Old Bridge Theories That Never Caught On.

[mike777]

I enjoy reading old Bridge books and magazines for their entertainment value.

 

One old theory of Al Roth's that I assume never caught on was the Shifting-Suits Principle.

 

You do not have to jump shift every time you like your hand. The mere shifting of suits to the next level will encourage responder to bid again. He must be aware that his limited holdings might produce game or slam. Roth argues this is big help when responder may have good looking 9-10 pt hands.

 

"The shifting of suits of suits to the next level by an opening bidder shows additional values. Opener promises to make a third bid, provided responder does not pass, rebid his own suit or jump to game."

 

Slam may be easy to bid without worrying about point count or keycards.

If you like your hand for slam and partner also likes his hand you will have slam if you have judged your "liking" correctly.

 

He also argues that if you have limited your hand(nonextras) you can feel comfortable no matter what action partner takes.

 

Roth goes on to say that the HIding of a suit JUST TO LIMIT THE HAND is contrary to the way most modern experts bid. "Today's Experts like to show their suits regardless of how strong they are on a roller-coaster." Roth says they are wrong. :)

 

 

He goes on to state the number of plus scores, ordinary average plus or win is what is most important.

 

Here are some extreme examples where Roth HIDES a 5 card suit.

 

x....AKJxx...xx...AT98x is 1h=1s=2h! or

 

x.....AQTxx.....KJ...Kxxxx is 1h=1s=1nt! or

 

x....xx......AKTxx.....AJTxx is 1d=1s=2d! or

 

x....AJ...KTxxx...AJxxx is 1d=1s=1nt!

 

 

1h=1s=2h may be....x.......AKJxxx...xx...Axxx but

 

1h=1s=2c may be ......x....AQTxxx....AJx...AJx

 

Axx...AKTxx.....KJ98....x.... is 1h=1s=2d

 

He goes on to urge readers to keep an open mind and "experience great results of limiting your hand rather than showing every suit as soon as possible, you will be happy...:)"

 

 

As I said this principle or theory I assume was rejected by Roth's expert peers let alone int. level players.

[ArcLight]

These dont require much from pard to make 5 Clubs

 

>x....AKJxx...xx...AT98x is 1h=1s=2h! or

 

If pard holds:

xxxx xx Axx Kxxx

Axxx xx xxx Kxxx

xxxx xx Kxx Kxxx

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

 

 

>x.....AQTxx.....KJ...Kxxxx is 1h=1s=1nt! or

 

 

xxxx x xxxx Axxx

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

 

 

>x....xx......AKTxx.....AJTxx is 1d=1s=2d! or

 

xxxx (A or K)xx xx Kxxx

Axxx xxx xx Kxxx

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

 

>x....AJ...KTxxx...AJxxx is 1d=1s=1nt!

 

xxxx xx AQx Kxxx

 

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

[mike777]

These dont require much from pard to make 5 Clubs

 

1)>x....AKJxx...xx...AT98x is 1h=1s=2h! or

 

If pard holds:

xxxx xx Axx Kxxx

Axxx xx xxx Kxxx

xxxx xx Kxx Kxxx

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

 

 

2)>x.....AQTxx.....KJ...Kxxxx is 1h=1s=1nt! or

 

 

xxxx x xxxx   Axxx

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

 

 

3)>x....xx......AKTxx.....AJTxx is 1d=1s=2d! or

 

xxxx (A or K)xx xx Kxxx

Axxx xxx xx Kxxx

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

 

4)>x....AJ...KTxxx...AJxxx is 1d=1s=1nt!

 

xxxx xx AQx Kxxx

 

 

we have a shot at 5 Clubs

Your modern bidding system may very well get you to those contracts....I may very well not playing my modern system with the first three hands with hand 4...maybe I got a shot at getting there :)

 

I cannot raise to 3c over 2c rebid by opener with responder hand with only 4clubs...partner only promises 3 and 3c may get us too high as partner will play me for a solid invite hand.....not a courtesy raise. :)

hand one responder will rebid 2h

hand two responder will pass. 2c

hand 3 responder will rebid 2D. :)

 

for me to have any chance to get to game opener will have to make at least and maybe more than 3 free bids with his opening hand.

