[LBengtsson]

A friend who is a natural card player (plays poker, canasta, whist also) and plays bridge at intermediate level - mainly due to not having many conventions on her card - asked me what conventions she needed to learn to play a better game of bridge?

That question puzzled me also? I had not even asked myself what conventions I needed and I have been playing game for over 40 years! She has been playing bridge 30 years also, I guess.

So, with this in mind, without adding a lot of complicated conventions to your card, what do you feel are the essential conventions to play at intermediate level, and what needs to be added to play at advanced level?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would look at high frequency agreements, i.e. agreements, that come up.

Does she play Unassuming Cue Bids, i.e. if opponents intervene with a suit, direct raises are weak,
good raises go through cue bid of their suit?
In which situation does she play neg. X, ..., are all low level X, neg. X, e.g. if she opens 1NT,
they intervene with a suit, is X T/O?

Pass out Seat actions.

Does she take vulnerability / position into consideration, when she preempts?

The above things are not conventions in the strictes sense, ..., but they are important and come up.
And it would maybe suit her style, being a natural card player, as would be the case with a solid set of
carding agreements.

Also: Introducing Lebensohl / Good / Bad 2NT to help her deal with WJO interference is certainly more advanced,
but really helpful and has a reasonable frequence.
I dont think, Lebensohl after 1NT, weak2 from the opponents is high frequency, but an artificial 2NT after a WJO is.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

As always, Larry Cohen wrote excellent articles on this question. This page lists his top 10 conventions. There are other (easy to find) lists for 11-20 and 21-38. I don't agree with all his choices, or with the specific versions of the conventions on that website, but almost all of it is spot-on.

The most essential 'conventions' these days are agreements on dealing with contested auctions. Which bids are weak/strong, which are forcing/NF. At the more advanced level: to which height is each bid forcing, does this set up a forcing pass over their 3-level or 4-level bid, where on the continuous range from 'lead-directing' to 'trying to win the auction' does each bid fall and how does this depend on position and/or vulnerability. Most of these are not conventions in the traditional sense, but they are artificial agreements that are essential for modern bridge.

[pescetom]

One learns conventions not just to employ them profitably but also to be compatible with more/better players and to have more insight into what opponents are up to.

So while I don't agree that (for instance) Unusual NT is anywhere near top ten in terms of utility, it makes sense to learn it in a country where it is so widespread that it isn't even alerted.

[mw64ahw]

Playing against or with a Weak NT I like a good overcall structure and in the case of a X opponents should have a good escape sequence.


Taking the 1NT opening further I find it important to have all bids up to 4NT well-defined whether these are conventions or just descriptive bids.


With 2NT openings a good Puppet Stayman is a pre-requisite for me and as a corollary I incorporate this into the 1NT opening as well when playing a strong NT.

[LBengtsson]

 DavidKok, on 2022-July-21, 00:23, said:

As always, Larry Cohen wrote excellent articles on this question. This page lists his top 10 conventions. There are other (easy to find) lists for 11-20 and 21-38. I don't agree with all his choices, or with the specific versions of the conventions on that website, but almost all of it is spot-on.

The most essential 'conventions' these days are agreements on dealing with contested auctions. Which bids are weak/strong, which are forcing/NF. At the more advanced level: to which height is each bid forcing, does this set up a forcing pass over their 3-level or 4-level bid, where on the continuous range from 'lead-directing' to 'trying to win the auction' does each bid fall and how does this depend on position and/or vulnerability. Most of these are not conventions in the traditional sense, but they are artificial agreements that are essential for modern bridge.

Thank you, David. A good place to start.

[helene_t]

The best score I ever got in a matchpoint session was 88%. I played with a a good Whist player who just started bridge two weeks earlier. Our system was that all doubles are t/o and everything else is natural. No strong 2♣, no stayman, no nothing. The only bidding mishap was when I doubled a weak 1NT (forgot that all doubles are t/o, lol) and she made 2♠+2 when defending 1NTx would have been a top, I think she got 75% or so for that board so no disaster.

Cascade once wrote about a similar experience with a partner who played that 4♣ is always Gerber and everything else is natural.

So no conventions are essential at intermediate level. At advanced level it is good to play t/o doubles and maybe have some understanding about what a bid in opps' suit, rdbl and 2NT means in situations where those calls can't possibly be natural, but even that is probably not quite essential.

For me the most important thing is to have a good understanding about the forcing character of natural bids. Maybe not technically essential, but it gives peace of mind and allows for a more stress-free game.

[johnu]

 LBengtsson, on 2022-July-20, 22:47, said:

A friend who is a natural card player (plays poker, canasta, whist also) and plays bridge at intermediate level - mainly due to not having many conventions on her card?

