Undiscussed

[EricK]

I've not had much experience of playing Drury, but logically (or so it seems to me), if it is useful over 1M (P), it must be at least as useful over 1M (X), as opener is more likely to have the weaker hand, and responder is more likely to have support.

[fromageGB]

If you are wanting a standard default agreement for pick-up partners, then surely "ignore the double and play what bids or raises you have agreed" is the simplest and best.

 

If you are wanting a "best practice" then I think it depends too much on what your methods are, as the style and philosophy you adopt for normal use should be reflected in use over the double. It probably needs multiple threads.

[PhilKing]

- if pd seems at all likely to not pass out 2nt, I bid that. In most systems it's some sort of a raise and it's not passable.

 

And if partner is bad enough to pass 2NT, then they were probably going to misplay 4♠ anyway. :ph34r:

[Bussy]

We play 2-way-reverse Drury after a third hand opener (frequently agressive) so we can stop at the 2-level. We play Jordan 2NT, too, but why in this situation?

We play this convention cause we want to avoid the 3-level, right? I am a fan of "Drury is on in competition"... :)

[kenberg]

Probably what I was thinking at the outset is not really practical. An example of a solution would be the Mike Lawrence disk "Conventions". He plays Drury, on over a double, on over a 1♠ overcall of 1♥. He plays that if a third hand opening of 1♥ is overcalled with 1♠ then 3♥ is still a limit raise, but now with some shape. And of course with four trump.

 

My thinking was/is that it does not really matter whether a person agrees with this or not, what is important is that you are both on the same page.

 

Similarly, ML has a discussion of DONT. The auction begins 1NT on my right, I overcall a DONT 2♦ and my left hand opponent doubles for penalties. It's useful if I know what my partner's 2♥ call means. Presumably hearts, a re-double would ask for my other suit, but are you sure your pickup partner sees this the same way? Or suppose I overcall with a DONT 2♥ so that partner knows my two suits and the opponents double. Is redouble still for take out??? ML says yes. Maybe this is a good idea, maybe it isn't, but not knowing what XX means is a really bad idea.

 

 

The other day I was playing pickup and pard opened 1NT, 15-17. I have a 9 count, 3/2 in the majors. Partner's profile says 4 suit transfers. Ok, but if I bid 2♣ and he responds 2♥, will he know that my 2NT rebid denies four spades? Probably, but I decided to just raise to 3NT. This worked well, because he got a spade lead into his four card holding. But it would be good to know just how he understands four suit transfers.

 

There are various sources. Pam Granovetter has written Conventions at a Glance. I recall not being that fond of it, although it has been a while since I looked. My hope is that there is some way to cut down on the disasters and quarrels that arise from people having different understandings of what it means to play convention X.

[Trinidad]

I was playing pick-up recently and partner wanted to play Bergen. I try to avoid this in pick-up games because of problems such as the above. "Let's play Bergen". "OK". Uh huh. On over a third seat opening? On over a double? I attempted toclarify this with partner but the communication wasn't working.

My general rule (but usually I am playing with more experienced players) for pick up partnerships:

 

• 
   
  
• After they overcall: Everything is off. Cues are limit raises (or better) and jump raises are weak.
  
• After they have doubled our 1minor opening bid: Everything is off. Jump raises are weak.
  
• After they have doubled an opening bid of 1♥ or higher: Everything is on.
   
  

 

I am 100% convinced that these agreements are technically far from best. (So nobody needs to point that out to me.) But they are easy to remember, which is the most important in a pick-up partnership.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

My general rule (but usually I am playing with more experienced players) for pick up partnerships:

 

• 
   
  
• After they overcall: Everything is off. Cues are limit raises (or better) and jump raises are weak.
  
• After they have doubled our 1minor opening bid: Everything is off. Jump raises are weak.
  
• After they have doubled an opening bid of 1♥ or higher: Everything is on.
   
  

 

I am 100% convinced that these agreements are technically far from best. (So nobody needs to point that out to me.) But they are easy to remember, which is the most important in a pick-up partnership.

 

Rik

There we go. Optimum shouldn't be the goal. A pinned set of defaults which are acceptable, and easy to remember would be valuable.

