Blackout Convention - Deficiencies

Deficiencies

The precise scenario wherein Blackout is invoked occur quite rarely. Playing one session of bridge a week it is likely that Blackout would be used no more than once or twice a year. The conventional meanings attached to various bids, above, are likely to be forgotten.

The following is a critique of Blackout:

There are a number of conventional treatments and Blackout is the best known. In its simplest form, when responder’s second bid is the cheaper of 2NT or the fourth suit it is “Blackout” advising partner that the bidder is minimum, all other continuations are game forcing. There are several variations on this theme, reverse Blackout for example. These are my criticisms.... So much more commonly will the partnership be at the limit of its resources, simple bids like a return to opener’s first suit or a repeat of responder’s are better played as natural and non-forcing. The opener has begun to describe his hand, in fact he has, generally, placed nine or more of his cards in two suits. A strong responder should be able, through 2NT, to allow opener to continue to describe, to find the perfect fit whenever it exists, search out the best game or make a slam investigation. Using 2NT as the prime means of continuing with strong hands is simple, and it frees up other bids, even in the fourth suit, as natural and limited. Mis-fit hands can be diagnosed quickly and the level kept low. To use a new suit bid for no other purpose than to announce a bad hand is self-evidently wasteful. Having at your disposal, means of getting out cheaply and accurately, permits opener to reverse, and thereby not conceal his actual shape, on any hand above the minimum re-bid range.