Conventions

[Michael000]

A weak 2D, etc., etc /quote]

 

Thank you for a constructive and helpful post.

 

I am not sure if I agree with everything you've said but it was a well constructed balanced post which I have difficulty in arguing against. Well done and thank you.

[blackshoe]

Jacoby 2NT is popular on BBO because it is a standard part of SAYC. How many SAYC players actually know this is variable, in my experience.

I was once introduced to a new player at the club (the director put us together as I didn't have a partner that day). She very proudly told me "I play SAYC!" I said "Good, then you play Jacoby 2NT." "What's that?" she said. B-)

 

We played together for about a year and a half. She never did learn it. :)

[nige1]

Bridge is a partnership game. Play whatever you and partner both like and can remember. John Matheson suggests that the set conventions common to most good players, can be a useful menu from which to choose your weapons.

[Cthulhu D]

Presumably you mean 0.77IMPs per board on which a suitable hand comes up?

 

Yes. The study I have ripped off compared when a weak 2D was opened at one table and not at the other.

 

Also, the more frequent the artificial bid, the lower the memory load, since seeing it more often will habituate you. Benji is terrible in this respect, too - many of the people who play it have really rudimentary continuations that waste its initial descriptive power (such as it is), because they'd forget anything more detailed every time it came up.

 

This is very true - despite being relatively complex, playing transfer responses to 1C is so frequent that it is drilled into your brain, even the weirder auctions.

 

 

I fail to see anyone getting rich playing 3 weak twos in a Benji environment. OK, you're not going to win the Bermuda Bowl playing Benji - but, then, you're not going to win the Bermuda Bowl anyway. (If you think you might someday, this post is not for you :) )

 

Personally, I think Benji works pretty well for club players, if that's what they're used to. Having two strong bids might seem like a waste of a bid, but in practice people who change to three weak twos seem to find their 2♣ opener overloaded, and mess up a lot of previously straight-forward auctions.

 

0.77 imps on 2.5% of boards is not very much. It's worth ~0.5 imps per session vs top level competition then, roughly, and that's well within noise so it's going to be hard to see the effect in any one session. This is a good argument against playing basically any 2nd or 3rd round gadgets btw - how often do they actually happen? Very rarely. This is how you survive without cue bids - they very rarely come up, and some % of the time you can just punt instead because you have overwhelming power.

 

What you're used to is definitely a good reason to keep playing something - c.f. memory load.

 

At the British Home Internationals (Camrose Trophy) next month, you will see one pair playing Benji Acol so clearly it is not the worst of conventions. For the non-Benji players in the event, weak 2♦ and multi-2♦ are the popular options.

 

 

I am sure that the pair Paulg refers to, along with many French top players who also play Benjamin, have found an efficient way to split the strong hands between 2♣ and 2♦. And I also think the omnibus 2♣ opening is overloaded. Those who play multi sometimes have strong variants in them, and while there is certainly a case for playing weak-only multi (especially if playing without screens so that there is a risk of being able to "feel" when p has the strong variant and not being sure if it is UI or not), I also think that it really helps a lot to take some of the strong hands out of the 2♣ opening. With Shogi I play the strong variant of 2♦ as single-suited with diamonds or 23-24 bal or diamonds+major, and I find that very helpful.

 

But the way most people pay Benji at our local club it is really one of those conventions that work badly even when you do get the hand for it. They seem to play that 2♦ is any gf hand. Opening all gf hands with 2♣ is already cramped so 2♦ is worse. Reverse Benji is better since you can open most semi-gf hands at the 1-level, thereby restricting the 2♦ opening to some specific shapes.

 

Yeah, look, you can definitely make a reasonable argument to play it. Splitting the strong hands between the two bids is definately a win, and the 2C bid is often quite overloaded which has secondary impacts. As someone who routinely squeezes his weak 2D (and sometimes a weak 2S) into 2C, I feel this pain approximately once a session. You have to decide what the cost/benefit analysis looks like for you, and for my regular partnership we've decided that strong hands lose when a new preempt can be played, but this is by no means clear cut.

 

 

A weak 2D, etc., etc

 

Thank you for a constructive and helpful post.

 

I am not sure if I agree with everything you've said but it was a well constructed balanced post which I have difficulty in arguing against. Well done and thank you.

