[Trpltrbl]

Thx for all the responses.

Mike

[paulhar]

Chamaco, on Jul 9 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 9 2004, 06:40 PM, said:

The Lightner double. When used well, it will swing a thousand points into your side.

How frequently do you use the Lightner double ?
Once every how many boards ?

Maybe once every twenty thousand? I've been playing since 1973 and when I was young and foolish I played almost every day. I have used the Lightner Double twice. The first time was against a grand slam in hearts calling for a spade with a singleton ace. The opponents duly ruffed...

The second time was just last month on BBO. I was playing in a game with some very strong players. I had the ♣AQ over an auction that started in 1S P 2C and they ended up in 6♠. I doubled and they ran to 6NT making from the club side and the whole table had a good laugh at my expense.

By far I think the most useful convention (if you could call it that) is a new suit forcing over a 1-level opening bid.

[1eyedjack]

paulhar, on Jul 26 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

The first time was against a grand slam in hearts calling for a spade with a singleton ace.  The opponents duly ruffed...

That should come as no surprise. If they have bid a grand missing an ace then they presumably have the void?

paulhar, on Jul 26 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

The second time was just last month on BBO.  I was playing in a game with some very strong players.  I had the ♣AQ over an auction that started in 1S P 2C and they ended up in 6♠.  I doubled and they ran to 6NT making from the club side and the whole table had a good laugh at my expense.

Is either of these examples a Lightner double? I would just call them a double.

[Rebound]

I wouldn't drag this discussion out any further if there wasn't something to add, however, although I agree that the classics are probably the best, e.g. t/o dbls, ace asking bids (Blackwood, RKB, Gerber), strong 2C, and Staymen, there are a couple I really like that no one else I run into on BBO seems to play.

#1. Jordan. Over partner's 1M opening, I've found it the best tool for dealing with interferance. I love the idea of being able to double for penalties at the 2 level with confidence.

#2. I'm not sure if this is Fishbein or not, frankly. It was taught to me by another player. Over opponent's weak 2, double is for penalty, overcall in nt is takeout, cue bid is Micheals, any suit is forcing for 1 round, jump in nt is natural. As above, I love to be able to double at the 2 level for penalties. You may not be happy about losing 2nt as natural, but I have found if you have enough for that you can either bid it anyway as takeout, or dbl for penalties.

#3. SOS redbl, extremely useful, if rarely used.

Incidentally, I hate super-weak 2 level openings, except maybe in 3rd seat. But #1 and #2 provide great defense against those who do open or overcall garbage. I prefer disciplined weak 2's showing at least 2/3 top honors with asking bids avail to determine min/max, solid, etc.

I would love to hear from the experts what they think of the above.

[the hog]

"#2. I'm not sure if this is Fishbein or not, frankly. It was taught to me by another player. Over opponent's weak 2, double is for penalty, overcall in nt is takeout, cue bid is Micheals, any suit is forcing for 1 round, jump in nt is natural. As above, I love to be able to double at the 2 level for penalties. You may not be happy about losing 2nt as natural, but I have found if you have enough for that you can either bid it anyway as takeout, or dbl for penalties"

Losing your natural NT overcall is FAR too heavy a price to pay. If you want to retain a penalty X in some circumstances, you might try CMOBDOR
Cheaper minor over black, double over red. This retains your penalty x over C & S.

To be honest, I much prefer to play X for takeout right throughout.

Re your choice of sound weak 2 bids, well that is simply whatever you prefer. Be aware though that playing weak 2 bids of varying strengths does put much more pressure on the opponents, (and is more fun).

[Rebound]

Fair enough. It's purely preference. However, it also puts pressure on partner. Anyway, to me, opening with something like x Qxxxxx Qxx xxx (or worse) smacks of a psyche and no matter whether it shows that I am a mediocre player (cause i wouldn't know when to psyche or how to handle one if Eddie Kantar threw one of his books at me,) I detest psychic bids as being contrary to the spirit of the game.

Incidentally, I'd still like your opinion of #1,#3 :-)

[the hog]

Rebound,
Jordan I have never played, so can't comment.
Sos xx; well they don't come up very often. Paul Marston had an interesting philosophy here - if the opps are prepared to let you play x in a contract, there has to be a better spot, so xx was always for t/o.

Re your comment re psyches, well we have been through all this many times in these forums, but psyches are prefectly legal, and are in fact specifically allowed in the Rules of the game, and are totally within the spirit of the game. I psyche very rarely, but would categorically refuse to play in any event which disallowed psyches.

[Cascade]

Rebound, on Jul 27 2004, 11:27 AM, said:

I detest psychic bids as being contrary to the spirit of the game.

Detesting psychic bids is contrary to the spirit of the game.

[inquiry]

hey rebound is a new poster.. go light on him. A lot of people dont like psyches (i am not one of them),,, but done in excess or with secret agreement between partners, they can be very bad indeed.

Rebound rest assured there are plenty who share your view.... and all views welcome here, even incorrect ones.

Ben

[jtfanclub]

I've played where doubles were generally point showing, saying nothing about distribution (and giving partner the option to take out or leave in). We also play Fishbein so we don't take out double pre-emptive bids. It's not my first choice for a bidding system, but it seems to work fine.

Takeout doubles also cause problems at the table. Is 1S X P (quick) 2D different from 1S X P (long pause) 2D? Admittedly I'm not playing with experts, but it seems like takeout doubles are the most overused and abused convention.

My favorite convention? Opening 1C with a longer suit (like three clubs and four hearts). Without it, how can you play 5 card majors?

[Cascade]

I do not understand the paranoia about psychic bids.

