arrows

Yes, absolutely. I think it's no fun at all. But the truth is in ACBL, the first item in the "disallowed" table is "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods." Isn't preventing opponents from bidding the best contract as important as bidding best contract of your own? and another item explicitly disallows you to bid without cards. here we go: "Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" is disallowed. Also, I would like to try forcing pass system, but of course, it's disallowed. So, ACBL is trying hard to make this game boring, isn't it? I propose we don't play with these crapy politics, modify the penalty table and what those people don't like will disappear automatically. Then at least we wouldn't bother to come up with this ridiculous idea of providing defense to one's own method, at least we can call ourselves "sane" I wish ANY method is allowed, but it definitely won't happen in this insane world. it's so obvious, this is not about what is "good" for bridge, or even what is "destrutive" method at all, this is all about what they think can maximize their profit.

I am not against any methods. I am against regulation. if you let me decide what methods are allowed, surele I will rule out those I am not familiar with. got my point? BTW, why people have to use methods you are familiar with? Tell me why? My point is no more regulation, let the game itself decide what method has merit. I was really amused by the profound stupidity of the idea that one must provide defense against one's own method. This absurdness is inconceivable in any other intellegenent game, but sadly it's the reality of bridge! For example, playing chess, I prapared some variations home, and I know they are perhaps unsound moves, but I also know they are probably effective this time because my opponent has never seen it. Now you require me to tell my opponent how to defend it??? Is bridge a game for nuts??

Ok, I understand and will comply the rule here.

Don't be so sure. who told you relay system==destrcutive methods? In a relay system, you relay because you HAVE cards. Only nuts bid destructively when their side holds stronger cards. I cannot see what your point is. Worthless? Ok, suppose you play relay system and I am on lead, are you willing to read every spots in the "fully described" dummy before I make my lead? I didn't say I hate or love destructive motheds. But definitely I am against regulation on this issue, since it won't be fair by its nature and I believe everyone should be treated in the same way, whether you love or hate these mothed.

I have been reading some debate about Brown Sticker Convention, or generally, destructive methods. I found that people who supporting regulations on this issue keep ignoring the very fact that destructive methods are attactive because current score methods FAVORS them. It's just that simple. Suppose tomorrow doubled down one will get you -500, and more undertricks -1000 each. it won't take a genius to foresee that these system worms will vanish in seconds. Remember the score methods we use is evolved from rubber bridge, it may not be fair for duplication bridge. In rubber bridge, asking for -500 is insane, and taking +300 sure money is always a good way to make living. In duplicate bridge, not any more. Also I strongly believe that regulation is silly idea for any game, because it opens the door for politics and all kind of craps like that. If we think something is wrong in this game, we should attune the rule of the game, not seek regulations. If to change the score methods is too radical, how about we do this: At the first trick, the opening leader is allowed & required to lead TWO cards face down, after s/he seeing the dummy, s/he chooses one of them to lead and picks up the other one. Defense play has long been known much harder than the declaring play. espicially the opening lead, many time it's no better than a blind guess. The opening lead is the only card-playing decision made without seeing 26 cards. This is what those worm-lovers want to take advantage of, they like to bid with no cards. Most of time it's not a bad idea to double and let them play the hand. The contract, of course, is insane usually. However, again and again, they escaped with ease because the first shot of defense is not even close to the target. Don't be fooled by "they are protected by THE LAW". Trump is not everything, With accurate opening lead, Most of these insane contracts would get slaughtered even under current score methods due to shorting of high card strength. I hope the proposed opening lead procedure may in some degree help to eliminate those system worms. what do you think?

aa

Hello, there, me and a bunch of bridge playing friends are thinking of set up a private bridge club, but have no idea how to do it. Any help is greatly appreciated. :P

Thanks Fred and inquiry:)

