Raptor

[Free]

I've been playing FREEWILL overcalls for a while now, which don't include a natural 1NT, and have a Power Dbl starting from 15+HCP. Here are my conclusions so far:

- After overcalls (showing at least 4-4 in 2 suits) we're placed VERY good. We know BOTH suits and the average strength. We still have invitational and GF relays, so no problem to find the good games. Preempting and disturbing opponent's biddings is one of our strengths. Sometimes however we show lots of information to the declarer when we have to defend...

- After the Dbl we might have problems, especially when opps have a fit. Therefor we modified response schemes (we play 1-level responses like the Fantunes system) and everything to limit the problems to a minimum. It works ok, but it's still the weakness of the system imo. With 19+HCP, we have to play at least 2NT where natural systems can play 1NT in some situations (Dbl followed by 1NT = 18-20). And opps usually aren't quiet after a Dbl.

 

In the end, I think we have an advantage over natural systems, but it's not perfect. It's indeed quite hard to evaluate a system objectively when you're enthousiast about it. :)

 

Raptor has another disadvantage, that it doesn't show BOTH suits immediatly. That's why I don't like it as much...

[fred]

Well, what I'm saying is this:

 

If you require that 1NT overcalls must have a stopper, then, when you DON'T have a stopper, you'll be in the same situation as Raptor NT overcallers when they have a 15-17 balanced hand.

 

That's why I say losing the natural 1NT overcall doesn't seem that big a deal to me. I do prefer to keep 1NT as natural, but I don't think artificializing it will necessarily lead to systematic bad scores.

 

As for the 14 cards, well, do away with a low club or so ;)

I don't agree with your argument, Mr. Eagles.

 

Suppose your system does not include a way to describe "a weak 2-bid in hearts".

 

Unless you play some other fancy convention you won't have an easy way to show this hand:

 

Jxxxxx

KQJ10xx

x

Void

 

And you will be in the same position as those that play a 2H opening as weak.

 

But if you don't use a weak 2H (or multi or whatever) you have no way to bid this (much more common) type of hand:

 

Jx

KQJ10xx

xxx

xx

 

Is this a big deal? I think so, but perhaps some people think it is not important to have a way to describe this hand or perhaps they think it is worth giving up on this hand in the interest of describing other types of hands with their 2H openings.

 

Similarly, just because "natural 1NT overcalls" provide not good way to describe 15-18 (or whatever) HCP balanced hands with no stopper in RHO's suit, that does not imply that it is OK to have no good way to describe (much more common) 15-18 HCP hands that contain a stopper in RHO's suit.

 

There are 2 types of hands we are considering here:

 

Type 1: 15-18 balanced hands with no stopper

Type 2: 15-18 balanced hands with a stopper

 

You are going to have a tough time with type 1 regardless of your methods.

 

But that doesn't mean that it is not a big deal if your choice of systems results in the type 2 hands becoming a problem as well.

 

I don't know enough about the "power doubles" that some posters have mentioned to comment on this. My instincts suggest that these methods are a lot more palatable than "raptor 1NT overcalls", but that traditional methods in this area are still superior.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

Power Doubles are just like a strong ♣ opening: strong, unlimited, any distribution. Usually 15+HCP, but some play it stronger.

[inquiry]

There are a couple of issues in this 1NT overcall, should it be raptor or natural that haven't been touched on. I will try to raise a few of these:

 

MAKING THE FIELD BID. If you are a great player (as Fred clearly is), bidding with the field and then outplaying them is clearly the right strategy. If I was fred (or at least had his abilities), I would overcall 1NT natural and outplay the field in the resulting contract. This is also true of other bis as well.

 

One thing is clear (no need to do a BridgeBrowser analysis on this), a 1NT overcall with 15-18 balanced is surely going to tend to get you into the “average result” as that will be the field bid for the most part. That is, nearly everyone else will bid 1NT so what happens next will follow a familiar pattern at all the other tables. To separate yourself from the field in the bidding, you will need to have a sound understanding of your follow up auctions. Thus, if perhaps your skills are a little rusty, there are two strategies, play with the field and try to get better or try some anti-field actions and hope for the best. Conventions like raptor give you a chance to go against the field without being crazy about it.

 

COMFORT ZONE -- BUT DONT SURPRIZE THE UNAWARE. As to the merits of a raptor overcall (and forgetting about the surprise factor if you use it on someone not ready to deal with it... you should prealert and explain possible defenses if they ask). I like raptor, because it fits my view of bidding. I use raptor because it makes me feel comfortable in the bidding. I like to make light-ish shape-specific doubles, and I have trouble finding partners who understand the concept of "equal level conversion" so doubling light without support for all unbid suits has not worked well for me over the years. Raptor allows me to double and then bid new suit to always show GOSH hands (good-one-suited-hands). Others like the comfort of using 1NT natural overcalls and have mastered the equal level conversions with their partners.

 

INABILITY TO USE NATURAL 1NT OVERCALL .

I have not used natural 1NT overcalls with regular partners for a long, long time. I have to admit, I don't feel disadvantaged not having a natural 1NT overcall, and I track my online bidding at least with BridgeBrowser and keep detailed records. I use to play overcall structure (a painful experience at imps, but very useful at matchpoints) with its POWER DOUBLES. The power double adequately handles the natural 1NT overcall but does not make up for the occasional blood baths when you use the artificial 1NT overcall (nor allow you to catch them with a takeout double converted to penalty double by partner). So I first switched to overcall structure not vul, natural Vul. Then finally left overcall structure all together. Currently I use the response to takeout doubles advocated by Glen Ashton on his bridgematters site. His scheme, combines well with raptor 1NT overcalls, where you might make a takeout double with a balanced hand typical 1NT overcall. So unlike Fred’s view, I happen not to miss the natural 1NT overcall. But that leads us to………..

