2/1Gitleman

[fred]

What do we bid with

AKxxx...AKxx...xx...xx?

That's an example of the problem hand I was talking about.

 

It makes sense (to me at least) to jump to 4S with a hand like this: 5422, basically nothing in the minors, and strong holdings in both majors.

 

I would go as far as to say if my partner made this (undiscussed) bid, that is exactly what I would expect (based on our agreements in similar auctions). I would not make that assumption with a non-regular partner (I would assume 4S meant "I have a terrible hand and don't feel like bidding anything else").

 

You can't play 4S to mean *any* 5422 with basically nothing in the minors - the bid would have too wide a range.

 

So whether or not 4S is a possibility in your partnership, there will be some 5422 hands for which you are truly stuck. Probably the least of evils is to bid 2NT on such hands (obviously planning not to Pass if partner's next bid is 3NT).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Do the A1 players pattern out because they've tried a comprehensive approach like Ken's book utilizing 3 level cues (not just randomly agreeing 3 level cues without thoroughly discussed inferences/negative inferences on most of the sequences) & discarded it as inferior (I really doubt many have gone through this effort), or simply because that's how everyone's always played and it's easier to go along the herd (certainly clearly easier for memory burden, multiple/infrequent partnerships, clients etc.) 

 

Problem is that a different approach like Ken's takes effort to implement, and the frequency of gain is likely small, so most people aren't going to try it at all, let alone long enough to give a fair evaluation of whether it's overall better or worse.

For sure some strong players are lazy, but many are not.

 

There are a lot of partnerships who would have a chance to win, say, the World Open Pairs, who play 5-card majors and 2/1s are forcing to game.

 

Probably almost all of them have discussed auctions of this nature in at least reasonable detail. Many of the players in these partnerships (and many more strong players not in these partnerships) have actually been playing top-level bridge and similar bidding methods for decades. You can bet that almost all have given these matters some thought (granted few have thought about it as much as Ken).

 

Probably you are right that many of these people would not give the concept of cuebidding here the time of day. In fact, I would expect most would quickly dismiss the concept as absurd.

 

Why is that?

 

Maybe because none of them are quite as smart about bridge as Ken.

 

Maybe because they are too lazy to think about new bridge ideas.

 

Maybe because their massive egos get in the way and they cannot believe that an "unknown" player could come up with anything new and good.

 

And maybe they are right and the concept really is absurd.

 

I can't tell you how really good players *know* these things, but one of the things that makes them really good is that they tend to be better than lesser players at seeing through the forest to the trees. They can't always explain why, but their instincts tend to be pretty good.

 

Do you really think all A1 2/1 players for the past 30+ years have been complete idiots? If no, then I think it is overwhelmingly likely that some of these non-idiots would have seen the light by now. And when a good idea is noticed, word tends to spread fast - even if a given A1 player is too much of an idiot to pay attention to Ken, he/she tends to pay attention to what other A1 players are bidding.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Stephen Tu]

Do you really think all A1 2/1 players for the past 30+ years have been complete idiots?

 

Huh? How did I ever imply that? I am not calling anyone an idiot. I am just saying that they aren't going to look, try, evaluate every alternative approach because other constraints make it impractical to do so.

 

And I do think that many excellent players are too quick to immediately dismiss alternative approaches as absurd based on gut feeling without giving the matter full analysis. If an idea is truly absurd, one ought to be able to lay out logical reasons why this should be so. You yourself said you can't prove you are right with logic. Maybe Ken's approach is worse, maybe it is better, who knows, but I don't think it's fair to call it absurd.

 

There are lots of ways to win at bridge. Lack of popularity shouldn't equate to assumed theoretic inferiority. There are a lot of top players using 5CM, naturalish 2/1 systems. Yet there are still players like Hamman who play 4cM and think 5cM is worse. And plenty of top partnerships playing strong club systems. And Fantoni-Nunes playing natural but a lot differently from everyone else ...

[kenrexford]

If you equate system decisions with conclusions based upon thorough analysis and election, as if that is the norm, then you are naive.

 

I just had an interesting conversation with a pro player concerning the idea of using 2M openings in the Roman Club system, but in a standard system. The point of the discussion was not that we should play it. The point of the discussion was directly on point with Fred's commentary. The reason for not using this technique that was given was that no one (no A-1 players, and the guy I spoke with knows a lot of A-1 players) did it, and therefore that it must not work.

