Jlall

2 great doubles on this board edit: Seriously both guys doubled and thier partners had 2 aces and it was basically cold. One guy had a trump void and one guy had a stiff trump and 3 small of RHOs suit.

There are 2 other possibilities: a)The game of bridge will continue to be like today, ie. nobody will get serious training (at least compared to other sports/intellectual sports) and everybody will continue to suck. Those who suck the least will win (like today). b)People will improve big time and the edge will be that small that the game will not be worth playing anymore as it will be reduced to almost purely variance (I believe variance in bridge is quite a factor if teams are at similar level) I hope it will be a) if anything :lol: B has not happened to basketball, baseball, chess, running, anything. B is theoretically possible but we are so far away from it that it is not even worth considering. Right now we all suck. Once we all get good, then people will make small improvements and get better and better. The small edges will be enough to win long matches most of the time (of course luck is a factor). Bridge is too complicated for this to happen for a long long time. Certainly A is the most likely with less and less people beginning to play bridge though. Still, even with a smaller player pool, the good players will obviously become better than the best players of today, becuase they have their knowledge and experience to build upon. People talk about B happening in poker a lot. It basically happened in heads up limit which has kinda died, but I doubt it will happen ever for deep stacked no limit play for instance. Even that is too complicated.

I would be interested in examples of ways in which their systems were bad. Lol, they played 13-17 NT and control showing responses to their strong club...give me a break. Did they even play keycard? None of this is meant as a knock against any of these guys, they were the best players of their era and got even better as times changed and there was more knowledge etc around. It's not like people now are born knowing bidding, we just don't have to figure most of it out since others have done it for us by studying the old systems and building on that etc. It is completely natural in all games that people start off knowing nothing, they try things out, some sticks, some is proven to be bad and is adapted, and then it keeps building on itself etc. I'm not sure why this is such a surprising concept. It's not even about the exact system, there are many auctions like 1S-2C-2H-2N-3S-4C which are now obviously cuebids for spades but before people would probably be like wtf? edit: Did I mention 4 card majors?! Of course I cannot prove that 5 card majors are better than 4 card majors, but given that probably none of the top 20 pairs in the world play 4 card majors when it used to be dominant at the top levels, one could rationally assume that people came to the conclusion that 5 card majors are better. Thanks Justin. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was actually asking ;) Regarding "Did they even play keycard?" ... I thought it was called "Roman Keycard" precisely because the Blue team played it. :lol: Yeah I don't know at what point it was invented, not sure if they played it during the beginning of their run. They def invented it though. That being said, I'm sure when they invented it they hadn't thought of what all the bids mean after queen ask/specifically 5N bids, and what non queen/king ask bids mean, etc etc. RKC is also a convention that evolved, and now people play kickback. I always wonder how "everyone" at the top level can not play for instance that 4N-5C-5S is not the king ask when hearts is trumps, (5D Q ask, 5S king ask), that way you can bid 5N over 5S with the SK and you don't have any issues, and you can use 5N over 5C as your 3rd round spade control ask. Then I remember that people who care about stuff like this probably played kickback. Anyways knowledge of situations like this and how to handle these auctions has advanced a ton. There is no way the blue team from then could ever compete in slam bidding against a team of today, and from what I gather no one could compete with their slam bidding back in the day.

Interesting. Of course the people at the table have a much clearer view of the body language etc. that we can get on the forum reading about it -- but what I "saw" in CSGibson's post was opener saying "you jackass, forcing me to take another bid when I don't have anything worth bidding again... should I bid 3N with a half-stopper or repeat my ugly spades or bid a Kxx minor, or what?" and (until I saw the results of the poll) might have been willing to rule against anyone who passed because of the UI. Smack on the table forcefully is usually a sign of "I want to play here whatever you have, you better pass." However 7-10 second tank is the real thing here, as Phil says mins will bid quickly. IMO 7-10 second tank + smack shows extras with real spades, if you just tank for 7-10 seconds and bid 3S without the smack, partner might interpret that as a 5 card spade suit and no heart stopper.