 

You may do much better. :)

[Echognome]

I cannot raise to 3c over 2c rebid by opener with responder hand with only 4clubs...partner only promises 3 and 3c may get us too high as partner will play me for a solid invite hand.....not a courtesy raise.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣?

 

As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3.

[matmat]

I cannot raise to 3c over 2c rebid by opener with responder hand with only 4clubs...partner only promises 3 and 3c may get us too high as partner will play me for a solid invite hand.....not a courtesy raise.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣?

 

As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3.

you never know, gnome, opener might be 1533 and not like a 1N rebid with the singleton.

[Lobowolf]

I cannot raise to 3c over 2c rebid by opener with responder hand with only 4clubs...partner only promises 3 and 3c may get us too high as partner will play me for a solid invite hand.....not a courtesy raise.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣?

 

As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3.

Perhaps he's mixing it up with:

 

1♦-1♠;

2♣

[mike777]

I cannot raise to 3c over 2c rebid by opener with responder hand with only 4clubs...partner only promises 3 and 3c may get us too high as partner will play me for a solid invite hand.....not a courtesy raise.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣?

 

As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3.

I was thinking of the hands that go 1d=1s=2c yes.

 

I also said I pass bd 2......1h=1s=2c=p

 

You may do much better. :)

[Lobowolf]

I cannot raise to 3c over 2c rebid by opener with responder hand with only 4clubs...partner only promises 3 and 3c may get us too high as partner will play me for a solid invite hand.....not a courtesy raise.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣?

 

As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3.

you never know, gnome, opener might be 1533 and not like a 1N rebid with the singleton.

1-5-3-3 hands are the best argument for weak 2 bids with 5-card suits, even if you're an ace heavy. The rebid problems are too uncomfortable otherwise.

[mike777]

I cannot raise to 3c over 2c rebid by opener with responder hand with only 4clubs...partner only promises 3 and 3c may get us too high as partner will play me for a solid invite hand.....not a courtesy raise.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣?

 

As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3.

you never know, gnome, opener might be 1533 and not like a 1N rebid with the singleton.

1-5-3-3 hands are the best argument for weak 2 bids with 5-card suits, even if you're an ace heavy. The rebid problems are too uncomfortable otherwise.

I just call the director with these hand types :)

1=5=3=3 too tough for me. :)

[awm]

It seems that a lot of "old-fashioned" bidders (even experts from fifty years or so ago) have this belief that you need points/high cards to make contracts. They vastly underestimate the power of shape in producing tricks.

 

If opener is 5-5 in two suits (like many of the hands that Mike777 presented) then it doesn't take much in the way of values to make game on a good fit. While I agree that you probably won't get to game on the hands Arclight gave, give responder five card support for opener's second suit. Now the games go from being "okay" to being almost cold and you really might get there (an ace and a king and five card support is probably worth a raise).

 

There is also something to be said for getting to the right partial. Rebidding five card suits is a good way to play 5-1 fits, and usually these don't score as well as playing in a contract where you have the majority of the trumps. Even at IMPs these swings add up.

 

With this said, I think there is something to be said for rebidding 1NT on many flattish hands (i.e. 1♦-1♠ and opener is 1354 or 2254, or 1♥-1♠ and opener is 2542 with a club honor). This rebid limits the hand and also might make it easier to reach a fit in the fourth suit. 1NT will also play better as a partial quite often with these hand types. Note that the fifth card in the second suit is very powerful opposite a fit there, whereas 5-4 hands if you have a game in the four card suit on light values then sometimes partner will introduce his five-card holding in this suit when you rebid notrumps.

[jonottawa]

In my day, double was penalty, we bid 4 card suits, free bids showed extra, cue bids were either natural or showed a big takeout, we bid slams off an ace and the KQ of trumps and we LIKED it!

[csdenmark]

My compliment Mike that you try to extract the wisdom from the old champions. Much too few think in that way.

 

To your discomfort I like to point to the fact that what you are looking into is the beginning of a 20-30 years of downturn to american bridge. Not until Dallas Aces duplicating the italian systems american bridge was gaining ground.

