There were many pioneers in establishing these conventions, and they are used, employed, and applied by bridge players globally. They were invented, implemented, revised, and became useful tools in the management of 26 cards. They serve as instruments of communication between two people playing the same game. Some have practically remained the same from the day of their conception, and some have experienced several variations.
If all bridge hands were balanced, the game would be boring. There are many combinations resulting from the deal of 52 cards. Many have weird shapes. In order to master these multitudes of card combinations, conventions have been devised, created, invented, and then varied and modified by the average and expert bridge player. Our intention is to simplify their definitions and applications in order to make the conventions understandable and helpful. One disadvantage of conventions is their interpretations.
Even bridge players with thirty years experience disagree on the defined meaning of some bids because of the numerous amount of card combinations. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to reach a Partnership Agreement, and if your partner makes an inaccurate bid, then he has made a mistake, which you must accept. Shouting at him will do no one any good.
Bridge is supposed to bring joy, fun and entertainment to the players. If a bidding mistake happens, please return to your written Partnership Agreement, review it, and, if necessary, make the required amendments. In this manner, you and your partner will avoid the same mistake again.
It is important to have a partnership agreement concerning the definition of a convention. Otherwise the Line of Communication becomes disturbed and distorted. Therefore, in addition to the Basic Guidelines, the agreed usage of the definitions of the conventions must be clear to both partners.
the order that the reader does not become overwhelmed and overpowered by examples and explanations.
Simply search for the convention you would like to review, deal yourselves a few hands as practice, and if you like the convention, please include it in your partnership agreement. Keep in mind that almost every convention has been altered, changed, and improved over time and variations have also become popular. We have tried to include these variations under the main heading of the convention.
Note: The first Google site search engine above is only dedicated to search for phrases on this site. The second Google site search engine above searches only selected bridge-related websites, not the Internet.
Acol System – Conventions and Methods
The attempt has been made to present the principles of the Acol bidding system separately. The bidding system is considered an evolving bidding system, in that there are no strict rules, to which all players adhere. The Acol bidding system is largely employed in standard British tournament play and also widely used in other parts of the world such as Australia and The Netherlands. It is named after the Acol Bridge Club, which was previously located on Acol Road in London NW6, England, where the system evolved in the late 1920s.
Artificial Opening Bids – Artificial 1 Club Opening Bid
Included, among others, are Strong One Club Opening bids, Strong One Diamond Opening bids, Precision Bidding Systems, Strong Club Bidding Systems. Many bidding systems and/or conventional approaches employ an opening bid, which is one round forcing for the partner. They are generally categorized as strong Club systems. The attempt has been made to list these devised and developed approaches, including possible variations. In some instances, only the opening bids are provided since there are no additional resources to draw from because some bidding systems have been lost to history, have been modified and varied, have not been fully published, are in books presently out of print, or are simply the result of a particular, individual partnership agreement, or the origins were developed in other countries and these publications have not been translated.
Defense Methods Against Artificial Opening Bids
The popularity of the strong, artificial 1 Club opening bid and other strong, artificial opening bids on the one level has increased since such an opening bid allows the partnership to perhaps reach a contract, which would otherwise not be biddable. Owing to such strong, artificial opening bids the bridge experts, the bridge authorities, and experienced bridge players have devised and developed defense methods in order to compete.
Artificial Two Clubs Opening Bid – Two Clubs Opening Bid – 2 Clubs Opening Bid
A conventional method for opening a very strong holding, which contains either value or is strong owing to distributional values. In modern bidding practice, there are several conditions and requirements under which a holding should be opened with a strong forcing bid.
Fernando’s Two Clubs Convention – Fernando’s 2 Clubs Convention
Note: the original source is off-line. This is the short synopsis or summary of Mr. Fernando of The Netherlands and presents a conventional method in combination with Dutch Acol, which is employed quite often in The Netherlands. It is a conventional method intended as an alternative method in treating a strong, artificial 2 Clubs opening, which is regarded in almost every bidding system as a strong holding. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Response Methods to a Strong, Artificial 2 Clubs Opening Bid
We have listed possible response methods on a separate web page. These response methods, or continuances, are critical to the partnership in order to exchange and communicate definitive information and to establish the final contract.
Basic Guidelines
The beginning student of the game of bridge should contact the nearest bridge club, which offers instructional classes for the absolute beginner. Such guidelines are basic in understanding this particular card game. Only with this fundamental knowledge can the beginning student of the game progress to higher and higher levels. This all requires attention to detail, accuracy in bidding and also in play technique.
The bridge instructor can also suggest and recommend the suitable and appropriate books for learning step by step, progressing at the correct pace, provide correct information and practice exercises, and answer any questions.
Anima – Animus – Persona – Ego – and you thought we forgot.
Etiquette
An essential element at the bridge table. It does not matter whether you are playing social bridge, rubber bridge or Duplicate Contract Bridge.
Concentration
If you lose your concentration, you may lose the necessary trick needed to make the contract. Always stay alert.
Conduct
It is always nice to make a good impression on your fellow bridge players. We should always try to be friendly and courteous.
Propriety
A strict code of ethics and courtesy is part of the game. The purpose of the Proprieties contained in Chapter VII, Laws 72 to 76 is to make the game of bridge more enjoyable for everyone, no matter what the situation.
Zero Tolerance
The ACBL has printed Guidelines on all of the above. It would be nice if everyone would read this article. This policy has now been established and is enforced at all sanctioned events.
Bergen Bidding Methods
The presentation and listing of several bidding conventions and bidding methods, which are applied in modern bidding auctions. We have listed them separately to make the search easier for the visitor.
Bridge Bidding Systems – UNDER CONSTRUCTION
The attempt has been made to list the different bidding systems available to the bridge player. Many pioneering men and women from around the world have worked diligently to devise these bidding systems applicable to the game of bridge. The attempt has not been undertaken to explain each and every bidding system, but the self-improving bridge player should be aware that there are many other and different bidding systems employed by bridge players. Many of these bidding systems have also withstood the challenge of time, and have survived through popularity in the bridge community; others have not.
Biedermeijer Bidding Methods
These bidding methods are adapted to the learning skills of the bridge player, the bridge student, and the bridge novice. The methods are designated by colors, which refer to the level of the bridge player’s skill. Many of these presentations are in the original language of The Netherlands. However, bridge players from The Netherlands have been so kind as to contribute translations, for which we express our gratitude.
Carding – Signals – Discards – Leads
All these designations are employed during play and are employed by the defense in order to communicate certain information. Carding is defined in the game of bridge as the set of agreements between partners relating to the meanings of cards played on defense. This communication begins with the first card, the lead to the play of the hand, and continues throughout the entire play. Each partnership must have, should have an agreed method as to what information a certain lead, discard, or played card communicates.
Coups
A coup can be defined, relating to the game of bridge, as a masterstroke, the shortening of trumps to enable picking up an onside Minor tenace in trumps without a card to lead for finesse or a special manoeuvre by the declarer. In the game of bridge the term coup is also a generic name for various techniques in play, denoting a specific pattern in the lie and the play of cards.
Cuebids – Cuebidding
A cuebid is a forcing bid made by a player in a suit, in which the player cue bidding cannot wish to play. The cuebid may be initiated and/or employed in certain and defined bidding parameters to communicate certain information about the holding and the desire to show continue, force, show, or tell particular details about the holding. Such action may occur either in a contested or an uncontested auction.
The term defense has many meanings among social structures and civilized societies, but the definition only refers to a sport activity is included in the following presentation. The employed definition is an action, means, or tactics used in trying to impede the opposition from attaining their optimum or the condition that produces the best possible result. In summation of the word defense, it is simply and solely an act of defending against either an attack, a danger, or injury.
In the game of bridge the employment of the word defense becomes an informative, explanatory phrase or description of a call or bid in competitive auctions. Many bridge theorists, authors, experienced players, and bridge players in the field, have devised methods, artificial and natural, to defend, interfere, compete, hinder, and obstruct. These defense methods have become accepted by the bridge community and by the bridge governing bodies in order to add a sporting chance, a possible counter-attack, a calculated element for the bridge player in competitive events.
Note: Any reader wishing to add any conventional defense method to the list presented below is courteously requested to contribute the method for the benefit of other bridge players.
Note: The attempt has been made to differentiate the various distinct, and sometimes specialized conventional defense methods and list them under the heading of an opposing action, following which they are intended to be employed. This will not always be possible and any defense method, which cannot be so categorized has been listed under Defense & Defense Methods.
Continuations by Responder Following Competition
Several conventional defense methods have been devised and developed for the responder of the opening bidder following an immediate overcall. The attempt is made to include these defense methods of the one partnership to defense methods employed by the opponents on one web page for the convenience of the reader.
Defense Methods in General
Once an auction has begun, the opposing players inevitably initiate competition. As a result many defense methods have been created, invented, devised, and developed. The attempt has been made to list these defense methods and offer the wisdom of bridge experts and bridge players.
Defense Methods Against No Trump Openings
Many bridge players, many experienced bridge players, many expert bridge players have devised methods to compete against an opening No Trump bid by the opponents. All ranges of No Trump can be addressed. Once an original concept has been published and accepted by the bridge community, then the variants, the variations, the revised versions, and the modified versions are soon devised to remedy a certain flaw or short-coming of the original version. We have attempted to list these original concepts and their variations on a separate web page.
Defense Methods
Defense Methods following a Strong 1 Club Opening Bid. The concept of opening the auction with a strong, artificial 1 Club bid was conceived by Mr. Harold Stirling Vanderbilt in 1925, by the person who is credited with devising a scoring system, which popularized the evolving game of bridge to the extent that its popularity outweighed all other card games. This concept has proven effective and has been adopted into several bidding systems, including Precision and Big Club bidding systems. This concept was the foundation of his Vanderbilt Club System. Bridge theorists and bridge players have since then attempted to find a way to compete against such an opening bid. The attempt has been made to list such competitive methods.
Defense Methods
Finding and agreeing upon a method following a preemptive bid by an opponent is sometimes difficult since the bidding space for communicating information has been stolen, removed, deleted. Many bridge experts have devised, developed, and defined several defence methods.
Doubles – Redoubles
Every bridge player employs the call of double, but the meaning can be different in many cases and from partnership agreement to partnership agreement, and can actually change during the auction. Please take a look, and brush up on your doubles.
Ekren’s Bidding System
This bidding system was devised and developed by Mr. Bård Olav Ekren, who is from Norway. The original version has been altered to reflect the evolving stages and has been complemented with several Concepts and Principles. The bidding system has been categorized independently. This is written in a .pdf file format and will automatically by opened by your browser in a new window.
Moscito Byte Bidding System
This bidding system was developed and devised first by Mr. Paul Marston and Mr. Stephen Burgess. The designation is an acronym of Major Oriented Strong Club. For its foundation, Mr. Paul Marston and Mr. Stephen Burgess used to a considerable extent the Symmetric Relay system and applied their version especially in auctions where the opening side has the balance of power. The concept is also a modification of the Weak Opening Systems devised by Mr. Jukasz Slawinski of Poland.
Movements for the Game of Bridge – Bridge Movements – Bridge Table Movements
As bridge movements are defined, they are schedules of progression for players as individuals, as teams, and as pairs, indicating the seat to be occupied and the boards to be played by each player, team, or pair at each round. Since the combination is so numerous, movements have been created for certain numbers of players, teams, or pairs as well as for a certain number of boards to be played.
Muiderberg
This is a bidding concept popular and often employed in The Netherlands. Other designations are The Dutch Two Bids and The Lucas Two Bids. The origin of the Muiderberg or Muiderbergh Two Bids, which is sometimes spelled differently is the village of Muiderbergh, The Netherlands, which lies near Amsterdam. The concept was devised by Mr. Onno Janssens and Mr. William (Willem) Boegem, who both lived in this village, and was based on Weak Two openings
The material is presented in the original language of The Netherlands and in the English language. Bridge friends from The Netherlands have been so kind as to translate the information and to contribute these translations for the benefit of our visitors. We greatly appreciate their time and effort.
Continuances Following Immediate Interference
These are conventional methods, devised approaches, suggested and recommended treatments for the partnership following an overcall by the immediate opponent after partner has opened the auction with 1 No Trump
Note: In essence these are defense methods triggered and employed by the partnership following the employment of a defense method by the opponents. In other words these methods are defense methods to defense methods, which are normally initiated following an overcall by the immediate opponent following the opening of No Trump by the partner on the one level. Whether or not these guidelines and methods are applicable and can be applied following a No Trump opening on the two-level is only by the partnership agreement or when such is included by the developer of said method.
Note: The No Trump range can be either weak or strong, generally between 12 point and 18 points. The partnership adjusts the working values and distributional values in order to reach the best contract.
Stayman Convention and Stayman Variations
The initial concept of the conventional method designated as Stayman was employed in the early days of the game of bridge by Mr. Ewart Kempson, 1895-1966, of England and was further developed by Mr. Seca Jascha Skidelsky, or Mr. S. J. Simon, or better known just as Skid, born in the year 1904, in Harbin, Manchuria, and died in the year 1948, to exchange additional information about the holding of partner following an opening of 1 No Trump.
