Name the worst Convention

[Free]

Worst convention ever: something some people play at my local club: (1X)-2♣ = GF hand

 

Also close is normal Blackwood, normal Gerber, normal Muiderberg.

 

And if you really want to make it dirty: Lorenzo-two's (0-7HCP 4+ card) when Vulnerable <_<

[flytoox]

To those who list Blackwood as the candidate for worst convention, i think Blackwood is a pretty good convention, most of time it didnt work well only because the users didnt use it properly.

 

 

As for the worst, perhaps sth like Opp open 1x, you cuebid 3x, asking pd, do u have a long solid minor suit pd? I do have a stopper:)

[Chamaco]

I'd like to add to the list of "worse-ever" convention, the application of the Jordan/Truscott invitational+ unbalanced raise to minors openings.

 

1m-(1Y)-2NT or

1m-(Dbl)-2NT or

1m-pass-2NT

 

Used as 10+ with good support for the minor is the very best way to wrongside the 3NT contract.

Obviously the conventional use of 2NT is not a problem when you have a fit in a major .

[helene_t]

During my training to become a bridge teacher, we were asked to provide examples to illustrate Blackwood. It appeared that in the old versions of a Dutch beginner's bridge course, control-showing cuebids were introducd only after Blackwood, which was criticised because it is difficult to argue why not to use Gerber if you haven't mentioned cuebids, and apparently the Dutch Bridge Federation is fighting a religion war against Gerber. Therefore the order was reversed in the new version, which was reason enough for our instructor to recommend using the old version, since beginners will never understand cuebids.

 

I said that I would, given the premise that Gerber is a swearword, choose not to teach any slam conventions at all, because beginners have huge problems telling quantis and Blackwood appart, and also frequently use Blackwood when they want to play in clubs. Then they sign-off in 5NT if 5♦ shows too few aces, but partner thinks 5NT is king-asking ......

 

The answer I got from our instructor was that that is excactly the reason why we must teach Blackwood: it is so obviously flawed that beginners will not be tempted to use it. Teaching Gerber would cause beginners to become obcessed with the number of aces. Therefore I conclude that Blackwood is even worse than Gerber.

 

Another silly slam convention is the Zimbabwe convention, which asks for the 7 of diamonds. According to some obscure survey, most slams are defeated if the 7 of diamonds is lead. However, since the dummy is obliged to buy a beer for declarer if the 7 of diamonds wins the last trick, it is probably better to bid more conservatively if you do have that card, because declarer might get obcessed with the possibility of earning a beer and therefore use a sub-optimal playing strategy. So I recommend not to use the Zimbabwe convention, but use inverted Zimbawe instead.

[Gerben47]

An impressive list before of good conventions that are suggested as "worst".

 

Negative Double of 1h promising four spades

---> Easily improved if you play double showing 4 or more spades and 1S denying 4S.

 

Short minor suit opening in an otherwise natural system

----> If it's so bad then why are almost all good pairs playing this?

 

Blackwood

----> Conventions that people misuse are not per se bad. Blackwood is VERY IMPORTANT in some auctions if you want to avoid a slam with say 30-32 HCP but off two aces. You just need to know when, as with all bids.

 

Weak jump shift not in competition.

----> Not a convention, it's natural bidding

----> If you suggested this go read http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~di...e/weakjump.html

 

Namyats

-----> I think this is a very good convention. Today I held 8 hearts to the KQ and AQx in a side suit. 1H? And let them find their fit cheaply? 4H? And miss slam?

No thanks! Namyats please.

 

Exclusion Blackwood

-----> See comments for Blackwood. Same applies if you have a void.

 

Gerben

[mikestar]

I'd like to add to the list of "worse-ever" convention, the application of the Jordan/Truscott invitational+ unbalanced raise to minors openings.

 

1m-(1Y)-2NT or

1m-(Dbl)-2NT or

1m-pass-2NT

 

Used as 10+ with good support for the minor is the very best way to wrongside the 3NT contract.