 

Then, a set for after we have overcalled, and for competitive OBAR situations.

[neilkaz]

It is extremely unlikely 2n can ever be meant as an invite to 3N--p has a xx available and

(in theory) can always bid 2n later if neither you nor your partner wants to x the opps. This

thinking is why Jordan 2n is very popular.

 

Yes, just play Jordon or whatever it is called in your country and WTP?

 

Of course if not playing Jordon (it should be standardized) then just XX and raise later.

[Trinidad]

There we go. Optimum shouldn't be the goal. A pinned set of defaults which are acceptable, and easy to remember would be valuable.

 

Then, a set for after we have overcalled, and for competitive OBAR situations.

After we overcall:

• 
   
  
• A cue is limit raise or better.
  
• A new suit without a jump (and below game) is forcing at all levels except the two level.
   
  

OBAR situations are very much defined by the player's character (and to some extent the form of scoring). I would not set a default for that.

 

Other rule:

When we have not found a fit, doubles are takeout. (No, this doesn't count for Lightner doubles ;) )

When we have found a fit, doubles are for penalty.

 

In general, it is much more important to have a consistent set of meta rules than to have the best possible rules. This is particularly true in murky competitive situations (you are depending on the bidding system the opponents use).

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

OBAR situations are very much defined by the player's character (and to some extent the form of scoring). I would not set a default for that.

Since I don't play with pick-ups, my evaluation of your choices, or any choices of my own for defaults would not be useful here.

 

But, the OBAR situation should have defaults. One that comes to mind is whether 2NT can ever be natural is these cases...either directly after a call by partner and a raise, or after we Neg Double and a raise of RHO's overcall comes back around. Default agreements about advancing prebalances would be valuable as well.

[TwstofLime]

I thought this thread was going to go in a different direction....one where the result might be a set of default agreements about whether (and which) conventions are on or off in various situations, for pick-up partnerships in a pinned thread.

 

It could be printed out for f2f reference or become a BBO handy reference for on-line play.

 

Let's use LCS as a starting point. General Approach. Would I/A players follow Hardy or Lawrence? Is 2♣ over 1♦ forcing -- for simplicity?

[Mbodell]

When Bob Hamman was In the Well almost 2 years ago, he and Eugene Hung had this exchange:

 

 

In a related comment, Hamman says "the most important thing is to know your agreements".

 

So, why don't more intermediates learn to play LC Standard or a similar, well-documented set of minimal, effective agreements as a baseline (not as their only system)? Good question. And why don't top bridge pros come out and endorse such a system for the good of the game? Maybe it seems too much like work.

 

The problem isn't agreeing to play LC Standard or BWS or BBO 2/1 with a partner. The problem is getting every partner you play with to play the same system. I play with lots of partners. I think I'm above average in remembering conventions, but certainly nowhere near perfect. Most (but not all - parts of Gazilli and long legged relays I've messed up a few times) of my misunderstands come about not because I don't know the convention, but because I forget if my agreements with partner A include meaning X or meaning Y (I play X with B and C and Y with D and E and Z with F, but which was A again?). If you only form one long term partnership, or your a client and/or dictator and can force your partners to play what you play and make it the exact same then you can adopt a simple system (or a complex one!) and be ok. You might also be able to do this if you have a circle of partners who all learn at the same time from the same teacher/guru and agree to play the same system. But even when people mostly play the same system you'll often start to get slight drifts.

[kenberg]

I looked at the Larry Cohen site. It seems I have a username and password there, I had just forgotten. It has many of the features that I was hoping to see. For example, it says support doubles are played through 2 of our suit. I have always thought that this was the correct way, perhaps even obviously the correct way, to play them but I have seen confusion on this point. Not surprisingly, he discusses what happens in a DONT auction that begins 1NT-2♦-X. Again, it seems obvious to me that 2♥ should show hearts and XX should ask for the other suit but it is good to see it written down.

 

Maybe I'll run a tournament sometime where it is explicitly stated that, as a default, all conventions will be understood to be played as LC says they are played. No one would be required to play it that way, they can play what they want, but pick-up pards could save themselves a lot of grief if they simply agreed to this default.

