Coping w/ random bidding...

[akhare]

Simply put, random bidding by the opponents seems to be the scourge of playing non standard bidding systems.

 

These opponents don't seem have a clue as to what bridge is all about -- after all, what else can explain making insane bids against limited opening bids (9-13 in our case)? We have people psyche on every single hand (!), overcall on 3 HCPs, overcall implied transfer suit holding XXXX, make wjos in 2nd seat at unfavourable vul. holding JXXXXX and nothing else outside, make lead directing doubles of relay bids holding KTXX of the suit and just about every abomination that you can imagine.

 

It's becoming so bad that it's almost tempting to ignore any inferences from the overcall unless we know that the opponent doesn't have such proclivities. In other words, tactics like these make it more like poker than bridge.

 

What's your experience regarding this particular problem and any suggestions on how to deal w/ the problem (the enemy list keeps growing :)?

 

Atul

[mycroft]

"All doubles are penalty".

 

You know, that would stop a lot of stupidities in modern bridge, from the insane preempts to randoms to "open weaker minor" with a balanced hand to 2-level overcalls on garbage to...

 

The belief is that more and more doubles pay to be conventional and not business. Every time people do that, though, the safer risky, insane, or even pure bull**** bidding is. Hey, if nobody can punish my psychic, why shouldn't I do it (implicit partnership agreements excepted)?

 

This kind of crap didn't fly opposite the Vanderbilt Club, because they dropped the axe. But as the penalty double went the way of the dodo, lighter and lighter interference became profitable, and people did it - and now it works.

 

The Bridge way to solve this problem is to bring back the axe. I pulled that on a Richmond Trophy winner, when he overcalled 3D at the only table in the room that played negative doubles through 2S only, for instance.

 

The way it is being solved in bridge organizations is to outlaw risky, insane, and bull**** bidding (because it's "not fair" to mess with *my* nice comfortable system that I've spent so long building, and I don't want to give up my toys even though it will solve this issue).

 

Part of the "real bridge world"'s complaint with systems like yours and mine is that "they're just trying to confuse us with this stuff" or "they just win because it's unfamiliar, not because it's good". We know that's wrong, but here's people doing their best to defend against an unfamiliar system, and doing it by raising the ante. And it's working. Maybe we're not as wrong as we think we are...

 

Michael.

[mikeh]

My response depends on why I am playing in the particular event or at the particualr table. If I am playing a 'social' game, as for example on BBO, then I will, if possible, leave and find another game.

 

If I am playing a serious event: an event that I want to win, then my feeling is that they are welcome to play their style: I only hope that it is a long event/match.

 

Unless the opps have undisclosed private agreements, their silly bids will win a few boards and cost them a great deal more, especially once my partner and I catch on to their approach (which is one reason I want a long event). I play a lot of conventional doubles, and few low-level doubles are penalty in my partnerships. Many of them are, however, card-showing and my regular partners and I have a fair degree of confidence in our defence :)

 

If it becomes apparent that they are operating on undisclosed agreements, or are goofing around in a destructive manner, then I leave the table (social game) or I call the director (serious game). In the latter case, I am quite prepared to push hard, as anyone who knows me in real life will attest B)

 

If the opponents are simply misguided (from my point of view) then my expectation is that we will beat the crap out of them over any reasonable number of boards, merely by playing normal bridge. If that happens with sufficient frequency, then the serious players amongst them will get the joke. In any event, if their methods are significantly worse than ours, they will not trouble us frequently :) If they enjoy good success against us, and are not concealing agreements, etc, then maybe our point of view is the wrong one.

 

I hate rap music. I think that those who 'enjoy' it are seriously misguided and that there is almost no musical content to the vast majority of the sounds I hear booming out of the windows of some trucks or honda civics B) . However, millions of fans disagree and maybe my reaction is a relection of my age and inflexible thinking rather than of my innate musical sensibilities. Could the same be true of our reaction to silly bidding? Nah.....

[Winstonm]

Makes one wonder if Harry Fishbein wasn't simply ahead of his times... :)

[ArcLight]

>If it becomes apparent that they are operating on undisclosed agreements, or are goofing around in a destructive manner, then I leave the table (social game) or I call the director (serious game). In the latter case, I am quite prepared to push hard, as anyone who knows me in real life will attest

 

 

I've never played in any high level events.

 

Are there restrictions on destructive bidding? I think the ACBL has levels of restrictions on some types of bids like the Polish 2 Diamonds (spelling is something like Wilcoz).

 

In other words, is ther any restriction to one making ill advised weak overcalls, provided they do not have any undisclosed agreements?