Mike, that is fine as long as you sometimes pitch from 3 small earlier rather than later. It is easy to randomize when you have the queen, it is difficult for most and something very few people do to randomize when you have 3 small. It is just so ingrained in us to hold our 3 small for as long as possible so we don't give partner's queen up. When we have the queen is when we think about being tricky or not. So if you are blanking your queen 60 % on the penultimate, and 40 % on the final trick when you have it, and blanking your 3 small 0 % on the penultimate, and 100 % on the final card then that is a game theoretical disaster. I could pick off the position 80 % of the time like that without even thinking about anything else, up from 50 % if you were actually random. Honestly you can either try to exploit someone, or just try to balance your game. Most people play most of their hands against pretty weak opps. Against a majority of opps I also will blank my queen always on the penultimate, and blank my 3 small always on the ultimate. I will also drop the ten if I have Txx, or play the ten on the second round with the other hand, etc etc. This is the best way to exploit people, because most people who are bad at bridge do the reverse, the honest way of holding onto their honors as long as possible, but pitching from their 3 small. However this makes those people just as predictable as the bad opps, even though they're good. And honestly in bridge few people are going to level you by pitching from 3 small on the penultimate round, THAT is where even very good players fail to randomize, then you can exploit them even if they randomize with the queen. If both players are world class and also good as situations like this, it becomes a war of what level of thought people are on, alternatively you can just ignore it and always pitch a spade as your last card from either holding, or by ignoring their discards etc. But I would say 99.9 % of players are on either level 1 or level 2, and it's very easy to figure out who will be on which level, so you can pretty much always get this type of spot right if you combine it with the spot cards played, the tempo of the play, etc etc.

I would be interested in examples of ways in which their systems were bad. Lol, they played 13-17 NT and control showing responses to their strong club...give me a break. Did they even play keycard? None of this is meant as a knock against any of these guys, they were the best players of their era and got even better as times changed and there was more knowledge etc around. It's not like people now are born knowing bidding, we just don't have to figure most of it out since others have done it for us by studying the old systems and building on that etc. It is completely natural in all games that people start off knowing nothing, they try things out, some sticks, some is proven to be bad and is adapted, and then it keeps building on itself etc. I'm not sure why this is such a surprising concept. It's not even about the exact system, there are many auctions like 1S-2C-2H-2N-3S-4C which are now obviously cuebids for spades but before people would probably be like wtf? edit: Did I mention 4 card majors?! Of course I cannot prove that 5 card majors are better than 4 card majors, but given that probably none of the top 20 pairs in the world play 4 card majors when it used to be dominant at the top levels, one could rationally assume that people came to the conclusion that 5 card majors are better.

This could not be more wrong. Funny you mention 1/1 forcing, how many top natural pairs play transfers over 1C now compared to 10 years ago? How many do you think will in the future? Playing natural bidding over 1C in combination with walsh is just clearly not even close to optimal. You bypass diamonds almost always...gee that's awesome you almost never get to bid the first step over 1C. How can that be right? It's not, obviously re-ordering the steps so that 1D shows hearts and 1H shows spades is better if your entire system is geared around showing the 4 card majors first etc. Walsh was an improvement over "up the line." Transfers are an improvement on Walsh, etc etc and so it goes. How many good natural-based pairs bid 2C over 1M with all balanced GFs now? How many did 10 years ago? I remember when it was like zomg, maybe with 4-4 in the blacks we should bid 2C over 1H. Then it was like wow maybe with 4333 and stuff we should still bid 2C, etc etc. This is a pretty obvious improvement, but still most pairs don't play artificial bids over the 2C bid which is another obvious improvement. Not saying that you are bad if you don't do this or that you can't win, I'm just saying it's clear that 1) Bidding is evolving in major ways in a lot of fundamental situations. 2) Bidding has a long way to go. These are not even the "details" they are huge basic structural things. This is not to even mention polish club or strong club etc. I know nothing about polish club or how evolved it is or how far it can go, but strong club auctions are pretty much in their infancy still. Meckwell do a lot of stuff, but few of the other top pairs who play strong club do much at all. Of course memory issues will always exist. I'm not even talking about having completely artificial systems necessarily, I'm just talking about the right bids in basic situations similar to 1H p 2C wtih 3343 or 4324 etc etc. The real innovations lately are coming in competitive auctions and slam bidding. Slam bidding and understanding of slam bidding/cuebidding now compared to even 10 years ago let alone 50 years ago is just soooooooooo much improved it's ridiculous. But it still has a long way to go.