Hi, Whoever in charge here :-) I am impressed so much by the way BridgeVu presents bridge related material that I would like to be able to compose my own *.lin files. As I understand, BridgeVu is free to everyone, I wonder whether I am allowed to distribute my own *.lin files and whether there's any guide or tutorial on how to compose *.lin file for various purposes. :D Thanks!

with no discussion in prior, I would just walk the dog, pass, hope I can make an educated guess later. If people do want to handle crazy hand in a rational manner(I don't know if it's possible at all). how about we try 3♥ cue first and pull it to 4♠ later? 3♥ cue then 4NT is no good in that first it's confusing, second,as many have pointed out, it went down if pd had no ace. I agree we all have bid contract which had no play, zero play. But that doesn't give us excuse to indulge ourselves.

yeah, exactly!

Yeah, maybe I do not understand the so-called 2/1, I am not even talking about 2/1 whatsoever, I am talking about NATURAL bidding. LOL. 50 years ago, people had no idea what is NMF, and what is checkback stayman, so hold this hand, they have to think more deeply than those "modern" players like you. if response 1S, it's not possible for them to make a descriptive rebid later, therefore 2C stands out. I can't see why it distorts the nature by bid more NATURALLY. and why it didn't distorts the nature of your hand by response 1S and later have to use a artifical piece of junk just for keeping the auction alive. Don't just make a comments, show your prove. Gadgets are not generally bad things, what bad is people tends to use it as a substitute for judgement, and not mention at the same time they usually have a illusion that they are doing better than their ancesters. Well, what can I say, is there any reason why I shouldn't bid this way? please. I surely was expecting much tougher challenge than this. the obvious answer is you just bid 3S if you want, anything wrong? bid your suit is just as natural as the sun always rises in east. why it's so hard? oh, let me guess, that must confuse a "modern" mind, who says "west" could means south, north, east, heaven or hell, or even nowhere at all

yeah, that's the primary objection people have. I agree it's common sense that one bids 2 suit out, his hand shape tends to be unbalanced. But they failed to explain why bid spade first and club later(I wish they had an easy way to do that at all)doesn't have the same problem. i.e. it looks like 5 ♠ and 4 ♣. it could be either 5 ♠ and 4 ♣ or 4 ♠ and 4 ♣. But, they will tell you, it doesn't matter, since parnter will later show 3 card ♠ support if she has, and they can retreat to NT if no 8 card major fit found. They didn't realize the deficiency of their approach because most of the time, bridge is game of majors, or more radical, game of spades. Therefore, ignore minor fits won't hurt them much, usually. if I bid 2C first and spades later, I may have either 44 or 54, but I can't see why I am worse off than they are on this issue. on the contrary, at least, I 've done something they couldn't . 1. I can bid my 2 suits naturally, which they may not be able to do it. 2. I set up a GF situation natrually, which they couldn't do it either. 3. in some cases, if bid S first, they have to show their clubs at 3 level, making it harder for their partner to decide whether to raise it or not, since a raise would pass 3NT. 4. I will have a clearcut advantage when there comes some subtle hands, which can't be played in NT or majors, or worth a slam try.

I wish we have no system at all. Then bid ♥ shows hearts, bid ♣ means clubs. it's just that simple. :-) Common sense bidding is more than enough for most cases. unless you are competing at world level. BTW, I don't believe learning a so-called mordern 2/1 system will necessarily improve one's bidding skills. imo, if you can still enjoy tournements with stayman the only convention, you are in the right track of improving your bidding techniques and doing pretty well. Believe me, more than 90% of players cannot, because they learned some fancy systems or conventions before developing their logic and judgement skills of bidding.

some other thought, I would make a call, but maybe I consider a negative double more descriptive and flexible.

