"At the Table"

[hrothgar]

Gerben asked for some information and opinions about Bob Hamman's autobiography "At the Table". In particular, he asked if I could flesh out the following comment:

 

Many people, myself included, consider Hamman's book a joke. Its been widely ridiculed on rec.games.bridge for years.

 

First and foremost, I should note that I think that there is a lot of valuable content in Hamman's book. For example, I like the historical material. However, I think that Hamman goes off the deep end when he starts up a bitch session about all the nefarious methods that need to be banned in order to preserve bridge as he knows it.

 

There is a decent thread on rec.games.bridge that provides a good overview of Hamman's arguments, along with some criticisms there of.

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...d2a4b86de8ff0f/

[Gerben42]

Okay I checked out the thread and somewhere in the endless discussions I found this quote from the book:

 

"Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:

 

"Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are

too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too

much time to learn the languages, that being smart and

putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.

 

The barriers are not the too many languages, the main barrier for beginners is that teachers want to teach people their own methods. Alternatively, beginners should be taught the LOGIC of the auction.

 

"Make bridge comprehensible to the general public -

another way of addressing the language issue. Golf is

a good example. I don't play golf, but I know what the

objective is. I can watch golf on television and know

what's going on, because it's simple - players are

trying to knock the ball into the hole.

 

The goal of bridge is to get to a good contract and make a good score this way.1

 

"The same is not true with bridge. Can you imagine

trying to broadcast a match involving teams playing

forcing pass systems? People would recoil in horror.

*Why are they opening the bidding with bad cards

and passing with good cards? What's going on here?*

 

This is not the goal. I don't understand why a player takes an Iron 9 or a Wood 5 to make a shot (I'm just making this up, if it sounds clueless that is because I AM clueless about golf). I don't need to know to enjoy watching it.

 

"Eliminate devices such as the Smith Echo, which can

be utilized reprehensibly, and put restrictions on other

conventions ripe for abuse, such as super-weak 1NT

openers and the Multi 2-diamond. I'm not saying get

rid of them but some controls should be established,

since the potential for abuse is so great.

 

This is the ultimate excuse. Then penalize the abuse, not the method. They are useful tools that CAN be abused, but are normally not. So is a car. A car can be used to run someone over, but is usually not.

 

Now if you want to ban things that ARE abuse, such like an Alcatraz coup, I'm with ya.

[Gerben42]

But is it a book worth reading?

[TimG]

But is it a book worth reading?

I suppose it all depends upon what you're hoping to get out of the book.

[ArcLight]

But is it a book worth reading?

Not for you, with your attitude. :D

 

For anyone else, hell yes, its a good book.

 

 

 

>"However, I think that Hamman goes off the deep end when he starts up a bitch session about all the nefarious methods that need to be banned in order to preserve bridge as he knows it."

 

I dont think he's off the deep end, I think he's spot on!

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

looking at the quotes from the book, I would

say, that those make some sense, and it happens

that they are also inplace.

 

There happen to be tourneys, e.g. the Cavendish,

the Buffet Cup (?!), and other tourneys, which are

easier to access than the world championship.

 

If they catch on on TV, and if players will have a

chance to earn money playing those tourneys, they

will switch their system at least partially.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

Agree with everything Gerben said.

 

Bob is right that the barrier to learning bridge is quite high. To some extent this in inherent to the game. If Bob wants to turn bridge into a party game that card-illiterates can learn on the fly for an hour's fun, he may succeed but it won't resemble bridge anymore, then.

 

Maybe the laws of bridge, and the local rules, could be simplified a little. Playing total points instead of matchpoints and IMPs would make it easier to understand. At my club we have players who have been playing for decades and still don't understand the difference between matchpoint and IMP strategies. Suppose soccer was played in such a way that the final result was some mathematical formula applied to the number of goals, so that neither the players nor the spectators understood the significance of scoring a goal ....

 

But the teachers (and textbook authors) have the biggest responsibility. They have a difficult task since bridge has a very steep learning curve, yet clubs and students alike are impatient. So the temptation is strong to opt for quick-and-dirty teaching: "Just open the higher-ranking of two 5-cards because the f...ing book says so and don't ask yourself why". It doesn't make it easier that most of the teachers are not up to the task. I followed a course for wanna-be bridge teachers two years ago. The knowledge of those wanna-be teachers was not much above all those self-rated experts who teach their p that all the disasters were his fault. I was seriously worried about all those ignorants becoming the future generation of teachers.

