Modern Bidding!

[pcb]

They say the difference between a serial killer and your bridge partner is that you can reason with the serial killer. My partner and I would agree with them (probably one of the few things we would agree about).

 

Both of us learned to play (separately) about 40 years ago. I didn't play for the past 35 and while he has played a considerable amount of kitchen bridge during those 35 years his bidding methods didn't change a whole lot. And neither of us were experts back then anyway.

 

Now we are playing duplicate and actually doing very well thank you. But apart from our occasional (read many) lapses in esoteric matters like remembering the bidding, card counting, and play of the cards, the part of our game that sucks is our bidding. We pretty much play Standard American with a few somewhat old and grotesque variations. Both of us are stubborn as hell (old goats might fit) and neither of us feel like putting an enormous amount of effort into learning a new system (SAYC seems about 2 steps too far). However it is somewhat embarrasing explaining to opponents that his 4 hearts opening means one thing whereas mine means another. Or that his 4 clubs opening is Gerber while mine is pre-emptive (not really but you're getting the drift).

 

We need a book (2) giving a SIMPLE everyday interpretation of Standard American that we can agree on (which is a very tall order) but that is competitive enough to allow us to start consistently placing high in the "B" strata at tournaments. Any thoughts? And while you're at it - how do I move him off the firm idea that any jump shift over my opener should show opening points? And that Gerber is sheer genius? And that cue bidding was invented by the devil?

 

Thanks in advance,

PCB

[HeavyDluxe]

I would imagine that Root's Commonsense Bidding or Caitlin's Standard Bidding w/ SAYC might fit the bill.

 

I say that as someone who is far from a great bidder... So, if someone else contributes - listen to them. :blink:

[pclayton]

Good recommendations for the books.

 

By the way, strong jump shifts aren't really unfashionable.

 

Gerber is about as popular as your plaid Sans-a-belts.

 

Cuebidding never fell out of style, but the rules might be a little different than what you were taught.

[helene_t]

hmmmm ... SAYC is two steps too far ....

 

I don't think you'll be able to find a good book that teaches something that is pre-SAYC. Just my personal opinion. New books are so much better than old books. Not only because the new systems are better than the old ones, but mainly because the way of describing systems has improved.

 

As for strong jump shifts: What pclayton refers to as "strong jump shifts" are jump shifts with very specific meanings. Not merely "opening strength". The vast majority of opening-strength hands start with a simple shift, reserving the jump shifts for a few specific hand-types: A solid suit, a two-suiter with support for opener's suit, or a very narrow strength range. In particular, a jump shift denies a second suit (other than the opening suit), so after 1♣-2♥ you can only play in clubs, hearts and notrump: a bid in spades or diamonds by either partner can never be natural. But this theory is related to the modern principle of playing a 2/1 (simple shift at the 2-level) as game forcing or at least nearly game forcing. If you don't play that, simple shifts with strong hands will often be awkard. In other words, while there might be some scope for fine-tuning of your system, if you really think that your bidding is a significant handicap, you're probably better of reconsidering your whole system.

 

As for Gerber, the problem is that partner's number of aces is rarely what you need to know for slam decisions. It's not a bad convention per se, it's just that many of its users use it about ten times as often as they should. Of course I don't know if that applies to your partnership.

[Gerben42]

It doesn't matter much what you play, but it's important that you agree on what you play. How about this: Write down what the following situations mean:

 

* Opening bids

* Responses to opening bids

* Overcalls to 1-level suit openings and 1NT

 

And not just the ones everyone knows, but especially things you might not know like:

 

4♣ opening

 

1♥ - pass - 4♣

 

(1♥ opponent) 2♥

(1♠ opponent) 2NT

[ralph23]

Another vote for Commonsense Bidding.

 

Also, Learn to Play Bridge on BBO is very good.