In the following years the concept was devised independently by Mr. John C.H. Marx, (aka Jack), born in the year 1907 and died in the year 1991,of England, and Mr. George Rapee, born in the year 1915 and died in the year 1999, of New York, United States. The concept originated around the year 1945. The playing partner of Mr. George Rapee was Mr. Samuel M. Stayman, born in the year 1909 and died in the year 1993. It was Mr. Samuel M. Stayman, who promoted, advanced, and further developed the concept, this strategy, and response method.
It was also Mr. Samuel M. Stayman, who first published and promoted this concept publicly to and within the bridge community, and therefore became henceforth known as the Stayman convention.
No Trump Response Methods
There are various conventional methods as to how the responder can most accurately describe his holding after his partner has opened the auction with 1 No Trump. After one partner has opened the auction, or has indeed even overcalled with a No Trump bid, the continuances are many and various. The attempt is made to list possible response methods, which can describe a certain pattern in addition to values held.
Opening Bids of Bidding Systems
Many bridge theoreticians, bridge authors, bridge publicists, and bridge players have devised bidding systems to describe a holding containing thirteen cards. Generally, these bidding systems have survived the test of time only in the preservation of the opening bids. This is a collection only of these opening bids, not the responses and/or continuances. This is only a study for the bridge historian. If there is a bidding system not mentioned here, any assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Rules
A compilation of the mathematical Rules, which help, assist, and guide the player by defense and offense through counting and application.
Preempts and Preemptive Bids plus Weak Two Bids
These are bids by any player, which increase the level of bidding and are used as a form of obstruction. They can be disciplined or undisciplined preempts and can change according to the state of the vulnerability of the partnership.
Ogust Convention
A conventional method of rebidding after a 2 No Trump response to a Weak Two opening bid by partner, devised by Mr. Harold A. Ogust, with the intention of describing the holding more completely in terms of weakness and strength.
Variations of Ogust – Ever since the concept was devised there have been many variations, extensions, and modifications made to the fundamental concept. Below are a few of these altered variations.
Benji Acol Variation
This variation has been adopted for the Acol bidding system to show not only the quality of the suit, but also the number of high card points via the responses.
Bogust Variation
This variation is based on the Weak Two bidder opening with either a good 5-card suit with two of the top three honors, or any 6-card suit. In response to the forcing 2 No Trump bid by partner, the rebids of the Weak Two bidder show the length of the suit and the approximate number of Losing Tricks.
Feature Variation
The origin is unknown. This variation, via the responses, determine whether the Weak Two bidder is indeed weak or strong and to discover whether the Weak Two bidder has a specified feature in the desired suit. The indicated honor is generally considered either a Queen or higher.
Honor-Quality Variation
The origin of this variation is unknown. Similar to the Ron Klinger variation, this variation promises a certain number of the top three honors together with the quality of the suit.
Modified Ogust
A variant of the Ogust conventional method developed by Mr. Jeff Goldsmith specifically for a Weak Two opening bid in Hearts.
New Ogust or September
The origin is unknown. A variation of the Ogust conventional system, whereby the rebids are based on the Losing Trick Count method.
Reverse Ogust
A variant of the Ogust conventional method, origin unknown, whereby the meanings of the two bids 3 Diamonds and 3 Hearts are reversed.
Ron Klinger Variation
A variation developed by Mr. Ron Klinger of Australia to indicate via the rebids the number of honors held after a Weak Two opening bid.
Opening bids on the One and Two Levels, and which are not Preemptive Bids
Opening Bids are perhaps the most important in the game of bridge, since it begins the actual auction, whereas a Pass generally identifies the lack of ability to compete and possibly opening values. The attempt is made to provide a list of conventional opening bid methods.
One Heart Opening Transfer to One Spade
The origin of this conventional opening is unknown. An opening bid of 1 Heart transfers the partner to the Spade suit either or the one level or on the two level depending on whether the immediate opponent intervenes with an overcall of a suit or No Trump. If the opponent makes a call of a double, then the partnership treats this action as not having occurred and is ignored. This conventional method is presented in the form of a .pdf file by ACBL. This method is only archived and preserved on this site, also in .pdf file format, for future reference.
Parkes Two Spades Opening Bid – Parkes 2 Spades
The origin of this conventional opening is unknown. The concept is frequently a Weak Two bid opening with multiple meanings and clarified by the opener with the second bid. The high card point values may be less than an opening count or exceedingly strong and the Weak Two bid is dependent on distribution.
Two No Trump Either As Both Major Suits Or Both Minor Suits
The origin of this conventional opening method is unknown and is considered to be classified as a Highly Unusual Method – HUM – in that no known suit is recognizable when opened. It is, or was, generally played in Norway and has been allowed to be played in several divisions of bridge events and even on a national level, but has been disallowed owing to the fact that any opening, as defined by the sponsoring bridge organizations, is defined by indicating at least one known suit if the opening bid is weaker than 16 high card points.
Polish Club Bidding Systems
Many of the following articles are present on the Internet and have only been preserved and archived on this site for future reference. The majority of this information has been presented for and posted to the Internet by Mr. Mike Mardesich. The information provided in these articles has also been through the contribution of several bridge experts, such as Mr. John Blubaugh, who for many years was a member of the expert panel of the Problem Solvers for the online Brydz Magazine of Poland, a magazine which is comparable to The Bridge World.
Scoring Software Programs
Many bridge players, who are also very much acquainted with computer programming, have developed computer software programs to assist in the scoring of duplicate bridge events. Below is a list of Internet Websites, which offer such programs. The individual bridge player must determine the reliability of such software applications. Some of these software programs are freeware and others must be purchased.
Slam Bidding Methods
Such slam biding methods abound in the game of bridge and they are all not Blackwood-related. The attempt has been made to list these methods, some of which were devised and developed in the very early stages of the newly organized game of bridge.
Blackwood Convention
Mr. Easley Blackwood came up with an idea on how to bid and also how to avoid slams. This concept in the game of bridge is almost universal in practically every bidding system, albeit somehow varied, modified, and/or altered to meet modern bidding versions.
Blackwood Variations
There have been many variations to this concept and all have their place in the game of bridge. The attempt has been made to include as many of these variations as possible.
Note: Blackwood is not the only conventional method to attempt to find a slam. Other conventional methods have been devised and developed. These conventional methods have been listed separately under Slam Bidding Methods.
Gerber and Gerber Variations
The concept behind the Gerber convention, which Mr. John Gerber, (1906 – 1981), devised in 1938 is rather universal in its application. This convention is sometimes referred to as the Four Clubs Blackwood. However, the concept was also devised independently by Dr. William Konigsberger and Mr. Wim Nye, both of Geneva, Switzerland, and was also published by them in Europe in 1936. There are many variations of this approach and the attempt has been made to list these also.
Squeezes and Squeeze Plays
These are different plays which forces an opponent, sometimes both opponents, to discard a winner or a potential winner. Squeeze Plays constitute a main and major portion of the game of bridge and deserves its own category. The foundation, logic and reason for establishing a squeeze play is based on the auction, based on the count of the cards, based on inference of the location of known cards and guards, as they are called, and on many other different aspects. The student of bridge is well advised to study the different squeeze plays and become acquainted with them.
This section lists other conventional methods, approaches, treatments, and styles, which are not listed in other sections or listed under an alternative heading. The list is alphabetical and is so structured for the convenience of the visitor.
Anti-Michaels Defense Method
Work in Progress: This is a defense method for the partnership, which generally opens the auction and which is immediately followed by a Michaels-style overcall. This overcall can be either natural or artificial, and can specify either a two-suited holding with both suits identified or specify only one suit and the second suit remains unknown. This method is therefore a defense method to a defense method and constitutes the continuances for the responder following the overcall. Since this method is normally defined by the individual partnership specific information is meager. Any information will be greatly appreciated.
Approach Principle
Note: Also referred to as an Approach Bid. Study and experience in the day of Auction Bridge lead Mr. Ely Culburtson to conceive the idea that opening a suit and exchanging information slowly between the two partners was preferable to a No Trump opening of various ranges and guessed responses, which was customary in the early stages of bridge.
Auby-rutern – Auby Diamond
The Auby-Diamond is a system that was designed for playing only when non-vulnerable. This system was developed and is attributed to Mr. Daniel Auby of Vallentuna, Sweden.
Balancing Fishbein Convention
After reviewing the original Fishbein convention, the concept of the unique Takeout Double is for the player immediately following the preemptive opening to bid the cheapest, next available suit. An immediate double is a penalty double. As with almost all conventions, methods and treatments, the Fishbein convention has been changed and altered to meet the needs of the bridge player. This is how the Balancing Fishbein Convention evolved. Bridge players took the initial concept, discovered its flaws, and set about to change the concept. The concept of Mr. Harry Fishbein has been changed dramatically and really does not have very much in common with the result of its evolution.
Bluhmers Convention
Named for Mr. Lou Bluhm
Bourke Relay
Auctions that start 1x-p-1y-p-2x-p are good candidates for a relay approach. One method discussed in Bridge World in 1996 by Mr. David Bird and Mr. Tim Bourke is known as the Bourke Relay. See also: Gollancz 1995, ISBN 0575061138. Source is Bobby Knows Bridge authored by Mr. Martin Johnson. Source, which is presented in .pdf file format.
Note: Another source can be found online from an online bridge forum from the year 1999. This source can be found on reginabridge.com and is a response by Mr. Chris Ryall to a question posted online. This response is written in text format, but the content has been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Balanced Unbalanced Opening System – Version 1.6, June 11, 2010
This is a .pdf file and will automatically be opened by your browser in a new window. This is the designation for an Openings System devised and developed by Mr. J. R. Dwyer.
Balanced Unbalanced Openings System: With Supporting Information – Version 1.4. |Updated: September 27, 2007.
This is a .pdf file and will automatically be opened by your browser. This is the designation for an Openings System devised and developed by Mr. J. R. Dwyer. The purpose of the Balanced-Unbalanced Openings System is to expand these cases to the entire set of balanced holdings. This is accomplished by expanding and enhancing the standard balanced openings.
Balanced Unbalanced Openings System: With Supporting Information And Tools – Version 1.3. Updated April 27, 2007.
This is a .pdf file and will automatically be opened by your browser. This is the designation for an Openings System devised and developed by Mr. J. R. Dwyer. The rationale for such informative material is that there are proven, standard responses to No Trump openings that permit a partnership to arrive at proper contracts. The purpose of the Balanced-Unbalanced Openings System is to expand these cases to the entire set of balanced holdings. This is accomplished by expanding and enhancing the standard balanced openings.
Balancing – Protection
This is the designation for the procedure, whereby the opponents will re-open the auction with a bid or a double when the opposing bidding has stopped at a low level. In England this action is known as Protection.
Bart Convention
Devised and developed by Mr. Leslie C. Bart. An artificial Two-Diamond rebid in the partnership bidding sequence 1 Spade, 1 No Trump (forcing), 2 Clubs, 2 Diamonds, either by the opener and partner or by the two opponents without any interfering bids.
The Lisa Convention – Basic Lisa – Extended Lisa – Fourth Suit Forcing Lisa
This concept is a variation / extension of the Bart conventional method and was conceived and developed by Mr. Jamie Radcliffe and Mr. Pete Whipple. Their write-up was published in The Bridge World in October 2007, Volume 79, Number 1. The source for the information is a write-up and summary of Mr. Neil H. Timm and posted in Bridge News, to which a registration is required. This information is in a .pdf file format and will automatically be opened by your browser in a new window. This information is also only archived and preserved on this site for future reference.
An online article published by Mr. Josh Sher of Washington, D.C., United States, and Mr. Marc Umeno of Cleveland, Ohio, United States, as a variation of the Bart conventional method. This online article has been removed by the authors and there is presently no web link. This information is in a .pdf file format and is only archived and preserved on this site for future reference.
Bell 1 Spade Response to a 1 Club Opening Bid
The origin of this response is unknown. As a 1 Spade first response to an opening bid of 1 Club by partner, this response may show either of the following. Source: Orange Book EBU, Section 13.
1. A holding with no 4-card Major suit and any defined values.
2. Any agreed meaning. Game-forcing.
Blackout Over Reverses – Wolff Over Reverses
This response method is employed by the partnership when a one-over-one response by the partnership is followed by a reverse bid by the opener on the two level. The developed Blackout method provides a response method for such a bidding sequence.
Blue Team Four Club-Four Diamond Convention
A delayed game raise used in the Blue Team Club system to describe the Minor suit controls of the responder. When the opener bids and rebids a Major suit or opens a Major suit and rebids in No Trump, and the responder has excellent support for the suit of the opener, the responder can show his controls by a certain bidding procedure.
Bozo Roman Convention
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The intention of this conventional method is to show a certain shape and distribution, which is 4-4-4-1 or 4-4-5-0, with opening bids.
