ArcLight

The problem with BIL is they may teach some conventions and bidding tricks, without teaching any card play. A beginner needs to learn some card play basics, and a rudimentary bidding system. I see people with Jacoby 2NT, Inverted Minors, etc. on their card who can't even make a limit raise or take out double correctly. Be careful not to overwhelm a new player. Assuming he's smart and motivated: 1) Software a) Bridge Master (for a beginner up to level 3) b) Mike Lawrences Counting at Bridge #1 c) Mike Lawrences Counting at Bridge #2 d) Mike Lawrences Private Lessons #1 e) Mike Lawrences Private Lessons #2 f) Mike Lawrences Defense 2) through reading books. Start with the fundamentals. Declarer play: - Winning Declarer Play - Dorothy Hayden Truscott [Fun, easy reading] - How to Play a Bridge Hand - Bill Root [lots of examples and tests] - there are a whole bunch of nice beginner books by david Bird & Marc Smith . The ones by Bird and Bourke are also nice but a bit more advanced. I would NOT suggest Watsons Play of the Hand at the beginning. Let him get started on the others first. Besides I much prefer Mollos Bridge Play Technique. Defense: How to defend a Bridge Hand - Bill Root [lots of tests] The Kantar books (Modern and Advanced) Bridge defense are good, but more difficult. The hardest part will be teaching him a bare bones bidding system. Use only Stayman, takeout doubles, and Blackwood. Later add Negative doubles. KISS. Freds Learn to Play Bridge on the acbl website is very good for Standard American, but it will take a while to get through that. Thats where you can add value, bringing him up to speed, and answering questions. You are in the UK, perhaps Acol might be a better choice? Keep it simple.

Questions pertaining strictly to 2/1 bidding, as opposed to general partnership discussion (which is also crucial) >(2) Reverses in game-forcing 2/1 auctions. Do they show extra values? Just extra shape? Nothing necessarily extra? How about opener's raise of responder's suit? Since responded has an opening bid, Miek Lawrence sugegsts a reverse by opener show a king above miniumum. Certainly worth discussing. >(4) Fourth suit in 2/1 auctions. Natural or just a temporizing bid? For example: 1S-2C-2D-2H. Since you are in a game force, theer is no need for Fourth Suit forcing. >What other questions would you want to discuss with a new partner assuming that "2/1 GF" is your general approach? a) 1D - 2C - is this a game force? :( Can a 2/1 response stop in 4 of a minor if we can't reach 3NT or a major suit game? c) since you are in a gameforce after the 2/1 what do jump bids mean, other than an obvious splinter (which might not even be so obvious) d) 1M - 2m - 2M doesnt show 6. But 1M - 1NT - 2M does.

>Guess I'm just old-fashioned. To me, opening with 10 or 11 HCP is opening light. ♠ AKT984 ♥ AT98 ♦ xx ♣ x 11 HCP, but clearly a full opening bid. Id still call it a full opening bid with one less SPade and one more minor. Light is more like ♠ A K T 9 x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ K x x x

>Precision doesn't allow for light openings. >>Why do you say that? Doesn't Precision have a very well defined definition of an opening bid? For example I think 1♠ = 11-15 HCP, and 5+ Spades. Or is this not coorect, is it 11-15 points including support points? What I meant by allowing for light openings is other systems may be more geared towards showing shap as soon as possible. So maybe 1♥ = 5+ hearts and 8-13. Certainly one can open light in Precision, as in any system. I didn't mean to imply thats not possible. I should have phrased my statement better.

>Super-light openings will do a lot better in MPs. The ability to compete and find a fit early on the partscore hands is a tremendous advantage. I agree. What systems would that include? Exclude? I assume Roth-Stone would be less effective at MPs. Precision doesn't allow for light openings. > good bridge does well at either form This is very true, but it doesnt answer the question. What systems are better suited for each type of game? > The important thing at MPs is to take more tricks than they take and you don't need a system for that just play better than they do in the same contract that they are. This makes a lot of sense. But again, my question is, are some systems better suited than others? For example, I think I read that Precision ws designed for IMP play. Maybe MOSCITO is optimized for MPs?

