What is this convention?

[jh51]

I was discussing system with a former partner with whom I will be playing in about a month. She mentioned a convention that she had either recently played or played against. She did not know its name, but she described it as follows:

 

After 1m-1M-2M (m being a minor suit, M being same major, no opposition bidding), 2NT shows an at least invitatinal hand and asks about the quality of opener's hand and major suit. The responses are as follows:

3C=3 card support and minimum

3D=3 card support and maximum

3H=4 card support and minimum

3S=4 card support and maximum

 

Note: It is possible that this description is not totally accurate.

 

Is anyone familiar with this convention, know it's name, or where I can learn more about it? If you are familiar with it, do you have any comments or criticisms of it?

[gwnn]

it's fine. I don't know the name of it.

 

if you have a good good hand with 4 cards, you can also splinter with it to the 4 level.

[ggwhiz]

I ran into another variation where the response to 2nt is suits that you would accept a help suit game try in (high card wise) up the line or splinter.

 

Supposed to handle a 1M - 2M hand where 2M is constructive and opener has a couple of equal choices of help suit tries.

 

That one doesn't have a name either.

[ArtK78]

I play it. I don't know the name of it. If you frequently raise responder's major suit bids on 3 cards, this works nicely in helping you determine the proper level and strain to play.

 

Can't help you with any references other than my own experience and the fact that a number of better players use this gadget.

[jjbrr]

Ya I've never heard the name for this, though I recall something similar to it be referred to as spiral something.

 

I prefer 1m 1M 2M 2M+1 to be the ask.

 

There are better responses to the ask than those, but those are good because theyre easy to remember.

[jjbrr]

Ya I've never heard the name for this, though I recall something similar to it be referred to as spiral something.

 

I prefer 1m 1M 2M 2M+1 to be the ask.

 

There are better responses to the ask than those, but those are good because theyre easy to remember.

In fact, I know Gavin likes them, and he described them on his site:

 

Gavin's site

 

Edit: And Paul Bethe describes the method in OP as "Limited Meckwell"

 

the more you know...

[mcphee]

This method was a Benito tool I think, although is works a little differently as you can show a hand with shortness holding 4 trumps at a low level allowing 3N to be played when right.

 

Most good pairs use a toy along these lines to ask about the raise. It is very effective and can be used with any hand invitational or stronger. I like it a lot.

[RMB1]

Playing 1m-1M-2M-2N (or 1m-1H-2H-2S) as a relay allows 1m-1M-2M-3X as natural, non-forcing, invitational with exactly 4M. This is described in Robson and Segal and a one-time partner referred to it as "Robson" (if it needs a name).

[vang]

i think i saw it in a rosenkranz book

[Siegmund]

It's going by the ever-so-imaginative name of "3-3-4-4" among the handful of players that use it in my corner of the world.

 

As already mentioned, if you're going to play this, there are probably better responses to it, but it does have the merit of being simple.

[barmar]

I ran into another variation where the response to 2nt is suits that you would accept a help suit game try in (high card wise) up the line or splinter.

 

Supposed to handle a 1M - 2M hand where 2M is constructive and opener has a couple of equal choices of help suit tries.

 

That one doesn't have a name either.

That's Kokish Game Tries. If opener bids a suit instead of 2NT, that's a short suit game try in that suit.

[1eyedjack]

There is both convenience and dangers in seeking and assigning names to bridge conventions.

 

To be frank, the convention's "name" is irrelevant other than as a shorthand method for a new partnership to hack together a system in a short amount of time prior to play. Some of the problems with this are

1) Quite often a treatment is invented, usually independently by several separate sources, without bothering to assign a name to it (or assigning several names to it)

2) More critically, there are subtle differences in treatment between various options, all falling under the same "name", such as Lebensohl to name but one.

 

As to the merits of the particular convention discussed in this thread, I think it may depend on whether you are playing a strong 1N opener or a weak 1N opener, as this may affect the hand types on which you might consider raising responder with only 3 cards.

[aguahombre]

There is both convenience and dangers in seeking and assigning names to bridge conventions.