 

 

Anecdote time: Long ago Lady Y told me a story about Lady X (not their real names). X and Y played Flannery but they disagreed about some of the details. Lady X, now long deceased, was a good player but very stubborn (I played with her and can testify to both statements). They were at a tournament in Philadelphia, Flannery was still alive and was there, so they sought him out. Flannery agreed with Lady Y. As they left, X commented to Y "Well, that's just one man's opinion".

[y66]

The problem isn't agreeing to play LC Standard or BWS or BBO 2/1 with a partner. The problem is getting every partner you play with to play the same system. I play with lots of partners. I think I'm above average in remembering conventions, but certainly nowhere near perfect. Most (but not all - parts of Gazilli and long legged relays I've messed up a few times) of my misunderstands come about not because I don't know the convention, but because I forget if my agreements with partner A include meaning X or meaning Y (I play X with B and C and Y with D and E and Z with F, but which was A again?). If you only form one long term partnership, or your a client and/or dictator and can force your partners to play what you play and make it the exact same then you can adopt a simple system (or a complex one!) and be ok. You might also be able to do this if you have a circle of partners who all learn at the same time from the same teacher/guru and agree to play the same system. But even when people mostly play the same system you'll often start to get slight drifts.

IMO, the problem for intermediates is knowing what blah blah blah means when we say let's play blah blah blah. LC Standard is a good faith effort to tackle this problem by someone who understands it as well as anyone on the planet. But I think even he would laugh out loud if you asked him what are the chances of ever solving the problem discussed in the OP.

 

This is such a tar pit of a problem.

[kenberg]

Here is a matchpoint hand from yesterday:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s974hak5dk53cat65&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1sp2c3hdp]133|200[/hv]

 

Say what?

 

So I bid 4♠ for 40%. The hands, with South as declarer, were: [hv=pc=n&s=sakjt5h76daq742c9&w=sq8632h83dj6ckq73&n=s974hak5dk53cat65&e=shqjt942dt98cj842&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1sp2c3hdp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

We do get 800 if I pass the double. But on the NS cards slam is credible and even with the Hawaii 5-0 split slam is there if they don't lead a club. Mea culpa. But I am still not sure on how that double was intended.

[Bbradley62]

So, why don't more intermediates learn to play LC Standard or a similar, well-documented set of minimal, effective agreements as a baseline (not as their only system)?

This is what SAYC, as published by ACBL, was supposed to be.

[kenberg]

This is what SAYC, as published by ACBL, was supposed to be.

 

 

Right, and with a pick up I am always happy to play SAYC. I have seen a vast array of views on what SAYC includes, but that's not SAYC's fault, there is a booklet.

 

But I want to deal with the considerably larger number of players who wish to play Bergen or Drury or DONT or support doubles or... and have varied interpretations of just how these conventions go. It's no surprise to find many people who are quite sure exactly how they are played but what they are quite sure of differs substantially from what others are quite sure of. 1♣-(P)-1♥-(2♠)-X. Take a poll on the meaning of the double. Not a support double, according to Cohen (also according to me, but who listens to me). And so on.

 

You need a sense of humor for online pick-up, no way around that. I am hoping to find a few fewer things to laugh about.

[aguahombre]

This is what SAYC, as published by ACBL, was supposed to be.

Not at all. SAYC was produced as a rigid set of agreements for openings and first responses to be used in a "Yellow Card" game (Indy or relaxed other), not as a baseline for anything. There are no "default" positions to guide later rounds of bidding.

[blackshoe]

Let's use LCS as a starting point. General Approach. Would I/A players follow Hardy or Lawrence? Is 2♣ over 1♦ forcing -- for simplicity?

Oh, it's forcing. The question is, is it forcing to game, or is it forcing to game, but a rebid of 3♣ turns off the force, showing an invitational hand with clubs?

[fromageGB]

and if it's forcing to game, is it really forcing to game, or if you decide to avoid 3NT and bid 4♣/♦ is that forcing?

[kenberg]

Bridge is 90% mental, the other half is conventions (apologies to Yogi Berra).

