a different view of bridge

[inquiry]

Social games are fine, and quite entertaining. You can go to Aunt Millie's house and play and have fun. Or on BBO you can create a total point table, even in the main room, and joke around all you want. Not only push the double key for your penalty double but type to the TABLE... "BLOODDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to drive home the point. No one will care, how you play at Aunt Millie's or what you do in total point games.

 

Duplicate games, however, there is also a social responsibility. Why? Because the scores you earn on your table WILL AFFECT the results (scoring) at all the other tables. Within that context, the players at the other tables don't want to see 7NTxx on every board coming from your "social fun table." The society represented by the other tables in which your scores are DUPLICATED calls for people to be social too... but social in several context. Friendly, yes. But following the rules for the society made up of people who choose to play duplicate boards. Don't know the rules of bridge? That is fine. The simple rule is to try your best to win, and when someone points out, hopefully politely, that typing "BLOOD....!!!!" to the table is inappropriate, well, take it in the spirit of the game and slow learn what is, and what is not, allowed in the duplicate society.

 

I had this experience recently.. an opponent responded with shall we say is much less than normal (a 2/1 GF bid on 5 hcp) and his partner leaped to 4NT.. he typed to the table "lol!!!!"... This was in a pay-tournament, which is the most strict rule following competition.

[david_c]

surely the EBU and ACBL etc , can come up with a set of rules for social play at a club and the expert competitive play can stick to the complex rigid very hard to understand for the lay person set of rules that prosper in their environment

Interestingly the EBU seems to be seriously considering the possibility of suggesting different rules for "social" games. This is from page 3 of the L&E minutes for October:

 

Mr Martin opened the discussion by saying that the published regulations were fine for the highest level but those who played for fun found the Orange Book a nightmare. He was suggesting a simplified set of regulations that regular club and social members could easily understand. He cited Andrew Robson’s club where regulations were simple and easy to follow. [...]

 

Personally I'm sceptical. While I can understand the wish to provide the ideal playing conditions for every sort of game, I doubt that it's possible to do this without confusing everybody. Besides, I think that the vast majority of problems that you have in trying to apply "competitive" rules to "social" duplicates are either

 

(i) Fundamental to the game of bridge and can't be solved; or

(ii) Would not be so bad if the people running the game actually thought carefully enough about getting the regulations right in the first place; or

(iii) Could be solved by better publicity. [e.g. in the EBU's case, don't refer ordinary members to the Orange Book, but instead tell them what they need to know.]

[sceptic]

ok, here are a few thoughts you

 

 

I want to win because I played well.

Its meaningless (unless I'm competing in the nationals)

There are players who are so uptight about rules -

- I had a very tough 5 level decision whether to bid on or double. The opponent was openly counting till 10 and said my pard was barred from the bidding. WTF!

I'm not Bobby Hamman, I can't instantly visualize the unseen hands.

 

- I need to frequently pause to count and think. I am accused of deceptive play if I do.

 

Many people think Bridge is a "speed" game rather than a thinking game.

There are many who use complex unusual systems and get good results. They think its their skill or system superiority. In reality its because most opps are unfamiliar with that system and don't know the correct dedfence or inferences.

In addition, there are some who think they are hot ***** becaus ethey spend hundreds of hours studying complex bidding systems. They think this entitles them to good results.

[jillybean]

The opponent was openly counting till 10 and said my pard was barred from the bidding. WTF!

 

- I need to frequently pause to count and think. I am accused of deceptive play if I do.

Call the TD this is inappropriate.

 

To pause and think is not against the laws, for your partner to take any inferences from it is. If you are being accused of deceptive play on bbo find new opps.

 

I assume the players using complex and unusual systems are on BBO so its your choice to play against them or not. I dont like playing against these odd ball systems so I will avoid tournaments where they could be used, if Im caught out anyway its only 2 boards...

