ArcLight

According to Mike Lawrenece I should have overcalled 1♠ and not doubled. And my jump to 4♠ because I didn't want to miss game doesn't make sense because we are already in a game force. :) I misbid, and got to enjoy declaring 6♠ down 1, while everyone else made 4. :P Ok, I learned something. Thank you all for responding.

You are vulnerable, IMPS RHO deals and opens 1♦ You hold: S: A J T x x H: A T 8 x D: x C: T 9 x What action do you take? Dbl 1 S 1H 2 D (Michaels) Pass Other I chose Dbl because: - although I was a little short in HCP, I felt my Major Suit holdings were nice, and my shape was good. The 10s were nice too. - I did not want to bid 1S, too unilateral, pard may have long hearts and short spades - I wanted to complete with a stiff in their suit Bidding continued: (1♦) - X - (2♦) => pard bids 3♦ (Dbl) - ? What do you bid: 3H? 4H? 3S? 4S? 4D? (pick a major?) Redouble (what could that mean?) Pass I chose 4 Spades, since I had a nice spade suit, and pard was shoing a game forcing hand. I didnt want to get passed out in 3S. Pard then put me in 6 Spades, down 1. (the club finesse was off, and although I was able to perform a backward finesse in hearts I couldn't drop the JQ of hearts for 2 dime discards in dummy, so I had to resort to the double club finesse and lost a club and a diamond) Dummy held: S: K Q x x x H: K x D: x x C: A Q x x Any comments on the bidding? Pard thought I should have passed the opponents Dbl of his 3♦ bid and let him choose the contract. He said the jump to 4♠ showed a bigger hand. I can see his point. But it strikes me that slam is probably unlikely when the opponents open the suit, and the original opener is behind dummies AQ tenace.

Spotlight on Card Play by Robert Darvas, Paul Lukacs In the genre of over the shoulder books, this one presents the reader with a hand and the bidding and asks whats going on and what to do. Based on your choice (or the right choice as selected by the author) you are again asked what to do, and so on, till the hand is made/set. The hands are interesting, but nothing especially fancy like the authors other excellent book Right Through the Pack. Well, maybe a few unusual hands. :P What I liked was how the author presented the reader with seemingly obvious choices that lead to defeat. The reader needs to look ahead at the consequence of a distribution or card holding. I don't know how instructional all the hands are (certainly not as good as Reese's "The Most Puzzling Situations in Bridge") but the book was fun to go through. Overall a good book for Advanced and Intermediate level players. (I'd have posted some hands, but I returned it to the library)

>So teaching count is an excellent idea since it is a relatively easy introduction to visualization: sort of like training wheels on a bicycle. Once one learns to ride with ease, one reduces the use of the training wheel. Wow, I actually got 1 positive response! :rolleyes: In BIL what I have been doing is asking the kibitzers to only look at one hand (plus dummy obviously) and try and figure out whats going on and what to do. The hands I've selected have generally involved count signals. I ask the players questions about the unseen hands based on what we can infer about the signaled suit, and from the bidding. The players respond privately. Ex: If declarer opened 1 Spade (SAYC) they should have 5+ spades, They ruffed the 2nd round of hearts, and pard is signaling an even number of Clubs, how many diamonds does declarer have? What is declarer and pards distribution? Ex: Using 4th best leads, pard leads the 5, she may have 5 cards, we win the ace and return the 8 from A 8 4 showing pard we started with 3. The people in the session (remember this is Beginner Intermediate) have generally not seen this before or been asked to think along these lines. Instead they have been receiving lectures on Transfer Lebensohl and lots of other conventions they will surely misuse, especially with pick up pards. :unsure:

What is the upper limit of a splinter bid? If one has a very strong hand (>16 HCP) with a singleton and pard opens one of a major, what is the correct bid? Do you not splinter because you are too strong? If not, then what do you bid? J2NT? 2/1 game force?

I think the lead of the Club Jack was the mistake. You can say East should have won anyway and given West the ruff, but maybe he though West had Jxx and South would later make the Q. The key lesson is: When you know the right play, take your pard by the hand and guide him Don't make him think, he may go wrong on occasion.

