[ochinko]

Roland's idea is interesting, and I certainly don't mind disruptive bidding, but actually any preempt carries the meaning of "do Not bid, partner". Standard preempts have the benefit that if partner violates the rule and bids something, I know it's my turn Not to bid further. In Roland's variant all players are in the dark, and partner isn't allowed to bid even to show a lead preference.

Sometimes partner may even bid a void, and escape back to my suit after the double.

Petko

[luis]

I like it a lot, of course I think your rules for not bidding are exaggerated, I thgink that the proper way to say it is "pd won't bid with many hands that would over a normal preempt" but of course with an exceptional hand pd will act, specially with support for the suit or when 3NT seems to be a reasonable gamble.

[Gerben47]

Why do you see European style as emphasis on destructive bidding?

It's just that in Europe there is more variation in the 2-level opening bids. These are no more or less agressive than weak two bids. Besides, weak two bids can be extremele agressive. Ask Marty Bergen for details.

These kinds of ideas are btw rarely played. The only thing that I have seen from more than one pair are the Lorenzo two-bids that force you to bid on the 2-level 1st 2nd seat NV with any 0-7 HCP hand.

[Walddk]

ArcLight, on Mar 17 2005, 08:53 AM, said:

Some criticize teh ACBL for not allowing certain conventions, but I enjoy ACBL Bridge more than Destructive Bridge. 

I am not saying that European or Destructive Bridge is less skillful, or ACBL bridge is superior.  I am saying I enjoy ACBL style bridge far more.

Here is another example of an unfounded claim. Maybe one should not generalise just because there are methods where the destructive intent is obvious. Let me focus on the Multi 2♦ for a while. Invented by Terence Reese and Jeremy Flint from England back in the late 70's.

The intent was to create a constructive weak 2. That has changed considerably in certain circles over the years, and that is a shame in my opinion. Weak 2's can and should indeed be constructive. Let me use this as an example:

2♦: Very weak with 5+ in an unspecified major, but ......
2♥/♠: Constructive with a 6-card suit in the suit bid.

If you don't want to play both, I suggest that you use 2♦ as a constructive weak 2 in either major (along with 1 or 2 strong options).

I think it's a good thing to have both weapons in your arsenal, and I will never understand why the ACBL gets paralysed every time they hear the word Multi. This convention gave lots of advantages for many years when we people didn't know how to defend against it, but this is actually quite easy in the year 2005 (and has been for many years).

I will be happy to give you a simple defence in case some of you are interested.

Today, 25+ years later many Americans still don't have a defence. I don't know why that is, but I understand that it's much easier to disallow the convention altogether. Then you won't have to bother about getting a defence. Don't put me in prison. Allow me to play bridge with the convention I like, with certain limitations of course.

I have always been against too many restrictions. In most instances my opponents can bid anything they like. I will come up with a playable defence every time as long as I have time to prepare one. It will take you about 1 minute to agree on a good defence against the Multi 2♦.

Roland

[joker_gib]

I totally agree with you Roland and I'd like to add : If you kill conventions then you kill the evolution of the game !

By the way, I'm interested in your simple defence on the multi

Alain

[Walddk]

joker_gib, on Mar 18 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

By the way, I'm interested in your simple defence on the multi 

Alain

2nd seat:

Double: 12-14 balanced, usually at at least 4-3 in the majors, or any 17+ hand, unblanced if 17-18 (will bid again).
2♥: Take-out double of a weak 2♠. 4-5 hearts, 12-16 hcp.
2♠: Take-out double of a weak 2♥. 4-5 spades, 12-16 hcp.
2NT: Natural, 15-18 hcp, usually both majors stopped. Stayman/Puppet and transfers apply.
3mi: Natural, non forcing.

Responder will treat double as the weak take-out type. If doubler bids again, he has the 17+ hand.

4th seat:

2♦ pass 2♥ ?

Double: Hearts or take-out of hearts! Opener will reveal.
2♠: Natural, non forcing.
2NT: Natural, 15-18.
3mi: Natural, non forcing.

2♦ pass 2♠ ?

Double: Spades or take-out of spades. Opener will reveal.
The rest is the same as after a 2♥ response. 3♥ is now also non forcing.

2♦ pass 2NT ?

Double: Responder psyched partner! I have a strong, usually balanced hand.
Any bid at the 3-level is natural and non forcing.

.....

This is quite simple, efficient and pretty easy to remember (my view of course).

Roland

[Fluffy]

IF I understand it correctly, since partner can't bid, you could alert the 3♦ pre-empt on third position as 'anything but ♣', if they double you, you can safely run to 3♥, and if still ♥ isn't your suit, you can safely run to 3♠ later .

So for opponents to double you, they must be able and willing to double 2/3 suits.

BTW it is not possible for a non vulnerable passed hand partner to have a 7 card support I believe .

[Walddk]

Fluffy, on Mar 18 2005, 07:31 AM, said:

IF I understand it correctly, since partner can't bid, you could alert the 3♦ pre-empt on third position as 'anything but ♣', if they double you, you can safely run to 3♥, and if still ♥ isn't your suit, you can safely run to 3♠ later .

So for opponents to double you, they must be able and willing to double 2/3 suits.

