[chalks]

I know (and use regularly):
stayman, transfers, jacoby 2nt, and blackwood (not RKCB).

If my partner likes them, I can usually get by with (though I sometimes have to look these up still):
michaels, unusual 2nt, gerber, RKCB

All this knowledge lets me do fairly decently when playing with most others on BBO. I feel like my knowledge could use some expanding though. I find myself missing slams and easy games because I let things die at game or the 2 level respectively. I usually get into positive IMPs when playing with random people, but I recently started playing the tourneys, and the higher competitiveness scares me away from good contracts.

I guess I have two questions:

What conventions should I learn?
How do I deal with stiff interference?

[babalu1997]

the sad truth is, all conventions have quite a number of variations
no matter how many you learn it sure is not going to reduce the number of random partners who call you stupid, or bad player or decrease your losses. sometimes the reason they leave the table is because they made the wrong bid themselves!!! (for you-- if you think your sayc-- it is wrong; for them a perfectly normal bid in acol or precision}

what you have to do is find a regular partner, which is nearly impossible online

or a semi-regular one, and win the odd games.

If you do find the semi-regular ones, who do not complain at your mistakes, ignore his silly bids, and win the odd games, criticizing will not make him play better.

other than that, cultivate a non play list.



















0

[brian_m]

babalu1997, on 2011-December-03, 14:27, said:

<...>

what you have to do is find a regular partner, which is nearly impossible online

<...>

Nonsense. When you find someone whom you think has potential, tell them you'd like to arrange another game and ask them for their e-mail address. Then follow up on it. I've found a number of partners that way.


Brian.

[Mbodell]

An important thing to have partnership agreement on, especially if you find yourself in partscore when should be in game or game when should be in slam is knowing which bids are forcing and for how long. This doesn't need to be with conventions, although conventions can come in, but it does need to have good understandings. Otherwise you'll often be guessing to pass or blast game because you are worried that a bid you make, or one partner made, was non-forcing when it wasn't or vice versa.

Are you playing 2/1 or standard american or something else?

In general, post some hands where something went wrong (one per thread please) to these forums and you'll likely get some suggestions for if you were merely unlucky, for if there was a clear misbid, suggestions for conventions that can help clarify that sort of problem hand, or suggestions on why one hand or the other was misevaluated. In general, the people who post on the forums are nice (especially in B/I) and range from good bridge players to really, really good bridge players (truly world class) so you are most likely able to learn and improve from that.

There are a lot of conventions that are a lot of fun (if you like conventions and are a convention sort of person), but they are not that likely to help you when playing with pickup partners, and most likely would not be the fastest way to address the problems you mention in your original post.

[blackshoe]

chalks, on 2011-December-03, 14:07, said:

What conventions should I learn?
How do I deal with stiff interference?

Before you worry about conventions, learn everything you can about hand evaluation. That will help enormously.

As for interference, learn the many uses of double (the most flexible call you've got), but take it slow, there's a lot of 'em. Learn when and why to redouble, learn when and why to pass (sometimes pass should be forcing, for example). Learn the basics of dealing with interference (for example, if they overcall, a cue bid — a bid in their suit — by responder generally indicates a limit raise or better in opener's suit).

If you're doing all this with a regular partner (and you should be!) make sure you learn it together, and stay both on the same wavelength. And have fun!

[awm]

While I agree that conventions are somewhat overrated, I do recommend 4th suit forcing to game and some version of new minor force. These help you a lot to investigate the best contract without risking being passed someplace silly.

[S2000magic]

Recently I've found that many players try to learn new conventions well before they have a good understanding of basic bidding theory. As an example, I played with a partner who wanted to play Jacoby transfers, Bergen raises, 1430, Jacoby 2NT, and so on, but when I asked her what game tries she used after 1♥-2♥ or 1♠-2♠ she looked at me as if I were speaking Greek ("Does 1♠-2♠-3♣ show a long suit, a short suit, a suit where you need help, a suit where you need no help . . . ?). The very basic concept of a game try other than 3 of the agreed suit had never occurred to her.

I played with a new partner today and we hit it off brilliantly. At dinner after the game he described a sequence he'd encountered with a previous partner: 1♦-(Pass)-1♥-(1♠). He raised to 2♥ on ♥ Q x x, after which his partner bid game and went down because of a bad trump split. His partner said that you never raise without 4 trumps in that situation, and he asked me if that were true. I told him that it's not true; maybe 90% of the time you shouldn't raise on 3 trumps, but occasionally you have to. Then I asked him if he'd ever heard of support doubles. He had, but wasn't sure what they were. After I explained how they solve exactly the problem he encountered, he said that we should plan to adopt those . . . eventually.