 

System restrictions may be desirable for other reasons, but not for lowering the entrance level. Novices don't care about the meaning of opps' bidding. They don't have problems with preempts without a cuebid available since they don't know what a cuebid means anyway.

 

If anything, system restrictions make the entrance level higher by adding more incromprehensive legal documents to the bridge libraries.

[keylime]

I found Mr. Hamman's book to be quite revealing, and I for one still find nuggets of wisdom each time I read it - as a ritual I read it before every major tourney I compete in (Nashville no exception).

 

I used to agree with his criticism entirely, but these days I am of the view that to create buzz and excitement, that you do sorely need some differences in approach and style. The learning curve is stiff, and often teachers are prone to deviate markedly from what I feel is the necessary path to bridge competency:

 

- the importance of understanding fundamentals and their applications are understated

 

- the exposure to open fields and all of its diversity should be controlled

 

- lastly, the "fun" factor needs to be emphasized

 

I think for certain events, some reasonable limits should be in place. Otherwise, open it up - bring MOSCITO and forcing pass methods into the fold just for the difference and the exposure.

 

I look at it this way for me personally: I used to scoff and look at 4 card majors as if they were the plague. Guess what I'm playing in Nashville at the NABC's? Yep, 4 card majors! :D

[paulg]

But is it a book worth reading?

Absolutely.

 

The views that many disagree with are only a small part of the book. More importantly it gives a good insight into partnerships and personalities at the highest levels and why Hamman, in particular, has succeeded.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

Paul

[fred]

This book is worth reading even if you disgree with most of Bob's ideas or think the quality of the writing is poor. Here's why:

 

The last 3 pages or so of the book lists Bob's major tournament accomplishments since the early 1960s. In almost each of the past 40+ years Bob won at least a couple of major events (things like the Spingold, Vanderbilt, Cavendish, Blue Ribbon Pairs, Bermuda Bowl, USA Team Trials).

 

That is beyond remarkable!

 

Anyone with a record like this has a story that is worth reading and ideas that are worth considering.

 

The insight that one might gain into Bob's success is reason enough to read this book in my view.

 

Aside from that, I happened to really enjoy this book, but given that I am a long time friend and admirer of Bob's, I am likely somewhat biased in this area.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Never read Bob's book. No comments there.

 

Also, I have no idea what his arguments are about some of his noted objections. However, I'm really curious, as I find some of them as stated strange.

 

The Smith Echo is a great tool. I recommend it to anyone. As I understand the objection, it has something to do with hesitations or deliberations or something, an abuse. What I don't get is why a Smith Echo is singled out for that problem. Following to trumps, making pitches, everything can be abused. Should we ban card-play?

 

I also don't get the "bridge is too complicated with all these systems" objection, especially when you are talking about the lower-tier folks. I don't think they compete against or care about folks playing weird systems at world championship events. If I recall, I enjoyed the game immensely when my peers all played strong two-bids, just Stayman, and good old Blackwood. Just like I enjoy trying my damnedest to play an entire round of golf with an average of a bogey each hole or better. Tiger plays an entirely different game than I do, but I enjoy mine. Bridge is the same. I don't think many folks expect (fairly) that they should be able to play competently against the tops until they are the tops. For that matter, the folks against whom I play, who enjoy the game immensely, think checkback Stayman, RKCB, and Puppet Stayman are wildly exotic bids.

 

Viewing bridge? If you have no idea what is going on at all, simple calls like a strong 2♣ opening would baffle the mind. If you do understand what is going on, a 3♣ opening explained as showing 5-2 in the majors (either way) and an even split in the minors (0-6, 2-4, 4-2, or 6-0), with 7-13 HCP, as absurd as that is, could be followed. The problem is not systems, IMO.

 

In other words, the objections that I have heard about seem to be unpersuasive, personal biases governed by an elitist view, and somewhat patronizing. Of course, the presentation of those objections by others and not by Bob himself (as I have not personally read the book) may be slanted to suggest a biased elitism because those who comment on his comments think that Hamman is a biased elitist.

