eyhung

Here are my preliminary comments : When starting a new money bridge table, the help button doesn't bring up any text. I think it is important to quantify just how slow clock speed is for slow, medium, fast on the main window, as that tells people how much time they can expect to take before losing their money. Also, I think the robot speed should be quantified up front as well. GIB speed and clock speed should be viewable from the lobby and at the table. it would be nice to have a third GIB available at the fun money tables so that people could "practice". Give the player control over when the trick is retired. Right now GIB can whip out a card to the next trick before I've seen all 3 cards played by the other GIBs (usually when GIB is declaring). Show the results for the previous board(s) and show the accounting of the money. i.e. Last hand, W made 3NT =, West wins $3.90, East loses $4.10. It would also be nice to see how many boards you've played. The rake feels too high to me. I wouldn't play with this rake scheme. I'll defer to those with more money bridge experience as to what a better rake might be. It would be nice to have a rubber/chicago bridge modes available so that the vulnerabilities are a little more under control and the art of bidding with a partscore is rewarded. It would also be nice to have a way to call up a menu of how GIB would interpret your bid. i.e. after 1C (P) 1S (P) / 1NT (P) the user could see what the bids for the next level would mean. Or provide a "query" button in place of where the alert button used to be, which allows a player to ask GIB how it would interpret a hypothetical bid. Eugene

A good topic, but I see it has devolved into the usual scientist vs. naturalist wranglings, a topic that generates far more heat than light. My opinion is that people tend to superimpose their personal views for improving the game as the "solution" towards bridge's popularity. After all, if X were changed, they would like the game better, so why wouldn't more people like the game better? I think such a view is simplistic. For example, I believe that if many more conventions were allowed (or banned) there would be little significant change. More scientists would play (or quit), but then more naturalists would do the opposite. No, I think the problem is due to a combination of factors beyond the technical: namely, cultural, social, and marketing. Not just one, but all of these need to be addressed before a "tipping point" in bridge popularity is reached. Why do I believe this? Because I look at why things in general are popular, before pinning the blame on convention support or the lack thereof. Take bridge in the 30s, and then poker in 2003. Why did bridge become so popular in the 30s? 1) It was a high quality game. 2) It was invented by Harold Vanderbilt, one of the social elite of New York. Everyone wanted to play his version of auction bridge, in order to be like the Vanderbilts. 3) It was new, so the gap between experts and beginners was not so great as it is now. The experts could play the cards very well, but bidding did not require nearly as much study as it does now. 4) The Great Depression gave us little outlet for cheap entertainment beyond games centered around the family and close friends. 5) It was heavily promoted by a marketing genius, Ely Culbertson. Now compare this to the situation today: 1) It is still a high quality game, despite heated disagreements about conventions and appeals committees. But quality alone does not guarantee popularity. (See Monopoly vs. recent German-style board games, Betamax vs. VHS, Eagle potato chips vs. Lays, any reasonable OS vs. Windows, etc.) 2) Few celebrities play bridge, so there are no significant social factors. The only super-famous person who frequently talks about bridge is Bill Gates. (Yes, I greatly admire Warren Buffett and acknowledge Omar Sharif, but they are not celebrities people focus on.) 3) It is a mature game, with lots of theory that a novice must learn before he can become competent, let alone expert. Thus, the gap appears huge and it is mostly students, retirees, or the unemployed who have the time and effort to close this gap. 4) In our affluent and highly mobile society, we have far more options and avenues for entertainment than a card game. We have a wide variety of physical sports, PlayStations, movies, concerts, and parties at our convenience. Bridge must compete with all of these alternatives. 5) There is nobody promoting bridge to a mass media outlet. We just had a sensational World Championship, with the outcome resting on the final (and controversial) board, and there was practically no mention of it in the mainstream press. 6) With near-instantaneous communications and catering of personal demands, our culture has shifted focus from a slow appreciation of subtleties to instant and immediate gratification. This does not help bridge, which requires a lot of effort to appreciate, let alone master. (I see this also in the decline of classical music, theater, poetry readings, letter writing, and other culturally out-of-tune pursuits.) Now, let's look at poker, also a card game, but which got massively popular in America in 2003. Like bridge, poker had a poor image problem before last year, that of degenerate gamblers wasting their money and lives. But: 1) Like bridge, it is also a great game. 2) Many celebrities are shown playing and enjoying poker. People want to be like Ben Affleck or Matt Damon or David Schwimmer. And great poker players are becoming celebrities in their own right, because of the large amounts of money that they are winning. 3) Poker is not as deep as bridge, because there are fewer decision branches, and short-term results are much more dependent on psychology and luck rather than skill and theory. Thus it is far more accessible to the casual player, and even an amateur can play with the experts and win the world championship (as in 2002 and 2003). 4) Poker is being written up everywhere in the media, and many networks are now sponsoring poker shows. They're even airing a poker show opposite the Super Bowl later this month. 5) Poker is a much faster-paced game than bridge, with a hand every 1-2 minutes instead of 7-10, and is thus more culturally attuned. 6) Poker is an interesting spectator sport, because the hole card cameras give the viewer enough information to play along and experience the agonies and ecstasies of the game. This markets the game far more effectively than anything Audrey Grant could say. I am not saying that poker is a better game; however, it is far more suitable than bridge to being popular because it is not in conflict with as many of the negative factors I mentioned earlier. And until bridge resolves the social, cultural, and marketing issues I cited above, I doubt any technical changes such as convention restrictions will make the game widely popular. Eugene Hung