 

So, I tossed back at him a challenge to explain the pros of the bid. Not the cons, just the pros. For, if the technique has or lacks merits, in the opinion of a geat player, then that player should be able to at least explain the pros and cons competently. Through that discussion, I established that the pro had not considered the subtle impact. The obvious was noted quickly -- you get in quickly, superior position when you open the call, penalty doubles when they overcall, and the like. What was missed is that a 2♠ opening with maybe 11-15 or so and 5+♠/4+♣ allowed 1♠...2♣ to be artificial without cost, that the high reverse problem with spades and clubs was solved, that the "what to open" with 5-5 blacks was solved, and that you are no longer preempted by simple red overcalls in competitive sequences. Plus, the fact that the Italians used it might suggest that it had merit.

 

Now to cuebidding. You, Fred, have suggested through inuendo that my approach to cuebidding might possibly be absurd, or maybe not. I have personally used this with a very strong partner and have amazing an success ratio in slam decisions. I have tested my techniques against vugraph records, not to prove anything (I wrote the thing not intending to publish but as a set of notes to myself) to anyone except myself, to see if it really worked. It did.

 

In contrast, you cannot provide anything concrete to explain your position, except two arguments. First, ad hominem. The man with the idea has no credentials and is not a professional player with recognized status. Second, implicit community opinion. Cite a community of experts, do not cite a single one who has considered the idea yet, and then claim that because none of these folks have yet endorsed the idea that it must be bad, and of course ignore those members of that community that have actually praised the idea in things like book reviews and such.

 

This critique comes from someone for whom a simple auction like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠-4♦ is a mystery, undiscussed and subject to guessing. One of my bridge partners teaches rather rudimentary classes to rather newbie players where something this basic is discussed. I'm sure that a lot of others out here also find that disturbing. I'd rather rest on my ability to explain my suggestion logically than admit to something that ridiculous but cite my success at the table.

[fred]

Do you really think all A1 2/1 players for the past 30+ years have been complete idiots?

 

Huh? How did I ever imply that? I am not calling anyone an idiot. I am just saying that they aren't going to look, try, evaluate every alternative approach because other constraints make it impractical to do so.

This particular alternative would be completely obvious for any strong player who chose to think about the auction (ie every strong player who plays 2/1).

 

To suggest that it never occurred to a strong 2/1 player to use cuebids in an auction like this is to suggest, to me at least, that the person in question is an idiot who happens to be dressed up as a bridge player.

 

And I do think that many excellent players are too quick to immediately dismiss alternative approaches as absurd based on gut feeling without giving the matter full analysis.

 

I agree with you, but there are also many excellent players who are not like this.

 

If an idea is truly absurd, one ought to be able to lay out logical reasons why this should be so. You yourself said you can't prove you are right with logic. Maybe Ken's approach is worse, maybe it is better, who knows, but I don't think it's fair to call it absurd.

 

I can't *prove* that my approach is better, but I bet I could lay out an argument that would convince almost everyone (other than Ken). Sorry, but I don't have the time, energy, or patience to get involved in that particular discussion.

 

There are lots of ways to win at bridge. Lack of popularity shouldn't equate to assumed theoretic inferiority. There are a lot of top players using 5CM, naturalish 2/1 systems. Yet there are still players like Hamman who play 4cM and think 5cM is worse. And plenty of top partnerships playing strong club systems. And Fantoni-Nunes playing natural but a lot differently from everyone else ..

 

But to the best of my knowledge, none of them believe in cuebidding in these sort of auctions.

 

Sure it is possible that they (and I) are all wrong, but I think that is most unlikely.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

In contrast, you cannot provide anything concrete to explain your position, except two arguments. First, ad hominem. The man with the idea has no credentials and is not a professional player with recognized status. Second, implicit community opinion. Cite a community of experts, do not cite a single one who has considered the idea yet, and then claim that because none of these folks have yet endorsed the idea that it must be bad, and of course ignore those members of that community that have actually praised the idea in things like book reviews and such.

 

This critique comes from someone for whom a simple auction like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠-4♦ is a mystery, undiscussed and subject to guessing. One of my bridge partners teaches rather rudimentary classes to rather newbie players where something this basic is discussed. I'm sure that a lot of others out here also find that disturbing. I'd rather rest on my ability to explain my suggestion logically than admit to something that ridiculous but cite my success at the table.

I have never said:

 

- that I think your bidding ideas are absurd

- that a non-famous player's ideas should be dismissed automatically

- that consensus in the expert community should be equated with "best"

- that I know I am right and you are wrong

 

In fact, I do not believe any of these things.

