Teaching 25 Conventions

[Bertil]

I participate in a social duplicate bridge group and would like to attempt to teach some of the conventions from B.Seagrams book "25 Conventions you should know".
It's available as three Kindle book at Amazone.The 1st volume covers
Stayman
Take out doubles
Weak 2-bids
2C strong opening
Reverses
Blackwood&Gerber
Negative doubles
Jacoby transfers

I don't like the order selected by Seagram because 1NT has a very low
frequency. Also, I would think one should teach Stayman, Blackwood and
transfers together.

In what order would experienced teachers recomment teaching these eight
conventions?

Stig
USA

[Dave Flower]

On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 11:32:19 UTC, Bertil wrote:
> I participate in a social duplicate bridge group and would like to attempt to teach some of the conventions from B.Seagrams book "25 Conventions you should know". It's available as three Kindle book at Amazone.The 1st volume covers Stayman Take out doubles Weak 2-bids 2C strong opening Reverses Blackwood&Gerber Negative doubles Jacoby transfers I don't like the order selected by Seagram because 1NT has a very low frequency. Also, I would think one should teach Stayman, Blackwood and transfers together. In what order would experienced teachers recomment teaching these eight conventions? Stig USA

Well, personally I wouldn't trust a book that considers a reverse as a convention.

Dave Flower

[Derek Turner]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:32:19 -0800, Bertil wrote:

> because 1NT has a very low frequency

Only if you play it 33-35 balanced.

[David Stevenson]

Bertil wrote

Reverses are not conventions, but simple basic bidding. Reverses and
takeout doubles come first.

Eventually you teach two bids: this means strong 2C and weak twos.

Now responses to 1NT: Stayman and transfers.

I suppose negative doubles are next.

Don't bother with slam conventions.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[Barry Margolin]

In article <csQYOPC6...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Bertil wrote
> >I participate in a social duplicate bridge group and would like to
> >attempt to teach some of the conventions from B.Seagrams book "25
> >Conventions you should know".
> >It's available as three Kindle book at Amazone.The 1st volume covers
> >Stayman
> >Take out doubles
> >Weak 2-bids
> >2C strong opening
> >Reverses
> >Blackwood&Gerber
> >Negative doubles
> >Jacoby transfers
> >
> >I don't like the order selected by Seagram because 1NT has a very low
> >frequency. Also, I would think one should teach Stayman, Blackwood and
> >transfers together.
> >
> >In what order would experienced teachers recomment teaching these eight
> >conventions?
>
> Reverses are not conventions, but simple basic bidding. Reverses and
> takeout doubles come first.

It's true that reverses aren't a convention, but beginners frequently
don't know what kind of hand they're need. While it comes out of bridge
logic, they often don't figure it out on their own, and they're
surprised the first few times they make these bids and someone tells
them "you weren't strong enough" or "your first suit should be longer
than the second".

Also, even if they realize this, there are also some conventional
followups, like Lebensohl or Rubensohl. But I suspect this
beginner-oriented book won't get into them.

>
> Eventually you teach two bids: this means strong 2C and weak twos.
>
> Now responses to 1NT: Stayman and transfers.
>
> I suppose negative doubles are next.
>
> Don't bother with slam conventions.

--

Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[derek]

No, for once I have to agree with him. It's pretty common to only get to open a strong 1N once or less per session, which I'd consider a low frequency. But as a director who frequently has to fill in when somebody shows up without a partner, and so routinely plays with NO conventions beyond Stayman and Transfers (and only very rarely without those 2), it's still more common than just about any hand calling for the use of any of the other 23 conventions (and yes, "reverse" is not a convention, but it still takes a fair bit of teaching to explain to beginners why they need a stronger hand to reverse).

[Derek Turner]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:04:38 -0800, derek wrote:

> No, for once I have to agree with him. It's pretty common to only get
> to open a strong 1N once or less per session

Good grief! Does anyone still teach/play a Strong No Trump in the 21st
Century? I could play 5 nights a week for 5 years on this side of the
pond and never encounter a strong 1NT. Probably because all beginners are
taught Acol (12-14). I'm genuinely surprised.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <al5jto...@mid.individual.net>,

But on *this* side of the pond, beginners are taught Standard American
or maybe 2/1, both with strong NT.