It looks like a Lightner double to me, asking for an unusual lead, usually the lead of dummys bid suit. Usually one hopes for a ruff. Isn't the standard meaning of a double of Stayman a request for a Club lead? What bothers me is Dummy has really bid one or both majors, not clubs. The NT bidder presumably has 2-4 clubs, we have 5, so Dummy would need 4+ Clubs for pard to have a void. I don't think this is likely as pard wont have a void. Clubs are still an attractive suit to lead. The other explanation is pard wants a lead of the other major, Spades. Whats he holding AKQ? How can he have that, and I have 11 HCP (20), Declarer has 12-14 and the Dummy bidding 3 hearts implies some kind of raise, unless its preemptive? What does dummy have 5-4 or better, great shape, with few HCP? How are they going to get their tricks, outside of Dummy ruffing? Diamonds? I don't think they will get too many there maybe 3. Without the double I would have lead Clubs. Now I'm confused. Do I lead spades or trumps to cut down on ruffs? If I lead a trump and am wrong I may cost us a trump trick (the Q). Since its a pick up pard, I'll lead a trump, I may be wrong, but I may be right. ------------------------------ The idea of a delayed takeout double didn't occur to me. Isn't it a bit dangerous to force pard to the 3 or 4 level when the opponents have the majority of HCP and you can't tell for sure what pard has? In this case 4 Clubs maybe ok, opposite a heart void. This fits nicely, with perhaps 3 losers, maybe 4. Kxxx - Qxxxx Axxx But can pard really have this? What did the Stayman bid mean, only Hearts, or Hearts and Spades? For pard to be void in hearts and declarer to have 4 and you have 3 means Dummy has 6 hearts. Is that likely? If he has 5-5 or better he can transfer to one and then bid the other. Is Dummy 5-4? That leaves 4 cards for the minors. I can't see pard having a heart void, he likely has 1 heart. Also, Dummy is inviting game, shouldn't he have more than 8 HCP for that? Given a 5-4-(2-2)/(3-1) distribution? Or maybe he has 5-4-4-0? Maybe the 3 heart rais eis preemptive. I chalk this one up to the great unknowns of pick up pards. Can this be a 2 suited takeout? I guess pard can't have enough for a penalty double. Bid 4 clubs and expect it to be close.

I bid 1♠ not 2♣. I don't want pard to think I have a long Club suit. Pard should haev at least 3 Spades and possibly 4. I'm forced to bid, if pard bids 2♦ I'll go back to 2 Spades. My hand is so weak it's unlikely pard can get in to take any marked finesses.

>If game ever became standardized in the manner that some people say it has, then, like whist it would became a dead game. Why? Would Bridge be fun to play if everyone used the same bidding system, with some pairs using a few more conventions than another? I think it would be fun. There is a steep learning curve, and enough nuances in card play that even with a "generic bidding sysytem" the game would still be fun to play. -You would still have bidding judgement. Bidding would still be interesting, maybe not quite as exciting as it is today, but it would still present challenges. -The card play would still be there. All those techniques to learn. -The deductive reasoning is still there. It would still be fun. I've said before about this topic (months ago) that those who want to "experiment" should have a forum to do so. They should have their fun. But those of us who don't want to deal with it should also have a place to play. >So why ban any system or convention, which might prove to be useful after some period of time? People will learn how to cope with them, and the 'novelty' will be gone, but they'll still work (or be improved)... At least nobody will play Gerber, flannery and cappeletti anymore Fine, let them be developed where I don't have to deal with their evolution. When after a period of time a system is well developed and becomes mainstream then allow it in. But to allow in all sorts of systems and conventions isn't fun for most of the rest of us. >>But some people do like it, and not necessarily to trick oponents, but they might enjoy the bidding part. >So I understand that one does not like it, but from disliking some tactics to outright banning it there is a huge leap. Don't ban them, let them be played in the "Experimental/Open" venue. We've had discussions like this on these forums for a year and a half. >The game of bridge is multifaceted, why you or I should think that one part or the other is the "right" part of the game ? I don't claim any "right" or "wrong" part of the game, just what I enjoy, and what I suspect most people playing enjoy. Just because a vocal minority says something doesn't mean its right either.