Canapé – Canape
Canapé is a bidding method in which the long suit is normally bid on the second round. This bidding method was developed by Mr. Pierre Albarran, 1894 to 1960, in France, and which became quite popular. In comparison, standard methods are described in France as la longue d’abord, or long suit first. The Canapé bidding method has also influenced Italian bidding theory. It was incorporated into both the Roman and Blue Team Club systems, and also in derivative bidding systems such as the Orange Club, which was successfully played by Bob Hammon and Bobby Wolff, and the Simplified Club, which is a total canapé bidding system.
Cobra Bidding System
Computer Oriented Bridge Analysis is the result of feeding a computer certain elements of the evaluation and distributional factors of card combinations by Mr. E. Torbjörn Lindelöf.
Cole Convention
The origin of this conventional method is attributed to the suggestion of Mr. William (Bill) Cole to the the Woolsey-Manfield partnership, which consisted of Mr. Christopher R. (Kit) Woolsey and Mr. Edward (Ed) A. Mansfield. Mr. Kit Woolsey published a two-part series on the Cole convention in The Bridge World magazine March 1991, pages 16-18 and April 1991, pages16-20. It is basically a rebidding system permitting the partnership to accurately describe certain distributional holdings plus showing the range of values.
Collante – Sticky
The designation of collante is translated into English as sticky, and the designation for this approach is therefore also known as Sticky. The origin of this continuation method is unknown. This conventional method is employed mainly in the French System known as le système français, but which can also be easily adapted as an optional online and/or partnership conventional method in other bidding approaches. The agreement is that if partner opens 1 Club, which is followed immediately by an overcall of 1 Diamond, then a response of 1 Heart shows exactly a 4-card Heart suit (or a minimum thereof). (Note: by extension, if partner opens 1 Club, and the opponent overcalls with either 1 Diamond or 1 Heart, then a continuation of 1 Spade by the partner shows exactly a 4-card Spade suit, or a minimum thereof).
Note: The English version is posted on this website.
Convention Chart – 2000
This is a write-up for instructions on how to complete the Convention Chart as issued by the American Contract Bridge League as of the year 2000. This write-up is presented only for the purposes of historical reasons.
See also: Convention Card Instructions
Links to a printable text file explaining how to fill out a Convention Card. Also a link to acbl.org which presents the 24 .pdf files published in the Bridge Bulletin beginning August 2004, explaining and illustrating how a Convention Card may be filled out.
Cooper Major Suit Response Method
This information has been contributed by Mr. Ted Cooper to this site via an email message dated September 10, 2016. The information was presented in a .jpg file format and is therefore a photograph. The interested bridge player can view the photograph, but a manual enlargement will be necessary. The photograph is presented without alteration.
Crowhurst Convention
This concept was devised by Mr. Eric Crowhurst of England, where the Acol bidding system is the established norm. In the Acol Bidding System an opening of 1 No Trump indicates a definite point range from generally 12 to 14 points, as opposed to the point range of 15-17 points generally played in Standard American.
Crowhearts Convention
This variation, as an alternative to the Crowhurst conventional method, is authored and presented online by Mr. David King. He maintains that in practice there are very few 12-14 balanced hands, on which the Crowhurst convention is applicable. The article is in a .pdf file format and will be opened automatically by your browser. This information has only been archived and preserved on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Delayed Auction Entry
This is a term to define a certain partnership understanding as opposed to being a partnership agreement or conventional method. In the case that a player following the opening of the auction has passed, then an entry by this player back into the competitive auction can have a defined meaning, such as follows:
1. If a passed player re-enters the competitive auction and bids two of the Minor suit of the opener to overcall a 1 No Trump response or rebid, then this bid is considered natural.
2. If a passed player re-enters the competitive auction and doubles a 1 No Trump response by the opening bidder, or even a 1 No Trump rebid (1 – Pass – 1 – Pass – 1; 1NT – double), or simply rebids in the suit of the the opening bidder, then this double is for penalty.
Delayed Canapé
This is a developing concept originating with Mr. Kenneth Rexford (aka Ken), of Lima, Ohio, United States, blogger, and Mr. Kenneth Eichenbaum (aka Ken) , of Columbus, Ohio, United States. Source is archived information on his Internet blog called Cuebidding At Bridge. Mr. Keneth Rexford is the author of Cuebidding At Bridge, published in 2007, among other publications.
Delayed Game Raise
The origin of the delayed game raise concept is unknown. The conventional method addressed those partnership agreements, which did not include the Jacoby 2 No Trump limit raise to show a 4-card plus support for the Major suit opening by partner. The bidding sequence, generally without competition, is equivalent to a forcing standard jump raise.
Directional Asking Bid
A bid, usually a Cuebid on a low level in an opponent’s suit, that attempts to make partner the declarer at No Trump by forcing him to bid No Trump.
Disturbing Opponent’s Big Club
The origin of this conventional defense mechanism is unknown. It is also known as an acronym DOBC. It is employed after an opponent has opened the auction with a strong, artificial 1 Club, which has variable meanings. As a defense mechanism DOBC was devised to interfere and possibly find an immediate fit even on the one level as quickly as possible, and then cease competition.
Dutch Spade
As the record has it this system was invented by Mr. Maximiliaan J. Rebattu in the year 1982 while vacationing on the beach. However, this approach is, more accurately, designated as a conventional opening method rather than a complete bidding system. The concept revolves around the idea of employing transfer bids by bidding one rank lower in order to accomplish the transfer. The method also uses the concept of a forcing pass system, and may be therefore described both as an opening bidding system and a conventional method, but not as an established bidding system. See also the Forcing Pass Systems compilation of Mr. Jan Eric Larsson and Mr. Ben Cowling of June 19, 2001, which is presented in .pdf file format and will automatically opened by your browser.
Drury Conventional Method
A conventional method devised by Mr. Douglas Drury of Sebastopol, California, United States, to allow the responder to show a limit raise or a certain point range with distributional support after first passing and partner opens in third (fourth) seat. He was born in the year 1914 and died in the year 1967. In the early days of the game of bridge he became a bridge teacher / instructor to introduce more players to the game. For this action it was necessary that he become the owner, operator, and manager of a bridge club, which was connected to the American Contract Bridge League.
Bergen Drury
A method devised by Mr. Mary Bergen to differentiate between a 3-card and a 4-card support for the original Major suit opening in third or fourth seat of partner.
Distributional Drury
The originator of this Drury-style conventional method remains unknown. This method or variation of the concept allows both partners to communicate information about their holdings. According to the parameters of the concept this method is more adapted to the parameters of opening 4-card Major suits and especially if the holding contains a singleton, which would prompt the partnership to more actively seek game.
Drury Convention
Note: this presentation, for historical purposes only, shows only the original version of the Drury conventional method, which has lost its luster. The concept was devised by Mr. Douglas A. Drury to counter a certain habit of his long-time and regular partner, namely Mr. Eric R. Murray of Toronto, Canada. His partner would, without failure, open in either third or fourth seat following two passes. The problem with the opening Major suit bid of his partner was that Mr. Douglas A. Drury had no idea whether the opening was to be viewed as a light opening or an opening with full values.
Drury Convention Variation – Norway Drury
The following variation, origin and developer unknown, played generally in Norway defines the rebids of the opener in a more detailed fashion and allows for a more informative description of the holding of the opener. The auction proceeds normally, but it is important to remember that a distinction is made between the opening of 1 Heart and 1 Spade as well as the continuances.
Reverse Drury
After a third or fourth seat opening of 1 Spade or 1 Heart following two consecutive passes a 2 Clubs response shows a limit raise of opener’s suit of about 9-11 points and 3-card support. The opener then rebids his suit on the two level to show a minimum hand. Other rebids by the opener are natural and considered one-round forcing.
Romex Drury
The Romex Drury conventional method is attributed to Mr. George Rosenkranz, who was born August 20, 1916, in Budapest, Hungary, and whose birth-name is Mr. György Rosenkranz. In later years he immigrated to the country of Mexico and took up residence in Mexico City. As the originator of the Romex System it proved necessary to re-write or re-define the original concept of Drury as designed by Mr. Douglas A. Drury.
Three-Way Double Reverse Drury
The concept of this variation of the Drury conventional response method can be found on the website of Mr. Jeff Tang. The presentation inquires about the question as to whether there is a way to save bidding space for a 9-card fit, and to distinguish 5-card support as well. This information has only been archived and preserved on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Two Way Drury – Two Way Reverse Drury
These two variation employs two bids to discover whether or not the holding of the opener is weak, sub-minimal, or a full opening. The features of the one variation are simply reversed in the second variation. Both response methods are presented together.
Dynamic 1 No Trump – Dynamic One No Trump
This method of opening No Trump is an integral feature of the Romex Bidding System, devised by Mr. George Rosenkranz (aka Jorge) of Mexico City, Mexico, and Mr. Phillip Alder of Hope Sound, Florida, United States. The concept is that the opener may show a relatively strong holding, which is unbalanced, and which can be made on any distribution except 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2 holdings. The strength is restricted to exactly 18 to 21 points and must have at least five controls and which has only four to five losers.
Economou Two No Trump – Economou 2 NT
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The employment of this conventional method is only applicable if the player is the first player in rotation to make an opening bid. The opening bid is either 2 No Trump or 2 Spades and shows a holding with an unknown single, long suit and either opening bid is intended as a preempt. This conventional method is also known by the designation of Terrorist Two No Trump. Since this conventional method also employs an opening bid of 2 Spades to show a similar, if not identical single-suited holding, the conventional method also carries the designation of Economou Two Spades.
ETM’s BASH System for Bridge Bidding
The BASH System reflects on the landmark 1977 Bridge book You Ought to Bid an Average Hand featuring the Kamikaze Notrump by Mr. John Kierein. The BASH system combines some of these ideas with a lighten version of the Polish Club to produce this pressure system. Compiled by Mr. Glen Ashton of BridgeMatters. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Exit Transfer Bids – Exit Transfer No Trump Runouts
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept is known as exit transfers, exit transfer bids, exit transfer no trump runouts, and exit transfer notrump runouts. It has been assumed that the correct designation for this bidding action is Transfers Following (After) A Double. The designation of Exit Transfers is, more or less, a term accepted by the bridge community and not exactly an official designation.
Feature Convention
The origin of this conventional method is unknown, and any additional information would be greatly appreciated. It is employed after one partner opens the auction with a Weak Two Bid in any suit other than Clubs. The Feature Convention is used by the responder to discover:
1. whether the holding of the partner is weak or strong and
2. whether the partner holds a stopper, which is needed in a suit.
The responder employs the bid of 2 No Trump to ask and which is forcing for one round. The responses of the opener are:
1. Three of the preempted suit shows no feature or a weak hand, approximately 5-7 points.
2. Three of a new suit promises a good holding with either an Ace or King in the preempted suit.
3. A rebid of 3 No Trump promises all top three honors.
Fighting Irish 2 Diamonds
This concept of opening with a 2 Diamonds bid to show an artificial preemptive opening with a range of 5-10 high card points and either a 4-4 or 4-3 distribution in both Major suits was devised and developed by Mr. Neill Currie (date unknown). The bridge student must be made aware of the fact that this concept has been marked as a Brown Sticker convention under the WBF Conditions of Contest.
Finch Cue Bid
A cuebid devised by Vivienne Finch, which is employed to communicate to partner a holding with two 5-card suits with one bid. The concept is based on the formula that that lowest (1x – 2x, Finch Cue Bid) shows the highest (2 unbid suits), and the highest shows the lowest, otherwise the middle (2NT) must be the other two (highest and the lowest). This information is presented in a .pdf file format, which will be opened by your browser automatically in a new window.
Finch Cinch
This is a concept devised by Vivienne Finch, which is a progressive slam/game system. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Finch Clinch
This is a concept devised by Vivienne Finch, which is an addition to Finch Cinch. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Fiori Bicolore – Two Suiter Club
Developed and authored by Mr. Gian Antonio Castiglioni of Lugano, Italy. The title of his publication is Fiori Bicolore and is translated into English as Two Suited Club. In the words of the author: In the Two-Suiter Club system, opening in a Major is 5 cards and the Strong Club starts at 16 high card points like Precision, but the 1NT opening is 15-17; this means that it doesn’t combine with the other two openings but overlaps the 1 Club opening. The bidding system is presented in .pdf file format and is preserved and archived on this site for future reference. One version is presented in Italian, and one version is presented in English for the convenience for the visitor. Translation is by Carol Sims. Italian Version – English Version – both versions will open in a new window for the convenience of the visitor.
Five Card Spades
This is the designation of an agreement for those partnerships, whereby the mutual partnership agreement is that a holding opened with 1 Spade promises a minimum of 5 cards in the Spade suit. In opposition to this is the agreement that when the opening bid is the other Major suit, namely Hearts, then this opening bid promises only a minimum of 4 cards in the Heart suit. With such an agreement the only hand shape, that may require a prepared opening in a Minor suit is 4-3-3-3, whereby the 4-card suit is Spades.