Anyway, I don't think the frequency of opening NT is so important to the
discussion. When it happens, you pretty much *need* to know Stayman, and
*should* know transfers. How many players, with any 1NT range, do
without Stayman?

You can get by with natural bidding in most other auctions, which is why
you need to know conventions over NT.

[Adam Lea]

Yes, I play a strong NT with one partner, and I'm in the UK.

[derek]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:24 PM UTC-4, Derek Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:04:38 -0800, derek wrote:
>
> > No, for once I have to agree with him. It's pretty common to only get
> > to open a strong 1N once or less per session
>
> Good grief! Does anyone still teach/play a Strong No Trump in the 21st
> Century? I could play 5 nights a week for 5 years on this side of the
> pond and never encounter a strong 1NT.

That seems unlikely, since I've only played in the UK twice, and encountered one other pair playing strong NT (I see Frances said just last week that she usually does), and playing against English ex-pats in Spain last fall, they all played strong NT.

> Probably because all beginners are
> taught Acol (12-14). I'm genuinely surprised.

That's specifically why I mentioned "strong", and why Stig said "USA" - this book is pretty much aimed at ACBL players, and the vast majority of American beginners will be playing a strong NT.

[france...@googlemail.com]

That seems unlikely, since I've only played in the UK twice, and encountered one other pair playing strong NT (I see Frances said just last week that she usually does), and playing against English ex-pats in Spain last fall, they all played strong NT.

- As a very general rule, most club players in the UK play weak NT (unless they are imported from the US); most really serious tournament players (not playing Precision) play strong NT. There are numerous exceptions in both directions, but as a Bayesian inference the chance they are a strong player is much higher if you discover they are playing strong NT.

[David Stevenson]

Derek Turner wrote

This rather depends on geography. Apart from the fact that nearly all
North America plays and thus teaches a strong no-trump, and several
other countries as well, in England it depends where you are. There is
quite a lot of strong no-trump in the London and Manchester areas, very
little elsewhere.

[derek]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:48:57 AM UTC-4, france...@googlemail.com wrote:

> - As a very general rule, most club players in the UK play weak NT (unless they are imported from the US); most really serious tournament players (not playing Precision) play strong NT. There are numerous exceptions in both directions, but as a Bayesian inference the chance they are a strong player is much higher if you discover they are playing strong NT.

Something to remember, next time I get to play over there!

[Barry Margolin]

In article <68cf46d2-639b-4089...@googlegroups.com>,

france...@googlemail.com wrote:

> - As a very general rule, most club players in the UK play weak NT (unless
> they are imported from the US); most really serious tournament players (not
> playing Precision) play strong NT. There are numerous exceptions in both
> directions, but as a Bayesian inference the chance they are a strong player
> is much higher if you discover they are playing strong NT.

And over here it's more like the opposite. While it's not the case that
most serious tournament players play weak NT, it's certainly the case
that almost all weak NTers are advanced or experts. There are probably
two main reasons for this in both countries:

1. You generally have to be an advanced player to take the initiative to
learn new techniques that are not the norm in your area.

2. Advanced players know the benefits of bucking convention to create
swings.

[Derek Turner]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:57:59 +0000, David Stevenson wrote:

> There is quite a lot of strong no-trump in the London and Manchester
> areas, very little elsewhere.

That's interesting. I've never lived in either of those cities and so not
come across the phenomenon.

[france...@googlemail.com]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 1:24:42 PM UTC, Derek Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:57:59 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > There is quite a lot of strong no-trump in the London and Manchester > areas, very little elsewhere. That's interesting. I've never lived in either of those cities and so not come across the phenomenon.

