Recalling the early days ....

[helene_t]

One day during a boat holiday is was raining so to kill some time, my dad taught my brother and me to play bridge. I must have been 9 YO or so.

 

I remember a few things from the early days, like my brother would always shout "take out!" when making a take-out double, while I would say "Stayman" when applying that convention, especially if I had less than four clubs. And my mother citing "the bridge player's wife's survival kit" for the tip: "show your interest for the game by frequently asking which suit is trump".

 

Once, playing with my brother against our parents, I was declarer and cashed AK of spades before setting up my long suit, so my parent took several spade tricks and set my contract. I still remember my brothers comment: "It is just so uncool to lose the spades control". It is 30 years ago but I still have a strong aversion against cashing winners early.

 

What I cannot reconstruct is what bidding system we played. My memories about that issue are contradictory. I knew we would often open 1♣ on a doubleton, and therefore play 1♦ as a negative response. Yet when I got my first bridge-playing computer program and it offered the choice between 5cM and Acol, I found it a revolting idea that 1M should promise 5. Also, when I was told some 23 years later that a new suit from responder is forcing, it suddenly occurred to me that I never asked myself whether a bid was forcing or not. So in fact I am not sure whether we were playing Vienna or Precision or Acol or some kind of incoherent blend of all three. I knew we would sometimes consult the standard Goren CCs but I never figured out the logic of that system.

 

Needless to say, one of the few things that we always made agreements about was how to ask for aces. And notrump range. I preferred to play weak notrump because it increased the number of hands on which bidding was more than pure guesswork. That there might be other consequences of the notrump range as well did not occur to me.

 

One concept that I learned very early, on the other hand, was reverse bidding. My dad had written a book about the 1-o-1-system, in which he gave an example of a reverse sequence, noting that opener bid his suits in an uneconomical order. That I found intriguing because intuitively it would be more economical to bid the lower suit first, so I wrote up lots of bidding hands for myself to get a grasp of the concept. Then I wrote a computer program that used this reverse principle throughout, i.e. regardless of which suit was longer, and I was thrilled by the fact that my program could reach non-ridiculous contracts on almost 50% of uncontested auctions, which was comparable to real life bridge :) To my dismay, my dad was not so impressed by my bidding system.

 

My dad was TD, and together we developed a computer program that generated movements. I set out to optimize balance only, and was quite successful in that I think although it may be my selective memory. Again to my dismay my father never used my optimal-balance movements at his club, since he wanted simple movements that he would be able to memorize himself so he could tell the players where they had to go without having to consult a printout.

[Tola18]

What I cannot reconstruct is what bidding system we played. My memories about that issue are contradictory. I knew we would often open 1♣ on a doubleton, and therefore play 1♦ as a negative response. Yet when I got my first bridge-playing computer program and it offered the choice between 5cM and Acol, I found it a revolting idea that 1M should promise 5.

Ah yes, old memories. When I was a beginner, I often played in a semi-private club owned and run by old Tom Wennberg.

In the system he taught there it was allowed to open on 4-cards major, but it must be sound cards. Thus it was often necesssary to open with a preparatory club, on down to 2 clubs.

Although I dont remember if they used 1D as negative.

- Perhaps something alike your system Helene??

 

The system was much for counting points. I suppose it was easier for many beginners, count points instead of try to value the shapes.

 

 

 

(I myself was taught and used a basic version of the swedish national system Modern Standard, a mix between Acol and Sayc, with four cards openings. Still a favorite of mine, although nowadays I play it more sophisticated).

[helene_t]

Yes I guess you're right, we would open a good 4-card major if we had it (even taking precedence over a modest 5-card minor) but open 1♣ with bad four-card major(s).