tourney

[sceptic]

Hi, I was considering running a tournament where the first hand bids 3NT and everyone else passes out

 

it would be set on mps

 

and you just play the hands out

 

I would like comments on what you think you would gain (if anything)

 

i.e. would it test your defence and signals with your partner

 

my thoughts are everyone is in the same situation, so you would have to take great care in signals, to try and win as many tricks as you possibly could, I realise with random hands you would get some odd results

 

but you would have no clues to layout of the cards you would just have to try and make as many tricks as possible

[Guest Jlall]

I voted for crap idea, ironic since I built a system around this lol. I don't think most people would enjoy it.

[han]

This may come as a surprise to the people who know my level of play, but I really enjoy the bidding. I also enjoy trying to draw conclusions from the bidding while declaring or defending.

[Guest Jlall]

Just out of curiosity, why was this posted here? lol

[Elianna]

Just out of curiosity, why was this posted here? lol

Because it's a poll about bridge? :)

 

Anyway, I voted for "an idea", because I'm a very literal person. :)

[kenrexford]

That idea is actually somewhat old for me, with a twist. Playing with one partner, I would bid 3NT as my first bid as often as plausible, whether possibly to make or possible a good sacrifice. The idea was that no one knew what was going on, which leveled the playing field, as my partner had no idea what bridge was about and I had no idea what partner had.

 

I'd vote, however, that the tourney be a 4C tourney. This is a rare contract, which should be fun. Who plays 4C all the time???

[Limey_p]

Hmm ... roll back the calendar. before Hamman-Wolff. before Goren. Back some more. before Culbertson .. before even Vanderbilt.

 

It's not exactly Whist though because one of the hands is face up on the table. Is it bridge whist?

 

Sounds like a bad idea ...

 

AP

(with humor)

[bearmum]

I vote for "crap " idea because I think it's a total waste of time --- as a LOT of times the opening lead etc are dependant on the BIDDING sequence -- so forcing an opening bid of 3NT is silly :ph34r: :blink: :P :)

[Gerben42]

In the German bridge camp we tried this (ok it was 1NT) and everyone agreed it was a terrible idea. So I voted for that.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I voted for "an idea".

 

I dont like the format, but if you find people

who want to try something different, than this

is a possible setting.

 

As you say, the idea would be, to see, who

handles his dummy best, who has the best

defence ... based on carding, analysis of

declarers line.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

A nice story (for some more than for others) from this tourney. At some point dealer (also declarer) had nine hearts to he King and had to declare 1NT. This wasn't much fun since he could never enjoy them.

 

However, one of the players from the German junior team was fed up with leading his long suits since it always turned out badly (should listen to Paul Marston lol) and was also fed up about having no clues from the bidding, so he led his singleton heart. Of course relieved to find a singleton in dummy and partner took the ace (from doubleton AQ). His partner of course returned the Q, and so they made 7 tricks less than the field when declarer could enjoy his Hearts.

[luis]

I voted very good idea because it's a nice way to practice declarer play and defense.

[cherdano]

I voted very good idea because it's a nice way to practice declarer play and defense.

What I thought. If you don't know how to signal, I guess you better learn it when playing this game!

[inquiry]

I voted crap idea. While luis has a point, the game played is not bridge. There are no clues from the bidding, and it is random (take a look at Gerben42's example).

 

However, a tourney where the bidding is prescribed on each hand, enforced by edict from the director for instance, so that the contract is always the same (with identical bidding) then fine. That would work for me.

[uday]

Well, if the idea is to measure declarer play and defence, maybe something else might work:

 

 

Declarer play:

Human sits south, robots sit in all other seats in tourney. Contract is predetermined by TD.

Auction is meaningless (bec. i think the robots we currently use dont care).

Human's score is compared to score of all other Souths.

 

Defence:

Human sits west (maybe east also) . Robots sit NS. Contract and auction are predetermined by TD.

EW score is compared to score of all other EWs.

 

 

In either case, the strength of the robots doesnt matter too much, I think - so we can perhaps run a lot of robots on a few machines .

 

All this would be some time away but I am interested in this sort of thing.

[whereagles]

I don't think it's a good idea because there is so much randomness in the lead that it seems more like russian roulette than bridge :)

[luis]

A 1NT - 3NT tournament may be fun too you have more clues from the bidding.

[han]

Funny Luis. :)

 

But it seems that there will be at least one full table.

[Gerben42]

You can run the tournament with preselected hands: Opener having 15 - 17 balanced and responder a 3NT response to 1NT. That is fair.

[Free]

crap idea imo, since not enough information about the bidding. If you'd give some 3NT contracts with correct bidding to get there, I'd be interested. The way you propose is impossible for declarer, and very hard for defenders...