Masterpoints

[fred]

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).

(Playing the devil's advocate to some extent)

 

I suppose the many vugraph commentators who have a field day with Gerber believe that this convention is "just awful". Maybe they are right, but I am guessing that since all of the leading partnerships in North America use Gerber, there is some chance that this convention might actually have some merit.

 

Then there is Flannery - another frequent subject of ridicule among vugraph commentators (who by and large are excellent players). If you agree with them that Flannery is just awful, try telling that to players like Hamman, Wolff, Bramley, or the late Paul Soloway. Or let great partnerships like Martel-Stansby or Weinstein-Levin know what you think. They all play Flannery and I think it is just barely possible that they know something.

 

How about Mexican 2D? Probably just about everyone thought that this was a ridiculous convention until some of the leading Italian pairs started using it.

 

I happen to have my own opinions about which conventions are awful and I like to think that I can back up these opinions with logic. But no matter how dumb I think a given convention is, there are always players I respect who disagree. That is enough (for me at least) not to draw any general conclusions about the likely skill levels of those who happen to see things differently than I do.

 

(And if I were to draw such conclusions I hope I would polite enough to keep such opinions to myself).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Lobowolf]

I suppose the many vugraph commentators who have a field day with Gerber believe that this convention is "just awful". Maybe they are right, but I am guessing that since all of the leading partnerships in North America use Gerber, there is some chance that this convention might actually have some merit.

 

 

 

 

Though having said that, I bet there's an inverse correlation between how good a pair is and how often a 4♣ bid in that partnership is Gerber...

[ArcLight]

>I happen to have my own opinions about which conventions are awful and I like to think that I can back up these opinions with logic. But no matter how dumb I think a given convention is, there are always players I respect who disagree. That is enough (for me at least) not to draw any general conclusions about the likely skill levels of those who happen to see things differently than I do.

 

 

Fred,

PLEASE post these kinds of analysis, thoughts!!!!! ;)

 

I would love to read this!

[mikeh]

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).

 

Of course I wouldn't burst out laughing at an opp for the opp's methods. On reflection, I can see how the posts here might seem equivalent, but I don't think that that was the intent.

 

I think part of the problem is that in today's world there is a tendency to equate ignorance with stupidity. Only non-knowledgable players play certain very ineffective conventions or treatments: thus we can draw fairly reliable (but not infallible) inferences about a player's skill level if, in an uncontested auction such as 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ 3♥ 4♣, it turned out that 4♣ was gerber, and on the next board they opened a mini-roman in a natural system.

 

These opps might be very intelligent people but, for whatever reason, including inexperience, they are ignorant of the expert thinking.

 

We are all ignorant of much of human knowledge: the fields of knowledge being as vast as they are. No one can be expert in all they do....unless they do virtually nothing. And while there is some correlation between bridge skill and intelligence, it is not absolute... the smartest person I ever knew was hopeless at bridge, even tho he loved to play.

 

I would not go into the local club, nor would I write an article for the unit newsletter announcing that one can identify ignorant or non-expert players by their conventions. But these fora attract people who are serious about the game. Some are already expert, but I know, from pms I have received, that many players, including the experts, want to learn more. If any reader here sees that respected posters feel that using mini-roman, for example, is a sign of a lack of knowledge, and that reader has been a user of mini-roman (as I was many years ago), maybe these posts will prompt the reader to wonder why. And learning and understanding the reasons most (all?) experts now disdain the use of the convention will probably advance the reader's understanding of the game.

 

So, while I agree with your main point that it is wrong to insult or ridicule anyone, I still don't see the posts here (Phil's, Frances' Adam's, mine and most of the others along these lines) in that light. Post them where casual players read, and I'd agree with you. And if anyone reading these posts thought that being told that their use of a certain gadget revealed them to be stupid or inherently inferior, as a person, then I would apologize and hope to explain that they are confusing ignorance with stupidity. I was almost certainly more intelligent when playing mini-roman and rolling gerber than I am now.... but I am a lot more knowledgable these days... I was a beginner then, and can claim to be an expert these days. Not because I got smarter... but because I learned more about the game. One reason I and many others post here is to give something back.. to help others reduce their ignorance... and since I am writing to the person behind BBO, I know that you share that wish, probably to a far greater extent than I.

 

If any reader here felt offended by my posts, I do apologize.

[ArtK78]

Back in June, at the Philadelphia Regional, I played in a KO match against two well-known experts who usually play together as a partnership. I was surprised to see that they played Mini-Roman, a convention that I despise. Sure enough, it came up and they had a disaster.

 

Does this mean they were non-experts? Certainly not. For whatever reason, they were playing a method that I (and many others) consider to be flawed, and one of the flaws bit them on this hand (the actual result was -300 for them in 3♠ opposite a PASS OUT at the other table).

[ASkolnick]

The pattern I notice about conventions, at least when I was playing was the following:

 

FLight C: Very little conventions, just learning.

Flight B: Every convention under the sun or what you choose to play.

Flight A: OK, we have gone through the process of figuring out which ones we like and which we ones we don't. We will stick to those.

 

Not going to argue the merits of any convention, since on any hand, one will work out better or worse.

[pclayton]

Perhaps we need to start listing 'genius' conventions that are ONLY played by the top pairs and by none of the STCP's.

[jtfanclub]

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.

 

That's exactly right- I don't recall what they played for 2♦, might have been Flannery, might have been weak, but their card was very basic.

 

I didn't realize that you were emphasizing that if somebody's only convention was mini-Roman, they're probably beginners. I thought you were saying that you would think that somebody with only very basic conventions would be worse players than people with a 'well filled out 2/1 form'. I was saying from my limited experience that the great rubber bridge players play a very basic system but are amazing at card play.

[Finch]

Perhaps we need to start listing 'genius' conventions that are ONLY played by the top pairs and by none of the STCP's.

I'm not sure there are any.

 

My original point was not trying to bash particular conventions at all. It was actually something different. The (brief) discussion on WJS made that point: depending where you are in the world WJS are either very popular or very unpopular with stronger players. No-one has really proved to general satisfaction what the 'best' range for an opening 1NT is, but there's still a strong relationship between skill and chosen NT range within my local area.

 

This all started with the "how can you tell how good an opponent actually is" and I stand by the original proposition: simply by looking at their convention card you can often get some strong indications about the expertise of the opposing partnership. Of course you may be wrong, this is a probability discussion.

 

At the risk of fanning the flames further, here are some other things you can deduce purely from (English) convention cards:

 

- the card is barely filled in, or just has "strong NT / 4 card majors" scrawled across the top, and "natural" everywhere else: they are rubber bridge players, their play is likely to be better than their bidding

 

- I don't actually have an opinion on the merits of Flannery at all, but if your opponents play Flannery, the best deduction you can make is that they are likely to be North American expats/visitors.

 

- they play mini NT in 3 positions, or vulnerable: their pre-empts are also likely to be very random

 

- they play upside down count: you can trust them to give (reverse) count 100% of the time in defence. For some reason, over here where reverse count is very rare, every practioner always gives religious count in every suit.

[dburn]

Reverting for a moment to the original topic (in order to save having to explain that anyone who plays support doubles is at best an aardvark and certainly not an expert), I am reminded of a story. Sami Kehela and Eric Murray entered a tournament where they were required to indicate on the entry form for a particular event how many master points they held. "Not many", wrote Kehela, but the brasher Murray wrote "Plenty".