What about BEST convention ?

[hrothgar]

Some funny things could happen at these 'anything goes' tournaments. Pretend I'm a professional with all the tricks. I notice that those two MOSCITOs are one of the seeded pairs in my direction (N/S). On all the E-W chairs, I put a copy of my optimal MOSCITO defenses so that their opponents will be ready to handle 'em.

 

Of course, the timing has to be just right, otherwise one of the skeeters will pick them up and throw 'em out (or even better, replace them with some crappy defense with my letterhead on it!)

Why would I bother with anything this complicated. Its much easier to simply drug the coffee supply. Alternative, a lead pipe to the knee cap can really slow down the competition...

[skorchev]

I think the most important conventions are:

 

1st) Fit raises - j2nt, 2nt-limit raise, minisplinters, splinters, suit+fit, drury, pre-emptive raise, constructive raises, raises after 1M-DBL, inverted minor, etc.

 

2nd) The usual old Blackwood ;)

 

3rd) The count singnals in defence

 

Stefan

[helene_t]

I wonder what the big problem with moscito openings is anyway... It's strong ♣ - easy defense, limited openings in transfer - so the 1♦ and 1♥ openings even give away more space for opps [....]

Yes, but how many opps in a pair's tournament fully exploit the extra defence possibilities offered by treansfer openings? My experience is 0% (I don't play Moscito but some conventions that are comparable with respect to this issue). You're probably playing in a stronger field than I am, but still.

 

Not that this is a big issue - as long as bread&butter defence works reasonably against Moscito. But if you really want to test how your methods perform compared to standard methods, you should make sure that opps have equably adequate defence against your methods as against standard methods.

[hrothgar]

>Yes, but how many opps in a pair's tournament fully exploit the extra defence

>possibilities offered by transfer openings? My experience is 0% (I don't play

>MOSCITO but some conventions that are comparable with respect to this issue).

>You're probably playing in a stronger field than I am, but still.

 

>Not that this is a big issue - as long as bread&butter defence works reasonably

>against MOSCITO. But if you really want to test how your methods perform

>compared to standard methods, you should make sure that opps have equably

>adequate defence against your methods as against standard methods.

 

Few comments here:

 

1. If the opponents need me to provide them with a defense to a given method, then that defense needs to be designed to be as simple as possible. A simple defense, though suboptimal defense that the opponents can assimilate easily is worth a LOT more that a highly complex "optimal" defense that will constantly be misapplied

 

2. Opponents who want to employ "optimal" defenses are going to need to invest some time/effort on their defensive bidding agreements. However, I rarely see this done by anyone but established International level partnerships. In most cases, the powers that be find it more convenient to simply ban methods that they don't happen to like.

 

3. I'd love to be able to test MOSCITO thoroughly in top level level play. Regretfully, I think that the major conclusions reached would be that my defense / declarer play is substandard, but so be it. With this said and done, members of the ACBL Conventions Committee have specifically stated that they are manipulating the regulatory structure to specifically prevent MOSCITO from being played in the United States.

[Yzerman]

Favorite Convention:

 

2 way-NMF (xyz checkback)

[keylime]

Got a new favorite convention, learned it here at the regional:

 

3NT = 5-5 or better in the majors

 

This hand type has come up SIX times in two full days. No, I'm not using it, but I like who is. :P

[Gerben47]

How strong is this 3NT, keylime? Is it a preempt?

[keylime]

My understanding is 7 to bad 11. I'll ask the pairs using it tomorrow.

[the hog]

This is a losing bid. Far better to play 2H or 2S as this sort of opening, Why pre empt everyone when you have the Majors.

 

Far better still is to play 2H or 2S as majors or minors, but I guess this is another banned convention in ACBL land.

[pbleighton]

"Far better still is to play 2H or 2S as majors or minors, but I guess this is another banned convention in ACBL land. "

 

3NT as 5-5 must have at least 10 hcp to be GCC legal, but maybe this was a midchart event.

 

I like cool-sounding premmptive bids B) but not this one. The opps don't have a major suit game they want to be in. Why do you want to play at the 4 level with a likely 8 card (maybe 9 card) fit to stop an improbable game?

 

If I was going to play it, it would be NV only with 0-4 hcp, but I still wouldn't be happy.