[barmar]

I don't think this argument can ever be resolved -- it's one of the most divisive "religious" issues in the bridge community. I haven't read Hamman's book, but it seems to be generating the same kind of reaction as the "science vs. religion" books in the mainstream press (e.g. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett). In fact, the analogy is quite apt -- bridge players who like complicated gadgets are often called "scientists".

[fred]

The Smith Echo is a great tool.  I recommend it to anyone.  As I understand the objection, it has something to do with hesitations or deliberations or something, an abuse.  What I don't get is why a Smith Echo is singled out for that problem.  Following to trumps, making pitches, everything can be abused.  Should we ban card-play?

Smith is singled out because it is so well-defined in terms of when it applies and what a Smith signal means.

 

An in-tempo Smith "I like your lead" signal means "I like your lead".

 

A slow Smith "I like your lead" signal means "I think your lead was OK".

 

An in-tempo Smith "I don't like your lead" signal means "I don't like your lead".

 

A slow Smith "I don't like your lead" signal means "I don't hate your lead".

 

Your example of signalling in the trump suit would fall into the same category, especially if you were playing "suit preference in trump" or similar.

 

Making pitches is different because:

 

1) You could be thinking about anything

2) Many pitches are not signals - they are just pitches

3) Even when a pitch is a signal, it is not always obvious what message the signal should convey (count/attitude/sp)

 

There seems to be a growing number of strong North American players (I am one of them and I suspect Hamman is too) who believe that it is never appropriate to signal out of tempo. These players would rather make the wrong signal in tempo and hope that partner can work things out on his own versus making the perfect signal slowly and never being sure if partner worked things out because of the signal itself or because the tempo provided a "wake up call".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

Similar complaints have been made about odd-even discards -- if a player takes a long time to make his 1st discard, it often means that they don't have cards of the appropriate parity, so the signal should be ignored.

 

I think at one point the ACBL GCC made a specific point that players could only use discarding systems like this if they're able to make this play in tempo.

[bhall]

There happen to be tourneys, e.g. the Cavendish,

the Buffet Cup (?!), and other tourneys, which are

easier to access than the world championship.

 

If they catch on on TV, and if players will have a

chance to earn money playing those tourneys, they

will switch their system at least partially.

 

Money bridge on TV! I think that might work. And entrants would probably consent to simplified bidding if the prizes were big enough...

 

Regarding Smith echo, hesitations on defense cannot be completely cured, even with each player isolated in his own room (which would be deadly dull to watch). Smith is just the most frequently abused. The only solution that I know of is to allow declarer to request ajudication of the board when a meaningful hesitation has occurred.

[Guest Jlall]

There happen to be tourneys, e.g. the Cavendish,

the Buffet Cup (?!), and other tourneys, which are

easier to access than the world championship.

Funny, you realize Hamman is the driving force behind both of these tournaments (he has part ownership in the WBP)?

 

Then penalize the abuse, not the method.

 

Bob's idea is to cut the problem off at the legs, no UI transmitted then no UI to be taken advantage of. Bob believes that people transmitting UI should be punished in a lot of situations and that that would stop a lot of the problems there are today. Maybe you don't agree with the idea but it's certainly a different one than most people have, and in my opinion interesting.

 

As far as smith, Fred gave a good explanation. FWIW I still don't play smith today and never have. However, Bob does play smith! In fact Bob disagrees with several of his ideas from 10 years ago. This to me is one of the main reasons Bob has stayed at the top for so long, he never got stuck in his ways and beliefs and adapted as the game and theory of the game evolved.

 

As far as his beliefs on system regulation, I think the biggest critics of the book all seem to be internet forum people who have a vested interest in their pet system or someone elses pet system and can't play it and are bitter. In truth this is a very small part of the book. I do not agree with Bob about things like multi and a lot of his system regulation ideas, but I can say without a doubt this is my favorite bridge book (and the one I've read the most except for Watson's).

 

The book is pretty much a bunch of hands and thoughts from the most successful player ever on why he is the most successful player ever. The stories are also quite suspenseful. You may not agree with some of his thoughts, but if you want to become a better bridge player and read more about the intangibles of the game, I would highly recommend this book.