I have to disagree that your friend plays at an intermediate level because she doesn't play many conventions. Hand evaluation, bidding judgement, declarer and defensive play are much more important IMO. I've played against countless novice and intermediate players who have a convention card filled with all the latest and greatest conventions, and they may never reach an expert level. On the other hand, I started out playing in a mid stakes rubber bridge club where about the only conventional bids were Stayman, Blackwood, and takeout doubles. And you knew who the good and great players were and who was making mistakes even without the latest gadgets.

On the other hand, even if you end up not adopting a particular convention or treatment, it always helps to know the mechanics of the opponents bidding, whether on defense or as declarer.

[sfi]

 helene_t, on 2022-July-21, 03:23, said:

So no conventions are essential at intermediate level. At advanced level it is good to play t/o doubles and maybe have some understanding about what a bid in opps' suit, rdbl and 2NT means in situations where those calls can't possibly be natural, but even that is probably not quite essential.

You need to know how to raise partner's suit in a variety of situations, but you can go convention-free there. The only convention I would really want to add to this list is some sort of checkback over a 1NT rebid. Any one in that family will do fine.

[armantt2k]

 LBengtsson, on 2022-July-20, 22:47, said:

A friend who is a natural card player (plays poker, canasta, whist also) and plays bridge at intermediate level - mainly due to not having many conventions on her card - asked me what conventions she needed to learn to play a better game of bridge?

That question puzzled me also? I had not even asked myself what conventions I needed and I have been playing game for over 40 years! She has been playing bridge 30 years also, I guess.

So, with this in mind, without adding a lot of complicated conventions to your card, what do you feel are the essential conventions to play at intermediate level, and what needs to be added to play at advanced level?

Larry Cohen, who mainly teaches Intermediate/Advancing levels, offers his ranking of the most 4, 8, 12, 16 important conventions to learn. His list can be found on his website (larryco.com) along with free articles teaching those conventions (and many others). He recommends limiting the # of conventions you use, and focusing on fully learning that limited set (i.e. accurate responses, rebids, etc.), before attempting to add any more conventions to your card. This Keep It Simple System (KISS) approach will reduce partnership mistakes, which will improve your overall outcomes more than adding yet another convention that you will use (or mis-use because you or your partner don't remember it) less than 1% of the time.

[LBengtsson]

 johnu, on 2022-July-21, 03:54, said:

I have to disagree that your friend plays at an intermediate level because she doesn't play many conventions. Hand evaluation, bidding judgement, declarer and defensive play are much more important IMO. I've played against countless novice and intermediate players who have a convention card filled with all the latest and greatest conventions, and they may never reach an expert level. On the other hand, I started out playing in a mid stakes rubber bridge club where about the only conventional bids were Stayman, Blackwood, and takeout doubles. And you knew who the good and great players were and who was making mistakes even without the latest gadgets.

On the other hand, even if you end up not adopting a particular convention or treatment, it always helps to know the mechanics of the opponents bidding, whether on defense or as declarer.

Agree. Her card play is good, but far from advanced. There are situations where her hand evaluation, bidding judgement, declarer and defensive play is sound, and other times below par. I also agree that there is no point having a large range of different conventions on your card until you have mastered more than the basics. I asked the question as all she uses is TOX, Blackwood (basic), Stayman and Jacoby Transfers, not unlike your rubber bridge club. I just think that with a few more conventions on her card she would enjoy the game more, be more proactive in the bidding, etc.

[mycroft]

Play what your playgroup knows; that way they'll play with you.

Know what you play, well, before adding anything else. Note that the last big change my partner and I made took closer to two years than one to get to "ready for something else", and there were several options covering clearly obvious holes that we said "no, not yet" to.

After that, unless you can point out something specific in your system that is failing you, you don't need any conventions. When you can point out something specific, people will be glad to tell you "you can play <this> to solve that issue." As long as that's not their *only* response - frequently it should be something other than "add a convention", like "better judgement would help" or "good bid, better play would have held it to -300 instead of -800", if you don't get that, you're probably talking to a gadget freak or a resulter - when they suggest it, investigate. But know what you're giving up, as well as what you're getting.

[Vampyr]

I looked at Larry Cohen’s webpage, and was surprised that he is suggesting new minor checkback instead of 2-way. The latter is clearly superior and is one of the earliest conventions I would add.

[P_Marlowe]

 Vampyr, on 2022-July-22, 18:29, said:

I looked at Larry Cohen’s webpage, and was surprised that he is suggesting new minor checkback instead of 2-way. The latter is clearly superior and is one of the earliest conventions I would add.

