'm sure there are better players than I who will offer the same or better advice, but just for giggles, here's what I would do. (And I welcome ay criticism.) I would duck the opening diamond lead. If they lead them again I will win, then ruff my last diamond in hand and lead the heart Q. If they switch, you should have no further trouble.