[Echognome]

Regarding Smith echo, hesitations on defense cannot be completely cured, even with each player isolated in his own room (which would be deadly dull to watch). Smith is just the most frequently abused. The only solution that I know of is to allow declarer to request ajudication of the board when a meaningful hesitation has occurred.

In theory, this is allowed currently.

 

First, I want to note Law 73 A 2:

Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick).

 

Noting that this refers to calls *and* plays.

 

And then to Law 73 F 1:

if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner’s remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16)

 

My only point here is that the TD should consider UI in both bidding and play, but it just doesn't seem to work that way in practice. And perhaps that is the reason for the suggestion to eliminate the problem entirely by banning certain methods. It is certainly not without precedence. The EBU bans certain dual meaning signalling methods, which are prone to tempo problems. Of course, it is entirely subjective what is prone and what is not prone and players that always signal in tempo should not have a problem.

 

In regards to the book, I thought it was one of the best bridge books I have read as well. Unlike Fred and Justin, I have never met Bob, nor have I ever sat across him at the table. However, I certainly got a lot out of his book.

[awm]

Here's one I've noticed a lot at top levels in terms of tempo:

 

Declarer is running a lot of tricks. Defenders are pitching. At some point declarer's LHO has a legitimately difficult problem -- he is not sure if he is about to be squeezed or which suit he has to guard. He thinks for a long time and then pitches. Now RHO, noticing LHO's problem, finds this moment to make a spectacularly clear signal that he is guarding one of the suits. When declarer plays his next winner, LHO doesn't have a problem anymore... :)

[P_Marlowe]

There happen to be tourneys, e.g. the Cavendish,

the Buffet Cup (?!), and other tourneys, which are

easier to access than the world championship.

Funny, you realize Hamman is the driving force behind both of these tournaments (he has part ownership in the WBP)?

Hi Justin,

 

no I did not although I am not surprised, and I ommited

the part, that the Buffet Cup is fairly young, but I just

wanted to point out, that those things already exist, and

that time will tell, if it works.

 

It may even be a great idea to show tourneys

with Chicago Scoring and real money at stakes

on TV. And if you require the player to play with

each other some standart system, they will

certainly agree.

 

Of course you need good commentators, but those

surely exist.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

I think others have said this, but just to underline. Smith Echo can be singled out easily. So can many other hesitations, during the bidding and play. Many of us go out of our way to be ethical as to tempo, and that rarely gets noticed. In fact, it seems like we often get chastised more often because, for instance, we might always hesitate the exact same amount every time, issue or not, and then the pouncers wait until we have something and then call director.

 

That being said, the problem with tempo violations, a problem that recurs and recurs, is that you never get a good TD ruling, ever, when it occurs. Never, never, not even once. Not even, "You lose, but I'll warn the other pair."

 

You might get the shuffle-away to look at the board, angry scowls from the violators, and then vindication of the guilty party when the "higher powers" deemed no adjustment as the proper solution.

 

Banning card play technique is not the solution, though. You might as well ban game tries. Or, maybe make a new rule where two passes end the auction in a contested auction or after a preempt.

[Gerben42]

There seems to be a growing number of strong North American players (I am one of them and I suspect Hamman is too) who believe that it is never appropriate to signal out of tempo.

 

I agree with this, a Smith echo does not take place on the first trick, by now you should have made up your mind if you encourage or discourage (maybe before turning over trick 1?).

 

Even with standard signals I've seen things like King lead, declarer takes some time, plays, yet even more time, the 3, meaning I don't really like your lead but don't want anything else...

 

A Smith echo is not a dual message signal, which is where it gets really messy. Italian carding. A slow 4 means "I want to encourage but I don't have an odd card"...

[the hog]

Fwiw. I read the book some years ago and found it interesting, but it did annoy me. What annoyed me was that someone who is presumably intelligent could presents some arguments so illogically and parochially. (I say presumably because I have never met him). Many of these books are ghost written, however and it is quite possible that some ideas were either exaggerated or mis interpreted.

 

I find it interesting that Justin says Hamman no longer agrees with many of the ways presented in the book.