 

No problem. My argument isn't iron clad - it may be plausible that you do find the extra slams via Benji, or can stay out of more bad games OR you're fine opening some weak 2D openers 3D. But conventions should be analysed from a cost and benefit perspective. If I was starting a new partnership, I would play the following:

 

 

 

1. Negative + Takeout Doubles

2. 1430 RKCB Blackwood

3. Stayman

4. A reasonably complex set of responses to 1NT including 4 suit transfers.

5. 4th Suit GF

6. A defence to Opponents' 1NT that works vs weak and strong NTs (I like multi landy, but lots of things work)

7. 2NT ask after our Weak 2-bids

8. Weak jumps in competition

9. Some sort of two suited competitive bidding arrangement, e.g. Unusual notrump/Michaels,

10. Some sort of NMF or XYZ

11. 1M-2NT as an INV+ raise

12. Support Doubles

13. Lebensohl in all the situations where it makes sense to do so.

14. Inverted Minors

15. Splinter Bids

16. Transfer responses to 1C.

17. Italian style cues.

 

and maybe put weak 2D into 2C and then have 2D as an assumed fit preempt. Transfer responses should be a lot further up the list. Credit to Larry Cohen for most of the list.

 

 

 

Because I think all these things pass my test. But that's just *my* laundry list - you should consider that critically and ask do these bids solve problems for *you* in the context *your partnership* plays. Playing ACOL it is plausible that xfer responses to 1C are less effective than they are for me who plays 5cM.

[rmnka447]

The most important thing is to develop good bidding judgment. Part of that is to recognize and correctly understand how to use the conventions that you do play. Part of it is also learning to evaluate and reevaluate one's hand as the auction proceeds and learning to make the bids/calls that get the partnership to the right spots.

 

Really good/great players show an almost uncanny ability to get to these right spots no matter what methods they play. Yeah, sometimes they can make spectacular card plays to gain on certain hands. But a big part of playing well is simply playing in the right contract, judging whether to sac or not, knowing when to double for a maximum set, etc.

 

I recall reading an article by Larry Cohen advocating that it's more important for improving players to understand the implications and information of the bidding sequences of basic conventions than to try to use a lot of conventions. Indeed, it's amazing how often I see players misuse or misunderstand their partner's bids for even basic things like Stayman or Jacoby Transfers.

 

Well, you say, that shouldn't be a problem for reasonably good players. Maybe, maybe not. There can be lots of issues especially if you and your partner are frequently playing with other players. Partner opens 1 NT, you bid 2 ♣, partner bids 2 ♦, and you bid 2 ♥. Is it invitational or is it garbage Stayman? Partner opens 1 NT, RHO bids 2 ♦, is 2 ♥ by you a transfer or ♥s? Or, you agree to play Jacoby 2 NT raises. What are the meaning of the responses? I know of at least 3 or 4 sets of possible responses that people play. Are you sure which you are playing?

 

It may seem trivial, but it's amazing how often people get tripped up by those kind of issues. Being in sync with your partner is just so huge in being an effective partnership.

 

Beyond being in sync with partner is how you evaluate and reevaluate your hand throughout any auction. Part of that is discerning how the value of your hand changes as the auction progresses. Are your cards working? Has your hand gotten better or worse depending on what's been bid?

 

Akin to being in sync but subtly different is the long term understanding of how your partner bids. It's not UI in the sense that there are any hidden agreements. Rather it's just a matter of understanding what hands partner is likely to have to make the particular calls he has made throughout the auction. This "being on the same page" is one of the reasons top long term partnerships are so effective. They may have literally hundreds of pages of bidding system agreements. But rather than using rote memorization, it would seem like they know why partner used a particular sequence versus another to describe their hand.

 

Conventions can be useful, but are not necessarily mandatory for getting to right spots. Inevitably, there is a trade off involved in using any convention. Part of it can be the memory load to remember when the convention applies, all the responses, and all the followups. Another part is the bids or bidding space you can't use as a result of using the convention. (Isn't a common remark on this forum --"I'd like to bid XXXX, but that would be [name of convention]" ?)

 

So, rather than using oodles of conventions, it's more important to use the conventions you use well and to develop good bidding judgment.

[Trinidad]

The optimum number of conventions is whatever you and your partner are comfortable with.

 

For some pairs that is two (Stayman and take out doubles), for others it can be 100.

 

Note that I wrote you and your partner, since it takes two to tango and playing good bridge is like dancing a tango.

 

With each convention that you add, you have to have good agreements with partner about:

1. 
    
   
2. when the convention applies
   
3. what each bid shows
   
4. what the continuations show
   
5. what happens when opponents don't pass
    
   

That is a lot more to agree on than just "checkback Stayman". (I don't want to count the number of significantly different conventions that players refer to as "checkback Stayman".)

 

If you and your partner (I assume a fixed partnership) would like to try more conventions, I would start with control showing cuebids according to the list above:

1. 
    
