One Favorite Convention

[grrigg]

Imagine playing with an expert partner for the first time and quickly filling out a convention card just before the game. What would be the one thing you would like to add to the info listed there? It doesnt have to be the most frequent sequence just one place where you would like to add/improve.

 

For example, almost everyone agrees to play inverted minors and thank god that they do not come up a lot. I am not sure if there is any "standard" way to bid after 1m-2m. Is it forcing to 2NT or 3m, can you have a 4 card major for 2m raise, stoppers up the line or not, what is 1m-2m-2NT and 1m-2m-3NT? None of this is evident without some discussion.

 

Another place where you might want to add agreements is 1m-1M-2M. People are aware that 3-card raises are possible, but usually there is no agreement on how to find out about that.

 

I could list more, but I hope you get the point. Again, it doesnt have to be the most frequent of sequences, just list your favorite tweak/addition.

[cherdano]

Do you tend to give count or suit preference?

[han]

Agree that defensive carding is most important. For bidding I like to discuss doubles. Reverses are also important. Overcalling styles.

 

Sorry, conventions with names do not come high on my list.

[Echognome]

Do you play food asking bids?

[han]

No Sandwich 1NT pls.

[paulg]

More than one thing, but here's my checklist.

 

p

[grrigg]

I probably misstated what I wanted to see. Its logical that you need to discuss things in order of frequency, so defensive carding is the most important thing. Many things involving style (is this a weak 2, is this an opening bid?) also rate to come out ahead of any convention that isnt on the convention card. However that isnt what I intended to ask for.

 

I just wanted people to list 1 thing that they really like and that improves a lot on standard bidding/carding agreements. Disregarding the frequency of occurence (well not totally, but any named convention has a decent chance of not coming up at all in 26 boards).

[kenrexford]

Smith Echo.

[cherdano]

I really don't care about adding conventions for one session, but if I am starting to play with someone more regularly, I like to add

1. XYZ

2. transfers after 1x (X)

soonish. More importantly, though, I try to convince partner not to mind my light 1M overcalls.

[pclayton]

The STFU convention. It comes up a lot.

[mikeh]

'What do we do if they double our 1N bids for penalty?'

 

This is apropos a current thread re the meaning of 2♦, but it is a question I always ask in the described situation. I do have a preference, but I really don't care so long as we have one of the various playable approaches.

 

Game-bidding philosophy: do we invite heavy and accept light or the other way around?

 

Low-level double philosophy: if the opps are in a fit, low-level doubles are 'do something intelligent, I have unbiddable extra values for the auction so far'. This may be expert standard in some circles, but I'd want to confirm it, to avoid disaster.

 

On carding: if playing udca, do we play std remaining count (again, there is probably an expert std here, but I know of at least one fine player who likes udca for remaining count as well)

 

Do we give suit preference in trump, on defence?

 

If we agreed to play inverted minors (and I usually refuse unless we have a lot of time to talk about it), how far is it forcing?

 

 

There is so much to talk about, this barely scratches the surface. Ask me tomorrow, and the list would be different, at least in part.

[Guest Jlall]

dont bid NT pard

[hrothgar]

I've always found takeout doubles useful.

 

RHO seems to open 1S a lot and I never have hands suitable for a penalty double.

 

This Stayman guy keeps talking about this weird 2♣ relay over 1NT openings... Might be a reasonable treatment.

[grrigg]

OK, here's what I should have said:

 

Every once in a while there comes up a hand which, playing standard, makes me want to strangle myself. With a barbed rope. After walking on hot coals for about an hour. Which is why with my regular partners I play ____ and this feeling never occurs. Fill in the blank.

[keylime]

I tend to ask about preempting style, overcalls, and defensive carding. I try to reduce the convention load (on a first bridge date, I won't play even Bergen or DONT).

[cherdano]

I tend to ask about preempting style, overcalls, and defensive carding. I try to reduce the convention load (on a first bridge date, I won't play even Bergen or DONT).

Well, I won't play either of them under any circumstances if I can avoid it...

[helene_t]

I just wanted people to list 1 thing that they really like and that improves a lot on standard bidding/carding agreements.

Not sure what "standard" means in this context. But if I was asked to add one convention to SAYC, I would opt for Drury. Close competitors are:

- Some defense against 1NT, e.g. Landy.

- (Non)Leaping Michaels.

[rogerclee]

I generally feel that most basic conventions "everybody plays" are good, and I generally feel that most basic conventions "not everybody plays" are bad. If you forced me to add one thing that not everybody plays, and we could actually discuss all the followups, I would suggest Gazilli.

 

Or mini-roman 2♦ B) .

[MickyB]

Agree with Helene, Drury then Landy. If looking for something a bit more involved, being able to show shortage opposite no-trump openings and rebids is very useful.

[paulg]

If there was one non-standard method I could get partner to learn beforehand, it would be transfer responses to 1♣. However taking this on at the table is impractical.

 

I do like the Italian version of Ghestem. Easy to remember the suits assuming you remember that a 3♣ jump overcall is conventional.

 

Over the summer the club in Edinburgh runs a tournament where you play with a different partner every week, so I have a lot of experience of not adding special treatments when playing with experts.

 

Something unusual was added only once, when I played Polish 2/4 leads. We played these to give my partner a better understanding of them before she went off to the European championships and it certainly helped our defence. However changing anything is this area tends to help your focus.

 

Paul

[dicklont]

Lebensohl when partner doubles a weak two.

 

after (2♥) - Dbl - (pass)

i really like it when 3♦/♣ show real values so i need 2NT lebensohl for the weak hands.

[helene_t]

Right, Lebensohl is high on the list, forgot that one.

[skjaeran]

Drury and lebensohl would be very high on my list.

[cherdano]

Ok, if you want to know a situation where I think having good agreements is a big advantage compared to what I assume with a North American pickup expert then I would list:

1. any sensible Jacoby 2NT system gives an advantage over standard (but of course I don't expect it to come up in a 4 session event)

2. Good follow-up agreements to inverted minors

3. Personally, I much prefer getting the invitational 3-card raises out of the (then no longer forcing) 1N reply to 1M.

 

(No need to list drury or Lebensohl in reply to Greg's question since this is all part of NA expert standard.)

[Apollo81]

Preempting style and 2/1 style because there is a huge amount of variability in these areas from person to person.