 

What you present for openings are at that time part of polish and italian systems.

[hrothgar]

To your discomfort I like to point to the fact that what you are looking into is the beginning of a 20-30 years of downturn to american bridge. Not until Dallas Aces duplicating the italian systems american bridge was gaining ground.

Curious what you mean by the "Italian Systems"

 

If you're talking about bidding system: Only one member of the Aces was wedded to any of the Italian bidding systems. Bob Hamman played Orange Club (or some variant) with a number of partners for decades. However, Hamman makes it very clear that this decision had little or nothing to do with any strong convinctions about the technical superiority of Neopolitan Club. Rather, the members of the Aces were required to write up detailed sets of system notes. Hamman claimed that copying a write up of Blue Club was the path of least resistance. Thus was born the Orange Club. When Hamman (occasionally) played with Eisenberg they also played a Neopolitan variant.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have any of my reference books available, however, I don't recall any other partnerships playing an Italian bidding system for any significant length of time. A couple pairs might have dabbled with stuff, but I wouldn't call this significant.

 

Moreover, I doubt that anyone seriously believes that choice of bidding system had anyone near as significant an impact on the results as adopting a professional training style.

[csdenmark]

Unfortunately, I don't have any of my reference books available, however, I don't recall any other partnerships playing an Italian bidding system for any significant length of time. A couple pairs might have dabbled with stuff, but I wouldn't call this significant.

 

Richard we dont know much about Dallas Aces' system approach. We know that Orange club is a modification of Blue Club. But what is Black Club and Green Club? I know nothing else than they are Dallas Aces systems - assuming one of them to be Precision the other one might be something like Lancia Club or Quadri Livorno.

 

I also like to draw the attention to opening 2-/3-suiters was an integrated part not only of italian systems. The polish pass systems had that too, even the australian Moscito pass-system had that(CRASH).

 

What I like to draw the attention to is something like americans looks busy to create conventions to overcome their handicaps in system approach. Even I dont know much about Roth/Stone I doubt american bridge has so very much to credit them for.

[hrothgar]

Richard we dont know much about Dallas Aces' system approach. We know that Orange club is a modification of Blue Club. But what is Black Club and Green Club? I know nothing else than they are Dallas Aces systems - assuming one of them to be Precision the other one might be something like Lancia Club or Quadri Livorno.

 

I also like to draw the attention to opening 2-/3-suiters was an integrated part not only of italian systems. The polish pass systems had that too, even the australian Moscito pass-system had that(CRASH).

 

What I like to draw the attention to is something like americans looks busy to create conventions to overcome their handicaps in system approach. Even I dont know much about Roth/Stone I doubt american bridge has so very much to credit them for.

Black club is a version of Orange that Hamman played with Eisenburg

 

I THINK that Green Club was used by Jacoby and ??? for a very short amount of time. As I recall, there is some discussion of this in "At the Table", however, I don't bring my bridge library to work.

 

I don't think that any of the Aces ever experimented with any of the other systems used by the Italians during their hey-day. (For what its worth, I don't consider Precision or Super-Precision to be Italian... From what I understand Garozzo only switched over to Precision because Wei was paying him to do so, and he switched back away as soon as the money stopped)

[csdenmark]

Black club is a version of Orange that Hamman played with Eisenburg

 

I THINK that Green Club was used by Jacoby and ??? for a very short amount of time.  As I recall, there is some discussion of this in "At the Table", however, I don't bring my bridge library to work.

 

I don't think that any of the Aces ever experimented with any of the other systems used by the Italians during their hey-day.  (For what its worth, I don't consider Precision or Super-Precision to be Italian...  From what I understand Garozzo only switched over to Precision because Wei was paying him to do so, and he switched back away as soon as the money stopped)

Could very well be correct. It looks to me like Giorgio Belladonna is the driving force behind Precision in Blue Team. Belladonna also played Precision with at least Pietro Forquet. Who paid who and for what we probably will never find out. BG Precision book is from 1973.

 

But they are both on Lancia Club - an interesting mix of canape' and 5 card major - in 1976. Benito Garozzo is co-author to 'The italian Blue Team Club' book from 1969. So maybe there is something more than money behind Garozzo's intensions.