But NMF is simpler, and it gets the job done in 90% of the relevant cases.

[DavidKok]

 Vampyr, on 2022-July-22, 18:29, said:

I looked at Larry Cohen’s webpage, and was surprised that he is suggesting new minor checkback instead of 2-way. The latter is clearly superior and is one of the earliest conventions I would add.

There are also auctions with 2-way or XYZ that are quite difficult. For example:

• 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2NT: clubs? Clubs or any 5/5 GF? Clubs weaker than 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3♣? Stronger? More/less suitable for 3NT?
  
• 1♣-1♥; 1NT-3♦: slam try exactly 5-4? 5-5? Weak? It can't really be invitational (1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3♦ - speaking of, which red suit lengths do you promise here?), but is it more or is it less?
  
• 1♣-1♥; 1NT-3♣: what's the exact range on this bid?

For all the above reasons I'd stick with checkback or NMF as an intermediate player. Two-way or XYZ are by no means essential.

[smerriman]

 DavidKok, on 2022-July-23, 02:28, said:

There are also auctions with 2-way or XYZ that are quite difficult. For example:

• 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2NT: clubs? Clubs or any 5/5 GF? Clubs weaker than 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3♣? Stronger? More/less suitable for 3NT?
  
• 1♣-1♥; 1NT-3♦: slam try exactly 5-4? 5-5? Weak? It can't really be invitational (1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3♦ - speaking of, which red suit lengths do you promise here?), but is it more or is it less?
  
• 1♣-1♥; 1NT-3♣: what's the exact range on this bid?

For all the above reasons I'd stick with checkback or NMF as an intermediate player. Two-way or XYZ are by no means essential.

But aren't those only difficult if you choose to bid them?

That is, if you bid 2♣ with all invitational hands (or weak with diamonds) and 2♦ with all game forcing hands, then that seemingly already covers everything you were able to do with NMF. The only downside is being unable to sign off in 2♣, but a big upside is having more space when game forcing.

It's definitely a lot more complex when you want to build in all of the other bids, but that doesn't seem to be a necessity when comparing to NMF.

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2022-July-23, 02:53, said:

But aren't those only difficult if you choose to bid them?

That is, if you bid 2♣ with all invitational hands (or weak with diamonds) and 2♦ with all game forcing hands, then that seemingly already covers everything you were able to do with NMF. The only downside is being unable to sign off in 2♣, but a big upside is having more space when game forcing.

It's definitely a lot more complex when you want to build in all of the other bids, but that doesn't seem to be a necessity when comparing to NMF.

I would go further and suggest that learning only XYZ (from the same song sheet, doesn't matter much which so long as it answers David's questions) is less work than learning both NMF and Checkback or whatever.

[thepossum]

Apologies for a personal discussion

After learning basic Acol many years ago and surviving with Weak NT, Stayman, Transfers, Blackwood, Strong 2s, 2C, basic preempts and not much else for decades I came back to Bridge, started learning 2/1 GF and seemingly unlimited weird and wonderful conventions would pop up at times.

In order of personal preference and usefulness of new conventions

My like list includes Michaels, Unusual 2NT, Drury, Jacoby 2NT, doubles, Cappeletti/Hamilton (don't know DONT) - I like the bids that can pre-empt or interfere and show two suits. I learned a more formal way of evaluating pre-empts - I use 234 which seems to work. Regarding doubles I get so confused I use it to say please try to bid with one of the suits not yet mentioned - its too confusing otherwise I like Smolen but it doesn't pop up much. I can understand it and its useful on occasions. Ooops I like Splinters. I have to use Soloway jumps (I like forcing the bidding) but often get into trouble with not understanding all the followup bids. I haven't gotten a grip of use of NMF and FSF really but use them from time to time. I forgot since starting to use weak 2s I struggle with hands that used to be strong 2s. Lead directing doubles perhaps

My can't get my head around list includes Lebensohl.

I still can't work out what every bid my (regular) partner makes. The amount of information to fully learn all those systems takes away from useful thinking power

Oh yes, thoughts on Blackwood. I find the full RKCB rather confusing and some of it gives far too much information to defence. I would often be happier with Standard. Explain to me why you want to tell defence where your strengths and weaknesses are. And can I make a little shoutout for Gerber which despite its detractors I find can add a certain level of precision to (NT) slam bidding on occasions. How many Aces, How many kings in one hand is too much information. Oh I have a void here so don't lead that Ace

There is the not really a convention but how I evaluate hands that I use a modified form of loser analysis to guide my bidding, not just points

