ArcLight

>I've been told from teachers that teach 2/1 that it is very effective, the more GF bids you have, the less 150/70/90 or 200 they will score. I am surprised to hear this. I have 8 pages of notes on 2/1 based on Mike Lawrences 2/1 CD, plus additional notes on coping with interference. Mike explains the inferences gained from lots of sequences. And lots of agreements needed. Example: 1♣ - 1♦ vs. 1♣ - 1NT He uses the 1♦ to show a very weak hand that can't bid a major, while 1NT is a decent 1NT raise. Here is another case. What do jumps mean, as you have 2/1 as a game force, and should nomally go slowly? 1S - 2C - 3S What does 3S mean? 1) Solid suit: AKQJxxx – JTx – x – Kx. With Qx of C, its not a 3S rebid. (good hand) Suggests slam OR 2) Solid or semi-solid suit. The rest of the hand must be good. AKJTxx AQJTxx KQJTxx AQJ98xx I have a hard enough time keeping all this straight. I think a beginner would become frustrated, and not enjoy lots of memorization. >Get the Audrey Grant books. I do not know where your students will play, but do NOT teach them anything fundamentally different from what is the most widely played 'basic' structure in your area, or you will create huge problems for them when they venture into the larger bridge environment. I disagree. Let them get up and running quickly. You will get far more people involved if tehy can start playing quickly, instead of spending a few hors memorizing some abstract bidding system. Just make sure that when you teach them, explain this is a rudimentary system, and that if they stick with it and want to play further, youu will show them more complex, but also more powerful systems. With "simple" systems like SAYC, you will end up with LOTS of frustration as beginners forget bids. Passing forcing bids, getting too high, etc.

I like Gerbens Big NT system. I think thats good for beginners. I'm not familiar with the Nunes-Fantoni style. I asked someone about 4 card majors. I think the rules are supposed to bvea easier, but they involve more judgement, os are probably not suitable for beginners. My wife and kids love to play games. But they will be turned off if I tried teaching them anything more complex than Big NT.

>To emphasise hrothgar's point, the purpose of experimentation is mostly to enjoy yourself and find out for yourself what works and what doesn't. If you didn't end up introducing all sorts of holes then designing bidding systems wouldn't be interesting, and people wouldn't bother experimenting in the first place. On the other hand, people perceive holes and unkowingly introduce a worse problem to fix the hole. They dont realize this until a lot of time and effort have been expended. Personally, I'd rather not tinker with a system. I'd like a decent, well specified system, that I can use off the shelf. If I were to play Precision I'd use the Manly/Berkowitz book. For 2/1 I use the Lawrence books/software (and even there, there isn't an easy summary). I don't care if a system is the best, I just want something well defined so pard and I can agree on something. My interest in experimenting is adding more conventions, rather than changing the system structure. This will come of a very negative, but needs to be said: What makes any of you think you are able to do a better job than the original designer anyway? Systems do evolve, and you may find a genuine improvement. But unless you are very experienced and a good player, your solutions are unlikely to be beneficial. I can still see the interest in trying your self, but I would never want to help test out someones new system. 99 out of 100 times it will be worse, and I wouldnt want to waste my time. I can see using a new/evolving system if its popular where you play. Like Polish Club or MOSCITO. By all means, go ahead and be creative. Don't stifle innovation. But I will wait untill a system is refined and partners are available. >To emphasise hrothgar's point, the purpose of experimentation is mostly to enjoy yourself and find out for yourself what works and what doesn't. If you didn't end up introducing all sorts of holes then designing bidding systems wouldn't be interesting, and people wouldn't bother experimenting in the first place. I think people design systems because they see problems in existing ones. I don't know that most top players say "I think I'll design my own system for fun and spend a lot of time developing it". Here is a challenge: Design is simplistic bidding system for newer players. Try and make it as good as possible, with 4 pages of rules.

