[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-21, 09:59, said:

Yes, this sort of thing is a problem, but one solution mentioned above, the director sending the partner away from the table, often works.

You call that a "solution". What is the problem you think we're trying to solve?

[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-21, 08:27, said:

Actually it is a problem for us. "I think it might be conventional but can't remember what it means", you play X of a conventional bid as showing that suit, X of a natural bid as T/O, now what ?

If you are in a partnership that has bothered to discuss this in detail, then you have also agreed what X of a 'we don't know what this bid means' is.

This can be a problem with screens, but not without.

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-May-21, 10:08, said:

If you are in a partnership that has bothered to discuss this in detail, then you have also agreed what X of a 'we don't know what this bid means' is.

I doubt that most partnerships have discussed this.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-21, 08:27, said:

Actually it is a problem for us. "I think it might be conventional but can't remember what it means", you play X of a conventional bid as showing that suit, X of a natural bid as T/O, now what ?

"Director, please!"

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2015-May-21, 09:47, said:

Two pages of supplementary notes on a 2 page WBF card is not out of the ordinary.

4 pages for an ACBL card at a club game would be.

At a club game you're lucky to see a card at all.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-21, 10:03, said:

When people have supplementary notes for an EBU card, I find it is often difficult to find anything. I think the notes should be set up as footnotes, with the numbers to be found at the place on the convention card where the relevant agreements would be written in.

If I remember correctly, that is (or was, twenty some years ago) how it is supposed to be done.

[MrAce]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-19, 23:08, said:

Micheals is OK...if you've agreed to use this gadget...but what if you haven't(?) Personally,I don't like this device. Along with the negative double,it
must rank as one of the worst coventions ever devised

[PhilG007]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-21, 09:59, said:

Yes, this sort of thing is a problem, but one solution mentioned above, the director sending the partner away from the table, often works.

More often, the pair who can't remember their agreements will suffer.

I,personally,think it's ridiculous to have all these gadgets. I look on overloaded convention cards with
sympathy All this mental baggage weighing them down. While I keep my brain free for the more important tasks
of attack and defense (!)

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-21, 15:27, said:

I,personally,think it's ridiculous to have all these gadgets. I look on overloaded convention cards with
sympathy All this mental baggage weighing them down. While I keep my brain free for the more important tasks
of attack and defense (!)

Good. So what is the problem?

[hrothgar]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-21, 06:42, said:

Sorry,already read it....have you(?!) I In addition to bridge,I also play cribbage,bezique,canasta,whist,red dog,Texas hold 'em.baccarat,black jack
Non card games ,chess,Mah jong,backgammon.....

Good for you. Might I suggest that you spend more time playing those games; hopefully to the exclusion of participating in discussions here...

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-21, 10:03, said:

When people have supplementary notes for an EBU card, I find it is often difficult to find anything. I think the notes should be set up as footnotes, with the numbers to be found at the place on the convention card where the relevant agreements would be written in.

blackshoe, on 2015-May-21, 10:17, said:

If I remember correctly, that is (or was, twenty some years ago) how it is supposed to be done.

Players who conform to the spirit of the rules adopt vampyr's recommendation.

[phoenix214]

If people like to play with conventions let them - actually there is some merit to that, because at some degree it forces you to think about what your actions are more, then if you dont have any - atleast that works for me.

But honestly

[suokko]

System policy: No HUM in short round tournaments. In long round tournaments (teams) HUM system loses seating rights allowing opponents choose who plays against HUM.

Fairly simple and actually keeps people playing fairly generic systems because those are simple the best for results. I think it was 2007 or so when there was last time a HUM system used in the team championships.

What about too many conventions?

I think too many conventions hurts players playing those conventions unless they are seriously practicing them. Without practicing conventions can easily produce bad scores because players forget continues or choose wrong bids. So I would be happy if my opponents played too many conventions for their commitment level.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-21, 00:17, said:

What do others think?

I think that for a game like bridge to grow and retain interest the bar has to keep being raised. That the scope for this within the card play is limited, improvements in bidding theory are a critical aspect of this. Thus my vote is for more artificiality to be allowed rather than less. There are some good arguments for system restrictions at various levels - at club level it can be frustrating not to understand things and at expert level it can become like germ warfare with unfamiliar conventions requiring an unreasonable amount of preparation time.

The trouble is that this is self-fulfilling. Conventions remain unfamiliar because they are not played. The Multi 2♦ opening in America is a classic example of this. I notice that noone is, for example, calling for an end to takeout doubles. That is a convention. Everyone learns this convention from the beginning so it seems "natural". It is easy to see bridge through such a prism but that is in itself artificial. The truth is that the rules of natural bidding are themselves a convention. And, at the top level at least, it seems wrong to me that someone gets to decide which conventions are allowed and which are not, esepcially if those making the decisions are themselves players and simply allow conventions they want to play while disallowing those that they do not like.

[KurtGodel]

Whilst I agree that most beginner/intermediate players play to much gadgetry for their own good, I certainly wouldn't prevent them. Nor do I think that playing conventions is anything other than a wonderful idea. Do you not see that it is part of what makes bridge the beautiful game that it is? It allows you to express your creativity in a way that no other game does. You can choose what suits you, and if nothing does you can make your own thing up!

Just take the obvious example of transfers over 1NT:
Without transfers:
Any sign-off with hearts: 2♥
Any invite with hearts: you must either decide not to invite, to force to game in hearts, or make a general invite, which might be hideously inappropriate
GF with just hearts: 3♥, now if partner bids 3NT you are a bit stuck, especially if you have a slam try.
GF with hearts and another suit: 3♥, now 4x over 3NT, hope that other suit isn't spades...

With Transfers:
Any sign-off: 2♦
Invite with 5 hearts: 2♦ then 2NT. You now also have good hands with 4♥ not in your partners range, as they would have broken the transfer.
GF with just hearts: 2♦ or 4♦ (should you want to play that, now you can show weak slam tries with no shortage), now you can bid 3NT (p can even cue with amazingly appropriate hands), 4x or 4♥!
GF with hearts and another suit: 2♦, now another suit. You have saved a level (or 2 if the suit is spades).

This is just a simple bread and butter convention, there are many many other that are worth playing. The only downside of playing this is that they sometimes get to double your transfer bid, and I would say this happens a lower frequency than your ability to correctly place the contract. This doesn't clog your mind up either, because after a while it just becomes an automatic part of your thought process. Learning conventions isn't that difficult especially for more experienced players, who can easily contextualise the bids and see how they fit together.

If anything the regulation should be reduced, and we should let people try their ideas, it will help our game to expand and flourish. Sure, there is a place for 'simple systems' for weaker players/players new to the game, but we are talking about the game as a whole. I think if you don't think conventions are worthwhile, that you don't have any sense of romance, and that you are missing out on some of the incredible beauty and satisfaction that our game can provide.