Convention bashing

[effervesce]

My pet hate list:

 

1) Standard Jacoby - it's so bad its almost useless

2) Capp - anything but this please

3) Support X - why give them extra bidding space

4) 2D game forcing - 2C game forcing is better

5) Gambling 3NT - in my experience has never gained over opening 4m/5m

6) Bergen raises - why waste so many bids - splinters, fit-showing jumps, etc are more useful

7) Flannery -wasting one whole bid on an uncommon hand with few benefits

[helene_t]

My top aversions are:

 

4cM MAF style - use the most bidding space for the least descriped hand types

4cM longest suit first style - the disadvantages of 5cM without the advantages

5cM 3cm - you might as well flip a coin as to weather to open 1♣ or 1♦

All other natural systems - open 1♣ all the time and invite opps to destroy our auction

[matmat]

All other natural systems - open 1♣ all the time and invite opps to destroy our auction

*scratches head*

[kenrexford]

All other natural systems - open 1♣ all the time and invite opps to destroy our auction

*scratches head*

Most natural systems feature one opening bid. 1♣. There are no other opening bids. As noted, this approach does get all screwed up when the opponents do anything.

[matmat]

All other natural systems - open 1♣ all the time and invite opps to destroy our auction

*scratches head*

Most natural systems feature one opening bid. 1♣. There are no other opening bids. As noted, this approach does get all screwed up when the opponents do anything.

*scratches head some more*

[effervesce]

All other natural systems - open 1♣ all the time and invite opps to destroy our auction

*scratches head*

Most natural systems feature one opening bid. 1♣. There are no other opening bids. As noted, this approach does get all screwed up when the opponents do anything.

*scratches head some more*

*scratches head at the head scratching*

[1eyedjack]

I don't know what it is called. It is so bad that I suspect no individual would lend his or her name to it. I have no idea why it has achieved popularity here in the UK among the LOLs but popularity it has definitely achieved (I think it is probably some non-theoretician scrabbling about for the use of 2S bid after adopting transfers into the majors). But here goes:

 

In response to 1N (12-14), uncontested:

2S = 11 points

2N = 12 points

 

ROOAARRING!

[Trinidad]

I don't know what it is called.  It is so bad that I suspect no individual would lend his or her name to it.  I have no idea why it has achieved popularity here in the UK among the LOLs but popularity it has definitely achieved (I think it is probably some non-theoretician scrabbling about for the use of 2S bid after adopting transfers into the majors).  But here goes:

 

In response to 1N (12-14), uncontested:

2S = 11 points

2N = 12 points

 

ROOAARRING!

I immediately admit that this convention wouldn't make it on my top 1000 list of favorite conventions, but I think that you are a little harsh.

 

LOLs will not be able to understand the more complicated stuff (4 suit transfers, minor suit Stayman, etc.) Given that, and given the fact that most LOLs are incredible walrusses, I think that 2♠=11, 2NT=12 is an enormous improvement over 2♠= idle, 2NT=11-12.

 

In the setting of LOLs playing LOLs (which is what most LOLs do) playing this convention gives an edge over opponents who don't have this 'weapon' available.

 

Or to put it differently: If I would have to fight a war, I would prefer to have fighter planes rather than frying pans. But if an LOL is in a fight with her neighbor, given that she can't fly an F14 anyway, a frying pan might come in very handy. ;)

 

Rik

[MickyB]

Given how LOLs tend to declare, I'd have thought 2NT = 12, pass = 11 would be rather superior. Aiming to play 2NT that frequently can't be a good thing.

[helene_t]

{sexist rant}

given how LOGs defend, the LOLs might as well play 2NT=11, 3NT=12

{\sexist rant}

 

Anyway, here most people play

2♠=invite, or slamish looking for minor fit. Opener bid 2N with minimum and lowest minor with a maximum.

2N=weak with one minor.

 

Not quite optimal either but who cares, none of all these conventions come up very often anyway.

[ArtK78]

Back on topic, one of my least favorite conventions is Mini-Roman.

 

Just this last Saturday, I saw a top-flight pair produce a Mini-Roman auction to get to 3♠ at IMPs down 300 opposite a passout (!) at the other table. My teammate at the other table, who has yet to meet an 11 count that didn't look like a 13 count, passed the hand that our opp opened 2♦ Mini-Roman. They were lucky to stop at the 3 level in a moderately playable 4-3 fit.

[manudude03]

Gerber over suits: I've lost count of how many times I've told beginners that after an auction like 1H-3H, 4C is not gerber. The teacher who originally taught me the game however seems to be of the opinion that 4C is the crown jewel of bridge bids and the only time you ever use blackwood is when investigating a club slam (surely the single easiest way of bidding slam off 2 aces). But anyway, no wonder a lot of pairs chicken out when they find they're missing an ace, they know close to nothing from the auction.

