People's favorite conventions or treatments

[Mbodell]

I'm thinking of things like imagine playing with a new partner where you will play the intersection of your two methods except you each get to add your favorite treatment or convention. What conventions would you both expect weren't already in their methods but also would most want the person to play.

 

Or else if developing a partnership what non-standard convention/treatment that you find useful would you want to adopt.

 

Some simple ones that I know people around me would have as candidates include:

 

- Bailey's cuebids instead of Michael's cuebids (cue bids show highest unbid suit + one other unbid suit - only different from Michael's in 1m (2m) auctions)

 

- Using 1NT-3M to show gf hand with 4 of the other major

 

My personal choice would be a form of BROMAD [bergen raises over major artificial doubles] where the response structure after 1M (x) is:

 

xx - 10+, 2 or fewer cards in suit

1N - 6-9 and oM at least semi-stopped 2 or fewer card support

2c - 8 or fewer losers or 10+ points with 3 card support

2d - 9 losers or 6-9 points with 3 card support

2M - 10+ losers or 0-5 points with 3 card support

3c - 8 or fewer losers or 10+ points with 4 card support (or slam interested hands with 5+ support)

3d - 9 losers or 6-9 points with 4 card support

3M - 10+ losers or 0-5 points with 4 card support

4M - 5+ cards in suit, to play

pass - anything else (0-5 w/ 2 or fewer cards or some 6-9 w/ 2 or fewer cards or occasional 0-5 w/ that decides tactically decides to pass)

 

over the club response opener acts as if the responder was exactly 8 losers (10-12 points) and responder can correct if they were stronger.

 

What are other people's favorites?

[kenrexford]

Opening 1♦ promises 6+, or 4+ with a stiff or void. Opening 1♣ is unbalanced with clubs, or any balanced.

[whereagles]

cansino over 1NT

[Free]

Gerber :lol: - kidding

 

Seriously, I like following A LOT:

- Gazzilli

- 1NT-3M showing GF with 3OM, 0-1M and 54+m

- Reversed Flannery responses to 1m openings

[skjaeran]

Opening 1♦ promises 6+, or 4+ with a stiff or void. Opening 1♣ is unbalanced with clubs, or any balanced.

There seems to be a problem with unbalanced hands with exactly five diamonds. :lol:

I'm sure you treat all of them as 6-cards..... B)

[MickyB]

Opening 1♦ promises 6+, or 4+ with a stiff or void.  Opening 1♣ is unbalanced with clubs, or any balanced.

There seems to be a problem with unbalanced hands with exactly five diamonds. :lol:

I'm sure you treat all of them as 6-cards..... B)

It seems Ken treats 5♦422 as balanced and opens 1♣.

[helene_t]

Opening 1♦ promises 6+, or 4+ with a stiff or void.  Opening 1♣ is unbalanced with clubs, or any balanced.

There seems to be a problem with unbalanced hands with exactly five diamonds. :lol:

I'm sure you treat all of them as 6-cards..... B)

4+ with a stiff or a void open 1♦.

[MickyB]

Defence to 1NT - 2♣ = majors, 2♦ = spades+minor

 

Various ways of showing shortage opposite a 1NT opening, e.g. transfer to a minor then bid a major = shortage

 

Bidding Stayman then 2♠ = INV, 5+cards

[kenrexford]

Opening 1♦ promises 6+, or 4+ with a stiff or void.  Opening 1♣ is unbalanced with clubs, or any balanced.

There seems to be a problem with unbalanced hands with exactly five diamonds. :lol:

I'm sure you treat all of them as 6-cards..... B)

Five is more than four, unless maybe for Shubi.

[helene_t]

T-Walsh.

 

Natural major suit responses to 1NT.

 

Fifth-seat overcall methods (i.e. overcall methods used by a passed hand, making use of the fact that overcaller already denied a hand that could preempt).

 

Off-shape notrump rebids.

 

There are also a lot of conventions that sound nice in theory but with which I have no experience. B-D transfers, Ruben advances, Pavlicek's checkback structure, spiral scans.

 

The only conventions I would insist on, however, are

- dbl generally t/o (I am wiling to play penalty dbl on interference over our 1NT, though)

- some kind of notrump structure (Stayman will do)

- some way of giving count or attitude on the opening lead (prefer udca or std)

[han]

There is nothing unusual that I would insist on playing. I played the LMP with a new partner he gave me several pages of notes. Although there were some agreements that I didn't particularly like, I didn't mind playing them with him.

 

I made a few suggestions that I later regretted. For example, I suggested that we'd play the Martel's Jacoby 2NT structure, and mikeh's 2-way checkback structure instead of nmf.