>I think that you are confusing two VERY different topics. From my perspective, young players thrive on complexity. Have you ever looked at the rules for games like "Magic the Gathering", Warhammer, or god forbid Star Fleet Battles? The amount of minutia is mind boggling. I also play wargames, I am used to reading 48 page rule books, but I don't find that enjoyable. Star Fleet battles is far simpler than many wargames. That doesn't mean the wargames are better. In "World Class" by Marc Smith, a few of the featured players mention that they got inot Bridge accidentally. They had to wait somewhere to be picke dup after soccer, or it was raining and there was a bridge club, etc. Was it the complexity of the bidding system that attracted them? Or perhaps the card play and bidding? As a kid I liked complicated things. But I also liked fun games. If you set the hurdle high "complexity" then the smart kids who haven't decided to make the plunge my decide not to bother. >Equally significant: In my experience young players like to experiment. More importantly, they dislike being told you play 5 card majors because we know best and this is the way its always been done. Experimentation can be fun. But frequently at Bridge you end up introducing all sorts of unseen holes. It reminds me of some post by Fred and another by Eric Rodwell. >Imagine trying to teach a new player MOSCITO. While the system notes are not >too long, it would require someone to memorize 8 pages. If a player is unwilling or unable to memorize 8 pages than they aren't part of the target demographic. Write em off now, cause you're gonna lose to X-Box sooner or later... Its not just "8 pages of rules" its 8 pages of bidding sequences. Thats much harder to remember than the rules to a game like Settlers of Cataan. I think 8 pages up front for new players is certainly too much to ask. The way I got started playing Bridge was througgh Spades. One of the strong Spades players went over the basics. Showed me Standard American. Then I used Freds program (on the acbl website). If I didnt have a little hand holding in the beginning, I'd never have gotten started. I doubt I'd put the time into memorizing 8 pages of sequences. >The organized membership is going to suffer a dramatic contraction. No ifs, ands or buts. Its a simple matter of demographics. The question is wehther we are smart enough to learn from the example of King Knud (Canute, Knut). Rather than wasting time trying to comand the sea, I prefer to focus on ensuring a soft landing. I'm unsure of your point. Are you saying not to bother trying to recruit new members? What is this soft landing?

>I agree 100% with hrothgar. 20 years from now, bridge may survive, but it will always be an intellectual game. Try to make it less and it is lost. It will never be anything else. Not a sport and not on TV. The point is that if the organized membership drops from 100K to 10K it may lose critical mass. No more bridge clubs. Maybe some national and world championships (I'm not really interested in them). With few people playing bridge, how will new players be recruited? Who will try and recruit younger players? Especially if Bridge has very complicated bidding? How do you get a new player interested in Bridge, at any level? If you present them with a complicated bidding system, that take a long time to learn, and that doesn't even address the card play, most will say the heck with it. The result is fewer and fewer people playing Bridge. Does it have to be that way? What would the benefits be of a simplistic bidding system? Let the new players get started playing quickly. Then if they show further interest, show them other systems, and conventions. I think Standard American is too complex for a new player. Start with Minibridge. Then Big NT. Or some equivalent. Don't frighten off the new players. Most will not stick around if they have to learn a real bidding system. Most bridge players enjoy the basics of the game and don't want the complexity a big system. Some of the postors here love systems and gadgets, but they are in the minority, and would certainly have trouble recruiting new players. Imagine trying to teach a new player MOSCITO. While the system notes are not too long, it would require someone to memorize 8 pages. Why on earth would a new player want to spend the time to do that? You will lose 90% of your potential players. What is needed is a simplistic system, with few conventions. Plus some photogenic flamboyant personalities. > Try to make it less and it is lost. Even without complex systems and conventions, its still quite interesting. Try reading some of Reeses books, like Biddiing a bridge hand. If you think bidding is simple without lots of conventions, you may enjoy that book.