That's a perfect example of how to answer your question: you encounter a specific problem that your current bidding system cannot handle well, there's a convention that handles it well, that convention doesn't cost you much (e.g., you will not frequently want to have a penalty double available in the circumstance where a support double would apply), and the convention isn't something you're likely to forget in the heat of the fray.

So, look at the situations where you've missed games or slams or whatever, see if there's a common thread amongst some of them, and look for a convention that covers that situation. If you'll remember it, and if you don't mind the cost, then adopt it; otherwise, don't. In short, with a little careful thought and some judicious research, you'll be able to tell much better than we which conventions you should learn.

[chalks]

S2000magic, on 2011-December-03, 23:08, said:

So, look at the situations where you've missed games or slams or whatever, see if there's a common thread amongst some of them, and look for a convention that covers that situation. If you'll remember it, and if you don't mind the cost, then adopt it; otherwise, don't. In short, with a little careful thought and some judicious research, you'll be able to tell much better than we which conventions you should learn.

Essentially, I think my biggest problems are as responder with a strong hand, or as opener with a very strong hand. I don't know how to show voids/singletons/stoppers. I don't know how to force game, and I certainly don't know how to invite slam. Or, more importantly, I don't know when to invite slam.

Here's one hand that really stuck in my craw. I'm west:

---

ugh. I hate that. We made 2sW+3, all three of the other tables made 4sW+1. I'm clearly missing something.

I'm sitting west:

---

I don't think 2nt was right. I debated between 2nt and 3h, and went with my first instinct. We made it (barely), but I think 3h or even 4h is a better contract. 3h is an easy make, 4h might make if clubs go nicely (I think?). There were two other tables playing this hand, one made 3hW, the other made 3cE. So I did OK, but I think I did OK for the wrong reasons.

I'm sitting south:

---

Does north's 2h bid show 5h? I thought it only promised 4. Again, my 2nt bid I wasn't sure about/happy with. We made 3nt, one other table made 4hN+1, and the other table 2hN+1. 4h should easily make though, all finesses make (somewhat unsurprisingly, especially diamonds).

[Mbodell]

It gets a bit confusing to talk about multiple hands at once, but these hands aren't really about conventions so much.

On the first hand, it may matter if you are playing 2/1 or standard American (as partners 1nt is forcing in 2/1 and not in standard American); however I think I'd bid 3♠ over each (you could perhaps argue for 2nt over 1nt forcing showing a balanced 18-19, but the weak diamond doubleton and strong 6 card suit make this suboptimal). 2♠ is not forward going, but shows an unbalanced minimum opener with 6+ spades. So you underbid your hand and partner is right to pass.

On the second board, I'm not sure that it is standard to play 2nt as natural in that auction, I would certainly expect all my regular partners to have minors for that call. With a good strong balanced hand I'd expect them to double and/or if really strong bid 3nt. But a natural nt should definitely have a spade stopper, as if partner had a little more he may well raise you to 3nt and have you lose the first 5 spade tricks. More over, you have a really good 5 card heart suit and a really good hand, so I'd bid 3♥ and expect to play it there.

On the third board most people expect 5+ cards for overcalls so expect you to have a 5 card spade suit. What are your choices if you don't have a 5 card suit? You have 3 main choices: pass, X, and 1nt. You are not strong enough for 1nt, so that is out. You are a flat 4=3=3=3 so my preferred style is not to double with out shortness in the openers suit and/or both majors 4+ cards. That is a style issue, some people - including many of the better players - will double with minimum offshaped balanced hands. I find that style harder to play and harder to judge, and think passing these flat hands is easier. It isn't a big deal to pass an hand with 13 points because one of the keys of bidding is that partner will protect you. That is, in the balancing seat, partner will bid extra aggressively - especially with shortness in their suit. So if it is your side's hand, you'll still have a chance to bid later. Now if it is passed around to partner he can decide to bid hearts, or possibly since he is so strong in the balancing seat to double first and then bid hearts. Either way, you are likely to find the hearts. When partner bids 2♥ in the auction you gave it pretty much needs to show 5. Without 5 he'd bid some other suit (he can raise ♠ with 3 since you showed 5+, he can bid clubs with 5+, he can bid nt if he has lots of diamonds or a flat hand).

[S2000magic]

Mbodell pretty much wrote everything I'd have written. In none of these situations do you need a convention: merely an understanding with your partner about the meanings of your (natural) bids.

On hand 1, you rebid 2♠. Without considering Mbodell's comments, you should ask yourself, "If 2♠ is the proper rebid with this hand, what sort of hand would I have needed to have rebid 3♠, or 4♠?" If you ask yourself questions of this sort (i.e., when you get a bad result, instead of asking yourself why you made the bid(s) you did, asking yourself that you would have needed to make bids you didn't), you'll find that you'll develop your bidding judgment much more quickly (and you may have more fun doing so).

