[the saint]

luke warm, on Feb 25 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

the saint, on Feb 25 2006, 03:17 AM, said:

And while someone mentioned it - Bergen Raises. What a load of tripe taking away all those lovely natural bids.

i've seen *many* world class players use bergen raises (not to mention the inventor of the convention)... but maybe your judgment as to its merits are better, who knows... of course you may be able to convince them they're wrong because you're bigger

This thread is always going to be a matter of opinion. Mine doesn't like Bergen. I'm sure there are many for whom it works just fine.

[the saint]

MickyB, on Feb 25 2006, 03:12 PM, said:

the saint, on Feb 25 2006, 08:17 AM, said:

Quote

I love that you rate Drury as one of the worst, and I one of the best remind me to have an argument with you about it sometime.

I'm bigger than you Micky! Argument over!

And while someone mentioned it - Bergen Raises. What a load of tripe taking away all those lovely natural bids.

Something tells me I have a weight advantage

Lovely natural bids? You meant to say "lovely mini-splinters", I presume?

You can have the weight, I will settle for height, reach, speed and power advantage! Of course if you want to win, nick my glasses and I'm as blind as a bat...

[whereagles]

Bergen sux
Cappelletti sux
GERBER SUX

I have said

[civill]

Free, on Feb 22 2006, 03:30 PM, said:

strong 1♦ *puke*

I think I'd better not to play any playing cards including bridge again,because the Chinese pronunciation of "playing cards" is spoken as "Pu Ke".
Is it dirty like "puke"?

This post has been edited by civill: 2006-February-28, 21:24

[Double !]

My least favorite convention by a long-shot is Unusual NT aka, blueprint for playing the hand.

I distant second, and another example of how playing strong NTs requires all of these devices to help clarify min. balanced/ semibalanced hands, are support dbls & XX, necessary especially at matchpoints, I guess, but still an evil. Now, if there was a way of making it either support and/or extra values..............

DHL

[keylime]

OK, here is my blast. It's a long one.

(edited Wed because I forgot details)
(edit #2 to further the deluge)

1. 2/1 GF.

Why can't I bid my God-given 10 count with six clubs on x KTx xxx AKT9xx when pard opens 1♠? Why can't hardly anyone bid five or six of a minor games/slams? Why must there be fast arrival, slow arrival, picture jumps, pudding raises? Why must people play light initial action when the system was designed for sound openings? Let's bid 4th suit forcing...WHEN WE HOLD THE 4TH SUIT to begin with. Let's bid new minor forcing on a slam going hand to land at 3NT when with mom-and-pop bidding your opps land at seven clubs (happened last week people - the opps were double A players). Let's use an omnibus 1NT forcing over 1M and deny us a great MP spot and have it range so widely that opener has to rebid a 3 card minor just because they can't do anything else right. Please, for the love of Kaplan toss this bastardization into the waste receptable where it belongs.

2. Everything Bergen.

The "rule of 20" - let's empower the public to open Kxxxx Qx KQxxx x 1♠ and after hearing a 2♥ G/F figure out how to avoid down two at 3NT. His raise scheme - can we say "double", "cuebid", "takeout", "formula bridge"? Preemptive raises - why tell the opps that you have garbage opposite opener's trash? Opening weak two bids on any six card suit - let's steer pard wrong from honor-x at 3NT. New suit nonforcing - let's yank it out of our 6-1 fit to put it into...ANOTHER 6-1 fit in a different strain. The only thing that is good with regards to Bergen is that it's in Norway and a county in New Jersey.

3. Support Doubles.

Kids, if you really like this abomination of constructive bidding, be fearful. VERY fearful. In a SAYC or 2/1 world, you have zero need for them. Ever since Rodwell invented them to prevent from playing a 3-3 major fit due to a controlled psyche over a Precision 1♦, the "modern" expert HAS to have it. Ever have a six card minor with three piece support for pard - can't rebid your minor. Ever wanted to layout your opps' featherlight overcall - can't penalize them. Ever want to find a more constructive bid - can't do it. Let's sacrifice accurate bidding so that we can show three cards for pard. Gee, this is REALLY improving my bidding - NOT! And tell me this, has there been ANY progression of this treatment since it was introduced? Has bidding improved because of it? Let me count the ways that it has screwed royally the ability to get a better score from doing something ELSE instead...

4. Capp and DONT

OK so the hardest contract to defend is 1NT-X when RHO opens a strong NT and we want to penalize them again for what reason, especially if they got a runout scheme? Better yet, let's have TWO ways to bid spades in a DONT X auction. Talk about duplication. And oh yeah, people overcalling 2H/S in Capp on that major-minor combination punishing pard when they are 4-4 in the other two suits and have to take a preference. On top of that, they do it on a 5-4 or a 4-5 and pard can never get degree of fit right. Best yet, let's actively encourage the strident use of both conventions so that when they go for their frequent -300's and up, they wonder why the cards lied so unfavorably.

