keep it simple stupid?

[bglover]

I have a variety of regular partners... perhaps a dozen or more. Some I have been playing with here on BBO for over 3 years now.

 

I play what I term a "plain vanilla" 2/1 system... the usual conventions and not a lot more (jordan, inverted, blah blah). I have some partners who have added things over the years, others who want me to switch from, say, capp to woolsey over NT openings.

 

There are quite a few others however, who want to complicate the system well beyond a couple of small changes, incorporating conventions I am only passingly familiar with and whose response structures take a lot of memory (if I even recall that the convention is being used at the time it comes up).

 

I strive to play against the best opponents available and usually compete against better players (not always). But, what I've noticed is, my results are often worse playing with partners who insist on the additional complications in system.

 

Invariably we will get a super-bad result due to me forgetting that x bid was conventional and I will flush a hand that way... All I can do is say "sorry partner my bad" and move on.

 

So, finally, here's my question. Which "non-standard" standard conventions do YOU think are really necessary? I realize everyone has a "favorite" but thats not what I am asking. Which convention do you play that you think is essential that you would need to write in at the bottom of an ACBL card?

[inquiry]

Fourth suit forcing and nmf (two way checkback xyz thingee even better)

 

Fit jump and fit nonjump in competition

 

Some kind of limit raise other than 1M-3M (I like 2NT to be limit raise or better with 1M-3M weak).

 

1M-DBL-Merkwell transfers

 

Two way drury by passed hand

 

Those are essential in order of preference, I may have forgotten something

[luis]

Ogust is a must have for me, it gives your partnership the freedom to relax the 2x openings and use them wisely according to vulnerability, because pd can always ask.

 

If the tournament is MPs DONT in 2nd and 4th position is a very useful tool to prevent them from playing the mps paradise contract of 1NT.

[Trpltrbl]

Drury, Lebensohl something against opps NT opening and Carding.

 

Mike :rolleyes:

[Trpltrbl]

And I very very much agree with you. I play against people that sit down and use 5 minutes to discuss all the things they play. And when we start playing they screw up about half of the conventions. I really think that is too funny. Bridge is most of all a judgement game. I am a big fan of rubberbridge where you play almost no conventions. Keep it simple and walk away with the money :rolleyes:

 

Mike :rolleyes:

[EricK]

For unopposed bidding there are no necessary conventions, although splinters come pretty close.

 

For competitive bidding you need a little more science IMO: Lebensohl opposite (2M) X is very useful; also pre-emptive raises and fit-jumps and cue-raises a la Robson and Segal can really improve one's results.

 

Eric

[EricK]

For unopposed bidding there are no necessary conventions, although splinters come pretty close.

 

For competitive bidding you need a little more science IMO: Lebensohl opposite (2M) X is very useful; also pre-emptive raises and fit-jumps and cue-raises a la Robson and Segal can really improve one's results.

 

Eric

Upon mature reflection, I have decided that FSF is another almost necessary convention in unopposed auctions.

 

Eric

[mishovnbg]

                                 Hi bglover!
  I will tell you one real story. One rubber bridge player ask me: "What are interesting for you, if you know almost all about your partner's hand?" I though some time and answer: "When you play with your partner, it is like to play tennis with switched off light. When I play with my partner I like to play with full light on. That doesn't mean I don't need to handle well racket or tricks need to win!" 
  You are right that conventions, except simplest one like lebensohl, can lead to worse results... As Ben like to say sometimes you need to survive "learning curve" with your partner and still don't break your partnership.
  I was and I am "science" player. This mean I play with all my partners unusual systems. 18 years ago I played 2 very complicate systems (ROMEX+Lambda) in different vul. Now many of top players play different way in vul and not vul. Bridge is game for partners, not for alone "experts". If you like to play high level of bridge, complicate system is unavoidable.
                                                                            Misho

[dogsbreath]

I guess it depends on the situation.. I drew a very elderly lady in a 'fun' morning event at a tourney in Scotland recently. She asked me if i played 'the takeout x' and when i replied 'yes' that ended the system discussion :))

(We didnt win)

[paulg]

I'll disagree with most in that there are practically no non-standard conventions needed and you could quite easily junk most of the standard ones too. Knowing a core set well is far more useful than knowing an extended set poorly.

 

Although I play a complex system with my "serious" partner, my wife is not interested in learning conventions for the small number of tournaments we play during the year (as it's almost the only bridge she plays).

 

So we play all suit doubles below 5♣ are takeout, fourth suit forcing, stayman, "classic" Blackwood, fit jumps in competition. No transfers, lebensohl, michaels, Unusual 2NT, Jacoby 2NT, inverted minors, etc.

 

We are successful at club and county level, and have won congress events.

 

It is easy to underestimate the value of having confidence in your system. There is less scope for misunderstanding when you have few conventions.

 

The problems with "standard" conventions is that many do not have a single standard, or people don't know the standard. Experienced Jacoby 2NT players often have their own response structure, but have forgotten the standard shortage responses. Agreeing Lebensohl also requires a fast/slow denies agreement.

 

Even in my serious partnership we are now simplifying complex sequences that are rare and memory destroying. However we are adding complex frequently-occuring conventions such as transfer responses to 1♣.

 

Finally I totally agree with Misho that a serious partnership needs a complex system, although this could be a simple system with lots of agreements. Perhaps a measure of a serious partnership is whether their System Notes are comprehensive.

 

Paul

[Free]

The first time I played with the guy who's now my regular partner, we played basic acol and some conventions which are played a lot over here (like 3♣ puppet stayman after 1NT and 2NT, multi-muiderberg,...). It was in a local club and we beat the entire room with about 65%. Playing several times, we started to change some stuff (like starting to play some relay-stayman, modified answers after muiderberg,...), and got some good scores and some bad ones. We played the Carta Mundi (international tourney in Belgium) where a lot of good players were. We ended up 21st (out of 180 I think) with 55.5% after 2 days - with that simple system. These days we play our own system which looks complicated (but isnt once you know it) and we score more regularly. And now, we score pretty constant (and high), winning now and then, ending 2nd or 3rd a lot. You're not gonna say that it has nothing to do with the system!

 

Imo, a system should just be doing the same as every natural system, but it should also be able to find some games or slams which you won't reach using standard systems. That's why some systems get so complicated sometimes, but if they work it's just fine!

An example: we started playing muiderberg from the first time (2M opening = 5 card M, 4+m, weak) with standard responses. My partner found some system to bid the entire hand, being able to even ask about specific Aces, Kings and Queens, singletons and voids,... Because of this, we've scored some great slams which we would've never found without that adjustment.

 

Using conventions is just a matter of being able to do more. When it occurs, you'll find the right way, while other might not, and then you score pretty good. And if you start to mix up or forget conventions, you just don't know them and shouldn't play them.