What bid did you dump from your agreements...

[barmar]

In my case I've played 1nt - 3 of a suit as everything from 5-5 weak/strong in the minors and 5-5 invite strong majors, natural invite... you name it. None of them come up or would have and get dumped on a regular basis.

Yeah, I can't remember the last time one of my 3-level responses came up (except using 3♣ as a transfer to ♦). And I've come up with a Murphy's Law of Bridge: if you discuss whether to use one convention or another, whichever you choose, the other type of hand will come up in that session.

[Cascade]

Many players use Criss-Cross: 1♣-2♦ and 1♦-3♣ are good raises.

 

Criss-Cross is simple.

 

1♣ 2♦ can be used very effectively as there is lots of room to explore. 1♦ 3♣ not so much.

 

My preferred method is:

 

1. Fit jumps into the majors 1m 2M 10+ 4+m 4+M

 

2. 1m 2NT GF raise no shortage

 

3. Splinters at the three level

[32519]

I guess I have tried and dropped as many things as anyone over the years. Some examples:-

 

FILM (loved this as a junior)

 

I couldn't find FILM doing a Google search. What is it? How does it work? Or better, do you know of a link to it?

 

I guess I have tried and dropped as many things as anyone over the years. Some examples:-

 

Gerber, Rolling Gerber, Roman Gerber, modified Gerber (the latter using 4NT as the king ask)

 

I daresay I could fill a couple of pages if I thought of every little thing.

Gerber we all know. What exactly are the other three?

[32519]

There were two gadgets that Shogi and I replaced with more natural methods, though. One was to get rid of G/B 2NT. The other was to replace Multi-Landy with Landy.

Very interesting this. Usually it is done the other way round i.e. replacing Landy with Multi-Landy.

[32519]

If he uses it against you, you know what he thinks of your expertise.

Pray, tell us all Barry; Why can we not upvote the posts of the forum moderators/admin if we think they have given a great reply to anything someone else has posted?

Anyway, +1 for this one.

[nigel_k]

What's your approach to hands that would normally make an inverted raise? I've played IM for long enough that I don't really know alternatives for creating forcing auctions in those situations. Would like to hear more. :)

 

(Somewhere I read an article by Matt Granovetter about a client who insisted on some insanely complicated system that nonetheless didn't have any way to show support for a minor with a strong hand, as he realized on an early deal when partner opened 1D opposite his 2362 17-count.)

Definitely use 2♦ over 1♣. Being one step higher doesn't cost. You lose whatever you were doing with 2♦ before, which for most people is nothing that matters.

 

Over 1♦, you can use 2♥. I don't mind losing a weak or intermediate jump shift and 3♣ as the only good raise doesn't leave enough space. You can still use 3♣ to cover some of the hand types though. If playing reverse flannery which I quite like, 2♠ has to be the main way of raising diamonds which is still ok.

[Cthulhu D]

Pray, tell us all Barry; Why can we not upvote the posts of the forum moderators/admin if we think they have given a great reply to anything someone else has posted?

Anyway, +1 for this one.

 

Use the edit button rather than triple post. It's bad practice.

[Zelandakh]

I couldn't find FILM doing a Google search. What is it? How does it work? Or better, do you know of a link to it?

FILM is Fishbein Incorporating Lower Minor, a very old-fashioned defence against 3 level preempts. It works like this:

 

X is penalty

3♣ - 3♦ is takeout

3♠ - 4♣ is takeout

3♦ - 4♣ is takeout denying 4 hearts

3♥ - 4♣ is takeout denying 4 spades

3♦ - 3♥ is takeout with 4+ hearts

3♥ - 3♠ is takeout with 4+ spades

other calls are as in Standard

 

 

Gerber we all know. What exactly are the other three?

Rolling Gerber is where the king ask is the next step after the ace response. My first teammates swore by Rolling Gerber. Roman Gerber is where the responses are 0/3, 1/4, 2 same colour, 2 same rank, 2 same shape. This was based on an early attempt to improve simple ace asking (Roman Blackwood) and recommended to me by one of my teachers. Modified Gerber was using 4NT as the king ask, the theory being that you only used Gerber with an unbalanced hand with clear direction, so you never wanted to stop in 4NT.

 

Note I am not recommending any of these conventions.

[GreenMan]

Thanks all for the alternatives to inverted m's. Food for thought. :)

[blackshoe]

Hugh Kelsey wrote Slam Bidding in 1973. The book included several variants on Blackwood, including Norman Blackwood, which I don't remember at all, and my favorite, Byzantine Blackwood, which truly was Byzantine. So much so that I never even tried to play it. B-)

[barmar]

Pray, tell us all Barry; Why can we not upvote the posts of the forum moderators/admin if we think they have given a great reply to anything someone else has posted?

Anyway, +1 for this one.

No idea, the policy predates my tenure here. Maybe someone responsible for the decision will answer in the other thread you asked this in.

[GreenMan]

Pray, tell us all Barry; Why can we not upvote the posts of the forum moderators/admin if we think they have given a great reply to anything someone else has posted?

 

Same reason you can't win the concert tickets if you work at the radio station? :)

[trevahound]

Definitely use 2♦ over 1♣. Being one step higher doesn't cost. You lose whatever you were doing with 2♦ before, which for most people is nothing that matters.

 

Over 1♦, you can use 2♥. I don't mind losing a weak or intermediate jump shift and 3♣ as the only good raise doesn't leave enough space. You can still use 3♣ to cover some of the hand types though. If playing reverse flannery which I quite like, 2♠ has to be the main way of raising diamonds which is still ok.

