Detoxification for convention addicts

[helene_t]

Four years ago I started playing duplicate bridge. I didn't know anything about bidding theory, but I quickly noticed that the social status of the players at the local club was directly proportional to the number of conventions they played. I got a regular partner who was also a bridge newbie but since he is a cryptographer (and I did some information theory and mathematical linguistics at college) it was not so difficult for us to invent a huge number of conventions that in theory would make some sense. T-Walsh, Raptor, Reverse Flannery, Rumpensohl, Woolsey-over-NT, Meckwell-over-NT, Last Train, Minorwood .... most of our inventions turned out to have been invented allready, but few people at the club played them so everybody was impressed.

 

After having played all this scientific nonsense for a couple of years, however, I'm beginning to realize it is inefficient. On an average 24-board event we have two or three bidding misunderstandings. OK, everybody has that, but passing partner's splinter raise or transfer tends to score worse than passing partner's natural, forcing call. More important, even when we do understand each other's bidding, the net added value of the conventions is probably negative, mainly because our brains get jammed from memorizing the conventions so it becomes difficult to do hand evaluation at the same time.

 

Now the question is how to get rid of the conventions. It is more difficult than it might sound. For example, if we skip Raptor we have to agree how to proceed after a natural notrump overcall. Some people play transfers, some do not, some play transfers only for suits above the opening suit, some play transfer only after a second-seat notrump overcall. My favorite solution would be to skip transfers alltogether, but maybe that's going too far.

 

Is the best solution to go "cold turkey", defaulting to stone-age Wei-Goren? Is there somebody who has been in the same situation?

[hotShot]

Make a list of all those conventions you play and during the next 3 times you play, mark each convention used on that list.

 

Three club evenings should be around 75 boards. Keep everything you used and get rid of those things you did not need. Even if you don't agree how to treat the situation, it is very unlikely to cause a problem, as it does not happen very often.

[Free]

Yes, I've been in a similar situation with a f2f partner, where we had too much bidding misunderstandings due to too much memory work. If you take away stuff, it gets frustrating when that specific convention would help you out in a situation, and if you keep everything then you might get mistakes.

 

I'll give you one of the best solutions: start playing strong ♣ system with full relay structure! You might think relay systems are difficult and complicated (if you see opps bid other suits than they actually have it seems confusing), but if you use symmetric relay it's VERY easy once you know how it works. I've been playing such thing with a new f2f partner for a couple of months, and we haven't had ANY bidding misunderstanding, and our slam bidding is much better than natural systems (extra bonus :D ). Important note on this matter: partner has never played any form of relay system before!

 

Another solution is ofcourse to go back to basics, and start building your system all over again. Add some conventions but not too many, and keep playing that, despite it's weak points...

[bearmum]

I guess MOST folks play Stayman and Blackwood ( either nat or RKCB) amd I think THESE are SO common they don't count as "conventions" --- rather necessary tools B) [Do you really want to NOT to play Stayman with TWO 4 card majors and 9 points opposite a 15-17 NT?]

 

Playing with pick-up partners I feel that one can agree:[in a REALLY short time]

Blackwood or RKCB 1304 or 1430

Transfers- majors only or minors 2?

Two suit takeouts ( Michaels/ 2NT?) or NAT over opps NT

Systems ON (or off) over interference over OUR NT

 

Other than that I agree SOME esoteric conventions are ONLY useful with a REALLY regular partner :D

 

BTW helene ALL of the "conventions" you quote I have NEVER played in nearly 40 years of playing duplicate :) [bUT I am sure that some of them are REALLY useful IF the partnership KNOWS (a) what they mean and the correct responses to them :) :D :D

[Gerben47]

Your problem seems not to be the conventions but remembering your agreements. Do you like your agreements? If not is that causing you to forget?

 

I don't believe in "The road to hell is paved with good conventions". Instead, focus on

"It is good if you know what you play, if you don't know what you play that is not so good".

 

Do you have a system script? Write down all your agreements and stick to what is written down. Anything that is in the script is played, anything that is not in the script is not played. Be sure to write down WHEN conventions apply and when not.

 

One of my current partners is a naturalist (sort of a new experience for me, I always have the "what if we play it this way" feeling as well regardless if it is natural or not). Turns out we don't get fewer mixups, because he thought natural meant X and I thought natural meant Y. A classic is Blackwood / Quantitative.

 

If you have a misunderstanding or a "forget": make sure you will not make the same mistake twice. Clear with partner what is played, write it down and stick to it.

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[MickyB]

I've been there Helene - for the 18 months after I started playing, I was in a partnership that never used the same convention card twice! I think it would be best to restart with a basic system, a lot of general principles and few conventions. Anything not agreed as a convention is natural. It probably will take a few sessions before you are having less misunderstandings than you do currently, but you will get there. A 1NT overcall needs discussion IMO - either system on, or system off (i.e. 2bids are natural NF, 3bids are natural forcing, and a cuebid is staymanic).

[pclayton]

Make a list of all those conventions you play and during the next 3 times you play, mark each convention used on that list.

 

Three club evenings should be around 75 boards. Keep everything you used and get rid of those things you did not need. Even if you don't agree how to treat the situation, it is very unlikely to cause a problem, as it does not happen very often.

3 Sessions? :rolleyes: :ph34r:

 

If HALF the treatments on my cc came up in 3 sessions, I'd be very happy.