 

If you look up the references in 'At the table' I will be very interested. The book has no index - so difficult for me unless reading the whole book.

[bill1157]

I read "Picture Bidding" and still have it. Roth tends to create hands as examples to make his system look good, i.e. bid it his way and get to a 15 pt grand slam, or stay out of a bad 29 pt game. I think alot of bidding theorists do that...

Bill

[mikeh]

Even I dont know much about Roth/Stone I doubt american bridge has so very much to credit them for.

 

You clearly know almost nothing about RS, then... it seems that Roth was the main proponent of RS... Tobias Stone was Roth's main partner in the critical years. Roth is probably responsible for more of current mainstream American bidding than anyone else.

 

Amongst the approaches he either invented or made popular (and most of this was actually an invention) were:

 

1. 5 card majors

2. Forcing 1N response to 1Major

3. Weak jump overcalls

4. Unusual notrump (first reference I have seen was in a report on the 1948 Winter Nationals, when Roth was a young almost-unknown up-and-comer)

5. Negative doubles (admittedly not the same way we play them, but he invented the 'not penalty' approach)

 

He was also a strong proponent of having extensive systemic agreements at a time when the leading American experts frequently changed partnerships and rarely discussed method... which, according to Moyse, amongst others, was a major reason for the triumphs of the Blue Team... a team that HAD methods and established partnerships.

 

A lot of Roth's ideas failed to catch on. He was a fervent believer in very strong requirements for a 1st and 2nd seat opener, and this became the hallmark of the RS method, and never became popular. He also advocated a forcing single raise of a major suit opening... perhaps the rationale for the forcing 1N response, since lesser hands couldn't raise immediately. And his requirements for 'free bids' by responder after an overcall (lots of strength) found few adherents.. but were the genesis behind the negative double, because he realized that passing hands with 6 or 7 points was losing bridge but he wanted a 'free bid' to remain strong.

 

The approach mentioned by Mike in the OP was another that failed to catch on, and for reasons that are easy to understand. Another of the factors that led to Italian dominance for decades was their willingness to properly value distributional and degree of fit factors...

 

Furthermore, Roth's general approach was formed at a time when far more auctions were uncontested than is the case today. So his rigid rules, based as they were on very solid initial action coupled with generally silent or non-preempting opps don't function so well today.

 

But they say that a one-eyed man can be the master of the kingdom of the blind, and Roth's ideas, flawed tho they were, were far superior to the then-accepted wisdom in NA, such that RS were a feared and fearsome duo for a long time.

 

And all of us who play any form of NA std or 2/1 (and many others) owe him an enormous debt.

[pigpenz]

Unfortunately, I don't have any of my reference books available, however, I don't recall any other partnerships playing an Italian bidding system for any significant length of time. A couple pairs might have dabbled with stuff, but I wouldn't call this significant.

 

Richard we dont know much about Dallas Aces' system approach. We know that Orange club is a modification of Blue Club. But what is Black Club and Green Club? I know nothing else than they are Dallas Aces systems - assuming one of them to be Precision the other one might be something like Lancia Club or Quadri Livorno.

 

I also like to draw the attention to opening 2-/3-suiters was an integrated part not only of italian systems. The polish pass systems had that too, even the australian Moscito pass-system had that(CRASH).

 

What I like to draw the attention to is something like americans looks busy to create conventions to overcome their handicaps in system approach. Even I dont know much about Roth/Stone I doubt american bridge has so very much to credit them for.

Weishel Sontag had their Power Preciscion late 70's and Ron Anderson and Hugh Mclean played their version of preciscion.

[csdenmark]

Even I dont know much about Roth/Stone I doubt american bridge has so very much to credit them for.

 

You clearly know almost nothing about RS, then... it seems that Roth was the main proponent of RS... Tobias Stone was Roth's main partner in the critical years. Roth is probably responsible for more of current mainstream American bidding than anyone else.