[ralph23]

On the jump shift: Some older (sorry!) and uninformed players play that way: that a SJS just shows an opening+ hand. It is very inefficient. Root describes how to play the SJS in Commonsense Bidding and it is a good description. I prefer the weak jump shift myself, but sounds like that will be too radical for your partnership. ;)

 

But think of it this way. Partner has opened. You have an opening hand. Opps are passing. Doesn't it behoove you to save as much bidding space as possible? The SJS on just an opening+ hand unnecessarily eats up space.

 

And a new suit by responder is forcing anyway; there's no rush for responder to announce he has an opening hand. Opener is not going to pass a new suit, whether or not it is a jump. So you have time. Save your bidding space!

 

What if opener plans to rebid 1nt on his second bid? If resp. jump-shifts, then this is not possible. And what does 2nt by opener over the JS then show? Is he minimum? Could he have more than a minimum? You're using up too much space. Allow the opener to better describe his hand on his rebid. Again, he won't pass a new suit by responder.

 

Maybe this will help persuade your partner but I'd suggest Commonsense Bidding and both partners swear to adhere to it, old habits notwithstanding. That will get you out of, at least, your current .... er, circumstances. ;)

[y66]

Hard to beat suggestions given so far.

 

Richard Pavlicek has some good stuff for all skill levels at http://rpbridge.net/rpbr.htm

Bidding practice stuff is esp. good for clarifying agreements.

[ralph23]

http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/

 

Karen Walker's page ... she writes for the ACBL Bridge Bulletin and makes a good presentation. Also here you'll find a quick reference to the strong jump shift ... shows more by responder than just an "opening hand" :D

 

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~belk/bridge.htm

 

Can't vouch for this one, but it looks OK and contains summary material.

 

BTW, I'd suggest you go with 2/1 Game Forcing and abandon the strictly "standard American" system in which that 2/1 bid is not GF. IMO, it's easier than Standard American. You must use forcing 1nt with it however and your partner may not be up to that. :)

 

I also like Pavlicek a lot and his site is cool .... he and Root co-authored a book you need, Modern Bridge Conventions. Don't try too much at one time but this has most of the goodies in it. They have a very clear style.

Edited October 16, 2007 by ralph23

[pcb]

Thanks for you suggestions. Will try to get a copy of Commonsense Bidding. Mind you with us to Common sense is quite uncommon. But who knows - we might find some common ground.

I think the biggest problem is that we are fairly successful in the C strata and often place well in the B strata. I suspect that is at least partly because we bid with confidence. I think that that's because our bidding is aggressive and our opponents make mistakes, my partner thinks it because we play well. It's difficult to change when two out of the three times a week we play against weaker players and we often do very well well.

PCB

[PedroG]

Hi All,

 

I've made the order of the Commonsense Bidding and received it yesterday. I was exploring a few pages and checked some things that were not expecting specially on the NT opening 16-18 and no transfers.

 

Has a beginner, I've been told for a lot of people that 16-18 and no transfers are the really old methods and that I should not learn them...

 

Now I'm in doubt if I should return this book or just forget about NT bidding on this one, and if I decide to keep it how should I adapt this...

 

I Hope I make myself understand on this question.

 

TY

Pedro

[P_Marlowe]

Hi All,

 

I've made the order of the Commonsense Bidding and received it yesterday. I was exploring a few pages and checked some things that were not expecting specially on the NT opening 16-18 and no transfers.

 

Has a beginner, I've been told for a lot of people that 16-18 and no transfers are the really old methods and that I should not learn them...

 

Now I'm in doubt if I should return this book or just forget about NT bidding on this one, and if I decide to keep it how should I adapt this...

 

I Hope I make myself understand on this question.

 

TY

Pedro

Hi,

 

For thats it worth: I rather play with a guy who uses old / simple methods,

which he understand than with a guy who plays fancy stuff and does not

understand what he plays, and if you understand the old methods you will

be able to switch to the new methods.

 

I dont know "Common Sense Bidding" by Root, but I have read two other

books from Root, and they were really good.

