[Lovera]

Hi, I've been away for a while but apart from some personal commitments I've used some time with GIB to verify the 2NT Truscott convention and its usefulness as you will see later and which I am about to discuss.

[Lovera]

"A jump to 2NT on the double(=X) of the first opponent at the opening of 1 with a major suit indicates a positive hand, suitable for points and shape for the jump in the opening suit. The immediate jump to the opening suit indicates a weak hand and has a disqualifying nature The convention presents an undoubted usefulness in those systems in which the redouble(=XX) of the opener's partner denies help in trumps despite showing a strong hand. In the impossibility of using this bid for fit hands, in the case of doubles it is necessary to distinguish the positive ones from the negative ones, and the convention in question solves the problem well, also because the lack of possibility of using the jump to 2NT with natural meaning has relative importance. In fact, with a positive and balanced hand and poor fit in trumps, the opener's partner has all the interest in passing in the perspective of an advantageous double" (Nino Ghelli Conventions in bridge F10 Jump to 2NT on a double of the second hand, page 1).

[Lovera]

Still searching via Google for information about it I found this Italian site (it is possible to view the pdf which may also be of interest in general terms) of which it's possible to have the translation:https://it.scribd.co...Truscott-bridge ( If you cannot read go in #37)
As can be seen by also using the previous post relating to the double bid, there are various bidding alternatives in the context of contested auction, on openings of 1♥ or 1♠, which is certainly not negligible.

[bluenikki]

 Lovera, on 2023-October-01, 03:34, said:

Still searching via Google for information about it I found this Italian site (it is possible to view the pdf which may also be of interest in general terms) of which it's possible to have the translation:https://it.scribd.co...Truscott-bridge
As can be seen by also using the previous post relating to the double bid, there are various bidding alternatives in the context of contested action, on openings of 1♥ or 1♠, which is certainly not negligible.

For unknown reasons, the convention was (and maybe still is) known as Jordan in America, assumed to be named after Robert Jordan. In the early 70s, The Bridge World wrote "Bobby denies any knowledge. Maybe it was named after the river."

[Lovera]

 bluenikki, on 2023-October-01, 09:04, said:

For unknown reasons, the convention was (and maybe still is) known as Jordan in America, assumed to be named after Robert Jordan. In the early 70s, The Bridge World wrote "Bobby denies any knowledge. Maybe it was named after the river."

Infact i think so. As we could see later is known how (Aka Jordan).

[Lovera]

I continue as mentioned with a consideration regarding the translation: it was not maked because the success seems imperfect to me (i.e. on page 3 - in brackets - it says "will say 4♦" but you can do it by clicking on the three dots (= menu ) at the top right of the page and then choosing the language for the translation.


The two sources in #2 and #3 show that this convention can be used in contested auctions in various ways. However, I point to another well-known site where you can see the bidding development in a more extensive way:
https://www.pattayab...uscott_main.htm
You have to see, before of Inverted Jordan ... , the link "when RHO has doubled" too.

[Lovera]

At present and with the data I obtained from (at least) three different sources, various considerations can be made. We can start by saying that GIB has this convention among its own and is currently used in its general meaning, i.e. "the opening of a major suit is immediately doubled" and in fact then the bid of 2NT is (defined) "Truscott (Jordan) 3+♠/♥, 11+ total points" while using it after an overcall is not standard and there must be an agreement with the partner and I'm not sure it will come to this (I however tried it in about fourty of cases and it worked).

[mycroft]

I have seen Truscott used for one of "all four suits" or "majors only" and Jordan for the other. The fact that I can't remember which was which should tell you something.

Oddly enough, while I don't hear it called "Dormer" often (used to, yet another person who thought it was a good idea), the "Over 1M-X, 2NT is LR+, over 1m-X, 2NT is preemptive minor, 3m is LR", if it has a name attached (rather than just "flip-flop"), is consistently "Flip-Flop Dormer" in my circles.


