[32519]

Which bids/conventions, if removed, would make your game virtually unplayable? We don't want your entire system here, just a few critical bids/conventions which you consider non-negotiable. Like these from me -
1. A takeout double
2. A definition of forcing/non-forcing bids
3. Some form of Ace/keycard asking bid
4. Stayman
5. Transfer bids

[HeartA]

#2 is most important. Others can arrange as follows:

#4, #1, #3, #5.

[Zelandakh]

The only thing that cannot be worked around on your list is #2. For #1, you can play 1NT as a takeout double and some form of Fishbein over preempts. Bridge was played for some time without #3 and there are also alternative that achieve a similar effect such as Culbertson Asking Bids. There are many NT structures that do not use Stayman - Culbertson considered Stayman completely pointless. And transfer bids were also not used for a long time (and also not part of the Culbertson system).

In other words, you could play Culberston with 1NT as your takeout double and cover 1, 3, 4 and 5. And back in the day, this was the most-played system in the world. But no forcing bids makes constructive bidding almost impossible.

[Free]

Losing #2 would make the game impossible to play. All others are nice to have, some more superior than others, but they wouldn't destroy the game. Should be unanimous.

#1: Losing this one makes competitive bidding more difficult, but not impossible. People used to play penalty doubles in the past and got away with it. There are also various NT bids which are used today as some form of takeout, especially when Dbl is penalty.
#3: I've played relay systems with denial cuebids in the past. We had the opportunity to ask for Aces as well, but it came up maybe once a year. On these hands I might perform worse, but it wouldn't make the game unplayable.
#4: Heeman and probably other methods don't use Stayman, so no problem there.
#5: Transfers make life easier, but again, you can play without them. Your results wouldn't be as great probably, but then again, same thing would happen to other tables neutralizing this effect.

[FrancesHinden]

My life would be made much harder if you took my 1C card away.

[nige1]

1N, 3N, 4♥, 4♠ too

[kael chi]

 32519, on 2013-July-01, 23:50, said:

Which bids/conventions, if removed, would make your game virtually unplayable? We don't want your entire system here, just a few critical bids/conventions which you consider non-negotiable. Like these from me -
1. A takeout double
2. A definition of forcing/non-forcing bids
3. Some form of Ace/keycard asking bid
4. Stayman
5. Transfer bids

Obviously #2 is the most important convention in the system. We can never use other items wihtout forcing/non-forcing definition. Let's see how terrible it is:
For #1. All doubles have to be punishment doubles, just because they are non-forcing.
For #3. No Ace asking bid because any one could pass 4NT if he want.
For #4. No Stayman for the same reason, you could pass 2C after 1NT opening bid.
For #5. No transfer for the same reason.

[hautbois]

Pass.

(Which is technically a call, but double has already been suggested.)

[1eyedjack]

Limiting the response to the meanings of calls rather than prohibition of the calls themselves, there are NO bids the prohibition of which would make the game unplayable. They may reduce your confidence in arriving at the right contract. They may add to the element of luck at the expense of skill. But all players at the table would be subject to the same restrictions, so it would remain a level playing field. It may require a larger population of hands for skill to show its edge. Personally I could not abide playing in the Portland club, which operates under these principles, even if they were to let me through the doors, which they would not, but they survive OK in their little microcosm

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-02, 02:09, said:

The only thing that cannot be worked around on your list is #2. For #1, you can play 1NT as a takeout double and some form of Fishbein over preempts. Bridge was played for some time without #3 and there are also alternative that achieve a similar effect such as Culbertson Asking Bids. There are many NT structures that do not use Stayman - Culbertson considered Stayman completely pointless. And transfer bids were also not used for a long time (and also not part of the Culbertson system).

In other words, you could play Culberston with 1NT as your takeout double and cover 1, 3, 4 and 5. And back in the day, this was the most-played system in the world. But no forcing bids makes constructive bidding almost impossible.

I want open a parhenthesis about Culbertson Asking Bids it seems that be the only post (more my two "7♦" and "RKC 3041" in Intermediate ..) referring about this convenction (it'd be better to talk of a "formulation of a complete system to know controlls in the suits when is planning a slam" involving shape. It seems that this one is knownn to many few. However doesn't talk/read around ? It should be not interesting to know ? Thanks.

[barmar]

You should start a new thread instead of hijacking an old thread.

[Zelandakh]

It may well be that I am the only one here who has played around with Culberston Asking Bids at all. Back in the day they were the very best bidding technology available and the reputation of the Culbertson system was formed largely from the advantage the team had on slam hands. The truth is that hey are clunky, difficult to use and a major memory overhead though. There are simply better methods around now; the advent of Italian cue bids and RKCB has effectively confined CABs to the dustbin of history. You can actually achieve better results with a simpler asking bid scheme in conjunction with a convention for showing key cards (RKCB, Kickback, Turbo) so I am confident CABs will never again be seen at a high level.

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-February-17, 11:27, said:

It may well be that I am the only one here who has played around with Culberston Asking Bids at all. Back in the day they were the very best bidding technology available and the reputation of the Culbertson system was formed largely from the advantage the team had on slam hands. The truth is that hey are clunky, difficult to use and a major memory overhead though. There are simply better methods around now; the advent of Italian cue bids and RKCB has effectively confined CABs to the dustbin of history. You can actually achieve better results with a simpler asking bid scheme in conjunction with a convention for showing key cards (RKCB, Kickback, Turbo) so I am confident CABs will never again be seen at a high level.

I am "partially" agree with you. First this interrogative system is more deeply than difficult to memorized and not because Culbertson said it presenting his work but because there is the possibility to compact the vary answeres. Infact my interest was if it was treated here to study any (eventual) critical aspect. It is just that now we have other possibilities but don't know or talk Asking Bids can be a limitation (on developing a bidding system), bye.

[guido]

A. Definition of strength/shape of calls. (this does not require/imply artificially)
B. Utility 1NT response
C. Takeout Doubles

S.Garton Churchill and partners did remarkably well with this toolbox.

[ggwhiz]

When I started I had a once a month game for about 2 years with a very good player where we played none of the above. Not only was it a hoot, it really helped my game and I still play that way on occasion in midnights.

[mikestar13]

#2 is the only thing absolutely essential, but I would not play in a game that prohibits takeout doubles--with apologies to the Portland Club, this isn't bridge. A sequence like (1♠)-X has a "natural" meaning of "I have enough high cards and spades to beat one spade, and I can either handle any runout, or think they are stupid enough to play it there when I have six or seven of their trumps". This happens maybe one a year (if you play every day) and maybe not, so the effect of prohibiting the takeout double here is equivalent to prohibiting the double itself--a difference which makes no difference is no difference. I will play kitchen bridge without Stayman or Blackwood, but I've never had to in the real world. Of course, transfers and RKC are out of the question at this level (at least with older players, I wonder if any younger players even play kitchen bridge these days).

[Zelandakh]

 mikestar13, on 2015-February-18, 02:04, said:

I wonder if any younger players even play kitchen bridge these days.

The last time I played a major event was a bridge festival where one of the pairs (top 10 finishers from ~300) were young and claiming to be playing kitchen bridge. Unfortnately, my experience is that the most common reason for using this term is to avoid having to give full disclosure. In this respect, kitchen bridge is a perfect system for young players in a short-round format.