   
2. They apply after we have raised a bid in a major to the three level, RHO has passed and we see a decent chance to make a slam. (Examples: 1♣-1♥; 3♥, 1♠-3♠, 2♣-2♦; 2♠-3♠, but not 1♥-2♥; 3♥ (cannot have slam interest) )
   
3. A bid in a suit between 3Major and 4Major shows a first (ace or void) or a second (king or singleton) round control in the suit and denies a control in all suits that have been skipped. (E.g. 1♥-3♥; 4♣ shows slam interest, a control in clubs, and denies a control in spades)
   
4. A subsequent bid in a suit between 3Major and 4 Major-1, by either partner shows continued slam interest, and, hence, that the opponents cannot take 2 tricks in suits that partner didn't control (i.e. You need at least 2nd round control in one suit and 1st round control in another suit that partner denied). The bid of 4Major-1 confirms that there are sufficient controls in all suits that partner has skipped, but asks whether partner would like to continue exploring slam (e.g. by checking for aces), often when missing a control in the 4major-1 suit, but also when one isn't certain that the values are there to bid a slam.
   
5. When opponents bid a suit, cue bids don't apply, double is penalty. When opponents double a cue bid, cuebidding continues as if the opponent has passed.
    
   

When you like playing cuebids, you can add Splinters (rightfully suggested by others, but Splinters are relatively useless without control showing cuebids)

1. 
    
   
2. They apply when partner has bid 1Major naturally (e.g. a 1Major opening, 1x-1Major, 1x-1y; 1Major) and RHO has passed.
   
3. A double jump in a new suit (e.g. 1♥-4♣) or a reverse with a single jump (e.g. 1♣-1♠; 3♦) show a singleton or void in the bid suit, four card support for partner's major and enough strength to make game.
   
4. Continuations are control showing cue bids. Note that this will sometimes mean that you cannot exchange information about all suits below the level of 4Major (e.g. after 1♥-4♣, one cannot exchange information about spades).
   
5. When the opponents interfere with a bid, cuebidding stops and double is penalty. After a double, we continue as if they had passed.
   

Note that when you add Splinters to your tool box you will have to update your agreements on control showing cuebids. That is very common.

 

An extra advice. Put your conventions and other agreements in writing in a well organized system book, according to the above rules. That way you and your partner can easily reread what you have agreed to play.

 

Rik

[fromageGB]

Over the years, from time to time (and certainly playing on-line here) I've come across players who list a dozen or more convention on their card. I have (rightly or wrongly) formed a view of these people. I wonder if they believe that makes them appear to be a better player i.e. I must be better than others because I play these obscure conventions.

What the replies so far are missing is that by having a large number of conventions available to you (and listed on your online card) you are able to play effectively with more partners. MGoetze is correct when he says "as many as you can remember". This does not mean that you would play them by choice, or with a preferred partner, just that if a pick-up plays that way you will know what he is doing. Have Crowhurst, New Minor Forcing , and XYZ on your card. Nobody will expect you to play them simultaneously :rolleyes: but it allows a new partner to be able to say "OK, xyz."

[helene_t]

0.77 imps on 2.5% of boards is not very much.

I think it is quite a lot. It may not decide a match very often, but very few conventions will.

Playing ACOL it is plausible that xfer responses to 1C are less effective than they are for me who plays 5cM.

Maybe, maybe not. 1♣-1♠-2♣ is one of the worst starts of an auction in Acol because opener has to rebid rotten 5-card suits whenever he is too weak for a reverse, because an off-shape weak 1NT rebid is not available. Moving some of those hands from the 2♣ rebid to a transfer accept could help quite a lot.

[Cthulhu D]

I think it is quite a lot. It may not decide a match very often, but very few conventions will.

 

If you're looking for an edge, yeah. I'm pretty sure having MOAR PREEMPTS (sic) is the most +EV thing you can possibly write down on your convention card. They require minimal skill to deploy and are disproportionately difficult to deal with for oppo. Justmy theory though.

 

But IMHO you'll probably not notice the difference if you're totting up the masterpoints from club games at the end of the year.

 

So it's huge and I'd grab 0.5 imps a session with both hands and hang on tight, but at the same time it's not much in the grand scheme of things? Conventions like 'getting 8 hours sleep before the game' and 'practicing declarer play' probably have a higher ROI than any play gadget.

 

Maybe, maybe not. 1♣-1♠-2♣ is one of the worst starts of an auction in Acol because opener has to rebid rotten 5-card suits whenever he is too weak for a reverse, because an off-shape weak 1NT rebid is available. Moving some of those hands from the 2♣ rebid to a transfer accept could help quite a lot.