[fred]

I have more sympathy for Sceptic's position than most of the other posters seem to have. For one thing, competition brings out the worst in some people. I know many bridge players who are absolutely delightful people away from the table, but then turn into monsters when they sit down to play duplicate. Some of these people are excellent players but even playing in a club game (where you would think they would not care about the results) they can't control themselves and act like jerks every single time.

 

I have a clear memory of a club game I played in a small town in Northern Ontario over 20 years ago. My partner and I were both well-mannered teenagers. We were not very good at bridge, but we were playing some crazy bidding system that we had invented that likely had little theoretical merit.

 

The people we played against were almost all friendly and happy to see some "nice young men" at their club when each round started. But most of them were not happy if one of our unusual (especially to them) bids came up. We had the best score I ever achieved in a matchpoint game - something like 80%.

 

After the game the TD told us we were welcome to play in the club again, but our bidding system was not welcome. This had nothing to do with the legality of our system - it was because the TD (correctly in my view) judged that our system had ruined the evening's experience for several of his regulars.

 

Yes of course it would have been better if these people had been taught way back in the 1950s when the learned to play that experimenting with bidding systems and learning to defend against such systems was part of the game of bridge. The fact of the matter is that they were not taught this and, in all likelyhood, had rarely had to even play against a system like Precision (let alone the really strange system like that my partner and I were playing).

 

For the people at this club, my partner and I were not playing bridge - we were playing some different game. They did not want to play this game. They wanted to play the same game that they had been playing for the past 40 years. I have no idea how much of our 80% score was the result of our opponents having no clue as to what our bids meant or how to defend against them, but I suspect it was substantial.

 

As far as I am concerned, the issue here is not about what the rules say concerning systems or anything else. If applying certain rules causes certain classes of people to stop wanting to play the game, then there is not much point in having such rules in the first place in the environment where this class of people normally play.

 

If other classes of people want to play the game in which the rules are strictly enforced, they should be more careful about selecting the environment in which they play.

 

Trying to change the environment or blame the poor ignorant Northern Ontarians for the state of affairs in their club is not going to work. It is *their* club and they want to play bridge *their* way - the way the learned to play and the way they have been playing since they learned.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

<snip>

For the people at this club, my partner and I were not playing bridge - we were playing some different game. They did not want to play this game. They wanted to play the same game that they had been playing for the past 40 years. I have no idea how much of our 80% score was the result of our opponents having no clue as to what our bids meant or how to defend against them, but I suspect it was substantial.

<snip>

I certainly have no problem whatsoever if a club wants to restrict conventions. Heck, if I walk into any of the big rubber bridge clubs, I would certainly leave any convention cards I had back at home.

 

So let the club then say "We are a level 2 club." Or we are a "restricted conventions club." I know that the ACBL does not have as many gradations of conventions, but in the EBU clubs can choose their own level. I have played at a Level 2 club before and also at a Level 5 club. So clubs can certainly decide what strange things their members will face. I would even welcome different levels on different nights. However, I think if you get rid of any higher level clubs, you will make some people unhappy. Variety is a good thing in bridge. So let's have a place for those members that would rather never see anything so out there as a multi and a place for those than want to practice Rainbow 2s.

[Vilgan]

The more I play bridge, the less I like club games and lean more towards playing mostly just tournaments. The field at the club (ours anyways) is usually so bad that I feel like it would be detrimental to my ability as a bridge player to play at the club more than what I do.

[zasanya]

...................................... 

My dilemma is whether we should try to educate the rank and file about the rules or let them carry on their happy way and not be bothered.

.........................

 

Here are some of a myriad of things that has happened to me in f2f bridge.  Tell me which of these you'd be ok with and which would make you unhappy?  Do you think we should be relaxed about the rules?

 

............................................

 

Should we be relaxed about such occurrences?  Or should we educate them about the rules (in a friendly way)?

We should ecourage and educate the rank and file.

We must also expose the cheats.Your ops in all the incidents (barring one) you have narrated were deliberately trying to pass unauthorized information.

The cheats already know about the rules.So no question about educating them.