On the second hand, some would double, some would bid hearts; most would use 2NT in this position as unusual (for minors). I'd probably bid 3♥.

As for hand 3, one of the commonest mistakes I see at the table is people overcalling on lousy suits. They're able to get away with it without obvious penalties (i.e., without being doubled) more frequently with the rise of negative doubles, but they still have to live with the less-than-obvious penalties (i.e., partner leading their suit when another lead would be better, playing in their lousy suit when partner's suit would be better, and so on). I'd pass this one, but more aggressive bidders would double.

I will add that you need to discuss with your partner whether a new suit in response to an overcall (e.g., (1♦)-1♠-(Pass)-2♥) is forcing or not. Standard practice would be nonforcing (but most would say encouraging or forward-going), but either is playable as long as you have an agreement.

[Fluffy]

You have to learn about doubles, and how useful they are when not penalty.

[daveharty]

As others have suggested, these hands have very little to do with conventions and everything to do with hand evaluation. Regarding your professed difficulties dealing with strong hands, it might help to keep a couple of the traditional "HCP targets" in mind: 25-26 for game, 33 for slam, etc. On hand #1, for example, your partner's 1NT response covered a variety of hands in the 6-10 point range (even more, if you play 2/1 rather than Standard American). Game was therefore a lively possibility when added to your nice 18-count, but since partner has already "said his piece", you can expect that he will often pass or give a simple preference if you make a rebid that doesn't show extra values. Your hand is actually quite heavy for a 3S rebid (which could be made on a hand with a queen or even a king less, if everything else was right) but is at least a decent description of your hand type (extra length in spades, extra values). Think of it this way: you're having a conversation with your partner, trying to decide what the best strain and level is; each round of bidding allows you to refine what's been said before, until someone knows enough to place the contract (or pass if you are already there). You've already said "I have at least 12-13 points and at least 5 spades"; your partner has already said "I have 6-10 points and (probably) fewer than 3 spades". So if you simply rebid 2S, you are giving one further piece of information ("I actually have at least SIX spades") but aren't telling partner the important news that you have a much better-than-minimum opening bid. You would rebid 2S, for example, with a hand like AKJxxx xx xx KJx.

Hand #2 is tough, I understand both 3H and double. I would probably double with the intention of bidding 3H if partner responded 3C. 2NT is probably not right whether or not you were on the same page as partner about the meaning of the bid, since you could easily go down in 2NT or 3NT when you are cold for game (or even slam!) in hearts or diamonds. Imagine partner with a hand as weak as, say, x Qx Qxxxxx xxxx, when 6D is practically cold. So even if your partnership agreement is that 2NT is a strong balanced hand in this situation, you probably shouldn't do it with spades wide open and such prime holdings elsewhere.

Occasionally overcalling a four card suit might be your best option, but a hand such as #3 is probably not that time. Save it for a hand when you have a REALLY good four card suit, and also when the hand is less flexible. For a hand like this one, assuming you want to directly enter the bidding (a close decision in my book), use a takeout double. This is one "convention" that it really is imperative to use and understand, since it comes up so frequently and in so many situations. Basically, someone (or possibly several people concurrently) many years ago realized that a double could more profitably be used to get into the auction, rather than suggest ending it. A takeout double simply says "Partner, I have some values and wish to compete for the contract, but I need your help to determine what the best level/strain is." A lot of good stuff has been written on these forums about responding to takeout doubles, etc. But as a rule of thumb for a simple, direct-seat double, it should show approximately an opening bid in strength, and at least three cards in the unbid suits. Regarding your question about partner's 2H bid, I am with S2000magic--for me, a new suit bid in response to an overcall is non-forcing but constructive.

[chalks]

sounds like I need to read up on some of the basics. I just yesterday had someone sit down with me and walk me through takeout doubles. I was familiar with them, but had been taught as a kid that it only means opening count (always, regardless of what you're doubling). It's taking some doing to unlearn that.

Any books/articles anyone would recommend? Particularly focused on doubles and natural bidding.

[gwnn]

The Complete Book on Takeout Doubles is a fine book, if dated. Also try The Complete Book on Overcalls.

[S2000magic]

Robert Ewen's Doubles for Takeout, Penalties and Profit is an excellent book, and fun to read even if you don't learn anything (which, you will discover, is impossible). Alas, it's out of print, but you can find used copies on Amazon. (I cannot find my copy, and the only person to whom I would have considered lending it assures me that I did not. Hmmm.)

[S2000magic]

chalks, on 2011-December-04, 02:35, said:

Essentially, I think my biggest problems are as responder with a strong hand, or as opener with a very strong hand. I don't know how to show voids/singletons . . . .