I agree 100%. Let's look at them case by case:

 

1m-(1Y)-2NT: this should be natural, why not 1m-(1Y)-2Y for the raise?

 

1m-(Dbl)-2NT: the best use of this is from Bill Root's convention book--natural but based on support for partner's minor. Here you bid it when you have the sort of hand that wants to declare NT as well as having the support. (With a game inv+ balanced hand without the support, you redouble.) Flip-flop (3m=invitational, 2NT=preemptive raise of minor) is less dreadful perhaps as we are less likely to bid game--but the wrongsiding will hurt worse when it happens and the preemption will be less effective.

 

1m-pass-2NT: this is just insane. Inverted minors anyone? If you don't care for this, there are several other methods that provide a full range of minor raises without using 2NT.

[Free]

Namyats is quite fine, but not in 3rd & 4th seat imo. Any thoughts?

[whereagles]

In 3rd and 4th seat namyats is a bit pointless, yes. Namyats was meant to help partner distinguish between a good and a bad 4M preempt, but opposite a passed pard that's not important as being able to open a 4m preempt, which can really mess up things for opponents much more than a "mere" 3m pree.

[inquiry]

Too many people are picking on Blackwood, so I thought I had better stand up for this one and defend it. The problem with blackwood is not that it is a bad convention, the problem is that it is used wrongly by too many players as a crutch in their slam bidding. I suspect that 96% of bridge players would bid better if you took blackwood away from them for 2 years, and forced them to learn cue-bidding to check for controls. Blackwood should only be used AFTER you are certain you are not off two quick tricks somewhere, or perhpas when you know you have a great preponderence of HCP and you are going to bid grand slam on power, and just checking to make sure that your 36-38 hcp or so does not include a missing ACE.

 

Here is an example hand from yesterday.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skq96hkqj64dcak43&s=sajt542ha7dak82c7]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

TABLE 1

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♣!

 3♦    4♦    Pass  4♠

 Pass  4NT   Pass  5♣

 Pass  7♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

 

Table II

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♠

 3♦    4♥!   Pass  4NT

 Pass  5♠    Pass  6♥

 Pass  7♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

The results here are of course excellent, 7♠ is cold. But let's examine the use of blackwood here, especially at table I. North was lucky his partner had all three missing keycards, if he had two, this could be a grand slam or not depending on who held the ♦A... if partner, no grand is possible, if opponent, grand is still a great beat (north can imagine 5♥+5/6♠+2♣+2♦ruffs). Here is totally inappropriate for north to use blackwood.

 

At table II, north might have taken a huge risk bidding 4♥ if that was a passable fit jump (I am not sure what alert means). South's hand is great for blackwood, as he has first or second round control in all four suits. The grand slam might be based on some agreement about the quality of 4♥ that I don't know.

 

But north missed the obvious call on both of these hands. The right call, it seems to me is not 4♥ or 4♦, but rather 5♦ by north as exclusion blackwood. South will show two keycards outside of ♦ and north can comfortably bid the grand slam.

 

When used properly, Blackwood is an absolutely essential weapon for your arsenal, and it very much deserves its place among the most popular conventions. Sadly, too few use it properly, I shudder everytime my partner in an individual pulls it out... 90% of the time, they shouldn't be bidding it.

 

Ben

[luis]

Ben,

 

Isn't it funny that, to defend blackwood, you choose two hands where it has been missused ? :-)

[luis]

One of the funniest "Blackwood moments" ever seen ocurred in a Juniors Zonal Championship when the following hand appeared:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakxxxhkqxdxcajxx&w=sxxhxdxxxxxcxxxxx&e=sxhjxxxxdaqjxxxcx&s=sqjxxxhaxxxdkckqx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

North opened 1s

East interposed a 3d bid

South bid 4d

West doubled

Now north used 4NT to ask for aces

East passed

And south bid 5c (one ace)

West decided it was time to bid 5d

North passed using the "forcing pass" something that was new and fancy for him

East passed

And now South bid 5NT (alerted on both sides as "asking for kings")

West passed

and North bid 6h showing 2 kings.

