Where do bad players get their ideas from?

[EricK]

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.

If a player is going to misuse a slam convention, then it is probably better that they misuse 4♣ and end up in 4M, rather than misuse 4NT and end up in 5M. But then they're probably better off using 1♣ as a control asking bid (as I believe some rather good Italian players used to do as part of their system).

[Vampyr]

 

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

 

You can always just play 4♣=pick a major.

[mycroft]

The problem isn't Gerber (but my story about it is my story, and I'm sticking to it), but that weaker players (even weaker players with 2000 MPs) overuse ace-asking calls in general, and Gerber in particular, over other slam tools. You can always tell when that happens because it goes 1NT-4♣; 4whatever-uhhh...

 

The other problem with Gerber (in a strong NT, transfer and Stayman world) is the "Stayman/Transfer/how do you ace-ask or quant with 5332s" question. Not that there aren't answers - absolutely there are answers - it's just that people answer them differently and never discuss it, and the partnerships that do, usually still have one case they can't show.

 

So, I go with "I'll give up Gerber; that means that I can use it for something that comes up more often, it stops partner (if she's one of those who ace-ask, then think) from that standard failure, and it stops us from having a disagreement about the very common keycard/gerber/quant/splinter arguments on the second round".

 

A great call; just as FORTRAN is (still) a great language. Very limited use, but nothing beats it when it shines. Unfortunately, it gets used a lot when it doesn't shine.

 

Oh, and my story? If you haven't heard it before, here it is:

 

Three years in a very regular partnership, likely about 15000 hands. In that entire time, Gerber came up 3 times:

• First time, I answered at the 4 level, with the blackwood response. Oops.
  
• Second time, I answered with the Gerber response...at the 5 level. Oops.
  
• Third time, we were playing "Gerber after Stayman only", and it went 1NT-4♣, and partner showed his ace.
  

So, I've moved to "Gerber is baby food"; from experience, with me at least, it's +EV; just like refusing to use a bandsaw is +EV for me.

 

[beatrix45]

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. This, I hope you'll agree, seems a ridiculous way to use two bids. Now it is not too surprising that weak players have bad agreements, but where exactly do they get them from? I have never seen the aforementioned use of 2♠ and 2NT recommended in any book, or any website purporting to teach Acol. So anybody looking to any outside source for a system opposite 1NT would find something different (and better). So how can something like this take hold?

 

Is there anything similar happening where you play?

 

Your weirdness example actually uncovers another entire level of dumbness. If playing transfers over a 1NT opener, 2♠ is an idle bid, so using it to refine game tries is not totally insane. However, any form of transfers over any form of weak or Kamikaze opening 1 NT has always been considered unsound at matchpoints, and very dubious at IMP's or total points. Weak players get these ideas from other weak players. The blind lead the blind. In olden times this route of an overestimation of one's abilities led inexorably to a seat in a ten or twenty cent rubber bridge game and a rude awakening. No more. Let them sleep. It's just a game.

 

Except, of course, at my Thursday afternoon soiree at 20 cents (Canadian) per point. This time of year is lovely in the mountains. The game often lasts well into the night, but we have plenty of extra bedrooms and also the old bunkhouse if you bring your family. We have great hiking, horseback riding and some really good fishing. If you are in the neighborhood, please feel welcome to stop by.

[Zelandakh]

However, any form of transfers over any form of weak or Kamikaze opening 1 NT has always been considered unsound at matchpoints, and very dubious at IMP's or total points. Weak players get these ideas from other weak players. The blind lead the blind. In olden times this route of an overestimation of one's abilities led inexorably to a seat in a ten or twenty cent rubber bridge game and a rude awakening. No more. Let them sleep. It's just a game.

It is good to know that you consider Fantoni and Nunes, amongst others, weak players. It is sad that they overestimate their abilities and even go to national trials and other major events. I strongly suggest you point this out to them at your next Bermuda Bowl.

[Finch]

This time of year is lovely in the mountains. The game often lasts well into the night, but we have plenty of extra bedrooms and also the old bunkhouse if you bring your family. We have great hiking, horseback riding and some really good fishing. If you are in the neighborhood, please feel welcome to stop by.

 

Google can't find Kalamute, BC (it keeps directing me to Malamute, Yukon). Google isn't the best map in the world, where are you? We spent our honeymoon mainly in BC with a bit of Alberta, beautiful country.

[Vampyr]

Your weirdness example actually uncovers another entire level of dumbness. If playing transfers over a 1NT opener, 2♠ is an idle bid, so using it to refine game tries is not totally insane.

 

There are so many uses for 2♠. A good one, if you are using jumps to 3m as single-suited slam tries (or invitational) you can play 2♠ as a weak single -suited or slam try 2-suited minor hand, and can add in single suit slam tries if your jump to 3m is invitational. Baron, minor-suit Stayman, 2-suited major hands of some description, or major/minor, some sort of 4441... I'm sure others could come up with much longer lists of possible uses for this 'idle' bid.