5. Gerber

Gerber is a baby food company. I'm 30 years old and I have long since graduated from peas and carrots with applesauce. Why is it STILL imperative to have 1NT-P-4C as ace asking? Can't we do something better with this? And better yet, people using this convention to ask for aces in a SUIT contract...maybe they need to switch to Beech-Nut instead or go back on the baby formula. Put down the spoons. Please. I don't want to wipe up the mess.

6. Two suited overcalls

Let's give the opps a roadmap. Whatever happened to pass? I gather that in the "modern era" passing isn't sexy enough to keep us entertained. Instead let's bid in such a way where they get like, five million different ways to get into the best contract because you were so anxious to Michaels their 1♣ on Qt9xx Kt9xx x Qx.

7. Competitive doubles

Have we lost our ^*#^*# minds with comp. doubles? Let's no longer penalize them at 5 of a minor over a sacrifice - we're going to play negative doubles AND responsive doubles through 7♥ instead since we are "modern". And the maximal double - when does THAT come up? Instead of taking the sure profit with penalizing them we instead want to declare because we are handhogs and we want to be in control of the party.

8. Five card majors opened 1NT

Yet again the "modernists" preach that we should open 1NT even with a five card major. Yet the same modernists don't tell us that on a non-descript 7-9 point hand 4 of the major will often give us 10 tricks. The scoring table is set up for major fits - yet, the "modern" bidder will languish at 1NT-P-3NT with 8-9 tricks instead of +420/+620. We can't bid our hands the way they were intended to? Do we HAVE to open 1NT on AKx A9xxx xx Axx? What about AQ9xx KTx Kxx Jx? With this point in mind, LONG LIVE MARSHALL MILES AND ZEKE JABBOUR! :-)

9. Transfer this, transfer that, let's transfer a transfer.

At times transfers are a powerful tool. The problem is, there are too many transfers! Transfer overcalls, transfer advances, transfer openings...what next, transfer defense?! Slow down with the transferring, you're giving me motion sickness here. Better yet, let me transfer my inner contents somewhere else with the dizzying pace of this development.

10. Fourth suit forcing

As mentioned in item 1, 4th suit forcing when we hold the 4th suit is causing me such angst. Instead of telling pard that the unbid suit is under wraps, let's bid it anyway because we are madly in love with 4th suit forcing. Let's go to the altar in total worship of bidding a suit en passant because we want to feel empowered only to put pard under considerable pressure to do the right thing (and we all know they will NOT do this with any level of consistency). And when did this treatment get me into the right strain when used wrongly? I've seen folks that use fourth suit forcing...at the FOUR level. Wow, modern bidding is a lovely thing isn't it?

11. Preemption, or the lack thereof

If Helgemo can win with a weak 2♦ bid, so can I. So, why is this bid so maligned to the point of near extinction? It's gotten so bad that hearts are sinking fast and spades are an endangered species in some methods. Instead we have the grocery list of two-bids and there's no discount saving card to earn me necessarily more points because of it. Next, we'll be hearing about "Oreo" 2-bids with a cremy filling and cookie shells.

12. The love affair that many have...with Mini-Roman 2♦ AND Flannery 2♥.

I like Flannery believe it or not, but when coupled with the horrid 3 suiter (especially when the anchor suit is spades, egad), it's like trying to season a nice steak with marshmallow sauce, or maybe enjoying ice cream with hot sauce. Furthermore, let's tell the opps exactly what to lead versus Mini-Roman (trumps!)

13. Puppet Stayman

Do we HAVE to play this treatment? Eek. I want to cut the strings from this treatment. Then again, a natural 2NT is the aunt or uncle that is unwelcomed after three days.

14. Lastly - all these ace asking bids.

Whatever happened to good old Blackwood? Nope, we can't have practical anymore - let's have RKC with two flavors, Kickback, Minorwood, 6A-RKCB, Exclusion, Redwood, Byzantine, and probably 100 homebrewed concoctions to tell the opps that you're off an ace and side king and are going down in your slam. Did I mention that slam bidding in general is horrible? I rather clean mold from my fridge than to have an ace asking auction and failing to count to 1, 2, or 3 to land at a no-play slam.

With this 2nd edit, I'm going to get lunch -

[coyot]

Looks like keylime suffers from the problem of bashing a convention he does not know how to use properly . Or did he just try to come up with as long list as possible?