I think this comes to more or less the same as what I was saying. London* & Manchester contain the vast majority of the top English players, as least as far as where they actually play their bridge goes (e.g. one of the country's top players lives in Herefordshire but he doesn't play there)

*Not really just London, but the Home Counties. David is from Merseyside & rarely distinguishes: we're all just southerners!

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

It is my firm opinion that beginners shouldn't be allowed to use Blackwood or Gerber. Control bids (which are a treatment of a natural bid) should be learned first.

It is really hard to imagine Bridge without takeout doubles.

Negative Doubles are just about the most indispensible convention that Goren didn't teach in the 1940s. ... And they probably come up more often than Stayman does over Strong No trump (That is more often than the sequence 1NT[15-17]-(P)-2C[STAY]. Partner opens and someone overcalls quite often. A negative double permits you to distinguish amongst the various kinds of hands that you can have as a responder over an overcall. They are also ubiquitous amongst duplicate players. I have often played without transfers (especially over a weak no trump). But I would never give up negative doubles.

Weak twos are an essential tool in any game not played for money by lousy declarers. But, they have to fit into the rest of your bidding system. So. you need a method of handling Monster hands. Monster 2C fills the void, but so does a nearly forcing Polish 1C (which is often called "nonforcing but is never passed").

Reverses are an outgrowth of the fact that when, without competition, you unilaterally force partner to bid at the 3-level to support a 5-card suit with a doubleton, you hand better be sure that you have the tickets to play there. To a certain extent, it is "just Bridge" (at least to the "Approach Forcing" world). So, perhaps this ought to be learned as a part of ordinary constructive bidding.

So, I would suggest that Jacoby Transfers and Stayman be taught as part of constructive No Trump bidding. And Reverses be taught as part of constructive suit bidding.

Takeout Doubles and Negative doubles should be taught as parft of competitive bidding.

Weak twos are a treatment that is easy to learn, if you have a decent grasp on weak 3s. The FeatureMax convention or something like it should be learned as part of it. Monster 2C should be learned to take up the slack of weak twos but doesn't need to be really sophisticated.

So far, the only real conventios on the list are Takeout doubles (which are almost 80 years old), negative doubles, and Monster 2C. Everything else is a treatment.

Blackwood and Gerber need to be learned only when people get tired of bidding slams that fail because opponents take two aces or both the ace and king of trump off the top. I'll bet that this doesn't happen often to people who either have 33 points before they bid the slams or who show controls and don't bid slams if they have any suit missing both the ace and the king that isn't void in one hand or the other. Fine. You can teach them, but no one really needs to learn them until they actually BID slams.

[derek]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:20:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
>
> It is my firm opinion that beginners shouldn't be allowed to use Blackwood or Gerber. Control bids (which are a treatment of a natural bid) should be learned first.

Probably not a bad idea, but unfortunately, they've mostly heard of Blackwood (at least), and it's probably very important to teach them that it's a convention to keep you out of bad slams and not one to get you into slams.

> It is really hard to imagine Bridge without takeout doubles.

Not, unfortunately, if you play much with new partners...

> Negative Doubles are just about the most indispensible convention that Goren didn't teach in the 1940s. ... And they probably come up more often than Stayman does over Strong No trump

Amen. I filled-in in a game yesterday. First hand went 1m (by me)-(1S)-X and we ended up playing in 4H with a 4-2 fit - partner had a penalty double of 1S. So next hand, I passed once, then doubled 2D (it ended up played in 4C by opps). After the hand, opponents asked what the double showed, and I said that if partner hadn't treated his first double as negative, surely he was going to expect _my_ double to be penalty...

I don't know if I think Negative doubles are more indispensable than Takeouts, but definitely they're both vital to the modern game.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 3:53:16 PM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:20:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote: > > It is my firm opinion that beginners shouldn't be allowed to use Blackwood or Gerber. Control bids (which are a treatment of a natural bid) should be learned first.

<DEREK>

Probably not a bad idea, but unfortunately, they've mostly heard of Blackwood (at least), and it's probably very important to teach them that it's a convention to keep you out of bad slams and not one to get you into slams.