>No way you're playing for fun! You want 'some' results, it doesn't have to be a win every time, but a good score helps you to like the game. Just admit that, and stop saying you're playing pure for fun, because otherwise you wouldn't be worried about other people playing other systems which suit THEM more than your own system... Huh?!?!? I play Bridge because I enjoy the game. I certainly do want to win. I want to win at games that I enjoy playing. I have no interest in playing games I am good at that I don't enjoy playing. I used to play board wargames (the ones with hexagons imposed over paper maps) by SPI and Avalon Hill. They were horrible simulations and not all that good games so I lost interest. Very few players I know are interested in spending a great deal of time studying a large number of systems and conventions. The systems/conventions are interesting, up to a point, but not something I (or anyone I know) enjoys spending a great deal of time with. I don't like what destructive bidding or system complexity does to the game. >There's nothing more fun than your own system working better than anyone elses. Perhaps it works because it's new and the others are not familair with it. Hence the pair using it get a good score not because of their skill, but because of the novelty. Innovation and experimentation are good, and there should be a venue for those pairs who want to use these systems to play. I have no interest in learning all these systems, I want to play cards and spend my time figuring out the opponents distribution so I can work out an elimination / end play. It's not a question of "shielding weaker players" like Mechstroth or Marston say, its just that it takes the fun away. Whats needed is a sponsor who requires simpler systems. ACOL like FREE describes may be good. >People resist change because they are lazy not because change is not good. One should have an open mind and look at new things. At the same time people get used to something and after a long time it's not so easy to adapt to change. Since Bridge is a game, rather than a work place/life affecting force (like the development of PCs and the internet) there is less need to adapt. >Bottomline: if you wanna ban a system, ban it for JUST ABOUT EVERYONE, newcomers or at least intermediates should be allowed to play the same stuff pros do. It's doubtful it would benefit them. I can just imagine a beginner using Kokish relays and Lebensohl. For every success their would be a failure. Would it really benefit them overall?

>North America is dominated by the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons. >Forget forcing pass; the ACBL has successfully crushed >1. Transfer openings (inherently destructively and banned) >2. Assumed fit preempts (inherently destructive and banned) >3. Multi 2D openings (limited to midchart only events and when was the last time you saw one of those?) >You name it... If the methods would harm the ACBL's ability to extract revenue from crotchety 70 years, its banned. Good. Bridge is a deductive reasoning game, not a bluffing game. Its also a game that most of us play for fun. Its a game, not a way of life, unless you are at the topmost levels. I don't care about World Class Bridge or what systems Meckwell or the Poles use. Most of us dont want to have to spend many many hours studying all sorts of different systems and conventions. That doesn't mean we don't like the game, but its tedious to study all these systems. How many players who are into systems and conventions are really that good card players anyway? Or are they wasting their time? Fred gave an example where he faced 2 smart players with their home made complex system. He said their system screw ups cost them a little, and their card play cost them a lot. All the systems/methods you list may very well be effective and optimal, but does it add to the fun of the game? Bridge as played in the Terence Reese books form 20-30 years ago is a lot of fun. Even with bad cards you have to pay attention. Say you hold nothing but one Jack. That card may be vital for preventing pard from being end played.

Master Class: Lessons from the Bridge Table by Fred Gitelman 2005 The book uses an over the style approach, similar to Terence Reese's Play These Hands With Me/Play Bridge with Reese. The author explains the players (usually declarer, but sometimes the defender) thought process and at key points will ask the reader to make a decision. Sometimes he tricks you because a critical mistake has already been made and the contract is gone. Sneaky! The hands are mostly advanced, and even if you can identify the correct technique, there is usually an additional step needed to succeed. I think the focus is on visualization of the hands, rather than some extremely difficult play I very much liked the style of the narrative, and how the author threw in a few tidbits about the players. Personally, I would have preferred the hands to be a little easier, say replacing the hardest hands with those near the median in the book. I realize the author selected hands he found interesting or well played, and since he's a world class player he's more likely to select some though hands. Overall its a good book for advanced players. Intermediate can also get something out of it, but they wont solve more than a handful of the hands. Here is a hand (p128) declared by Sabine Auken, that she made. [hv=d=n&v=e&n=sqj8743ha96dkcjt5&s=s6hk542dajt642ca2]133|200|W N E S 1♠ p 2♣ X 2♦ p 2NT p 3♠ p 3NT[/hv] West leads the Q from KQ. What line of play looks good? How will you handle the diamonds?

Random hands can be boring. Prepared ones give you complete control. You can tailor them to suit your audience. Want to include a discovery play? A squeeze? Trump Coup? Etc. The thinking out loud is a great idea.

In Mike Lawrences 2/1 CD and books, he covers a large number of bididng sequences, and discusses the subtle differences between two auctions that were bid differently, but end up in the same contract. I took 11 pages of notes. I personally this 2/1 is far too complex to teach a beginner. A beginner lacks very basic skills, and using a complex (even somewhat scaled down) system is unlikely to help them. I think its very likely there will be all sorts of bidding disasters. I think they would be better off with the simplest system you can teach, and let them play cards for a while. >You need Fourth Suit Forcing, negative doubles, and some version of Checkback to bid effectively, but these are probably not for beginners. Inverted minor raises could also be added to that list, but it is probably not as important. I wouldn't teach a beginner any convention other than perhaps: Stayman Takeout Double maybe Blackwood? (forget slam bidding for now) Gerben has a simple system called "The Big NT" system. How simple is "Standard American" compared to "Acol" or something else? 4 Card Majors require a lot of judgement, but I think they its supposed to be simpler than 5 Card Majors.

