Masterpoints

[matmat]

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

 

I'd be curious to know what these are :D

In my experience online people who put conventions in their profile often list the most advanced stuff that they have learned. If you go by that assumption, anyone who lists stayman/transfers (only) and has their self-rating at "Expert" might be a little misguided. I do suspect you're talking about live play, however.

 

There are some things people say after a deal which tells you they aren't an expert.  The most telling (and fairly common) is for declarer to say to dummy "how many points did you have?" after playing a hand.  Another one is to be really upset/sound cross/apologise sincerely to partner after taking the percentage line and going off (e.g. taking a normal finesse and losing to a singleton king).  Another is not claiming in an obvious claim position.

 

are you implying that experts count HCP? :)

 

i have heard (third hand so to speak) at least one person tell their students to never claim at matchpoints.

[Lobowolf]

Another is not claiming in an obvious claim position.

With respect to online play, my experience is that it's faster to just play out "obvious claim positions," at least after about trick 9, then to claim and wait for the opps to convince themselves that it's a good claim.

[xcurt]

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

 

I'd be curious to know what these are B)

Stolen bid doubles is probably the biggest red flag for me. 2♦ mini-Roman (unless playing classical Precision) is another one. Playing weak jump shifts gives me pause.*

 

A related class of indicators is the order in which people list conventions in their profile or start ratting off when filling out a card. Better players know that the most important situations to have agreements about are those that happen frequently (and there is more than one reasonable treatment), eg what's a minimum opening in a minor? in a major? what low-level doubles are penalty?, what happens when they overcall our 1NT? What does an overcall look like? when is a card attitude and when is it count?

 

People that list three conventions in their profile, and the third one is Namyats, I don't want to play with.

 

Curt

 

*I won't argue they are unplayable. I simply argue that there is a Bayesian argument that p(weak|plays wjs) can be lower-bounded in the absence of other information given that p(plays wjs|weak) is pretty high.

[Lobowolf]

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

 

I'd be curious to know what these are B)

Stolen bid doubles is probably the biggest red flag for me.

As soon as I read the excerpt, "stolen bid doubles" immediately came to mind.

[Finch]

Playing weak jump shifts gives me pause.*

 

 

*I won't argue they are unplayable. I simply argue that there is a Bayesian argument that p(weak|plays wjs) can be lower-bounded in the absence of other information given that p(plays wjs|weak) is pretty high.

I deliberately didn't give my list for two reasons.

1. I wasn't in the mood to insult people (by implication)

2. I was thinking of face-to-face play, where regional biases do come into it. Your example is a good one. Where I play p(strong|plays wjs) is actually quite high, because most weak players haven't heard of them.

 

But here's a few that apply for me in f2f:

 

- 16-18 1NT opening (yes, I know the top Brazilians play this so it's not totally conclusive)

- Nottingham Club

- A 2S response to a weak 1NT showing exactly 11 points

- strong jump overcalls

 

Oh yes, and one of the best: Benji Acol

[helene_t]

I don't care but that's just because I am not a very ambitious person in general.

 

I think masterpoints are ok. They give intermediate players something to fight for and they provide income for the federation.

 

Of course they are not a serious indicator of playing strength but if someone want a serious indicator they could just compute their own.

[vuroth]

I'm fairly certain that my profile screams lack of skill. Then again, I do possess a certain lack, so that's ok.

 

Something like: SAYC. Cue = limit raise or better

 

I'm sure some other B/Is who have "SAYC, Jacoby xfer, Jacoby 2NT, stayman" etc in their profiles think they know more than me. Otoh, I've read the ACBL's SAYC description. ;)

 

V

[pclayton]

There are some things that if I see them on the convention card that I know that they aren't an expert partnership even before they play a card.

 

I'd be curious to know what these are :blink:

Stolen bid doubles is probably the biggest red flag for me.

As soon as I read the excerpt, "stolen bid doubles" immediately came to mind.

Rose Doubles Dan, ROSE!!!!

 

I'll get flamed a little, but Cappelletti is the bane of the masses too. Agree about mini-roman, although Larsen / Kivel have played it for years but are finally taking it off the cc.