In most other games the ability to make a deceptive play is admired as a useful skill. Actually I can not think of a single game where a legal deceptive manoeuver is treated with the contempt with which some bridge players treat psychic bids. Psychic bids have been part of bridge since somewhere near its foundation and they are protected as part of the game by the laws (L40A).

IMO crying foul because someone psyches against you just displays poor sportsmanship.

Like Ron I rarely psyche but I unconditionally reserve anyone's lawful right to psyche.

I am not trying to be hard on anyone but promulgating information that a lawful action is dubious is not IMO good for the game.

[1eyedjack]

Rebound, on Jul 26 2004, 06:27 PM, said:

I detest psychic bids as being contrary to the spirit of the game.

And presumably you also destest the giving of a false count in a suit by defenders.

[jtfanclub]

In most other games the ability to make a deceptive play is admired as a useful skill. Actually I can not think of a single game where a legal deceptive manoeuver is treated with the contempt with which some bridge players treat psychic bids.

That's because in most games they're held in such contempt they're made illegal.

For example, in baseball there was such contempt for a pitcher who tried to fool a baserunner into thinking he was throwing to the plate, but was really concealing the ball, that they instituted a 'balk' rule. In chess, people putting their hand on a piece, checking their opponent's reaction, and then moving a different piece was held in such contempt that they banned it.

If my partner has EVER psyched in a certain position before, I alert the bid and point out that this is the normal meaning but this is how he's psyched it in previous times. If I know my partner has psyched in a situation and my opponents don't, I consider that UI. I don't really care what the ACBL or the WBF or the XYZ thinks. It's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. If you don't happen to believe that, that's fine. I won't think less of you for it. Well, not much less.

And to answer another post, in some particular situations with discards, we tell our opponents if asked that we use standard discards but in this situation we're as likely to false card as not. If you know your partner falsecards in a situation, and you use that information without telling your opponents, how is that not an undisclosed agreement?

[the hog]

"That's because in most games they're held in such contempt they're made illegal."

I assume that includes Poker. Oh, you can bluff in poker. Well it must include sports such as boxing or tennis eg. Oh you can feint in boxing. And you can disguise a drop shot in tennis. Well what about chess? Oh you mean you can play so that you opponent thinks you are launching a Queen side attack and instead be threatening the other side of the board completely. Well then I don't know where this is held in contempt.

I don't want to start all this again, but the reason that some players "detest" psyches is that they don't understand the laws. In most cases I doubt whether the UI question ever even enters into the equation.

[helene_t]

If some people detest psyches, maybe it's because they have bad experience with psyches. I, for one, don't like it when a regular partner psyches playing IRL. Opps may suspect (maybe rightfully) that it's a secret agreement. I may be able to guess the psyche on the basis of his facial expression. Playing online with an unknown p, psyches are fine and I like the opps to psyche once in a while, too. Also, I'm somewhat hypocritic since I do psyche signals and leads rather frequently, maybe to the point that it should be mentioned on our CC. I'm not sure about this.

Now that even Gerber and Fishbein have been mentioned as "best convention", I will cast my vote for Flannery. I like not having to show my 4-card spades when partner opens 1♥.

[luke warm]

get ready to duck, helene ... we flannery players have been known to take abuse heheh

[the hog]

"I will cast my vote for Flannery."

Cast is a good expression La belle Helene; it should be tied to a rope and tossed of the end of a boat as an anchor. Flannery is about as useful playing 4Nt as Eyerish Blackwood - "pd I have 4 aces, do you have any jacks?"

[mikestar]

Psychics are legal and I oppose any effort to make them illegal. However, it is anyone's right to detest psychics (as long as said person doesn't try to outlaw them), just as it is any players right to detest Precision, Jacoby transfers, Roman Key Card Blackwood, etc.

[1eyedjack]

mikestar, on Jul 27 2004, 09:48 AM, said:

Psychics are legal and I oppose any effort to make them illegal. However, it is anyone's right to detest psychics (as long as said person doesn't try to outlaw them), just as it is any players right to detest Precision, Jacoby transfers, Roman Key Card Blackwood, etc.

Agreed, however:

I might detest Precision, but I would not detest Precision "as being contrary to the spirit of the game".

[Rebound]

Well, look what I started, phew! First, while I personally dislike psyches, I fully understand that the Laws permit them, and I would never cry foul against an opponent who psyched against me. I agree that would just be sour grapes. However, I am sure that many of you will agree that, whether for good or ill, destructive bidding in general tends to be frowned upon. Frankly, in the case of psyches, my opinion is that, as usual, given the opportunity for gain, too many people abuse the psychic bid, spoiling it's contribution to the game of bridge.

Incidentally, there was an earlier thread I read which discussed a particular auction where the comment was made that given a particular hand a psyche is "almost automatic."

I appreciate everyone's comments by the way. I wasn't in any way offended. I prefer honest and open discussion rather than, "if you don't agree you should go away."

Falsecards, I have no problem with since they are far less open to abuse. As opposed to psyches, if your partner regularly falsecards, then falsecards his falsecards, etc, unless you are actually cheating by forming a partnership agreement, you are never going to know what his signals mean and will lose more than you gain (I think.)

Cascade, to a degree, I agree that bad-mouthing a legal aspect of the game may unfairly bias people. However, isn't that what this thread - and the other asking people to post their least favorite conventions - is promoting (pot calling the kettle balck and all that)? Anyway, as long as it doesn't turn into a personal attack, debates of this kind are good for the game. One of the things that appeals to me about bridge is that, although the basic game has not really changed, it continues to grow and evolve. Some of the changes, however, psychic control asking bids, for example, may not be good for the game and re-evaluation of such things from time to time is important.

I welcome your comments.