 

Now north knew about aces

And South about kings

 

Eventually in a classic juniors move South bid 7d (!!!!!!!!!!!)

North thought for a zillion years and emerged with a 7s bid

 

And yes East lead a heart.....

[inquiry]

Ben,

 

Isn't it funny that, to defend blackwood, you choose two hands where it has been missused ? :-)

No, it is not funny, it was intentional. I wanted to show why people posting in this thread might list blackwood as "the worst convention". It is my point that it is not a bad convention, but rather one that is commonly misused. We have all seen 1NT-4NT and 1NT-2C-2D-4NT used (incorrectly as blackwood)... it is murdered all the time. Misuse doesn't make it a bad convention... use it correctly and it is golden.

 

Ben

[JRG]

I'd like to add to the list of "worse-ever" convention, the application of the Jordan/Truscott invitational+ unbalanced raise to minors openings.

 

1m-(1Y)-2NT or

1m-(Dbl)-2NT or

1m-pass-2NT

 

Used as 10+ with good support for the minor is the very best way to wrongside the 3NT contract.

Obviously the conventional use of 2NT is not a problem when you have a fit in a major .

I play that -- sort of.

 

First, with with Dormer/Jordan you don't play 1x - 1y - 2NT showing 10+ with support. It is only used after a double (1x - Dbl - 2NT).

 

The other thing is that when applied to the minors, a lot of people do what we do and reverse the meanings of a jump raise to the 3-level and 2NT (for exactly the reason you specify):

 

1m - Dbl - 3m = Limit raise

1m - Dbl - 2NT = Preemptive raise to 3 of minor

 

You lose a bit of the preemptive effect (because advancer can cue-bid your minor at the 3-level over your 2NT bid), but it seems to work OK.

[Trpltrbl]

Namyats is quite fine, but not in 3rd & 4th seat imo. Any thoughts?

I think Namyats in 3 rd seat is great.

In 4th seat I play it as fairly strong, kinda what an old Acol 2 opening would have been. But not much defense.

Any convention has some use to it, if you discuss it properly.

Execpt Flannery of course :D

 

Mike :unsure:

[Fluffy]

I found this post to late :-(

 

Worst conventions in my opinion:

 

Cappeletti

Gerber

'always lead highest in partner´s suit'

2♣ strong, asking for aces (albarran)

Flannery

[luke warm]

Namyats is quite fine, but not in 3rd & 4th seat imo.  Any thoughts?

I think Namyats in 3 rd seat is great.

In 4th seat I play it as fairly strong, kinda what an old Acol 2 opening would have been. But not much defense.

Any convention has some use to it, if you discuss it properly.

Execpt Flannery of course :P

 

Mike :D

sigh... :)

 

i guess that settles it mike... the world champions who use it should have checked with you first, so they'd know how useless a convention it really is

[Trpltrbl]

Execpt Flannery of course :D

 

Mike :)

sigh... :)

 

i guess that settles it mike... the world champions who use it should have checked with you first, so they'd know how useless a convention it really is

I will after I beat them :P And I really really hope it is a Flannery deal that settles it hehehe.

 

Mike :D

[EarlPurple]

Benji Acol is the worst convention to hit the UK. In Benji Acol, 2♦ is a game-force while 2♣ is a strong hand with at least 8 playing tricks in any unspecified suit, and both can be used for strong NT ranges.

 

It is bad because it wastes two 2-level bids for sequences that rarely show up and can be integrated into one anyway.

 

In 1996, while I was doing my usual Brighton report, I was chatting to some ladies who were playing Benji Acol. I asked them how many times yet it had come up - not at all was the response, as expected. I told them that for a pairs tournament, it would be better if they made 2♦ a straightforward weak 2 bid, and combined all the strong hands into 2♣. I have generally found that a weak 2♦ bid comes up 1-2 times in a session of 24 boards, and can be quite effective when it does.

