wickedbid1

Poker attracts the attention of a lot of very smart people, so I have no problem should those people decide to call it an intellectual game. Even if it can be played at a very basic level by those of us who have not delved into it deeply. The point I was trying to make is that if poker ever evolved into a game not played for money, it would be played for reasons of aesthetic/intellectual satisfaction, as bridge is for many of us. Although, I do believe that the social aspect of the game is the most important part for the vast majority. To test this, one would ask the survey question: would you rather spend an evening playing bridge with very poor players whom u like a lot, or very good players u hate? How about a lifetime? Since u asked a direct question, Vampyr, I will try to provide a direct answer... where are the bridge students lurking? In my own case, I have taught mainly at a big university with an active bridge club. I became the "resident teacher" because i'd played & taught informally during my undergraduate days at another institution. All I did was put up signs around campus and encourage the club members to tell their friends i was starting a new block of lessons. A group of 15-25 students showed up for each lesson block at the start of the spring & fall semesters. Getting them in the door isn't much of a problem. Keeping them can be tricky. Most are showing up for a fun evening or afternoon, not more SCHOOL (ick). I charged a very small fee, as the club provided the space and boards, and the ACBL provided the books for larnin' (Audrey Grant's Club & Diamond Series). I condensed & simplified even this basic material -- into eight or nine lessons, with lots of play practice. The level of play in the "main" roon varied greatly, so it was no problem to introduce the newbies fairly quickly -- when the regular club and its director r friendly, the newbies will lose their nerves before they lose their nerve. There were a fair number of older people at the club too (it was not quite restricted to students, professors & alumni). Some seniors and middle aged people did show up for lessons from time to time too, yet the majority were undergraduate & graduate students from all countries, with all sorts of majors, and so the older students had to work to fit in socially with the younger, not the other way round. This, of course, is a lot easier for all concerned, as the older people have been there, done that.

Dear Phil, et al. This was an interesting thread until it got hijacked by the poker botphiles. When comparing poker to the problems of "golden age", present day, and where future bridge will go, it would do well to remember a bit of bridge history. In the "golden age" bridge was a very popular money game, and there were a lot of clubs where bridge for money was played. The centre of the game has shifted to tournie bridge for "serious" players, mainly because of the bridge scandals of the 60's & 70"s. The money aspect of the game has seriously dwindled, ecept for those who run clubs, are professional players, teachers or tournie directors, etc. Poker is in a "gold rush" fad phase which has come and gone for bridge. A few scandals may turn poker into a more intellectual, elitist sort of mental sport, such as chess fans & bridge fans fancy themselves to be, but whether that happens to poker and is perceived as a good thing for it or a bad thing for it, is for poker fans to decide. Our task, should we choose to accept it, is to figure out what the future of bridge ought to look like, and come up with some practical suggestions on efficent ways to get there. Or, if u prefer, to offer some interesting idea-probes and speculate upon where these suggestions might take us if we followed through on them. And then follow through on the best ones. As far as bridge and television go --- I'll take vuegraph, thank you very much. Somewhere there is a survey that says a majority of Americans who have both cable and computers would give up TV before their computers. This is the future. Bridge should stick to new media. Regarding bringing new people into the game, ACBL bridge teachers are a good tool, I believe, although I may be somewhat unqualified to make an objective judgment on the matter, having been an ACBL bridge teacher for a number of years. I taught dozens of people to play before becoming certified, too... it is not as difficult as some people think, although a teacher mentality is required, of course. Many young people who are taught the game do leave it to focus on jobs & family, but they will return, I am sure, when other priorities diminish. On-line bridge, being so easy & cheap to join and drop, helps, I think, tremendously to keep the bridge-fires burning in the busy years of 30-50.

yoder seems to be on the wavelength I was refering to in my previous post, and to hav had similar experiences learning with expert pards to myself. On the issue of whether to teach count signals or attitude, I think both must be discussed, but it is unwise to try to combine the approaches for early learners. Count signals will help count out the thirteen cards in a suit, something beginners need to learn very soon. They also help create inferences about the fourth suit. On the other hand, attitude signals are prefered by intermediate players and those who will never get beyond advanced stage, as they never completely learn to count out a hand and so inevitably see attitude carding as superior. But a teacher should not presume every beginner will end up as that sort of player. Mixed carding is too tricky for beginners. It falls between two stools, like MUD. I think attitude should be explained, as a lot of declaring against this type of signaling will be done, but count encouraged by the teacher. Suit pref from known long suits should be encouraged as soon as possible also -- it does not really interfere with the other stuff.

I find online pards will always bid after the first sequence, so if u have a di hand, make sure u can stand to declare in some major suit. In the second sequence, it seems to be about 60 percent penalty-assumption by pard, perhaps influenced by how long the intervening opp takes to pass and pard's length in di. Pards who are frequent matchpoint players are more likely than other sorts to assume it is takeout, as they like to follow the matchpoint rule about never (or rarely) letting yr opps out of the auction at the one level. i believe the best assumption to make is that pard has di, but some interest in penalizing, when one hears either of these bids, unless one has agreed to play the direct two di cue as natural. Most assume michaels convention, even if it is not on yr card. If the direct cue is agreed natural, then both of these sequences would be best used for takeout with somewhat odd shapes or weakish values. Of course 1di-pass-1nt-pass-pass-2di and the like should be taken as natural long suits by random pards.

It's a different situation when u r 5M, 7+m. I think it is often okay to lie to pard by one card, in a "prepared bid" worse case scenario style, if u hav not discussed this issue in advance, same as with opening 1 di with 4 di & 5 cl, but not 6+ clubs. One factor that enters in with these more extreme shapes is, when we end up at game or slam level in the slightly shorter trump suit because of pards preference bid, it will often go off with a ruff on the first or second trick if our "real" fit is two cards longer than where we settle. Not rolling out of control on weak hands or letting pard take an incorrect inference of good quality in our original minor suit are the more important considerations when we hav 5M, 6m, i think. With the sample hand given, i think pass is best, because it is difficult to deal with a two club response and a 1nt response if u bid a di first, and it is difficult to deal with a two hrt response and a three nt response if u bid a sp first. if my di were clubs, i think a 1 club bid would be fine with this. A hair stronger, i would be happy to bid 1 sp with the given shape. i would not bid 1 di with this shape unless i definitely had the values to support the THREE bids needed to complete my story if pard has a constructive hand. There are many situations where it would be great to hav had treatment discussion in advance, but this is not practical playing online. So my best advice is concentrate on developing a style that is likely to get yr side to a playable contract, even if som pards might freak out on occasion when it is revealed u don't hav exactly what they were expecting.

Fred Gitelman :o