 

Since the book is fairly old, the suggested bidding system is certainly dated,

but peoble will still read the book to learn the logic, which the book tries to

explain, ... at least that was my impression reading the critiscs, and explainig

the logic also what Root did in the books I have read.

 

To find out, which newer conventions exist, you may have a look at

"Modern Bridge Conventions" by Root

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Bridge-Conven...t/dp/0517884291

 

or at

 

"25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know" by Barabara Seagram / Marc Smith

http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Conventions-Y...w/dp/189415407X.

 

I am not 100% sure if those books are covered in the book review thread.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jikl]

OK, there are certain things that need to be said here. Don't try to run before you can walk.

 

At this stage, learning the solid principles of NT structure will be of far more benefit than learning transfers straight away. People that learn transfers without learning the underlying principles have a lesser understanding. It is very simple to learn transfers either online or with a pamphlet.

 

Some people will disagree with this, but this is something I have observed over quite some time.

 

Sean

[hrothgar]

At this stage, learning the solid principles of NT structure will be of far more benefit than learning transfers straight away. People that learn transfers without learning the underlying principles have a lesser understanding. It is very simple to learn transfers either online or with a pamphlet.

 

Some people will disagree with this, but this is something I have observed over quite some time.

 

Sean

WTF are you talking about?

 

Transfers are foundational to the vast majority of response structures to No Trump openings. There are certainly exception: Some players use two way Stayman or Relays or whatever but these methods are every bit as complicated as transfers, if not more. I suppose that there are a few duffers out there who claim too be playing "natural" methods. I doubt that their rules set is any simplier than a typical transfer based scheme.

 

You're going to have to teach people something over a 1NT opening. I can't think of a single compelling reason not to start with standard methods.

 

Moreover, I'm at a loss why teaching transfer is going to obscure any critical underlying principles behind a 1NT opening. What's getting lost?

[helene_t]

Not sure if this was Sean's point, but I'm not so keen on transfers, because:

- The "sales argument" usually is that it right-sides the contract. This is true but natural bidding systems are not otherwise based on that philosophy, and teaching beginners the importance of right-siding before they have the basic system under control sometimes make them make anti-system bids (such as failure to respond 1NT when required by the system) for fear of wrong-siding.

- Another technical argument for transfers is that they allow responder to show a GF 2-suiter, but this should have no high priority for beginners.

- They will have to learn the weak t/o anyway because system is off in some situations.

- Weak t/o is similar to the responses to a 1NT rebid.

- There are bunches of situations in which system may or may not apply depending on agreement. In SAYC, responding to a 1NT overcall, transfers are off but Stayman is on. How many know that? Admittedly, even without transfers they may wonder if Stayman is on, but at least the frequency of disasters is smaller.

- There are even more situations in which transfers clearly are off but many beginners are unsure.

 

Obviously, it's a strong point that everybody on BBO (and at the local club) play transfers. Maybe that single argument outweighs all my points.

[PedroG]

Hi,

 

For thats it worth: I rather play with a guy who uses old / simple methods,

which he understand than with a guy who plays fancy stuff and does not

understand what he plays, and if you understand the old methods you will

be able to switch to the new methods.

 

I dont know "Common Sense Bidding" by Root, but I have read two other

books from Root, and they were really good.

 

Since the book is fairly old, the suggested bidding system is certainly dated,

but peoble will still read the book to learn the logic,  which the book tries to

explain, ... at least that was my impression  reading the critiscs, and explainig

the logic also what Root did in the books I have read.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Hi Marlowe,

 

Well since I'm new to the game, I decide when starting to begin with newer methods, and not yet in the point I can study two or mmore methods to have the understanding of the what other are playing to change the way I play...

 

I want to start by understanding what I'm playing, after that I could try and read about other methods modern or old <_<

 

And yes I agree that whatever u should use u must understand the logic underneath, my problem here is that on a book that change my actual way to bid "SAYC based, with a few modified stuff" and I can in someway get confused and mix stuff up, and get to a point where I don't known a thing :)

 

For instance one point arise right away to my mind, if you change your NT range to 16-18 does the 1NT response to a major opening changes ranges too? It must doesn't it.