 

Peter

[ochinko]

To name the best convention I will choose as criteria:

1) high frequency

2) high benefits

3) no memory burden

Hi everyone!

 

I couldn't agree more with the principles from parent's post.

 

To me best conventions are not isolated but come in packages like, for example, Michaels cue buds and unusual NT.

 

I am particularly fond of combining multi and Muiderberg. Multi is a 2♦ opening showing a 6 card major weak hand (no more than 3 cards in the other major, and at most one ace in the hand) or a strong balanced hand. Muiderberg is a 2♥/♠ opening showing exactly 5 cards in the bid major, and 4+ cards in unspecified minor (when vulnerable it is prefered that the minor contains 5 cards as well, or your HCP must be closer to the top of the weak hand that you described). Such weak hands come very often, and you are able to describe your hand immediately and accurately with an extra added value of preempting the opponents.

 

If your strong option of multi promisses 20-22 HCP you can now open 2NT with 5:5 in both minors and 8-10 HCP (make sure your partner wont get confused here though :), and, of course, don't forget to alert and explain).

 

It gets even better when you add multilandy to these gadgets. Multilandy is a way to intervene after opponents open 1NT. 2♦ promisses a single major suit (like in multi), 2♥/♠ promisses that major and a minor (just like Muiderberg), 2NT promisses both minors (like unusual NT), double is for penalty, and 2♣ shows both majors (the only thing you have to remember if you already know multi and Muiderberg).

 

Another nice package follows the principle of fast arrival. It says that all jumps from the responder or overcaller are weak. Here we combine weak jump overcalls, weak jump shifts (when no intervention), Bergen raises, and reversed minors. Again, you describe your values precisely, quickly, and without unnecessarily exciting your partner. You enter and exit the bidding immediately leaving the opponents wondering whether to pass, double, or explore their own possibilities.

[Free]

Hi, welcome to the forum :) You'll notice that there are lots of other gadgets which are even better in some cases.

 

Btw, are you from Belgium or the Netherlands? They play a lot of multi-muiderberg and multi-landy stuff :)

[ochinko]

Hi, welcome to the forum  :)  You'll notice that there are lots of other gadgets which are even better in some cases.

 

Btw, are you from Belgium or the Netherlands?  They play a lot of multi-muiderberg and multi-landy stuff  :)

Thank you :)

 

Actually, I'm from Bulgaria where indeed these gadgets are not that popular but I noticed that many Turkish and Italian players on BBO use multi and Muiderberg too. It seems that the American players are among the few that remain faithful to the traditional weak two openings. Wilkosz is cool as well.

[paulhar]

It seems that the American players are among the few that remain faithful to the traditional weak two openings.

There's a reason for that.

 

The improving player wants to practice bids that he's allowed to play in club games and tournaments.

 

Some people on BBO have partnerships that are both F2F and online. They don't want to play one system online and other F2F. And, here in the US, Multi, Muiderberg, etc. aren't allowed in F2F at most levels.

[paulhar]

Wilkosz is cool as well.

I just looked it up - I agree wholeheartedly, it's quite cool. If you played Wilkosz, would 2H & 2S be weak, or is there a better use for them?

 

I guess that an improvement would be 2D Wilkosz, 2H Ekrens, 2S normal weak (could be 5S + 4 card minor), give up on the weak 2 in hearts (open 3H if you have to :) )

[pclayton]

It seems that the American players are among the few that remain faithful to the traditional weak two openings.

There's a reason for that.

 

The improving player wants to practice bids that he's allowed to play in club games and tournaments.

 

Some people on BBO have partnerships that are both F2F and online. They don't want to play one system online and other F2F. And, here in the US, Multi, Muiderberg, etc. aren't allowed in F2F at most levels.

I think Muiderberg is OK (one known suit), but why play it if you can't have 2♦ as multi?

 

I see this changing; Southern California seems to be on the leading edge of things with the ACBL; we allow Suction at regionals, and more of the midchart stuff is allowed in the open regional team events. I played against one pair that used 2♦ as undisciplined weak 2 (0-8 HCP) and 2♥/2♠ as a disciplined call.

 

I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if the pendulum is starting to swing back.

