bizzare

[Apollo81]

MPs, all red

 

QJ5

AQJ973

A6

A8

 

(2NT*)-pass-(3♣)-???

 

* 10-13 HCP x4x6+

 

How would you react to this bizzare situation? No prealert was required for this convention, so you haven't discussed a defense.

[Finch]

I have a generic defensive agreement with my partners: if their suit is only 4+ cards, bidding it is natural. If it is 5+ cards it is a cuebid.

 

So on this hand I shall bid 3H.

 

If I haven't had that discussion with partner, I shall pass and hope for the best (and lead a club).

[mikeh]

I have a generic defensive agreement with my partners: if their suit is only 4+ cards, bidding it is natural.  If it is 5+ cards it is a cuebid.

 

So on this hand I shall bid 3H.

 

If I haven't had that discussion with partner, I shall pass and hope for the best (and lead a club).

I agree: I don't (until now) have such a generic agreement, altho in all cases in which we have discussed specifics, we play this way. In ACBLand we don't need such generic agreements because the wise and compassionate Governors of the ACBL protect us from anything with sharp edges... anyone who tried to bid 2N with this meaning would incur great wrath....

[Finch]

I should have said this agreement only applies to 2-level+ limited openings and against 2-suited overcalls, not over 1-level openings (we still play 4-card 1S opening - 2S as Michaels).

 

We also play it over 2D Flannery (2S = natural) which I suspect might be legal even in the ACBL. (What's the conceptual difference between 2D = 11-15 45xx and 2NT 10-13 x4x6?)

[mikeh]

I should have said this agreement only applies to 2-level+ limited openings and against 2-suited overcalls, not over 1-level openings (we still play 4-card 1S opening - 2S as Michaels).

 

We also play it over 2D Flannery (2S = natural) which I suspect might be legal even in the ACBL.  (What's the conceptual difference between 2D = 11-15 45xx and 2NT 10-13 x4x6?)

The conceptual difference? None that springs to mind, but Flannery was invented back when those in charge of ACBLand were young, with flexible minds. 2N as x4x6 is (shudder) NEW!!!! We must protect our membership (average age approximately 78 and climbing.... ok, I exaggerate but only a little) against NEW!!!!

 

New!!!! requires thought...

 

Ok... so this is an old hobby-horse of mine....and I tend to hyperbole on the topic.. but it is a problem over here.

 

I am 53 and am always in the younger half of any field in which I play....but can the acbl draw any inference from the lack of younger players and its restrictive approach to innovation? Appaently not: their latest triumph as an organization seems to be to announce an affiliation with the American Association of Retired Persons... that'll get more young players hooked.... :P

[pclayton]

Sharp edges LOL.

 

The league is quite content to cater to the gray crowd. Somehow I get a feeling that they dont have the proper stewardship mentality.

 

'Why should we care about promoting the game to the young? When it will matter, we'll all be dead'

 

Junior bridge gets a fair amount of publicity, and theyve finally grown a crop. The biggest problem is my own generation - 35 to 45 that seems about as well represented as the U25 group, since there was no junior bridge when I was in high school. In 81 I was 5th in the King of Bridge with about 40 masterpoints.

[Al_U_Card]

Ahhhh...so the term "bridge" applies to dentures then?

[civill]

If I understand 2NT* here correctly as a 2-suiter hand, I think my hand is more valuable for defence after 3♥ & no further support.

[whereagles]

3 or 4♥ for me, depending on the tactical situation.

[ArcLight]

>I am 53 and am always in the younger half of any field in which I play....but can the acbl draw any inference from the lack of younger players and its restrictive approach to innovation? Appaently not: their latest triumph as an organization seems to be to announce an affiliation with the American Association of Retired Persons... that'll get more young players hooked....

 

 

Why do you assume that younger players are turned off from Bridge by the ACBL and its "restrictions"?

 

Is it possible, even likely there are other causes?

Are other forms of entertainment (like Computer Games or Poker) more appealing to many people?

Are other past times, such as bowling leagues, in decline?

 

One of the turn offs of Bridge is its complicated to learn a bidding system, and it takes a while until you are not horrible.

Why should a new person try Bridge when there are some really cool computer games available?

 

 

As for "new methods", Bobby Hamman make a comment about people using unusual methods. He says that even if he has studied their method and has a counter, others don't. So that pair are getting good score noth thru skill, but through surprise. One way to deal with that is to have a "defense" sheet available to give to opponents if you use an unusual system/bid/method.