 

Now the Swanson book, on the other hand, that was a nasty piece of work.

[Cascade]

Smith is singled out because it is so well-defined in terms of when it applies and what a Smith signal means.

 

An in-tempo Smith "I like your lead" signal means "I like your lead".

 

A slow Smith "I like your lead" signal means "I think your lead was OK".

 

An in-tempo Smith "I don't like your lead" signal means "I don't like your lead".

 

A slow Smith "I don't like your lead" signal means "I don't hate your lead".

There is exactly the same problem with standard attitude but most players don't complain about that.

[ArcLight]

>As far as smith, Fred gave a good explanation. FWIW I still don't play smith today and never have. However, Bob does play smith! In fact Bob disagrees with several of his ideas from 10 years ago. This to me is one of the main reasons Bob has stayed at the top for so long, he never got stuck in his ways and beliefs and adapted as the game and theory of the game evolved.

 

Justin,

What are some of his ideas he no longer agrees with (other than Smith Echo)

[kenrexford]

This still has me bothered, this Smith echo business.

 

Back in 1993-1994, I partnered a young kid for a while while I was in the D.C. area who was quite a good new player. He seems to have dropped off the face of the planet, but he was friends with some younger players some of you may know.

 

Anyway, we discussed defensive carding. Our agreement was either standard or upside-down, cannot remember. But, the key was that we agreed to play the right card.

 

That may sound wildly simplistic, but it was actually quite complicated, in a sense. The idea was that there are three basic signals -- count, attitude, and suit-prefernce, or so the ACBL convention card tells us. We'll forget the really strange stuff, like Prism signals.

 

Some carding carries dual messages, like Lavinthal (positive attitude for one suit, negative for another) or the Blue Peter (count for two suits simultaneuously), but, to make things simple, three basic signals.

 

Some folks play a card according to a rule. A pitch is usually attitude. A switch is usually attitude. You play suit-preference in a suit that is stiff on dummy. Whatever.

 

We played "the right card." The way you handled this was to look at the deal and empathize partner's issue(s). He will likely have one. If he needs suit preference, give suit preference. If he needs count, give count. If he needs attitude, give attitude. That also seems simple. It gets more interesting.

 

Suppose that partner's "issue" is count in diamonds. I'd give count in diamonds. However, I might not have the luxury of playing diamonds to do that. I might have to use clubs for that purpose.

 

A simple example. Dummy has KQJxxx in clubs, with no entry, but Declarer is on dummy. I can tell that partner will want to know how many times, if ever, to duck his Ace of clubs. How I "know" that is unimportant -- trust that I do. Suppose further that partner's decision will be to duck once or to not duck at all. I'm trying to make this simple, so just trust that also. So, he leads a diamond toward his hand. If I hold an even number of clubs, I give count in diamonds for "even," regardless of my diamond count. If odd, odd.

 

A Smith Echo is a pre-arranged agreement of that type. We have pre-agreed to show attitude for X suit when Y suit is played. Nothing strange here. This is simply a pre-determined recurring example of the "right card" principle. (BTW, the kid was amazing at this.) So is, in a lesser and less reliable sense, a "blue peter" or a Lavinthal Discard. BTW -- A Lavinthal Discard is made by lots of people even without discussion, as a "right card" defense, like a suit-preference signal when you underlead AKQxxxx hoping to hit partner for a void-suit return or when you use a pip in that suit to give suit-preference for the other two suits in a who-saves-what squeeze position.

 

Anyway, I cannot imagine that the bridge authorities would bar people from playing "the right card defense." That would be completely unbelievable. Agreeing to play Smith, or to play Lavinthal, or to play standard signals is simply a predetermination as to what card you believe to most frequently be "the right card" so you do not have to work out the real-world problem that partner has, possibly because you are not good enough to do that or possibly because you believe that the likelihood of being able to read a situation accurately is lower than the likelihood that a predetermined structure will be right, or that certainty pays more than flexibility. Whatever.

 

The point is that a "Smith Echo" can be an agreement or it can flow from circumstance logic. The exceptions to a Smith default are essentially "right card" thinking.

 

I'm rambling, but I'm sure y'all understand what I'm saying, I hope.