 

All I have said:

 

- I think you are clearly wrong based on my own experience and judgment

- that expert consensus greatly increases the chances that you are wrong

 

I think I could articulate why you are wrong to the extent that my argument would satisfy most players, but that is not convenient for me right now and probably won't be any time soon (sorry).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Stephen Tu]

To suggest that it never occurred to a strong 2/1 player to use cuebids in an auction like this is to suggest, to me at least, that the person in question is an idiot who happens to be dressed up as a bridge player

 

Call me an idiot, fine, but please stop twisting my words. I suggested no such thing. An idea occurring to a player, who then dismisses developing it for practical, or popularity reasons, or gut feeling, is different from really trying it out. I am suggesting that few top players have thoroughly explored this idea, worked out a complete system based on this, gotten their strong regular partnership to try it, then abandoned it because of poor result. Or do you know of people who have actually done this for this idea?

 

I am *not* suggesting that none have ever thought about it cursorily then dismissed it.

 

It seems bidding systems are like religion, you have to "believe in it". Screw logic, huh?

[kenrexford]

You are right about one thing, Fred. Some very good players have, in fact, considered the idea of cuebidding at the two-level.

 

I mean, consider what I have actually proposed.

 

Georgio Bellandonna and Claudio Petroncini advocated early on much of what formed the foundational basis of my approach, including cuebids at the two-level. I doubt that you would consider these gentlemen to have absurd ideas about bidding.

 

But, these gentlemen only got so far. They had not developed in quite the same way the ideas of picture bidding with jumps. They had not yet thought of some of the ideas that your yourself came up with, very good ideas at that.

 

When I took picture bidding and explained it better (after consultation with people like Eddie Kantar and Eric Kokish -- decent players to you, Fred?), I realized that redundancies from Belladonna's approach coupled with your approach and affected negatively by picture bids could be resolved. Hence, the conclusion. Some additional concepts were then added, like "what next" and the like, but the core is very simply evaluation of existing ideas, exploration of the undiscussed, and resolution of redundancy.

 

But, you have a secret proof of superiority that you cannot be bothered to provide, despite your willingness to claim that superiority. Please. You are beginning to prove something, but not what you intended.

[cherdano]

Fred, the problem with the "expert consensus" is that expert opinions don't develop independently.

For example, for me personally I am absolutely sure that it is far superior to play shape-showing in this auction rather than starting cuebidding. This has little to do with the fact that I guess it is theoretically better, but more with the fact that

- I am quite comfortable with auctions where I can bid out shape since this is what I am used to play in many other situations,

- so I don't have to learn many new sets of rules about cuebidding in this auction (obviously if you want to make cuebidding work well here you need many special rules, e.g. what NT bids show, what 3M shows, etc.),

- more importantly shape-showing is what all the players (some of them better and a few of them much better than me) I regularly play against play on this auction. Well you have explained the advantages of playing a standard system various times yourself, so I guess I needn't say more about that.

 

I think it is quite possible that cuebidding in auctions where we have found a major suit fit and are in a game force at the two level is superior to shape showing, but that no expert partnership has invested the (significant) effort yet to make it work well (especially given that these auctions are not so frequent).

 

As another example, if bridge was only played in Italy I could well imagine that all experts would agree that in a 2/1-style 5-card major system, 1M 1N 2♣ has to be artificial, including some strong hands, and that it is definitely inferior to just play it as natural.

[mike777]

I thought slam tries in a major fit at the two level are common in 2/1?

 

1h=2c

2d=2h or

 

1s=2c=2h=2s

 

I thought these were frequent auctions.

 

It seems these shape showing rebids could be confusing but if this is expert standard I need to look at them and ask my partners what they play.

[kenrexford]

I thought slam tries in a major fit at the two level are common in 2/1?

 

1h=2c

2d=2h or

 

1s=2c=2h=2s

 

I thought these were frequent auctions.

 

It seems these shape showing rebids could be confusing but if this is expert standard I need to look at them and ask my partners what they play.

Yeah. That's the funny thing about this. These do seem to be rather common auctions.

 

If we were talking about how to handle slam tries after landy overcalls of kamikazee 1NT auctions, then that might be a valid concern.

[awm]

Having a 2/1 GF auction is not very common. And there will be some subset of these auctions where you don't have a fit, or where opener's rebid is 2M or above. So auctions like 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ really are not all that common. When these auctions do occur, you have a lot of space. It seems likely that most reasonable methods will do a fairly good job at slam auctions here, and there will be a high percentage of hands where slam is either obvious or ridiculous. Putting this together, even if one method is somehow a lot better than another, it will take a very long time (many hands) for that to win substantial imps or mps. This also means that if the superior method is somehow more complicated, or less similar to other parts of the system, the memory strain may not be worth the benefit.