>Comment 1: I'd argue that the game that you describe is still FAR to complicated for television. There is a very good reason why Poker shows all focus on Texas Hold'Em. The game is exceptionally simple with very few decision making nodes. You are probably right. Plus the gambling aspect draws a lot of interest. >Comment 2: Why this obsession with televising "bridge". To gain new players. Without gaining new players the game will suffer from the die off of the older players. Obsession is your word, poorly selected I might add. Since Bridge is part of the Olympics, it makes sense to try and gain new players if possible. >There are other card games much closer to the one that you like... Consider, for example, "Spades". Bridge, without all the myriad of systems suits me fine. Spades has too little bidding. And no where near the card play, because there is no exposed dummy. Without the exposed dummy, you can only rarely, and through luck, pull of end plays, squeezes, etc. Its harder to draw inferences in Spades as well. Due to the bags, Spades is much more of a rigid card tracking game. The defensive problems in Spades are different because you cant play to prevent an endplay or squeeze because you dont have enough information. >Popular game So is poker, and so is Nascar, and taking drugs. All irrelevant. >No complex bidding True, but also too simple for my taste. >Similar problems in card play / defense Not at all. Try playing Spades with a strong partner against other strong players. See how much time you spend thinking about card play techniques vs. just counting the cards and either avoiding bags or going for the set.

For bridge to be worth broadcasting on TV, there has to be some kind of audience that advertisers would like to reach. Most bridge players are not experts and use simple systems. Therefore ... Televised Bridge should be entirely natural with no conventions. Maybe allow Blackwood and Stayman. But no other artificial bids. Negative doubles would be ok also. The bidding sould be simple, but still interesting, like some of Terence Reeses bidding books from the 60's. The card play would still be interesting. The simpler bidding would be easier for commenators to discuss, as teh action is happening.

>Thanks for the link. Interesting to see that Meckstroth-Rodwell seem to have abandoned the mini NT. I'm curious as to why, since they have used it for a while.

I'll pass, pard will lead from AK, it may make, then the opps are set. If its ruffed, I'll get in and lead the other minor, and that may make, for down 1. This seems reasonable to me. Pard is likely void in hearts, and has something like 2-0-5-6, or 1-0-5-7 or 1-0-6-6 If bid to the 7 level - there will be a Spade loser off the top. If I'm wrong and they make the slam, its MP not IMPs so its not as costly.

Partner has a good hand. The opponents probably have a lot in the minors. At IMPS ♥Q. ♥6 is standard. But I'm broke, and probably wont get in again, unless I can stop Diamonds. If pard has the A and declarer the K, the suit can become blocked on the lead of the low heart. Leading the Q allows a continuation if declarer ducks. Also, if dummy has the K and you lead the Q and pard a tenace, you may make 5 hearts. At MPs I don't want to blow a trick, but I still think declarer has the minors and I dont want to lead them. The field will probably lead a heart, so I'd do the same as above.

Justin, How would you bid this hand you provided , given the bidding you mentioned 1S - 2H - 3H - ? Ax AKxxxx Qxxx x If I follow your posts correctly, you wouldnt bid 3 Spades or 4 Clubs (Cue bids). Would you bid 4 Diamonds? If so, then might not pard assume you have more in diamonds than the Q?

Card Play Technique (or the art of being lucky) by Victor Mollo. Excellent, clear, concise book on the play of the hand. This is more advanced (and I think a lot better) than Watson "Play of the hand". It doesn't cover beginner topics like 2 way finesses. What it does do is cover most of the standard techniques, from both sides. How to perform a trump reduction/coup and how to defend against one. Squeeze play and defense against Squeezes. Endplays and defense against end plays (warning signs to look for). A good (short) chapetr on opening leads, card reading, defense, etc. What I especially like is the book is concise and clear, several pages of teaching, some examples (both double dummy and with just 2 hands exposed unlike Watsons book which is all double dummy ), and finnaly some problems at the end of the chapter, allong with a 1 page summary of the techniques and warning signs to look for. This is a great book for intermediate and advanced beginners. Even if you are familiar with all the techniques, its a nice review, and chances are you will pick up a few pointers. Its 350 pages long and will take a while to go through as you have to think. I rate it an A. Note 1: the chapter on Squeezes is not enough, I recommend Reeses book "Squeeze play made Simple". Note 2: I'm not saying Watsons "Play of the Hand" is no good, just that this is a lot better. The Watson book is probably better for beginners as it covers other basics.

