ArcLight

>>"I think changing the penalty table may work, but I wouldn't be so quick to make a radical change." >Why not? I think that those who enjoy playing with destructive bidding should be able to do so in their venue, free of interference (provided I dont have to play with them) Having said that, if I were to play with destructive/bluff bidders then a raise of the penalty might worthwhile. I was playing against a pair who was very aggressive in their pre-empts, bidding 2X with 5 cards. Even if we set them on occasion and did ok, it wasn't all that enjoyable. [while I like to win, I also want to enjoy the game I'm playing] I think some of the success of any new system, regardless of how good it is, is due to its newness. The opponents dont know how to counter it. So the system is initially very successful and a lot of smart people start thinking up ways to defeat it. Over time a defense evolves and the new system, while still good is perhaps no longer the killer it once was. If there were an immediate ban on a system, then a defense would never evolve.

>Destructive bidding is a skill and an art form. I agree. However, what attracts me to Bridge is the deductive reasoning, as opposed to the art of bluffing, like Poker. Poker requires skill, but I have no interest in playing it. I play Bridge because I find dedcutive reasoning interesting, not to "win a game at all costs". If winning was the most important element (rather than the game itself) then I would be better off sticking to a different game, like BackGammon where I could win more often. I find all the bidding systems and conventions fascinating. It's interesting to see all thee new systems being developed. There are some very clever people spending a lot of time inventing these systems, and in the long run the better systems will win out and bidding will probably become better. But I have no interest in having to study all these systems, to know how to deal with them when I play. To borrow a quite from Bobby Hamman from his book "At the Table", - "Bridge has become a game of language rather than deductive reasoning". I agree. I don't want to stop anyone from experimenting, but I do want a place where I can play and not have to face scores of systems I've never heard of and not know what to do. For me the answer is to play in ACBL tournaments. I've seen people say that the ACBL tournaments are for the lazy, timid, dumb, who don't want to or cant learn better systems. I think its more that people want to play a deductive reasoning game and don't want to invest a huge amount of time studying all these systems. I don't particularly care what system I use, as long as many people use it where I play. If I lived in the UK and they use ACOL, I'd play ACOL. If in Poland and they use Polish Club, that's what I'd use. Maybe Precision in India? MOSCITO in a swampy area (hahaha). I don't like the idea of destructive bidding because it shifts the emphasis from deductive reasoning to bluffing. That doesn't mean that skill is no longer required, just that the skill needed doesn't interest me. I think the solution is very simple and obvious (and is already in place). Have 2 gaming venues, one where everything goes, and a restricted venue where systems are limited. I can play in the later and be happy, and others can play in the former. I think it wrong to stifle innovation. I want people to experiment and come up with better systems. I think it wrong to force everyone to learn a huge number of systems - remember many people who play Bridge do it for fun and have a social life outside of Bridge. (Some Bridge players don't have a life outside of Bridge.) I think changing the penalty table may work, but I wouldn't be so quick to make a radical change. It's probably better to have 2 venues and self select the members. Lastly, ask yourself this question - If you were learning Bridge today, what would you do? Would you be overwhelmed by the number of systems? How did you learn bridge and from whom? Would those people who taught you have been playing if Bridge was as complex as it is today? Is Bridge so complex that new "recreational" players are not coming into the field at a rate high enough to sustain the hobby? I think that most of today's experts got into Bridge not by deciding that they wanted to be Bridge experts, but by playing recreationally and realizing that they liked the game and had an aptitude for it. I have no interest in playing destructive or bluff bridge so I'd like to play with others who have a similar view. And those who want to experiment should also play with those who like those elements. Simple, 2 venues.

I've seen some examples of bidding where a certain bid (lets say 3 hearts or 3 spades) is said to be asking for a stopper in that suit. Ive also seen other cases where the same such bid shows a stopper in that suit, and leaves it up to pard whether to try for 3NT or a minor suit game. Is there a generally used cue bid method to ask for a stopper or was it just one authors system?

Free, Ron Klinger has a book called CUE BIDDING TO SLAMS and in the later section discusses relay cue bids and denial cue bids. Since you know the exact shape you will probably be aware of what suits you are concerned about. His cue bidding ideas may be useful. If you have not read the book you might want to scan through it.

Thank you all for your responses. This is a more biased question but what are the strengths and weaknesses of Precision vs. 2/1,SAYC, ACOL. In short, why use Precision over other systems? Is it easier to learn? Or more effective? Some say its too revealing and helps the opponents defense. It seems that many strong players use Precision and I'd like to "know what all the enthusiasm" is about. (I dont make any claims that Precision is or is not a good system, not do I make any claims that other systems are better or worse)

I would like to learn Precision. On www.amazon.com I found 2 books: Precision Today: Your Guide To Learning The System by David Berkowitz Precision in the 90s by Barry Rigal Are either of these any good? Are there some websites that list all the rules of Precision? www.BridgeGuys.com has some versions.