 

Specific Ace Ask- ugh, did they have to make the opening bid 4NT? Again, it seems like a likely way of either slam being off the wrong 2 aces or 5NT going down a million. In fact, this convention is a very risky one with a club void. Take a hand of say ♠KQJT987 ♥AKQJT ♦2 ♣void. Very nice hand, open 4NT as SAA. Partner responds 5NT showing the club Ace. Good luck getting out of that. It's just as bad with minor 2 suiters. Partner responds whatever major your void is and you're stuck (even more so if they decide to play Specific King Ask too)

 

Negative response to RKCB(?)- Don't know the actual name to it (or even if this "convention" even exists), but anyway, here goes. Last year playing on BBO I pick up what was at the time the biggest hand I had ever had (AKxx AKQ AKQx xx or something), unfortunately I was third seat and partner pre-empted. Having said that, he pre-empted 3S! I decide to blast 4NT on what I understood as RKCB 0314 (not that it mattered with the response). I get the rather strange answer of 5S. I thought about it for a while and decided he must have thought the ♠Q was a key card, great- 7NT. This was doubled and somehow only off 1 after a club lead and non-continuation after it held. Partner's 3S bid was very aggressive (QJxxxx xxx xx xx). When he asked me why I bid 7NT, I explained how he bid 5S and 7NT is cold if he has as little as xxxxxxx xxx xx A. Then he makes the remark 5S didn't show key cards. I check the movie after I'm finished and 5S was alerted as "bid no answer". Not really a bash at a convention, but a bash at a stupid bid which no-one else would expect.

[han]

I also hate stupid bids. Probably the worst convention ever invented.

[kenrexford]

Back on topic, one of my least favorite conventions is Mini-Roman.

 

Just this last Saturday, I saw a top-flight pair produce a Mini-Roman auction to get to 3♠ at IMPs down 300 opposite a passout (!) at the other table. My teammate at the other table, who has yet to meet an 11 count that didn't look like a 13 count, passed the hand that our opp opened 2♦ Mini-Roman. They were lucky to stop at the 3 level in a moderately playable 4-3 fit.

Mini-Roman cracks me up. I think the name should be changed to something else because it should offend the Roman Club people.

 

I mean, the whole idea of the Roman 2♣ opening (the one that should be weaker) is that it helped to solve a problem with 4441 hands if you play canape. But, if you do not play canape, this is not a problem, and you do not need an unwieldy cure for the non-problem.

 

It is sort of like walking around with crutches for no reason because you heard that people with crutches walk better than without the crutches and assume from this that crutches help all people walk better.

 

Plus, on top of that, the Roman Club used 2♣ for this pattern and strength. The difference between opening 2♣ with this pattern and 2♦ with this pattern is unbelievable. For starters, your asking bid over 2♦ is 2NT but over 2♣ can be 2♦; not much thought to see the difference there.

[JoAnneM]

Did anyone mention Steps? I got bored reading this thread around page 5.

[manudude03]

forgot one other style I hate:

 

5551 openers: I mean those who play 5cM, but also promise 5 diamonds when they open 1♦. If anyone interferes, the opener is snookered if he does have a singleton club. 1C-(1S)-P-P-???- what to do with say QJxx KQxx AQxx x? If you double, how do you respond with xxx xxx xxx ATxx?

[cherdano]

Fit non jump in the auction p 1H 1S 2H ?

Dude that's nothing, I wonder how you'd react to Robson/Segal's advocated method of 1♥-1♠-2♥-?, FNJ's from an unpassed hand :) :)

Do they really?

I think Kokish advocates FNJ in 1H 2D 2H 3C. Shocking?

[Winstonm]

Whichever convention it was that you just misused (again) that got you a good result against me.

[gnasher]

5551 openers: I mean those who play 5cM, but also promise 5 diamonds when they open 1♦. If anyone interferes, the opener is snookered if he does have a singleton club. 1C-(1S)-P-P-???- what to do with say QJxx KQxx AQxx x?

Why would you want to do anything other than pass?

[manudude03]

To play in some number of diamonds or even 2H? Maybe picky but make partner's hand x Axx KJxxx xxx and 5 diamonds has some play if defenders don't lead trumps (though feel free to say if you would do anything over 1S with this) especially when the x's may not be 2,3,4s. Also, partner's initial reaction will probably be you have clubs and blindly lead the ♣Q or something.

 

How about you made the hand I posted originally a queen stronger, still passing? Partner would probably bid 2C as a response on xxx Jxx Kxx xxxx. It might be 20-20 then, but playing in that honourless 4-1 fit won't be nice.