BTW it is not possible for a non vulnerable passed hand partner to have a 7 card support I believe .

Irony is dangerous on the internet, I know. When I said that partner can't bid unless he has 7-card support for opener's "suit", I thought I also "said" that responder can never bid.

Never is a strong word, but at least their is no ambiguity.

Roland

P.S. For the record, the most silly lead responder can find if RHO becomes declarer, especially against 3NT, is obviously a card in my suit!

[cherdano]

Btw, Roland, I have to inform you that when playing in the ACBL, your partner will NOT be allowed to use ANY conventions when NOT bidding in reply to your wide-ranging 3rd seat do-not-bid-p-preempts!!! I hope this scares you from EVER using them over there (or your partner from EVER bidding over them -- he might be able to fight with you, or with an ACBL TD, but both at a time...)

Arend

[Walddk]

I am not worried. Firstly, I rarely play in the USA. Secondly, when I do I obviously respect the rules and regulations in the country I'm in, whether I think they are good or bad.

Roland

[Free]

I love weak preempts in 3rd seat. If you combine this with light openings in 1st seat, you have quite some destructive effect It's not randomizing, but indeed, your partner has to pass! You either bid to make, or you bid to kill opps bidding, nobody knows...

[inquiry]

Free, on Mar 18 2005, 09:44 AM, said:

I love weak preempts in 3rd seat.  If you combine this with light openings in 1st seat, you have quite some destructive effect    It's not randomizing, but indeed, your partner has to pass!  You either bid to make, or you bid to kill opps bidding, nobody knows...

It would be interesting to see what a committee, director would say about a preempt third seat in a suit with a void and the agreement partner must pass. The reasaon why I say this is that this sounds like a psyche control, ESPECIALLY if doubled, you run and partner with great support for the opened suit does not put you back in that suit.

One could thus argue that the forced you must pass is a psyche control, which in some places are illegal. The counter arguement is that the preempt suggest a final contract, and does not promise any legnth in bid suit or any specific stregnth...everyone has to guess what to do... partner and opponents (well not partner as he is not allowed to participate further). Then you described it accurately, so how can it be a psyche?

ben

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Mar 18 2005, 01:08 PM, said:

I am not worried. Firstly, I rarely play in the USA. Secondly, when I do I obviously respect the rules and regulations in the country I'm in, whether I think they are good or bad.

And I tried to make it sooo obvious that I was being ironic I think your agreement shows how little sense there is in regulating preempts by regulating conventional bids thereafter.

[Free]

inquiry, on Mar 18 2005, 02:55 PM, said:

Free, on Mar 18 2005, 09:44 AM, said:

I love weak preempts in 3rd seat.  If you combine this with light openings in 1st seat, you have quite some destructive effect    It's not randomizing, but indeed, your partner has to pass!  You either bid to make, or you bid to kill opps bidding, nobody knows...

It would be interesting to see what a committee, director would say about a preempt third seat in a suit with a void and the agreement partner must pass. The reasaon why I say this is that this sounds like a psyche control, ESPECIALLY if doubled, you run and partner with great support for the opened suit does not put you back in that suit.

One could thus argue that the forced you must pass is a psyche control, which in some places are illegal. The counter arguement is that the preempt suggest a final contract, and does not promise any legnth in bid suit or any specific stregnth...everyone has to guess what to do... partner and opponents (well not partner as he is not allowed to participate further). Then you described it accurately, so how can it be a psyche?

ben

I didn't say that I open with voids, but as you put it, it's indeed possible to control the bidding this way. BUT, this is imo not a psych control, since responder has less than 10HCP... Where will he run to? And if you bid another suit, it's clear to everyone you psyched. But this is control again...

I wonder if you play by agreement that 3rd seat preempts are with 0+ cards in the bid suit, is it a psych control? Or is it just another "convention"?

[joker_gib]

Free, on Mar 18 2005, 10:20 AM, said:

I wonder if you play by agreement that 3rd seat preempts are with 0+ cards in the bid suit, is it a psych control? Or is it just another "convention"?

Play poker, there are a lot of psyches there !!! LOLLLL

[cherdano]

@inquiry, free: if you really open 3♥ on QJTxxx x Ax xxxx then 3♥ basically becomse a preempt in an unknown suit, and thus becomes brown sticker -- exactly as if you treat it as a controlled psych (per WBF rules). And I don't see why it shouldn't be treated as such.

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Mar 18 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

@inquiry, free: if you really open 3♥ on QJTxxx x Ax xxxx then 3♥ basically becomse a preempt in an unknown suit, and thus becomes brown sticker -- exactly as if you treat it as a controlled psych (per WBF rules). And I don't see why it shouldn't be treated as such.

Not sure if this is directed at me.. after my third seat preempts, my partners is not forbidden from bidding. The only precaution he should take is to allow me more freedom in my third seat preempt than in other seats. That means, just because he supports me does not necessarily mean he should automatically up the preempt. But I certainly have no controls in place, and my partners are certainly free with a fit to bump the preempt.

I was just point out what you did. If you bar your parnter, because you can preempt in a suit you do no hold... this could run afoul of the laws of psychic controls.