How about this? 4 Experts play, and comment to the Kibitzers inferences they draw as the hand unfolds. Thje Kibitzers each Kibitz one player, rather than looking at all 4 hands. Example (assuming 3NT by South): West explains their choice of lead. Dummy Comes Down. Based on the Rule of 11 E and S make their comments. E estimates pards HCP based on the bidding and Dummy. S explains their thoughts on how they will make. Any concerns, etc. Based on the carding the players will explain where the unseen cards are. Ex. W leads a 2 to pards Q, with Declarers Ace winning. Who has the J? What about the K? W opened the bidding, and NW are in 4 Spades. W leads the J, the K is in Dummy, who has the A? East because W wouldn't underlead the A, and since E passed, they probably don't have anything else (maybe a J).

Bobby Hamman wrote in "At the Table" that he hates teh Jack denies convention. But Eddie Kantar likes it.

>Tnx for putting this in the middle of the night for all Europeans... As opposed to all those sessions and tournaments that are impossible to attend for someone who has a job and lives on the East Coast of the USA? :)

>There are two books - both out of print - I'd like to get my hands on: Championship Bridge by Jose le Dentu and Bridge with the Blue Team by Forquet. >Anybody know where these two books might be found? At my local library of course. :P (They are on my reading list for this year or next. Along with "Focus on Defense" by Danny Roth, some by Victor Mollo , "Spot Light on Card Play" by Darvas, "Logic, Intuition and Instinct at the Bridge Table" by Jayaram, and maybe a few by Randal Baron/Frank Stewart.) Step by Step Discarding is an excellent book. I'll have to reread it eventaully. Championship Bridge http://www.campusi.com/bookFind/asp/bookFi...odId=006012542X Bridge With the Blue Team (Master Bridge Series) www.buy.com

Pass. LHO is a passed hand, would he really raise his pards 1S overcall to 2 Clubs? Maybe he'd bid 1NT? What can we make, a Diamond part score? Can they make 3 Clubs? Maybe? Can they go down in 1S, I think so. 2 Diamonds making or 1 Spade down 1 or 2 is pretty close. But passing gives the chance of pard making a reopening double. If you pass, pard will look at his stiff or dub spde and may double. How many spade tricks will RHO take? You have some *NICE* spots. You can convert a small swing (+90, +110, +50,+100) into a +300 for doubled down 2. RHO may make only his A and Q of Spades, he could be down 3 doubled for 500. Where is his source of tricks.

>We started out with like 12 kids, and it basically died. There was no interest because the learning curve was so steep. My wife likes to play games, including card games. But she looks at the number of Bridge books I have and says "I play games for fun, I wouldn't want to invest a lot of time studying to improve at a single game". For new comers to Bridge, I would think the idea would be to teach a simplistic bidding system (maybe 2 conventions Stayman and Blackwood), and a little bit of technique (finesse, hold up play, loser on loser). Forget about Trump Coups, Squeezes, and maybe even End Plays and Avoidance plays for the moment. If the learning curve is too steep at the start many wont continue. But if its a "fun " game, then those who enjoy it after 6-12 months may want to move up. There will certainly be more of them.

How much time would it take a pro to answer 365 questions? At least 6 hours, assuming 1 minute per question. $100 per day. Not exactly raking in the bucks. How much can a world class player make, plaing in a local club duplicate game, for a few hours, or on the interenet for a few hours? Could the player rated #100 in the World charge $50? So in 2 sessions they would have $100? [ If its a lot less, like $10 then I'm ready to play. :) ] I suspect they would rather do that, than answer difficult bidding questions that are asked here on occasion, and may each take a few minutes to respond to. Also, I get the impression that they might not want to be exposed to ridicule if they make a mistake (a questionable judgement).