MPs are a different beast than IMPs. Slams are more valuable in IMPS. Part score swings like -100 rather than opps making 110 in 2 hearts are huge in MPs and of almost no value in IMPs. So it seems to me that different bidding systems would be better at one rather than the other. My questions are: 1) Am I correct in that each bidding system is better at one and worse at the other? 2) What systems are especially good at MPs (regardless of their value in other competions) 3) What systems are especially good at IMPs (regardless of their value in MPs)

>2/1 is better than SAYC so it's not horrible, just bad. If its bad, then how costly is it to use compared to other systems? (I think Fred uses 2/1 so if it was so bad then why would he use it?) I dont know if this is true but someone posted that Bobby Hamman said that the bidding system was only 3% of the game (or 3% of teh final score). Perhaps at the top levels tahts a lot, but until one reaches taht level, will one really lose out using 2/1 compared to other systems?

In the book "World Class" by Marc Smith is a chapet on Karen McCallum. She predicts taht in 20 years 2/1 will die off (she says thats a good thing) and will be replaced with something like Polish Club. I realize the people who post in this folder tend to prefer non-natural systems. 1) What is so terrible about 2/1? Why is it good that it die off? 2) Or is Polish Club a wonderful system? Ive never seen system notes any where. 3) Is Polish club better geared towards MPs? IMPs?

It is available at http://www.australianbridge.com/moscito.pdf I went to: http://www.australianbridge.com/ but don't see it.

Partner contributed the 4 of Spades? Thats in YOUR hand! <_< I think you mean a "low Spade" lets call it th 3. If the 4 of Spades implies a good Spade holding headed by the A I'd lead the Spade 9, then pard can lead back a diamond through declarer, allowing me to make my 8 and run diamonds. I wouldnt be surprised if the Diamonds can run right now as I think declarer has 3 diamonds, and thus I can run the Diamonds from the top (I hope pard unblocks if they have the 9!) You could even try playing the 10 of Dimonds, getting a count signal from pard. If he has an even number its 4, run the diamonds. If odd, then declarer has 4 and lead a spade, get the diamond lead through declarer. This will not work if pard has 2 diamonds, but then declarer is probably 5-1-5-2 and would probably not bid like he did.

RHO opened 1NT I bid 2♦ DONT showing ♦ and a higher ranking suit. Pard alerted it (INCORRECTLY) as showing the majors, (I was 1-4 in the majors) LHO passed, pard bid 2♥, the opponents went to 3NT and I bid 4♥. After the bidding I explained the alert was incorrect. The director was called. We played the hand 4♥ -2 X ( a great score) Other teams were playing in 4♠ making. Te director changed the score to 4♠ making. The director said that since we declared they were damaged. But on a different hand, pard misgrouped their cards and made an erroneous splinter bid in response to my 1♥ opener. Turns out pard had 2 trumps, not 4, and instead of a ♦ void had a small doubleton. Plus pard bid 3♠ instead of 4♦. I made 4♥ despite the 5-2 bit and all that. Could the opponents have called the director there as well? Is it always the case that if pard forgets your system and gives a wrong explanation that the opponents always get the average plus? My question really is: If pard forgets what your bid means and gives mistaken information (not deliberate, they forgot) what are the consequences? You are not allowed during the bidding to tell the opps. You have to wait till the bididng is over. They can complain and automatically get an average plus?

1S 2D 2H 3C 3H >Now it's the last chance to bid 3NT, and you must sieze it. I don't think thats a good Bid, 3NT from my side with x -x - A98765 - AKxxx Better to bail out in 4♦ (I hoped) ------------------------------ 1S - 2D 2H - 3C (*) >(*) I dont believe that Lawrence teaches 3C as natural, this is 4th suit forcing, and says nothing about clubs, so anybody claiming 3C shows 9 cards should cite the book and the page The main trouble is, that if you bid 3NT over 3H in this sequence you are overstating your power, ... and of course you give the wrong impression about your shape => Over 2H you are probably forced to bid 3D I disagree. You have already made a game force with your 2D bid. So you dont need 4SF. 3C does show a club suit. I base my knowledge of 2/1 on Mike Lawrences 2/1 CD.

>Suppose the auction starts 1♠-2♦-2♥-2♠. How many spades does responder show? Are spades set as trump, or could you still play somewhere else? Is opener's first priority to bid out his shape or to cuebid for spades? The 2♦ bid establishes the game force, with less than 4 Spade support. The 2♠ confirms Spades are trumps, probably 3 card support, could be 2. With 2, responder may look for 3NT. Responder can see Opener is something like 5-4, 5-5,6-4, 6-5. Opener is showing a heart suit, because with just crap he could instead rebid 2♠. Openers priority: 1) show 4 trump support 2) make the game force [this is from Mike Lawrence's 2/1 CD]

>Cannot this same agreement be made after: 1S-2D 2H-3D I don't think so. We play a 2/1 as a game force with one exception: If we have a misfit, and cant bid 3NT, we can stop in 4 of a minor.