All of this (and Cappelletti/Hamilton/Pottage, and...) is the bright flashing argument for "name of convention is not adequate disclosure".

(as I am back in D16 these days, I am reminded that the other argument is the inevitable "was 3♠ West Coast?" To which my response is "No idea, never could figure out what West Coast vs East Coast cuebids were; 3♠ asked for a (full) spade stopper." Similar for "inverted minor", "Bergen" and "Jacoby [2NT]", to post some examples just off the top of my head...)

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-October-02, 10:41, said:

I have seen Truscott used for one of "all four suits" or "majors only" and Jordan for the other. The fact that I can't remember which was which should tell you something.

Oddly enough, while I don't hear it called "Dormer" often (used to, yet another person who thought it was a good idea), the "Over 1M-X, 2NT is LR+, over 1m-X, 2NT is preemptive minor, 3m is LR", if it has a name attached (rather than just "flip-flop"), is consistently "Flip-Flop Dormer" in my circles.

All of this (and Cappelletti/Hamilton/Pottage, and...) is the bright flashing argument for "name of convention is not adequate disclosure".

Although on a system card with limited space, the name of a convention (say "Unusual over Unusual") *can* be appropriate disclosure, so long as there are system notes to flesh it out.

And then there is the opposite problem, conventions that for some reason have no name (at least locally) and are assumed to be normal if not natural. Around here that includes 2NT as LR over 1M ("Jacoby what?"), with *or without* interference... and if most people already play that way without interference, it's even harder for them to grasp that others may play it only after double and give it a fancy name to boot.

Whereas it never even struck them that it could be played over 1m too, although I'm not sure that is a great loss: 1m (p) 2N is a descriptive natural auction and 1m (X) tends to say something fairly specific about RHO's majors, at least around here. If you are going to play it, I guess inverting makes sense, to rightside 3N: I don't see the argument about not being able to use it with more than LR, you can always play that 4m (or 4om) is GF of some kind.

[Lovera]

Let's try not to complicate this discussion too much. It's not complications I'm looking for as you know.

[pescetom]

 Lovera, on 2023-October-02, 18:36, said:

Let's try not to complicate this discussion too much. It's not complications I'm looking for as you know.

Maybe you could enlighten us what you *are* looking for then, rather than just repeating drum rolls
The links you posted raised the issues we discussed.

[Lovera]

I am not saying that you are not free to express yourselves on the matter but to consider that the more complicated the discussion is posed the more clear you should be in explaining it for the purpose of greater understanding even on the part of less experienced players, therefore keeping in mind the scope application or the "range" of action in this case of a convention. Finally, the graduation should help. And starting to insert it into your system in progressively more extensive steps that allow greater control in the probable case of some "interference", given the fact that the creation of a system brings with it a series of balances that can be changed.

[TylerE]

Sounds to me like you are vastly overcomplicating things.

[Lovera]

 TylerE, on 2023-October-03, 15:04, said:

Sounds to me like you are vastly overcomplicating things.

I do not think so. The second part in #12 is my suggestion of a more general nature.

[Lovera]

I now resume by saying that the convention also provides for the development on 1♣/1♦ in the case of use on overcall, but also in accordance with what GIB currently uses (only after opening 1 of a major suit doubled), this one is not treated. Some considerations can also be made regarding the preventive raises already described on the site indicated in #3 (of SCRIBD) of i.e. 2♥(=3 cards), 3♥(=4 cards), 4♥(=5 cards) and for which rather than in HCP I suggest to use the Total points with these respective ranges: 8-10, 6-10 and 6-8 Total points.

[Lovera]

Considerations/redefinitions:1) as the support ranges have been presented in#15, their "midpoint" is the 12's complement for the length (i.e. 12 - 8=4 cards x 3♥) and so on;2) to limit the use of the preempt bid at level two it is used only if the HCPs are made up of three high honors (A/K/Q) and otherwise the hand is bidded at level three; 3) again to increase the the use of the bid at level four in addition to what has already been established (=5 cards) in case you have only 4 support cards and in a side suit you have an Ace it is available to be used as a fifth trump card; 4) in case first defender's overcall at the highest level, the remaining bids can still be used to intervene.