 

Yeah, look no idea, never played 4 card majors except in a strong club context. My point was really consider your context when making these decisions - someone else's laundry list is drawn from their context and you need to consider how they arrived at it and then assess the relevance to yourself, not just the list itself. e.g. Larry Cohen recommends Support doubles but he's coming from an implict strong NT context which may have an impact on that decision.

[helene_t]

Conventions like 'getting 8 hours sleep before the game' and 'practicing declarer play' probably have a higher ROI than any play gadget.

Exactly. It is not even close. However, playing conventions which you are prone to forget, which you haven't worked out in details, or which require use of some mental resources which could otherwise have been spend on, say, counting, can have a substantial negative ROI.

[steve2005]

This is how you survive without cue bids - they very rarely come up, and some % of the time you can just punt instead because you have overwhelming power. .

 

Cuebids may be rare but when they come up 8-13 imps or more are often on the line. Sure blasting often works. However, the bids used for cuebidding usually have no natural meaning so is a free add to system if you can do them right.

[Michael000]

I am starting to form a view that the choice and number of conventions usefully used is closely related to the system played.

 

I am also forming the view that the Acol is a system played by a small minority of the members of this forum?

[Cthulhu D]

Cuebids may be rare but when they come up 8-13 imps or more are often on the line. Sure blasting often works. However, the bids used for cuebidding usually have no natural meaning so is a free add to system if you can do them right.

 

Yeah but if you mostly play MP its no big deal. I agree though, as I said in the other thread they seem 'cheap'

 

I am starting to form a view that the choice and number of conventions usefully used is closely related to the system played.

 

I am also forming the view that the Acol is a system played by a small minority of the members of this forum?

 

Yes, because weak NT + 4 card majors is only really popular in the UK (and new Zealand), and a number of the UK regulars play 5 card major systems.

 

Your first statement is obviously true as well, artificiality is best used were natural bidding creates a problem.

 

I would not believe any statement to the effect that 4 card majors plus weak NT benefits less from artificiality than 5 card majors and a strong NT though.

[paulg]

I am starting to form a view that the choice and number of conventions usefully used is closely related to the system played.

While the choice of conventions is correlated with the system, the number of conventions is really independent of the system and, generally, more correlated with the experience of the player/pair and the level at which they play. The experienced members of the forum, which to be honest is probably the majority, have a reasonable grasp of a lot of conventions even if they are not playing them regularly at the moment.

 

I am also forming the view that the Acol is a system played by a small minority of the members of this forum?

Very few play Acol regularly, although those who do mainly play 'tournament Acol' which is laden with conventions and gadgets and possibly a form of the system that you might not call Acol. There is a small subset who play high-stakes rubber bridge and a form of Acol where (I believe) Blackwood and Stayman are the only permitted conventions - you would do well to avoid these people, especially at the rubber bridge table.

 

The British bridge world is slightly strange. Acol is the dominant system in all the clubs and, if you want to just turn up and play, then you'll need to be able to play it. However very few of the top tournament players play the system - strong no-trump and 5-card majors are far more popular. At most tournaments Acol will still be the dominant system, but in the English Premier League and Spring Foursomes (probably the top two weekend events) Acol is definitely in the minority.

 

Apart from a couple of colonies, Acol is not very popular abroad.

[mikeh]

I am starting to form a view that the choice and number of conventions usefully used is closely related to the system played.

 

I am also forming the view that the Acol is a system played by a small minority of the members of this forum?

 

Correct on both counts.

 

Btw, when considering whether conventions as a concept are of use or not, it really comes down to your expectations as a player.

 

It sounds as if you have found a level and a group of players where you are comfortable and enjoy some success. If that is what you are looking to continue, then there would seem to be no pressing need to learn new conventions, other than to humour a partner or to expand the choice of partners with whom you can play.

 

If, on the other hand, you are in search of a more challenging game, then you are almost certainly going to be finding that your opps play conventions, and (especially if you improve or seek a real challenge) they understand how to use them. You will then increasingly find that the opps are consistently outbidding you.

 

Some bad players confuse learning and playing 'conventions' with learning how to bid. Good players know bridge theory and adopt conventions to maximize the efficiency of their methods. I play, by your standards, a huge number of conventions, altho far fewer now than I did 15 years ago. I do so not because I like filling out a complex convention card to show off or to intimidate inexperienced opps but because literally every convention I play, in my opinion, either by itself or in conjunction with other gadgets, provides an incremental improvement in bidding efficiency.