 

An advantage to the "pattern" method of bidding is that sometimes the major suit will not be the best strain for slam. Some people are bidding 2♠ on this auction with balanced hands lacking a diamond stopper (i.e. 2-3-3-5 with ♦xxx) in which case it can easily be wrong to commit to the major (opener could have 5-4-3-1 with good diamonds and 3NT could be a cinch). There are also situations where there is a spade fit, but you are better off in another suit (most frequently clubs, if opener has 5-4-1-3 or the like and responder is 3-5 or 3-6 in the blacks). When opener's continuation is "pattern" it allows you to easily back into alternative strains when that's best. Starting cuebidding right away virtually commits you to playing in spades (admittedly you can back into notrump at the slam level sometimes).

 

Generally it seems like two times through the suits is enough cuebidding. If you start cuebidding after 2♠, you can get all your cuebids in and still stop in 4♠. But you really can't get pattern information. Patterning out first, you get the pattern information but your cuebids might carry you to 5♠ on a bad day. But usually you can evaluate based on pattern whether to push past game, so going down at the five-level will be pretty rare. And the 5♠/6♠ decision should be strictly more accurate. What exactly does Ken's cuebidding method do beyond 4♠? Show jacks? Isn't pattern more important than jacks?

[fred]

As another example, if bridge was only played in Italy I could well imagine that all experts would agree that in a 2/1-style 5-card major system, 1M 1N 2♣ has to be artificial, including some strong hands, and that it is definitely inferior to just play it as natural.

OK good example, let's assume these facts.

 

Now assume one day that some unknown Italian player who has never won any major championships claims "I know a better use of 2C". When he tells his idea to the experts, the typical response is:

 

"I have thought about this before but not in depth because intuitively it seems very wrong to me".

 

Is it possible the unknown player is right? Of course.

 

Is it likely he is right? No.

 

That is all I have been saying. However, I will add:

 

- the more experts that agree, the better the odds that they are right

- the more experience these experts have playing and thinking about the system in question, the better the odds that they are right

- if the system inventor happens to be an A1 player himself (as opposed to an unknown player) the odds of him being right go up

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

What exactly does Ken's cuebidding method do beyond 4♠? Show jacks? Isn't pattern more important than jacks?

You are not understanding the approach.

 

Take a simple auction hat starts as suggested (1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠).

 

Opener's first cue possibility is 2NT. This would deny good trumps. Bypassing 2NT would show good trumps. A later cue of 3♠ by either party would show good trumps within the context of what is known so far. Bypassing would show poor trumps within the context of what is known so far. The result of all of this is that I find out about a critical part of RKCB before bypassing 4NT, namely truymp strength.

 

Opener's next cue possibility is a club cue. That shows a top club (A/K/Q). Because a later cue of 4♣ would show a second top club, not possible with pattern bidding, I can fill in partner's one-honor-high suits. Notably, Responder can do that for my hearts, as well. Pattern bidding and high cues fill in two-honor-high suits, but not one-honor-high suits.

 

Opener's next cue possibility is a diamond cue. That shows control. He can later re-cue 4♦ to show first-round, which is not possible with pattern-first. He can later cue a third-round control if he denied a 1st/2nd, which is also not possible without this approach.

 

So, I can show more useful cards, or deny useful cards, and more about trumps, weak or strong, below game. Whereas RKCB is sometimes unsafe for folks, I will already know that answer before entering the five-level.

 

As to cues above game, they don't exist in this auction. Five-level calls generally ask for unknown last issues in side suits. For instance, Opener might be able to check on a heart or club Queen.

 

On rare occasions, Jacks actually can be sought.

 

But, the question was whether pattern is more important. Keep in mind that half of the pattern story is always known to half of the partnership. The person who makes the ultimate decision will not be better placed if his partner knows his shape. He, as the ultimate decision-maker, already knows his own shape and is not comforted by partner's equal knowledge. Further, the person with the greater shape probably needs to know about critical cards more than shape.

 

If you have AQJx in clubs, do you care more whether partner has two, three, or four cards in that side suit or whether partner has the King, whether K, Kx, Kxx, or Kxxx?

 

That said, shape often becomes known. If Opener lacks a control in diamonds, for instance, then he must have two or more diamonds, and thus at most two clubs. If he lacks a tertiary diamond control, then he has three diamonds and a stiff club.

 

Take the thing to its extreme. If partner opens 1♠ with 10-20 HCP's and rebid 2♥, you know that he has 10-20 HCP's and 5+/4+/?/? pattern. So, after 2♠ by you, he could bid 3♥ to show 5+/5+/?/? pattern, and 10-20 HCP. You could then bid 3♠ to ask for more, and hear 4♠ to show precisely 5-5-3-0 pattern and 10-20 HCP's. That's a lot of pattern development, but you have no clue what he has. If you yourself have five trumps, a stiff heart, and xxx in diamonds, you have no clue what to do.

