How to describe vulnerabilities

[blackshoe]

In North America, it is common to refer to a vulnerable pair as "red" and a non-vulnerable pair as "green". Thus you get "red vs. red", "red vs. green", "green vs. red" and "green vs. green".

 

Since I came back into bridge in England, I learned their method:

 

vul vs. not - red

vul vs vul - amber

nv vs nv - white

nv vs vul - green

 

I suppose because I learned the latter first, the former bugs me. I find it hard to follow. But even when I try to look at the two methods objectively, I think the English method is better.

 

What do others think?

[hrothgar]

00

01

10

11

[awm]

I like the North American method, because it's less colors to remember. And the boards are usually marked in red for the vulnerable side.

 

Of course, there are really 16 possible boards based on both vulnerability and dealer. So we could always define sixteen colors and use them as shorthand for both? But I don't see anyone seriously doing this.

 

I do agree that the scoring method in North America (where 2♠+2 is two spades making) is counterintuitive and that the method used in most of the rest of the world (2♠+2 is two spades making two overtricks) is superior.

[goobers]

00

01

10

11

binary ftw

[skjaeran]

I prefer the English method, but have no problem with the American.

[MickyB]

I prefer the English method, but tend to use "love all" and "both" instead of "white" and "amber".

[pclayton]

When I played with gnome, I thought it was interesting how he described a bid of 1 no trump as "one-N". I've called it "one-no" ever since I can remember.

[cherdano]

Isn't "red vs white" etc. more common in North America?

I think the English method sucks :P

[david_c]

I've never used either of the colour descriptions.

 

"no-one vulnerable", "favourable", "unfavourable", "both vulnerable".

[Al_U_Card]

I have always used red vs. white etc. Faster than unfav....you know

[paulg]

I have always used red vs. white etc.  Faster than unfav....you know

and slower than "red" :P

[MickyB]

When I played with gnome, I thought it was interesting how he described a bid of 1 no trump as "one-N". I've called it "one-no" ever since I can remember.

"One-N" is the standard term here. Also used are "One-no", "A nut" and occasionally "One without".

[Walddk]

I do agree that the scoring method in North America (where 2♠+2 is two spades making) is counterintuitive and that the method used in most of the rest of the world (2♠+2 is two spades making two overtricks) is superior.

The latter used in the BBO software too. 2♠ just made is 2♠= which makes more sense than 2♠+2. That would be two overtricks on BBO.

 

You get around all the confusion and make it universal if everyone would write 2♠ 8 .... 2♠ 10 .... 2♠ 7, etc. In other words, the number of tricks declarer took in his contract.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

I do agree that the scoring method in North America (where 2♠+2 is two spades making) is counterintuitive and that the method used in most of the rest of the world (2♠+2 is two spades making two overtricks) is superior.

I have never heard of what you refer to as the North American method, I have always considered 2♠+2 to be two overtricks.

 

For Roland's suggestion, on the score sheets used in most bridge clubs I've been to in US, there is one column labeled 'contract' and one labeled 'tricks' where everyone writes exactly as you describe. I don't think this was true in Los Angeles though. I actually prefer the = method better because it relates the tricks taken to the contract, but whatever.

 

To the original poster, I have occasionally but not often in North America heard green used to mean not vul, but almost always have heard and used white.

[Gerben42]

I prefer "both" to "amber" also.

[jchiu]

What Adam described as the American method is prevalent in the interior states. This probably is a result of the old ACBL scoresheets that have columns for contract, declarer, made, down, N-S score, E-W score, and E-W pair number. I usually score as Roland recommends, and never really encountered confused directors until I scored that way in Laramie Wyoming (yes they have bridge clubs there!).

[whereagles]

I like this:

 

o none

| we

- they

+ both

[Guest Jlall]

I have never heard "green" (except from clayton) or 2S+2 as 2S making. Although I'm not really North American, I'm Texan :)

 

I generally say red/white, nobody vul, everybody vul, or white/red.

[Elianna]

I do agree that the scoring method in North America (where 2♠+2 is two spades making) is counterintuitive and that the method used in most of the rest of the world (2♠+2 is two spades making two overtricks) is superior.

I have never heard of what you refer to as the North American method, I have always considered 2♠+2 to be two overtricks.

 

For Roland's suggestion, on the score sheets used in most bridge clubs I've been to in US, there is one column labeled 'contract' and one labeled 'tricks' where everyone writes exactly as you describe. I don't think this was true in Los Angeles though. I actually prefer the = method better because it relates the tricks taken to the contract, but whatever.

 

To the original poster, I have occasionally but not often in North America heard green used to mean not vul, but almost always have heard and used white.

In Los Angeles, whenever Adam tried to be cute and write 2s+3 for taking 11 total tricks, I'd get called to the next table over confusion about how the score doesn't match the result.

 

Josh is correct about how the score sheet looks, though.

 

In fact, before I was directing, I was told that it was a REQUIREMENT for scorers in ACBL to write the number of tricks as the odd tricks making, rather than the overtricks. I've been told many things that aren't true, but I know that it's definitely the standard here in LA to write it like that.

 

What Adam described as the American method is prevalent in the interior states. This probably is a result of the old ACBL scoresheets that have columns for contract, declarer, made, down, N-S score, E-W score, and E-W pair number.

I believe it's a result of people who still calculate the score by counting the tricks, multiplying by the correct number, and then adding the value (50, 300, etc). It is a lot more intuitive in this method to write the odd tricks, rather than the overtricks.

 

eta: Los Angeles is not in the interior of the country.

[awm]

The "North American" method may also be a result of how people verbally describe contracts. They say things like "2♠ making three" and not "2♠ with an overtrick." I wonder if this is different in other countries.

[han]

Although I'm not really North American, I'm Texan :P

I wouldn't have guessed, your English is so good!

[paulg]

The "North American" method may also be a result of how people verbally describe contracts. They say things like "2♠ making three" and not "2♠ with an overtrick." I wonder if this is different in other countries.

I say "lose 5" or "lose 6" depending on the vulnerability.

[paulhar]

What's wrong with, 'none', 'N/S', 'E/W', 'both'?

[blackshoe]

What's wrong with, 'none', 'N/S', 'E/W', 'both'?

Nothing. But if you're going to use some kind of "stoplight" analogy, it seems to me that a four -valued system describes the four possible values a lot better than a two-valued system does. :)

[mike777]

2 pages of debate and discussion on this issue, good grief...:)