 

To be frank, the convention's "name" is irrelevant other than as a shorthand method......(snipped)

I disagree. This convention should definitely be assigned a name. Then when it occurs and is alerted (& asked), you have a tremendous advantage.

 

You can establish intellectual superiority by simply saying the name, as if anyone who is anyone should know it. Then, when the opps have been properly intimidated into asking no further questions, you are free to screw up the auction without risk of UI.

[jjbrr]

lol

[kfay]

It's true, that happens.

[pirate22]

AQUA you are serious?????????? so lets say the convention is called

 

"Drome" if clicked by an opponent you would state Drome feeling very superior,

I thought the spirit of BBO was to give a full explanation,not wasting time by being a Dick head.

perhaps i may have misintrepted your reply.

[the hog]

No sense of humour Pirate?

[pirate22]

My English sense of HUMOUR is top Drawer.........

perhaps newer players would think that is the done thing.

I can Visualise "AQUA" rising to his full height ,

and using his full SUPERIORITY:) regards

[Codo]

In Germany this is known as "Alster-Relay". Alster is a river in Hamburg and a Bridge Club too.

[barmar]

While it's inappropriate to use the convention name as an answer when asked for an explanation of the bid, it's still useful to have names for them. The name can be used in books and web pages that explain conventions (how else can you google them?), and can be written on convention cards (because even well designed CCs don't have enough room for complete descriptions of everything).

[Free]

A big problem with conventions is that nobody plays it exactly how it's described.

 

Ghestem is a great example. If I know what the definition of Ghestem is and my opps explain their call as "Ghestem", I wouldn't trust them to use the same definition. Moreover if you wouldn't ask and they play another version, you probably won't be able to convince the TD that your opps gave incorrect explanation.

[barmar]

A big problem with conventions is that nobody plays it exactly how it's described.

 

Ghestem is a great example. If I know what the definition of Ghestem is and my opps explain their call as "Ghestem", I wouldn't trust them to use the same definition. Moreover if you wouldn't ask and they play another version, you probably won't be able to convince the TD that your opps gave incorrect explanation.

That's why you're not supposed to give just the name when providing an explanation. But it's still a useful shorthand on the convention card.

[aguahombre]

Just in case there are others thinking I meant anything other than satire, I don't even use names of common conventions when asked ---not Puppet, not Lebensohl, not Roman, not Michaels, not even "relay".

 

And never "preemptive". And when someone says "Capp" in response to my inquiry, I merely ask, "What did 2C show?".

 

All of this is off track --sorry for that. In answer to OP: yes, I have seen it in action. Yes, it seems quite useful for a lot a pairs who use it. We don't choose to employ the method because we don't raise on 3 very often as opener and use 2NT for something else less sophisticated, but also allowing us to get out of a 4-3 fit if we want.

 

As always, the important thing with any gadget is whether YOU like it, and are willing to change a few things around to make room for it.

[jh51]

Gee, the reason why I asked originally is that I often like to see if there is additional information about a convention or treatmwnt on the internet. There are often implications of the non-use of a particular convention that might be discussed, or nuances that were not conveyed to me.

 

I will confess that it in the limited space that is available on the convention card it is useful to have something to call the convention. When opponents ask I describe our agreement.

[kenberg]

Myself, I would not feel abused if this agreement did not appear on the convention card. I doubt that there is any good place to put it, if you don't know the name of it I doubt most of the opponents will even if you find a name for it, so other than just your own need to be able to discuss it without saying thingamajig I doubt there is a problem.

 

From my point of view, 1m-1M-2M-2NT can be passed and can also be raised to 3NT. That is, 2NT a natural call. Nonetheless, I doubt 2NT as a general inquiry should be alerted even if it is not passable. The coded responses seem to require an alert, else I would think that, say, 1♦-1♠-2♠-2NT-3♦ probably shows extra length in diamonds and shape that suggests partner might not like playing in NT even if our spades fit is only seven cards. As long as I am alerted to the coded meaning, I have no problem with this not being on the cc or not having any particular name.