Name the worst Convention

[Trpltrbl]

Just curious what people generally think of certain conventions.

I am not going to name examples, just let me know what in your eyes is the worst convention and not worth the ink it was written with.

 

Mike :D

[Cascade]

Here is my list in no particular order:

 

Gerber

Support Doubles and Redoubles

Negative Double of 1♥ promising four spades

Baron over 2NT

Various Defenses to 1NT

Short minor suit opening in an otherwise natural system

Fishbein

3NT for takeout over a pre-empt

 

 

Probably many more that are so bad I cannot think of them now.

[helene_t]

Blackwood.

 

I would also mention multi and ghestem - not because they are bad conventions, just because I have some personal trauma caused by them. :D

[Dwayne]

I have two which inevitably lead to disasters:

 

Lebensohl

 

Archimedes.

 

 

Neither for the faint hearted.

 

 

Dwayno.

East wing, Katingal.

[mishovnbg]

1403, 102...

Misho

[sceptic]

I believe Saddam Hussain, is not fond of the Geneva convention

[the hog]

Flannery and Cappelletti to name but two that should be consigned to the scrapheap of obscurity.

 

("I believe Saddam Hussain {sic}, is not fond of the Geneva convention"

Neither is George Bush from the sound of it.)

[Cascade]

I have two which inevitably lead to disasters:

 

Lebensohl

 

Archimedes.

 

 

Neither for the faint hearted.

Lebensohl is currently one of my favourite conventions although I have limited the number of sequences that I use it.

 

I do not know Archimedes.

[Cascade]

Cappelletti

Cappelletti also goes by the names of Hamilton and Pottage - are there any more?

 

Pottage I think once said the main reason that he 'invented' the convention was so that his opponents would use it against him.

[Chamaco]

• Gambling 3NT.
  
• Equal level conversion
  
• Weak jump shift not in competition.
  
• Unusual 2NT (not the convention per se, but its most common application).
  
• Strong 2C opening.
  
• Any convention that gives controls before distribution at the first round of bidding (without a known fit).
  
• Free negative bids (no pun intended, FREE ! :D ).
  
• Use of negative doubles as "card showing", with little distributional info (e.g. generic 8-11, usually balanced, regardless of majors).
  

[whereagles]

Gerber, definitely. The only time I used it in 10 years of play, it went

 

Pard Me

2NT 4♣

4NT 6♠

 

Pard thinks, thinks... and, regardless of me say "there is an ace out", bids 7♠!!!

 

1 down. Spade ace was missing. LOL.

[Chamaco]

Gerber, definitely. The only time I used it in 10 years of play, it went

 

Pard Me

2NT 4♣

4NT 6♠

 

Pard thinks, thinks... and, regardless of me say "there is an ace out", bids 7♠!!!

 

1 down. Spade ace was missing. LOL.

LOL @ Wheregles !! :lol: :P

Did you offer to the same partner to play exclusion Blackwood ? :P

[helene_t]

What about the 1♠-overcall of a strong 1♣, showing "13 cards"?

[Cascade]

I am not sure that all of these are conventions in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[*]Gambling 3NT.

 

I think it is moot whether this is a convention. IMO according to the definition of conventions in the laws willingness to play in the last named denomination makes a bid non-conventional.

 

Gambling 3NT may not be a good convention but is there a better use for 3NT.

 

This reminds me of another useless convention:

 

Playing Precision the Unusual Negative convention where on the auction

 

1♣ 1♦

 

1♦ shows either a weak hand (0-7) or a strong hand (8+) with a 4441.

 

I recently exploited the weakness of this method unintentionally using the aforementioned dreaded gambling 3NT. I was dealt 8 diamonds AKQJ10 and the bidding went:

 

1♣ P 1♦ ? to me

 

I bid 3NT and LHO doubled. In a moment of confusion my partner forgot to pull with her Yarborough (maybe a 10 or a Jack somewhere). I was booked for down 9 which if the outstanding diamonds had been 2-0 might have been only a small loss against 7♠ (-2300 vs -2210). Alas they were 1-1 but LHO not imagining the 8+ variation thought he was endplayed and eventually lead a diamond for me so that he would get two and not only one of the remaining tricks. I had helped him along by pitching some of my "good" diamonds and keeping some worthless clubs as if I had a guarded stopper.