[1eyedjack]

I don't know what it is called.  It is so bad that I suspect no individual would lend his or her name to it.  I have no idea why it has achieved popularity here in the UK among the LOLs but popularity it has definitely achieved (I think it is probably some non-theoretician scrabbling about for the use of 2S bid after adopting transfers into the majors).  But here goes:

 

In response to 1N (12-14), uncontested:

2S = 11 points

2N = 12 points

 

ROOAARRING!

I immediately admit that this convention wouldn't make it on my top 1000 list of favorite conventions, but I think that you are a little harsh.

 

LOLs will not be able to understand the more complicated stuff (4 suit transfers, minor suit Stayman, etc.) Given that, and given the fact that most LOLs are incredible walrusses, I think that 2♠=11, 2NT=12 is an enormous improvement over 2♠= idle, 2NT=11-12.

 

In the setting of LOLs playing LOLs (which is what most LOLs do) playing this convention gives an edge over opponents who don't have this 'weapon' available.

 

Or to put it differently: If I would have to fight a war, I would prefer to have fighter planes rather than frying pans. But if an LOL is in a fight with her neighbor, given that she can't fly an F14 anyway, a frying pan might come in very handy. ;)

 

Rik

Think on reflection you are probably right. That said, even the LOLs using this method cannot distinguish the 11 from 12 count when going via Stayman when they have a 4 card major, which detracts further from the method. I quite like the idea of leaving both 2S and 2N as undefined. Pass with 11, bid 3N with 12.

[gnasher]

To play in some number of diamonds or even 2H? Maybe picky but make partner's hand x Axx KJxxx xxx and 5 diamonds has some play if defenders don't lead trumps (though feel free to say if you would do anything over 1S with this) especially when the x's may not be 2,3,4s.

That's a very specific, perfectly-fitting hand on which responder would have wanted to bid, except that his methods didn't allow it. Even so, some players would choose to double or bid 2♦. Also, advancer would often have bid. If the worst feature of the methods were that they couldn't cope with this pair of hands in this auction, it would suggest that it was an excellent system.

 

I don't, in fact, think much of the system; I just think even less of your example.

[brianshark]

Ghestem has to be the worst convention for the sheer number of accidents that ghestem players use. Even otherwise good players mess it up from time to time, usually costing plenty of imps.

 

I hate DONT and any such convention that sacrafices the penalty double over 1NT, even strong NTs.

 

I dislike Gambling 3NT because it wrong-sides the contract, makes defence fairly easy for the opponents and because people bid it on non-solid suits all the time.

 

Regarding other conventions that people are bashing:

 

2/1: The improved slam bidding gains many imps. Occasionally you can get too high in a partscore hand but in practice, these times are fairly infrequent. I like it.

 

Flannery: I have played this for a while. It only came up 3/4 times over a few years. It's never cost imps. It's never gained imps. It usually results in the auction 2D-3NT or 2D-4H (occasionally transferring declarership) for a push board. Unnecessary but harmless.

 

Capp/DONT: My personal preference is to play a 1NT defence which allows a penalty double which is why I dislike DONT. Everyone here plays Capp and it works just fine. Though I prefer something simple like 2C=Majors, rest natural.

 

Gerber: You need a way to ask for aces over a NT bid. There's nothing wrong with Gerber if used only in situations it needs to be used in. Gerber in a suit auction is silly. Gerber when you actually want to know if pard is min or max is silly.

 

Specific Ace Ask: I play this. This has never come up.

 

Bergen: This works fine if played properly.

 

Support Doubles: I've never had a problem with them. But I doubt I'd have a problem without them either.

 

Transfers in various situations: I highly recommend them if you are sure you and your pd know your system. Transfers save space and are more efficient means of describing your hand. I'd play rubensohl if I knew it and I knew my partner knew it. I'm sure transfer overcalls and transfer pre-empts and transfer responses to 1♣ and transfer advances and whatever work well.

 

Weak 2D: When used as a constructive descriptive bid instead of a pre-empt (as weak 2s were originally intended) works well. Though my preference would be to play weak 2-suited openings and weak multi, or maybe bad weak 2s and constructive multi or something.

 

Puppet stayman: I can't remember ever losing imps because the extra info helped the defenders find a killing lead. I can remember plenty of times we elected not to use puppet (by choice or by not playing it at the time) and losing imps because of missing a superior 5-3 Major fit.

 

Kickback: Never played it, but it seems like a good idea in minor suit auctions. I don't bother because of the extra memory load and the situations where it is necessary don't come up all that often.

[hrothgar]

My experiences in the Newton Individual this last year have convinced me that "Stolen Bid Doubles" are [probably] the worst thing ever invented

[han]

Stolen bid doubles? My favorite! ;)