Fixing the Forcing Notrump
Authored by Mr. Perry Khakhar and contributed on November 24, 2012. Presented is v.03, which addresses shortcomings of the No Trump Forcing concept as a first response following a Major suit opening by partner. The concept of the Forcing No Trump is divided and treated in three different categories, namely those of minimum hands, those of intermediate hands, and those of strong hands. This information is presented in .pdf file format and will be opened by your browser in a new window.
Flannery Two Diamonds – Flannery 2 Diamonds – Flannery 2D
This convention opening bid allows the opener to describe a certain distribution of both Major suits, whereby the Hearts are longer and point count range approximates a range between 11-15 points.
Anti-Flannery Variation
The origin of this variation is unknown. The basic concept is employed mainly in bidding systems using the canapé approach, meaning that the shorter suit is opened or bid first before the higher-ranking suit. The fundamental concept can also be employed in several variations of the Blue Club bidding system developed by Mr. Benito Garozzo and used by the Blue Team during their successful reign in the world bridge tournaments in the 1960s, in which the canapé approach was mainly employed. The off-shoot of this bidding system, designated sometimes as Lancia, origin unknown, also uses this variation to some degree, but this cannot be confirmed. Source is: publication The Blue Club as adopted and translated by Mr. Terence Reese, 1969, ISBN-10: 0571092659 / ISBN-13: 978-0571092659.
Flitch
This is a colloquial designation for a competition for married couples only.
Flogger
This is a colloquial designation for the results of a previous rubber. Mainly used in England.
Flower Bids or Fit Showing Jumps
This designation is used for a feature in several bridge bidding systems. The origin of the concept as well as the designation is unknown. A Flower bid is employed only by a passed hand to denote generally a good 5-card side plus suit containing a source of winners, at least a 4-card support for the suit of the partner, and a maximum of six Losing Tricks and 12 or fewer support points.
Forcing 1 No Trump Opening Bid
The origins of this concept remain unknown. The parameters of this particular No Trump opening bid is that the range lies between 21 and 24 high card points. The holding can be either a balanced holding or an unbalanced holding with game tendencies, meaning that only one trick from partner would ensure a game contract, if not a slam contract.
Fourth Suit Forcing
A convention, whereby the rebid of the unbid fourth suit, generally by the responder, is forcing for at least one round.
FOXU
This is the abbreviation for Fishbein Over – Double (X) Under. Employed generally in England it is a rarely employed conventional defense method to an opening bid by the opposing side on the three level, meant to be preemptive only. The double is a request for takeout.
Gambling Three No Trump – Gambling 3 No Trump – Gambling 3 NT
A 3 No Trump opening based on a long, solid Minor suit. This gamble is used in many bidding system and is also a feature of the Acol System.
Gambling Two No Trump – Gambling 2 No Trump – Gambling 2 NT
A 2 No Trump opening based on a long, solid Minor suit. A modified version of the Gambling 3 No Trump conventional method. The difference being that this method requires only one stopper in a side suit.
GAstem Two Suited Overcalls
This conventional overcall system was developed by Mr. Gian Antonio Castiglioni of Lugano, Italy. (Link to website.)The main features consist of the concept of overcalling with a minimum of 4-4 distribution in two suits with corresponder values. The overcalls and continuances are similar to the concept devised by the French theorist Mr. Pierre Ghestem. The designation is a combination of the first letters of the first names of Mr. Gian Antonio Castiglioni and the second syllable of the surname of Mr. Pierre Ghestem. Note: Mr. Gian Antonio Gastiglioni has provided the Italian version of Fiori Bicolore and the English version of Two Suiter Club, which have only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Gazzilli
This conventional method addresses a common systemic feature by introducing an artificial 2 Clubs rebid by the opener after an opening in a Major suit and a first response of 1 Spade or 1 No Trump. The conventional method has been extended to also include openings in the Minor suits and adjustments have been made to accommodate these opening bids.
Goren Kiss
The Goren Kiss, as rumor has it, was a designation employed by Mr. Charles H. Goren in one of many and various publications during his leadership to promote the game of bridge around the globe. It was indeed an outline for the novice and intermediate bridge players, who wanted an established set of opening constructive bids in addition to preemptive opening bids.
Gnats Convention
This conventional method first found a public format in The Bridge World magazine authored by Mr. Barry J. Rigal of New York, New York, in October 1996, page 27. This conventional method was developed by Mr. Tom G. Townsend in order to permit and allow the partnership to describe, define, delimit, and determine one-suited and two-suited holdings, and also balanced and unbalanced holdings.
Goldilocks Two Bid – Goldilocks 2 Bids
This concept was devised by Mr. Glen Ashton of Ontario, Canada. The link is to his website on the Internet. The foundation of this conventional method is that all bidding auctions begin on the two level. This conventional method has also been archived and preserved only on this site in a .pdf file format which will be automatically opened by your browser.
Goldway Forcing Major Raises
Registration Number / Date: TXu000969095 / 2000-10-10; Date of Creation: 1999; Official Title: GoldWay 6-15: Forcing Major Raises; Authorship on Application: Robert Eugene Goldman, 1938-1999. Source – Copyright Encyclopedia. The title of the publication and/or Goldman System Notes is Goldway, which is the combination of Gold-man and Paul Solo-way.
Grand Slam Force
Also included are: Modified Grand Slam Force and Exclusionary Grand Slam Force in the Glossary under Grand Slam Force. In 1936, Mr. Ely Culbertson devised the Grand Slam Force method of locating the top trump honors whenever the partnership had the opportunity to attempt a grand slam. This method was first published in The Bridge World, a publication started by Mr. Ely Culbertson, by his wife, Josephine Culbertson. This is the reason why this method is known as Josephine in some European countries.
Granville Convention – Kaplan Interchange
Although the origin is unknown, the general consensus is that this conventional method was developed in England. It is mainly referred to as the Granville Convention, although it has little to do with the Kaplan-Sheinwold bidding system. The problem arose owing to a particular problem presented mostly in the Two-Over-One bidding system.
Gross 3 No Trump Opening Bid
This conventional method was contributed by Mr. John Gross of Australia. An opening bid of 3 No Trump asks partner to indicate precisely which Ace(s) are held by various responses. Certain conditions must be present before a partner can open with a bid of 3 No Trump, and the responses are clearly defined in order to reach the maximum contract. The link is to a .pdf file, which explains the employment of this conventional method, and which will be automatically opened in a new window of the browser.
Hello Convention
This conventional defense method was devised and developed by Mr. Jerry Helms of North Carolina, United States, and his bridge partner and co-contributor Mr. Bill Lohman. The designation of the defense method is derived from the surnames of Mr. Jerry Helms and his bridge partner and co-contributor Mr. Bill Lohman. This defense method was developed as an improvement of the Cappelletti conventional defense method, of which Mr. Jerry Helms was a co-developer.
Help Suit Game Try – Weak Suit Game Try – Long Suit Trials – Short Suit Trials – Long Suit Trial and Short Suit Trial Combined – Counter Trial
All designations refer to the same concept and conventional method, regardless of whether each explanation varies from another. As with some partnership agreements, one partner can show a hand willing to accept an invitation to game by bidding any other suit. This action is referred to as a Weak Suit Game Try. All of the above designations apply for this particular concept. This action can be used, for instance, when employing Reverse Drury or Limit Raises.
Hexagon Multisix
This is a bidding system devised by Mr. Bijan Assaee of Australia. The opening bids all begin on the two level and offer multiple meanings for each bid, which are then clarified in the rebid. These opening bids constitute the foundation of the Hexagon bidding system and are preserved for historical values. (Note: in the words of Mr. Bijan Assaee these Multisix Opening Bids are based on Myxo Twos introduced by Dr. Bob Sebesfii and variations by Mr. Sean Bentley and Mr. John Sfinias.) Mr. Bijan Assaee maintains a website online, which includes additional information about the bidding system and opening bids.
Hexagon Multisix Opening Bids
These opening bids were developed by Mr. Bijan Assaee of Australia. They are designed to cover a range of possibilities. Each two-level opening bids covers six possible holdings. The responder generally bids the next higher-ranking suit. Mr. Bijan Assaee maintains a website online, which includes additonal information about the bidding system and opening bids.
ThreeX Forcing Pass
Devised by Mr. Bijan Assaee of Australia. The designation ThreeX (3X) signifies that there are three possibilities when making an opening bid of 1 Club. These three possibilities are outlined below. This contribution was made to this website in August 2013 by Mr. Bijan Assaee. This information was also sent as a .pdf file.
1. An opening bid of 1 Club promises a 5-card plus Club suit, or
2. promises a 3-suited holding with shortage being in the suit above (Diamonds), or
3. promises a 2-suited holding in the two higher ranking suits (Hearts and Spades).
Note: For the convenience of our readers we have compiled the online sources provided by Mr. Bijan Assaee of Australia in .pdf file formats:
1. 3-Way 1 Club Opening Bid in .pdf file format.
2. Mini No Trump in .pdf file format.
3. Hexagon in .pdf file format.
4. 3X Forcing Pass Opening Bid in .pdf file format.
5. Complete System in .pdf file format.
6. Defense in .pdf file format.
7. Useful Conventions in .pdf file format.
8. Basics in .pdf file format.
9. History in .pdf file format.
3X Forcing Pass Opening
This is an earlier version of the completed version as present above of the ThreeX Forcing Pass authored by Mr. Bijan Assaee of Australia. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Hubble Convention
This concept was authored by Mr. Danny Kleinman and published in The Bridge World in the year1997, issue August, page 15. This method was devised for employment by the responder, who contends with immediate intervention by the immediate opponent with a suit overcall. The concept is not applicable when the immediate opponent doubles, only when the player intervenes with a suit bid.
Ingberman Convention
This is not a variation of the reverse bid, but rather a concept devised by Mr. Monroe J. Ingberman to be used by the responder of a reverse bidder to show minimum values through a Relay bid of 2 No Trump.
Inverted Minors
A method to show that a Minor suit single raise as strong, with a Minor suit double raise as weak.
John Wayne Bridge Convention
This convention was created by graduate students at Princeton in the late 1990s and early in the year 2000, but was begun years earlier by the family Miller, according to Mr. Steven Miller. The family members often played Whist, which is a card game related to bridge where the players only bid once (without naming a suit) and no hands are placed face-up. As initiated by Mr. Jeffrey Miller, the method began as a way to goad opposition (or sometimes one’s partner!) into bidding high, by making statements such as John Wayne would bid 5.
Kabel Three No Trump – Kabel 3 No Trump
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept is to determine the location of specific Aces and Kings with an opening of 3 No Trump. The opening bid is forcing and implies a very strong holding with fewer than three Losing Tricks. After determining whether partner holds any specific values and the location thereof, the opener is then able to set the correct contract at the correct level.
Kamikaze No Trump
The Kamikaze No Trump is a bidding system devised by Mr. John Kierein. The concept was to open a holding in First or Second Seat with a total of 9 to 12 high card points. After the ACBL regulated that any No Trump opening with less than 10 high card points could not apply the usual conventions such as Stayman, Mr. John Kierein altered his Kamikaze No Trump opening to show values between 10 and 13 high card points.
Kantar Kleinman Slam Force
This concept was developed and devised first independently and then in collaboration by both Mr. Edwin Bruce Kantar and Mr. Daniel Kleinman. Their method became known as the Kantar-Kleinman Slam Force within the bridge community.
Kaplan Interchange – Granville Convention
Although the origin is unknown, the general consensus is that this conventional method was developed in England. It is mainly referred to as the Granville Convention, although it has little to do with the Kaplan-Sheinwold bidding system. The problem arose owing to a particular problem presented mostly in the Two-Over-One bidding system.
Karosel 2 Diamonds – Karosel Two Diamonds
This conventional method, published by Mr. Charles L. L. Dalmas, specifically addresses the holding of a semi-balanced holding with 18-19 high card points. This presentation has been contributed by the author, to whom we express our appreciation.
Kennedy System of Bridge, The
This system was devised and developed by Mr. George Kennedy, of Manhatten, New York, United States. His home bridge club was the Gotham Club at 25 West 72nd Street in Brooklyn, New York.
Kleinman Points – Little Jack Points
The September 2001 issue of The Bridge World contains a letter from Mr. Doug Bennion of Toronto, Canada, that defines a new point-count, which is designated as Little Jack Points.
Kokish Rebids
In order to resolve several bidding problems after a 1 Diamond opening and a 2 Clubs response, Mr. Eric Kokish has formulated a series of responses to communicate better information regarding the holding of the partner. This particular bidding sequence has apparently caused some confusion in partnership agreements, which include different bidding systems such as Kaplan-Sheinwold and Standard American. The conditions of the situation became clear when the partnership is employing different ranges for No Trump openings.
Kokish Relay – Kokish Relay Bids – Birthright
Also known by the designation Birthright as preferred by Mr. Eric Kokish, who devised this method to illustrate how it is possible to show a holding of 25 plus high card points and a balanced hand without having to consume bidding spade on the three level. The Kokish relay can also show a one-suited and/or a two-suited holding.