I think it would help if some other views were added to this highly charged issue. 1. For the most part, bridge is a game of making fewer mistakes than your opponents. It is unsound to compare two strong teams by how they play a set number of boards against weak teams, because the weak teams may make fewer errors against one team by getting more straightforward deals against them. 2. The current carryover scheme, while not perfect, does an excellent job of ensuring that everyone in contention will always play to win against another contender. Otherwise, in the late stages of a round robin, it may be to the leaders' advantage to "dump" matches to an inferior team on the bubble so as to eliminate a superior team on the bubble. The current carryover scheme enforces that it will always be in a team's best interest to play their hardest in matches against other potential qualifiers, thus avoiding the appearance of impropriety. 3. The current carryover scheme also minimizes the problem of apathy by teams out of the race affecting the later rounds of play. Say there are 3 teams, A, B, and Z. Going into the last round, Z is in last place, while A and B are both certain to qualify but interested in maximizing their carryover. If A plays Z in the first round and B plays Z in the last round, it would not be surprising if Z played harder against A than B, changing the "field" faced by these two teams and giving B an advantage. 3. Tying carryover to overall VPs would also increase the opportunity for "kingmaking". If Z likes B better than A, it could influence the carryovers by dumping to B on the last day. While most people would not stoop to such tactics, it is best to reduce even the potential for it so as to avoid comment and/or hard feelings when a team out of contention loses badly to a team in contention on the final day. 4. If a team picks a country with a lower carryover margin _only_ because it saddles another team with a worse carryover margin, this team is worrying too much about other teams and not enough about their own opponents. I think most teams (properly) pick based on personal evaluation of the quality of the opponent and their own carryover, not on how their pick affects other teams. 5. Although your example is contrived, I think it is more impressive to go 25-5 against the surviving teams and 11-19 against the field than vice versa. While in general, a large sample size is usually better than a small sample size, in bridge, the quality of the opposition is far more important. If you told me a pair did very well in the last 5 National Open Pairs but has also scored below 50% for all the sessions played in the last 5 weeks at the club, I would conclude they were playing carelessly against the lackluster competition (or experimenting). If you told me a pair has done well in the past 5 weeks of club games but has never done well in the 5 National Open Pairs events they have entered, I would conclude that they were much better than the members in their club, but not of national-level caliber. In bridge, winning against excellent opponents is more meaningful than losing against poor opponents. Eugene Hung

Agree 100% with JohnGoold. This way yellows will be able to use the lobby like others without having their chitchat/table requests annoy people who have lobby chat turned off for precisely this reason. Eugene Hung

Probably only two people in the world have played this system more than I have, the two inventors of the system, so I feel qualified to comment on it. It is very effective for shooting fish (people who don't really understand the fundamentals of bidding). And some of the most amusing swings come from making game opposite a passout at the other table! However, the 10-14 and 11-14 NTs are too wide for my taste, leading to lots of guesses in competition, and for that reason, I do not believe the system is sound enough at a high level. Eugene Hung