2 over 1 with a minor, only promises 4 cards. 2H over 1S should promise 5. 50 year ago, this is no problem at all. These days people just good at creating trouble for themselves. IMHO. I think 2 over 1 promise 5 cards is just nonsense. BTW, with 4 card ♣ and 4 card ♠, GF value, over a 1♦ or 1♥ open, I always response 2♣ instead of 1♠, unless my ♣ suit is too weak to bid. I can't see any advantage of responsing 1♠ , but many people keep doing it... By responsing 2♣, one has clear benefits 1. no need to make a silly and confusing artificial call later just for keeping the auction alive. the forcing situation is already naturally set up. 2. no major fit would be lost when one has game going value. it just simply won't happen at all. 3. minor fit tends to get lost because people like to bid NT even it's not technically correct.

2♣ of course, if your system bars you from bidding a suit AKQxxx, isn't it too ridiculous? just dump it to the toilet and play one that allow you to bid a AKQ 6th.

Board 118, EW Vul. Del. E --------Martel --------S 3 --------H T9754 --------D JT4 --------C Q962 Rodwell-----------Meckstroth S AJ976-----------S T H KQJ-------------H 8632 D 63--------------D K9875 C AJ5-------------C T84 --------Stansby --------S KQ8542 --------H A --------D AQ2 --------C K73 E S W N P 1S 1N P 2C 2S Dbl All pass This is the decisive board of the semifinal of USBC. Only 3 boards to go, Meltzer's team leading by 14 IMPs. Badly needing a score, Rodwell whipped this shaky 2S by Stansby. Stansby would have locked their win had he made his contract. Rodwell led the King of hearts. Stansby won per force and played the King of spades, a clever manoeuvre to grab a timing. Since any return would cost a trick or help declarer to shorten his trumps, Rodwell correctly let the King hold. Stansby then played a club to Queen... At this point, the only way to make the contract is to lead Diamond J or 10 from table, requiring DK onside, finesse the King without costing an entry. unfortunately, stansby called a heart and ruff in hand, then exited with 8 of spades, Rodwell won the 9, and was said, for 3 minutes, he's replaying every cards in his mind before he exited with J of spades at the following situation. --------Martel --------S --------H T97 --------D JT4 --------C 96 Rodwell----------Meckstroth S AJ6------------S H Q--------------H 86 D 63-------------D K987 C AJ-------------C T8 --------Stansby --------S Q54 --------H --------D AQ2 --------C K7 Rodwell still had Queen of hearts to exit if he got thrown-in again. There's no escape for the declarer. Some commentators argued that Stansby should be able to "know"the King of diamonds was onside when the CQ held, since Rodwell was known to have SA, SJ, HK, HQ, CA... Well, I am not conviced, there's still room for the King of Diamonds in his hand, because, at least, you have no idea where the missing jacks(HJ & CJ at the moment)are. Later, I found out that, actually, 2S can be made regardless the position of Diamond King. I guess unless one has met the situation before, it's very hard to spot it at the table. You win the opening lead, play SK and it holds, now, comes the most crucial and sensational play, the Queen of Diamonds! East can't duck this one. And since your clubs is intact at this point, a club return can't hurt you. The best East could do is to return a diamond, which you win in dummy... and then a one way straight line to reach the following situation, at which point you 've taken 6 tricks already: --------S --------H T9 --------D J --------C 962 S AJ96----------S H ---------------H 8 D ---------------D 987 C AJ------------C T8 --------S Q85 --------H --------D A --------C K7 Now you throw out the Ace of diamonds, no one can prevent you from scoring another 2 tricks. In the situation one is playing a low level contract, and threatened by very long trumps in opponent's hand, the general idea, I think, is to score one's trump AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE and grab the side suit tricks along the way. Also, one needs to prevent defenders from shortening their trumps.The play of Queen of diamonds serves a double-shot purpose, if it holds, it scores an extra trick, if not, it create an entry in dummy so that declarer can shorten his trumps enough to endplay West. one more thing, it won't work if you play DQ before drawing one round of trump. Since east could return a trump, and with diamonds unlocked, west would grab the ace and exit with no cost. The difference here is that you didn't score a high trump before the endplay, and therefore it won't work, try it yourself if you are in doubt.