 

Amongst the approaches he either invented or made popular (and most of this was actually an invention) were:

 

1. 5 card majors

2. Forcing 1N response to 1Major

3. Weak jump overcalls

4. Unusual notrump (first reference I have seen was in a report on the 1948 Winter Nationals, when Roth was a young almost-unknown up-and-comer)

5. Negative doubles (admittedly not the same way we play them, but he invented the 'not penalty' approach)

 

He was also a strong proponent of having extensive systemic agreements at a time when the leading American experts frequently changed partnerships and rarely discussed method... which, according to Moyse, amongst others, was a major reason for the triumphs of the Blue Team... a team that HAD methods and established partnerships.

 

A lot of Roth's ideas failed to catch on. He was a fervent believer in very strong requirements for a 1st and 2nd seat opener, and this became the hallmark of the RS method, and never became popular. He also advocated a forcing single raise of a major suit opening... perhaps the rationale for the forcing 1N response, since lesser hands couldn't raise immediately. And his requirements for 'free bids' by responder after an overcall (lots of strength) found few adherents.. but were the genesis behind the negative double, because he realized that passing hands with 6 or 7 points was losing bridge but he wanted a 'free bid' to remain strong.

 

The approach mentioned by Mike in the OP was another that failed to catch on, and for reasons that are easy to understand. Another of the factors that led to Italian dominance for decades was their willingness to properly value distributional and degree of fit factors...

 

Furthermore, Roth's general approach was formed at a time when far more auctions were uncontested than is the case today. So his rigid rules, based as they were on very solid initial action coupled with generally silent or non-preempting opps don't function so well today.

 

But they say that a one-eyed man can be the master of the kingdom of the blind, and Roth's ideas, flawed tho they were, were far superior to the then-accepted wisdom in NA, such that RS were a feared and fearsome duo for a long time.

 

And all of us who play any form of NA std or 2/1 (and many others) owe him an enormous debt.

Mike I think we very much agree. I certainly take your words for the inventions are fairly correct and fine with that.

 

I have earlier said that the americans were busy creating conventions to help them to overcome their handicaps. You have named them.

 

What you see as great achievements I mostly see as a way 'missing the train'.

 

Even it is still a bit early to make a judgement I think it is time for the americans to consider if they are now again on the wrong track. 2 lost Bermuda Bowls and more of their pairs playing standard.

[csdenmark]

Weishel Sontag had their Power Preciscion late 70's and Ron Anderson and Hugh Mclean played their version of preciscion

 

Yes for a short period Weischel/Sontag were members of Dallas Aces.

 

Ron Andersons many books are nearly all co-authored by Charles/Kathy Wei.

[Winstonm]

I actually used to play the Culbertson 4NT-5NT convention in association with first and second round cue bids and found it highly beneficial.

[skjaeran]

I actually used to play the Culbertson 4NT-5NT convention in association with first and second round cue bids and found it highly beneficial.

So did I for five years (1984-89). In a strong club system. We modified the 4-5NT convention. We did very well in slam auctions.

[OleBerg]

I actually used to play the Culbertson 4NT-5NT convention in association with first and second round cue bids and found it highly beneficial.

15 years ago it had quite a following in Denmark. Now only a small minority of top-level players use it. (And a few below top-level.)

 

In an uncontested auction, any well organized system will do fine with ordinary RKC. It's when the auction becomes highly competitive, that the idée shows its worth, as you can use the 5-level to check both aces and controls.

 

The convention can be improved by Streamlining it, switching the meaning of 4nt and the bid directly above 4 in the agreed trumphsuit. If you adopt this, be prepared for some silly mistakes during practice. (And a lot of practice.)

[bill1157]

A lot of Roth's ideas failed to catch on. ... He also advocated a forcing single raise of a major suit opening... perhaps the rationale for the forcing 1N response, since lesser hands couldn't raise immediately. And his requirements for 'free bids' by responder after an overcall (lots of strength) found few adherents.. but were the genesis behind the negative double, because he realized that passing hands with 6 or 7 points was losing bridge but he wanted a 'free bid' to remain strong.

I played a single raise of the major as forcing some years ago and it worked very well. I have always hated the Jacoby 2NT, and found it doesn't come up too often anyway.

 

Also, reverse the meaning of the negative X/free bids (ie.free bid 9-11 pts, make a neg X with more) and it works a whole lot better.

 

Bill