My Pet Peeves

[mike777]

Gerber is scary. There have been times where I've asked the opps what flavor of Gerber they were using: apples and carrots, bananas and oranges, you get the idea.

 

My pick though for the worse convention - a three way tie between:

 

1. Capp.

2. New suit NF in response to a weak two bid.

3. Gambling 3NT (we recently changed to Acol 3NT).

New suit NF is a must if you play any version of McCallum weak 2-bids.

 

I prefer Suction or DONT but what is forum beef with Capp/Hamilton, there must be much worse conventions around we can poke fun at.

 

Gerber only over nt bid, strong 2nt openings, Gambling 3nt, are at the very top of worst list? Are these bids along with Capp just misused often which makes them poor?

 

Do not know raptor but other day a world class expert bid it with xxxx of h and axxxxxx of clubs, how about all the michaels and Unusual nt bidders who bid it with any hcp count, varied shape, and pts in short suits or blackwood with void or one of my favourites...1x(you)=1y(opp)=2z(p)=any length and hcp?..BBO fav playing weak 2bids in 4th seat not approx int.

[whereagles]

The first thing I say to any new pard of mine is "I DON'T PLAY GERBER". As for Flannery, no one around here uses it (thank goodness), so I don't have to say that about Flannery as well.

 

Those two were good conventions in the context where they were created, but practice showed they weren't so necessary after all.

[Rebound]

Heh heh, well I hear ya, and I know this will get some hoots, but being a precision player, I play both the mini-roman and gerber heehee. In fact, we have made the decision that it is always for keycards after trump agreement also. I'm sure that statement will receive a lot of negative comments but it has worked very well for us over the years.

 

I suppose I should add that I have had little exposure to little other than standard bidding and what I play. It's sort of a case of not knowing what I may be missing. Unfortunately, I have not had a regular partner with whom I could work to examine other methods. That having been said, the system works for us :-)

[Walddk]

You do as you please. If they work for you, fine. No one has a monopoly of the truth.

 

Roland

[HeartA]

Flannery is useful with 4-card major, the system I played when I began to learn bridge. At that time, I just used it without understanding why.

 

It was designed not just for finding 4-4 ♠ fit, but also helped to stop at 2♥ with 5-2 fit. Now, with 5-card major and 1NT (semi) forcing (and negative dbl when opps interfere), it is not useful anymore.

[the hog]

"Flannery is useful with 4-card major, the system I played when I began to learn bridge. At that time, I just used it without understanding why. "

 

Doesn't 1H 1S do the same thing?

[cherdano]

I also respect the players Fred mentions, but I am a subscriber to the principle of using a specific opening at the 2-level for what is more frequent. I think all will agree with me that a weak 2 in diamonds for example comes up much more often than the requirements for a Flannery hand.

Let me play devil's advocate a bit. 2♦ isn't that preemptive if opponents use such advanced modern scientific weapons as takeout double. I think there is a point for playing 2♦ as something constructive, that helps to make other frequent sequences more well-defined. E.g. if a partner told me he would like to play 2♣ rebid after 1M opening as some sort of gazzilli, and would thus like to play 2♦ as 4 clubs, 5 in a major, minimum opening, I definitely wouldn't complain.

 

Arend

[Fluffy]

I Think for acasual partnership capp is worse than gerber for 1 reason: Althou I have no clue of how gerber is answered (please don't bother to response, I don't wanna know), I can rely of it never appearing, while capp will sadly appear probably. So I would ratehr agree on Gerber than on capp.

[whereagles]

2♦ isn't that preemptive if opponents use such advanced modern scientific weapons as takeout double. I think there is a point for playing 2♦ as something constructive, that helps to make other frequent sequences more well-defined.

I've heard that one before and that is, in my opinion, that judgement of the 2D bid is completely wrong on a percentage basis.

 

In practice the 2D preempt has often devastating effects. Especially NV, where you can open it on 5 cards on a regular basis. The 2D preempt is VERY effective because it preempts not one but BOTH majors (a 2M pree only preempts one major - the other is held by the preemptor). It is very hard for opps to gauge whether they should double with 43 majors, or 54, or 33 or whatever. The takeout double is good but it is not a panacea for all problems coming from preempts. The guess of what to do is much bigger than after a 2M pree, opposite which you can just double on 4 cards of the other major. And don't forget the pard of the 2D opener can increase difficulties by raising the preempt.

 

The 2D pree is very underrated, which makes it in practice a fearsome weapon. It is so effective that there is, in fact, a very good case for freeing the 2C opening bid for a weak 2 in clubs, relegating all strong hands into a forcing 1C opener (which would then be natural or any strong hand of, say, 20+).

[Gerben42]

Amazingly with so many conventions available for especially the 2♦ opening bid, one of my favorite meanings for 2♦ remains natural and weak!

 

@cherdano: I'd rather teach beginners / intermediates the weak two in ♦ rather than that horrible Benjamin structure in Forum D+ / Majeure Cinquiema...

[cherdano]

Amazingly with so many conventions available for especially the 2♦ opening bid, one of my favorite meanings for 2♦ remains natural and weak!

 

@cherdano: I'd rather teach beginners / intermediates the weak two in ♦ rather than that horrible Benjamin structure in Forum D+ / Majeure Cinquiema...

Actually, I agree with all of this. (I didn't mean to use 2♦ for something that HURTS your constructive bidding <_<) I was only playing devil's advocate about the non-effectiveness of 2♦= weak two. I think it's much more preemptive than multi, e.g.

 

Arend

[doofik]

There's a great bridge player in Poland by the name of Andrzej Wilkosz who came up with an indefensible convention known as the Wilkosz Convention. 2♦ shows 6-10 pts 5+/5+ with at least 1major. The convention is banned, I'm sad to say, because no one has come up with a defense to it.

[hrothgar]

There's a great bridge player in Poland by the name of Andrzej Wilkosz who came up with an indefensible convention known as the Wilkosz Convention. 2♦ shows 6-10 pts 5+/5+ with at least 1major. The convention is banned, I'm sad to say, because no one has come up with a defense to it.

I used to play the Wilkosz 2D opening. I like it a lot and am quite familiar with its history.

 

As a recall, the Wilkosz 2♦ opening was not singled out for special treatment. Rather, an entire class of conventions of which Wilkosz was a prominent example was banned...

[whereagles]

2D indefensible!??? Total nonsense. Treat that as a multicolor opening and you're just fine.

[Gerben42]

Wilkosz is sort of tricky because it can show length in the opened suit (♦).

This particular auction is dangerous:

 

2♦ (Dbl) Pass = Pass if you have ♦.

 

Against Multi 2♦x will almost never be an option for opener's side making doubling just to show strength safer. Against a possible ♦+major hand that might not be so hot.

 

Since the doubler will not get another turn if his partner passes, partner must bid something and if it now turns out that opener and his partner have misfitting 2-suiters, they got you either because they are weak and escaped a penalty against no making game (because all suits break badly, as announced), or they got you because they are strong and you are in trouble.