 

 

 

 

Here are a few that came up as I watched the Vanderbilt:

 

1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(1♠)

X

 

OK, you have agreed to play support doubles. Is this one? If not, what is it?

It turned out that while opener had four spades, it showed four hearts (which he also had). Commentator kareno mentioned that this is her preferred treatment. Mine also.

It's different from

 

1♣-(Pass)-1♦-(1♥)

X

This I like as three card support for diamonds. Some play support doubles only for the majors, but if you think about it, this auction might well be a part score battle and how high you want to go in diamonds will depend on your length. Opener will of course not usually have four diamonds on this auction since if I did I would most likely have five clubs, and we have to wonder why the spades are AWOL. Still, a support X is useful here.

 

 

 

Here is another:

1NT-(Pass)-2♣-(Pass)

2♦-(Pass)-2♠

 

What's it? A weak 5/4? They were playing it as in invitational hand, of course with five spades. It wasn't 5/4, somewhat surprisingly (to me). The commentator made the interesting suggestion that over 2♠ a bid of 3♠ should be forcing, offering a choice of games. Since 3NT made and 4♠ did not, this could have been useful here. The idea, as explained, was that you either accept an invitation or you pass. There is no invitational response to an invitation. Perhaps this is right.

 

 

 

And then there was:

1NT-(3♦)-4♥

Oops. Amazingly at the semi-fiinals of the Vandy, there was mis-communication here. The 4♥ was intended as a transfer, taken as natural. Since 4♠ was down 1 on a ruff at the other table the damage was minimal.

Imo, Texas, undiscussed, should be on if the interference is 3♣ or lower. Over 3♦ a bid of 4♦ shows both majors, so 4♥ has to show hearts.

 

 

 

My bbo profile says I play support doubles and I play Texas. It doesn't say how I play them so this is no doubt disaster prone.

 

I am going to give this some tought about how to play inline pickup, which I enjoy, while having fewer mis-understandings, which i don't so much enjoy.

 

A side purpose here is to encourage folks to go a little easy on partner when these mis-understandings do occur. There are quite a few players out there who think that there is only one real way to play a convention so any disaster that occurs is automatically the fault of partner for simply not knowing this one right way.

[Vampyr]

Maybe BBO SAYC could be fleshed out a little more, and then it could be arranged that potential calls and their meanings would be available for players to read before choosing a call.

[kenberg]

Maybe BBO SAYC could be fleshed out a little more, and then it could be arranged that potential calls and their meanings would be available for players to read before choosing a call.

 

Maybe. But maybe we can do better than that. I am going to think a bit on this. People like to choose. We have convention cards, we have pour profiles, but these don't really do the trick. Maybe bbo could put up some sort of alternative, or supplement, to the cc. It would begin: "You may think that everyone plays your favorite convention in the same way. They don't" After this it would list some stanrd conventions and some standard ambiguities that arise. A player could go through these, and there waould be boxes to check

Eg

Forcing NT:

Pass-Pass-1♠-Pass

1NT

This (is) (is not) forcing.

 

 

Anyone could quickly make a list of twenty or thirty such ambiguities. Setting things up so that players could check off and display what they play would of course require bbo involvement.

 

Here is what happens in reality: People play pick-up, one player or the other says "I'll play your profile". That profile has conventions listed. But there is no room for elaboration. A checklist of understandings could be useful. Instead of "I'll play your profile" it could be "I'll play your checklist". Maybe it would work.

 

Such a list could expand to almost infinite length, so that would need to be dealt with, probably in a somewhat arbitrary manner. I would be ok with arbitrary.

[Vampyr]

Such a list could expand to almost infinite length, so that would need to be dealt with, probably in a somewhat arbitrary manner. I would be ok with arbitrary.

 

I am not sure that everyone having their own personalised version of SAYC is the right approach.

[whereagles]

Following on the principle that "undiscussed bids are natural", I would venture bidding 3♠ if I find likely pard would take it as invitational, OR a truscott 2NT if he's advanced+ or I agreed to play 2/1. Next on the list is an underbid of 2♠. That would certainly be taken as natural :)

 

I would never, ever, bid 3♣ or 3♦ as bergen raise. Those bids are a death wish opposite a random pard.