 

THE REAL DISADVANTAGE OF RAPTOR. On the other hand, there is a huge disadvantage to raptor that most people overlook (fortunately btw if you play raptor.... but you also probably fail to make a necessary alert that will make this disadvantage problematic… shame on you if true).... that is the information that if you overcall a minor, you ALMOST CERTAINLY lack four cards in a major. This information can become deadly in the hands of your opponents. So deadly in fact, that even if you are comfortable giving up a natural 1NT opening you can easily decide that RAPTOR is too dangerous to use. Play raptor against good opponents, and you will find double dummy declarer play by them and double dummy defense by them more than usual.

 

Finally there was the comment by Free of a disadvantage of raptor is that one suit is unknown. I will have to disagree on this with him. This is not a disadvantage at all, because it is also unknown to your opponents, and your partner (unlike them) can make use of Paradox raises in many cases without disclosing to your opponents more information about your hand than is necessary to find a good spot. Sure, there is the occasional hand where I might have preempted wildly as advancer if I knew my partner held my long minor, but those are so few and far between, the uncertainty for the opponents tends to make up for the lack of ability to go nuts.

 

Final analysis. One certainly doesn't need raptor, and there is nothing wrong with overcalling 1NT with the normal kind of hands. In fact, if I was a better player, I would force natural 1NT overcall onto my partner. As it is now, I will play either. I have been experimenting with Misho-Raptor, as explained to me by MishovnBg. I have to admit I enjoy playing it, but the results ahve been sporatic.. .but primarily due to memory problems (ANOTHER PROBLEM with raptor... we all know how to bid after a natural 1NT overcall).

 

Ben

[joshs]

I also have never played raptor, but have a lot of experience with the overcall structure (at least a sane version of it) and I disagree about the strengths and weaknesses.

 

a. biggest strength are the roman jumps and cues (4 in higher suit, 5 in lower) these fill a hole in standard constructive bidding, and they are hard to defend against (what really is the best meaning for 1C-(2H)-x when 2H showed 4+S and 5+H? ).

 

When the auction goes:

(1D)-2C-P-?

Partner does not have a 4 card major. If I cue bid and he has a good hand, he will bid a good 3 card major. I never have to bid a 4 card major. Its really easy to find our major suit fits this way.

 

There is one big weakness of the roman jumps and cues, you have no bid to show 5-5 in the majors over 1 minor and have to start with a 1S overcall or a roman 2H bid.

 

b. The biggest weakness is the power x, since it leaves you poorly placed in competative auctions since it says nothing about shape (its like opening a precision 1C bid). Its also a bit awkward sorting out 4 card vs 5 card suits in some gameforcing auctions. But most of us play different followups than the orginal structure (with a herbert negative) that does make these auctions tolerable. It is nice on the balanced hands that didn't actually have a stopper, but they really are not that common... I find these auctions to me slight losers but only slight over normal methods.

 

c. When NV, the NT for takeout bid is a big winner:

it

A. helps us compete hands

B. Makes it hard for them to find 4-4 major suit fits

C. leaves us much better placed when the auction goes 1M-1N-4M than 1M-P-4M

D. Most importantly, it really helps us with our opening leads!!!!

 

Going for a number is rare, although when it happens, its bad. (its not just 800 vs 500, its 800 vs the 500 our teammates were unable to get since its hard to x at the 1 level)

 

 

Vulnerable, I have rather mixed feeling about 1N for takeout...

 

 

In general: in all methods you do well when your descriptive bids come up, and you do poorly when your more nebulous bids comes up, so its a question of having enough gains from the good hands to offset the losses from the bad hands in your methods...

 

 

Josh

[Free]

What is Misho-Raptor? Is there a link, or a topic in non-natural (hint hint)? B)

[MickyB]

I also have never played raptor, but have a lot of experience with the overcall structure (at least a sane version of it)

How do the sane and insane versions differ?

[inquiry]

What is Misho-Raptor? Is there a link, or a topic in non-natural (hint hint)? B)

I think I can summarize briefly...

 

He likes 1NT to be normal raptor (4 in major, longer minor) OR, five or more in a major and five plus in a minor. The normal raptor, any 4M, 5+minor is ok. For the hand with five or more in the major, the two suits are top and bottom. So if neither major is bid, the major is always spades, if neither minor has been bid, the minor is always clubs. Thus, misho-raptor is either normal raptor, or top-bottom two suiter.

 

There is a few other rules... with the top-bottom cue-bid it is a sound overcall or better, else just bid the major and rebid the minor. This also means that unusual notrump is always the two lowest unbids, and michaels is always the two highest unbid suits.

 

He also has rules about the 1NT bidders rebids that separate the true-raptor from the sound top/bottom hand. There is a thread somewhere in this forum on this, and a word document somewhere or at least an FD file with misho-raptor on it.

[fred]

There are a couple of issues in this 1NT overcall, should it be raptor or natural that haven't been touched on. I will try to raise a few of these:

 

MAKING THE FIELD BID. If you are a great player (as Fred clearly is), bidding with the field and then outplaying them is clearly the right strategy. If I was fred (or at least had his abilities), I would overcall 1NT natural and outplay the field in the resulting contract. This is also true of other bis as well.