 

My partner liked both but it was a mistake to play them, we could have done considerably better if we had only played methods that my partner was used to.

[awm]

For me, it's more of a list of conventions I won't play rather than ones I would insist on playing. Typically I agree to partner's card except for this list. Here's a few I often end up suggesting though:

 

(1) My own defense to notrump (Meyerson). This includes double showing a major/minor two suiter (either can be longer), 2♣ for the majors, and natural two-level bids in the other suits. While I'm willing to play other defenses to notrump, I refuse to play the popular Cappelletti/Hamilton and DONT.

 

(2) Takeout doubles in low-level auctions where three suits are bid. For example 1♦-P-1♠-2♥-X for takeout. These doubles seem a lot more functional to me than support doubles, because of the additional implication of support for the fourth suit, more clarity about follow-up auctions (everyone knows how to bid over takeout doubles), and avoiding rescuing the opponents from a non-fit in order to play a moysian.

 

(3) A style of frequently supporting partner when holding a major suit fit, rather than temporizing by bidding 1NT (forcing) by responder on various ranges or rebidding 1NT by opener to show a balanced hand.

[mila85]

- Penalty double over 1nt opening (vs. strong NT with good suit)

- Natural 1d

- No multi

- 1M - 2c with all balanced GF hands (even with fit) and then 2d negative without other major

- 1s - 2d with heards

[hrothgar]

In general, my tastes in bidding structures tends to be rather extreme and quite difficult to combine with a more standard approach.

 

Here are the chances that I would most like to inflict on partner (assuming that we were playing a standard 2/1 type system and that system regulations were'nt an issue)

 

I'd like a set of two suited preemptive openings so that I could off load minimum unbalanced hands from 1m and 1M. I'd probably prefer to use

 

2♦ = Wilkosz

2♥ = 5+ Hearts and a 4 card minor

2♠ = 5+ Spades and a 4 card minor

 

normally, I prefer to use assumed fit preempts, but I don't think that these work as well in conjunction with a sound opening style.

 

Next on the list would be some enhanced checkback structures...

[helene_t]

What do you do with a weak hand and a 6-card major, Richard?

[jtfanclub]

Just because I'm weird...

 

NATURAL 2m overcalls over 1m, particularly 2♣ over 1♣. If partner wants a bid showing both majors, I'll happily use 2♦ over 1♣, but I don't find such a bid necessary.

 

2♣ in response to 1♦ as GoLady- artifical game force.

[hrothgar]

What do you do with a weak hand and a 6-card major, Richard?

Open it at the three level or pass...

 

Somethings got to give (we don't have nearly enough bids for all the different hands that we might like to show). I'd rather be able to show the two suiters than the single suiters.

[keylime]

I'd play Auken's 1 under or 2 suiter scheme if I could.

 

Without that, Xfer Walsh, Gazzilli, Stenberg 2NT, Turbo with denial cue-bids, Lionel/Multi-Landy/Robinson/Jassem etc, specific 2 suiters with 1NT as 3 suited t/o, and Golady. Absolutely tho no inverted minors, RKCB, fast arrival, and undisciplined preempts.

[Gerben42]

For me, it's more of a list of conventions I won't play rather than ones I would insist on playing. Typically I agree to partner's card except for this list.

 

Ditto for me, although this list contains a few common ones like:

 

* DONT

* Cappelletti

* Benjamin (VERY common here even with players who should know better)

* Roman signals (the ones where an odd card is positive and things like that)

* Anything invented by Helmigro, NTV or Sastro (for those who not know this: three well-known players from Germany - good players but I happen to disagree with their methods)

[Gerben42]

NATURAL 2m overcalls over 1m, particularly 2♣ over 1♣. If partner wants a bid showing both majors, I'll happily use 2♦ over 1♣, but I don't find such a bid necessary.

 

Also on my "forbidden" list unfortunately... More for the reason that if you bid a new suit in a seemingly natural auction, it should be... natural?

[Fluffy]

I always try to add by any means rubenshol (transfer) after 1x-(2y) when 'y' is hearts/spades

 

Next is to play fully natural (Except cue) after we overcall 1NT

[helene_t]

Next is to play fully natural (Except cue) after we overcall 1NT

Agree.

[bhall]

I like anonymous splinters over all suit openings (cheapest double-jump-shift).

 

I tell new partners that my one-level overcalls should make game opposite 15-17 non-fitting HCP, and my two-level overcalls, opposite 12-14 (providing partner hasn't already denied opening values). I don't require that they be that conservative.

 

Lately, I've been playing "Dandy" (double for Landy) over strong NT:

X shows ♣ or majors

2♣ shows ♦ or (♣+M)

2♦ shows ♦+M

2M natural

The natural 2M uses up more room than the alternative methods.