 

I think there are plenty of interesting things in bridge other than bidding systems. Bidding systems and conventions are interesting to me, but spending a lot of time studying them is not. And I suspect others also don't want to spend a huge amount of time coming up with defenses. Though some do.

There are plenty of average plus players who use compelx methods their opponents are unfamiliar with and thus they occasionaly do well. They think its due to their skill.

 

I would much rather compete against a world class player using a system I know, than an average pair using a completely unknown system. The World Class player would do much better against me than the average pair, but I'd enjoy it more.

I'd rather play against Fred , using 2/1, than someone using MOSCITO. (I could watch him execute a quadruple compound shifting entry squeeze)

[Echognome]

Sorry Arc, but I don't buy your argument. It is just not a fair comparison. The comparison should be whether you would rather play against Fred playing 2/1 or Fred playing MOSCITO. Or maybe whether you would rather play against Fred and Brad or Meckwell? Of course we'd all rather have our butts kicked by the superstars, so that we can (1) say we played against the best, (2) brag about any good boards we had, and (3) get some insight on how the best play the game.

 

I will certainly not argue that new or unusual systems are superior to playing some other natural system (which undoubtedly has many conveniental subsequent bids), but I see no reason to stifle innovation in bidding systems for the sake of protecting the masses. Actually, I fully understand that it's a completely gray area. What makes a system "fair" to play against and what makes a system "unfair"? If 'usual' or 'unusual' is your criterion, then you might have to rule out 4 card majors and a weak NT in the U.S. Furthermore, what's usual or unusual depends entirely on where you play. Also, what is unusual today might be usual tomorrow if more people start playing the methods. Finally, if we do not allow any unusual methods, how are we ever going to progress on bidding methods? Or do people feel that there's nothing left to improve upon?

 

I'm not trying to pick on you or your arguments. Personally, I feel that variety is a good thing. Heck, that's what we have midchart for isn't it? But, what puzzles me (and maybe someone can explain) is that if midchart is only ever played at top bracketed regional KOs and at nationals, why do we need to coddle people? Who needs protecting at these levels? I personally would like to see midchart allowed more widely (say at sectionals or at least in all KOs at regionals), but I'm probably in the minority.

[the hog]

>I am 53 and am always in the younger half of any field in which I play....but can the acbl draw any inference from the lack of younger players and its restrictive approach to innovation? Appaently not: their latest triumph as an organization seems to be to announce an affiliation with the American Association of Retired Persons... that'll get more young players hooked....

 

 

Why do you assume that younger players are turned off from Bridge by the ACBL and its "restrictions"?

 

Is it possible, even likely there are other causes?

Are other forms of entertainment (like Computer Games or Poker) more appealing to many people?

Are other past times, such as bowling leagues, in decline?

 

One of the turn offs of Bridge is its complicated to learn a bidding system, and it takes a while until you are not horrible.

Why should a new person try Bridge when there are some really cool computer games available?

 

 

As for "new methods", Bobby Hamman make a comment about people using unusual methods. He says that even if he has studied their method and has a counter, others don't. So that pair are getting good score noth thru skill, but through surprise. One way to deal with that is to have a "defense" sheet available to give to opponents if you use an unusual system/bid/method.

 

I think there are plenty of interesting things in bridge other than bidding systems. Bidding systems and conventions are interesting to me, but spending a lot of time studying them is not. And I suspect others also don't want to spend a huge amount of time coming up with defenses. Though some do.

There are plenty of average plus players who use compelx methods their opponents are unfamiliar with and thus they occasionaly do well. They think its due to their skill.

 

I would much rather compete against a world class player using a system I know, than an average pair using a completely unknown system. The World Class player would do much better against me than the average pair, but I'd enjoy it more.

I'd rather play against Fred , using 2/1, than someone using MOSCITO. (I could watch him execute a quadruple compound shifting entry squeeze)

Oh Dear. Oh Dear! How many times does this old chestnut have to surface? I have said it before and I'll say it again. Bridge is a game of bidding and of card play - both, equal weight. To restrict one and not the other is totally illogical. Anyway, some people are more interested in bidding and using exotic systems; you aren't, but you should not impose your will on those that are.