[kenrexford]

As another example, if bridge was only played in Italy I could well imagine that all experts would agree that in a 2/1-style 5-card major system, 1M 1N 2♣ has to be artificial, including some strong hands, and that it is definitely inferior to just play it as natural.

OK good example, let's assume these facts.

 

Now assume one day that some unknown Italian player who has never won any major championships claims "I know a better use of 2C". When he tells his idea to the experts, the typical response is:

 

"I have thought about this before but not in depth because intuitively it seems very wrong to me".

 

Is it possible the unknown player is right? Of course.

 

Is it likely he is right? No.

 

That is all I have been saying. However, I will add:

 

- the more experts that agree, the better the odds that they are right

- the more experience these experts have playing and thinking about the system in question, the better the odds that they are right

- if the system inventor happens to be an A1 player himself (as opposed to an unknown player) the odds of him being right go up

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I'm sorry. I did not know that we were placing bets on this.

 

WTF?

 

I love this argument.

 

I ran this through a simulator. We take the known variables, which include the following:

 

1. I have no idea who Ken Rexford is. We'll call him A.

2. His book has been out X number of days.

3. Y number of people probably have read his book.

4. The number of people I think probably agree with his idea is B.

 

Then, we run it through the machine. Chunk, chunk, ching. And, bazooie! It appears that the odds of his idea being better than standard practice are (Y)(X/:)-A to 1.

 

Now, the odds of the standard idea being best is (Z)(1-X/A)+A to 1.

 

Therefore, I win the argument. Tada!

[Cascade]

I thought slam tries in a major fit at the two level are common in 2/1?

 

1h=2c

2d=2h or

 

1s=2c=2h=2s

 

I thought these were frequent auctions.

Its all relative.

 

Disclaimer: I do not usually play 2/1 but I did in three events last year.

 

In those three events - about 17 sessions (first event 4-session pairs, second 6-session pairs, third actually a pairs and teams 7-sessions over three days) - 2/1 only came up a handful or so times. In the first event 4-sessions we never had a 2/1 auction.

 

2/1 auctions where you agree a suit and make a slam try at the two-level will be much more infrequent.

[fred]

As another example, if bridge was only played in Italy I could well imagine that all experts would agree that in a 2/1-style 5-card major system, 1M 1N 2♣ has to be artificial, including some strong hands, and that it is definitely inferior to just play it as natural.

OK good example, let's assume these facts.

 

Now assume one day that some unknown Italian player who has never won any major championships claims "I know a better use of 2C". When he tells his idea to the experts, the typical response is:

 

"I have thought about this before but not in depth because intuitively it seems very wrong to me".

 

Is it possible the unknown player is right? Of course.

 

Is it likely he is right? No.

 

That is all I have been saying. However, I will add:

 

- the more experts that agree, the better the odds that they are right

- the more experience these experts have playing and thinking about the system in question, the better the odds that they are right

- if the system inventor happens to be an A1 player himself (as opposed to an unknown player) the odds of him being right go up

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I'm sorry. I did not know that we were placing bets on this.

 

WTF?

 

I love this argument.

 

I ran this through a simulator. We take the known variables, which include the following:

 

1. I have no idea who Ken Rexford is. We'll call him A.

2. His book has been out X number of days.

3. Y number of people probably have read his book.

4. The number of people I think probably agree with his idea is B.

 

Then, we run it through the machine. Chunk, chunk, ching. And, bazooie! It appears that the odds of his idea being better than standard practice are (Y)(X/:)-A to 1.

 

Now, the odds of the standard idea being best is (Z)(1-X/A)+A to 1.

 

Therefore, I win the argument. Tada!

I am not trying to win a bidding theory argument. I am actually trying to avoid a bidding theory argument.

 

I am trying to offer advice to people who are not 2/1 experts and need some guidance as to how to handle these auctions. That was the original purpose of this thread, right?

 

And yes, it is like a bet for these people. I am claiming that in the long run they will do better by betting on methods that are universal among the best players rather than those that were invented by a random non-famous guy.

 

The experts could easily be wrong, but they are probably right.

 

For sure there are some random non-famous guys out there who are truly geniuses when it comes to bidding theory. I sincerely hope you are one of those, Ken. Also for sure there are plenty of accomplished players who are not especially good (and/or not especially interested) in such things.

 

Still, for less experienced players who have to choose between listening to all the leading players and some random guy, I think the choice should be easy.

