Where do bad players get their ideas from?

[Vampyr]

I don't know - we get around 12-18 pairs a night at the local clubs, and I'd say at least 3-4 of those would play strong twos. Weak takeouts after 1NT are somewhat rarer though, perhaps a maximum of two pairs playing them, normally just the one.

 

Pretty much everyone plays the 2S = 11, 2NT = 12 thing though, so much so that it's actually the de facto standard for pick-up partnerships :/

 

ahydra

 

I guess it's a regional thing.

[neilkaz]

It is playable to use 2NT as 18 and 3NT as 19. Not ideal, but playable.

How playable is it if PD stretched to respond with a 5 count?

[blackshoe]

Bad players get their ideas from other bad players, or from misinterpreting or misunderstanding something a good player said, or that they read in a book.

[whereagles]

How playable is it if PD stretched to respond with a 5 count?

 

what? you never made 3NT on 24 HCP? ya newbie :P

[manudude03]

Well, I've seen plenty of pairs who flat out refuse to respond with less than 6 HCP, even passing 1D with AJTxx T9xx xx xx and such. And yes, most of those play a 3NT rebid as 19HCP.

[gwnn]

BTW, some people play 1NT-4♠ as "bid 6 only with 17" and 1NT-4NT as "bid 6 unless you have 15," essentially having 4♠ show 16 HCP and 4NT show 17. I know that it's not the same, calm down folks...

[gordontd]

How playable is it if PD stretched to respond with a 5 count?

That's less common in the context of strong-twos, which is where this originated.

[NickRW]

I occasionally play in a club. Most of the people there are weak players. Because this is England, they mostly play Acol of some variety - but some of the common agreements are dubious at best.

 

For example, it is fairly common to play, in response to a Weak NT (12-14), that 2♠ shows exactly 11 points and 2NT shows exactly 12....

 

Is there anything similar happening where you play?

 

It is very common where I play (Kent/Sussex border). I don't know where it comes from - I've always imagined that teachers teach Stayman, red suit transfers, and 2NT as an invite. Then the lessons stop (or they stop going) but they notice that some people plays 2♠ as a range ask and they just sort of fuse the ideas without thinking about it all the way through. I could be wrong.

 

Your opening line seems to imply you think Acol is a useless system. I'd tend to agree if imps is your game, but, IMO, it holds up well in the MP arena - or at least it does in the hands of the competent - but you could say that about any system.

 

Nick

[ArtK78]

BTW, some people play 1NT-4♠ as "bid 6 only with 17" and 1NT-4NT as "bid 6 unless you have 15," essentially having 4♠ show 16 HCP and 4NT show 17. I know that it's not the same, calm down folks...

Yes, I am one of them. Why not? The 4♠ bid is just sitting there doing nothing.

 

And I am quite calm.

 

 

 

[Vampyr]

Yes, I am one of them. Why not? The 4♠ bid is just sitting there doing nothing.

 

Is it? I use it as ace-asking, and can imagine a number of other uses.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, I am one of them. Why not? The 4♠ bid is just sitting there doing nothing.

Well you could use 4♠ for range ask Baon and 4NT/5♣ as minor suit Texas. But better still is for 2♠ to be a range ask and now you can use a delayed 4NT as the stronger invite if you want to, freeing up both immediate responses.

[barmar]

It is playable to use 2NT as 18 and 3NT as 19. Not ideal, but playable.

Yes, very simple. But if that's their agreement, why can't they explain it when asked?

 

I play in America, so none of the Acol stuff is relevant. These are always poor players playing Standard American.

[EricK]

Your opening line seems to imply you think Acol is a useless system. I'd tend to agree if imps is your game, but, IMO, it holds up well in the MP arena - or at least it does in the hands of the competent - but you could say that about any system.

I didn't intend it to imply that. I was making the points that as they were playing in England, their base system was Acol (4 card majors, weak NT), but that they had a number of very unusual agreements which no book on Acol would advocate.

 

I no longer have a regular partner there, so only play if somebody needs a partner. I am quite happy to play Acol with any of them, but I do try to talk them out of some of the worst conventions.

[Finch]

Yes, I am one of them. Why not? The 4♠ bid is just sitting there doing nothing.

 

And I am quite calm.

 

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

[MickyB]

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

 

Not worth the memory load IMO

[mycroft]

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

Ah yes, but it works better if you have a 4H response that shows a desire to play in 4H, as well.