 

[*]Equal level conversion

[*]Weak jump shift not in competition.

 

Not sure these are conventions - weak jump shifts certainly are not.

 

[*]Unusual 2NT (not the convention per se, but its most common application).

[*]Strong 2C opening.

[*]Any convention that gives controls before distribution at the first round of bidding (without a known fit).

 

2NT - I agree

 

2♣ a necessary evil I feel.

 

Control showing early maybe back to front but some palooka Italians won many world championships with this method.

 

[*]Free negative bids (no pun intended, FREE !  :lol: ).

 

Not conventional. Consider that if these are conventional then natural forcing must be conventional as the only difference is range.

 

Negative Free Bids (I assume this is what you mean) are currently one of my favourite toys.

 

[*] Use of negative doubles as "card showing", with little distributional info (e.g. generic 8-11, usually balanced, regardless of majors).

 

At lower levels this may be so. At higher levels this is how to play negative doubles in my opinion. Catering your bidding to finding an elusive four-four fit after the opponents have pre-empted is a big loser IMO. When you find it you do not know whether you want to be there - bad breaks and all.

[bearmum]

What about the 1♠-overcall of a strong 1♣, showing "13 cards"?

I guess THAT would have to be alerted??? :lol: :P

[Chamaco]

Gambling 3NT may not be a good convention but is there a better use for 3NT.

3Nt broken minor preempt associated to Namyats is IMO much better than Gambling 3NT which let the wrong hand play 3NT.

[Chamaco]

Control showing early maybe back to front but some palooka Italians won many world championships with this method.

I am Italian , so I know ... LOL

But recently, in an interview, even Garozzo has changed his mind, stating that in modern bidding, people interfering with yarboroughs, it is fundamental to give distribution first :lol:

[Cascade]

Gambling 3NT may not be a good convention but is there a better use for 3NT.

3Nt broken minor preempt associated to Namyats is IMO much better than Gambling 3NT which let the wrong hand play 3NT.

We played the broken minor pre-empt for a while and I did not like it. Partner never knows when to pass.

 

And although I still play Namyats I am not sure that they are a great convention.

 

Having two bids for a 4-level major pre-empt is over-kill especially when some of them can be opened at the one-level.

[Chamaco]

Gambling 3NT may not be a good convention but is there a better use for 3NT.

3Nt broken minor preempt associated to Namyats is IMO much better than Gambling 3NT which let the wrong hand play 3NT.

We played the broken minor pre-empt for a while and I did not like it. Partner never knows when to pass.

 

And although I still play Namyats I am not sure that they are a great convention.

 

Having two bids for a 4-level major pre-empt is over-kill especially when some of them can be opened at the one-level.

Playing 3NT as broken minor, the key to decide whether to pass or not is strict definition of the quality of 4 level preempt.

 

My pard will pass only at fav., expecting very little.

Our preempts are destructive.

 

-----------------

 

Namyats shd be played only by 1st-2nd seat, they are very descriptive and pard will know if slam is possible.

3rd seat-4th seat, all preempts are natural, regardles of suit quality (odds against slam even if one has 8/9 playing tricks in a major).

 

But I think the best advantage of 3NT broken minor is to avoid altogether gambling 3NT which wrongsides the contract.

 

The Gambling type hand can be opened either as 1m opening (1st-2nd seat) or as a 4-level preempt (3rd-4th seat) with little loss.

[Chamaco]

I am not sure that all of these are conventions in the strictest sense of the word.

well, I do not know.

 

If Negative free bid and wjs is not a convention, then neither inverted minors are. (same phylosophy= the suit bid is natural but the hcp content promised is different from "standard").