[the hog]

A further improvement is:

 

2D Multi, various flavours

2H - 5/5 unspecified major minor

2S Majors minors 5/5

2N unspecified minor pre empt

3m constructive pre empts

 

Or you could try Tutti Frutti 2 bids

[helene_t]

Even better is:

2♥: 6 hearts, or 5+ (if 5, not-to-long spades and some distribution, thus 4+ in a minor) depending on circumstances

2♠: 6 spades, or 5 (idem)

Advantages of this are:

- much less memory burden

- you can agree to play weak two with a casual p. You can't agree to play multi, since there are too many differences between the 1001 conventions which are called "multi". (For example, what does 2♦-(double)-redouble mean?)

- if LHO doubles a natural preempt, RHO is forced to bid, which becomes less informative than if you opened an artificial preempt

- LHO can't first pass and then ballance with a modest, distributional hand

- idem for RHO if you have spades

- LHO can't overcall spades with hearts

- in situations where you would't open a weak two with a 5-card (such as 2nd seat vuln), you can show you hand more accurately after p's 2NT relay since he already knows which suit you have

- p can bid the other major naturally since it is not convertible

- p can double an interference in a major for penalties since it is not convertible

- 2♦ free for other purpose

- Opps don't know if you have 5 or 6, thus more difficult to decide when to pass a double. Also during play it is an advantage to conceal your excact shape

- no risk of dishonest gains due to opoents that haven't agreed on defence against artificial preempts

- no risk of non-verbal signals that expose whether you have the strong or the weak version

- p can support your weak 2 preemptively without the risk that you have the strong version

- p can support your weak 2 preemptively even when short in the other major

 

In particular, if you play multi-landy (which IS a nice convention, I agree with that), it is scarry also to play multi/Muiderberg, because partner may think that they are analogous which they are not. 2♦-2♥-3m means something completely different in the two situations, as does 2M-3m.

[ochinko]

Even better is:

2♥: 6 hearts, or 5+ (if 5, not-to-long spades and some distribution, thus 4+ in a minor) depending on circumstances

2♠: 6 spades, or 5 (idem)

This looks like a matter of personal taste and preferences :D

 

I mean, it is obviously more flexible but not descriptive enough if your pair follows strictly the Law of total tricks. Your partner wouldn't know the level to which s/he can safely raise your major suit, and this could prove fatal on matchpoints.

 

On the other hand, with favorable vulnerability I would overcall 1m with 2♠ almost every time I have ♠KQ109x and no outside values, no matter how many hearts I have. Let the opponents start looking for a heart fit at the third level.

 

Openings should be more disciplined though, I believe.

[ochinko]

I just looked it up - I agree wholeheartedly, it's quite cool.  If you played Wilkosz, would 2H & 2S be weak, or is there a better use for them?

 

For me weak 2♥/♠ only make sense when combined with Wilkosz which doesn't say much because I don't know that many conventions.

 

I just wish regulating authorities didn't behave so hyperactivlely :D

[ochinko]

A further improvement is:

--- snip ---

2H - 5/5 unspecified major minor

--- snip ---

But will you ever be able to pass 2♥ then?

 

On second reading of my posts I noticed that my English is almost as bad as my card play for which I beg forgiveness :D

[pbleighton]

I agree with Helene - I like 5 card weak 2s (including 2D) NV and in the 3rd seat V. It's true that they aren't LOTT-safe, but the opps (even decent ones) frequently wind up in terrible contracts.

 

Having said that, if the ACBL's GCC were modified to allow the multi, I would certainly try some sort of 2D = multi, 2M = Muiderberg or some other 2 suiter.

 

I looked at a bunch of the ccs from the Bermuda Bowl, and this type of arrangement was the choice of the overwhelming majority of pairs.

 

Peter

[Free]

Since we're talking about weak-2 openers in natural systems, I prefer:

2♦ Multi

2♥ 44+M

2♠ Muiderberg

because the 2♥ Muiderberg doesn't gain much, opps usually find their fit with ease, but 2♥ is a lot harder to defend against.

 

An alternative which I also like:

2♦ 44+ ♦-M

2♥ weak ♥ or ♠

2♠ Muiderberg (or Lucas - which includes 5♠-4♥)

[paulhar]

Or you could try Tutti Frutti 2 bids

I tried to find these online - when I have time to learn Polish (the language, not the system :D ), I'll be able to see what these are :)

[the hog]

I have posted them to bbo earlier this year.