 

Another convention that is popular in the UK is the multi 2♦ opening. This gained popularity because players did not want to give up their strong twos in the majors. Of course in MP it is not good to play strong twos as they are unlikely to come up that often, and for it to be a bad board, you'd have to open with a bid of 1, have it passed out and miss game. My issue against the multi is that it is relatively easy to defend against - with an intermediate hand you just double, because it's unlikely the opps will play the hand in 2♦-X (or XX) with profit that often. Some players combine [2di] as a single-suit weak 2 with 2♥ and 2♠ showing two-suited hands. This is a much better treatment, though I still think the regular weak 2 is more effective on the hands where that is what you hold.

 

Someone has brought up here the law of total tricks. True, it is an inaccurate measure, but is the basis behind the safety of many conventions, such as interfering over strong club/diamond bids and 1NT openers. I think it is a reasonable guide to showing how far one should raise, but knowing partner will raise you to the level of the trump support is very very useful to know when making decisions. If I have a suit AKxxx and overcall and partner fails to raise at all, it is potentially useful to know that the ace and king are likely to stand up in defence.

 

And there is nothing worse than risking your neck to come in while partner sits there passing away because he refuses to raise you with "only 5 points", which happen to include Kxxx in one of your suits and Qx in the other.

[Chamaco]

Benji Acol is the worst convention to hit the UK. In Benji Acol, 2♦ is a game-force while 2♣ is a strong hand with at least 8 playing tricks in any unspecified suit, and both can be used for strong NT ranges.

 

It is bad because it wastes two 2-level bids for sequences that rarely show up and can be integrated into one anyway.

 

In 1996, while I was doing my usual Brighton report, I was chatting to some ladies who were playing Benji Acol. I asked them how many times yet it had come up - not at all was the response, as expected. I told them that for a pairs tournament, it would be better if they made 2♦ a straightforward weak 2 bid, and combined all the strong hands into 2♣. I have generally found that a weak 2♦ bid comes up 1-2 times in a session of 24 boards, and can be quite effective when it does.

 

Another convention that is popular in the UK is the multi 2♦ opening. This gained popularity because players did not want to give up their strong twos in the majors. Of course in MP it is not good to play strong twos as they are unlikely to come up that often, and for it to be a bad board, you'd have to open with a bid of 1, have it passed out and miss game. My issue against the multi is that it is relatively easy to defend against - with an intermediate hand you just double, because it's unlikely the opps will play the hand in 2♦-X (or XX) with profit that often. Some players combine [2di] as a single-suit weak 2 with 2♥ and 2♠ showing two-suited hands. This is a much better treatment, though I still think the regular weak 2 is more effective on the hands where that is what you hold.

 

Someone has brought up here the law of total tricks. True, it is an inaccurate measure, but is the basis behind the safety of many conventions, such as interfering over strong club/diamond bids and 1NT openers. I think it is a reasonable guide to showing how far one should raise, but knowing partner will raise you to the level of the trump support is very very useful to know when making decisions. If I have a suit AKxxx and overcall and partner fails to raise at all, it is potentially useful to know that the ace and king are likely to stand up in defence.

 

And there is nothing worse than risking your neck to come in while partner sits there passing away because he refuses to raise you with "only 5 points", which happen to include Kxxx in one of your suits and Qx in the other.

Agree on all points raised by Earl:

 

1) 2C/2D as semiGF/GF are a waste of bidding space.

If the purpose is to limit 1-level opening bids, so that , for example, with 16/17 u can open 1H and jump rebid 3m without setting a GF, then when u do have a 18/19 two suiter u will have to open it 2C, and I hate boith 2C and 2D as strong undefined 2-suiter.

Bsides, strong 2C opening is already bad "per se", self-preemptive, and most experts do not have a really good followup for unbvalancced hands.

Why adding another bad opening which increases even nmore the same shortcomings ?