 

In fact, I would go as far as to say that aspiring players will be much better off if they completely ignore all of the bidding theory ideas made by random non-famous guys that they encounter. For every one genius there are a lot of non-geniuses who are, intentionally or not, selling snake oil.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jtfanclub]

- the more experts that agree, the better the odds that they are right

- the more experience these experts have playing and thinking about the system in question, the better the odds that they are right

- if the system inventor happens to be an A1 player himself (as opposed to an unknown player) the odds of him being right go up

First one is good.

Second one is good.

Third one...not so good.

 

Think about it for other sports:

"The more runners agree that a shoes is bad, the better odds that they are right".

Sure.

"The more experience these experts have with a shoe, the better odds they are right."

Sounds good.

"If the system inventer happens to be a great runner, the odds of it being a great shoe go up".

Ummmm, no.

 

Do the same thing with golfers and golf clubs, NASCAR drivers and cars, etc.

 

If you want to build a great system, being able to play cards well at the table, decipher when opponents are bluffing, and so forth is completley useless. Most 1A bridge players don't design their own system from scratch, and yet they seem to do all right. If I was looking for a great bridge system, I'd start with mathematicians who know bridge. Bidding can be mapped- what's important to know, what isn't, what's thrown into 'default' bids, what can be interfered with, etc. This is all just math, set theory, and flow charts. You need experts to test it out, see if it's playable, etc. But only to test it.

 

To think that experts in one field will therefore be experts in another field is just an inflated ego about that field. Yes, experts tinker with their systems a bit (just as drivers tinker with their cars), but just the fact that experts play a variety of systems implies that the tinkering doesn't improve it much. If it did, everybody would play the new and improved version. The reason that the changes we do see are mostly by experts is not because experts are particularly good at modifying systems, but because experts aren't willing to test systems created by non-experts. The fact that there's better people out there to do it doesn't matter if they can't get tested.

 

So I'm curious, Fred. Short of hiring an expert to play it, what would it take to convince you that Ken's system is superior, both in theory and in play? What if he could show over a large number of random hands that his system did a better job of telling you what you needed to know? What if he ran it against robots, and you looked at the results of the bidding (not play) against those robots? I mean, what he's discussing here isn't all that novel. He's completed ideas that to me look very similar to the old Blue Club 1♣-1M-2M auctions to me. He's just done the math to make it good in theory instead of a hodgepodge of what "seemed" good.

 

If you want a great sword, you don't go to a great swordsman, you go to a great blacksmith. But if all the great swordsmen refuse to try swords made by blacksmiths, it'll look like great swords come from great swordsmen.

 

Until a great swordsman actually gets a weapon from a great blacksmith.

 

Then watch out.

 

In fact, I would go as far as to say that aspiring players will be much better off if they completely ignore all of the bidding theory ideas made by random non-famous guys that they encounter. For every one genius there are a lot of non-geniuses who are, intentionally or not, selling snake oil.

 

Funny, I would say that aspiring players will be much better off if they completely ignore all of the bidding theory ideas made by random experts. They're much better off going with the advice of the Audrey Grants of the world. Of course, the experts know the Audrey Grant stuff well, and they do a much better job of describing and explaining it than, say, I would. But I notice that the random experts here tend to give advice based on

 

Their (the expert's) bidding judgement

Their (the expert's) play

The Standard bidding theory, regardless of what they play with regular partners (or believe is the best).

 

If I may be so bold, I think it's because they consider themselves experts in judgement, and play, and perhaps in what's standard, but they don't consider themselves experts in bidding theory.

[pclayton]

These discussions are very tough and emotional sometimes. We all have our 'pet' ideas that we all take psychological ownership of. To hear that they may not effective can be a real blow to our ego.

 

I don't have a strong feeling about patterning versus cue bidding but I do know that I don't want to reinvent the wheel every time I develop a partnership with a good player. Even if Ken is right about it, is it a clear advantage, or is it a slight advantage? And does trying to play something non-standard take priority in the hierarchy of other partnership agreements?

 

I think people really overemphasize the relevance of these uninterrupted auctions. You might have one per session on average. I've never truly tracked it, but in the 1st day of the Blues in San Francisco, Matt and I averaged 3 or 4 boards per session where we had the bidding to ourselves. The rest were competitive auctions or auctions the opponents were bidding. Many of the sequences we spent hours and hours on never came up.

 

As a result, I think all partnerships should really focus on their competitive bidding above all else. Why would you hit 5 irons all day long on the driving range (other than that its fun) when when you get out on the course you are going to be putting and chipping a lot more often?