This makes no sense to me, why not enjoy yourself somehow whether you're about to die or not? You're still alive then. I guess if you didn't have the option to just die quicker. I was thinking of it as like eat your last meal then die, or just die. In that case the latter seems better. However if it was eat your last meal then die, or just chill for a while without food then die, I guess eating would be good.

LOL what's with all of the KFC with these guys? omg no you didn't

What's the point of a last meal if you're about to die? It won't make any difference at all imo.

I've always just not eaten, but I almost went to chipotle once! If you're about to die you just wanna get it over with and not eat imo.

Seems like the exact opposite of what he wants to do

I guess I have to double or bid 4H, I guess w/r I would X, I'm happy to defend if partner passes.

3S is horrrrrrrrrrrrible.

This is definitely the case, not that theres anything wrong with that heh.

White/red at MP they might have bid with Qxx K9xxx KQxx Q but maybe not with xxx K9xxx KQxx Q, but you shouldn't put too much weight into that since a lot of people would bid with either both or neither of those hands. Still there is some clue. Diamond-Diamond-Spade-Heart from an average club player in tempo is always xxx spades. Almost all would pitch Diamond-Diamond-Heart-Heart, the few others might go D-D-H-S. It's not like they are thinking that they are getting squeezed and planning ahead, their 5th heart is an easy discard the third time. If it is an "expert" west they're probably following the general plan to pitch the squeeze card on the 2nd to last trick, and they realize they must pitch a spade at some point. Many "experts" are predictable in this way, if they're actually squeezed they pitch it on the 2nd to last card. On the other hand all of these people with 3 small spades will wait to the last card to pitch the spade, acting like they're squeezed. Additionally, many of these people would pitch their spade ten for added effect (zomg I pitched the ten! Must only have the queen left). If RHO is also an "expert' though he also might have played the ten under the spade. So if I assume an average expert, I think they have Qxx of spades every time. If I assume an average club player, I think they have Txx of spades every time. Also, fwiw, if LHO is an "expert" such that you're going to play for the drop, you should be leading the S9 from dummy. If RHO follows with the 8, you might reconsider your plan, since few people can resist the urge to cover the 9 when they have T8 (very few in fact). So if it goes 9-T you follow through with your plan, 9-8 you reconsider. On the other hand if LHO is a club player and you're going to hook the spade you should lead low from dummy. If RHO plays the ten you might reconsider, but that is a really common falsecard. Still you gain no info to change your mind ever if you lead the 9. Edit: And if LHO is a world class player then it depends on too many variables, ie which world class opp, and what they think of you specifically.

Yeah, that's the thing to remember, bridge is still not played very well by anyone. This is mainly bidding and signalling though, and probably leads (not sure how good leads can become since they are random by nature, but I'm sure they could be much better than they are now). General declarer play and defense is not going to get much better at the top though, in my opinion, and hasn't gotten much better in a long time. However in 2060 when we look back on the bidding and leads in 2010 I'm sure we're gonna be like lol what a joke, similar to how we do now when we look back at the auctions and leads in the 60s even between the aces and the blue team. There is a LONG way to go in bidding and in how well bridge is played in general.