Sorry, for some reason I remembered trumps were 4-2 instead of 3-3. Eugene Hung

I am not sure how you drew the conclusion that "partnership experience with methods has an enormous impact on success" from the MOSCITO match. For the most part, what you call unfamiliarity, I call judgement (at least, on the 6NT vs 7C hand, and the 4H vs 6H hand.) In fact, when the partnership wasn't on the same wavelength (such as when inquiry overcalled a weak 1NT with a balanced, 4-4 <13 HCP hand and Fred put him in a hopeless game that made on the lead) the naturalists actually did a little better than their scientific counterparts. By the way, I just asked Larry Cohen himself. As one of the most experienced practitioners of the convention, I think his views are extremely relevant. He replied : (That last paragraph is a little confusing, but what he is saying is that if your preempting style is undisciplined, they're a break-even proposition at best, but if your preempting style is disciplined, they're clearly inferior.) Eugene Hung

I don't deny that the tradeoff is more frequent but less effective preempts. But where is Bergen now? He has retired from playing, he has never won a world championship, and I am pretty sure Larry Cohen, who played them with Bergen, no longer plays them because he thinks the theoretical downside does not make up for the increased preemption. Can you name one pair that regularly uses two-under preempts nowadays and wins American national events on a regular basis? I can't think of any. Eugene Hung

Well, Richard, I think I did say that part of the problem was the restrictive convention chart system (although I guess I should have mentioned the MidChart rather than GCC). And guess what? In 30 years you won't have to deal with many of your opponents anymore. Or, in 10-20 years, the people who have more to gain by change will outnumber the people who have more to gain by the status quo, especially given that the way that the Internet (and BBO) allows the free exchange of (bridge) information. Put it this way, if you start winning high-quality Internet tournaments (and they will come!) with your Frelling Twos for the reasons I described earlier, I don't care what the ACBL says, I'm adopting them. I need every edge that I can get! Ultimately, I think this will be a problem that solves itself. As time goes by, I imagine that when our generation picks up bridge in their old age, they will come to it via the Internet, not via face-to-face. (Poker is experiencing similar growth via computers -- this year's world champion never played in a live tournament until the world championship!) Maybe BBO will one day supplant screens in tournaments, once more of the computer-phobic members die off, and convention defense will not be so problematic because then all the literature can be provided to the defender at the click of a mouse. I am willing to wait for a computerized bridge revolution. Time is on our side. :o Eugene Hung

Maybe not without some super-scientific gadgets (see the Lemmings articles in The Bridge World a few years back) but I agree with this for the most part; my impression is that these gadgets do great on a small subset of hands (where the offense is wide open in an unbid suit) and poorly on a larger subset of hands (by letting the opponents get off lead-directing doubles). The reason I brought it up was not to blame the Natural team for bidding 3NT, but because the hand argues for less action on the part of the opponents, which was a point of contention for this match. (One hand proves nothing, of course.) Agreed, sorry I did not make this clear. All I said was that the board was lost partially because the MOSCITO N/S bid a contract that was more conducive to error in defense than 3NT. I did not attempt to justify 5D as a great contract, a good contract, or even an acceptable contract. My point was that 5D made not because of scientific bidding/pretty declarer play, but primarily because of mistakes by E/W. That's what I said. It is easy to defend on the "percentage" heart lead (I try to avoid using the word obvious, but I'm happy you think it is). And the trick 6 low diamond return is a cardplay error. It's not easy or "obvious" -- it requires thought, and reconstruction of the two unseen hands. But I believe good players will not return a low Diamond at trick 6 because 12 tricks are clearly in the bag for declarer after that return. No, I agree the unfamiliarity was a factor, but given what I know of standard 2/1 agreements, the failure to make a slam try after 3H is just wrong. I seriously doubt 4H was a slam try just from looking at East's hand (surely a better slam try involves showing the good club suit, or diamond control, or the lack of spade control) I'll concede one thing. If 4H is their slam-invite and West forgot, I will agree that the swing came from partnership misunderstanding instead of bidding judgement. And also from a poor slam-bidding style (system). :o Eugene Hung