I would lead a spade. Both opponents are balanced, so lets assume spades are 5-3-3-2. The opponents probably have the A K Q of spades so will only make 3 tricks in that suit. The suit may be 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2. In that case pard might have the 10. Or LHO may have it and not play it and pards 9 forces an honor. OR RHO may have a doubleton honor like KQ and not play high. I think the spade lead is the most passive and least likely to give anything away. The heart 8 may finesse pards Q.

What would a hand look like that would prefer to play in 3NT rather than 4 of a major, given that we have at least a 5-4 trump fit? Can you give some examples? Would they all be 5-3-3-2?

1♥ - 3♥ - 3NT >You'd be surprised how often its right at MP 4♥ making 4 = 420, while 3NT making 3 = 400. Frequently 4 of a major is a better contract at MP than 3NT. 3NT can be good with extra HCP. >Standard where? North America? It's not standard in Europe (except Britain perhaps). Here it shows any control: A, K, singleton or void. The Italian way of cue bidding (mixed), 1st or 2nd round control. I strongly recommend that you use that method. Roland, you are certainly more familiar with this than I am, but I wonder if thats really better? If responder makes a cue bid that turns out to be in a key suit, and declarer goes onto slam, and that cue bid turns out to have been a king in dummy, you may go down, if the Ace is over dummies King. >People are so hung up on Aces, they forget to look for 12 tricks. Aces Shmaces, just give me HCP and distribution, right? ;) I disagree, you may have 15 tricks, but unfortunately the opponents have 2, and they get to take theirs first. A K Q x x x J 10 x x x x x x x A A K x x x Q J 10 x x Is this a good Spade slam? 1♠ - 3♠ - 4♣ ... 6♠ What will get lead? A Heart or a Diamond Note: When I say standard I mean standard in North America. (is there really civilization elsewhere? I thought the rest of the world was covered by grasslands, forests, Woolly Mammoths and Saber toothed tigers! :) This cue bidding is from Ron Klingers book, he is Australian, but I guess he counts as part of teh "Standard" world which consists of North America, Great Britain, and its former colonies. [what is the correct term for the former colonies of Great Britain? Commonwealth countries?]

Justin, When is the last time 3NT was the correct contract after a 1♠ - 3♠ or 1♥-3♥ sequence? Especially since the 3♥ may be based on ruffing values, as opposed to pure HCP. I think 3NT would be a very very rare contract. >I personally prefer the 3NT cuebid as showing good trumps. Wont that come out when you get to RKCBW? If you have weak trumps, you still have 9, and cue bidding will be revealing in the other suits. If pard has 2 Aces, and 2 key cards, you sign off in 5 of the major. Only if one opponent has AKQ do you get set. Possible, but not likely. >This saves 3NT for other purpose : shortness ask, suggesting 3NT contract or what ever you want You are now at the 4 level. Partner didnt make a splinter, though he may be short, with just not enough for a game force. What would 3NT show? Shortness and few HCP? This would imply you have 3 suits well controlled, and are woried about xxx in the 4th suit. It doesnt seem that pard will often have 0/1 in that suit. And if they do, then they have few HCP. This method can work, but it requires opener to have a monster, and pard to have shortness. I think it will be infrequent, and a different use for 3NT should be found. I dont think Your examples really work as well. Or maybe I just dont understand them. 1 ♥ - 3♥ What do you propose for the meaning of 3♠, 4♣, 4♦? With standard cue bidding they show a first round control, and by implication deny control of a skipped over suit. Its more likely that opener, who has a big hand, will have the aces, and want to know what responder (with the Limited hand) holds. Hence the space saving 3NT. What is "Serious 3NT"? This is from www.bridgeguys.com but doesnt explain it in any detail. It seems to give up on cue bidding. Serious 3 No Trump A slam bidding method which was conceived of by Mr. Eric Rodwell. After an 8-card Major suit fit has been established below 3 No Trump, a bid of 3 No Trump is a serious slam invitation, and therefore forcing. Certain partnerships play that the 3 No Trump bid is a serious and strong slam try to which the responses of 4 Clubs or 4 Diamonds signify a mild slam try; the response of 4 Hearts offers the partner a choice of games. In other partnerships, the 3 No Trump bid is a so-called non-serious slam try, and the cuebid is the serious and strong slam try.