</DEREK>

<MAR> It is really hard to imagine Bridge without takeout doubles. </MAR>
<DEREK>Not, unfortunately, if you play much with new partners... </DEREK>
<MAR> Negative Doubles are just about the most indispensible convention that Goren didn't teach in the 1940s. ... And they probably come up more often than Stayman does over Strong No trump
</MAR>
<DEREK>

Amen. I filled-in in a game yesterday. First hand went 1m (by me)-(1S)-X and we ended up playing in 4H with a 4-2 fit - partner had a penalty double of 1S. So next hand, I passed once, then doubled 2D (it ended up played in 4C by opps). After the hand, opponents asked what the double showed, and I said that if partner hadn't treated his first double as negative, surely he was going to expect _my_ double to be penalty...

I don't know if I think Negative doubles are more indispensable than Takeouts, but definitely they're both vital to the modern game.

</DEREK>

<MAR>
I didn't say that they were more important takeout doubles. Goren taught Takeout doubles in the 1940s.
</MAR>

[Bertil]

Would you teach 4C instead of Blackwood?
Beginners would not know of splinter bids.

Stig
USA

[Stu Goodgold]

I would not teach any bridge player, novice or otherwise, straight ace-asking Gerber. Many times in the past, rgb'ers voted Gerber the most worthless convention commonly used.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[roger....@gmail.com]

Here in the UK, 1NT is probably the most common bid there is. And I see no reason to teach Blackwood alongside Stayman and Transfers. You have your own views - decide for yourself.

[Douglas Newlands]

On 13/01/13 6:12 AM, Stu Goodgold wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:23:04 PM UTC-8, Bertil wrote:
>> On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:20:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:32:19 AM UTC-8, Bertil wrote:

[vast snip]

I participate in a social duplicate bridge group and would like to
attempt to teach some of the conventions from B.Seagrams book "25
Conventions you should know". It's available as three Kindle book at
Amazone.The 1st volume covers Stayman

>> Would you teach 4C instead of Blackwood?
>>
>> Beginners would not know of splinter bids.

>

> I would not teach any bridge player, novice or otherwise, straight ace-asking Gerber. Many times in the past, rgb'ers voted Gerber the most worthless convention commonly used.
>
> -Stu Goodgold
> San Jose, CA

While I wouldn't play Gerber for all the obvious reasons, there is
another relevant question. How many of the Gerber users have ever
cue-bid or splintered? Indeed, how many of the rank and file social
players in your club ever do either?
I suspect that, since using 4C (and 4D etc) for anything else, is beyond
their ken, we should stop giving them s**t and leave them in peace
with Gerber. If and when they decide to do something about their slam
bidding, they might then see why 4C might be more useful as something
other than Gerber.

doug,
Tasmania

[derek]

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:40:42 PM UTC-4, roger....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Here in the UK, 1NT is probably the most common bid there is. And I see no reason to teach Blackwood alongside Stayman and Transfers. You have your own views - decide for yourself.

But, really, how frequent 1N is, in a land of weak-NTers, is pretty irrelevant - which is exactly why Stig pointed out in his post that he's in the USA. We had some discussion about the relative frequencies of opening 1NT a few months back, and since then I've been keeping a fairly informal count, and find that, even though I have no problem opening 1N with a 5-card major, I am opening slightly less than 1 strong NT per session of 24-27 boards, and our side is opening about 1.5 times. In a weak NT context it's certainly more frequent, but "most common bid there is"? I'm still not convinced.

[derek]

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:40:42 PM UTC-4, roger....@gmail.com wrote:
>

> Here in the UK, 1NT is probably the most common bid there is. And I see no reason to teach Blackwood alongside Stayman and Transfers. You have your own views - decide for yourself.

[tussock]

derek wrote:

> In a weak NT context it's certainly more frequent, but "most common
> bid there is"? I'm still not convinced.

Should be .... 1N; 12-14 balanced and no 5cm. Rule of 19.