Actually, my understanding is that their success was not due to theoretical merit, but to unfamiliarity. Once opponents realized they had two, or even three extra bids to use (and the ability to cue-bid at the same-level as the preempt!) they found the two-under preempts much easier to defend against than standard two-bids. For example, I know I would love it if my opponents used 2D or 3D to show spades. Now I can bid hearts a level lower, and cue-bid spades followed by hearts to show a really good heart hand without committing to a contract beyond game. I could be wrong, but I believe the tournament bridge world is reasonably (not perfectly; reasonably) efficient in terms of success. If something truly provides a frequent and significant edge, I believe that it will eventually gain a significant following beyond the super-scientists. ("Hey, those guys keep winning a lot of IMPS from convention X! We should play convention X!") Look at how many people have adopted transfers, splinter bids, negative doubles, LOTT-based scrambling methods, etc. I don't see the same level of acceptance for Frelling or Tartan Twos. Part of the problem is the ACBL's restrictive GCC which stifles an experimental environment, but I also believe that part of the problem is that the new methods don't give enough of an edge to justify changing from the traditional methods (and by success, I mean success after opponents have had time to adjust to it.) To conclude, if change doesn't provide a frequent, significant, and long-lasting edge, then the odds are against it. Machiavelli said about politics: And I believe bridge is no different. Eugene Hung

I want to learn, and I will appreciate if you can be more specific. Well, I don't want to get into a nitpicky criticism of every possibly incorrect bid or play. I myself have made more than my fair share of mistakes and blunders (including in analysis, as Hrothgar has just shown). The players also deserve a lot of credit for being willing to participate under the microscope of public scrutiny, often double-dummy. But I also don't want people to think that it was just partnership unfamiliarity and good play by the scientists that led to the lopsided result. In these following paragraphs I have tried to be fair and highlight a few "black mark" errors -- errors that (for good players) are hard to justify even at the table. board 4 -- Hrothgar attributes this big swing to "pretty" declarer play. Perhaps I am missing something, but his line seems like the obvious line once a heart is not led. A "prettier" hand to me is North's play of 2NT on board 20, where he took advantage of a subtle defensive error to make an unmakeable contract and win 6 IMPs. Instead, I feel the result of board 4 is more attributable to opening lead judgement and clearcut defensive error (and to N/S for reaching a contract where the defense is more likely to err). After E/W warned N/S about the heart suit by bidding hearts (which did not happen at the other table -- what happened to light initial action? :o ), it appears that the MOSCITO pair spent some effort in diagnosing whether they held a heart stopper for 3NT. (I would appreciate it if Hrothgar or someone who knows more about MOSCITO would confirm this.) They failed to find a heart stopper, so they chose to play in 5D. After such an auction, I believe the heart ace lead is strongly indicated. After all, if N/S held the king of hearts, wouldn't they have bid 3NT? Furthermore, how is a passive club doubleton lead into dummy's first-bid suit likely to set the contract? It is more likely to blow the contract when declarer gets the tempo to pitch away heart loser(s) on surplus black-suit winners (diagnosed by the bidding). While there are no guarantees with opening leads, my judgement tells me the heart ace lead is a strong favorite to be the lead with the best chance of setting the contract/stopping the overtricks. Also, even if you accept the actual club lead and play to the first 5 tricks, once West is in with a spade ruff at trick 5, the winning defense of a heart tap in dummy at trick 6 is findable. [The actual return of a low diamond allowed declarer to draw trump without loss and run clubs, a likely outcome given East's lead of the club ten at trick 1 and play of the diamond ten on the first round of diamonds.] Tapping the dummy gives up a ruff immediately, but ensures that the clubs will never run. West knows this because he is looking at the club queen, so he knows that declarer cannot come off the board in clubs without his being able to ruff in and clear the last trump. And if declarer leads his last diamond off dummy, he forfeits the second heart ruff and West will be able to get in with his natural trump trick (before clubs run) to cash a heart winner. By the way, a pretty ending occurs if West returns the diamond KING at trick 6. Sacrificing the king appears to allow declarer to draw trump and run clubs, but the king lead blocks the suit and declarer cannot draw trump without letting West score a trump (and set up a 3rd winner in the process). However, I do not fault West for not finding this return -- I don't think I would at the table, and anyone who can is an excellent defender! board 5 -- This slam should not be missed. At the very least, there should be a slam try somewhere. I recognize that bidding analysis is rarely as cut-and-dried as cardplay analysis, but any time you don't even try for slam with a double-fit, 31 mostly working HCP, primarily natural methods, and no interference, it's not system/partnership unfamiliarity, it's bad bidding judgement. I can't critique too many specific bids (as style and system sometimes dictate unusual choices), but East should have found another bid over 3H besides 4H. That bid is a real slam-killer, especially given that you're already in a game-forcing auction. 4C would be the most natural slam-going advance and gets across the source of tricks and prime values. Perhaps East did not know his partner held 3 hearts, but then 4C stands out even more as the best bid to find an 8-card trump fit. Those were the 2 clear, major errors that led to big swings, here is an error that led to a small swing: board 10 -- Even though it only cost an overtrick, West took a no-win line of play compared to other lines of play. The simplest superior line which succeeds as the cards lie is ruffing the third round of hearts "high" with the 6 instead of the 4 (which gets overruffed by the 5). Such a play can't cost as the remaining trump is about to be used to cross to hand to draw trump, and it wins against this particular layout. High praise to South for a devilish falsecard that lulled West into complacency, but this error should have been avoided. (Even though there are better lines, I would be more sympathetic to West's line if he had ruffed with the 6 -- it's not every day you get an opponent imaginative enough to throw the queen from a potential Q9!) That's enough criticism for me. I hope this helps bolster the argument that cardplay and judgement play a much bigger role than system. Also I want to remind everyone that it is much easier to criticize in hindsight, and in no way do I think poorly of the players who have courageously given us material for discussion. (We all have bad days!) Eugene Hung