 

 

Your comment about average players using unusual methods to gain better results can just as easily be transposed into "lazy players who can't be bothered to work out generic defences getting poor results." Please argue logically if you want to pursue this line and don't make mildly insulting blanket statements which are backed up by no evidence whatsoever. It would be as illogical for me to argue that those who have an excellent technical and cardplay knowledge should be restricted because they are using methods unfamiliar to the vast majority of bridge players. Now I ask you, is this a sensible statement?

 

Further you can certainly watch a number of Moscito players "execute a quadruple compound shifting entry squeeze" should the appropriate hand ever arise.

[awm]

I would be extremely surprised if the existence of many bidding systems has any significant effect on the popularity of bridge. I suspect that the vast majority of players are not particularly interested in tinkering with methods, but don't particularly care if their opponents play something a bit unusual (provided opponents are friendly and explain their bidding when asked). The few players who do like to tinker with methods are usually hooked on bridge anyway and unlikely to quit just because of restrictions on system (although they will rant about it). The few players who really object to unusual methods are usually people who've been around a long time and don't want to learn to defend against anything new, and they are also usually hooked on bridge anyway and unlikely to quite just because a few people play weird methods (although they will rant about it).

 

The issues with bridge being popular probably have much more to do with:

 

(1) An image problem; young people think it's an old person's game, and statistically it is!

 

(2) The social scene. Related to the first, but people who want to play multi-player games often enjoy meeting others with similar age/interests/personality, making new friends with whom they might do things other than the original game. For young players the bridge club isn't the place.

 

(3) Relatively high learning time before one can start playing seriously.

 

(4) Lack of tangible rewards/goals/measurable improvement (masterpoints instead of real prizes).

[Guest Jlall]

here we go again...

[the hog]

Actually Arc, forget my post above; you are quite right, why should you be required to face the unknown?. I have just had a brilliant idea -

 

Why not divide all events into 4 distinct categories? I will use the Bermuda Bowl as an example:

 

BB Unrestricted. Everything goes; you bid and you play to the best of your ability.

 

BB system restricted. Everyone plays Buller, but any cardplay technique is permitted.

 

BB play restricted. Use any system you like, but nothing more complicated than a finesse is allowed.

 

BB total restricted. Everyone plays Buller and nothing more than a finesse is permitted.

 

Thats fair, isn't it? Everyone gets what they want and you can play in any category you wish.

[ArcLight]

Adam puts it well

 

>(1) An image problem; young people think it's an old person's game, and statistically it is!

 

Even if its a great game, this alone can be a turn off for new players. Learn bridge and go socialize with 70 year olds...

 

 

>Sorry Arc, but I don't buy your argument. It is just not a fair comparison.

 

It takes a while (for me anyway, I'm still not there yet) to learn a bidding system and to draw inferences. If people use other systems, you can't draw inferences unless you play 20 questions - and thats really unpleasant for all involved.

 

If people use unusual methods they will "win through surprise".

Who wants to spend a huge amount of time studying defenses to lots and lots of things. Its not "lazy" its just not enjoyable.

 

In Paul marstons MOSCITO notes he mentions something about Americans wanting to have a defense against each convention, rather than a general method. He says the LOLs in Australia muddle their way through just fine without all the defenses.

I don't belive taht. I think they do get some bad scores and the "smart" person using the convention is getting better scores than their skill indicates. I also think this lessens the LOLs enjoyment.

 

"Lazy" would be refusing to learn any conventions. What the postors who keep on throwing out the term "lazy" fail to realize is drawing inferences is a real skill, not easily learned. Bridge is quite interesting even if everyone used the same system. There is enough in the play and defense, let alone bidding, to make the game enjoyable.

 

I'm NOT saying new ideas shouldn't be used and tested. Just that I don't particularly enjoy dealing with them. And you syhouldn't think that most people want new methods all the time, nor that newer players like complex methods. At the very least a good defense should be suplied by the user at the table to the opponents. That way you are winning on skill, rather than gaining a fw undeserved good scores ovefr opps who aren't familiar with your method.

 

I was watching some of the players here who like to call those who don't want to study a ton of defenses "lazy". The funny thing is though they list themsleves as advanced, their card play didn't reflect that. They made basic errors, and failed to draw inferences. Maybe if they focused their efforts on card play technique and defense they would do better?

 

I would rather play against Fred (or any expert) using SAYC or 2/1 than some one using an unfamiliar system. At least I'll know whats going on as I'm getting my butt kicked :D

 

 

There was a thread that Frances Hinden posted about some match where her opps didnt alert things, and she had to ask all sorts of questions. Then there was the comment her opps made "I ws thinking of bididng 3 clubs because you didnt open a Multi and your bid showed 6 spades so you had to have clubs..."