1st hand opens it about 8.2%, vs ~60% pass, 8.2% of boards.
2nd hand opens it about 9.5%, vs ~50% pass, 5.7% of boards.
3rd hand opens it about 11.2%, vs ~40% pass, 3.4% of boards.
4th hand opens it about 12.4%, vs ~10% pass, 1.5% of boards.

So ~19% of boards open 1N, while 1% are passed out. Most common? True
for first hand, less so for the rest, probably still /just/ most common
overall unless opps get in a lot of light preempts on semi-balanced hands.

With 11% @15-17, 3.3% @18-19, 1.7% @20-22.



With a 16+ strong club, 1C is 29% of boards, more if it holds lesser
game-forcing hands, so that's their most common by far.

--
tussock

[Dave Flower]

On Saturday, 12 January 2013 23:50:23 UTC, Douglas, wrote:
> On 13/01/13 6:12 AM, Stu Goodgold wrote: > On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:23:04 PM UTC-8, Bertil wrote: >> On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:20:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:32:19 AM UTC-8, Bertil wrote: [vast snip] I participate in a social duplicate bridge group and would like to attempt to teach some of the conventions from B.Seagrams book "25 Conventions you should know". It's available as three Kindle book at Amazone.The 1st volume covers Stayman >> Would you teach 4C instead of Blackwood? >> >> Beginners would not know of splinter bids. > > I would not teach any bridge player, novice or otherwise, straight ace-asking Gerber. Many times in the past, rgb'ers voted Gerber the most worthless convention commonly used. > > -Stu Goodgold > San Jose, CA While I wouldn't play Gerber for all the obvious reasons, there is another relevant question. How many of the Gerber users have ever cue-bid or splintered? Indeed, how many of the rank and file social players in your club ever do either? I suspect that, since using 4C (and 4D etc) for anything else, is beyond their ken, we should stop giving them s**t and leave them in peace with Gerber. If and when they decide to do something about their slam bidding, they might then see why 4C might be more useful as something other than Gerber. doug, Tasmania

Despite the bad press it gets on rgb, Gerber is not a bad convention - merely frequently abused. Teaching the use of Gerber only on the following sequences
can do nothing but good:

1NT pass 4C

2NT pass 4C

2C pass 2D
2NT pass 4C

Dave Flower

[Douglas Newlands]

I think that is entirely a matter of opinion and
not one I share.

doug,
tasmania

[derek]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:40:46 AM UTC-4, tussock wrote:
> derek wrote:
>
> > In a weak NT context it's certainly more frequent, but "most common
> > bid there is"? I'm still not convinced.
>
> Should be .... 1N; 12-14 balanced and no 5cm. Rule of 19.
>
> 1st hand opens it about 8.2%, vs ~60% pass, 8.2% of boards.
> 2nd hand opens it about 9.5%, vs ~50% pass, 5.7% of boards.
> 3rd hand opens it about 11.2%, vs ~40% pass, 3.4% of boards.
> 4th hand opens it about 12.4%, vs ~10% pass, 1.5% of boards.
>
> So ~19% of boards open 1N, while 1% are passed out. Most common? True
> for first hand, less so for the rest, probably still /just/ most common
> overall unless opps get in a lot of light preempts on semi-balanced hands.

OK, now I'm convinced :-) [I don't actually know if the numbers are right, but it's enough that you, or someone, has obviously done the work]

[Adam Beneschan]

I'm not convinced. It seems to me that the number of hands where, opposite a 1NT opener, the only thing you need to know is how many aces and kings the opener holds, is pretty small. And they'd mostly have to be distributional, based on one or two long suits. And on those hand types, it would probably be more useful to show the suit(s) and then ask for key cards, since then you could also ask for the king or queen of a key suit. So I'm not certain that having any ace-ask at all directly over a 1NT opener is all that profitable.