Hrothgar, you are right (as usual). I naturally assumed that the scientists would have put the one extra round that they got to good use. So much for my attempt to give credit to the MOSCITO 2S preempt, even though I have argued against them in the past. :o Although, I think it is harder to bid the grand after a first-chair 2S opening, as not everyone will feel comfortable overcalling 3C unfav. with 7 small clubs, no singleton, and barely an opening in high cards. But once malucy found the 3C bid, you are right in that the auctions were essentially equivalent and the problem reduced to one of judgement. Eugene Hung

I'm surprised you didn't attribute these IMPs to a system victory; I would! The natural pair had to deal with an "undisciplined" 2S opening with only 5 spades, the MOSCITO pair did not. Granted, a case can be made for the natural team also to open 2S with a tremendously offensively-oriented spade suit and favorable vul, but put it this way: there is no way a MOSCITO player would pass the hand, while there are many 2/1 players who would pass it. After 2 levels of bidding had been knocked out, I don't fault the natural pair at all for finding it difficult to bid the minor-suit grand slam. Another hand that seemed system-related was the one you mentioned where the naturalists were able to better judge the auction. Aside from these hands, I agree that system did not play much of a role in the match. I do disagree with your assertion that partnership unfamiliarity was the biggest factor. I can see at least 2 major and several minor cardplay/judgement errors made by the naturalists that led to a lot of the negative swings. The team that played the better bridge overall won, and congratulations to all of them! Eugene Hung

This isn't just a problem with Precision. The majority of bridge players do not know how to get past the point count and truly evaluate a hand. (For example, if they held xxxx xxxx Axx xx and heard partner open 1D and rebid 6C, they would never think of bidding 7D because they only had "4 points, partner"). It does not matter what system they play -- they will bid like Walruses whether playing Precision, 2/1, or even old-fashioned Goren. So do not blame the system, blame the players. Eugene Hung

Also, in the Encyclopedia it says there were three matches between "scientists" and "traditionalists". All three matches were won by the "scientists". Hmm. ;) Eugene Hung

Actually, I agree with The_Hog ... I was thinking that with the double-void two-suited minor hand, I would open 1D as well. With all the major suits and points floating around, I am pretty sure someone will find a bid. Then my next bid will be 6C. (A good partner holding the club ace will bid 7 of his longer minor.) But I would not reject a 1C bid as "anti-system" -- I just think there is a better way to bid that freak than with a strong club. Similarly, with Roland's 13 spade hand, there are lots of alternatives to opening a strong club ... you could open 7S, 4S, psych another suit, pass, or whatever. However, I do not think the system should categorically bar one from opening 1C on an offensively powerful hand just because it is missing a jack or two. With the major two-suiter with the dubious queen of diamonds, I'm actually on the fence as to whether a strong club or 1-level open is better. It's only a pure two-suiter like AKJxx AKTxx xx x that would make me plump for a strong club -- my guideline is around 8 playing tricks and ability to handle interference. So why did I get on your case about the categorical assertion that opener can have a heavy trick-taking hand? You will note that my example hand was a one-suiter that clearly wanted to be in game. I suppose a better hand for my counter-example is : AKQJxxx Axx xx x This is "only" 14 HCP, but it's 8 playing tricks in spades (and even 3 QT). I think it's strong enough to bid 1C and then spades. (If the opponents interfere, who cares? I have the spades.) Can you ask these "good players" whether they would open a strong club with either of the two pure major-suit-oriented hands I gave above? I guess a better summary of my position is : In Precision, there are many factors that dictate whether or not you should open 1 club with an offensive trick-taking hand and <16 HCP. But, the system itself does not restrict people from opening 1C with inadequate HCP -- the strong club merely shows a hand with at least offensive (and defensive) potential equivalent to a 16 HCP balanced hand. We now return you to your regularly scheduled limit raise discussion. ;) Eugene Hung

