[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]

 mikeh, on 2014-December-30, 11:11, said:

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. 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.

[SteveMoe]

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

[mgoetze]

 SteveMoe, on 2014-December-31, 14:42, said:

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.

[steve2005]

 mgoetze, on 2014-December-31, 15:37, said:

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.