 

On what basis can one complain to a director?

 

I am amazed at the crap people overcall on, like a bunch of queens and a 5 card suit. Or an expert "balancing" with 4 hearts like K972. Probably the best way to deal with then is play good defense and set them a lot. Unless you are familiar with their style, you may do poorly at first. The ridiculous overcalls may work in BBO pickup games, I wonder how they do in longer tournaments against people who can play defense.

 

I think too much destructive (some might call it psych) bididng makes the game less interesting. It demphasizes deductive reasoning, and makes it more of a bluffing game.

[Guest Jlall]

---------

 

 

If I am playing a serious event: an event that I want to win, then my feeling is that they are welcome to play their style: I only hope that it is a long event/match.

 

--------

 

If the opponents are simply misguided (from my point of view) then my expectation is that we will beat the crap out of them over any reasonable number of boards, merely by playing normal bridge.

exactlyyyyyy. Everyone thinks you need to penalize these kind of geniuses, but the fact is if you just play bridge they will shoot themselves in the foot enough that they will lose. These type of players are encountered all the time at sectionals/regionals, and their style probably works against weaker players, but if they ever play against someone good they will lose without getting doubled. -300 and -150 are still poor results for them. My advice, like Mike's, would just be to play your normal game and pound these guys. Remember, you may miss some numbers and the opportunity to beat them by 200 imps, but beating them by 70 imps is sufficient.

[Free]

I speak from personal experience:

 

A few years ago, I started to realize that I could get away after bidding with weak and crappy hands. So I did it more and more, weaker and weaker, until people knew me well enough and started penalizing me instead of bidding after their partner's takeout doubles.

Now I found a balance between absolute madness and solid bidding (depending on the vulnerability ofcourse), which works perfectly for me and my partner. Against strong ♣ systems we still intervene on nothing when NV, but we have a good system which gets us in playable spots so no problem there (doubled -2 when they have game is fine by me).

These days, my opps don't know if I'm bidding with nothing or very solid. I've had several doubles against me, making my contract for an absolute top. These days, my opps are in doubt, which is a great help!

 

Imo, people who bid on nothing won't win against good players (why else isn't anyone doing this all the time at the very top level?). However, in certain circumstances it does work! Heavy preempting (5+ card) when NV vs V works, Lorenzo 2's work (I've played that on national top level and got great results),... When V however, you're screwed bigtime if you get doubled.

The people still doing this at all vulnerabilities will realize sooner or later that it doesn't work against good players, and will adjust their style anyway. It's your and our job to make them realize it sooner. :)

[mr1303]

Yesterday we had something similar happen to us. Each time they managed to get away with murder, causing us to defend a part score doubled for 1 off or to miss a cold slam:

 

Kxx

xxxx

x

JT9xx

 

LHO overcalled 2C (natural) over my 1NT (12+-15)

 

xxx

xxx

Qxx

Qxxx

 

 

1H (P) 2C (GF relay)

 

LHO decided to double to show clubs. Partner of course had 5 card support and raised to 3C. I held:

 

Kxx

Kxx

AKJxx

xx

 

decided that the chances of partner having a club control were remote, and signed off in 4H.

[MarceldB]

Hi Atul,

 

You are Foobar I suppose?

 

I can understand your posting. I kibitz sometimes twice a week at your 'dejeuner table', mainly too see how interference bidding from your side is handled ànd on the other side how opponents coop with your WOS.

 

Jx opposite AKTxxx ♥, finesse or not taking into account the overcall and the played cards sofar as an example , and moreover and specially all those silly interferences which you mentioned.

 

I have the impression that the main problem is that your opponents are pick-up partners. In many cases each one has completely different views about playing against a WOS. I can better say that they have no ideas at all most of the times.

 

Perhaps to avoid such an unpleasant development, give opponent a well worked-out ànd good fix defence if they do not have such one by their own. First 2, perhaps 3 rounds, of a sequence will be enough.

Even with the first round only will be already a great improvement.

 

Just a thought.....

 

An other aspect, as mentioned by other posters too, is your penalty handling.

I can imagine that you will not like it to overturn your system completely just because of those silly interferences. There are evenings too that opponents loss only by those bids, but last times this is not always the case. Reason for your posting I suppose.

 

Perhaps a (small) alteration in your system will be possible without causing much troubles in your further sequences?

Although this is more or less an "open door". Coop with silly as well as with full disclosure overcalls will be nearly impossible and should not be my goal.