That wasn't enjoyable for Frances or her pard.

Studying opponents system notes is not particularly interesting to me.

Maybe I'll have to do it if I ever compete for some kind of title :-)

Until then I'm content to work on my card play and counting

[JanM]

This thread amused me because apparently none of the ACBL-bashers bothered to look at the ACBL convention charts before emoting about the fact that an opening bid showing 10-13 HCP with 4 hearts and 6+clubs would "obviously" be barred in ACBL-land. Actually, this opening bid is described on the ACBL General Conventions Chart ("OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits"). So it's ACBL legal at any level and doesn't require a pre-alert. :D

I like Frances' generic agreement - if their bid at the 2+ level can show a 4 card suit, our bid of that suit is natural; if their bid guarantees 5+, our bid is a cue bid. Handles the meaning of 3♥ here as well as bids in a lot of other auctions.

[Apollo81]

This thread amused me because apparently none of the ACBL-bashers bothered to look at the ACBL convention charts before emoting about the fact that an opening bid showing 10-13 HCP with 4 hearts and 6+clubs would "obviously" be barred in ACBL-land. Actually, this opening bid is described on the ACBL General Conventions Chart ("OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits"). So it's ACBL legal at any level and doesn't require a pre-alert. :D

I like Frances' generic agreement - if their bid at the 2+ level can show a 4 card suit, our bid of that suit is natural; if their bid guarantees 5+, our bid is a cue bid. Handles the meaning of 3♥ here as well as bids in a lot of other auctions.

I was wondering when someone would point this out.

 

The hand was pretty funny. If you do anything other than pass, you will go for at least 500. (not that this means anything)

[Echognome]

Noble - Sorry that your thread was highjacked.

 

It takes a while (for me anyway, I'm still not there yet) to learn a bidding system and to draw inferences. If people use other systems, you can't draw inferences unless you play 20 questions - and thats really unpleasant for all involved.

 

I think you are wrong here. Your opponents play a natural based system and the auction goes 1♣ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 4♦ - 4N - 5♦ - 6♦. Are you going to be able to draw inferences without asking? You don't have to ask 20 questions, you simply ask "please explain the entire auction."

 

If people use unusual methods they will "win through surprise".

Who wants to spend a huge amount of time studying defenses to lots and lots of things. Its not "lazy" its just not enjoyable.

 

No doubt that some pairs will be unprepared for anything out of the ordinary. Don't you think they should play in events with restricted conventions? Then those who choose to play in higher level events can play against a wider variety of methods.

 

At the very least a good defense should be suplied by the user at the table to the opponents. That way you are winning on skill, rather than gaining a fw undeserved good scores ovefr opps who aren't familiar with your method.

 

Who says that preparing meta defenses isn't a skill? It certainly didn't take my regular partner and I very long when we sat at a table and read opps convention card. "We'll use our short minor defense for that." "We'll just treat this Ekren 2♦ as a Multi." etc etc. In my opinion, having a written defense is using a memory aid and is against the spirit of the game.

 

Finally, the discussion about Frances' thread on disclosure issues was just that. It was about disclosure being a problem, not unusual methods. It could have easily gone "I was thinking of bidding 3♣ because you did not open a natural weak 2, so you had to be 6-4." I think you will find a lot of resentment if you try to imply that people who play complex or unusual methods tend not to give full disclosure about their methods.

 

This thread amused me because apparently none of the ACBL-bashers bothered to look at the ACBL convention charts...

 

Who are all these ACBL bashers? Only one person inferred that the method would not be allowed. The others have written in response to other posts. I admit I said I wish midchart would be extended and that I didn't believe those playing in midchart events needed to be protected. But is that bashing the ACBL? Or did you mean other people?

[JanM]

I said: "This thread amused me because apparently none of the ACBL-bashers bothered to look at the ACBL convention charts..."

 

And Echognome asked:

"Who are all these ACBL bashers? Only one person inferred that the method would not be allowed. The others have written in response to other posts. I admit I said I wish midchart would be extended and that I didn't believe those playing in midchart events needed to be protected. But is that bashing the ACBL? Or did you mean other people?"