>4♥ automatic. Down 2 Doubled = -500, more than the cost of the opponents making 4♠ There were 7 potential losers. 5 side suits, the A and K of trumps. Maybe the Q doesnt make either. I think in MP, a double based on HCP without a trump stack is likely at the 4 level.

>2♦ is fine, if pd only sees his cards and not what you bid you may need to change your pd not your system. It was the first time we played together, and made plenty of mistakes, so I wont blame my pard for anything. The question is whether to bid 3♦ or 3♣. If pard had 5-4-0-4 with Qxxx in clubs then 5♣ would be ok. Maybe even with Qxx, as I could ruff a couple of Diamonds, and set up the suit.

(I use the 2/1 system that Mike Lawrences describes in his CD.) Pard opens in 1st seat: 1♠ You pick up: ♠ x ♥ x ♦ A 9 8 7 6 5 ♣ A K T x x 1) Do you consider this hand strong enough for a game force? I did, and bid 2D. Pard responded 2♥ I bid: 3♣ Pard bid: 3♥ 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♣ 3♥ - ??? Hmmm, we have a terrible misfit. In 3NT I can contribute 3 winners, but I dont consider my hand a good one opposite pards 5-5. I bid 4♦ rather than 3NT, showing my extra length, and possibly allowing for pard to pass. 2) How would you handle the aution? Bid what? (Pard unfortunately interpreted 4♦ as a slam try, we ended up in 6NT, down 2, turns out she had 3 Diamonds KJx. 4♦ makes, and maybe 5.)

Playing MP, Vul vs Non (Red on White), You deal and are first to bid. You pick up ♠x ♥Q T 9 7 6 5 4 3 ♦ x ♣ J x x What do you bid? My actions are below, hidden, with the result.

World Class by Marc Smith 1999. Entertaining short biographies of 26 palyers, including Fred, Meckstroth, Hamamn, Zia, Chagas, Garrozo. Each chapter has a few interesting hands. There are also numerous interesting stories, and general tips. I think Karen MCcallums chapter mentions that you should look at they players as they pick up their cards, to see if you can glean any knowledge about their hands. Supposedly Edgar Kaplan was poker faced and never gave anything away. What I found most interesting was their view of the future of Bridge. Many thought that Bridge becoming an Olympic "Sport" was a huge plus, but that something needed to be done to make it more spectator friendly. Some felt the ACBL was doing a horrible job at targeting new players. Meckstroth, McCallum, and one of the Poles thought there should be fewer restrictions. Bobby Hamman thought there were too many conventions and the game is becoming too complex. Players are spending a great deal of time learning complicated systems without being good card players. And that these players win not because they are good players, but that they have surprised their opponents. Another player mentioned that since bidding has become so developed and strong, there has a been a rise in destructive bidding, and he thinks that takes away from the game. On the other hand the Polish player didn't want restrictions, as he felt stifling innovation is bad. One of the interesting things from the book is how many of the strong players fell into Bridge by accident. A fun read, I rate it a B+. Id rate it higher if it covered more of the players that interested me.

Andrew Robsons club has some beginners notes, but even that system is complicated for a beginner. So far the "Big NT system" is the simplest I've seen.

I just read World Class by Marc Smith, a very enjoyable book. There is a chapter on Andrew Robson, and a simplified bidding system he teaches. Is anyone familiar with it? Can you send me the system notes or tell me where its posted?

>Book: Complete Book of Opening Leads by Easley Blackwood Of the books I've read on opening leads (Mike, Lawrence, Hugh kelsey, Robert Ewen, Easley Blackwood) I'd rate the Blackwood book dead last by a large margin. It was mainly about using the rule of 11. If you liked Blackwoods books, you will love the others. Ewens is a good one to start with.

Why is the Limit Raise outdated? What is the alternative, Bergen Raises?

I see "Weak Jump Shifts" advocated by Marty Bergen and in "Modern Bridge Conventions" by Bill Root. Mike Lawrence and Max Hardy recommending "Strong Jump Shifts". SJS are great when they come up, but are rare. WJS are more frequent. Since SJS help for slams they seem less useful for MPs, and more useful for IMPs. The reverse is true for WJS, their frequency may be useful for MPs. What do experts use? Why?

I came across this convention in Bill Root's excellent "Modern Bridge Conventions", pub 1981, so it might no longer be popular. Is it a good convention? Has it been superceded? The way it works is after 1M - 3M sequence, bidding the next step (3S or 3NT) is asking pard to bid a singleton.