2over1, don't be so defensive. I was very careful to reread all of what you said. I know that you would open those hands 1 or 2 clubs. However, you were saying that the Precision system theoretically forces people to open 1M when they have 11-15 HCP, and this is FALSE. Here is the statement again: This is wrong. In Precision, one is NOT required to open massive trick takers with 1M. You, on the other hand, specificially stated it was, in theory. This is what I meant by saying you are confusing the mechanism (HCP) with the meaning (tricks). Precision is NOT a point-counting system, and never was meant to be, unless you are teaching it to beginners who have enough trouble counting HCP. You may think your three players are good Precision players, but in my view, or in Barry Rigal's view, or in David Berkowitz's view, they do not understand Precision. OK? Eugene Hung

> One of the downsides to strong club limited major ? > openings is that you are required to open massive trick > takers one of a major if the hand doesn't contain at > least 16 HCP. Funny, in all the Precision systems I learned, nobody is required to do anything based on HCP unless it is a balanced-hand auction (where HCP are paramount). 1C = 16 (or 17))+ HCP balanced OR a hand of equivalent trick-taking strength in all of my Precision "books" above beginner-level. > I personally don't like this aspect of Precision and its > progeny, but long ago accepted that it is part of the > system. It is not part of the system. That is like saying Standard American requires 22+ HCP to open 2C. That is an adequate metric for beginners learning Standard American, but it is not good bridge. It is much better to say that a strong bid promises a certain number of tricks. People focus on HCP because 1. they are an excellent way of quantifying tricks when the hand is balanced, 2. Most hands are balanced 3. Beginners find it easier to grasp numbers than abstract concepts. However, as the hand grows more and more freakish, HCP become less and less useful. Standard American players who never open a 20- or 21-count 2C or Precision players who never open a 14- or 15-count 1C are putting the cart (point-count system) before the horse (bidding as estimation of tricks we can take). > I showed this hand to three precision players (two on this > site, contact me for names if you want to know who), and > asked them what they would open. All three said 1D. System theory is not a democracy -- it is a meritocracy, where only the opinions of the skilled matter. If you poll 100 Standard American players and the majority think : AKxxxxxxx void Ax Ax is not a 2C bid because it "only has 15 HCP", it does not mean the majority is right! It means that the majority do not understand their system. This hand should be a strong opener in any system because 10 tricks in spades are guaranteed, a grand slam is cold opposite a hand containing two spades and KQ of either minor, and there is enough defense (3+ quick tricks) to double the opponents if they interfere above game. Anyone who opens 1S instead of a strong-bid on this hand should be doing so for tactical reasons, not systemic reasons, or they are not good bidders. Note I am not accusing you, 2over1, of not being a good bidder. But I do think you are confusing tools used to teach system (HCP), with the system itself. Do not judge a system based on its misapplication! Eugene Hung

I vote for KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). People aren't going to use the standardized form if it looks too complicated (see the convention card editor). In my opinion, there should be as few fields as possible. These should be similar to what you write on the pad to a screenmate in a high-level tournament. something like: HCP __ -- __ Spade symbol __ -- __ checkbox (if you are just showing the suit) Heart symbol __ -- __ checkbox Diamond symbol __ -- __ checkbox Club symbol __ -- __ checkbox game forcing, forcing, non-forcing checkboxes artificial / natural checkbox (takeout / penalty) checkbox if the call is a double That should cover most situations, anything else should be explained in words i.e. (asking for aces, inv., takeout) or with the above options. Splinter, use 0-1 for the suit you show the splinter. One of my pet peeves is when people explain alerts with names and not meanings. I hate it when people say "capp" when they should say "single-suited hand" or "spades and a minor". Not everyone knows every convention by the same name, and not everyone remembers what every convention means. I hope that using fields for suits and points will encourage people to use meanings instead of names. Eugene Hung