Without resorting to conventions, you can show a singleton/void by strongly bidding the other three suits. For example:

1♣ - 1♥
2♠ - 2NT
4♥

Here, opener has bid one suit (♣), jumped in a second suit (♠), and strongly supported a third (♥); he cannot have more than a singleton diamond. A typical hand for opener would be:

♠ A Q J 3
♥ K Q 4 2
♦ 7
♣ A K J 6

(Note that opener raised to game a suit that responder had bid only once; hence, we know that opener has at least 4 hearts.)

(Note, too, that many people would use a convention - a splinter - to describe this hand. Because I can describe it as shown above, I prefer to use a splinter in this situtation to show a void in diamonds, and use this sequence for a singleton.)

chalks, on 2011-December-04, 02:35, said:

Essentially, I think my biggest problems are as responder with a strong hand, or as opener with a very strong hand. I don't know how to show . . . stoppers.

This is done frequently by bidding a suit in which you cannot logically have length. For example:

1♦ - 3♦
3♥ - 3♠

Responder would not raise diamonds in preference to showing a biddable spade suit, so his spade bid here shows a stopper. (However, opener's 3♥ bid could - should - show a biddable suit.)

(Note that some people might say that it shows a partial stopper, and others might say that it asks for a stopper; the former is a treatment, the latter a convention. You need to discuss this situation with your partner to ensure that you agree how to use it.)

chalks, on 2011-December-04, 02:35, said:

I don't know how to force game, and I certainly don't know how to invite slam.

This is largely a matter of agreeing with your partner which bids are game-forcing and which are not. Most people today play that a double-raise in a major suit (1♥ - 3♥ or 1♠ - 3♠) is invitational, but some play that it is game-forcing. (This used to be standard.) Some people play that a 2/1 response is game forcing; others don't. Virtually everyone agrees that a jump-shift rebid by opener is game-forcing. It's largely a matter of style.

chalks, on 2011-December-04, 02:35, said:

. . . I certainly don't know how to invite slam.

The easiest way to invite slam is to bid something new when you have agreed on a suit (or notrump) and are forced to game. (If you were interested in nothing more than game, there's no reason to bid something new: just bid game.) For example:

1♠ - 3♠
4♦

If opener were only interested in game, he'd bid 4♠ (or, possibly, 3NT), so his 4♦ bid must be a slam try. (Note: it doesn't matter whether responder's 3♠ is game-forcing or invitational; once opener bids anything they're committed to game either way.) Presumably he's strong enough to imagine that they're on the brink of slam, he has a control (probably the ♦A) in diamonds, and wants partner's cooperation in deciding how high to bid.

Bidding above game is also, clearly, slam-invitational:

1NT - 4NT

Here, responder's 4NT is a slam invitation: it asks opener to pass with a minimum, bid 6NT with a maximum, and use his judgment in the middle.

chalks, on 2011-December-04, 02:35, said:

Or, more importantly, I don't know when to invite slam.

This gets back to hand evaluation, which daveharty mentioned, above. If you have considerably more strength than your previous bids have revealed, and you're committed to game, then you should start thinking about a slam. This is really easy when you have a balanced hand and partner has bid a natural NT: you can add your points to his and know if you're nowhere near 33, maybe at 33, or definitely at 33 (or above) 33. When you're bidding suits it's tougher, and that's where judgment comes in.

There's a book by Albert Dormer - Powerhouse Hands - that covers a lot of the principles of bidding strong hands quite succinctly; you might look for it.

[Fluffy]

wrong post oops

[Vampyr]

I am surprised that more than one person has mentioned the possibility of a takeout double on hand #3. This is an action I would not seriously consider unless my bidding box, inexplicably, did not contain any green cards.

[Vampyr]

I hope that Waynw_LV will not mind my quoting from his blog:

Quote

Our philososophy:

We only play conventions or make partnership agreements to fill gaps where bids are not well defined in SAYC. We only attempt to address those bidding situations that occur with a fair degree of frequency.

We no longer add conventions just because they are popular. If a convention or treatment does not give us better results on relatively frequent hand types we don't use them.

We modify our system when, and only when, we encounter a trend of bad boards that are caused by bidding or play deficiecies in our system.

Bottom line: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Truer words were never spoke.

[Antrax]

S2000magic said:

Here, opener has bid one suit (♣), jumped in a second suit (♠), and strongly supported a third (♥)

I'm not sure jumping twice is the most efficient use of bids. One wonders what you would do with the hand you showed if one of the spades was a club.

S2000magic said:

1♦ - 3♦
3♥ - 3♠

Responder would not raise diamonds in preference to showing a biddable spade suit, so his spade bid here shows a stopper. (However, opener's 3♥ bid could - should - show a biddable suit.)

Since, as you said, responder would not raise diamonds if he had a major to show, surely 3♥ is not just "a biddable suit".