 

Reason to demand of your opponent that they have to play your given defence òr their own full disclosure one. Creating in this way for bòth parties a possibility for a pleasant bridge game and you avoid that opponents will make silly bids with the aim to disturb only without interest in their own score.

If own full disclosure defences including silly bids, that's yoùr problem to solve.

 

 

Best regards,

Marcel

[hrothgar]

Couple comments:

 

First, I think that you need to be more precise with respect to your use of vocabulary. Your post touches on at least three distinct issues

 

1. Bids that encompass multiple meanings: For example, a suction type 1NT over of a strong club opening shows a two suited with (♣ + ♥) or a two suited hand with (♦ + ♠).

 

2. "Random" bidding. I don't know if random bidding has ever been explicitly defined within Bridge regulations. From my perspective, the key characteristic of random bidding is the application of a mixed strategy. As an example, assume that RHO opened 1♦ in second seat. Sitting white versus red, you hold

 

♠ xxx

♥ xx

♦ K

♣ AKT8732

 

You have an explict agreement that you will overcall:

 

1NT 33% of the time

2♣ 17% of the time

4♣ 50% of the time

 

3. Incomplete disclosure. This is a VERY different issue from 1 or 2

 

Second: I echo your frustration with trying to get an accurate description regarding the meaning of a 1♠ overcall of a strong club opening. I argue that many players use the "concept" of a psyche to conceal agreements. Unfortunately, there's not much that you can do about. I think that the dichotomy that MikeH introduces differentiating between long/short matches and formal/informal play is valuable.

 

Your best option is to look for long matches against well established partnerships...

[mike777]

What long matches? What well established partnerships?

 

There are a handful of well established partnerships in the world. Most of the bridge deals Zia, Hamman, Wolff and most top players play are not in well established partnerships. When Zia plays with Hamman that is not a well established partnership but closer to a pick up one, granted with world class players.

 

The 25 million bridge players play a handful of long matches over their lifetime.

99.99+ of bridge is pairs or swiss or short KO's?

[akhare]

Hi Atul,

 

You are Foobar I suppose?

 

I can understand your posting. I kibitz sometimes twice a week at your 'dejeuner table', mainly too see how interference bidding from your side is handled ànd on the other side how opponents coop with your WOS.

 

Jx opposite AKTxxx  ♥, finesse or not  taking into account the overcall and the played cards sofar as an example , and moreover and specially all those silly interferences which you mentioned.

Hi,

 

I am indeed foobar on BBO. And yes, my frustration is mainly directed not at the loss of our bidding precision, but the inability to draw any conclusions in the defence and play from the opponents' bidding.

 

I too agree that a lot of this might be a by product of adhoc partnerships, but isn't most online bridge that way? We too would love to play long matches against well established partnerships, but as someone pointed out there probably aren't very many of them in the first place.

 

Atul

[akhare]

Couple comments:

 

First, I think that you need to be more precise with respect to your use of vocabulary.  Your post touches on at least three distinct issues

 

Good points Richard -- as such, I have no problems what-so-ever with 1) (or 2) for that matter) and suspect that it's somewhere in the gray zone between 3) and just unsound bridge.

 

Actually, my partner raised an interesting point yesterday -- at what point does an unilateral violation of general agreements regarding overcall strength and requirements become unethical?

 

For example, consider the following in case of an adhoc partnership over the course of say 10 - 12 boards. Say on the first or second board w/ LHO opening, the bidding goes goes as follows (your partner overcalls 1♠):

 

(1♦) (1) - 1♠ - (X) (2)

 

1) artificial; 4+ ♠; 9-13 points

2) Negative X, showing 10+ points

 

Let's say that in this case you hold ♠ support and appopriately raise your partner to the 2 or 3 level. However, during the course of the play, partner's joke becomes apparent and over the course of the next few boards, you catch on to what partner's bidding is all about.

 

That means that, although you have no explicit agreements, you could be unconciously fielding partner's bids. While this may not seem that bad in itself, it violates the notion of full disclosure because you alone are in a position to judge whether partner is pulling a fast one (based on the the well defined bidding by opener and responder). However, the only inference available to the opponents is the apriori observation that your partner's bids constitute little more than random noise.

 

From the opponent's perspective, their options are to either:

 

1) Ignore your partner's bids completely

2) Employ a random bidding strategy of their own so as to skew inferences from your partner's bidding

 

Both of these options are detrimental to good bridge and IMO are better suited to poker...

 

Atul

[hrothgar]

Actually, my partner raised an interesting point yesterday -- at what point does an unilateral violation of general agreements regarding overcall strength and requirements become unethical?