I would have to say that Luis accurately and amusingly describes the reaction to a strong club pair at, say, the club level. In regional tournaments, strong clubbers are usually treated like other pairs. However, even at the club level, strong club and other systems are actually much more frequent than .01%. (Remember, that's 1 in 10000! Most clubs have trouble getting over 100 pairs, let alone 1000) I would guess the non-standard-american frequency is around 3-5% in Southern California clubs, where I live. Many good pairs play unusual systems and eventually they gain followers from intermediate players convinced that system will make them better. After all, they are good players, so why aren't they winning? It must be the system! (Note: for the most part, it doesn't help. B) ) Eugene Hung

Great idea, but Richard brought up a good point that should be resolved. What is the purpose of the match? What makes the "scientists" different from the "naturalists"/"traditionalists"? In my mind there are several possible areas that could be resolved: 1) Natural vs. artificial 2) Initial action: sound vs. light 3) Focus: constructive vs. preemptive 4) System: MOSCITO vs. 2/1 I think #4 is best, not #2, because it is unambiguous and encapsulates many of the other issues. (If #2, and one of the pairs wants to play a flavor of Precision, how do we judge whether their initial actions are sound or light? And then it's arguable whether the naturalist overcalls are sound or light -- I think many 2/1 players would overcall a hand discussed elsewhere on this forum that was categorized as "light".) As for Fred's can of worms, I am not opposed to having a greater variety of unusual and preemptive systems in top-level events. While I am in full agreement with Fred that playing against systems designed to confuse opponents (destructive systems) is no fun at all, I don't really agree with the "homework" argument. All good bridge is based on "homework" to some degree. After all, if becoming a top player involved no work at all, then where is the fun of achievement? If fun through achievement without effort is the goal, then one might as well be good at snakes-and-ladders, tic-tac-toe, or other games with little-to-zero skill component. Maybe to players like Fred, who have mastered the game to a degree where everything but dealing with unusual systems is second-nature to them, the "homework" of dealing with unusual systems is an unwelcome intrusion. However, for the vast majority of bridge players, good bridge is all about "homework". We have to "work" on counting, remembering system bids/agreements, principles of good judgement, counting, drawing the right inferences, entry management, trump management, counting, mandatory falsecards, squeeze/endplay technique, and counting. Adding in defense to unusual systems is just one more item on the list. If average American bridge players must work to learn how to defend against uncommon conventions such as weak notrumps and strong clubs, why can't the top American players work on formulating general defenses to highly unusual yet not destructive systems? (example of a general defense is like what Fred posted earlier in this thread.) How can people truly claim to be the best in the world without being able to adapt to what the world has to throw at them? Even if unusual systems were banned, homework would not be eliminated. Fred, you are a professional bridge player in a top partnership. You must have spent many hours of your life working on your agreements, and even more hours on general agreements to cover obscure, unusual situations that are undiscussed by most partnerships. How is this different from the homework caused by unusual systems? (Yes, perhaps the game would be ruined if you needed specific, undiscussed defenses to optimally defend against an unusual system, but if that is the case, I would argue that it is better to force the opponents to provide written, detailed, specific, and optimal defenses, rather than bar such systems completely.) In case I didn't make it clear, I'm not advocating an anything-goes policy; systems that are primarly focused on confusing the opponents and randomizing the game are a completely different matter and that may be Fred's primary objection, to which I would agree. But I'm not surprised to hear that in Australia/New Zealand, where "unusual" systems are common, that people have learned to "work" on defending against all of these systems along with "working" on other aspects of their bridge. Personally, as a idealistic young bridge player, I would prefer a more open system in our top events to a closed one -- it makes me feel like I am playing a deeper game. Even though I personally prefer a constructive/simple approach to a preemptive/scientific approach, how can I tell if I am right if I don't have a chance to learn, evaluate, and counter these approaches on a regular basis? Maybe, after more years of experience, I will come around to Fred's point of view that the current game is deep enough to be fun. But it seems a shame to me to dismiss a more open game prematurely, especially if it is working elsewhere. Eugene Hung P.S. Good luck in the USBC, Fred!