 

Thanks

Pedro

[PedroG]

- They will have to learn the weak t/o anyway because system is off in some situations.

- Weak t/o is similar to the responses to a 1NT rebid.

 

- There are bunches of situations in which system may or may not apply depending on agreement. In SAYC, responding to a 1NT overcall, transfers are off but Stayman is on. How many know that? Admittedly, even without transfers they may wonder if Stayman is on, but at least the frequency of disasters is smaller.

 

- There are even more situations in which transfers clearly are off but many beginners are unsure.

Hi Helen,

 

I tryed but could not find much on this weak t/o can you explain it a bit futher please... TY.

 

About systems ON/OFF, it's seems it lot in partnership agreement, I tend to play a lot SYSTEMS ON. So 1NT overcall systems ON, don't see the advantage of them being OFF, over 2♣ interferance systems ON (DBL stayman).

 

Interresting to check other places here systems ON or OFF but perhaps other thread.

 

TY

Pedro

[P_Marlowe]

Hi Marlowe,

 

<snip>

I want to start by understanding what I'm playing, after that I could try and read about other methods modern or old <_<

<snip>

 

Thanks

Pedro

Hi,

 

Ok, it seems you are looking for a good introductionary

text to a standard system (Standard American?)?

 

You may have a look at books form Audrey Grant.

http://www.amazon.com/Audrey-Grants-Better...g/dp/0822016664

 

Her books get recommented regular, so they wont be

to bad.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

I tryed but could not find much on this weak t/o can you explain it a bit futher please... TY.

In standard bidding,

1♣-1♠

1NT-2♥*

shows a weak hand and command opener to pass (or correct to 2♠). Also

1♣-1♠

1NT-2♠*

commands opener to pass. As does

1NT-(dbl)-2♥*

at least if dbl was for penalties. As does

1NT-(2♦)-2♥*

As does

(1♣)-1NT-(pass)-2♥*

if playing SAYC.

 

You see, except for for reverses and conventions (stayman, unassuming cuebid, checback, NMF), the normal meaning of a 2-of-a-suit response to opener's/overcaller's 1NT is "this is what I want to play". So the default meaning (without having learned about transfers) of

1NT-2♥*

would be a weak hand with heart length. Opener must pass (bidding on over responder's weak t/o is equivalent to a super-accept). I see little reason to change that (except that transfers happen to be "standard" in many circles).

 

With a GF onesuited or twosuited hand, responder jumps to the 3-level. With an invitational one-suited hand, responder starts with Stayman.

[jikl]

Fine, I will go into more detail> You have decided to teach transfers. Which ones will be easiest to remember and not mess with other parts of the system?

 

Are we going to be only using transfers to a major? If only transfers to the majors, what does 1NT - 2♠ mean? What is the difference between 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ and 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♠? Are we doing 4 suit transfers? If 4 suit transfers, is 1NT - 2♠ mean NT invitation, or transfer to 3♣ or a transfer to an unspecified minor? (You will get asked this) Depending on the previous answer, what is 1NT - 2NT, a transfer to ♦ or invitational? If we are using jumps of 1NT - 3X as slam tries what is 1NT - 3♣ depending on the answer to the previous part? If 1NT - 2NT is a transfer then 1NT - 2♣ is now either Stayman or invitational. Damn this is getting complicatd quickly.

 

By the way, your beginners may take the transfer thing a bit far as quite often happens. You might find 1NT - 3♥ actually means ♠s the first time.

 

Anyway, to competition. The simple answer is system on, or system off. System off is easiest, but you will still have some confusion. For instance, does double count as interference? Does it mean system is off since we have lost no bidding space? This is all going through the beginner's head every time 1NT is opened. Uh oh, partner has opened 2NT, do we do transfers here too? Uh oh, I know we learnt that a 2♣ opening is a GF, and it has gone 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT, do we transfer here?