Yes but the point is card play theory then compared to card play theory now is basically the same, except signalling has improved on defense. The best systems then are basically a joke now, and the general knowledge of the fundamentals of constructive bidding were not nearly as well known then as now. The fact that the Aces and the Blue Team were required to have very well defined systems and lots of agreements doesn't matter much when their systems were so bad and they didn't know as much. If you were to agree that the top teams now are much better than the top teams in the 60s (obv), and that Bob Hamman was a member of one of the top teams in the 60s, and is a member of one of the top teams now, then you would probably agree Bob Hamman is a much better player now than then. Do you think it's because his cardplay or bidding judgement has improved? Obv no, it's because he has better agreements, more knowledge of constructive auctions, and bids better in general.

This is definitely the world view of Hamman, but it is false. Hamman is actually a mad scientist at heart, and thinks about bidding and systems much differently than most people. You should really see some of his stuff, it is both weird and logical/good. His reputation does indeed come from his partnership with Wolff, who would not even play keycard or transfers let alone any more exotic stuff. Since he left Wolff though his true colors have shown (most notably, you should have seen some of the stuff he was playing with Compton, the one partner he had for a while who would actually induldge Bob with his ideas). That being said, of course Adam is right that the reason the teams today are much better than the teams then is that bidding has improved greatly, as well as general knowledge/principles/theory. Hamman is a good example because his cardplay is probably worse now than it was back then (no knock against Bob, simply an age thing), and his bidding judgement is probably only a little bit better, but everyone's systems now are much better than 50 years ago. The fact that you think of Bob as someone who is a great cardplayer/judgement goes towards Adam's point unless you think that Bob and people in general do not play bridge at a much higher level now than 50 years ago. It's not just Bob who plays better methods and has better fundamental knowledge of bidding, it's all good players now compared to players 50 years ago.

Also I think the odds of partner being 1516 on this auction is really high...I mean he bid 6C in front of us, that's pretty extreme.

Despite the sarcasm before, the DA seems automatic to me whether it's a problem or not. We have more clubs than diamonds so the DA is more likely to cash, and partner is very very very likely to be short in diamonds given his 6C followed by double sequence (unless he just has the nuts), and the opps are way more likely to bid 6S over 6C with a club void than a diamond void. This lead will cost if diamonds are 2-2-2 around the table with the king on my right specifically, not really worried about that.

There is much less reason to bid 1S over 1H than 1D since you're likely to be on lead if they bid 1H. NV I would definitely bid 1S assuming partner does not also go crazy with preempting/saving because I overcalled at the 1 level over their strong club. Often you see people make a crazy overcall then their partner make a crazy preempt and they just go for a number heh. At matchpoints white over 1D I think it is mandatory to bid 1S, you need a spade lead very badly and odds are partner will be on lead. TBH I would bid 1S red also at MP...could lead to a -200 vs nothing or worse, but gaining a trick on lead can be just as important. Always lead a top spade here at any scoring, KQJx is such a beautiful holding.

What spot did he lead? If it's possible for LHO to have 5 clubs and RHO a stiff then I would definitely go up with the SA. If that is not possible then I duck vs most people at MP. The main reason to duck at MP is that if LHO has the DA and Qx of spades (or unblocks the Kx) then we lose our strip squeeze by going up with the ace (RHO gets in and backs a club to break it up). Another reason to duck is LHO might have doubled with a stiff spade honor SLIGHTLY more often than with a small stiff (ok this is definitely reaching, but maybe a marginal hand like x Kxxx Axxx Kxxx wouldn't double, but if you added in stiff K of spades it would). It's definitely better to have stiff H since it's more defense. At imps, it's probably right to go up with the ace vs most opps, as many opps cover with KQx or at least hitch at least some percentage of the time, and the overtrick when spades are 2-2 is no longer a concern, nor is going down an extra one when RHO has KQ8x of spades. Also, I know you didn't ask, but opening 4S is beyond horrible.

If you X you def can't bid 3C over whatever, that shows a good hand to me (would be forcing if you were an UPH imo, and I think it's how you show an invite as a PH imo).

Pass