[awm]

Well I've had the experience of playing unusual methods at all sorts of levels of play here in the USA. My general observations have been:

 

(1) The reaction from younger players and from players new to the game is overwhelmingly positive. People want to know more about our bidding system, where we learned it or came up with it, and so forth. Many people comment that it's "really cool" that we can come up with our own methods.

 

(2) The reaction from the really senior crowd is mostly indifference. A lot of the LOLs (and whatever is the male equivalent) at the club can't figure out what's going on in the bidding when their opponents play SAYC. So it doesn't really matter to them if we're doing something nonstandard, as they have no clue what standard is anyway...

 

(3) The people who complain most bitterly are the "sharks" of the club, the people who have a zillion master points and have been beating up on the club regulars day and night for years. They don't like to see anything that could change the predictable results where they always finish in the top three positions at the club. Usually these folks are unhappy to see young players around even when the youngsters are playing SAYC or 2/1, just because they "shake up the normal order of things." The usual complaint these folks make is that "this weird bidding will drive new players away from the game" but it's interesting that the newbies aren't the ones complaining.

 

Honestly, I would be happy to stop playing strong club/diamond methods at the local clubs if I felt that this drove people away from the clubs. I could get better practice playing online for the most part (definitely better opponents); I just find that it's nice to hold real cards from time to time outside of nationals, and that playing board after board against the same opposition (as typically happens at tables in the MBC on BBO) can get old. In addition I like to support my local clubs (especially those few that still hold evening games) by showing up and adding to the numbers (and paying my entry if I can afford it and don't have free games accumulated). In any case, my observation hasn't been that new or inexperienced players are driven away by the bidding methods, and that the regulars who complain will keep coming back regardless to complain another day (and I don't feel obligated to stop coming to the club just so the usual suspects can resume their winning ways).

[csdenmark]

Many people think Bridge is a "speed" game rather than a thinking game.

 

There are many who use complex unusual systems and get good results. They think its their skill or system superiority. In reality its because most opps are unfamiliar with that system and don't know the correct dedfence or inferences.

In addition, there are some who think they are hot ***** becaus ethey spend hundreds of hours studying complex bidding systems. They think this entitles them to good results.

Many people think Bridge is a "speed" game rather than a thinking game.

They mostly don't know what to think of

 

There are many who use complex unusual systems and get good results. They think its their skill or system superiority. In reality its because most opps are unfamiliar with that system and don't know the correct dedfence or inferences.

Correct - but who to blame for that?

 

They think its their skill or system superiority.

I doubt anybody will disagree that limit openings gives an advantage to those playing such.

[Trumpace]

They think its their skill or system superiority.

I doubt anybody will disagree that limit openings gives an advantage to those playing such.

What is a limit opening?

 

You are perhaps right about such a system giving an advantage, but, at a local club level I think that the bidding system would hardly matter. If people go down in a cold 4H contracts, how do you think they will do when they bid a thin one requiring very careful play. And, I don't even want to talk about the defense.

 

Also, i guess the point of this thread was not bidding systems, but the bridge laws which are enforced, perhaps to the annoyance of people.

 

I do agree with many people, that "this is a relaxed game" is not an excuse for not enforcing laws against silly cheating, like asking about a particular suit bid and having partner lead that suit etc.

 

I also agree with people when this law enforcement goes too far, it can be really annoying. People seem to be so paranoid of UI that they jump on any action which could lead to UI, even if there was no actual UI. Hesitations are ok, if the partner of the hesitator does not make use of that information... Don't jump on me for taking 15 seconds for a bid. Jump on my partner if he makes use of that break in tempo.

[Vilgan]

What is a limit opening?

Would assume he is referring to the fact that anything but a 1♣ opener promises a very specific range (for us, 11-15). Not as narrow as 1NT, but its still reasonably specific and makes judging a variety of things a lot easier immediately. The various 1♣ auctions with asking bids and finding slams are GREAT, but the fact 1♦, 1♥, 1♠, etc all have a ceiling is also extremely useful and frequently overlooked.

