Cave_Draco

Look into the Dragon's eyes and... see yourself, ;D. 1D-3D-5D-6D, np.

IMO, there are two types of pseudo-SAYC players. Those who "profess" to play SAYC and those who "can" play it. I include myself in the latter category, ;D. Of the listed conventions... :D Negative Doubles - np, IF partner understands their implications with regard to re-opening doubles; in my experience, few do! c) Michaels - a wasted bid; ok, ok, it's part of the system... e) Doubles - Optional doubles are more useful but again it's part of the system... g) Gerber - Fine, except for players that slip in Extended Gerber and then pass Blackwood! h) Jacoby 2NT - I don't think I've ever needed/used it... another wasted bid, :). I "can" play SAYC & occasionally try... but I will get things wrong from time-to-time, B).

#1 Not that I'm aware of... Weak 2s are intended to make life difficult for opponents, ;D. With the type of hand described, I would pass in 2nd but balance in 4th. If partner is "competetive" s/he may get tetchy but explaining works better in the long run. What if... P has the same sort of hand in 2nd, when opener's partner has unknown strength? re marquee - what are nerves? #2 Partner is demanding a bid... 2NT is the lowest available, I would use it, B). PS - If reciting hand patterns doesn't work; try reciting suit distributions, 8).

2/1 might be fine at IMPs, at MP ??? Why? Because 1NT is a GREAT contract if opps let you play there! Almost guaranteed top. 2/1 reduces the 1NT response to <shrug>.

NFBs just take away the weak to moderate one-suited hands, I prefer not to play Negative Doubles & use the cue-bid maybe too much, ;D. The BIG problem with Negative Doubles is the re-opening double... Failure to double an overcall could be based upon distribution. I prefer to use the double as "Hey P, our contract!" NFBs tell P a lot &, Hey, they apply at the 3-level too! 1H-2D-3C can be a NFB. Admittedly, more useful at MP than IMPs, but I like MP, ;D.

A relevant point, expanding on Roland's answer and taken from Bridgeguys, ;D. Negative Free Bid A non-forcing suit bid by the responder over an intervening overcall when all other conventional and systemic bids or calls are not available to describe his holdings and values. For example, partner opens 1 Club and this is followed by an overcall of 1 Spade. You hold Hearts: AQ9876 and a side Queen in Diamonds. You do not have sufficient values to bid 2 Hearts using standard methods. The normal conclusion is to employ a Negative Double, planning to rebid Hearts, which under normal circumstances would show a 5-card Heart suit and less than the required 10 high card points. The rebid could become a problem if the Spades are raised. It also becomes problematic if the holding is: Diamonds: AQ9876 and a side Queen in Hearts. The Negative Double then becomes questionable. The alternative is to have a partnership understanding that a Negative Free Bid of 2 Hearts (or 2 Diamonds in this example) may be employed. This understanding, however, affects the use of the Negative Double, since it is no longer needed for a hand that can make a Negative Free Bid, but it is required for a stronger hand that would normally make a forcing suit response at a minimum level. Therefore, a Negative Double followed by a new suit becomes forcing, promising a holding containing game values. The Negative Free Bid is not always necessary at the One Level and has questionable value at the Four Level, and therefore most partnership understandings include this feature only on the Two and Three Level.

Swiss team-of-four is my favourite, ;D. You don't have to estimate what the "room" is doing, just the other table. However, it would require more social interaction than pairs... I can think of several pairs who I/we would be happy to team up with.

I wasn't talking about tourneys, ;D. I log in to BB, click on Conv, select a CC &... then I cannot "use" until I sit at a table! It would be nice to "pin it on my lapel", if Dragons had such things, lol.

The best defence to a Strong C is... don't allow them to bid it! Then they have to "compete", I favour 1C as 7-10 or a major two-suiter, ;D.

41% means you are better off tossing a coin! I can accept that, but I would like to see the figures, ;D.

A couple of things... I Kib NESW only; I still get to see all four hands until someone bids. You cannot load a Convention Card until you actually start playing? ;D

A view that is applicable to most of us? Playing MP; opps go down: who doubled? Can you blame P? Or is it a team effort, ;D.

The comment was intended to apply to Culbertson's Law... LoTT is useful, whereas Culbertson's Law is simply misleading, ;D. They do, however, have similarities. I would be interested in Misho's ref. but cannot get there, ;). I do recall an analysis of "Short Club" v "Better Minor" which implied little or no difference!

Lol, one has to be a member! LoTT always struck me as akin to "Culbertson's Law of Symmetry"... We have all seen it work but it is specious! Is there a different set of "adjustments" for MP as opposed to IMPs? ;D

Get a Social Secretary... Orla is wonderful, @}-'--,--- BUT... reserved, ;D.

Close, who hands over the convention card first? Chicken & egg is simple... look up the natural history of the basilisk, lol. Simultaneously? Paper/scissors/stone! I'm happy to play Benj Acol v SAYC; Precision v Benj Acol; SAYC v Precision. Although I do prefer 4-card majors & Weak NT, ;D.