 

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Overcall Structure, and I seem to harbor some of the feelings Ken appears to have. While I hardly invented it, it seems to be one of those methods that a good player looks at and immediately dismisses as being a stupid idea. Yet it works, and it works against good players. I will admit it can work ridiculously well against weak players.

 

Brian and I played OS in the Spingold and we had some nice system pickups. Kokish liked it and I sent him my notes on it, so I can't help but feel it just hasn't caught on.

 

New ideas that are really good find their way into the expert community. Look at transfers to 1♣. Was anyone playing these 15 years ago?

[fred]

[Funny, I would say that aspiring players will be much better off if they completely ignore all of the bidding theory ideas made by random experts. They're much better off going with the advice of the Audrey Grants of the world. Of course, the experts know the Audrey Grant stuff well, and they do a much better job of describing and explaining it than, say, I would. But I notice that the random experts here tend to give advice based on

 

Their (the expert's) bidding judgement

Their (the expert's) play

The Standard bidding theory, regardless of what they play with regular partners (or believe is the best).

I think you have misunderstood what I meant by "aspiring players".

 

I meant the sort of people who have learned 2/1 and are interested enough to think about what they should do on the 3rd round of the bidding - people who are aspiring to be experts. Sorry if my terminology was confusing.

 

With all due respect to my dear friend Audrey, this is not the sort of question that she is qualified to answer. I would much rather get the opinion of her husband David who is one of Canada's most successful players (as well as a person who has played 2/1 for many years).

 

If one of Audrey's students asked her this question, I am certain her response would be the same: ask David.

 

For the group of players I call "beginners", I agree with you completely. These people would be very well served by paying attention to Audrey and ignoring everyone else.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

Ken, it would not surprise me if your methods worked better than auctions that people in the bermuda bowl had. You have a complete system in place with all the bids defined, so you're already well ahead of the game.

 

Add to that that you will never have any judgement errors because you know all the hands and you are well ahead of the game. This is not meant as an insult, and you probably deny that this happens, but it is impossible to be objective. Especially when most of these slam auctions that are not obvious to bid come down to judgement.

 

If you really want to prove that your system is better than a mainstream experts pair you should have a bidding match against them. Make sure they also have a complete system that involves shape showing bids. Of course this may be unfair because if they are better than you or you are better than them the skill difference may be the deciding factor. I think that your system is better than no agreements at all, but it's not really fair to say cuebidding is better than shape showing because [insert expert pair here] missed a slam on this auction and your system would not have.

 

BTW, it's not really a good argument that expert pairs have not considered Ken's methods, he wrote an entire book on the subject. I know that at least I read it. I can honestly say I thought a lot about his system vs the "mainstream" style because of it.

[Stephen Tu]

I have to say that I am not a fan of Fred's frequent use of credential evaluation as a proxy for direct evaluation of ideas themselves.

 

Just because someone isn't famous, isn't spectacularly good enough in enough areas of the game to become a top player, he can't come up with a decent bidding wrinkle in some sequence? He should be dismissed by everyone and his ideas not examined because people should automatically file them under "probably crackpot?", odds not good enough that he is right? Einstein was just an unknown patent clerk when he came up with special relativity, explained Brownian motion & photoelectric effect. His ideas were dismissed by many as well. But luckily science usually eventually gets around to evaluating ideas based on their intrinsic merit & tests their validity. (I by no means equate Ken w/ Einstein, nor do I yet have opinion on whether he is right on this auction, just I would strongly prefer to see his ideas attacked on their own intrinsic merit or lack thereof.)

 

Of course, a random person's new idea is more likely to lack merit than a well known expert's idea. But that does not mean that we should dismiss random person's idea out of hand, nor does it mean we should blindly accept expert's idea w/o logical backing & examination.

 

Now certainly I agree most players should stick with mainstream methods, and it's hugely more important to improve defense, bidding judgment, card play, concentration than to work on optimizing infrequent auctions such as this one. Playing the std way leaves you more time for such things, and will improve your results faster. But I don't agree that one should just randomly assume alternative approach is inferior, and call it such, based solely on lack of fame of the presenter.

 

Anyway, I am now sufficiently curious to get myself a copy of Ken's book.

[655321]

- the more experts that agree, the better the odds that they are right

- the more experience these experts have playing and thinking about the system in question, the better the odds that they are right

- if the system inventor happens to be an A1 player himself (as opposed to an unknown player) the odds of him being right go up

First one is good.

Second one is good.

Third one...not so good.

 

Think about it for other sports:

"The more runners agree that a shoes is bad, the better odds that they are right".

Sure.

"The more experience these experts have with a shoe, the better odds they are right."

Sounds good.