You might also want to differentiate between incompetant and unethical...

[MarceldB]

LHO opening, the bidding goes goes as follows (your partner overcalls 1♠):

 

(1♦) (1) - 1♠ - (X) (2)

 

1) artificial; 4+ ♠; 9-13 points

2) Negative X, showing 10+ points

 

Let's say that in this case you hold ♠ support and appopriately raise your partner to the 2 or 3 level. However, during the course of the play, partner's joke becomes apparent and over the course of the next few boards, you catch on to what partner's bidding is all about.

 

But was it a joke?

 

That 1♠ bid, was well placed when you see the board.

 

E/NS

 

-------------A

-------------T832

-------------KJ2

-------------AKT84

8632------------------T974

A9---------------------QJ765

AQT764---------------3

9-----------------------753

--------------KQJ5

--------------K4

--------------985

--------------QJ62

 

P - 1D* - 1S - X*

3S- P - P - X*

P - 3NT - all pass

 

You can beat 3♠ in score only with, Ace♠ lead and underlead AK♣, so south's decision to bid 3NT is a good one in this case.

There was 1700 in the air, but also a good score for EW if 3♠X an no optimal defence.

[akhare]

But was it a joke?

 

That 1♠ bid,  was well placed when you see the board.

 

E/NS

 

-------------A

-------------T832

-------------KJ2

-------------AKT84

8632------------------T974

A9---------------------QJ765

AQT764---------------3

9-----------------------753

--------------KQJ5

--------------K4

--------------985

--------------QJ62

 

P - 1D* - 1S - X* 

3S- P    - P  - X*

P  - 3NT - all pass

 

h

In this case, you can even argue that it's a tactical bid and the overcaller intended to run to 2♦ if 1♠X is passed around.

 

However, while isolated cases like these may have some merit, "junk" bidding by the opponents seems to be endemic. In any case, if you look at the subsequent bids made by him, it's pretty obvious IMO, that the intention was to create nothing more than random noise -- "Throw anything at it" -- in this own words.

 

Atul

[mike777]

But was it a joke?

 

That 1♠ bid,  was well placed when you see the board.

 

E/NS

 

-------------A

-------------T832

-------------KJ2

-------------AKT84

8632------------------T974

A9---------------------QJ765

AQT764---------------3

9-----------------------753

--------------KQJ5

--------------K4

--------------985

--------------QJ62

 

P - 1D* - 1S - X* 

3S- P     - P  - X*

P  - 3NT - all pass

 

h

In this case, you can even argue that it's a tactical bid and the overcaller intended to run to 2♦ if 1♠X is passed around.

 

However, while isolated cases like these may have some merit, "junk" bidding by the opponents seems to be endemic. In any case, if you look at the subsequent bids made by him, it's pretty obvious IMO, that the intention was to create nothing more than random noise -- "Throw anything at it" -- in this own words.

 

Atul

Not sure what point you are making with this hand?

North/South seem to have bid normal and you guys made all the weird bids?

 

p=open sound, let the opp bid wierd

1d=spades, weird bid

1s=takeout of spades, may be light

x=wierd bid

3s=super max with good spades

p=wierd pass

p=lets play 3s or let the opp get confused

x=another wierd bid

p=got my bid

p=confused now

3nt=let them x me in 3nt

 

 

Again it seems n/s bid soundly against goofy system?

[hrothgar]

Not sure what point you are making with this hand?

North/South seem to have bid normal and you guys made all the weird bids?

Are you sure that you have the auction right?

EAST is the dealer...

 

For better (or worse) North/South are playing a transfer opening style. You might find this "weird", but its very playable. More importantly, if you're playing a majors first opening style with relays, xfer openings have some very big advantages. Many of the N/S bids that you comment as weird are basic takeout oriented doubles.

 

Atul's point (and I think that it is a valid one) is that there is a very big difference between "weird" stuff like a 1♦ which promises 4+ Spades and is alerted and pre-alerted as such and the "weird" 1♠ overcall. In this case, the 1♠ overcall ostensibly showed Spades, however, this bid was made holding

 

♠ 8632

♥ A9

♦ AQT974

♣ 9

[pigpenz]

sometimes the shortness of the matches tends to lend itself to the type of actions that opponents use using such obstructive systems. If we were playing a 12 board imp match against another team +1 would be great, but playing in imp pairs or matchpoint events where the matches are at most 12 boards tends to lead to ungodly high scores needed to win first overall. I guess we just have to learn to be happy with our own results that we achieve and realize that you cant always beat insanity.