 

I think that any treatment which adopts different hcp ranges from standard is a convention, even if the bid is not artificial in the distributional sense.

But I may be wrong of course.

 

In this case, preemptive raises are NOT a convention, Walsh major-suit-first is not a convention, and so forth.

Yet they change the picture of bidding dramatically, compared to "standard" (SAYC?) bidding.

 

I guess it' just a matter of semantic definition.

 

In the actual world, these bids are treatment that include some specific agreements between partners and that that expect specific sequences of possible rebids.

And they have an underlying phylosophy.

[helene_t]

I am not sure that all of these are conventions in the strictest sense of the word.

I think that any treatment which adopts different hcp ranges from standard is a convention, even if the bid is not artificial in the distributional sense.

In that case the meaning of "convention" depends on what happens to be standard in one's culture. For example, in British English a strong 1NT would be a convention, whereas in American English a weak 1NT would be a convention. Not a very practical definition for an international discussion group.

 

I would prefer to define "convention" as "a standardized agreement which is arbitrarily chosen in the sense that one can immagine a different use for the same call". 7NT=to play is not a convention. Most other elements of a bidding system are.

[hrothgar]

I think that any treatment which adopts different hcp ranges from standard is a convention, even if the bid is not artificial in the distributional sense. But I may be wrong of course.

You are wrong.

 

The Laws of Bridge provide a definition for word convention as applied to Bridge:

 

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.

 

From my perspective, the "value" of definitions gets eroded considerably if people start extending them.

 

Case in point:

 

The worst thing that ever happened in Online Bridge was ressurecting SAYC from the dustheap of history.

 

The second worst thing was splintering SAYC into 1001 different variants so that no one actually understands what SAYC refers to....

[EarlPurple]

• Gambling 3NT.
   
  It wrong-sides the declarership but otherwise is not an unreasonable convention.
   
  
• Equal level conversion
   
  Totally disagree with you. The best way to show such hands.
   
  
• Weak jump shift not in competition.
   
  Agree if it's over a natural opening minor, but it seems the best use for the bid is to show a limited hand with a good suit. The alternative is to use the bid as a fit-showing jump.
   
  By jump-shifting with the hands on which you do, you change the meaning of an auction such as 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥. That might be a good thing.
   
  
• Unusual 2NT (not the convention per se, but its most common application).
  it's good when it works :P
   
  
• Strong 2C opening.
  Agree that strong 1-level opening is better :P
   
  
• Any convention that gives controls before distribution at the first round of bidding (without a known fit).
  Sort-of agree - are you referring to responses to strong 1♣ bid?
   
  
• Free negative bids (no pun intended, FREE ! :lol: ).
  
• Use of negative doubles as "card showing", with little distributional info (e.g. generic 8-11, usually balanced, regardless of majors).
   
  These two go hand in hand.
  

[PriorKnowledge]

The following conventions are so terrible, that when I see these on someone's CC, I immediately know they don't really understand bridge.

 

MUD - Absolutely the worst. It was very popular for a long time and as a novice, I even played it. I believe its popularity can only be attributed to its Cute Acronym.

 

Point-Showing Step Responses to 2C - Control responses at least convey some useful information. But wasting bidding space to find out that responder has a few Q & J has to be the ultimate in useless information to a strong 2C opener. Worse, it could easily wrong side the final contract.

 

Roth-Stone System - Gone, but not forgotten. I think R-S's greatest achievement was passing out a slam in a national championship event. (They probably did it more than once.)

 

Stolen Bid Double - A license to steal.

[Rain]

Here is my list in no particular order:

 

Gerber

Support Doubles and Redoubles

Negative Double of 1♥ promising four spades

Baron over 2NT

Various Defenses to 1NT

Short minor suit opening in an otherwise natural system

Fishbein

3NT for takeout over a pre-empt

 

 

Probably many more that are so bad I cannot think of them now.

Hey Wayne,

 

Wanna elaborate on why these conventions are so terrible?

 

Rain