 

2) Multi 2D loses preemption in terms of a normal weak 2 (lose altogether weak 2 in D, preempts lower if ur suit is a major).

Yet, I am willing to accept this if this frees other preemptive bids (2H/S/NT). On balance, I'd pick the structures which will help me preempting more often.

 

3) Law of Total Trick: it's "adoration" and abuse may be bad, but so is the one of Goren point count. Good agreements with pard on policy of showing support and how high, can be very useful also for negative infgerences, as Earl mentioned.

[EarlPurple]

I do not know why, by the way, so many players here have criticized the use of a double of a 1♥ overcall to be used when holding only 4 spades, while the bid of 1♠ promises 5. Personally I find this very useful.

 

eg: opener has Qxx xx AQJxx KJx and opens 1♦. Auction continue 1♥ by LHO, 1♠ by partner, 2♥ by RHO. Now I can happily support to 2♠ with 3. even just Qxx. If partner doubles 1♥ instead, I probably have to pass 2♥ now, but if partner re-opens with a double I will bid 3♦. Partner could have:

 

Kxxx xxx x AQxxx (How do we reach 3♣ ?)

Kxxx xxx xx Axxx (probably best to pass)

Kxxx xx Kxx Qxxx (we could compete to 3♦ at least)

 

On none of those though do I want to be in 2♠

[mr1303]

Ben, I had the South hand at table 1. That hand came straight out of this week's Jr Flight tournament.

 

My 1♣ opening was a precision 1C, not a ridiculous bid, which is the impression you gave with your exclamation mark.

 

However, my partner really should have known better, as we do play exclusion RKCB in this situation.

 

Mark

[MickyB]

Mark, I think Ben's exclamation mark indicated that 1♣ was artificial. And I have no memory of agreeing voidwood on a sequence like that, otherwise I would have bid it!

[whereagles]

About multi: I don't like it. The only reason for using it is to free up 2♥/♠, and that isn't important. I mean.. what will you use it for?

 

Strong-twos? You can bid those via 2♣.

Weak 54 two-suiters? Just pretend you have a 1-suiter and bid the major.

Weak 55 two-suiters? Possible, but they just don't come up that often.

2♥/♠ as stronger 3♣/♦ preempt? Could be useful, but only in 1st/2nd seat.

 

So, multi's advantage is rather small and its disadvantages are many: not always clear what suit pard has, easier to defend than a weak two, unable to open a weak two in diamonds...

 

I say BIN IT :rolleyes:

[inquiry]

Ben, I had the South hand at table 1. That hand came straight out of this week's Jr Flight tournament.

 

My 1♣ opening was a precision 1C, not a ridiculous bid, which is the impression you gave with your exclamation mark.

 

However, my partner really should have known better, as we do play exclusion RKCB in this situation.

 

Mark

I used Cascade's most excellent program (linconverter.exe), to convert the hands and auctions from my hand log (I was kibitizing) to post the hand and auction. The exclaimation marks are not something I inserted, but rather how the software indicates that the bid was alerted. So the exclamation mark by "your" 1C bid (I am not certain it was you or not, but as there was only four tables, it probably was) simply means that you (CORRECTLY) alerted your opening bid. Besides, exlamation points should be used to indicate "great bid" if not used for alerts, similarly to marks in chess, with ? meaning bad bid and !? meaning speculative bid I guess... if one wanted to use such marks.

 

Sorry you misunderstood...

 

Ben

[the hog]

"So, multi's advantage is rather small and its disadvantages are many: not always clear what suit pard has, easier to defend than a weak two"

 

The above comment is totally incorrect as most will recognise!

 

The multi 2D is of course, an extremely useful bid, particularly if you are using the mini - multi, where it shows a weak 2 in either major only and thus is non forcing. It puts a great deal of pressure on the opponents. Using the multi means that 2H/S can be used to show 5-5 hands - an extremely useful treatment. You do, of course , lose the ability to open a weak 2D, but that bid does not have a lot of pre emptive effect, though it can be useful.