This is a good argument and you are correct that there are many strong players (including me) who prefer systems and conventions that are unlikely to lead to a top or bottom situation as the result of an action in the early rounds of bidding.

 

However, I don't think you are being fair to yourself if you adopt the attitude "I will never be good enough to win simply by playing well so I will spend my time and energy working on bidding methods that, while against the odds, will give me a chance to win if the right hands come up".

 

An alternative approach is to spend your time and energy focusing on improving things like your card play, judgment, table feel, partnership skills, and concentration. Perhaps you have the ability to be a great player if you set you mind to becoming one.

 

Maybe you will never be as good a bridge player as me, but I will never be as good a bridge player as Meckstroth (for example). I am able to play well enough that I have a chance to beat the Meckstroths of the world on my best day. I have no doubt that most of the regular forums posters, through hard work, could develop the necessary skills to beat the Freds of the world on their best day.

 

It might be the case now that a team of Bens playing a long match against a team of Freds and using the same system might win only 3% of the time. Perhaps randomizing the bidding will increase Team Ben's chances of winning to 5%. It could well be the case that Team Ben will never be a favorite in such a match, but I do believe that the Bens could raise their chances well beyond that 5% by concentrating on the things that I think really matter.

 

In each generation there are a few special bridge players are born with a gift that makes the game easy for them. The rest of us (and "us" includes me) need to be prepared to spend many years of hard work if they really want to learn to play this game well enough to have a reasonable chance to win every event they enter. I am living proof that this is possible to achieve (as are most of the other highly successful players out there).

 

I have tried to make this point (more than once) in previous forums post. No doubt some of you don't believe me or don't want to believe me. However, I have been through this process myself and along the way I have looked carefully at the difference between those people who become players and those who remain mired in conventions and systems.

 

Of course it is possible that I am completely wrong, but everything I have observed in my experience supports the same conclusion:

 

Spending one's (limited) mental resources focusing on bridge will pay much greater long term dividends than using those resources to experiment with conventions and systems.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

Nice.

[whereagles]

Type 1: 15-18 balanced hands with no stopper

Type 2: 15-18 balanced hands with a stopper

 

You are going to have a tough time with type 1 regardless of your methods.

 

But that doesn't mean that it is not a big deal if your choice of systems results in the type 2 hands becoming a problem as well.

eheh.. I knew you were going to argue like this :)

 

I see the point, of course. Still, I don't think that making hand type 2 harder to bid causes such a high degree of trouble that overcall systems with artificial 1NT bids become unplayable. And, after all, the trade-off of freeing 1NT will help with other hand types.

 

That being said, let me play a bit of devil's advocate here :) The need for Raptor NT is lessened if you play stuff like equal level correction and/or Miles-style 4-card 1M overcalls ;)

[Sigi_BC84]

Spending one's (limited) mental resources focusing on bridge will pay much greater long term dividends than using those resources to experiment with conventions and systems.

Brilliant observations, Fred (yet again).

 

You should keep it mind, however, that the typical system freak so badly enjoys fiddling with the bids and conventions. Compare it to the computer hacker who simply enjoys Tweaking That Machine as an end in itself. I belong to both groups so I know what I'm talking about :-).

 

I also often hear stories along the lines of "boy, could he play the cards, but his bidding was atrocious". This is the complement of the problem the system freaks have. Many people will never get appropriate results (matching their card playing abilities), because they refuse to improve their bidding methods.

 

A good strategy is probably to start with a reasonably simple, but working, system and concentrate on technique, counting, etc. next for at least some years -- if you can resist system esoterica (that's a huge "if" for some of us).

 

--Sigi (who, of course, does enjoy playing Raptor :-)

[Echognome]

A very nice and interesting post Fred. I do have some follow ups if you care to respond.

 

If we look at the Bermuda Bowl participants and in particular the top pairs in the world, we find that a large percentage play some type of strong club system. It might vary from 4 card majors or 5 card majors, strong NT or weak NT, but there is some variety out there. There are of course many natural systems being played as well. So what should we conclude from this? Is it that system doesn't really matter or that certain systems suit some people more than others?

 

For a long time I played a homegrown system that I built from the ground up based upon a strong diamond. There were many of the aspects I liked about it and it was natural for many of the sequences. However, as we developed the system we found that the bidding agreements grew tremendously and the various treatments differed widely based upon the opening bid (both contested and uncontested).

 

Also, in regards to building a system, I feel like I've learned a lot in the process. I read quite a few books on bidding theory along the way. (Simon's Design for Bidding and Hughes Building a Bidding System are among the better ones in my view.) I believe thinking about a system as a whole and what consequences there are for playing one way or another are very interesting and insightful. I wonder to what extent the field should play a role in any design. Given that we play a wider variety of bridge in England than in the U.S.(not meant to offend), perhaps it is not as important.

 

I've recently switched to Tarzan club and enjoy it because it requires less memory for me. I chose to switch because several of the very best players in my area play it and I figured it would give me a chance to play with better people, which has been the case. I also think it is better for slam bidding which I feel is especially important in team matches. Note that I don't believe that we will have better judgment on slams than natural players with excellent judgment. I do believe however that we have better judgment than we would playing a natural system. That is I feel the best comparison is with myself. I am constantly looking at deals and comparing to how I might bid the hands playing natural.

 

I agree whole-heartedly that there are more aspects to the game than bidding. It is true that card play and defense are extremely important. I think it would be interesting to get the opinion of the world class players though on how much they think is lost between bidding, declarer play, and defense (if one thinks they can be broken down as such).