 

To me, its what bad players focus on first. 20 minutes to fill out a cc? I've seen pairs spend 10 minutes on Capp, and the follow-ups, only to give other areas the short shrift.

[Lobowolf]

 

Rose Doubles Dan, ROSE!!!!

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

After stolen bid doubles (actually, maybe before stolen bid doubles), 4 little nails-on-the-chalkboard words...

 

"I don't play reverses."

[Trumpace]

IMO, determing if a player is good or bad depends on

 

1) Their bidding judgement

2) Their play and defense.

 

What conventions they do play or don't play, is irrelevant. There might be a correlation, but I think it is a very weak one. It all depends on how well the convention is used, not how good you think the convention is.

 

(Note: the above applies to amateur players. Not sure about pros)

 

I find it strange that people actually seem to ridicule others based on the conventions they play...

[Lobowolf]

IMO, determing if a player is good or bad depends on

 

1) Their bidding judgement

2) Their play and defense.

 

What conventions they do play or don't play, is irrelevant. There might be a correlation, but I think it is a very weak one. It all depends on how well the convention is used, not how good you think the convention is.

 

(Note: the above applies to amateur players. Not sure about pros)

 

I find it strange that people actually seem to ridicule others based on the conventions they play...

For me, it's certainly NOT about ridiculing anyone, but it absolutely is a quick spot-check barometer. If the auction goes:

 

1♦-1♠;

2♥

 

And responder has a minimum opener, or if the auction goes:

 

1NT-(2♥)-X*

 

*-Transfer to spades

 

There's a REALLY good chance you ain't watching a Spingold final.

[mr1303]

- Nottingham Club

You've actually come across someone in the real world play that as opposed to in Robin Hood's bridge memoirs?

[fred]

if the auction goes:

 

1NT-(2♥)-X*

 

*-Transfer to spades

 

There's a REALLY good chance you ain't watching a Spingold final.

My regular partner and I play that if the auction goes:

 

1NT-2D-X

 

That DBL is sometimes a transfer to hearts (it depends what 2D means).

 

Granted we haven't made it to the Spingold Final for a couple of years, but we won that event roughly 3 years ago and lost in the Final a few years before that.

 

I agree with Trumpace in that I don't like the sound of some of the posts in this thread either. It is one thing to ridicule bidding methods that you think are poor, but to suggest that people who use such methods are likely to be weak players is not very nice IMO.

 

I have been known to strongly critical of some popular conventions myself from time to time (recent tirades against 2-way Drury, 4-minor as RKCB, and good-bad 2NT come to mind). I truly think these conventions are theoretically unsound and I believe I can offer compelling arguments as to why that is the case.

 

But I always try to be careful to criticize the methods themselves as opposed to the people who are playing them. There are 2 reasons for this:

 

1) Any method that is popular is all but certain to have adherants who are A-1 players. I would not feel comfortable putting down someone like Fred Hamilton (who invented Hamilton which is also known as Cappelletti). True I hate his convention, but this guy has won more World Championships than I ever will. To suggest that there is a good chance he is an idiot shows a clear lack of respect for someone who very much deserves respect (at least my respect - maybe you are a better player than both of us?).

 

2) I personally get no joy from hurting the feelings of average players who enjoy using some of the conventions I hate. That's just plain mean in my view.

 

I am not suggesting that the people who make such posts are intentionally being mean. But the bottom line for me is that these posts sound mean even if no meanness is intended.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

True I hate his convention, but this guy has won more World Championships than I ever will.

 

C'mon :blink: You're still young, and we're all rooting for you (except if the Dutch are your opponents...)

[cherdano]

Let's say I play against an unknown American pair at a tournament, and they are playing precision. If they are playing a 14-16 NT, then I think it is more likely that they are good than if they are playing a 13-15 NT. This has probably nothing and at most very little to do with merits, of course there are many world class players playing classical precision. It is just that modern Meckwell style precision with a 14-16 NT is popular among a different crowd than classical precision.

 

When sitting down in the first round of a national pairs event against a Chinese pair my default assumption is that they are very good. The logic above is the same.

 

Every good bridge player uses these kind of prejudices. If we have to base a decision in declarer play on the level of opponents, and we don't know then, then we have to make a guess. Basing the guess on prejudices will be right more often than guessing randomly.