What is the most effective convention for interfering with opponents NT bids? ASTRO has been around for a long time. D.O.N.T from Bergen/Cohen is newer. Any other methods? What do the pros use and why?

Earl, I like your article. > One feature that LTC lacks is side-suit fitting. Thus > Axxx x KQxxx Jxx > is a 7-loser support for partner's spade suit, regardless of how well he "fits" with your diamonds. MLTC wont always work out (no system will), but it may work the majority of the time. You might try a splinter 4♥ (though you only have 10 HCP as responder, rather than say 12 HCP). You have a 5-4 trump fit headed by the Ace, so that may be worth a bit extra. You have 7 losers, pards opener is usually no worse than 7 losers, so 24-14=10, you probably have at least enough for game. You wont always make it, but you will the majority of the time. If partner has a great hand, say 5 losers, slam is still possible, though a Blackwood response by him may end up in a 5♠ contract when he finds out you have a single Ace/Key Card. >There are some easy adjustments for fit that Klinger doesn't treat but can increase the accuracy of LTC: >1. When assesing losers in trumps, always assume you have 3 cards. So in a 6-2 fit if your trumps are Ax count 2 losers, not 1. He suggests penalizing for a 5-3 trump fit, unless the 3 card partner has a top honor. In this case, with a 6-2 fit, you might not be at as big a disadvantage vs. a 4-1 distrubution since you can ruff from thelong hand without losing control, though the short hand can't ruff much. >2. In partner's side suit (IF the bidding context makes it probable that he has length and strength in the suit), count losers if signleton or void as if you had a doubleton: x or void is 2 losers, A stiff is 1 loser, K stiff is 1 loser (your lose the mythical x but the King is no longer a singleton and isn't a loser.) I don't think Klinger addresses this, though thats covered under Splinter bids in some sources (such as Mike Lawrences CD Rom - Conventions). I'd use the bidding conventions as a guide in drawing inferences, rather than LTC. > 3. Count a double fit as if you had a longer trump fit. In the example hand we have 9 spades and 8 diamonds, count as if we had 10 spades, for which Klinger suggests deducting a loser. Klinger does mention "Cover Cards" as an alternative/supplementary method. He also mentions Trial Bids (in this case a Long Suit Trial Bid), where if the bidding is : 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♦ partner is asking for help in Diamonds, you raise to game if you have 0-1 loser in the side suit asked. Since Trial bids don't seem to be widely used this may not be helpful. What I'm trying to use MLTC for is help me with borderline cases. Say I have some cover cards, maybe I should raise pard an extra notch, or not. I'm not using MLTC to replace my bidding system.

> As for playing long/short suit trials, I don't think that has much to do with the LTC. It's more of a method to see how well hands fit. I think it does, because a Long/Short Suit Trial bid is an artificial bid that asks pard if he/she can help you with your long/short suit. You would not use this convention otherwise. Thus you can't fully use MLTC without pards cooperation.

Klinger addresses your concern (Qxx = Axx, and Qxx = just 2 losers). He gives rough ranges of losers for a bid/response, and explains that if partner raises you, then its likely taht you have the bulk of the HCP and that while Qxx by itself isnt that valuable, its is if its opposite AKxx. I specifically would like to hear from people WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK and can relate their experiences USING THE METHODS PRESENTED IN THE BOOK. Im particularly interested in his long/short suit trial bid response. Also, keep in mind, that the MLTC is an alternative method and you are not forced to obey it. But it might be interesting to see how it does on some hands that you mis bid. > Finally, if you use it for opening bids then you will overbid wildly when you have no fit. Meaning you will open 1 of asuit when you should other wise pass? That doesn't seem to terrible. If you open light and pard raises you to 2, you will pass. Maybe it causes some unlikely contracts to be bid? On the other hand maybe some of those set contracts pre-empt the opponents makeable 4 of a major contract and are worth while. >Also it is hideously inaccurate if you count Axx = Qxx, or xxxx as only 3 losers. For xxxx to = 4 losers means the suit must be lead 4 times. If declarer has xxxx opposite xxx or xxxx he's not likely to be leading that suit. So the opps need to have xxxx and lead it 4 times, with it never being ruffed. That can happen, but in general I dont think xxxx will usually result in more than 3 losers. I dont think Modern LTC is 100% accurate, there will always be unusual hands. Might it help non-experts become a bit more aggressive in their bidding?