With a 1 Spade overcall lacking the A Q J, Declarer must have at least 5 to the King. He's got 1 heart. So whats left is the minors. I think he should have more than 8 points (Spade K, Heart Q <worthless>, Diamond K), but I cant tell Why isnt he ruffing clubs? Is his shape 5=1=2=5? What I think he's about to do is cash his side suit winners, then cross ruff hearts and clubs. Ruff the Diamond with the 8, lay down the Ace and Q of trumps. This will cost you a trick but where will declarer get his remaining tricks? He will make 5 trumps, 2 Diamonds, and the Aces of Clubs and Hearts. Down 1 After some prodding, I am probably wrong!! Pard has a max of 6 HCP, because declarer has already shown 8 (13 + 13 + 8 = 34, 6 left). If pard had 6 HCP he might bid 1NT or 2 Diamonds. With 6 Diamonds QJ10xxx he might bid 2D in competition? OK, here is the tough part. If Declarer has 2 diamonds, then pard has the Q and J. Why didn't he bid? Thus declarer may have 3 diamonds and 3 clubs. Pard hi-lowed so I assume he has the Queen, and you would be ruffing declarers loser and pards winner. If pard had 5 diamonds and declarer has the Jack, then thats 5 HCP and 5 diamonds, pard is likely to pass. So you discard a heart and dont ruff (I'd never figure this out at the table)

What do you think of this? When cue bidding for a slam, 3NT has no natural meaning, so make up one. In Ron Klingers "Modern Losing Trick Count" he has a section where he suggests 3NT after a Limit Raise (10-12 support points and 4 trumps) of a Major to deny first round control of the Club suit. The idea is this saves a level of bidding as responder can bid 4 ♣ if he has it. If reponder is also lacking the Ace of ♣ you find out quickly. Here is how he describes the cue bidding: 1♥ - 3♥ - 4♠ = cue bidding the ♠ Ace 3NT = Denying the ♣ Ace and the ♠ Ace (since 3♠ was not bid) 4♣ = cue bidding both the Aces of ♣ and ♠ 4♦ = cue bidding all outside aces The downside is if you can't just cue bid the ♦Ace, you have to first cue bid 3NT, then later cubid ♦. 1♠ - 3♠ - 3NT = Denying the ♣ Ace 4♣ = cue bidding ♣ Ace 4♦ = cue both the Aces of ♣ and ♦

Where will this bidding contest be located?

>Parnter opens a 7 count, 2nd seat vulnerable. I have an 18 count and a fit, and get to the 5 level down 1 when I make a slam try. Partner says "I had to open I had 7 losers". What hand did he have? (When you say 7 count, do you mean 7 HCP, or are you also counting distributional points?) ♠ A K T 9 8 x ♥ ♦ x x x x ♣ x x x Thats a 7 loser hand. Also an opening bid by ZAR points. It has preemptive value over the opponents heart fit. Game is possible, though slam is very unlikely. If pard opens this kind of hand, he needs to keep a firm reain on the auction. >Partner gives me a jump raise holding 4441 shape and an 11 count, saying "I only had 6 losers". Was this in the majors? (When you say count, do you men HCP, or distributional points?) If you opened 1 ♠, and he had: ♠ T x x x ♥ A K x x ♦ A x x x ♣ x then thats a nice hand, too good for a jump (Limit) raise. Take away the Diamond Ace then its about a limit raise. In fact a 6 loser hand would look more like: ♠ T x x x ♥ A K Q J ♦ x x x x ♣ x And even this has 7 losers, he needs another Ace or a void to be a 6 loser hand. The typical opening bid is 7 losers, so 7 + 6 losers = 13 losers. 24 - 13 = 11, enough for game. It might not always work out, even if its the winning bid over a large series of hands. Judgement is also needed. PLEASE POST THE HANDS so we can look at them.