 

Here in the land of the weak NT, virtually everyone uses transfers, and they work quite well.

[JonnyQuest]

"Where do bad players get their ideas from?"

 

My money is on Kalamute. ;)

[helene_t]

"Where do bad players get their ideas from?"

 

My money is on Kalamute. ;)

That's a bit unfair :(

[ArtK78]

Personally, I agree that transfers over weak NTs are not that great an idea, but there are many players who disagree with me. In fact, in the one partnership that I have that plays a weak (11-14) 1NT, we play transfers.

 

Over a mini-NT (10-12), I think that transfers are absolutely foolish. Assuming you have enough to bid a game, why would you want the weaker hand to be declarer?

[MickyB]

Over a mini-NT (10-12), I think that transfers are absolutely foolish. Assuming you have enough to bid a game, why would you want the weaker hand to be declarer?

 

It's almost like right-siding isn't the main advantage of transfers

[ArtK78]

It's almost like right-siding isn't the main advantage of transfers

When playing a 10-12 1NT, game and slam considerations, while not unimportant, are not the first priority. Getting to a playable contract while also preventing your opps from getting to theirs are the primary considerations. Playing transfers, in addition to wrong-siding the contract when the hand belongs to you, gives the opps more space to get into the auction. It gives them another bid - double of the transfer suit. They can also bid your suit for takeout. So, there are a number of downsides to playing transfers over the mini-NT that are not as important playing any form of stronger NT opening.

 

I have set out the system of responses that I play to the mini-NT opening several times on these fora. They were devised by Paul Soloway and Mike Passell, who were ardent proponents of the mini-NT. There are transfers involved - transfers by opener to make responder the declarer on game forcing auctions.

[akwoo]

When playing a 10-12 1NT, game and slam considerations, while not unimportant, are not the first priority. Getting to a playable contract while also preventing your opps from getting to theirs are the primary considerations. Playing transfers, in addition to wrong-siding the contract when the hand belongs to you, gives the opps more space to get into the auction. It gives them another bid - double of the transfer suit. They can also bid your suit for takeout. So, there are a number of downsides to playing transfers over the mini-NT that are not as important playing any form of stronger NT opening.

 

Sadly, these considerations are mostly irrelevant in the ACBL, because almost no one plays against the mini-NT frequently enough to make it worthwhile to actually come to specific partnership agreements about double of the transferring suit (e.g. vs pass followed by a balancing double when the transfer is passed out) against it.

 

On average at a local sectional two-session pairs, we play against it for at most one round. It's not worth the memory load to agree to anything against it other than sound (i.e. usual 2-level over 1-of-a-suit) overcalls. Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

[Vampyr]

Sadly, these considerations are mostly irrelevant in the ACBL, because almost no one plays against the mini-NT frequently enough to make it worthwhile to actually come to specific partnership agreements about double of the transferring suit (e.g. vs pass followed by a balancing double when the transfer is passed out) against it.

 

I assume you mean bidding the suit shown rather than balancing with a double? Doubling the transferring suit might be sensible as penalty-seeking against a mini. I don't know, I don't see it that much either.

On average at a local sectional two-session pairs, we play against it for at most one round. It's not worth the memory load to agree to anything against it other than sound (i.e. usual 2-level over 1-of-a-suit) overcalls. Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

 

It's probably listed prominently on their card, though, and would be included in any description of their general methods.

[helene_t]

.... ACBL .....

It's probably listed prominently on their card, though, and would be included in any description of their general methods.

:)

[ArtK78]

Sadly, these considerations are mostly irrelevant in the ACBL, because almost no one plays against the mini-NT frequently enough to make it worthwhile to actually come to specific partnership agreements about double of the transferring suit (e.g. vs pass followed by a balancing double when the transfer is passed out) against it.

 

On average at a local sectional two-session pairs, we play against it for at most one round. It's not worth the memory load to agree to anything against it other than sound (i.e. usual 2-level over 1-of-a-suit) overcalls. Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

Well, maybe the ethics in your local area aren't as high as ours. When I play a mini-NT, I preannounce that fact (along with the fact that we open all 10 counts nonvul 1st & 2nd).

 

I don't see why it takes any special memory load to know how to handle transfers. Everyone plays them. We don't when playing mini-NT. The principals are the same whether the opening NT is strong, weak or mini. It is just that the need to compete is much higher against a mini-NT.

 

We also don't have any two-session open pairs at our sectionals. The vast majority of the players prefer one-session open pairs at sectionals.

[Vampyr]

:)

 

Well, quite, but even if the opponents don't volunteer thir basic methods it seems normal to ask. And/or to look over their card.

[Fluffy]

There was a pair of ladies who systematically doubled 1 mayor to show 4 cards in the other and opening strength, regardless of anything else.

 

They were convinced this is standard, and I had some heated arguments wih them for lack of alerting, but obviously they didn't even consider that. This agreement, despite being obviously flawed, had a lot of success at match points, they never got to play 5-1 at the 3 level after a silly double.