 

Before writing off the notion that 'conventions' are useful, reflect for a moment on the reality that if you were able to kibitz bridge at all levels from beginner to world championships, you would find on balance a positive correlation between the skills of the players and the number of artificial or specialized bids or sequences of bids in use. Note that I didn't write 'number of conventions', because at the higher levels most partnerships of any duration have numerous 'agreements' and 'treatments' that are idiosyncratic to that partnership and don't have 'names'. That is often how conventions begin, of course....somebody comes up with a specialized gadget and it becomes popular.

 

Anyway, at the end of the day it is up to you. The evidence is clear: playing conventions that form part of a holistic system, when both partners remember and understand the conventions will undoubtedly lead to improvement. Playing a haphazardly chosen collection of conventions that create complication without solving systemic problems, and which one or both partners frequently forget will lead to horrible results and reduced enjoyment.

 

With that in mind, and knowing what you are looking for, you can do whatever you want.

[fromageGB]

Don't forget that knowing conventions that you never use has benefits in understanding the implications of opposition hands when they make those bids, or equally DON'T make those bids but use other ones. Although treatments and details may vary with the partnership, it helps to understand the general principles.

 

For example, when someone opens an unalerted 1M, if you see on his card "weak 2 bids may be 5 card" and Ekren, you know that it is likely to be a better hand than you might have had for that bid, if you play Benjamin. Inferences like this can help in the defence.

[Mbodell]

Anyway, at the end of the day it is up to you. The evidence is clear: playing conventions that form part of a holistic system, when both partners remember and understand the conventions will undoubtedly lead to improvement. Playing a haphazardly chosen collection of conventions that create complication without solving systemic problems, and which one or both partners frequently forget will lead to horrible results and reduced enjoyment.

 

I agree with all of this, but note in practice for many, when adopting a new convention, there will often be some period of time when the results are negative (while learning/forgetting the basics of the convention, learning how to apply it in competition, learning the negative inferences of not using it, etc.) before the positives occur. So if xyz is a great convention that might, when properly applied, add half a percent to your expected percentage score in any given session, for the first two months it is possible that trying to play it actually has an expected result of minus 2 percent (as it takes focus, memory, and misapplication/accidents). You have to be committed to work through the negative learning phase to get the positive phase. Different people learn at different rates so for some the negative part might be a matter of minutes or hours, for others months, years, or even lifetimes.

[blackshoe]

I had a friend who took up the game after the usual long hiatus. She'd played in college, then didn't play for some thirty years. She could not remember Stayman. She would open 1NT, I would bid 2♣, she would bid 3♣. The first time we discussed it after the session, and she said "I thought you had clubs". I asked her if she was familiar with Stayman. "Oh, right," she says. Then next game, same thing: 1NT-2♣-3♣. The third time I alerted her 3♣. We didn't play together much longer - she said something about not wanting to play with a bunch of jerks. B-) Then she retired and moved to Alabama to be close to her daughter. Anyway, I think I would have bit the bullet and given up Stayman. I'm not sure I could have got her to alert my 2♣ response, though. :D

[SteveMoe]

Check out http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=54

[mgoetze]

Check out http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=54

LOL @ 2NT ask after weak 2 as 8th most important convention.

 

Also, calling "weak jumps in competition" a convention at all is kinda stretching it. "Jumps are strong" is outdated thinking and that has nothing to do with conventions.

[steve2005]

Check out http://www.larryco.c...px?articleID=54

 

LOL @ 2NT ask after weak 2 as 8th most important convention.

 

Also, calling "weak jumps in competition" a convention at all is kinda stretching it. "Jumps are strong" is outdated thinking and that has nothing to do with conventions.

I could live with everything and only what Cohen (all the way up to D) says except substitute Keycard (hopefully 1430 but can live with 3014) for Blackwood

 

but yes some of his suggestions are a treatments not conventions

 

 

 

 

[Vampyr]

Michael000,

 

The only reason, ever, to adopt a conventions is that you have identified a need for it. If you notice hand-types on which your current system leaves you poorly-placed or forced to guess, then you might want to look for a tool that can fill the gap.

 

How many gaps we are comfortable with is something we all have to decide; it's a personal choice. So long as gaps don't end up being filled by CPUs or tempo-driven auctions, nobody's opinion is more important than your own comfort level.

[sfi]

According to Miller's Law, we can only remember 5-9 things at a time. So that has to be the starting point. However I also want to be able to remember:

 

- not to revoke

- what our signals are

- how to declare

- my partner's name

- where I parked my car

 

That only leaves space for about two conventions. If partner insists on Stayman and takeout doubles, that's pretty much the system right there. If we add RKC and new minor forcing, then I have to walk to the event and what's-his-name can give me a lift back.

[Cthulhu D]

Related note, Miller's law does have some interesting applications to construction of bidding systems, and it's probably how many continuations for any auction are meaningful, but not sure.