-- Adam

[Dave Flower]

On Monday, 14 January 2013 16:58:02 UTC, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:15:09 AM UTC-8, Dave Flower wrote: > On Saturday, 12 January 2013 23:50:23 UTC, Douglas, wrote: > > > On 13/01/13 6:12 AM, Stu Goodgold wrote: > On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:23:04 PM UTC-8, Bertil wrote: >> On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:20:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:32:19 AM UTC-8, Bertil wrote: [vast snip] I participate in a social duplicate bridge group and would like to attempt to teach some of the conventions from B.Seagrams book "25 Conventions you should know". It's available as three Kindle book at Amazone.The 1st volume covers Stayman >> Would you teach 4C instead of Blackwood? >> >> Beginners would not know of splinter bids. > > I would not teach any bridge player, novice or otherwise, straight ace-asking Gerber. Many times in the past, rgb'ers voted Gerber the most worthless convention commonly used. > > -Stu Goodgold > San Jose, CA While I wouldn't play Gerber for all the obvious reasons, there is another relevant question. How many of the Gerber users have ever cue-bid or splintered? Indeed, how many of the rank and file social players in your club ever do either? I suspect that, since using 4C (and 4D etc) for anything else, is beyond their ken, we should stop giving them s**t and leave them in peace with Gerber. If and when they decide to do something about their slam bidding, they might then see why 4C might be more useful as something other than Gerber. doug, Tasmania > > > > Despite the bad press it gets on rgb, Gerber is not a bad convention - merely frequently abused. Teaching the use of Gerber only on the following sequences > can do nothing but good: > > 1NT pass 4C > > 2NT pass 4C > > 2C pass 2D > 2NT pass 4C I'm not convinced. It seems to me that the number of hands where, opposite a 1NT opener, the only thing you need to know is how many aces and kings the opener holds, is pretty small. And they'd mostly have to be distributional, based on one or two long suits. And on those hand types, it would probably be more useful to show the suit(s) and then ask for key cards, since then you could also ask for the king or queen of a key suit. So I'm not certain that having any ace-ask at all directly over a 1NT opener is all that profitable. -- Adam

Can you suggest a better use for 4C over 1NT ?

Dave Flower

[Stu Goodgold]

No, but that doesn't mean novices should learn it as one the top 25 conventions they should know. They will probably abuse it rather than use it.

My estimation is that I or my partner use it roughly once every 5 years (about 25000 hands). Your average novice will be a life master long before they actually have a proper use for Gerber, and as an LM they will still abuse it!

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
>
>

> Dave Flower

[Bertil]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:32:19 AM UTC-5, Bertil wrote:
> I participate in a social duplicate bridge group and would like to attempt to teach some of the conventions from B.Seagrams book "25 Conventions you should know".
>
> It's available as three Kindle book at Amazone.The 1st volume covers
>
> Stayman
>

> Take out doubles
>
> Weak 2-bids
>
> 2C strong opening
>
> Reverses
>
> Blackwood&Gerber
>
> Negative doubles
>
> Jacoby transfers
>
>
>
> I don't like the order selected by Seagram because 1NT has a very low
>
> frequency. Also, I would think one should teach Stayman, Blackwood and
>
> transfers together.
>
>
>
> In what order would experienced teachers recomment teaching these eight
>
> conventions?
>
>
>
> Stig
>
> USA

Would it be realistic to plan to teach them the ACBL Yellow card bidding?
And why has nobody suggested to use "Commonly used Conventions" by A.Grant?

Stig USA

[Adam Beneschan]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:27:36 PM UTC-8, Dave Flower wrote:

> Can you suggest a better use for 4C over 1NT ?

Seems like anything reasonable would be a better use than an ace ask. How about using 4C to show a quantitative raise (instead of 4NT). There's no theoretical reason why 1NT-4NT needs to be used to show a quantitative raise hand; I think that response is used because of simplicity and inertia. A balanced, slam-invitational raise is a hand type that could benefit from giving the partnership a little more room to describe some useful features (strength concentration, length)--although if we're going to go that route, maybe we should find a way to use 3S instead and give the partnership even more room to describe.

But I'm sure someone could think of an even better use.