[Lovera]

 mycroft, on 2023-October-02, 10:41, said:

I have seen Truscott used for one of "all four suits" or "majors only" and Jordan for the other. The fact that I can't remember which was which should tell you something.

Oddly enough, while I don't hear it called "Dormer" often (used to, yet another person who thought it was a good idea), the "Over 1M-X, 2NT is LR+, over 1m-X, 2NT is preemptive minor, 3m is LR", if it has a name attached (rather than just "flip-flop"), is consistently "Flip-Flop Dormer" in my circles.


All of this (and Cappelletti/Hamilton/Pottage, and...) is the bright flashing argument for "name of convention is not adequate disclosure".

(as I am back in D16 these days, I am reminded that the other argument is the inevitable "was 3♠ West Coast?" To which my response is "No idea, never could figure out what West Coast vs East Coast cuebids were; 3♠ asked for a (full) spade stopper." Similar for "inverted minor", "Bergen" and "Jacoby [2NT]", to post some examples just off the top of my head...)

Perhaps this one can help you:http://www.infobridg...ni_Truscott.htm

[pescetom]

 Lovera, on 2023-October-05, 09:25, said:

Perhaps this one can help you:http://www.infobridg...ni_Truscott.htm

I somehow doubt he was confused in the first place

But it's an interesting link (assuming translation to English/Spanish/Mycroft) for the proposed interventions over strong 1♣.
I would be pained to give up our current 1NT = 4M+5m, but it does seem reasonable that the 1 level identifies various 5-5.

[Lovera]

The convention indicated in #3 therefore deals with the "non-standard" part to be agreed with the partner but this plus what was then found in #6 (when RHO instead double) allows for a broad discussion at the alternative level of bidding already studied. In this regard I would like to say that I agree for the most part with what has been said (on the two sites), however towards the end of page. 3 (of SCRIBD) relating to the possibility of support from the partner of a second suit (i.e. ♦) of the opener (with at least Axxx) it would be appropriate to return back on the trump at level 3(♥ i.e.) in the negative case, bis 4(♥) if you have cards, letting the raise bid (4♦) clearly indicate possession of the K (as in cue-bid).

[mycroft]

Thanks - will translate and see if there's anything else in there for me.

Pescetom is not quite right. I 100% am not sure which is which. It's just that I don't care. "The name of the convention is not full disclosure". I know how I play it; I discuss what we're playing with partner if we aren't on the same page; and if it matters, and the opponents use the convention name, I know to ask what it actually means. It's not that I couldn't find out if I wanted to. It's just that it literally does not matter to me - which was my point :-).

My issue with this entire topic (besides not understanding what you are trying to do. A clear topic statement at the beginning would have helped. Your explanation of what you were intending (to pescetom) still did not make sense to me. Are you detailing "Truscott as invented by Truscott"? "Differences between how it's played now and how it was designed 40 years ago"? "What is and is not Truscott - if you don't play it this way, don't call it that"? "...here's why this way is better"? "What GIB calls Truscott isn't Truscott, and here's why that's a problem"? "Here's what GIB actually plays, so you know how to handle it"?) is that nothing is played the way it was when it was invented. Frequently, the person who invented it did it suboptimally, and "everybody" plays it the clearer or more optimal way, even the inventor.

So, depending on what your point actually is, my comment might be explaining that others are playing Dormer not Truscott, and that's not "wrong", even if they call it Truscott; they might be playing Jordan (even if it's actually Truscott, or if it's what they think is Truscott, but isn't really); it might be showing why "explain what you play, it doesn't matter what it's called", or many other things. And it might be a totally unnecessary complication and poor thread drift. Like this one. If so, sorry; put it down to lack of understanding.