 

A beginner is usually already scared enough, the easiest thing in the beginning is to learn natural bids, I know it is sub-optimal. How many have seen the 5 card major problem with new players? They have been taught to open 5 card majors so they do it, Problem is the hand shape is 5107. 2-3 months down the track you teach transfers, not straight away.

 

Sean

 

PS: This was primarily in answer to Richard.

[hrothgar]

Are we going to be only using transfers to a major? If only transfers to the majors, what does 1NT - 2♠ mean? What is the difference between 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ and 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♠? Are we doing 4 suit transfers? If 4 suit transfers, is 1NT - 2♠ mean NT invitation, or transfer to 3♣ or a transfer to an unspecified minor? (You will get asked this) Depending on the previous answer, what is 1NT - 2NT, a transfer to ♦ or invitational? If we are using jumps of 1NT - 3X as slam tries what is 1NT - 3♣ depending on the answer to the previous part? If 1NT - 2NT is a transfer then 1NT - 2♣ is now either Stayman or invitational. Damn this is getting complicatd quickly.

How is any of this different if you aren't playing transfers?

 

Regardless of whether or not you are using transfers, novices are still going to ask questions and wonder how they show different types of hands. I believe that you'll run into a hell of a lot more trouble teaching a "natural" system. You might not encounter the precise same set of problems, but you're still going to have 1001 different "problem" sequences. Most of these are going to involve:

 

What bids are forcing?

What bids are drop dead?

 

Please recall: People - by and large - play transfers for a reason, and that reason has an awful lot to do with the presence of an effective, logical structure. It should be simple enough to explain...

[helene_t]

Please recall: People - by and large - play transfers for a reason, and that reason has an awful lot to do with the presence of an effective, logical structure. It should be simple enough to explain...

I think people play transfers for the same reason as why they play Capp, 3-card minors and standard carding, and why they use the QWERTY keyboard. OK, transfers were designed for effectiveness reasons, but the paradigm of a novice bidding system is not primarily effectiveness, it's primarily naturalness.

 

Sure it's simple enough to explain. So are 1001 other simple and effective conventions which I'm not teaching either.

 

At least we can agree to disagree.

[PedroG]

Hi,

 

Ok, it seems you are looking for a good introductionary

text to a standard system (Standard American?)?

 

You may have a look at books form Audrey Grant.

http://www.amazon.com/Audrey-Grants-Better...g/dp/0822016664

 

Her books get recommented regular, so they wont be

to bad.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

TY Marlowe,

 

Been trying to teach myself a bit of SAYC with some (few) gadgets from 2/1.

 

Ty for the book recomendation I will try it...

 

Pedro

[PedroG]

I tryed but could not find much on this weak t/o can you explain it a bit futher please... TY.

In standard bidding,

1♣-1♠

1NT-2♥*

shows a weak hand and command opener to pass (or correct to 2♠). Also

1♣-1♠

1NT-2♠*

Ty Helene,

 

Didn't know it was called that way :lol:

 

1♣-1♠

1NT-2♥*

 

This sequence it's very interresting :), the other including 2♣ and 2♠, since repeating a previous bid suit a min level are always a sigoff.

 

This can't be 5/5 no Michael's. Since 5/4 and 10+ would be a good hand for NMF, I say this is a 5/4 with less than 10pts.

 

TY

many more question arise on biding sequences :)

Pedro

[jikl]

I respected you quite a bit before these posts Richard.

 

My one question is have you ever taught absolute beginners?

 

...

 

Let us assume we are using some sort of vague version of SAYC.

 

SAYC is one of the worst possible systems to teach. You will find your students bidding suits in the wrong order and never understanding that a rebid shows a change in the length of 2 suits. The easiest system to learn is an all 4 card system, all rebids are easy. The beauty of the 4 card approach is that when you change to 5 card suits you might know what order to bid suits in. My least favourite opener playing so called beginner SAYC? A 16 hcp in a major that is balanced.

 

Sean