-- Adam

[Travis Crump]

On 01/14/2013 04:27 PM, Dave Flower wrote:
> Can you suggest a better use for 4C over 1NT ?
>
> Dave Flower

South African Texas so you can play 4M from either side depending on
responder's hand/possession of tenaces is one possibility. Over 2N, I
think natural has a lot of merit[3S as both minors or diamonds].

Travis

[judyo...@gmail.com]

Indeed, the hands suitable for ace-asking are exactly those with 0- or 1-loser suit. But those can't be handled any other way.

Carl

[Adam Beneschan]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:00:17 PM UTC-8, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:

> > I'm not convinced. It seems to me that the number of hands where, opposite a 1NT opener, the only thing you need to know is how many aces and kings the opener holds, is pretty small. And they'd mostly have to be distributional, based on one or two long suits. And on those hand types, it would probably be more useful to show the suit(s) and then ask for key cards, since then you could also ask for the king or queen of a key suit. So I'm not certain that having any ace-ask at all directly over a 1NT opener is all that profitable.

> Indeed, the hands suitable for ace-asking are exactly those with 0- or 1-loser suit. But those can't be handled any other way.

If the suit is a major, it's pretty standard that 1NT-4x-4M-4NT is RKCB (4x is a Texas transfer). For minor suits, I'd guess that many pairs have agreements about how to use RKCB after transferring to the minor.

I may have gotten off topic, though; I'm not sure if we were arguing whether Gerber is a worthwhile convention at all, or whether it should be taught to beginners in certain sequences. The kind of stuff I'm talking about may be for more advanced partnerships only. The idea that there's a convention that could perhaps be taught to beginners, but that advanced partnerships should throw out, is sort of backwards from how we usually think of conventions; but it might apply in this case.

-- Adam

[derek]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:27:36 PM UTC-4, Dave Flower wrote:
>
> Can you suggest a better use for 4C over 1NT ?

Splinter or control-showing - obviously requiring responder to have a hand strong enough to want to be in slam if there aren't two quick losers in another suit.

I never user Gerber with my regular partner, but I can only recall twice ever using it with another partner, one of whom was one of those silly people who insist that any jump to 4C is Gerber, and put us in a stupid slam.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-01-09 1:38 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Anyway, I don't think the frequency of opening NT is so important to the
> discussion. When it happens, you pretty much*need* to know Stayman, and
> *should* know transfers. How many players, with any 1NT range, do
> without Stayman?

Few if any is the answer to that last, but Stayman is hardly necessary
for beginners. Transfers are also unnecessary, though for better
players transfers over strong NT are a definite improvement to
traditional methods. (Over weak NT, I'm not so sure, and over mini,
transfers are silly.)

The one indispensable convention is takeout double. We can argue which
auctions exactly it's necessary for, but I'd not like to play without
it, even with a beginner.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 6:23:04 PM UTC-8, Bertil wrote:

No. Until they start to realize what is needed for slam, they should either bid them on strength and fit or stay out of them on lack of strength or lack of fit.
Beginners only need an Ace count or Keycard count or Control count convention when they get tired of bidding slams that fail because opponents take the first two tricks.
This means that they need to bid some slams with good fits that fail because of lack of sufficient Keycards and bid some slams with good strength that fail because of a lack of Controls.
And before they learn to count Aces, Keycards, or Controls, they need to learn how to make a control showing bid (I wouldn't try to teach CABs to beginners.) and what to do about one when they see it. The goal is to stop in 3NT or 4H or 4S when a slam isn't going to work. Remember: If 6 is going down for sure, there may be a way to beat 5!

I say all of this and I did the definitive writeup on San Francisco and I am a big advocate of it. If that doesn't tell you something about what convention to teach last, it ought to!

[David Stevenson]

Bertil wrote

>Would it be realistic to plan to teach them the ACBL Yellow card bidding?
>And why has nobody suggested to use "Commonly used Conventions" by A.Grant?