Hog -- No, I am certain I would not have gotten it at the table! I think world-class players might get it in a good event, though. As I said, the clues are there, but you need to be confident in both declarer and partner, and you need to be on top of every hand and treat each hand as a potential "problem hand". Eugene

I already addressed your concern in the last paragraph of my previous answer -- I stated that if partner has the diamond ace, my proposed defense is atrocious, as it lets declarer make an unmakeable contract. I also explained that partner is less likely to hold the diamond ace ... not because of partner's style, but because of the way declarer bid. If partner has the diamond ace, declarer has a solid 7-card suit with at least one trick on the side (heart king), that is : AKQxxxx Kxx xx x With that hand, he might not rebid just 2S. Or he might not have chosen to overcall a mere 1S. My point is that there are two mysteries of the hand that we must guess before we can make our decision at trick 1: 1) Whether partner holds the spade king or diamond ace. Declarer's bidding indicates he is more likely to be missing the spade king because solid suits tend to be bid more aggressively. 2) Whether partner has 3145 or 3154. Partner's bidding (using 2NT instead of just bidding 3D directly) implies 3145, not 3154. Finally, if and only if partner has 3145 with the spade king, we must duck heart ace. So that is my answer, duck heart ace in a good (national-level) event, and take heart ace in any lower event. In such an event, I think the clues are strong enough to point to 3145 with the king being the "right" hand. Well, Hog? What's the real answer? Eugene

After much thought I think I see the "trick" to this hand. First, here are the inferences we should draw (see inquiry's post for the reasons): 1) Partner has a singleton heart. 2) Partner has 3 spades. 3) Partner is 3145 or 3154 (although i disagree with inquiry in that partner is likely 3145 because with 3154 he might bid 3D as I will respond 3C with 33 in the minors) 4) Partner has spade king/diamond ace (maybe even spade ace), but not two critical cards. Next, the goal. I disagree that the goal is to beat a club partial. We need to set the contract three to do so, and that appears impossible on the above inferences. Also, people are unlikely to be playing in 3C when an opponent has a good 7-card spade suit. Furthermore, I disagree with inquiry that partner would have competed to the 4-level with a cruddy 3145. My 3C preference does not show 4 clubs, it merely shows equal or longer clubs than diamonds. For all partner knows, I could have soft heart values with 2533 shape, which will play terribly in 4C. And when 4C is making, 3S is almost certainly going down enough tricks to compensate (the LAW). If there are enough total trumps to make 4C a good bet with a 3145 hand, then I should be the one bidding 4C, not him. So my goal is to beat the contract and take my +50 (+100), which will beat all the poor/average defenders in the room, or the bidders who think the 4-level is a nice place to be and are wrong. I may pay off to +100 vs. +130 (in 4C) when there are 17 total tricks, but it's important at matchpoints not to try to cater to every outcome -- just the most frequent outcomes. Given that goal, if partner has an ace or is 3154, the defense is straightforward. Heart ace, heart ruff, club, heart ruff, minor suit winners, trump promo. However, if partner has Kxx of spades (and not K43) and is 3145, then the straightforward defense of ace, ruff, club, ruff will run into problems. After this sequence, a club return is best, but declarer will ruff the return in hand with a middle spot, draw trump with the ace (dropping king and jack), cross to dummy with the 5 of spades (overtaking the 4 or 3), and take the diamond finesse to take 9 tricks (7 spades, 2 diamonds). Oops! In order to deny declarer an entry to the board with the spade 5, the solution must be to duck heart ace. Then declarer cannot reach the board without letting the defense in to execute spade ruffs / trump promo. And declarer cannot draw trump or he gets stuck in his hand. (I'll leave the details for someone else.) Of course, ducking heart ace is catastrophic if partner has the diamond ace, for then declarer will clear trump and score 7 spades and 2 hearts. But if partner has diamond ace, then declarer has a solid 7-card spade suit with a working heart king. I think he would have bid the hand differently. And I've already explained why I think partner is more likely to be 3145 than 3154. But you have to be confident in the bidding of both your partner and declarer to pull this off. If both can be trusted to have their bids, then ducking the heart ace is the right play. Eugene