 

 

Yes to this. 2♦ for the forcing ♣ raise, and 2♠ for the forcing ♦ raise. I can't imagine wanting to play without a simple raise available (1♣-2♣ and 1♦-2♦). You win as mentioned on the hands where you don't have to wildly distort your 8 cts into LR+ or preemptive or wildly offshape/misdirected 1nt, and you win even more when your simple raise allows partner to compete effectively to 3m or 4m, where at other tables they never establish they have a fit -- or they establish it only after opps have gotten in. My partners and I have had numerous 1♦(p) 2♦ (p) 3♦ all pass auctions, where they can't have those with IM. Your preempts now become preemptive, and not just whatever 6-8 count you had to round down. Etc... For all strains, you need a simple raise, a forcing raise, and a preemptive raise available, at least as is possible.

 

IM is one of the conventions I simply won't play unless partnering a newcomer.

 

Brian Zaugg

[Cyberyeti]

IMO how useful inverted minors are depends on the rest of the system. We play a weak no trump (so 1m has extra shape or extra values) and all suit openers minimum 4 cards, and find inverted minors are great. I can see that if you play a 2+ card club, you might not want to go nuts with 5 opposite, but we know we're facing a 15 count or 5 clubs unless exactly 4414, so bid 2N/3♣. We put a lot of hands through the inv minors, they are not GF and may contain a 4 card major so auctions like 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣ are known to be exactly 3 card support as with 4-4 we'd have started with the invert.

 

That said, I only play them with my regular partner, not in pickup partnerships.

[trevahound]

IMO how useful inverted minors are depends on the rest of the system. We play a weak no trump (so 1m has extra shape or extra values) and all suit openers minimum 4 cards, and find inverted minors are great. I can see that if you play a 2+ card club, you might not want to go nuts with 5 opposite, but we know we're facing a 15 count or 5 clubs unless exactly 4414, so bid 2N/3♣. We put a lot of hands through the inv minors, they are not GF and may contain a 4 card major so auctions like 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣ are known to be exactly 3 card support as with 4-4 we'd have started with the invert.

 

That said, I only play them with my regular partner, not in pickup partnerships.

 

In those methods (and I'm a 10-13nt'er too), how do you make a simple raise of the minor? It's not the forcing raise that's at issue; you keep a forcing raise under any sensible methods. But with IM you lose any ability to make a simple raise when you have a simple raise hand.

[Cyberyeti]

In those methods (and I'm a 10-13nt'er too), how do you make a simple raise of the minor? It's not the forcing raise that's at issue; you keep a forcing raise under any sensible methods. But with IM you lose any ability to make a simple raise when you have a simple raise hand.

Many simple raises we have other bids for, the only ones that are problematic are (32)44 and 3343 in response to 1♦ where we have to bid 1N which tends not to be a disaster. To 1♣ we bid 1♦ naturally without restrictions so 1N is a sort of 2♣ raise guaranteeing 4.

[barmar]

But with IM you lose any ability to make a simple raise when you have a simple raise hand.

Most conventions involve tradeoffs. Like forcing NT loses the ability to stop in 1NT when that's the best place.

[fromageGB]

4 card majors, natural minors, mini NT, weak NT.

[Cascade]

4 card majors, natural minors, mini NT, weak NT.

 

lol those natural minors are a disaster.

[Trinidad]

I can't remember who it was, but someone posted on RGB years ago that in years of observing national and WC events he had never seen the presence or absence of Smolen make a difference on a board. Regardless of theory, it appeared, the number of deals where it actually matters is vanishingly small. I'm generally willing to play it if a partner wants to, but I never suggest it.

I remember a hand where we (my partner) made the contract that would have been easily defeated if we would have played Smolen and the 1NT opener would have been declarer.

 

The reason why I remember is that an opponent insisted that we had forgotten to alert Smolen: He just couldn't believe that we didn't play Smolen. Then he proceeded to recite a whole list of reasons (most of them bogus) why it would be silly to play natural.

 

When the hand was over and my partner had made the contract, I had to bite my tongue to stop me from saying: "And that is why we don't play Smolen."

 

Rik

[GreenMan]

The reason why I remember is that an opponent insisted that we had forgotten to alert Smolen: He just couldn't believe that we didn't play Smolen. Then he proceeded to recite a whole list of reasons (most of them bogus) why it would be silly to play natural.

 

Tell him Reverse Smolen isn't alertable.

[fromageGB]

lol those natural minors are a disaster.

Playing 5 card majors, I believe both minors natural is not the way to go. Not actually disasters, but pretty pointless. If a "natural" minor guarantees 3 cards in the suit, then it is not much use as a bid. I think you might as well play longer diamond and short club, or unbalanced diamond and balanced club.

[fromageGB]

In one partnership we dropped Smolen and haven't regretted it. This needs some adjustment of the rest of the NT system ofcourse.

 

When the hand was over and my partner had made the contract, I had to bite my tongue to stop me from saying: "And that is why we don't play Smolen."

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

[Zelandakh]

As a Smolen player - not that it comes up often - I can't see what is wrong with it. What else do you use 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M for?

Since you ask, 5-4 in the minors and slam interest. But the discussion you are replaying to makes it clear that they play 3M as 5M-4oM.

[fromageGB]

Since you ask, 5-4 in the minors and slam interest. But the discussion you are replaying to makes it clear that they play 3M as 5M-4oM.

Thanks. I'm playing 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3M as 4M-5oM (as I think you meant), and I have no other way of doing that. But what is the "smolen problem" that seems to have eluded me? I can see you may have other ways to bid that major hand and therefore may prefer to use this sequence for the minors.