Perhaps because it is often helpful, when asked a direct and specific
question, to answer that question, and not some other question.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <0ZQCDbKi...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <webj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Bertil wrote
>>Would it be realistic to plan to teach them the ACBL Yellow card bidding?
>>And why has nobody suggested to use "Commonly used Conventions" by A.Grant?
>
> Perhaps because it is often helpful, when asked a direct and specific
>question, to answer that question, and not some other question.

"Never answer the question you are asked. Instead, answer the question you
wish you had been asked."

- Robert S. McNamara -

--
- Since the shootings on Friday, the ultra-defensive [maybe wrongly
- hyphenated, but that would be fitting] Roy "News" LIEberman has posted
- at least 90 times, and almost every single post is about his obsessive
- knee-jerk loonball [wacko] gun politics. How much longer before the
- authorities [police] finally disable the trip wires and confiscate the
- arsenal in his St. Louie hovel?

So true. So true.

[Ed Reppert]

In article <8acc4ee4-89f0-4de4...@googlegroups.com>,

Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:

> There's no theoretical reason why 1NT-4NT needs to be used to show a
> quantitative raise hand;

There's no theoretical reason why *any* bid needs to be natural.

[Mark Brader]

Adam Beneschan:

> > There's no theoretical reason why 1NT-4NT needs to be used to show a
> > quantitative raise hand;

Ed Reppert:

> There's no theoretical reason why *any* bid needs to be natural.

Coming soon: 7NT as an ace-asking convention.
--
Mark Brader | "...what the customer wants doesn't matter;
Toronto | the only thing that matters is what the Marketeer
m...@vex.net | thinks the customer thinks he wants --
| or can be made to think he wants." --Steve Summit

[Steve Foster]

Mark Brader wrote:

> Adam Beneschan:
> > > There's no theoretical reason why 1NT-4NT needs to be used to
> > > show a quantitative raise hand;
>
> Ed Reppert:

> > There's no theoretical reason why any bid needs to be natural.

>
> Coming soon: 7NT as an ace-asking convention.

Response: Pass shows 0+.

--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net

[derek]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:58:08 PM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:

> Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > Coming soon: 7NT as an ace-asking convention.
>
> Response: Pass shows 0+.

Double shows 1+

[Steve Foster]

Ah, but that'd be inadmissable, and bar partner from continued
participation in the auction!

[Joachim Parsch]

Steve Foster schrieb:

>
> derek wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:58:08 PM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
> > > Mark Brader wrote:
> > >
> > > > Coming soon: 7NT as an ace-asking convention.
> > >
> > > Response: Pass shows 0+.
> >
> > Double shows 1+
>
> Ah, but that'd be inadmissable, and bar partner from continued
> participation in the auction!

Well, no, because a 7NT bid asks for LHO's aces.
Responses are (as derek said): Pass = 0, Double = 1+.

After a double ROPI applies for opener's partner...

Joachim

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den torsdagen den 17:e januari 2013 kl. 14:51:11 UTC+1 skrev Joachim Parsch:
> Steve Foster schrieb:
>
> >
>
> > derek wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:58:08 PM UTC-4, Steve Foster wrote:
>
> > > > Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > Coming soon: 7NT as an ace-asking convention.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Response: Pass shows 0+.
>
> > >
>
> > > Double shows 1+
>
> >
>
> > Ah, but that'd be inadmissable, and bar partner from continued
>
> > participation in the auction!
>
>
>
> Well, no, because a 7NT bid asks for LHO's aces.
>
> Responses are (as derek said): Pass = 0, Double = 1+.

There have been cases where LHO lied about his aces...
Either he doubled without aces, or he passed and led an ace.

[Ed Reppert]

In article <Ha6dneGUxZrvhGrN...@vex.net>,

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Adam Beneschan:
> > > There's no theoretical reason why 1NT-4NT needs to be used to show a
> > > quantitative raise hand;
>
> Ed Reppert:
> > There's no theoretical reason why *any* bid needs to be natural.
>
> Coming soon: 7NT as an ace-asking convention.

Well, okay, maybe that one. :-)