Eric Kokish’s Responses to a Strong, Artificial 2 Clubs Opening
Mr. Eric Kokish believes that most experts are correct in the opinion, that two-suited hands should not be opened with the artificial, strong 2 Clubs bid. Therefore, when the 2 Clubs opener shows a second suit, it is expected to be a 4-card suit. This stipulation affects some of the recommended sequences. In the discussion below, an Ace is two controls, and a King is 1 control.
Lackwood
This conventional method for slam-inquires of asking for Keycards is presented online by Mr. Nuno Ferreira. The difference to the almost universal Blackwood conventional method is the fact that Lackwood inquires about Keycards in one color. The desired cards and the respective color depend on the bidding situation. Note: the information is in French only and any contribution of an English translation would be greatly appreciated.This information is presented in .pdf file format and will be automatically opened in a new window by your browser.
Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge
Although not a conventional method by any means, it is important for any bridge player to recognize and accept and conduct oneself by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge and also by the Laws of Contract Bridge as promulgated by the American Contract Bridge League and by the World Bridge Federation. They should be read and studied since they are the sole guidelines for the game of bridge.
The first Laws of Duplicate Bridge were published in 1928. There have been successive revisions in the years 1933, 1935, 1943, 1949, 1963, 1975, 1987, 1997, and 2008. Previously through the 1930s, the Laws were promulgated by the Portland Club of London, England, and the Whist Club of New York, New York, United States. From the1940s the American Contract Bridge League Laws Commission replaced the Whist Club, while the British Bridge League and the European Bridge League supplemented the Portland Club’s efforts. The 1975 Laws were also promulgated by the World Bridge Federation, as they were in 1987 and 1997.
Note: The reader can review some of the Laws published over the years by visiting the Glossary.
Le Landik
This conventional method of asking for Keycards is presented online by Mr. Nuno Ferreira. This is the designation for a conventional response method employed in French bidding systems following an immediate overcall of 1 No Trump by the opposing side. Note: the information is in French only and any contribution of an English translation would be greatly appreciated.This information is presented in .pdf file format and will be automatically opened in a new window by your browser.
Historical Information to Limit Raises – 1936
Contract Bridge Complete – authored by Mr. Ely Culbertson – edited by Josephine Culbertson (wife) and Albert H. Morehead – published by Faber And Faber Limited, London, England – Year of Publication is 1936 (mcmxxxvi).
In the year 1936 and authored by Mr. Ely Culbertson this publication rather established the Rules for Raises. Source online. Under the Heading of Responses to Opening Suit-Bids of One he writes the following, which is the quoted excerpt for limit raises:
The responder uses the Culbertson Short Rule for Raises in arriving at the proper valuation of his hand for a raise of partner’s suit. It is the most valuable rule in trump bids. The application of this rule is extraordinarily simpel and yet extremetly accu8rate. in fact, I do not hesitate to state that this Rule of Raoises not only rivals the precision of experts’ valuation; it will liberate the bridge player from the drudgery and confusion of various point-count methods for raises heretofore proposed. Here is the rule:
In order to determine the total distributional points (in long suits and ruffers) subtract your shortest suit from your trump length. The difference is the exact number of your distributional points, and this number, added to your high-card total, gives you the exact point-count of your hand for a raise of partner’s suit-bid. There is only one deduction from the above total, namely, you deduct 1 point if your hand lacks a four-card or longer side suit. The corrections which you heretofore accepted as necessary with point-count are completely discarded by the use of this revolutionary formula.
Another way of expressing the Shortest Rule for Raises is as follows:
To your high-card total;
Add the difference in length between the trump length and the shortest side suit. (1)
(1) Footnote: If your shortest side suit is a void, and you have four trumps, you have four distributional points – the difference in length between the two suits.
Deduct 1 point if you lack a four-card or longer side suit.
Note: In the game of bridge one partner opens or bids a certain suit, which consequently becomes the established and/or implied trump suit. This section deals only with the responses to such established and/or implied trump suit fits. The attempt is made to combine such conventional response methods in one category as opposed to addressing the response methods individually.
BAM Raises or Bergen and Mini-Splinters
This file has been compiled by Mr. Kerry Kappell and was found on one of his authored web pages, which is no longer online. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Grant’s Hack
The realization that some holdings contain value-ranges, by which there is no alternative bid other than to make a preemptive jump raise led to the question as to how best to determine the value of the preemptive jump raise. The conclusion was that a jump raise can be indeed rather fairly wide-ranged. As this conclusion raised questions, which required further investigation and analysis of the situation, it was Mr. Grant Sheridan Baze, who indeed devised a solution, which was henceforth designated as the Grant’s Hack.
Jacoby Two No Trump – Jacoby 2 No Trump – Jacoby 2 NT
Note: This conventional response method is included in the same description as the Jacoby Plus Two No Trump Response Method. This conventional method was originated by Mr. Oswald Jacoby. The concept was devised to be employed only by Major suit opening bids in conjunction with the limit raises conventional method. It is this feature, which is important for the bridge student to remember, and that this conventional method is employed in conjunction with limit raises, and not a limit raise per se.
Jacoby Plus 2 No Trump Response to a Major Suit Opening
The origin is unknown. This is a method used by several partnerships and which is designed to employ the first response of 2 No Trump after a Major suit opening by the partner. It is based on the Limit Raises convention, but with slight differences and interpretations.
Note: it must be brought to the attention of the reader that the concept of the limited or unlimited first raise with a bid of 2 No Trump by the responder to a Major suit opening bid by partner has several variations, which are designated as Swedish. These variations are included, but for a lack of a better designation they carry the one designation of Swedish Jacoby 2 No Trump.
Swedish Jacoby 2 No Trump
This is a variation of the Jacoby 2 No Trump used in limit raises. This variation of the 2 No Trump first response to a Major suit opening is played in Sweden and has gained some popularity.
Swedish Jacoby 2 No Trump
This version was posted online and carries the date of July 2, 2014. The content of the website is no longer active, and the present owner is MarkMonitor, which is part of Thomson Reuters. The actual web page is/was: xa.yimg.com/…/Swedish+Jacoby+2NT+-+Our+Variation+%5B2014-07-(incomplete). The description of the unknown author(s), however, was cached by Google as a .pdf file. This version includes also all possible bidding sequences, whereby this variation can be employed after immediate interference by the opposing side.
Limit Raise – Limit Raises
A different approach to supporting partner’s bid suit. Below are several conventions, treatments and methods of responding to an opening.
Mini-Splinter
The Mini-Splinter conventional method is a variation of the splinter conventional method. The application of the mini-splinter shows, after a jump shift by either the opener or responder, a definite suit fit and also a singleton or even a void in the suit bid.
Omnibus Two No Trump Response
The concept introduces a response method for the responder once an immediate fit in a Major suit has been established. The responder must hold game values for this partnership agreement to take effect. Therefore the responder, with game values, will respond first with a bid of 2 No Trump.
Ominibus – Revised and Updated Version
This is a complete version of the employment of the Omnibus 2 No Trump response devised by and contributed by Mr. Marvin French of San Diego, California, United States. It was published in Popular Bridge magazine, June 1978, in The Bulletin of the ACBL, February, 1981, and in the Contract Bridge Forum, February 1982. It is included in Bridge Conventions Complete, by Amalya Kearse. This is a .pdf file and will be automatically opened by your browser in a new window.
Ominibus Simplified
This is a version of the employment of the Omnibus 2 No Trump response devised by and contributed by Mr. Marvin French of San Diego, California. It was first published in the magazine Popular Bridge in 1977. The advantages of this conventional method are: 1. a responding No Trump holding of 16-18 high card points can be shown at a low level when slam is a possibility; 2. some suit contracts normally played from opener’s side may be played from the side of the No Trump bidder, plus other advantages. This is a .pdf file and will be automatically opened by your browser in a new window.
Semi-Artificial Raises
These are limit raises devised by Mr. Thomas Ahmann and Mr. Thomas Ahmann, Jr. This approach is presented in a .pdf file format, which will be automatically opened by your browser. This presentation has been contributed by the authors, to whom we owe our gratitude for sharing this information. The authors are also published in The Bridge World, November issue, page 21, 2004, and this approach is only archived and preserved on this site for future reference.
Swiss Conventional Response Method
The concept of this conventional response method is based on the parameters that a response of four in a Minor suit immediately following partner’s bid Major suit promises a good hand and good support for the suit of his partner. This action, in general, is a strength-showing substitute used by bridge partnerships employing limit jump raises.
Conglomerate Major Raises
An extension of the Swiss conventional response method, which provides optional information to partner. Partner can discover the exact meaning of the bid with the use of a relay bid, to which the responder then responds with step bids to communicate the accurate description of the holding.
Fruit Machine Swiss
A variation of the Swiss conventional response method, which allows the responder to show several hand descriptions, which the opener must relay in order to discover the exact meaning.
Limit Raise – Limit Raises
Limit Raises apply also to the Swiss convention in reaching the correct contract.
Singleton Swiss
The origin of this addition to the Swiss conventional response method is unknown. When applied the response means that the responder has opening values and a 4-card fit in the Major suit opening of his partner. The parameters of the concept demand that the cards of the responder must have a definite distribution, otherwise the bid can not be made.
Super Swiss
The origin of this variation of the Swiss conventional response method is unknown, but demands the same requirements and follows the same guidelines as the original convention.
Trump Swiss
The origin of this variation is unknown. It is based also on the basic core of the original Swiss conventional response method and allows the responder to show a certain number of honor cards held in the trump suit.
Inverted Trump Swiss
The origin of this variation on the variation is unknown. It is based also on the basic core of the original Swiss conventional response method and allows the responder to show a certain number of cards held in the trump suit and whether or not these cards can be considered bad trump or good trump.
Splinter – Splinter Bids
This concept or conventional method was developed independently by Mr. David Leigh Cliff in the year 1963, who was the first to publish an article relating to this concept, and by Dorothy Hayden. It is a conventional method of allowing one partner to show certain distributional holdings containing either a singleton or void, support for partner’s suit, and slam interest.
Unbalanced Swiss Raises
A feature of the Aces Scientific System. The partnership agreement can be that the first response of 4 Clubs to a Major suit opening by partner can be the Swiss conventional response methods and/or any variation thereof.
Unusual Over Unusual
The origin of this defense method remains unknown. This conventional defense / response method of Unusual Over Unusual is a devised response method for the opener and partner against an immediate overcall of 2 No Trump by the next player in rotation, which defines the limits and support of the responder to partner.
Value Swiss Raises
A feature of the Aces Scientific System. The partnership agreement can be that the first response of 4 Clubs to a Major suit opening by partner can be the Swiss conventional response methods and/or any variation thereof.
Longest Possible Bridge Auction
Note: This is not a conventional method. In the game of bridge there have proven to be many side questions regarding the features of this particular card games. Among those questioning possibilities have been mathematicians and also the bridge player. The question as to the longest possible auction in the game of bridge has been answered and is presented on this web page.
Long Suit Trial Bid
Long Suit Trials – Help Suit Game Try – Short Suit Trials – Weak Suit Game Tries – Counter Trial are all designations, which describe the same concept. This bidding method, used after a Major suit opening, is very useful if the responder shows immediate support to determine whether the partnership should be in partscore or in game. This concept was born by the idea that if both combined holdings contain two suit fits, then a game contract is a frequently feasible, probable, and viable option.
Long Suit Trials – Help Suit Game Try – Short Suit Trials – Weak Suit Game Tries – Counter Trial
All designations refer to the same concept of allowing the partnership to continue to exchange information following an immediate suit fit. The underlying concept is to determine whether the combined cards, following a first response of a single raise, are distributed in such a manner as to attempt a game contract.
Mathematical Tables
These are the calculations of mathematicians who have calculated the probabilities of certain hand patterns and the distribution of cards, and other mathematical oddities.
Mellon Diamond
Authored by Mr. Adam Meyerson and Mr. Noble Shore. This documentation can be found by clicking on the link. The significance of the designation is unknown. As stated by the authors: The Recursive Diamond is a precision-like system, featuring light limited openings, weak notrumps, and an artificial forcing bid (1). See also: The Recursive Diamond.
Note: A short summary of the opening bids is presented on this site, which has been excerpted directly from the documentation. This short summary also includes the pictures of Mr. Adam Meyerson, Mr. Noble Shore, and Mr. Greg Humphreys.
Mexican Two Diamonds – Mexican 2 Diamonds
Developed by Mr. George Rosenkrantz as a feature of the Romex System, and an opening which has become fundamental in the Romex System. The problem was that a hand containing 18/19-20/21 high card points could be opened with a Dynamic 1 No Trump, showing a balanced holding with six controls or a holding just short of the requirements for a strong, artificial 2 Clubs opening.
Mini Roman Two Diamonds or Mini Roman 2 Diamonds
The origin of the Mini-Roman Two Diamonds is unknown. The concept is closely related to the concept of the Roman Two Diamonds conventional method and should be studied together with this concept. The Roman Two Diamonds conventional method promises a three suited holding with a distribution of 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0.
Mittelman Adjunct
The Mittelman Adjunct is a conventional method employed to clarify the holding of the opening partner only following a particular auction by a partnership without competition in order to discover a game possibility.