[fred]

This disadvantages are frequently overlooked as well.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[keylime]

<note bene: longish post coming>

 

My experiences with club bridge has been a mixed bag - mostly due to the massive bridge learning I have undergone in a relatively short period of time. So, let's take a little sojourn together....

 

It started in Tampa - here I was a total beginner, but realized that I had a clue. I looked at the "good players", like rock stars - they knew how to handle the dummies, they were competent, they were "at the table". I was just happy to take the tricks that were owed to me. Towards the end I started to learn Precision, and the concept of limited bids appealed to me. I started gaining success.

 

Then, I moved to Huntsville, AL. Here, in the short time that I was there, I started to realize that with hard work I could become "good". I strongly feel, the singular comment that Louise Marshall (one of the local club directors there at the DBC) said to me, propelled me to dare to dream. Just knowing that someone thought that in the future I would be a good player, was enough incentive to get it. I went to my first NABC while I was living there. Admittedly, I miss the place quite a bit.

 

Onward to Oklahoma City, OK. Playing bridge at the club was abysmal - I never felt so isolated in a group setting, regardless of activity - ever. It almost caused me to give up the game completely, if not for online bridge sites to be there as the up and coming viable alternative (this was 2002 for frame of reference). The mentality at the club at this time, was in part, exactly what Adam and Fred stated - the sense of entitlement was overwhelming. They didn't like me, and I never liked them for the way they treated me because I was wanting to play something else than their "standard". Skill wise, probably was a mid-high intermediate at best - getting better, but not anywhere in the ballpark yet.

 

Back home to Tampa, and going back to the club was horrid. The politics and situation with some club members were not manageable, and I felt that if I was going to get any better as a player, going up to the DBC off of Florida Ave. by public transit twice a week wasn't going to be the mechanism. This is when I started to participate heavily online - I felt it was the only way I was going to learn at the rate I wanted to.

 

Now it's April 2004, and I'm in Nanaimo, BC, Canada - truly pristine part of the world. The 2 clubs I played semi-regularly at (there was a 3rd one in Nanoose that I enjoyed a lot but didn't get to attend much) were relaxed, casual, and amazingly tolerant of the fact that I was field-testing KLPV15 and KLPV16, with the great successes and the much more occurring accidents. There are quite a few people that stand out from there:

 

- Angela and Allan Ferguson; truly more than friends to me. They saw something in me that I now realize - I can play this game halfway competently, even if they at times wondered if the level of sophistication was a little much. Never a sharp word, never a criticism, always one to offer a kind word. When I return to the Island, they will the be first ones I hug warmly.

 

- Chris and Donna; these 2 played regularly and had it together - quite competent. I never quite got to know them as much as I'd like to.

 

- Barry; Barry was definitely the "I'm better than my MPs show" player. I confess that tho when we played teams with us, there was never a shortage of laughs and smiles.

 

- Vince King; he's on BBO as "vincoach", and in some ways reminded me a lot of me when I was blooming - eager, attentive, focused. I am quite pleased to see him come into his own - our KO win in Victoria was very sweet with him and Marilyn on board.

 

I was given a confidence, that was unshakable - the concept of belief that I "belonged". It was the spark that got me to where I am at now.

 

Back to the States now, Aug 2005, to Charm City - Baltimore. Here is where I realized the tables had changed - I was now the "good player", the "rock star", handling dummies as if it was like breathing. What a joy...and a great responsibility! I had to watch what I did and why I did it...here is where I got exposed to canape and 4 card majors, with many, many other concepts - it was like going to class everyday at university. It's also where I realized that to improve, only A/X was going to generate the results I needed.

 

Finally, Springfield, VA. I don't play much at the clubs, even tho I have been shopping around. I'm at a happy spot in my bridge - I enjoy the high quality team matches I am starting to play in regularly. I didn't let the "sharks" or the "entitled ones" deter me from becoming what I am now. I eagerly await the sectional this weekend; it'll be a good benchmark on the work Larry and I have put in.

 

Most importantly, I'm just happy. ;)

 

Me thinks a reunion tour is in order...