>>> It creates a situation where bidding and making one "lucky" slam can be worth more than finding the best play on three or four partscore deals. >>So what? >The point is, matchpoints involves less luck than imps. People that think imps is "pure" bridge should keep this in mind. The "purest" form of bridge, one might argue, is the one that involves the least amount of luck. Because knockouts inherently involves less luck than pairs, and people associate imps with KOs and MP with pairs, imps is considered to have the least luck. In fact BAM KOs would have the least luck of any form of the game, strangely it is not played anywhere that I know of. BAM requires a lot of skill, I think thats the reason its not popular, no one but the best will win. I'm not saying MP is luck determined either. But I don't like the fact that Slams are devalued in a system that treats all boards the same. Its true a lucky slam can distort things, so there should be a minimum number of boards. One of the things I don't like about MPs is the fear of giving up an over trick, and thus not trying to set a contract at all costs. Does IMPS invite "weird bidding systems"? If you have BAM and MP then the bidding systems reward part scores and competitive bidding, and perhaps destructive bidding. Is that any better? MP and IMP are different. Best to realize their differences and enjoy both. Arguing taht one is better than the other is like arguing which is better Coke or Pepsi (they both suck). >The reason is that in a 8-16 boards team match, I can play better for 14 deals, gaining a handful of IMPS in partscore (or overtricks in game contracts), but lose a match on 2 slams. 8 boards is very short. What about 24? Would that address your concern? Thats 2 boards out of 8 or 16, where you got bad scores. How come? Did the opps bid and make a lucky slam? Did you go down in the wrong slam? I think Slams are exciting, and part of the game. If they are worth no more than a contested part score then I think it takes away some of the games flavor.

> It creates a situation where bidding and making one "lucky" slam can be worth more than finding the best play on three or four partscore deals. So what? Slams aren't all that common, compared to part scores. I don't like it when Slams are valued the same as partscores (MPs). I think Slams should be paid their due. >Then again though, IMP play creates situations where it's best to bid to contracts that are substantially more likely to go down than to make. While MPs encourages some speculative penalty doubles. They both have their charm. Some people prefer one to the other. MP is a different game from IMPs, and I think beginers should start out with IMPs. Let them not worry about overtricks and concentrate on making their contracts. It may be lazy in that sense, but one has to start somewhere. Are begiiners up to evaluating their MP contract and reasoning "Hmm, Im in X, but the field is in Y. To get a good score (the field goes down) both finesses must be wrong, and that means West has the Ace of Clubs. So I'll play this way.

Is this being offered during the school day? Or after, as part of an after school activity? If during trhe school day I think they will not be successful because many schools devote considerable time to preparing the kids to do well on various state wide tests. This takes up time from even basic lessons and teaching, and the teachers would certainly not want to use the remaining class time for any game. For after school activities, if they let in one group (Bridge) then would they not have to let in all groups? From the schools point of view, it opens up a can of worms. In my town there is a chess club that meets at the Library. Maybe that would be a place to start?

>>I also don't really understand this emphasis on showing count signals. It gets the players in the habit of counting! It helps to focus them. In the group email I told them that experts don't always signal count (they usually do so in hold up situations) but if they can start counting it will help get them into good habits. > Yes, it's really important to count out and visualize a hand, but count signals aren't the only way to do that. I never said they were. There are other inferences I ask the players about. Such as what they can gather from the Rule of 11. Who has the Ace of teh suit just lead. Etc. But Count will help get the players used to paying closer attention. >Adam and I have a somewhat experienced partnership, and we don't place much emphasis on count signals per se. Our primary signal is attitude, and then many following signals are suit preference, because we can usually work out approximate count on the hand. A while back I asked about Count signals. Fred wrote that expert declarers will also pay attention thus you dont always want to signal count. Bobby Wolff has a bridge column and I asked him and he pretty much said the same thing. However, the level of play in BIL is Beginner - Intermediate. Let them get started counting, then as their skill improves, and they establish strong partnerships they can revise their signaling. >Anyway, sorry for the digression in your thread, but I think that it might be useful to have a discussion on what a useful primary signal is (ie, what helps partner figure out what to do most?). I covered that at the start. Its not like I said "The only useful signal is COunt, use nothing else, every possible card played is a count signal, do not use judgement". I explained Attitude and Count. I told them not to use suit preference signals, other than for ruffs, and deliberately selected hands that involve counting, usually hold up situations. > However I think for beginners/intermediates, the signals get them in a good habit of counting and makes it easy to do. Counting the hand without getting any count signals takes a lot of practice and work. I'm all for teaching intermediates "all count all the time" because it will be very useful in their evolution as a player. Exactly. Here is a hand I used - From the bidding, opps have 25-27 HCP ending in 3NT, you hold 13, meaning pard has how many HCP? 0-2, good. Now pard lead the X, using the Rule of 11, how many cards do they have? 5? Good. You hold the AJx, how do you play? After all this, and getting the defender to think and answer correctly, they still misplayed. They played A, then J, then small, declarer held up, and made the contract. Nothing earth shattering, all it takes is a bit of thinking. Now NEXT time that defender is in that situation, they will hopefully do better. We had some hold up situations, and a case where counting told them if they could cash a Q on the third round. At the end of the sessions I will suggest they buy Mike Lawrences DEFENSE CD. (As well as all his other software. BM too)