I happen to use about 70% of what he denounces above - and I don't seem to suffer from most of the problems.

A few examples:
Two-suiter overcalls - these are NOT mandatory. If I don't think our side could either defend their contract or bid something constructive, I don't use them.

Same for Bergen's preemptive raises - if the hand seems to have no chance for making the contract, I simply don't bid it.

2/1 can be made with good 6card suits and 10HCP - it requires only a slight modification

For most of the other conventions, I could come up with similar description... If you learn how and when to employ those conventions properly, you'll find most of them much less bad...

[awm]

What I find curious is how certain conventions that are actually not very good have become so widely played. Honestly I would rather play natural over the opponents notrump than capp or dont. I'd rather play a natural weak 2♦ opening than most of the artificial alternatives too.

I actually agree with a lot of Keylime's post, except the part about transfers. I like transfers. I can use them to make partner play the hand, so I get to take a nice nap.

My personal least favorite though, is the forcing 1NT response to 1M. This bid fails in ever so many ways:

(1) Doesn't limit responder's hand, and typically opener's rebid won't limit his hand either.
(2) Doesn't describe responder's shape.
(3) May conceal a real major suit fit for partner.

Sure, there are some advantages to playing game forcing 2/1 bids, but the forcing notrump loses you ever so much more than just the ability to play 1NT. You can't distinguish between weak and invitational suited hands (what is 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♣ in terms of values? anyone know? I've seen expert 2/1 players bid this with 6 points and with 11). You can't show a five-card heart suit with game-invite values (1♠-1NT-2♦... and 2♥ is weak, and 2NT hides the hearts). Apparently if partner jump shifts (showing a big hand) you have to jump to 4M to show a limit raise (because 3M can be a punt). And this is all assuming the opponents are kind enough to shut up and let you try to sort out the awful mess you've caused... god forbid they actually bid over the forcing notrump monstrosity.

Interestingly, it's not actually the fact that the 1NT is forcing that I have a problem with! It's the fact that the values are so wide-ranging, and that you can hide a fit for partner's major rather than raising right away.

[SteelWheel]

There's a more important point embedded in keylime's recent rant (btw, you GO, guy . The new budding young wanna-be bridge player is being overrun with these ideas, many of which are contrary to one another. OTOH, he's told he's playing 2/1. OTOH, he's been told Rule of 19 or 20 or whatever silly rule he's been told so now he's opening 11 counts just because he's 5-4...which of course means 10 counts when 5-5, or 6-4...and you can deduct a Jack or a suit length point there anyplace where his side is non-vulnerable. Ultimately, you're opening basically any hand with two Aces and nine cards in the two longest suits. Partner, not being in on the joke, make a GF 2/1 on a fully valued 13 count. They find no fit. They go down. But here's the best part: They don't get penalized the way they're supposed to.

Why, you may ask? Simple answer: Because in our modern enlightened world, "double" never means "double". Double might mean "takeout for unbid suits", or "I suggest you lead a different suit", or "I have values in the pointed suits". But when was the last time you asked what a double meant, and were just told straight-out "penalty"?

I'm not sure which came first, the lighter and lighter opening bids or the non-penalty double, but they sort of go hand in hand. If I know that LHO is less likely to wield the hammer, I'm going to be in their face ever more....11 counts, 10 counts, 9 counts, 8 counts that think they know someone.

Anyone ever played in one of those Red Ribbon Pair games, or NAOP Flight B things? I have a few times. I want to do so again sometime while I'm still (barely) under 2000 MPs--but I want to play the totally anti-field card for the event. Most of the field's CCs are marked with some kind of Precision or other strong club system--if not, a good portion of the rest are marked with some kind(s) of weak NTs--and all of them basically follow the "modern" school of thought.."Banzai Bidding with Bergen", with the light openings, yet nominally playing 2/1 GF, support doubles, and all the other stuff. I'd like to sit in this event sometime playing a really super sound system like Al Roth's Picture Bidding. I'm convinced the opponents would have no idea what hit them, as in hand after hand, my (hypothetical) partner and I emerged from the weeds with a large penalty double, seemingly totally unmotivated.

This post has been edited by SteelWheel: 2006-March-01, 15:40

[pork rind]

i think keylime's post is the best he has ever made. and i dont think his point is that you cant play all those conventions, just that most are not played correctly because people playing them are not really good bridge players.

[Echognome]

pork rind, on Mar 1 2006, 01:15 PM, said:

i think keylime's post is the best he has ever made. and i dont think his point is that you cant play all those conventions, just that most are not played correctly because people playing them are not really good bridge players.