Monaco Bidding System
The Monaco system was the original Relay System. It was devised by Mr. Pierre Ghestem of France around 1954, and used with Mr. Rene Bacherich in several World Championship tournaments. The main concept of the relay system is to bid in such a manner as to make the stronger hand become the declarer in the final contract. Although not officially a bidding system, this concept was a prototype of the evolving relay systems being developed, and which later found adherents within the bridge community.
Montreal Relay
This concept or conventional method arose in the bridge community, whereby the partnership could distinguish, via a particular bidding sequence, which, upon employment, would determine whether the responder has a 5-card Major suit. The concept is that only when the opening is 1 Club and the first response is 1 Diamond, then the responder does not hold a 5-card Major suit. After the concept found some popularity, Mr. Eric Kokish developed and devised a continuation of bidding, which is based on this concept. Mr. Eric Kokish published an article in the publication The Bridge World, August, 1974, Volume 45, No. 11, called The Montreal Relay.
Montreal Relay Bids – Provided by Neil H. Timm
The student of the Montreal Relay as presented in the Bridge World by Mr. Eric Kokish should also view and review the issue of BridgeNews, Volume 1, Issue 1, of November, 2006 of The Villages Duplicate Bridge Club. An article contained therein is titled Montreal Relay Bids and is provided by Mr. Neil H. Timm. This is a .pdf file and should load automatically. The Villages Duplicate Bridge Club is in central Florida and is located in District 9, Unit128, and is supported on the Internet by BridgeScore.com. Although the designation for this method is practically identical to the development of Mr. Eric Kokish, certain differences are obvious. Therefore the designation must be considered from the perspective that the two methods are not identical.
Morgan Two Diamonds
The origin of this opening bid is unknown. The Morgan Two Diamonds opening bid is an artificial opening bid that is forcing for one round. However, the opening bid is not game forcing. Herein lies the uniqueness of the concept that the opening bid is only one-round forcing, but never game-forcing.
Morris Transfer Bids
This conventional method is employed by Precision Club partnerships and was developed by Mr. Kenneth T. Morris Ph.D. in the year 1983. At the time he was serving as a Professor at Central Michigan University. Following the approval by the American Contract Bridge League for its employment at tournaments on a national level the ACBL included this conventional method into its publication The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, Newly Revised Fourth Edition of 1984, page 287.
Movements
Note: Presently off line. A movement is a schedule of progression for bridge players, which indicates the seat to be occupied in succession of the play. This schedule also indicates the boards and the numbers of the boards to be played by each player during each round of play. It is the obligation of the director to announce the movement to be followed before play commences. We have included several of these movements and will be adding more.
Myxomatosis Two Bids
This system of Weak Two bids, or bids beginning on the two level, with optional and various features was devised and developed by Mr. Robert Sebesfi (aka: Bob Sebesfi) of Sydney Australia.
Myxomatosis Two Bids Variation
A variation of the fundamental concept was devised by Mr. Sean Bentley and Mr. Yiannis John Sfinias, and is included on the identical web page.
Myxomatosis Two Bids Variation
An alternative variation of the fundamental concept was devised by Mr. Tony Rolfe of Australia, and is included on the identical web page.
Myxomatosis Two Bids Variation
An alternative variation of the fundamental concept was devised by Mr. Paul Soloway, although this cannot be positively substantiated. Any contribution of additional information would be greatly appreciated.
Multi Two Diamonds – Multi 2 Diamonds
The Multi 2 Diamonds opening was devised in the 1960s by Mr. Terence Reese and Mr. Jeremy Flint, assisted by fellow bridge partners Mr. Robert Sheehan, Mr. Jonathan Cansino, and Mr. Irving Rose. The concept behind this opening is to make the interference by the opponents difficult and to obstruct their line of communication by an opening on the two level.
Multi Two Diamonds – Multi 2 Diamonds
This variation is by Mr. Barry Rigal and Mr. Chris Ryall of England.
Defense Method to Multi 2 Diamonds Opening
This method of defense against a 2 Diamonds opening by the opponents, employing the Multi 2 Diamonds convention, was devised by Mr. Danny Kleinman, a bridge expert player, who together with Mr. Eddie Kantar devised the Kantar Kleinman Slam Force. This online published defense method includes two options for the bridge player.
Also included are two Versions of defense methods against the employment of Multi 2 Diamonds. The authors are unknown and any additional information would be greatly appreciated.
Version 1
This version of a possible defense method was devised by Mr. Danny Kleinman.
Version 2
The origin of this defense method is unknown.
Liberty Double
The Liberty defense method versus the Multi offensive method is employed when the opponents opening bid has multiple weak possibilities with no known suit. This defense method is designed to increase the possibility of penalties while also providing, at the same time, some blocking bids.
Multi Two No Trump Response
This conventional method was originated by Mr. Ronald Denny Klinger, better known as Mr. Ron Klinger of Australia. The publication of this response method first appeared in the magazine The Bridge World, June 1999.
Nagy Game Tries
This method of discovering whether game is a possibility after a one level raise of a Major suit, especially Spades, is worth exploring, was most likely devised by Mr. Peter I. Nagy.
NAMYATS
The original designation for this conventional method is Four Club and Four Diamond Opening Transfers. It is/was also known and referred to as Mitchell Transfers. This is because the developer of this particular conventional method is Mr. Victor Mitchell. The foundation of the conventional method is that a Minor suit opening bid on the four level is a transfer bid.
New Minor Forcing
Also known as Unbid Minor Suit Force. After the rebid by the opener of 1 No Trump, the responder sometimes finds it more advantageous to have a low-level forcing bid available, either to inquire further about opener’s support or to force the partner to describe his 1 No Trump rebid in further detail. Some partnerships use the 2 Club rebid by the responder as forcing. Some partnerships use the 2 Club rebid by the responder as Checkback Stayman. Some partnerships use the unbid minor suit as responder’s forcing call.
Hardy Adjunct to New Minor Forcing
The origin of this concept is unknown. When the partnership has agreed to employ the Hardy Adjunct after a New Minor Forcing bid by the responder, then the opener can further clarify his holding and shape or pattern.
New Minor Forcing vs Checkback Stayman
This is an article written and contributed by Mr. Marvin French of San Diego, California, and which was published in the book Marvin’s Conventions and Treatments written by Mr. Marvin French. It addresses the problem encountered by bridge players when confronted with a certain bidding sequence. This is a .pdf file and will automatically be opened by your browser.
Simplified New Minor Forcing
A variation of the original concept devised and contributed by Mr. Martin Gellman. The addition of Mr. Martin Gellman to the New Minor Forcing convention is presented due to the understanding of certain partnership agreements. The idea behind this simplified form is readily understood and should be made available to the bridge players, who use different interpretations of the auction to mean different things.
Wittes Adjunct to New Minor Forcing
The origin of this treatment is unknown. When employing New Minor Forcing as the partnership agreement, the partnership may wish to show the quality of the opener’s holding in the responder’s Major suit.
Non-Serious 3 No Trump
This is a conventional method, whereby the bid of 3 No Trump by one partner in an uncontested auction shows additional strength, and when 3 No Trump is not bid by one partner, then this action communicates the information that no special interest in attempting a slam contract. Authored by Mr. Ray Green of the Brunton Bridge Club located in Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne, England. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
1 No Trump Opening
This presentation provides a basic understanding of the parameters for opening a 1 No Trump at the bridge table. This presentation in no way pretends to exhaust all of the principles applied by bridge partnerships around the world based on any particular position at the table, on the state of vulnerability, on the foundations of certain bidding systems, and on whether the partnership agrees to employ multiple ranges depending on the circumstances at the bridge table.
One-Two-Three-Stop
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept belongs in the category of a preemptive bid in order to shut out the opponents. This action is initiated following the discovery of an immediate fit and/or a fit without competitive interference.
Ping Pong Convention
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept is to assist the opener to further clarify his holding when the first rebid by the opener is 1 No Trump, which can signify various hand types.
Poly Club Two Diamonds Opening Bid
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept behind this method is to indicate either a two-suited holding or a possible one-suited holding. This opening bid is forcing for one round and the first response allows the opener to clarify his holding.
Power of Fits
Note: this is a presentation in .pdf file format and will be opened automatically by your browser. This authored write-up about the power of fits has been contributed by Mr. G.S. Jade Barrett to this site. The write-up is copyrighted as of June 2001. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Power Dutch Doubleton
The author is unknown. Authored in the Dutch language. The article is written in a .pdf file format and will be automatically opened by your browser.
Power Dutch Doubleton
Mr. Roy Reshef has been so kind as to contribute the translation of the web pages for this conventional method from the original Dutch into the English language. He has also included footnotes, which are essential in understanding this conventional method better. We thank him for his contribution, which is greatly appreciated. The article is written in a .pdf file format and will be automatically opened by your browser.
Raptor Convention
The idea to utilize a 1NT overcall to denote a 5-4 two-suiter seems to have originated independently in Sweden and Poland in the early 1980s. The designation of the concept, however, is attributed to Mr. Ron Sutherland and his son who re-invented this approach and published it in a Toronto magazine in the year 1993 under the acronym wRAP around TORonto style.
Note: also known under the designations as Raptor 1 No Trump Overcall, Raptor 1NT Overcall, Polish No Trump, Poland 1 No Trump Overcall, and Polish 1 No Trump Overcall.
The Recursive Diamond
The link is to the Internet documentation of this bidding system. The Recursive Diamond is a bidding system devised by Mr. Jason Woolever, Mr. Qixiang Sun, Mr. Adam Meyerson, and Mr. Greg Humphrey . This information has also only been archived and preserved on this site in .pdf file format for future reference. Note: compare also with Mellon Diamond authored by Mr. Adam Meyerson and Mr. Noble Shore.
Relay Bids
Tracing the history of relay bids one comes across several notable names in bridge history. The first relay system was developed by Mr. Pierre Ghestem of France around the early 1950s. In the year 1972 Mr. David Leigh Cliff developed the Relay System to the extent that it was accepted by many bridge players around the world. The Relay System is a system based on the idea that one player should make one or a series of minimum bids, or relays, in order to acquire sufficient information about the hand of his partner to be able to place the final contract.
Reverse Relay Bids
These are bids made per partnership agreement when using different bidding systems. There are employed in the Blue Team Club bidding system and also the Ultimate Club bidding system. For additional information, review especially the 1 Club opening in .pdf file format at Ultimate Club.
Shape Showing Relay Bids
These are bids made per partnership agreement when using different bidding systems. There are employed in the Blue Team Club bidding system and also the Ultimate Club bidding system. For additional information, review especially the 1 Club opening in .pdf file format at Ultimate Club. The object of the Shape-Showing Relay bids is to show the shape of the holding after the number of controls have been established.
Unbalanced Hand Relay Bids
These are bids made per partnership agreement when using different bidding systems. There are employed in the Blue Team Club bidding system and also the Ultimate Club bidding system. For additional information, review especially the 1 Club opening in .pdf file format at Ultimate Club.
Relay Precision
This version of the Symmetric Relay System is by Professor Roy Kerr and has been modified by Mr. Richard Hills in November 2000. This version has only been archived on this site in .pdf file format.
Reverse Bids
The concept of the reverse bid was perhaps first described in the publication by the group of bridge players known as The Four Horsemen, namely David Burstine, Howard Schenken, Michael T. Gottlieb, and Oswald Jacoby, titled The Four Aces System of Contract Bridge, with an introduction by Harold S. Vanderbilt. The concept was originally referred to as a Skip Level Bid, which allowed the responder the choice also of making a preference bid if there were no game values possible owing to the distribution and the strength of the combined holdings.
Note: The High Reverse conventional method used in England is to bid a third suit in an uncontested auction, which prevents the responder from returning to the original suit at the level of two.
lebensohl Over Reverse Bids – The origin of this method and partnership agreement is unknown, but it addresses a problem situation whenever the opener employs the reverse bid.
Rodrigue Convention
According to the source on the following French website the reader learns that the author of this concept is Mr. Michel Bessis in the year 2007.This conventional defense method is employed mainly in the French System known as le système français, but which can also be adopted as an optional online and/or partnership conventional defense method following a bidding sequence of 1 Major over a 1 Minor opening bid by the opposing side.
Note: The entire conventional defense method can be summed up as follows:
French: Après une intervention à 1 sur une ouverture mineure, le soutien à 2m signifie 5 avec une main insuffisante pour dire 2 directement.
English: Following an overcall of 1 after an opening of a Minor suit by the opposing side, support can be shown by the responder who bids 2 of the Minor suit to show 5 with a holding sufficient to respond 2 directly.
Note: The following is an exact copy of the authored write-up of Mr. Michel Bessis.
La convention >> Rodrigue >> ( M. Bessis – Bridgeur n°807 – juin 2007 )
Dans la séquence:
Sud Ouest Nord Est
1 () 1
2 ()
le fit dans la mineure d’ouverture montre cinq cartes à Cœur et une main insuffisante pour une enchère de 2.