 

One final thing is that many of our student players start learning about bridge and are taught a very basic system (Acol typically). They start to get an interest in the game and learn of some bidding problems. They then figure out that there is thing called conventions and want to learn more about it. At first I was quite discouraging to them learning many conventions. I believed it was better for their game to focus on natural bidding judgment, card play, and defense. However, now I feel the opposite. The reason for that is that bridge seems more exciting for many of these players as they are learning new things. They are not all playing the same system and are confronted with different types of problems. I found that even though it wasn't necessarily best for their game to experiment, that it kept them with a spark in bridge. And let's face it, the vast majority of us will never make it to the highest levels of bridge anyway. So should we be encouraging players to be the best player they can be or to have the most enjoyment out of bridge that they can?

[fred]

Spending one's (limited) mental resources focusing on bridge will pay much greater long term dividends than using those resources to experiment with conventions and systems.

Brilliant observations, Fred (yet again).

 

You should keep it mind, however, that the typical system freak so badly enjoys fiddling with the bids and conventions. Compare it to the computer hacker who simply enjoys Tweaking That Machine as an end in itself. I belong to both groups so I know what I'm talking about :-).

 

I also often hear stories along the lines of "boy, could he play the cards, but his bidding was atrocious". This is the complement of the problem the system freaks have. Many people will never get appropriate results (matching their card playing abilities), because they refuse to improve their bidding methods.

 

A good strategy is probably to start with a reasonably simple, but working, system and concentrate on technique, counting, etc. next for at least some years -- if you can resist system esoterica (that's a huge "if" for some of us).

 

--Sigi (who, of course, does enjoy playing Raptor :-)

I fully understand that there are plenty of people who get their primary enjoyment from bridge out of experimenting with system.

 

The point I was trying to make is that this is not conducive to winning at the highest levels.

 

And I know plenty of the "great card players but attrocious bidders" types. However, the attrocious nature of their bidding has nothing to do with the methods they play. These people typically bid poorly because lack some combination of judgment, discipline, and partnership skills.

 

There is no doubt that is pays to study bidding, but studying systems and conventions is not the same thing. For example, I would consider it an extremely valuable exercise to read and reread every edition of the "Master Solvers' Club" in The Bridge World magazine dating back to at least 1970.

 

You would learn almost nothing about systems or conventions by doing this, but you would become a much better bidder in the process.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

A very nice and interesting post Fred.  I do have some follow ups if you care to respond.

 

If we look at the Bermuda Bowl participants and in particular the top pairs in the world, we find that a large percentage play some type of strong club system.  It might vary from 4 card majors or 5 card majors, strong NT or weak NT, but there is some variety out there.  There are of course many natural systems being played as well.  So what should we conclude from this?  Is it that system doesn't really matter or that certain systems suit some people more than others?

I think all you can conclude is that the methods played by the world's leading players are at least reasonably good methods. Otherwise these players would either be smart enough to know that their methods were ineffective or their poor methods would give them such a handicap over the rest of the field that they would not be able to be successful in major tournaments.

 

Yes there are a lot of strong club pairs in the group you describe and several flavors of such systems. There are also a lot of pairs who play natural systems (some weak notrumpers some strong notrumpers some 4-card majors some 5-card majors...). There are some pairs who play Polish or Swedish style 1C systems as well. Some of these pairs include a lot of science in later rounds of the bidding. Others do not.

 

To me this suggests that basic choice of system is not important (as long as the basic system is not completely absurd).

 

You will notice that very few (none?) of the pairs at the highest levels use strong diamond systems or Raptor 1NT overcalls. This doesn't necessarily imply that such methods are inherantly bad - perhaps the world's leading players have simply not tried them. However, if such methods offered significant advantage over more "traditional" methods, I am pretty sure that at least some of the world's leading players would have figured this out and that they would be using them. It would not take long for word to spread.

 

Once you play bridge anywhere close to as well as, say, Fantoni and Nunes, by all means go ahead and try to play a system like theirs if you are so inclined - you will be ready for it.

 

What I am trying to say is that, until you reach that point, you will be better off spending your time trying to reach that point. My observations suggest that the vast majority of talented players who focus on system "too early" in their bridge careers and refuse to let go of this never become successful at the highest levels.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

ww.bridgebase.com

[luis]

I raise my hand :-)

When I started playing bridge I focused too much on the system, today I've come to the conclusion that the system you must play is the system that is better for your partnership and that the system while important is not as important as playing well, defending well and having good judgement in the auction.

I play Fantunes-style with my regular pd because we were too undisciplined to play 2/1 in a succesful way, not knowing if pd opened on 8 or 15 or what was destructive, with Fantunes we are "under control" so it is going fine. I've simplified everything I could, our system notes are a 6 page booklet mostly focusing in the NT structure, the competitive agreements and the development of the most regular sequences.

I like listening to what good players say and Fred's advice about focusing in the play and judgement has been a great advice to me, my juniors-time coach also focused a lot on that so I'm very grateful to him too.

I strongly believe that in order to be a good player you have to start learning to be a good defender and a good declarer, you have to learn to develop a good judgement to get out of difficult bidding situations and then if you are lucky to have a regular pd just try to find the system that works best for both of you. Working on a system without a pd is useless and working on a system without the skills that Fred mentioned will just lead to embarrasing results.