I agree with your sentiments, hrothgar. However, every coin has two sides. I devised a system for opposing Precision... call it Weak Club, lol. 1C was either 7-11 or a major 2-suiter. Politically, there are ways to beat bureaucracy... Opposing it is not one! Wind it up the way it wants to go & stand well back, ;). I may be ancient but... been there, done that, Dragons don't wear T-shirts. The chess analogy is valid... You are playing Precision... OK, we are playing Weak Club! Consider the scissors/paper/stone game as SAYC/Acol/Precision? Just consider? I did post on trump signals... Why would the EBU ban the Vinje trump signal? Encrypted information? Rude words!

Reductio ad absurdum? When is a forcing pass, in a forcing pass system, not a forcing pass? When it is not alertable? The BBO convention card is a reasonable attempt but how many variations should I have? No. of regular partners + 1? I, sometimes, remember to load it but how often is it the same as my partner's? & I don't remember taking time out to study opps' CC! Without standardising on BBO basic & BBO advanced I don't see a simple solution, ???. Rainy's idea has merit but there are subsets of alert; for instance, taking BBO basic as a standard... if you play BBO basic but with a short Club only 1C needs to be alerted, ;D.

I think Fred summed it up pretty well on the "other" string: Scientists choose to learn an unnatural system; "natural" players have it thrust upon them! Even Precision, if one has time to agree a defence, can be upset; far more easily than a "natural" system! However, one gets into a never-ending spiral... once a defence becomes a problem, you need a defence to the defence, ;). Then again, if the PtB have licensed the "Scientific" system, what can they do but license any defence to it? The systems one has to know become worse than chess openings! At least I don't have to "know" Ruy Lopez or Giocco Piano, just the Caro-Kann and "certain lines" of the Sicilian will do me for all e4, ;D.

I have to agree with John; 1 board is not enough unless you know opps! System & convention card are no guide as to play but one hand of play, even a lay-down 7NT ;), gives a feel. Two boards is a minimum, at a local club you do at least see the same faces week in week out. It always amused me that I know the defence to "The Principle of Restricted Choice" but never get a chance to use it, ;D.

BBO has two "house" systems, if a pair is not playing BBO Basic opps should be pre-alerted, as in "Benj Acol, 12/14NT". If opps are unfamiliar with the system then they are in a position to question a bid! I am not familiar with <STRONG PASS (Lambda, Beznazwy or Moscito).> I learnt Precision because I used to play against it regularly but I ain't going to learn a system that I see "once in a blue moon". Opps are obliged to alert all non-standard bids, even systematic ones, AND explain them! If this slows down the boards? Tough! ;D

The term, pseudo-squeeze, applies to a squeeze that isn't, ;). John said... <I have often unintentionally sqeezed opponents by running a long suit.> I would suspect that many of these "squeezes" were, in fact, pseudo-squeezes, in that no squeeze actually existed, and therefore wouldn't work against defenders who signal & count the cards! However, it is possible to play a pseudo-squeeze against "expert" defenders but you have to be more consistent with the false information you are supplying. For instance, dummy's entries must "look" right. The key to a pseudo-squeeze is trick order, before running a long suit try playing a Vienna Coup! If you can persuade a defender that they have to defend against a non-existant squeeze... Of course, to be really effective you need a reputation as a squeeze player, ;D. Thus, the pseudo-squeeze properly belongs under the heading "Psychology".

Misho commented <In my opinion you miss most important aspect of bridge - Psychology. Main difference between chess for example and great game Bridge.> Aside from disagreeing about the implied lack of psychology in chess; you won't catch the Dragon playing e4, & I hate the QGA, B). I agree that psychology is an important element of bridge but it applies across the 4 categories; bidding, declarer, defence & ethics. Bidding? The obvious first candidate is the psych! Although, the Weak NT can be devastating if you've only ever played SAYC, ;D. Declarer? Declarer has a lot of psychological ploys, my favourite is the pseudo-squeeze, :). Defence? False-carding is bread & butter to a competent defender. Ethics? Is tough, online there is no "stop" bid & you cannot see your opponents! It makes it easy to ignore unauthorised information from partner but things like "playing at an even tempo" are subject to the vagaries of the Net.

I agree with most of the responses... one thing to consider is your rebid! "Balanced" is 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2. With a 5-card major or 4-4 in the majors, there is an argument for delaying describing your hand as balanced. All other combinations should be described as balanced, either by bidding NT or rebidding in NT. The Hog's comment about showing 5D & 4S is relevant, B). Only with Clubs and Spades do you open the minor before the major. The "Prepared" Club only really applies to 4-3-3-3 hands with a 4-card Spade suit, you could open 1S, but when responder replies 1NT or 2S? 2NT is misleading. With <AQ93 .. AQ9 .. Q72 .. J45> you could open 1S, but change it to <Qxxx .. Axx .. Kxx .. AQx>? Also bear in mind what 1C-3C means if you play Inverted Minors! Do you really want to be in 3C with the former hand?

The question of <T874 .. K74 .. KJT .. Q62> is less about "biddable" suits than it is about which bid is "better"! If you choose to bid 1S, you are informing partner that you have 4+Spades and 6+ hcp. If you choose to bid 1NT, you are informing partner that you have a "balanced" 6-9 hcp. The 1D opening announces either a balanced 15+ or a distributional hand! In the light of that information about opener's hand, the 1NT response is the more descriptive, IMO, ;D.