 

None of the treatments Helene lists are that tricky to remember, although some (like minorwood) need some firm rules for implementation.

 

Pity the poor convention! When it comes up (and you remember) you forget about the advantage you gain. When one member of the partnership forgets the treatment, its the convention's fault.

 

For the players that play a simple system, how often do you have a bidding misunderstanding in a 'natural' sequence?

 

I'm not saying that casual partners should have a cc full of red ink, quite the contrary! But 2 players that are dedicated to improving their partnership, play one session / weeks and spend about the same amount of time practicing / refining / emailing notes don't have a lot of excuses.

[pbleighton]

My most frequent partner has memory issues, compounded by an extreme distaste for independently studying system notes (he is, however, quite willing to review and practice bidding once a week for 30-45 minutes, which helps).

 

In consequence, we play a relatively straightforward system, 5 card majors, standardish, but with mini/weak NT and light openings. The conventions we use are:

1) Stayman and major/minor suit transfers

2) Meckwell in defense to NT, and as a runout when our NT is doubled

3) 1M-2NT as a limit+ raise

4) Splinters

5) New minor forcing - very simple version

6) 4th suit forcing

7) Unusual 2NT and Michaels

8) Long suit game tries after 1M-2M

9) After overcalls of our NT, stolen bid doubles, and suit bids are transfers

10) 2C strong, artificial - 2C/2D = negative

11) Cue bidding controls

 

I may have left something out, but that's about it. We don't screw up conventions very often. Our bidding mistakes are mostly judgment issues, and "sorry, partner, I didn't see the spade king" :)

 

The key is that everything except for splinters comes up pretty frequently. I'm not suggesting you play the above list, but that you have some sort of frequency criteria, and dump almost everything else. I think hotshot's 3 game limit is too strict, but something of that nature would help you a lot.

 

Peter

[keylime]

I admit it, I'm lucky to have a good pard with detailed agreements.

 

We don't have the detox of conventions/agreements often, but when it happens it's a massive revision. These revisions take a lot of work and it's scary when the first few games happens because of the strain.

 

The items we feel are necessary, are far different than most, because of the forcing club nature and the "language" of our method. I think each of us has a "convention threshold" where past that they get lost totally. We found ours pretty fast, and thus had to articulate and create the verbs and adjectives of the language within that framework.

[mycroft]

If you want another way of looking at things (as a fellow cryptographer):

 

You almost certainly know a couple of conventions you play that are infrequent. Look at each:

 

1) Does it solve a real problem? In other words, is it nice to have when it comes up (in which case, pitch it), or does it give a theoretical advantage, but at a distinct memory cost (pitch) or would you have an unsolveable problem if you don't have it? This is the "Death Hand" syndrome, and conventions to handle them are useful. Raptor NT overcall is one example of this (and these tend to only come up if you aren't playing anything to handle them).

 

2) Are you giving up something useful to play this convention? If so, how do you handle that hand? It is very easy to get caught up in Cascading Conventionitis, where you add one convention you like, then another to fill in the hole caused by the first, then another to fill in those holes, then... If you see those, it's often useful to pitch the whole cascade and deal with the first problem in another way.

 

3) How often do you forget it? With your background, you probably can work out the response structures for most of your conventions from first principles, so it's a matter of not noticing that it's a convention. There are killers for that (Namyats, 2NT-3NT forcing, 1NT-2NT diamond transfer)...do you really need those?

 

After you've done that. remember that the killer for most convention addicts is that they play the kitchen sink. One partner played with one person who introduced them to this convention, another to another convention, another to yet a third...and so when they build a card, they just throw all of them in there "because someone said it was a good convention".

 

There are very few bad conventions. There are, however, many that are only "good" within a specific framework. For instance, many people play Ogust in response to weak 2s. Good convention, I play it myself. But if they promise 6 to the AK, AQ, or KQ(J or T) for their weak 2s, the "good suit/bad suit" distinction is pretty much useless, and for them, Ogust is a waste of time (and dangerous, because 2H-2NT; 3S and 2D-2NT; 3M are pretty much all that's goingt to happen, no?) and it would probably be better to use an inquiry that assumes that the suit is 1-loser opposite honour-doubleton. If your weak 2s can be AKTxxx or KQxxx or JT98xx, however... Similarly I've seen people play response structures to overcalls that give them three ways to bid one hand and no way to bid another, very common hand.

 

So after you've cleared up the frills, the cascades and the "never gonna remember"s, look at what's left and make sure they lock together, because if you have a system that is internally consistent, has artificiality only when it's necessary and obvious, you'll be able to remember and effectively use *that*. And if you do forget something, it will be "how do I bid this" or "how do I respond to this" or "I know that means something special, but I can't remember what it is" - all of which you can work out, by elimination if necessary, at the table.

 

Of course, eventually, you'll find a hole. And the temptation to "just play this one to plug that hole" is so, so strong...

 

Michael.

[luke warm]

if it isn't fun, don't do it... with my first partner, it was fun (for me)... but that's because we both enjoyed practicing and talking as much as actually playing... she probably thought i was too 'into' conventions (my bergen-influenced time), but we had a lot of fun adding them, taking them out, playing them, talking them over...

 

so if i had to advise anything that would be it... if playing a convention doesn't add to your enjoyment, don't play it