 

Where I play I've witnessed a case of a group of 4 students that started taking classes with a good teacher, they played vanilla 2/1 and quickly started to do quite well, many mistakes but I was suprised to see how they were progressing. For some reason they moved to another teacher who started teaching them a precision system, their results have become horrible, they don't have an idea of what they are bidding and their play and defense has declined a lot. A pitty.

 

Luis

[kenrexford]

For whatever it is worth, I'll add my two-cents worth on the spinoff initiated by Fred.

 

I started playing bridge as a youngster (11), like far too few of us. In any event, I learned the basics relatively well from my parents.

 

In college, I started experimenting with KS and Precision. In grad school, it as canape and a strong 1D. I started spinning out new systems and new conventions of my own. It was hysterical and fun.

 

After that, I tried light initial action. Then, with a group of canape fiends, I "perfected" their canape into a very good working system, resulting in a great number of wins. I also tinkered with psychics and strange bidding generally.

 

While this process was developing, a few things occurred in my game. First, experimentation often leads to bizarre contracts, which by test of fire increases your ability to declare strange contracts, and hence to declare sound contracts better. Second, I grew an ability to better understand natural and standard bidding by better understanding the theory of bidding generally. Third, I gained an ability to create on-the-spot defenses to almost anything thrown at me. This process, therefore, developed me as a much better bidder and much better declarer.

 

HOWEVER!!! There IS a big however. Something really troubling occurred. I made a decision to mainstream. I had gained a ton of knowledge about the game and a lot of skills. I started playing 2/1 GF with solid semi-professionals and other solid partners. It took me a while to get back into the mainstream thinking on obscure issues, but I accomplished this. So, what was the problem?

 

No one takes you seriously for a long time.

 

If you want to compete really well in Flight A regional events, all of this is great. If you want to compete well in a National tournament, the problem starts to creep up. Forget world chamionships. Why? The problem is NOT necessarily the techniques. The problem is the guy across the table from you. By this point, you undoubtedly have enjoyed this funny stuff because you can beat up on the opponents, even good opponents. However, your partner is some goofball you picked up, granted with decent skills, but NOT with the skills you'd need from a partner to move on. There are exceptions, but rare. If you actually feel capable of winning a national event, you will realize shortly that comparable potential partners view you as the wildman who cannot play normal bridge and cannot be trusted. If you feel capable of sitting on a team with a shot at the USBF Championships, you will not get invited to join, and you cannot put together your own team.

 

The funny thing is that, on occasion, your gained knowledge sometimes hurts. You may realize that such-and-such bid actually works better than the standard bidding. But, you cannot convince someone who lacks your experience in alternative bidding theory. So, you face the daunting task of intentionally "misbidding" a hand to assure people that you actually bid well. You find yourself incapable of suggesting neat treatments because people are frightened by your mad science. Instead, you forfeit, for a while, any bidding creativity to regain the trust of THEM, the inner circle.

 

Then comes the hand. You make a call that CLEARLY is right. However, the expert has never seen this and pre-judges your "esoteric thinking" as just that and not actually brilliant. The expert decides that you are just odd and stops thinking rationally. The end result might be a great score, but you have sunk down, again, into obscurity.

 

So, is Raptor a good convention? I suspect that a lot of people who post here might re-think their positions and listen to Fred. Not necessarily for the same reasons. I am not so sure that all of those who tinker lack bridge judgment and basic bridge skills (many do). Some are potentially great players.

 

But, some of the tinkerers probably could partner with Fred or even with Jeff if Fred and Jeff were not convinced of a lack of bridge judgment and basic skills because you play and like Raptor.

[MickyB]

Then comes the hand.  You make a call that CLEARLY is right.  However, the expert has never seen this and pre-judges your "esoteric thinking" as just that and not actually brilliant.  The expert decides that you are just odd and stops thinking rationally.  The end result might be a great score, but you have sunk down, again, into obscurity.

Interesting. Any chance you could give us example(s) of "the hand"?

[kenrexford]

By "the hand" I mean a general hand where something like this occurs. I, personally, have had lots of discussions over the years, at great length, with extremely good top players where the discussion goes something like this:

 

"What were you thinking on board #2?"

"Well, when LHO..."

"Never mind -- I don't want to hear it."

"But, you can see that I was right in that..."

"That won't work all the time."

"Of course not, but..."

"What am I supposed to do with four spades?"

"Bid them. It won't matter because..."

"Oh, yeah, then they preempt us."

"But..."

"Where's the hospitality room?"

 

When I have accomplished sitting someone down to really discuss the theory on certain types of calls, I often have heard things like how the bids might make sense, and might even be right, but that no one does that.

 

Contrast this with how these discussions usually go when you have no mad scientist baggage:

 

"That was an interesting call on Board #2."

"I'm not sure it was right. I just noticed that LHO had passed initially."

"So, you assumed that he must have a four-card major also. Hmmm."

"This probably comes up once every ten years, so I thought I'd be creative."

"Yeah, you cannot exactly discuss this beforehand. I like it."

 

Same bid, same reasoning, different reaction.

[joshs]

A very nice and interesting post Fred.  I do have some follow ups if you care to respond.

 

If we look at the Bermuda Bowl participants and in particular the top pairs in the world, we find that a large percentage play some type of strong club system.  It might vary from 4 card majors or 5 card majors, strong NT or weak NT, but there is some variety out there.  There are of course many natural systems being played as well.  So what should we conclude from this?  Is it that system doesn't really matter or that certain systems suit some people more than others?

I think all you can conclude is that the methods played by the world's leading players are at least reasonably good methods. Otherwise these players would either be smart enough to know that their methods were ineffective or their poor methods would give them such a handicap over the rest of the field that they would not be able to be successful in major tournaments.