GhBridge, janvier 2008
Roman Asking Bids
Roman Asking Bids are an integral feature of the Roman System, and have, in part, been incorporated in the 1969 version of the Kaplan-Sheinwold System. It must be noted that both bidding systems limit the use of the asking bids to jump bids, which would otherwise be meaningless or impart no logical information.
Romex Bidding System
This bidding system was devised and developed over the years by Mr. George Rosenkranz of Mexico in cooperation and collaboration with Mr. Phillip Alder. Following are some of the features specifically designed for this bidding system, and which are used by bridge players independently of the system.
Dynamic No Trump
This method of opening No Trump is an integral feature of the Romex Bidding System, devised by Mr. George Rosenkranz of Mexico and Mr. Phillip Alder. The concept is that the opener may show a relatively strong holding, which is unbalanced, and which can be made on any distribution except 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2 holdings. The strength is restricted to exactly 18 to 21 points and must have at least five controls and which has only four to five losers.
Romex Gerber
After the Gerber Convention was devised, many bridge players began to apply it in their bidding auctions. They discovered that the convention had several drawbacks and decided to alter the convention. Other partnerships devised a modification of the Roman Gerber variation, and this modification was used in the Romex Bidding System.
Romex Jump Shifts
The concept behind any jump shift in the Romex Bidding System is that the bid is forcing. The idea is similar to the Two-Over-One bidding system, which guarantees game. After an opening bid, if the responder bids and then rebids any other suit except the first named suit, then a game-forcing situation has been created.
Romex Namyats
This concept is an integral part of the Romex Bidding System, devised and developed over the years by Mr. George Rosenkranz of Mexico in cooperation and collaboration with Mr. Phillip Alder. The principle behind the concept is based on the original Namyats convention, which was introduced into the bridge community by Mr. Samuel Stayman. (Note: Namyats spelled backwards spells Stayman). The basic structure remains the same, but the requirements are stricter and more accurately defined.
Romex Stayman Over 2 NT and 1 NT
This concept, as a variation of the conventional Stayman convention, was devised by Mr. Marshall Miles, Mr. George Rosenkranz, the developer of the Romex Bidding System, and others developed this alternative to Puppet Stayman.
Romex Trump Asking Bids
The Romex Bidding System, devised by Mr. George Rosenkranz and Mr. Phillip Alder employs the 2 Clubs opening as an artificial bid, which is forcing to game. The Trump Asking Bids are conducted in Step Responses, and the trump suit may change during the bidding sequence.
Roudy Convention – Roudi Convention
This conventional method was devised by Mr. Jean-Marc Roudinesco of France. This conventional method is popular in the country of France and is applied after the opener has rebid 1 No Trump after a suit opening. With a forcing 2 Clubs rebid by the responder the opener is required to further clarify his holding.
Rumble versus Big One Club
This conventional defense mechanism was devised by Mr. Glen Ashton. Rumble is used against strong artificial forcing strong One Club openings. Rumble is an aggressive method, which the bridge player can employ effectively play against strong One Club openings. The link is to the website of Mr. Glen Ashton. This information has only been archived and preserved in .pdf file format on this site future reference.
Saffle System – Säfflespader
The Saffle Spade system, or the Säfflespader, as it is known in Sweden, is a strong pass system developed, devised, and published by Mr. Einar Bergh and Mr. Pontus Svinhufvud. This system was devised in the year 1980 as both developers were living in Säffle, Sweden
Sandwich No Trump
This term refers to the bid of 1 No Trump, generally on the one level, of a player made between two bidding opponents after two suits have been mentioned. Generally the overcall can be made in Third Seat, but more often in Fourth Seat after partner has passed. This bid describes a distribution of 5-5 in the other two unbid suits.
Scholars, Thesis, Treatises, Dissertations
At many universities, colleges, educational institutes, and places of higher education the student will base his or her final written paper on the card game of bridge and attempt to prove either the unpredictability or predictability of certain aspects of the game from the first phase of bidding to the second phase of declaring to the third phase of defending. It is our attempt to collect these papers for the interest of the reader, who seeks and wishes for more than a simple convention. Please take the opportunity and study some of these most interesting, absorbing, and intriguing scholarly thoughts,many of which date back to the previous millineum. Note: additions will be made once discovered as this list will never be completed.
Schuler Shift
The Schuler Shift is a modification to standard rebids in 2/1 auctions that improves bidding accuracy. The concept was devised and developed by Mrl John Schuler of San Diego, California, United States. There are several online descriptions of the Schuler Shift and different presentations, which are listed and linked below.
Schuler Shift – Mr. Andrew Gumperz, on his bridge blog, presents in .pdf file format the complete outline of the concept. The comparison is made with the Bergen School (Mr. Marty Bergen) and the Lawrence School (Mr. Michael Lawrence). This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference. Posted December 31, 2011.
Schuler Shift – Mr. Andrew Gumperz authors a comprehensive outline for Building A Better 2/1 Structure – The Schuler Shift. The article was posted and dated on December 12, 2012. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Schuler Shift – (Chip) Martel Switch
At the above link Mr. Steve Moese outlines the Schuler Shift and also the Martel Switch. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference. Posted January 14, 2013.
Score Card for All Possible Duplicate Contracts
This web page presents all possible bridge contracts including overtricks and, in the case of defeating the contract, also the bonus points for the opposing side.
Note: As a point of reference and/or clarification of terms a scorecard is a personal sheet of paper used at bridge events and bridge tournaments, which is commonly referred to as the Convention Card since space is included on the back side for personal data entry. If the game is party or progressive bridge, then this scorecard is referred to as a tally.
Sharples Convention
The Sharples convention is a method of responding to a No Trump opening when the responder holds only one 4-card Major and one and/or both 4-card Minor suits. This conventional method was devised by the twin brothers Mr. James Sharples and Mr. Robert Sharples. The Sharples convention is an extension of the Stayman convention and allows the partnership to explore first of all for a fit in a Major suit, and, if no fit is found, then to attempt to find a fit in a Minor suit.
Sharples Against No Trump Opening
Although the Sharples convention, devised by Mr. James and Robert Sharples, is originally a method of responding to a No Trump opening by the partner, Mr. James Sharples and Mr. Robert Sharples, both of Caterham, England, also developed a method of defending against a No Trump opening by the opponents. This is a link to their first online version.
Sharples Against No Trump Opening
This is their online version 1 of the defense method against No Trump as devised by Mr. James Sharples and Mr. Robert Sharples.
Short Club Variant
Authored by Mr. Mark Abraham and Mr. Griff Ware and published online April 20, 2009, the Short Club Variant consists of multiple opening bids for all four suits on the one level. The continuations allow the partnership to discover or reveal the relevant definition. Mr. Mark Abraham and Mr. Griff Ware have presented there bidding system online: Short Club Variant, Version: 2010. Short Club Variant, Version 2009.
Soloway Jump Shifts
This conventional method was devised and developed by Mr. Paul Soloway, born October 10, 1941 and died November 5, 2007. During his bridge career he became one of the leading bridge personalities of his time.
Splinter – Splinter Bids
This concept or conventional method was developed independently by Mr. David Leigh Cliff in the year 1963, who was the first to publish an article relating to this concept, and by Dorothy Hayden. It is a conventional method of allowing one partner to show certain distributional holdings containing either a singleton or void, support for partner’s suit, and slam interest.
Stenberg Convention
The origin of Stenberg is not known, but it is a variation on the Limit Major Raises. The year of the origin of Stenberg is unknown, but the conventional method is named for the Swedish master and theoretician Mr. Alvar Stenberg, who introduced the Stenberg convention into the praxis of Sweden’s bridge community.
Stoplight Convention
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The intent of the concept is that a light opening by one partner is recognized, after a forcing response, by partner to possibly stop short of game. This is accomplished by employing an artificial rebid which informs the responder that opener holds a very light opening, hence the designation: “Stop – Light”. This concept is similar to the Wolff Sign Off method. This article has been contributed by Mr. Marvin French of San Diego, California, United States, and which, as a .pdf file, will be automatically opened by your browser in a new window. An article about the conventional method of Stoplight was published in Popular Bridge magazine, namely in the issue of February 1978. The article won second place in the International Bridge Press Association’s Awards for Best Article or Series on a System or Convention (C. C. Wei Precision Award). It was also published in the Contract Bridge Forum, August/September 1982. It is included in the book Bridge Conventions Complete, by Amalya Kearse.
Suspensor Forcing Pass
This is a forcing pass system mainly played by Polish bridge personalities Mr. Cezary Jacek Balicki and Mr. Adam Artur Zmudzinski (Adam Artur Żmudziński) at the 1991 Bermuda Bowl tournament, at which they won a silver medal. With the employment of this system the player passes with 13 plus high card points, but with a weaker holding the player bids something, which is the reverse tactic of standard bidding systems. Mr. Cezary Jacek Balicki was born August 5, 1958, and Mr. Adam Artur Zmudzinski was born January 18, 1956.
Note: The bridge student should also study the Summary of Suspensor’s Opening Bids as authored and posted online by Mr. Peter Gill, Mr. Murray Green, and Mr. Mark Abaham. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Note: The bridge student should also study the authored online prepared Suspensor Opening Bids as posted by Mr. Michael Wilkinson, Mr. Tony Nunn, and Mr. Brad Coles. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Note: This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Note: The concept of a forcing pass approach to bidding is defined as an agreement or understanding that a pass call obliges the partner to bid, double, or redouble over an intermediate opposing pass.
Note: The actual origin of this conventional suspensor forcing pass system remains unknown. The definition of the English word suspensor is an athletic supporter, or a support for the genitals worn by men engaging in strenuous exercise.
Symmetric Relay Contract Bridge Bidding System
This is a summary of the Symmetric Relay Bidding System as compiled and authored by Mr. Adrei Sharko. The attempt by Mr. Adrei Sharko is to update and to release a revised edition of the contents of the publication titled Symmetric Relay, authored by Mr. Walter Jones and Mr. Roy Kerr, and published in the year 1980. The link is to the .pdf file of Mr. Adrei Sharko as maintained by the Australian Bridge Federation. This information has also only been archived and preserved on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Symmetric Relay – 1986
Written by Mr. Hugh Grosvenor and Mr. Ian Robinson. This is an adaption of methods developed in New Zealand over the last few years. It is a strong club system, similar in many ways to Precision Club but using relay continuations over all of the openings.
2/1 TAB – 2/1 Transfer Asking Bids – .pdf file formatted
Contribution courtesey of and greatly appreciated by Mr. William Rawlings via email as of September 1, 2017. This is a new convention using old components. Most everyone is familiar with 2/1 Game Force, far fewer are familiar with the Trump Asking Bids (TAB) of the Precision system. 2/1 TAB combines elements of each to form a dynamic new convention that is game forcing, confirms a trump fit, and asks the opener to further describe his/her trump suit.
Tartan Two-Bids
These two-bids were conceived by Mr. Hugh Kelsey and Mr. Tom Culbertson. The essence of the concept is: 2 Hearts and 2 Spades are Multi openings, which become clear after a series of relay responses.
Texas Convention
This conventional method was devised by Mr. David C. Carter of St. Louis, Missouri, United States, born in the year 1906, (Source: OEofB, 1976, page 600), and also independently by Mr. Olle Willner, born in the year 1923, of Stockholm, Sweden, which he described in the Swedish bridge magazine Bridge Tidningen. He published a series of articles beginning at the end of the year 1953 and ending early in the year 1954. In order to understand the origins it must be stated that the two mentioned bridge experts devised the concept to easily accommodate certain bidding sequences with certain bidding guidelines. This conventional method is also a feature of the optional conventions used in the Acol Bidding System.
Dutch Texas Transfer or Dutch Texas Transfer Bids
The designations Dutch Texas Transfer and Dutch Texas Transfer Bids refer to the original Texas Convention, and is a variation thereof. Although unsubstantiated the origin is most likely The Netherlands.
Extended Texas Convention
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. This is a variation of the Texas Convention combined with the Smolen conventional method to show a particular holding in both Major suits.
Roth Texas Convention
This variation of the Texas convention was developed by Mr. Alvin Leon Roth, and was described in his publication Picture Bidding, published in 1991 by Granovetter Books, ISBN: 0940257114. The idea of the concept is the realization that a Texas transfer bid may result in a game contract, which may catch the No Trump bidder with a very weak 2-card suit.
South African Texas Convention
A variation of the Texas Convention developed by Mr. Max Sapire with the sole purpose in the early stages of the evolution of the game of bridge that neither partner should not forget, but rather be reminded of the transfer bids.
Texas At The Two Level
Although quite similar to the Jacoby Transfer conventional method, this approach is different is several aspects. One main difference is that the responder is able to transfer partner to a Minor suit. A second feature of this conventional approach is that the partnership can use the two level, the three level, and the four level to communicate certain distributions.
Thomas Convention
The origin of this convention is unknown and is properly designated as the Thomas Four Diamonds – Thomas 4 Diamonds convention. It can be used in several bidding systems, such as the Universal Club bidding system, but can also be employed as a stand-alone method of asking for Aces. The convention is used only used after an opening of a Major suit, not after a Minor suit opening.