"If the system inventer happens to be a great runner, the odds of it being a great shoe go up".

Ummmm, no.

 

Do the same thing with golfers and golf clubs, NASCAR drivers and cars, etc.

Couple of things about your interesting analogy.

 

1) I could go up to Tiger Woods and say "Tige, old son, your putting stroke is all wrong. Sure, I never score less than 120 myself, but I really know all about putting." What would the reponse be? (And rightly so).

 

2) OK, Golf club design. Perhaps a keen hacker who does not know what good golfers look for in their clubs comes up with a club that is very good for XYZ. But the top golfers say "But I don't need to do XYZ, I need to do ABC". Not getting feedback from an expert golfer has contributed to the poor design.

 

Bridge is a game where some people put all their energies into designing bidding systems. Often these people are not winning players - perhaps because they spend their available bridge-self-improvement hours in an area which does not contribute to success at the table. If a top player designs a gadget, the chances are better (not in all case, definitely!) that the gadget is a direct response to an actual need.

 

Anyway, I am not trying to cause anyone offence, and I agree with an earlier poster that ideas which are good will be accepted in time.

[fred]

I have to say that I am not a fan of Fred's frequent use of credential evaluation as a proxy for direct evaluation of ideas themselves.

I claim that listening to players who are much more successful then you tends to be a good thing to do. Of course you should use your brain, but if you are unable to come to any conclusions then surely it is smart to listen to the stars, especially when it comes to matters where they all agree.

 

I practiced this myself since long before I had any credentials and I still practice this now that I have some credentials - if a player with more credentials tells me "I am right", unless I am somehow certain he is wrong (most unlikely), I will believe him. If a group of such players unanimously express the same strong opinion, it is all but certain that I would believe them.

 

This is nothing more than a betting strategy which I think works: if it is impossible or impractical to use logic to get an answer and your own experience and judgment isn't conclusive, then the best you can do is ask some better players what they think.

 

I am not using this betting strategy to evaluate the quality of ideas. I am using it to evaluate the *likely* quality of ideas. That is the best you can do when it is not possible to evaluate the quality of the ideas themselves. I have been very clear about this, either you have not noticed or you don't understand that there is a difference (or maybe you are just frustrated because you are long on ideas but short on credentials).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

A lot of the focus has been ad hominem. Well, let us look into this topic for a second. I' sure that many here would agree with and relate to some of what my thoughts are on this issue.

 

How, precisely, does one accomplish acclaim at the bridge table?

 

Some folks dedicate an amazing amount of time to the game, often even establishing careers in bridge. These folks often rise up in circles with peers who are professional players, and establish partnerships with these folks. Learn the expert standard, advance, prove the card play and skill, get the right partnerships, have success.

 

Others, however, never particularly gain opportunities like that. My story is probably similar to many. Play as a kid with the folks and the little brother in the small town, with basically rubber players gone duplicate. Go off to college and play with the weird guys who have some general skills but are freaks. Next step -- law school, with no one you know except the same freaks.

 

Then, back to small town Ohio. While working, you play with friends you meet in the small town who have some skills, but not really all that much. As you start to advance, you realize that these folks do not see the game as it is. However, that's your partner over there. You learn to mess with people, including partner, because you can. Good results in regionals, but not much else happens.

 

So, you end up struggling around with lesser gods and mortals, never having a chance to do anything productive. You play with a nice friend who is really hopeless in a few major events, picking up 80-some IMPs a session, only to see partner drop 80-some IMPs by answering Aces wrong.

 

So, how about establishing a real partnership? No one lives in your town, and every hopeless think-they-are-something in your state has a vested interest in keeping their maybe-someday-not-just-regionals partner. Plus, they are tainted by (1) assessment of your ability because of your past partners and (2) fear of your style because of observed eccentricities (strange calls made while playing bridge without a partner).

 

So, you decide against that nonsense, play with friends for the fun of the game, but study for the love of the game. You figure out what would work best with a real partner, one you would love to have but cannot find in your little playground in the country.

 

Then, along comes someone who lives in the Big City, with wild numbers of pros and real players around him, who establishes himself because of opportunity, and questions why you, without that supermarket of options, have not won the big event. Surely you must not have the talent. Surely you must be the random, non-famous guy.

 

My gripe is not so much with the concept. I myself would have doubts with the idea of investing much time into theory proposed by an unknown. The gripe is with someone who has credentials making evaluations of my "pet" theory with apparent ignorance and with obvious B-level theory himself. I have received enough credentialled praise that I can easily endure competent credentialled criticism. But incompetent, even if credentialled, criticism in the form of an ad hominem attack pisses me off.