 

Yes there are a lot of strong club pairs in the group you describe and several flavors of such systems. There are also a lot of pairs who play natural systems (some weak notrumpers some strong notrumpers some 4-card majors some 5-card majors...). There are some pairs who play Polish or Swedish style 1C systems as well. Some of these pairs include a lot of science in later rounds of the bidding. Others do not.

 

To me this suggests that basic choice of system is not important (as long as the basic system is not completely absurd).

 

You will notice that very few (none?) of the pairs at the highest levels use strong diamond systems or Raptor 1NT overcalls. This doesn't necessarily imply that such methods are inherantly bad - perhaps the world's leading players have simply not tried them. However, if such methods offered significant advantage over more "traditional" methods, I am pretty sure that at least some of the world's leading players would have figured this out and that they would be using them. It would not take long for word to spread.

 

Once you play bridge anywhere close to as well as, say, Fantoni and Nunes, by all means go ahead and try to play a system like theirs if you are so inclined - you will be ready for it.

 

What I am trying to say is that, until you reach that point, you will be better off spending your time trying to reach that point. My observations suggest that the vast majority of talented players who focus on system "too early" in their bridge careers and refuse to let go of this never become successful at the highest levels.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

ww.bridgebase.com

Well I have never understood this "learn to play bridge better line of reasoning". Playing bridge has many aspects, and involves many skills:

a. technical skills playing the cards

b. psychology/ card reading/ logic

c. good visualization/judgement in the bidding

d. memory for what cards have been played

e. having bidding and carding agreements (AND remembering them) that solve problems for your side AND/OR give opponents problems [Essentially this falls under "do your homework"]

f. mental toughness and endurance

 

A great player usually has good skills in most if not all of these areas. Most players have skills in at least some. I think you do need good skills in all of these areas, but you don't have to be world class in all of these. Feed off your strengths! If you are a good card reader, try to become a great one. If you have accedents when using complex methods, use simple ones and focus on what you do well. If you have a computer for a memory and so does your partner, go ahead and try to get an edge in the bidding with them. Just keep in mind for most of us, at some point remembering a complex system takes a mental toll on you, and tires you out while playing in a big event. If you are the sort who can play Ultimate Club in a long match while

being able to still play your cards well and not lose whatever psychological skill you have, more power to you, I think you should play the relay methods - get the biggest advantage from your skills. For the rest of us, its an optimization problem - how do distribute your mental energy to perform the best at the table.

 

Speaking for myself. My biggest strength comes in understanding the structure of bidding. Its not hard work for me to play fairly complicated methods - I remember them and get good results from them. Complicated methods doesn't necessarily involve lots of conventions, just lots of agreements of what partner will do which such and such a hand type in a given situation. But conventions do help in many situations. The time I put in ahead of time into putting good methods together pays off for me. I don't think its fair to say that isn't "playing bridge." Its the aspect of bridge that I am best at. While I would like to get better at solving double dummy problems, and in general improve my card play and my table reading skills, it wouldn't be the same game, and it wouldn't have the same people win if you eliminate the value of some of these other skills. (Read this as both a diatribe on too overarching system restrictions as well as my thoughts about what "playing bridge is.")

 

Now having said that, I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time on bidding gadgets, and can't play the cards at even a respectible level (and some who have bad bidding judgement). Well there is no point bidding 60% slams if you can't make them over 50% of the time... And there is no point pushing your opps into a bad contract, if you fail to beat it.

 

Fred do you disagree?

 

Josh

[fred]

But, some of the tinkerers probably could partner with Fred or even with Jeff if Fred and Jeff were not convinced of a lack of bridge judgment and basic skills because you play and like Raptor.

I can't speak for Jeff, but I would never say "no" to a potential partner because I think their preferred choice of methods is poor. In the past year or so, besides my regular partner (Brad Moss) I have played in tournaments with successful professional players like Alan Sontag, Marc Jacobus, Eddie Wold, Billy Miller, Roger Bates, and Geoff Hampson.

 

In most cases I would agree to play whatever system my partner wanted even though I thought that every one of these great players had some bidding ideas that were truly poor. In the rare cases that I refused to play a convention, it was only because I was concerned that I would forget it.

 

There are a few conventions I would flat out refuse to play because I think they are horrible. Raptor 1NT overcalls are an example. Fortunately there are very few players in the class of the partners that I usually play with who would try to impose such conventions on me (because most of these people would agree with my assessments of most of these conventions).

 

Nowadays I don't have much time for actually playing bridge and, whenever I do play, I am almost certainly getting paid well to do it. I cannot afford the time to play "just for fun". 5 years ago it was different and I would happily play with anyone whose company I enjoyed, regardless of their skill level or their preferred choice of bidding methods.

 

When I do play with a "lesser player" I ask them if they want me to point out when I think they have made a mistake. Most say yes. Most also listen to what I have to say. I don't mind if they disagree with me, want to discuss further, or need me to further clarify my opinion. However, I do not appreciate it when such people telling me that they are CLEARLY right. This shows a lack of respect in my view.

 

When you play with a more accomplished player you should make the assumption that you are always wrong. Listen to what the person has to say and give a lot of thought to it before you come to any conclusions. Of course your expert partner, just like everyone else, will frequently be the one that is wrong. The point is that you are not going to benefit nearly as much from the experience of playing with a better player unless you go into this with the right attitude.