[matmat]

All this "judging by system" talk raises an interesting question, in my mind.

 

When you come across a partnership that plays a method that was popular, say, 10 years ago, how can you (and do you try) to determine which of the following is true:

 

1) they formed their partnership 10 years ago, so probably have played together well, perhaps they don't like to tinker with the system and are good players

 

2) they learned bridge 10 years ago, met 2 days ago, played for the first time yesterday. both suck

 

3) one is very good, knows all sorts of systems, the other still lives in 10 year-ago convention land.

 

4) other?

[mikeh]

I find it strange that people actually seem to ridicule others based on the conventions they play...

I didn't see anyone ridiculing anyone based on the conventions they played.

 

Frances started this part of the theme by stating only that the appearance of certain conventions on an opp's cc would suggest that that partnership was not an expert partnership... she said nothing about it suggesting that the players were stupid or, indeed, that both partners were inept.

 

The reality is that there appears to be a strong correlation between some types of convention and ability. Which conventions correlate the strongest will be subject to regional variation: benji acol is unheard of in my part of the world, and frankly I wouldn't (until now) have drawn any negative inference about an opp who showed up at my table with that on their card.

 

But show me a card with mini-roman, cappelletti over our 1N, no responsive doubles, and a 2N overcall of our weak 2Major as takeout for the minors, and I am 100% confident that my opps are non-expert.

 

But that assessment of their current skill level is not an insult or an attempt at ridicule. For one thing, I personally have played a lot of conventions that I now regard as ill-advised, and that certainly, and accurately then revealed my non-expert status.

 

And, most importantly, anything that helps me assess my unknown opps is going to help my game, so long as I get it right. As declarer, with a choice between relying on a defensive error or a low-percentage but technically correct line, I will be more inclined to opt for the error against a pair playing mini-roman than against a pair with a complete, well-written souped up 2/1 card. As a defender, I will make a risky defensive play against an expert if declarer's line of play suggests that this is the only hope, but one cannot safely reverse-engineer a poor declarer's holdings from his near-random line, nor is the risky play always necessary.. declarer may be about to make an error.

 

So when I look at the cc of an unknown opp, especially if I am playing away from my home turf, where , if I don't recognize the opp, the opp is probably non-expert, it isn't just to make myself feel superior: it is also to help me play effectively against them.

[jtfanclub]

But show me a card with mini-roman, cappelletti over our 1N, no responsive doubles, and a 2N overcall of our weak 2Major as takeout for the minors, and I am 100% confident that my opps are non-expert.

.

.

.

As declarer, with a choice between relying on a defensive error or a low-percentage but technically correct line, I will be more inclined to opt for the error against a pair playing mini-roman than against a pair with a complete, well-written souped up 2/1 card.

That's a good way to get yer butt kicked.

 

The last time I faced a card like that in a big competition, it turned out the opps were from a money-bridge game. The nickel a point guys may play fairly simple stuff, but man, they were easily the best card players I've ever played against, by a lot.

[mikeh]

But show me a card with mini-roman, cappelletti over our 1N, no responsive doubles, and a 2N overcall of our weak 2Major as takeout for the minors, and I am 100% confident that my opps are non-expert.

.

.

.

As declarer, with a choice between relying on a defensive error or a low-percentage but technically correct line, I will be more inclined to opt for the error against a pair playing mini-roman than against a pair with a complete, well-written souped up 2/1 card.

That's a good way to get yer butt kicked.

 

The last time I faced a card like that in a big competition, it turned out the opps were from a money-bridge game. The nickel a point guys may play fairly simple stuff, but man, they were easily the best card players I've ever played against, by a lot.

I haven't played money bridge in many years, but a friend of mine owned a money bridge club in Montreal until a few years ago, and both my experience, his stories, and general writings I have read over the years would leave me very, very surprised if good rubber players arrived playing mini-roman, or virtually any convention beyond stayman, gerber, blackwood and a few other standards. Maybe your experience differs, but the rubber players I have played against in good competition use few conventions and even fewer odd-ball ones like mini-roman.