I would like to clarify something. I'm referring to the book Modern Losing Trick Count and the method presented there. Not just "count your losers". The book has some interesting methods (Long Suit Trials) to try and measure the fit. All the same, I' would be very interested in seeing the analysis of hand evaluation that says MLTC is poor. I wonder how it compares to ZAR points? I'm interested in learning judgement to help evaluate hand shape. MLTC and ZAR points at least have helped me think about unbalanced hands. Another Ron Klinger book on the subject is THE POWER OF SHAPE. While it has some good ideas, overall I didn't care for it as much. It did teach me about Puppet Stayman, and I wonder if thats worth using.

The book Modern Losing Trick Count actually has it's own bidding system, with specific responses, so its not just an evaluative function. There are specific responses to request/pass information from/to partner. I wonder how the method in the book performs over a large number of boards.

I'm reading Ron Klingers MODERN LOSING TRICK COUNT and its quite interesting. Some of it can be used with many bidding systems, but some of the responses are unique to it alone. Does anyone use Modern Losing Trick Count when bidding? What about the conventions (like Long Suit Trial Bid o 2NT to switch to Short Suit Trial bid?). Or has this system beed tested and found wanting? I'm relatively new to Bridge and am interested in learning a good bidding system (and would like to avoid wsting a few years going down a dead end with an inferior system). It seems to me the advantage of LTC is it may give away a little less information to the opponents than some other systems.

I would start with OPENING LEADS by Robert Ewen. Its comprehensive and has bidding quizes. It also covers lead directing doubles (not just against slams). A good place to start. I would not recommend the Easly Blackwood book (Opening Leads). Its verbose, and not nearly as good. After the Ewen book I'd try the Hugh Kelsey (Improve your Opening Leads). Its a test of what you have learned from the Ewen book. Now after you have read those 2, and digested some of the techniques, the definitive work on Opening leads is by Mike Lawrence (Opening Leads). The Lawrence book is deeper and more up to date than the Ewen book. The emphasis is on teaching you to evaluate what you know about the card distribution based on the bidding and your hand, before you even look at your hand. You do not pick up a hand headed by Q J 10 9 and say thats the suit I'm going to lead. You evaluate what you have learned from the bidding and decide on your plan. There are many quizzes at the end of each section, and a very long set of quizzes, based on bidding at the end. He incorporates bidding conventions to teach you additional techniques. Its slow going as there is a lot to learn and think about. I suggest reading the Ewen book first, to get a good grounding, before the deeper Lawrence book.

How I have improved: 1) The Mike Lawrence software (Counting at Bridge, Defense, Private Lessons 1, Private Lessons 2) is outstanding. The programs are around $40 each, and it works out to literally having a great bridge teacher give you lessons at your house at around $5/hour. (and you can redo them months later as a refresher) 2) Read GOOD bridge books. For instance - opening leads. I read Ewens Opening Leads (very Good Book), Kelseys Improve your Opening Leads (Good Book), Blackwood Opening Leads (too verbose, not worth the effort), and ma starting Mike Lawrences Opening Leads. Read up on a subject. Try and apply what you have learned. Then read some mor eon the subject a few months later. I use opening leads as an example because going from making bad leads to good leads will help your game a lot. I find that I dont absorb all the information on the first read, and must read similar material (or reread the book) months later. 3) read www.bridgeclues.com (its Mike Lawrences daily column). What makes it far superior to other columns is its not some double dummy problem. Its a practical situation you may encounter, where you see just the 2 hands. Todays column had a nice problem on holding up with the Ace. 4) Play against as strong opponents as you can find, hopefully with as good a partner as you can find. Record your games, and study them afterwards. Analys your biding and play. Did you miss a signal? Not make a signal, and or confuse pard? If you have a regular pard, and take the time to analyze your games you will improve faster. You will see that you make certain types of mistakes and you will try and cut down on those. 5) Ask for opponents & pard to point out mistakes. But that can take time, and you can see your mistakes if you take the time to review your own games later. I may ask about my bidding. Also, don't criticise unless asked, and even then be nice.

I just finished reading "At the Table" by Bobby Hamman. He dislikes the 5 card major system thats generally popular in the USA prefering a 4 card major. Also, he describes the effectiveness of the Italian Blue team (and their Precision system) when he faced them in the 70's. Why would one use Precision, or SAYC, or ACOL, over any of the others? Meckwell use their RP Prececion system, Mike Lawrence seems to advocate the 2 over 1. Hamman the 4 card major. All these people are top flight experts, yet all use different systems. The other question is how important is the system one uses? Are they all roughly equivilent, with slight strengths and weaknesses, that for most players wont impact them? [i.e. the experts win becaus ethey are experts, not becaus ethey have a ton of systems, even thouse those systems give them an edge]