Isn't that true for all conventions?

[dogsbreath]

hi

I have some sympathy for Keylime's post. I suspect that regular pairs can have too many conventional agreements.. with my 'live' p we have played approx 750 boards in trials over the last 3 years and could have got by with stayman and transfers over 1nt, 4th suit forcing and blackwood (KC or simple) . We'd have done better by improving our judgement in competitive situations and marginal game/slam bidding, than from any of our conventions.

Rgds Dog

[Al_U_Card]

Conventions don't kill bridge, bridge players (mis)using conventions kill bridge...

[inquiry]

I enjoyed reading Dwayne's list of ten things to bash. Oddly enough I agree with some of them too. I am not a fan of support doubles and prefer not to play. Yes I have played in 3-3 and 4-3 fits because of this, but very often for good results anyway, but when I double, partner knows I have the unbid suit and my first suit of course without three card support for him (I raise with three). Call me odd.

Like Adam, I don't like to bid 1NT forcing with support. When I have support I raise, when I bid a forcing 1NT (well, semi-forcing for me), I deny 3 card support. Simple and works for me (only in regular partnerships of course, playing 2/1 with pickup partner, 1NT is forcing and can have 3 card support).

But let me address the opening 1NT with 15-17 hcp and 5332 hand with a five card major that Dwayne railed against. IMHO this is the best descriptive bid for the hand. It limits your hcp range and general distribution (balanced). If you play forcing 1NT, over 1NT after opening 1M with these hands you are stuck. Maybe 1NT is the best spot (and if you had opened it, you would be there) but a 2NT bid by you here is an overbid. For the fun of it, I used BridgeBrowser and the database of tournament hands played on the BBO for January and ran a test. I found ALL (11,557) of the hands (out of 1,449,248 hand records) that were 5332 in pattern with a five card major and 15-17 hcp and investigated the average result at matchpoints and imps for opening 1M or 1NT. I ignored the 1C (probably precision) and 1D (don't ask me what those where - maybe moscito or Longhorn diamond, i didn't look) and similar alterative opening bids. For this analysis I also ignored all other factors, I just looked at the results for the choice of opening bids.

The average results for the opening bids were

1H - for imps -0.39 (2481 openings) and 49.18% MP (1316 openings)
1S - for imps -0.23 (2659 openings) and 47.23% MP (1256 openings)
1N - for imps +0.52 (1262 openings) and 53.42% MP ( 487 openings)

Objectively, by this criteria the 1NT opening bids as a group faired better than the 1M opening bids. There maybe a two "variables" in this data that may skew the findings. First, maybe more beginners and novices as a group open 1M with this hand pattern and the less flattering results are a function of the population of players that use these bids. Second, maybe more people in appropriately use DONT or CAPP (another Keylimes pet peeves) over 1NT than bid wildly over 1H skewing the results for an odd reason.

But the standard devaiation on these thounsands of hands were low enough (around 0.05 imps on 1M and 0.2 imps on 1NT -- fewer hands) to suggest that is statistically valid to state that opening 1NT with these hand patterns give better results. Of course that assumes the population of players are identical (note: these are 11,557 hand records from tournament play represented a total of only unique deals 2034 suggesting an average "tourney size" of 5.68 tables (this includes many team games as well, with only 2 tables).

[Echognome]

A lot of whether you open 1M or 1NT depends entirely on the rest of your system. Playing limited openings, it is much more attractice to open 1M as you do not have a rebid problem. That beind said, I will still prefer to open 1NT on 5332 hands (in particular with hearts) if I feel that best describes my hand. I actually really like having a choice of what I can open.

[han]

Brilliant post Dwayne!

You are the Robin Hood of these forums, always fighting for the wellbeing of the poor bridge players. With that image in mind I agree with most of what you say. Only those bridge players who are seriously interested in climbing up the ranks would do well to play difficult conventions like "competitive doubles".

[han]

But when was the last time you asked what a double meant, and were just told straight-out "penalty"?

It was yesterday, and I wish you hadn't asked.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Mar 1 2006, 06:38 PM, said:

But when was the last time you asked what a double meant, and were just told straight-out "penalty"?

It was yesterday, and I wish you hadn't asked.

Also yesterday: unfortunately, I didn't ask, before I made a strength-showing redouble of partner's 1♥ psych. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to scare RHO into running. Understandably, as he held a 22 count including ♥AKQxxx.

I think -21.5 is my BBO record.

Arend

[luke warm]

i like bergen raises because i like all bids that show 4pc support while also showing the shape of the hand.. however, this works much better using over/under jumpshifts (imo)

the more ways i have to support partner's major suit opening, the better i like it...