 

But at least in my world, it means that you can't bid Gerber. Which is also a plus. But it confuses almost all my opponents.

[ArtK78]

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

If you play transfers the 4♠ call is an idle bid. Whenever this is true, it makes sense to use both 4♠ and 4NT as natural invites to 6NT. But there can be other uses for the call. I just don't believe they make as much sense.

[mikestar13]

Actually in a weak NT framework South African Texas is not bad:

 

4♣/4♦=I want you to play 4♥/4♠.

 

4♥/4♠= I want to play 4♥/4♠.

 

This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

[EricK]

Actually in a weak NT framework South African Texas is not bad:

 

4♣/4♦=I want you to play 4♥/4♠.

 

4♥/4♠= I want to play 4♥/4♠.

 

This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

Indeed, that's another common agreement round here - 4♣ is always Gerber.

[cherdano]

I have played in a club where two thirds of the field (all LOL or GOGs) were playing a weird strong diamond opening system.

 

I am actually fairly cynical about it - if the local pro teaches highly nonstandard methods, then his disciples are so much more dependent on his advice, rather than getting it from competing pros, from books or (gasp!) from the internet. And his authority is less likely to get challenged by "But Versace bid 2♦ in that situation!"

[PeterAlan]

No it isn't. I use a 4S response to show a desire to play in 4S. This is a very useful treatment and comes up reasonably frequently.

If you play transfers the 4♠ call is an idle bid. Whenever this is true, it makes sense to use both 4♠ and 4NT as natural invites to 6NT. But there can be other uses for the call. I just don't believe they make as much sense.

As mikestart13 suggests, right-siding the contract does not always mean the 1NT opener playing it, especially if you play a weak NT. I dare say wanting to have responder as declarer is of greater frequency than the options opened up by your treatment.

[akwoo]

As mikestart13 suggests, right-siding the contract does not always mean the 1NT opener playing it, especially if you play a weak NT. I dare say wanting to have responder as declarer is of greater frequency than the options opened up by your treatment.

 

The problem is that responder has to be a good enough bridge player to be able to look at his or her hand and predict with some reasonable accuracy who should be playing it. The players that are the subject of this thread probably wouldn't do better than flipping a coin.

 

Also, some partnerships will end up using this kind of convention to have the stronger player play the hand. This is legally dubious in most jurisdictions.

 

This is one of the reasons that 'stolen bid' doubles with systems on after interference of NT is stubbornly popular. Sure the alternatives of takeout or penalty double are both theoretically better, but they require players who are capable of using them correctly. This is particularly tricky for penalty doubles since vulnerability has to be taken into account, and intermediate spot cards in opponents suit are a subtle but important factor.

[ArtK78]

As mikestart13 suggests, right-siding the contract does not always mean the 1NT opener playing it, especially if you play a weak NT. I dare say wanting to have responder as declarer is of greater frequency than the options opened up by your treatment.

You are making several assumptions. You do not know my methods. I merely stated that IF you play transfers, then 4♠ is an idle bid and might as well be used for something. I also stated that in those auctions where 4♠ is an idle bid, I use it for a weaker quantitative invitation to 6NT, and then 4NT becomes a stronger quantitative invitation to 6NT. This sometimes comes in very handy, and not just in deciding whether to accept or decline the invitation.

 

I understand all about the positional value of the declarership. However, at least on the opening lead, even playing a weak NT, it is likely to be better for the declaring side to have the unbalanced hand as the dummy and the balanced hand as declarer. After the opening lead, that changes, since the defense now knows where their tricks are likely to come from if the unbalanced hand is the dummy. So the value of having the "stronger" hand as declarer when a long major suit faces a weak NT opening is a sometimes thing.

 

Having said that, when I play a mini-NT (10-12), my methods are geared to having responder declare game and slam contracts, as the responder has to be the stronger hand. Not so much playing a weak NT (11-14), as the two hands are likely to be about equal in strength.

 

By the way, in the hands of someone who can follow suit, Gerber is not a bad convention. I realize that even uttering the "G" word on these Fora is blasphemy, but the derision cast at Gerber on these Fora is really laughable.

[whereagles]

1NT-4♠ is not idle. I use it as a hand hogging device :)

[whereagles]

This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

 

G is teh tool of teh devil!