Another thing that isn't really a convention is the Pass which has many uses. What does your partner pass mean - I think it means he doesn't know what to bid and is being careful etc. No statement about his points at all

What does your partner's response mean. It means he thinks we can make 3 but if I have a better hand maybe more. If I opened light or average or strong etc

How to deal with interference and defend against complex systems. I don't know. Try to pre-empt and disrupt them and play your own game - all my simplistic brain can cope with. Assuming that disruption of a sequence such as Stayman just pushes to the next bid up (maybe double etc) but they all still mean the same. If people are going to try and confuse and gain advantage with excessive complexity fight back with simplicity and direct statements of what you have

May add to these later

PS Can I also add support for Larry's list and philosophy. Personally I find far too much messing around and wasting time and giving too much information to opponents. I need a KISS approach to life. Learn to use your brain and principles and thinking rather than propping yourself up with error-prone complexity. There is a thing called an over-fit in modelling.
PPS What's this Precision system I keep hearing about
PPPPS What does modelling/analysis suggest is the best approach on average - information to partner vs information to defence to my maybe overly commonsensical brain learning to bid simply and effectively without giving too much away seems the best approach. Learning to be flexible in assessing hand strength and explaining that is how you play to your opponents if asked. A few exceptions like NT limits where not much flexibility is allowed but bid the strength of your hand and aim to be in the right contract. Bid according to the limitations of declarer. In my case I am happier in Bridge and professionally giving my contract to a more competent player I usually bid accurately and ambitiously. There is a thing called an overfit and a thing called an overthink. See above. Also I feel there is a tendency in Bridge and other areas of human endeavour to equate complexity with expertise or level of competence. Complex and rigid structures have their place in buildings and machines, otherwise complexity and error have other implications. I appreciate (as a non-engineer) that even buildings and other structures need to be able to move or may fall down

[Douglas43]

Learning more constructive conventions is only useful if you and your partner learn them thoroughly and play regularly. I've seen a good partnership go downhill after switching to 2/1 with all the bells and whistles.
Suggest you prioritise: (1) defensive carding, (2) clear agreements on what doubles and cue bids mean in competitive auctions, and (3) defences to opponents' pre-empts and gadgets.

[DavidKok]

 thepossum, on 2022-July-26, 17:34, said:

After learning basic Acol many years ago and surviving with Weak NT, Stayman, Transfers, Blackwood, Strong 2s, 2C, basic preempts and not much else for decades I came back to Bridge, started learning 2/1 GF and seemingly unlimited weird and wonderful conventions would pop up at times.

This is a good point and something to be careful with. "2/1" isn't so much a system as a family (or zoo) of systems, and sometimes it is even just a placeholder for a long list of gadgets! In the context of this forum thread choosing 2/1 versus Standard versus some other system really won't make much of a difference regarding the number of 'essential' conventions. It should be a very low number regardless, and only if you want to commit to a more complicated system with a long term partner adding more complicated tools makes sense.

 thepossum, on 2022-July-26, 17:34, said:

I find the full RKCB rather confusing and some of it gives far too much information to defence. I would often be happier with Standard. Explain to me why you want to tell defence where your strengths and weaknesses are. And can I make a little shoutout for Gerber which despite its detractors I find can add a certain level of precision to (NT) slam bidding on occasions. How many Aces, How many kings in one hand is too much information. Oh I have a void here so don't lead that Ace

PPPPS What does modelling/analysis suggest is the best approach on average - information to partner vs information to defence to my maybe overly commonsensical brain learning to bid simply and effectively without giving too much away seems the best approach. Learning to be flexible in assessing hand strength and explaining that is how you play to your opponents if asked. A few exceptions like NT limits where not much flexibility is allowed but bid the strength of your hand and aim to be in the right contract. Bid according to the limitations of declarer.

On balance having access to more information is a boon, despite the fact that the opponents are listening in. There are specific situations where you are able to tell that any further scientific investigation would do more harm than good and you should just blast some (often high level) contract, but this tends to be rare. I'm afraid this is only based on my personal experience though, not a simulation.
For Blackwood in particular, the goal of that convention is to stay out of slams where you have enough tricks but too many quick losers. My guess is that if you find it is leaking unnecessary information you are using it in situations where it is not the best way to bid.

 thepossum, on 2022-July-26, 17:34, said:

PPS What's this Precision system I keep hearing about

A strong club system, where 1♣ shows any hand shape with at least 16+ points (typically), and all other opening bids are limited to 15 points at most. You can find a basic explanation on Wikipedia, although it is worth pointing out that there are dozens if not hundreds of different bidding systems with a sufficiently similar opening approach that they fall under the umbrella of 'Precision' while having completely different followup bids.