 

And, of course, the whole point of this aspect of the thread is not that players who play no conventions are bad players... or that all players who play one particular bad convention are bad players.. we are talking about probabilities... and my 100% comment was partly hyperbole and partly based on the combination of conventions listed... and I would be amazed if any good rubber player played the sequence [2♠] 2N as takeout for the minors!!! They have way too much respect for strong hands to do that.

[fred]

So when I look at the cc of an unknown opp, especially if I am playing away from my home turf, where , if I don't recognize the opp, the opp is probably non-expert, it isn't just to make myself feel superior: it is also to help me play effectively against them.

Well maybe I am out to lunch if even you (you being one of those rare experts that actually exhibits considerable humility) seem to think such posts are perfectly acceptable.

 

My objection is not toward this sort of thinking. Of course it is important to attempt to judge the skill level of unknown opponents and course you should use whatever patterns you have observed in the past in order to do so.

 

But I am pretty sure I know you well enough to say with confidence that you would never burst out laughing at the table if your opponents opened 2D and explained their bid as "mini-Roman" (and I happen to agree with you about the value of this convention in a natural system). That would be rude and insulting. While you might well enjoy a laugh over this convention at the bar after the game, you are not the sort of guy who would behave that way at the table. Furthermore, I expect it would really bother you if your partner behaved that way.

 

My objection to the sort of posts I have been complaining about essentially amount to the same thing. Of course it is fine for you to have an opinion about the correlation between skill level and mini-Roman (or whatever), but I don't see the point of expressing these sorts of opinions in a public forum (unless you don't care about hurting large numbers of peoples' feelings and I am pretty sure that is not the case with the Mike Hargreaves that I know).

 

But as I said, maybe it is me who is out to lunch here.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[ArcLight]

>I have been known to strongly critical of some popular conventions myself from time to time (recent tirades against 2-way Drury, 4-minor as RKCB, and good-bad 2NT come to mind). I

 

 

Fred,

Where are these posts on BBO?

 

(any one please point me to them!)

 

 

 

As for CC - I see "Advanced" BBO players with "Stayman and Transfers" as teh only text on their profile. In general (based on my experience) they are not advanced players.

[xcurt]

First off, since I was the first to list some methods, I didn't mean to offend or denigrate anyone's game and I apologize if I did so.

 

Second, I thought Frances' post was generally in response to how do you assess whether you want to play with someone you don't know. It's a particular problem on BBO because it's big, it's international, and the self-ratings are not accurate. That's the problem I was trying to address.

[gwnn]

>I have been known to strongly critical of some popular conventions myself from time to time (recent tirades against 2-way Drury, 4-minor as RKCB, and good-bad 2NT come to mind). I

 

 

Fred,

Where are these posts on BBO?

 

(any one please point me to them!)

 

 

 

As for CC - I see "Advanced" BBO players with "Stayman and Transfers" as teh only text on their profile. In general (based on my experience) they are not advanced players.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=246528

 

is for 2 way drury (what a great post!)

[zasanya]

........

 

But as I said, maybe it is me who is out to lunch here.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Well said sir.You will find many of us sharing the same 'lunch-place'.

Some of these posts from usually respectable posters remind me of a wisecrack I heard a long time ago."A gentleman is only 50% gentle ;the rest is all Man."

[awm]

I think the point is that in general, expert players tend to think a little bit about the conventions they play, observe good and bad results from them, and modify their methods accordingly.

 

Of course, people's experience and judgment varies widely. And some people have a stronger tendency to seek or avoid "complicated" methods. You can't really judge someone's bridge ability based on what conventions they don't play -- after all they might never have heard of that convention, or think it's too complicated, or not think it's worth discussing in a fairly new partnership.

 

But I think the point people are making is that there are certain conventions that are just awful. They simply don't give good results when they come up, and virtually all good players who have played (or played against) them sufficiently will realize this. The claim is that anyone who has such a convention on their card either doesn't really think critically about their methods (and thus is not an expert) or hasn't had enough bridge experience to realize the convention is bad (and thus is not an expert) or simply lacks the ability to judge whether a convention has worked out well on a board or not (and thus is not an expert).

 

Of course, some of the conventions mentioned here are arguably not quite bad enough for this qualification, but I think the idea makes some sense.