Three Card Major Suit Support
As an alternative to the generally accept concept of supporting a Major suit by partner with only four cards this method allows the partnership to support with only three cards support. With the addition of a continuance method the partnership is able to determine not only the length but also whether the values are minimum or maximum.
Tiroler Berg Weak Two Bids
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The basis of the concept is the Weak Two bid in either Major suit with the original opening showing a specified suit. The opening can have several meanings, which are then clarified by the rebids.
To Delay Convention
This is a convention method authored by Mr. Glen Ashton of BridgeMatters in 2007. The first release version is 1.1. This is the online .pdf file formatted outline of the convention. A description by the author is that the 2Dlay (To Delay) convention is used by a one-of-a-major opener to rebid when responder has bid 2 Club over the major opening. It allows responder bidding space to show hand types, while still giving responder the opportunity to find out what opener would have bid naturally. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Tonto Convention
This conventional method was devised and developed by Mr. Robert Stone. The designation is an acronym for Transfers Over 3 No Trump Overcalls. It is basically a means employed by the partnership to continue to explore for additional information after one partner has overcalled an opening preempt bid on the three level by the opponents with 3 No Trump.
Top Gun Convention
This is an excerpt in .pdf file format, also only in Italian, from the publication of Mr. Pier Massimo Farnaro from Italy. The specifics of the publication are: La quinta maggiore Milano. Sistema dichiarativo di bridge agonistico, 2009, Publisher / Editore: Casadelibri, ISBN-10: 8889466456 / ISBN-13: 9788889466452. This .pdf file will automatically be opened by your browser. topAny assistance with a translation will be greatly appreciated.
Touching Escape Bids
This convention method provides a so-called escape system in particular auctions whereby one player has opened the bidding with a suit and there has been an overcall of a natural 1 No Trump, which is then doubled for penalty by the next player in rotation.
Transfer Advances: Part 1 and Part 2
This is a technique / conventional method published by Mr. Jeff Rubens in the Bridge World in the 1970s, and compiled by Mr. Marc Smith for the Internet. The basic concept of the Transfer Advance is that the player rotate the meaning of all bids between and including the simple cue-bid to the bid below the raise. This information has only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Transfer Bids
This is the designation for a bid or call that shows, by agreement, length in the next higher-ranking suit. This bid is employed to transfer the contract into the stronger holding and also to provide a more flexible bidding. Such bids, or calls, were first employed by Mr. David Carter, who devised them for the conventional method designated Texas Transfers. These bids were also developed by Mr. Oswald Jacoby, who employed them for his Jacoby Transfer bids. Such transfer bids were also independently devised and developed by Mr. Olle Willner of Stockholm, Sweden, who published their employment and use in a series of articles in the magazine Bridge Tidningen in 1953 and 1954. Transfer bids can also be employed by the partnership to distinguish between weak and strong opening preempt bids and to allow the responder to judge whether a slam possibility exists. Since their development, transfer bids have been used for many bidding situations and have led to other conventional methods known by different designations but all of which have the transfer concept generally by the responder in common.
Trap Method Against Strong 1 Club Openings
The origin of this conventional defense method is unknown, but this defense method was popularized by Mr. Anthony (Tony) R. Forrester of Upton Bishop, England. It is a defensive bidding system employed after strong, artificial One Club openings.
Modified Trap Method Against Strong 1 Club Openings
The origin of this conventional defense method is unknown. It is a modified version of the Trap Defense Method and contains in addition bids on the two level to show distribution not capable of being shown by the Trap Defense method. As with the original concept, the modified version is a defensive bidding system employed after strong, artificial One Club openings.
Triad
This conventional method was devised by Mr. Charles R. Greenwood of the Deva Bridge Club located in Christleton, Chester, England. This is a convention for overcalling a natural one of a suit having a two-suited hand. This information has also only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Two Diamond No Trump
UMJOODO
The acronym deciphered stands for Unusual Major Jump Over One Diamond Opening. The concept is based on the principle that the strong jump shift by the responder in the game of bridge is no longer employed as this action consumes too much bidding space. Therefore, these type of responses became used for communicating specific information. Thus, if partner opens the bidding with 1 Diamond and the responder bids, following a pass by the next player in rotation, 2 Spades, then the responder communicates the information that he holds at least a 5-card Spade suit and a 4-card Heart suit plus invitational values, not game values.
Note: Many professional bridge players, agreeing to play 2/1, use this treatment because a 2 Diamonds rebid by the opener followed by a second bid by the responder of 2 Hearts is considered to be game-forcing.
Note: This treatment can also be employed following a 1 Club opening by partner, but this is an individual choice.
Unbalanced Heart Convention
Contributed by Mr. Marvin French of San Diego, California. He was born April 1927 and died February 16, 2014. The concept assists the partnership is describing an unbalanced holding held by the responder of game-invitational strength with five hearts and fewer than four spades. The Unbalanced Heart Convention was published in The Bridge World magazine, February 1978, and in the Contract Bridge Forum, August 1977. It is included in the book Bridge Conventions Complete, by Amalya Kearse. This conventional method has only been archived and preserved on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Under Jump Shift
The origin of the under jump shift is unknown. The responder, following an opening by partner, initiates this action by making a jump shift in the suit immediately below the Major suit named by the opener. This presentation is only archived and preserved on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Unusual Major Jump Over 1 Diamond Opening Bid
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept behind Unusual Major Jump Over One Diamond Opening is quite effective whenever the holding requires the player to show a certain distribution of both Major suits. Many partnerships have reduced the long designation to a group of first letters to result in the unpronounceable UMJOODO.
Vasilevsky Convention
This competitive conventional method was described in the book Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century by Mr. Marshall Miles. The concept is that the opponents can enter the competitive auction after a Major suit opening, a pass by one’s partner, and a first response by the partner of the opening bid of 1 No Trump. The name of this conventional method is unknown, but it could be possible that it has been named after the bridge professional Mr. George Vasilevsky of Las Vegas, Nevada, United States.
Wagner Two Diamonds
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. The concept is that one player opens 2 Diamonds, indicating either a Weak Two Bid in Hearts or Spades. The idea is to obstruct the opponents as much as possible and have them conceivably play in an incorrect final contract.
Walsh Transfers – Walsh Transfer Bids – Transfer Walsh
Note: The original source is no longer online. The concept of Walsh Transfers (aka Transfer Walsh) has been expanded to include additional features by Mr. Micha Keijzers – archived website. The reasoning is that the method is effective in discovering a 5-3 or 4-4 fit in either Major suit following a preparatory 1 Club opening bid. This information has only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Walpurgis Diamond
The Walpurgis Diamond is a conventional structure of opening bids, which inform partner about a certain point count range and about a certain distribution. The developer of this style, these opening bids is Mr. Paul Hackett with the possible assistance of Mr. John Collings. They were developed to supplement the Walpurgis Club system developed during the late 1970s.
Weak Jump Shift Response
During the evolution of the Strong Jump Shift response, signifying 15/16 high card points and a 6-card suit, it became evident that even a normal response had the same effect, since any response by the responder continues to be forcing for one round. Therefore, another interpretation of the jump shift response became the norm. Instead of being strong, the principle of the jump shift became weak.
The Weak 6-4 Method
This concept was devised as an augmentation to the New Minor Forcing conventional method. The foundation of the concept is, as a responder, the ability to show a particularly distributional holding of 6-4 and generally weak values.
Weak No Trump Opening
The use of a No Trump range between 10-12 high card points, used as a preemptive strike against the opponents. Employed mainly by favorable vulnerability and generally in the first, second, and sometimes third seat.
Western Cuebid
Although this is not a convention, it is a useful concept when the partnership discovers that the better contract could be a No Trump contract rather than a suit contract. The only requirement is that an opponent must make a suit overcall in order that one partner can cuebid that particular suit in order to discover whether the other partner has a stopper in that suit. Therefore, the Western Cuebid asks for a stopper, but does not show a stopper.
California Cuebid
This is another designation for the Western Cuebid.
Eastern Cuebid
Although this is not a convention, it is a useful concept when the partnership discovers that the better contract could be a No Trump contract rather than a suit contract. The only requirement is that an opponent must make a suit overcall in order that one partner can cuebid that particular suit in order to show the other partner that he/she has a stopper in that suit. Therefore, the Eastern Cuebid shows a stopper, but does not ask for a stopper.
Whirlwind Convention
The origin of this conventional method is unknown. This conventional method is employed by the defense as a defense mechanism after one opponent has opened the auction with an opening of a strong 1 Club.
Whitehead System – The Spade Convention
Constructed, developed, and devised by Mr. Wilbur Cherrier Whitehead of New York, New York, United States, born in the year 1866 and died in the year 1931. He was a pioneer of the game of Whist, evolving into a great auction and duplicate bridge authority, and a member of the team that won (tied) the Vanderbilt Cup in the year 1928, the first year it was in play.
Note: In the early days of the evolving game of contract and duplicate bridge many conventional methods and systems were introduced and promoted as having a better and more successful percentage and probability of being effective. The Whitehead System is system of requirements for original bids and responses, notably of which is the Spade Convention.
Note: The parameters of this convention method is used when a No trump bid is doubled informatively. If the doubler’s partner holds four – or more Spades, the partner is asked to call (or name) that suit in preference to a or any longer and stronger Heart or minor suit. The inference is that the doubler is either prepared to support a weak Spade bid or can run to another suit of No Trumps, when normal length in Spades is shown by the partner. It is apparent that a forced Spade bid of this kind must not be supported unless the partner has exceptional strength in Spades, or the Spades are rebid by original caller.
Note: Other and additional information about the requirements and/or parameters of the Whitehead System is not available. Any additional information would be greatly appreciated.
Wolff Signoff Bids or Wolff Convention
A method devised by Mr. Bobby Wolff, which permits the responder to stop the auction at the three level, after the opener has made a jump rebid of 2 No Trump.
Woodgroves Multi
This conventional method originated with Mr. John-Hallvard Woodgrove of Norway. The Woodgroves Multi conventional method begins with the opener bidding 2 Diamonds. The holding of the opener can vary according to the partnership understanding and will be clarified during the ensuing auction. The employment of the Woodgroves Multi is to some degree questionable and should be cleared with the governing bridge organization.
Woodgroves Two Clubs
This conventional method originated with Mr. John-Hallvard Woodgrove of Norway. These devised responses are adjusted to fit with and complement the Woodgroves Multi conventional method, but can also be employed independently.
Wraight Convention
Devised by Mr. Philip Wraight. Playing Acol, the bridge player may have a problem as responder with a balanced 10 count, if the bridge player is unable to bid a four card suit at the one level, since 1 No Trump shows 6-9 points except over 1 Club, and the 2 No Trump rebid shows 11-12 points. The bridge player is also in difficulty with a balanced 3-3-3-4 hand with 6-7 points if partner opens 1 Clubs, when a raise in Clubs takes the bridge player past what may be the best contract of 1 No Trump. This can be true of both Minors if the partnership is playing Inverted Minor raises. This information has only been preserved and archived in .pdf file format on this site for future reference.
Yellow Rose of Texas Convention
This conventional method is one of many invented by Mr. Daniel (Danny) Kleinman and this presentation is a contribution of Mr. Danny Kleinman, and which are published in his book called A Cornucopia of Conventions published in the year 1998. This particular conventional method is employed after the partner has opened the auction with 1 No Trump or 2 No Trump, and the partnership agreement is to use also Texas Transfers.
Zebulon Convention – Preferences System
A No Trump Overcall System for Current ACBL Restrictions published by Mr. John Vega and Mr. Marty Lavine. The concept is the variation on the theme of the Suction convention to meet the requirements of bridge sponsoring organizations, especially ACBL, announced in 1998, with the amended section of the General Convention Chart which relates to No Trump defenses by requiring that direct overcalls other than double and 2 Clubs, must have at least one known suit. The Zebulon convention was later designated as Preferences. The articles by both authors is presented in .pdf file format and will be automatically opened by your browser in a new window.
Note: An article authored Mr. John Vega and Mr. Marty C. Lavine appeared in the September 2000 issue of The Bridge Bulletin, page 65-66, as published by the ACBL under the title of Preferential Treatment. This article has only been preserved and archived on this site in .pdf file format for future reference.
Zia Cuebids – Zia Cue Bids
The Zia Cuebid consists of bidding the suit, which the defender should not lead.
If you wish to include this feature, or any other feature, of the game of bridge in your partnership agreement, then please make certain that the concept is understood by both partners. Be aware whether or not the feature is alertable or not and whether an announcement should or must be made. Check with the governing body and/or the bridge district and/or the bridge unit prior to the game to establish the guidelines applied. Please include the particular feature on your convention card in order that your opponents are also aware of this feature during the bidding process, since this information must be made known to them according to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. We do not always include the procedure regarding Alerts and/or Announcements, since these regulations are changed and revised during time by the governing body. It is our intention only to present the information as concisely and as accurately as possible.