[Free]

A big problem with conventions is that nobody plays it exactly how it's described.

Ghestem is a great example. If I know what the definition of Ghestem is and my opps explain their call as "Ghestem", I wouldn't trust them to use the same definition. Moreover if you wouldn't ask and they play another version, you probably won't be able to convince the TD that your opps gave incorrect explanation.

[barmar]

Free, on Jul 23 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

A big problem with conventions is that nobody plays it exactly how it's described.

Ghestem is a great example. If I know what the definition of Ghestem is and my opps explain their call as "Ghestem", I wouldn't trust them to use the same definition. Moreover if you wouldn't ask and they play another version, you probably won't be able to convince the TD that your opps gave incorrect explanation.

That's why you're not supposed to give just the name when providing an explanation. But it's still a useful shorthand on the convention card.

[aguahombre]

Just in case there are others thinking I meant anything other than satire, I don't even use names of common conventions when asked ---not Puppet, not Lebensohl, not Roman, not Michaels, not even "relay".

And never "preemptive". And when someone says "Capp" in response to my inquiry, I merely ask, "What did 2C show?".

All of this is off track --sorry for that. In answer to OP: yes, I have seen it in action. Yes, it seems quite useful for a lot a pairs who use it. We don't choose to employ the method because we don't raise on 3 very often as opener and use 2NT for something else less sophisticated, but also allowing us to get out of a 4-3 fit if we want.

As always, the important thing with any gadget is whether YOU like it, and are willing to change a few things around to make room for it.

[jh51]

Gee, the reason why I asked originally is that I often like to see if there is additional information about a convention or treatmwnt on the internet. There are often implications of the non-use of a particular convention that might be discussed, or nuances that were not conveyed to me.

I will confess that it in the limited space that is available on the convention card it is useful to have something to call the convention. When opponents ask I describe our agreement.

[kenberg]

Myself, I would not feel abused if this agreement did not appear on the convention card. I doubt that there is any good place to put it, if you don't know the name of it I doubt most of the opponents will even if you find a name for it, so other than just your own need to be able to discuss it without saying thingamajig I doubt there is a problem.

From my point of view, 1m-1M-2M-2NT can be passed and can also be raised to 3NT. That is, 2NT a natural call. Nonetheless, I doubt 2NT as a general inquiry should be alerted even if it is not passable. The coded responses seem to require an alert, else I would think that, say, 1♦-1♠-2♠-2NT-3♦ probably shows extra length in diamonds and shape that suggests partner might not like playing in NT even if our spades fit is only seven cards. As long as I am alerted to the coded meaning, I have no problem with this not being on the cc or not having any particular name.

[awm]

I have heard this referred to as "Garozzo" and indeed a version of it is in Benito Garozzo's Ambra notes (available via Dan Neill's page).

Personally I don't like the method but it is quite popular. I agree that it doesn't really need to be on a CC (usually CC doesn't go into our side's fourth call) but it should be appropriately alerted and explained.

[gordontd]

jh51, on 2011-May-11, 13:39, said:

Gee, the reason why I asked originally is that I often like to see if there is additional information about a convention or treatmwnt on the internet. There are often implications of the non-use of a particular convention that might be discussed, or nuances that were not conveyed to me.

I will confess that it in the limited space that is available on the convention card it is useful to have something to call the convention. When opponents ask I describe our agreement.

There's a more detailed (and in my opinion better) variation on this in Better Bidding with Bergen.

[Hanoi5]

In Venezuela we call it 'three-card support' (in Spanish). But we play it:

3 with a singleton, 4 with a singleton, 3 w/o sing, 4 w/o singleton

But then you need a GF hand to do it. Unless you change their meanings (3w/o, 4w/o, 3w, 4w) I guess.