OFF TOPIC! Zar DOES have a sense of humor! I privately asked him a few questions and made a few observations. His reply at first threw me, but then I saw he was kidding, and it was a joke. On an electronic medium (chat forum) sarcasm and levity are difficulty to get across. Thios would not be a problem in a face to face discussion. ---------------------------------- >So are you saying that you've never actually tested misfit >points to see if they work? >>>Tested? I never do this kind of stuff - why bother? Just put it out there and go to the next big thing. If you are wrong, people will let you know – you’ll patch it and keep going. Testing is for people with low self-esteem. YES THIS WAS A JOKE. :blink:

I suspect that there are a number of excellent Bridge books I've never heard of because they have never been translated to English. For example, Chamaco recommended to me the excellent book on No Trump play by Robert Berthe and Norbert Lebely. Unfortunately that is their only work in English (I think they are French). Probably Bridge books don't sell as well these days as they used to, so there is little chance I'll ever get to read: > Romanet's french book "Le squeeze au Bridge" >- 2 italian books from the 60's, by Giannuzzi, one specifically on squeezes ("La compressione nel bridge"), the other on elimination, endplays, and dealing also with squeezes/throwin (Eliminazioni e colpi") What are some of the classics that have NOT been translated to English?

I realize that "Bridge Squeezes Complete or Winning End Play Strategy" by Clyde E. Love is considered a classic by many but I didn't care for it. I think David Birds Bridge Squeezes for Everyone was much better. With many chapters and examples. Supposedly the Reese book on Squeezes is aslo good, and perhaps the Kelsey 4 volume set. I suspect that the Love book gets attention because for a while it was the only long book on Squeezes. Being the first can give something "Classic" standing, even if itits later surpassed. Now that there are others I suggest that anyone interested in Squeezes look at: 1) Bridge Squeezes for Everyone - David Bird then either 2) ?Squeeze Play Made Easy? by Reese 3) Hugh Kelseys books (4 volume set republished at one)

2/1 Workbook by Mike Lawrence 1987. An important book if you play 2/1. What makes the book so valuable is its thoroughness in going over difficult promlems. The author doesn't just present his view, he presents the other view and explains why he likes his method better. But you are never forced to use his suggestions. The book has a large number of hands and bidding sequences. This makes it slow going, but allows you and your partner to see if you are on the same wavelength. I rate it an A.

Womens Bridge vs Mens Bridge. I've read that due to genetic differences given a large population base men do better at some tasks, such as three dimensional spatial object ratiations and perhaps math. Thats not to say all men are better than women, just that on average the men tend to do better in that task. And studies show that women think differently or excel in other tasks. This doesn't mean the female mathematicians aren't as good, it just helps to explain why there may be fewer than men. (there can also be societal influences I wont go into) What about Bridge? Assuming men may have some genetic advantage with respect to math, does that carry over to Bridge? Bridge math is pretty simple. Memory (counting) is valuable. Are men better at that than women? Logic and deductive reasoning, are men better on average (over a large population base) than women? One of the things that makes a player better is being able to commit a great deal of time to the game. Both through play (to gain experience and skill) and through time spent working on the partnership (practicing bidding, working on system, etc) Women tend to have more family obligations so they in general have less time for games. Also, perhaps women tend to be more socially oriented than men and less willing to spend 10 hours a day, 6 days a week playing Bridge. (In World Class by Marc Smith Michael Rosenberg said thats how he started). Do men have a genetic advantage? Or is it more a matter of dedicating a huge amount of time to the game? Do men have better access to mentors? It seems some of the wives of the top male players are also very strong. Were they strong players before, or did having the constant mentoring by their husbands make the difference? Are men in general wealtheir than women, and more able to take lessons, and have access to better training? Perhaps the societal influences are more important than the genetic differences. (Dorothy Hayden is my favorite female palyer. For her books, ethics, and attitude)