 

Several people discussed this on the assumption that the opening bid would not be allowed in ACBL-land. And were unhappy about that. The thread got a little far afield because of that. I don't think your comment that the midchart should be extended (although isn't it up to club owners whether to use it at local games? And up to Units and Districts whether to use it at Sectionals and Regionals? Or am I hopelessly out of date?) was ACBL-bashing. Perhaps MikeH's comment that started the drift onto why younger people don't play in ACBL events wasn't either - I didn't really intend to be pejorative when I used the term, it was more that it seemed that this thread had done a good job of demonstrating a "don't confuse me with the facts" sort of reasoning.

 

I confess, however, that another comment in this thread that I wondered about was yours:

"Of course we'd all rather have our butts kicked by the superstars, so that we can (1) say we played against the best, (2) brag about any good boards we had, and (3) get some insight on how the best play the game."

 

It seems to me that nowadays that isn't often true - people don't seem to want to play in events where there will be "superstars." We see a huge proliferation of stratified events so new and advancing players never have to (or seem to want to) play against the best. That trend bothers me a lot more than the issues regarding convention restrictions. How are we going to replace our ageing superstars if so many people want to stay in their safe little "ponds"? I realize that these forums are probably not an appropriate place to complain about that mindset, since I suspect that you probably represent a majority position here, and I'm certainly grateful for that.

[Echognome]

I don't think your comment that the midchart should be extended (although isn't it up to club owners whether to use it at local games? And up to Units and Districts whether to use it at Sectionals and Regionals? Or am I hopelessly out of date?)

 

I'm pretty sure this is my ignorance. I should have stated then that it's a shame we don't see more.

 

I confess, however, that another comment in this thread that I wondered about was yours:

"Of course we'd all rather have our butts kicked by the superstars, so that we can (1) say we played against the best, (2) brag about any good boards we had, and (3) get some insight on how the best play the game."

 

It seems to me that nowadays that isn't often true - people don't seem to want to play in events where there will be "superstars." We see a huge proliferation of stratified events so new and advancing players never have to (or seem to want to) play against the best. That trend bothers me a lot more than the issues regarding convention restrictions. How are we going to replace our ageing superstars if so many people want to stay in their safe little "ponds"? I realize that these forums are probably not an appropriate place to complain about that mindset, since I suspect that you probably represent a majority position here, and I'm certainly grateful for that.

 

I can certainly only speak for myself as that is how I feel. Most of the people I talk with and play with would rather play against the best. But, I'm also sure many people would rather not play in anything other than their local club game. I'm just surprised there is such a mindset amongst tournament players.

[ArcLight]

>It seems to me that nowadays that isn't often true - people don't seem to want to play in events where there will be "superstars."

 

Larry Cohen has an article on his website about some pair that was upset to face him and David Berkowitz. I'd LOVE that. Its like a free lesson. Maybe you can even ask them a question like "how would you have bid with my cards"? Larry seems like anice guy, maybe he'd tell you.

 

I challenge all you stars. C'mon, lets fight. :)

You and your star pard against me and ... well I'll dredge up someone.

 

(note - this is a joke, don't get upset. No star will waste their time with me, and no one will fight) :)

[Guest Jlall]

Larry Cohen has an article on his website about some pair that was upset to face him and David Berkowitz. I'd LOVE that. Its like a free lesson. Maybe you can even ask them a question like "how would you have bid with my cards"? Larry seems like anice guy, maybe he'd tell you.

I'm sure he would answer your question, but it's very annoying when this happens (to me anyways) at the table. Generally the mindset is on winning and killing your opponents not on answering their bridge questions. And often these questions come when RHO and LHO had a misunderstanding or a disagreement, and they ask you to judge. This is not a fair position to be put in. It seems very presumptuous to ask bridge pros that you don't know very well for free advice while theyre playing (which is their job).

[glen]

Ask Larry about "Anyway, I bided my team by raising to 3♦ to await developments" - and they say that bridge is a timed event. The article is quite good: Biding My Time article

[ArcLight]

>I'm sure he would answer your question, but it's very annoying when this happens (to me anyways) at the table.

 

I meant that in jest.

 

I WOULD like to play against Larry, but I would assume he's there to WIN. He's not there to be my pal.

 

> Generally the mindset is on winning and killing your opponents not on answering their bridge questions. And often these questions come when RHO and LHO had a misunderstanding or a disagreement, and they ask you to judge. This is not a fair position to be put in. It seems very presumptuous to ask bridge pros that you don't know very well for free advice while theyre playing (which is their job).

 

I agree, I shouldn't have written that. I was kidding.