 

I am not necessarily suggesting you have a bad attitude. I would actually have to play with you to make a judgment about this. No offense intended, but I think that it is likely that either your attitude is less than perfect or that you have been very unlucky with the group of "experts" you have had a chance to play with.

 

In my opinion, most really good players welcome the opportunity to play with lesser players who are pleasant, have potential, have a good attitude, and genuinely want to learn. Of course many of these people play bridge for a living and cannot afford to do this sort of thing on a regular basis.

 

And if you become a really good player it is 100% certain that you will attract the attention of the established experts and have opportunities to play with strong partners and teammates (unless you are a complete jerk - then it won't matter how well you play). These people want to win. If you become good enough to help them win, they will try to sign you up.

 

They may refuse to play raptor or canape with you, but they will want to play with you.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

A very nice and interesting post Fred.  I do have some follow ups if you care to respond.

 

If we look at the Bermuda Bowl participants and in particular the top pairs in the world, we find that a large percentage play some type of strong club system.  It might vary from 4 card majors or 5 card majors, strong NT or weak NT, but there is some variety out there.  There are of course many natural systems being played as well.  So what should we conclude from this?  Is it that system doesn't really matter or that certain systems suit some people more than others?

I think all you can conclude is that the methods played by the world's leading players are at least reasonably good methods. Otherwise these players would either be smart enough to know that their methods were ineffective or their poor methods would give them such a handicap over the rest of the field that they would not be able to be successful in major tournaments.

 

Yes there are a lot of strong club pairs in the group you describe and several flavors of such systems. There are also a lot of pairs who play natural systems (some weak notrumpers some strong notrumpers some 4-card majors some 5-card majors...). There are some pairs who play Polish or Swedish style 1C systems as well. Some of these pairs include a lot of science in later rounds of the bidding. Others do not.

 

To me this suggests that basic choice of system is not important (as long as the basic system is not completely absurd).

 

You will notice that very few (none?) of the pairs at the highest levels use strong diamond systems or Raptor 1NT overcalls. This doesn't necessarily imply that such methods are inherantly bad - perhaps the world's leading players have simply not tried them. However, if such methods offered significant advantage over more "traditional" methods, I am pretty sure that at least some of the world's leading players would have figured this out and that they would be using them. It would not take long for word to spread.

 

Once you play bridge anywhere close to as well as, say, Fantoni and Nunes, by all means go ahead and try to play a system like theirs if you are so inclined - you will be ready for it.

 

What I am trying to say is that, until you reach that point, you will be better off spending your time trying to reach that point. My observations suggest that the vast majority of talented players who focus on system "too early" in their bridge careers and refuse to let go of this never become successful at the highest levels.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

ww.bridgebase.com

Well I have never understood this "learn to play bridge better line of reasoning". Playing bridge has many aspects, and involves many skills:

a. technical skills playing the cards

b. psychology/ card reading/ logic

c. good visualization/judgement in the bidding

d. memory for what cards have been played

e. having bidding and carding agreements (AND remembering them) that solve problems for your side AND/OR give opponents problems [Essentially this falls under "do your homework"]

f. mental toughness and endurance

 

A great player usually has good skills in most if not all of these areas. Most players have skills in at least some. I think you do need good skills in all of these areas, but you don't have to be world class in all of these. Feed off your strengths! If you are a good card reader, try to become a great one. If you have accedents when using complex methods, use simple ones and focus on what you do well. If you have a computer for a memory and so does your partner, go ahead and try to get an edge in the bidding with them. Just keep in mind for most of us, at some point remembering a complex system takes a mental toll on you, and tires you out while playing in a big event. If you are the sort who can play Ultimate Club in a long match while

being able to still play your cards well and not lose whatever psychological skill you have, more power to you, I think you should play the relay methods - get the biggest advantage from your skills. For the rest of us, its an optimization problem - how do distribute your mental energy to perform the best at the table.

 

Speaking for myself. My biggest strength comes in understanding the structure of bidding. Its not hard work for me to play fairly complicated methods - I remember them and get good results from them. Complicated methods doesn't necessarily involve lots of conventions, just lots of agreements of what partner will do which such and such a hand type in a given situation. But conventions do help in many situations. The time I put in ahead of time into putting good methods together pays off for me. I don't think its fair to say that isn't "playing bridge." Its the aspect of bridge that I am best at. While I would like to get better at solving double dummy problems, and in general improve my card play and my table reading skills, it wouldn't be the same game, and it wouldn't have the same people win if you eliminate the value of some of these other skills. (Read this as both a diatribe on too overarching system restrictions as well as my thoughts about what "playing bridge is.")

 

Now having said that, I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time on bidding gadgets, and can't play the cards at even a respectible level (and some who have bad bidding judgement). Well there is no point bidding 60% slams if you can't make them over 50% of the time... And there is no point pushing your opps into a bad contract, if you fail to beat it.

 

Fred do you disagree?

 

Josh

I am not exactly sure what you are asking me.

 

I agree that points A through F in your post are all necessary conditions for success in major tournaments (and that none of these are, in themselves, sufficient conditions).

 

Playing complex artificial methods is clearly not necessary for success. There are many examples that demonstrate this - perhaps the best is to look at the success of the great French teams in the 1990s.

 

The point I have been trying to make all along is that, if you want to win national and international level events, you had better make sure that you able to do the things that are necessary to accomplish this.