 

After some years they have started to play with some other people and now are realizing that their methods are not standard (after some new arguments with their new partenrs)

[awm]

Players often copy what they see from the more successful pairs they are familiar with. We see this a lot on the forums too, with people copying Fantoni-Nunes methods, or the growing trend of playing 1♣ "clubs or balanced" with transfer responses.

 

Bad players do much the same, except they are less likely to be familiar with the methods of the truly top-flight pairs. Instead, they copy the methods of the most successful pairs in their local game. Of course, these pairs may be successful in spite of their methods rather than because of them, and sometimes the bad players combine methods that don't really "fit" or to which they don't know the right continuations...

 

An example I noticed during my time in LA was the increasing popularity of "Montral Relay" in the local club because one of the better pairs there played it. Of course, this pair won (consistently) because of superior card play and because they knew how to take advantage of the weaker players in the field (they had played at this club together for decades) and not because of their methods, but we still saw lots of "copycats."

[blackshoe]

Especially since they aren't pre-alerted before the round so you don't get a chance to pause and remember your agreements.

Very few people do it, but it seems to me this is a good argument for looking at the opponents' system card when they (or you) arrive at the table.

 

I had a woman once tell me, in a very supercilious voice, "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." This was after I suggested to her that the answer to the question she repeatedly asked my partner (who didn't know the answer, and said so) was on the card. Personally I thought, and still think, that to be a pretty stupid attitude.

[akwoo]

Well, maybe the ethics in your local area aren't as high as ours. When I play a mini-NT, I preannounce that fact (along with the fact that we open all 10 counts nonvul 1st & 2nd).

 

I don't see why it takes any special memory load to know how to handle transfers. Everyone plays them. We don't when playing mini-NT. The principals are the same whether the opening NT is strong, weak or mini. It is just that the need to compete is much higher against a mini-NT.

 

People around here don't pre-announce these things. Back when I played weak NT (in a different part of the country), I did preannounce.

 

I was lazy in my writing. What I meant was that one might want to play different methods over transfers opposite 10-12 than over transfers opposite 15-17. Are the principals really always the same?

 

Frankly, most partnerships don't get around to discussing what to do over opponent's transfers, since against 15-17 one rarely wants to get in the auction anyway. (Actually, maybe one should, but...)

 

Very few people do it, but it seems to me this is a good argument for looking at the opponents' system card when they (or you) arrive at the table.

 

I agree, and I usually do it, but sometimes one is behind time-wise, in a rush, and forgets.

[steve2005]

Personally, I agree that transfers over weak NTs are not that great an idea, but there are many players who disagree with me. In fact, in the one partnership that I have that plays a weak (11-14) 1NT, we play transfers.

 

Over a mini-NT (10-12), I think that transfers are absolutely foolish. Assuming you have enough to bid a game, why would you want the weaker hand to be declarer?

Transfers greatly increase the number of hands you can show. You have to decide weather this is worth opponents having two chances to double or overcall.

 

not much experience with 10-12 but would agree with you, yet people still use transfers.

 

 

 

 

[Vampyr]

Frankly, most partnerships don't get around to discussing what to do over opponent's transfers, since against 15-17 one rarely wants to get in the auction anyway. (Actually, maybe one should, but...)

 

I use any excuse to get into the auction after a strong NT. I thought it was generally understood that one should interfere soundly over weak NT and much less so over strong NT. Anyway that is what I believe, and what I do.

[neilkaz]

I use any excuse to get into the auction after a strong NT. I thought it was generally understood that one should interfere soundly over weak NT and much less so over strong NT. Anyway that is what I believe, and what I do.

Some of this getting into the auction on any excuse after a strong NT is based on the fact that many pairs in the "modern" game find it quite difficult if not almost impossible to double low level contracts for penalty.

 

Other factors are that defense is more difficult for most pairs than declarer play and that defense is especially difficult in new or pick up partnership below real expert level even if agreement on signals has been reached.

 

As a result unsound bids aren't punished badly if at all and for example, some who overbid 3 over 3 in comp. make their contract when they should fail and also when they should have set the opps had they passed, but perhaps their mediocre defense would have allowed the opps to make. Hence, players' experiences tend to indicate that when in doubt, just bid.

[neilkaz]

There's a shocking number of bad ideas floating around concerning 1NT openings.(All this is based on 15-17) LOL one player that I briefly sat across from insisted upon having a 5 card minor to open 1NT. Another who sat across from me had in his profile "I only open 1NT if I have at least 3 cards in each major"..ROFL learn how to play a 5-2 M fit at the 2 level. I left after that hand.

 

Then there's the comments about having two doubletons when I opened 1NT with a hand like KT,QT9x,AQ9xx,Ax (don't tell me you want to reverse with that opposite a pickup esp. with no agreements). Heaven forbid that I ever upgrade a super 14 count. Other PD's have booted me from the table for opening 1NT when 5332 and my 5 card suit is a major.

 

LOL .. neilkaz ..