 

People who spend a lot of their time and energy working on things that are not necessary for success instead of the things that are necessary for success do not rate to be successful :blink:

 

If this does not answer your question, then please clarify.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[joshs]

Fred, let me give an example:

 

Example A: You are a promising young player with a flair for reading your opponents. You have some major weaknesses, such as not really being able to work out the better declarer line when line A was 60% and line B was only 50%. You have trouble with double dummy problems, and don't seem to get much better even with practice, but at the table you usually find the winning line even if against the odds.

 

Is this player better off:

1. trying to get his technical card playing up to snuff?

or

2. trying to further improve his already good card sense?

 

Which gives the more bang for the buck? Can this person become world class without improving 1?

 

Example B: You have a computer for a memory and so does your bridge partner. You have been playing some ART methods and when they come up, you find that you often generate slam swings. You have some new ideas that you have been thinking about that should help your bidding on 5% of the hands without losing anything the rest of the time, but have yet to work out the details. Your card play is strong but could get better with more practice. Sadly, you wouldn't notice that an opponent hitched if they jumped on the table.

 

Again, how should this player spend his time to improve? And can this person ever become world class without any table sense?

 

 

My main question is:

1. Is it always correct to attempt to improve your weaknesses, or might you be better off further enhancing your strengths?

2. Do the two optimization problems lead to different allocations of your time:

a. become as good as you can in 5 years?

b. win a world championship in 5 years?

3. Is improving one's 'bidding system skill' in a different catagory from these other skills? (You seem to think so)

 

Note: I think there are two different skills at play with bidding systems (as with languages):

a. vocabulary - you have a good memory and can remember the meanings of all sort of sequences and know what to do with various hand types and have developed some novel meanings for some bids/sequences that has gotten you improved results.

b. grammar - you understand the internal logic of how systems are put together. You can work out what a bid should logically mean even if you don't remember the sequence or have never discussed it. If someone gives you a brand new set of methods, you can read them and play them easily, as long as they make sense.

 

Note that skill 'a' is non-transferable, when playing in a new partnership it does not give you any instant advantage, while skill 'b' is transferable and I think much more valuable.

 

Anyway, Fred thanks for your thoughts! Its always valuable to get feedback from great players on how to improve. I really appreciate your taking the time to do that.

 

Josh

[hrothgar]

Couple thoughts (please note, I'm not stating any personally opinions but rather suggesting a framework which might be used to analyze the problem)

 

1. Assume that there are a number of different skills which can (potentially) improve your game. This skills include bidding, declarer play, defense, yada yada yada. In theory, it might be possible to define a heirarchy of skills in which some skills like counting or visualizing a hand provide a foundation for a number of others... (For example, learning to count out a hand helps both declarer play and defense)

 

2. Further assume that a players "level" of skill is a function of (Time spent Practicing). We'll make the "standard" assumptions that the first derivative of skill with respect to time is positive and the second derivative of skill with respect to time is negative. This is a pretensious way of say that the more you practice, the better you get. However, the benefit that you enjoy from investing the first 10 hours practicing defense is greater that the benefit from the second 10 hours. (Learning how to finesse is incredible valuable. Learning to end play people is almost as good. By the time you get to "weird" stepping stone squeezes, things are so esoteric that you'll rarely get to apply these skills at the table)...

 

Normally, when you make these types of assumptions, the "optimal" solution is for players to divide their time between a number of different skills. You spend some time on declarer play, a bit on defense, learn a few new bidding conventions then back to declarer play. In theory, you want to allocate you time in such a manner that the marginal benefit of an additional hour of work in any given area is (approximately) equal. Needless to say, this is easier said than done. It gets particularly complicated when there are cross dependencies between different skill sets.

 

Even so, Fred is suggesting that players should spent most of their time focusing on the basics and ignoring esoterica like relay slam bidding, assumed fit preempts, and the like. I have a fair amount of sympathy with this view: Counting and visualizing a hand are the foundation which props up the entire system. Indeed, as I have noted in the past, when I teach bridge to new players, we ignore bidding altogether.

 

With this said and done, I suspect that that whole "diminishing marginal returns" issue is gonna kick in, and kick in hard. Its true, the French team was able to score some very impressive successes using very "simple" methods. However, from my perspective, the key issue is NOT whether its possible to win playing simple methods, but rather, what is the most efficient method of investing one's time. Personally, I suspect that the most efficient solution is to adopt extremely high variance methods. (Such a solution would permit me to avoid any requirement to invest lots of time learning the obscure details of declarer play and defense). I'd expect very high returns working to ensure that my partnership landed on its feet after one of our "weird" openings.

 

Personally, I think that this provides a quite reasonable description of the state of bridge today. In particular, it describes why there is such tension regarding methods... The players who are investing the most time have an incentive to reduce variance. The players who are investing less time have a powerful incentive to icnrease variance.

[Guest Jlall]

Interestingly, I do the opposite of Josh.

 

I always am trying to improve on my weaknesses. I'll be the first one to admit that technical play is not my forte. It doesn't really interest me much trying to find 2 % improvements on my line. My main focus when I became "advanced" was trying to improve on my technique. I do believe having sound technique and not being sloppy are very important. Those extra 2 %s here and 3 %s there will add up. I forced myself to read a lot of declarer play books and motivate myself to be less of a sloppy player. I would say my technique now is good, but it's still not up to the level of someone like say, Rosenberg (and may never be). I still force myself to try and play my cards in the right order once ive found a good general line in order to maximize my chances. Through hard work I've been able to tighten up my play, even though it's not something that is naturally interesting to me.

 

I have several weaknesses, and those are always what I'm focusing on, not my strengths. I'm not sure if this is the right approach but it has always seemed logical to me.