Advice on Playing online

[Thorn610]

I have been playing BBO robot bridge and I think I am ready to take the next step to play bridge on line?

 

What is the best way to take the next step?

 

Thanks

Thorn

[spotlight7]

I have been playing BBO robot bridge and I think I am ready to take the next step to play bridge on line?

 

What is the best way to take the next step?

 

Thanks

Thorn

 

 

Try the relaxed club.

[RuflRabbit]

I have been playing BBO robot bridge and I think I am ready to take the next step to play bridge on line?

 

What is the best way to take the next step?

 

Thanks

Thorn

 

Hi, there. My advice: google and read the SAYC pamphlet and commit it to memory. It has more conventions than you will need at first but it is otherwise an excellent starting point for what two strangers can play without discussion. Post in your profile either that you play full SAYC (probably more than you want to play right now) or that you play Standard American and list the conventions you play. E.g.,

 

Standard American, stayman, major suit transfers only, regular blackwood

 

(A lot of people only play the major suit transfers after notrump openings. If you haven't been playing the major suit transfers, I urge you to do so, but if you don't play them, list "no transfers" in your profile.)

 

Have fun! And be prepared to let some water run off the duck's back. There are some rude people, but also many nice ones. :)

 

RuflRabbit

[Thorn610]

Hi, there. My advice: google and read the SAYC pamphlet and commit it to memory. It has more conventions than you will need at first but it is otherwise an excellent starting point for what two strangers can play without discussion. Post in your profile either that you play full SAYC (probably more than you want to play right now) or that you play Standard American and list the conventions you play. E.g.,

 

Standard American, stayman, major suit transfers only, regular blackwood

 

(A lot of people only play the major suit transfers after notrump openings. If you haven't been playing the major suit transfers, I urge you to do so, but if you don't play them, list "no transfers" in your profile.)

 

Have fun! And be prepared to let some water run off the duck's back. There are some rude people, but also many nice ones. :)

 

RuflRabbit

 

Thanks for the sound, albeit confusing reply? It sounds like I have a lot to learn and look forward to the task!

Thorn

[HardVector]

Don't say you play any convention you don't know (play). That will just enrage any person you play with when it comes up. If you don't play any conventions, just list that in your profile. Put as much information in there that will allow your partner to figure out what kind of bidding and defensive signals you will be using.

[RuflRabbit]

Thanks for the sound, albeit confusing reply? It sounds like I have a lot to learn and look forward to the task!

Thorn

 

Please tell me what part you found confusing and I will be happy to clarify. :)

 

RuflRabbit

[etha]

Try to find some sensible people to play with. Maybe consider joining one of the clubs e.g. http://pigpen.org.uk/IAC/iac.php. I wouldn't bother learning any systems until you find people to play them except some basic 5 card major strong notrump system, like the robot plays so you have some idea what the opponents bids mean. Most people play this sort of system.

[RuflRabbit]

Try to find some sensible people to play with. Maybe consider joining one of the clubs e.g. http://pigpen.org.uk/IAC/iac.php. I wouldn't bother learning any systems until you find people to play them except some basic 5 card major strong notrump system, like the robot plays so you have some idea what the opponents bids mean. Most people play this sort of system.

 

Unfortunately, the robots don't play a "basic" system. IMO, the GIB 2/1 system has far too many conventions for a beginner. That's not to say it's not useful to play against the bots - it's enormously valuable - but it's important to have a grounding in something that's more basic, such as SAYC.

 

Rufl Rabbit

[nige1]

Try to find some sensible people to play with. Maybe consider joining one of the clubs e.g. http://pigpen.org.uk/IAC/iac.php. I wouldn't bother learning any systems until you find people to play them except some basic 5 card major strong notrump system, like the robot plays so you have some idea what the opponents bids mean. Most people play this sort of system.

Unfortunately, the robots don't play a "basic" system. IMO, the GIB 2/1 system has far too many conventions for a beginner. That's not to say it's not useful to play against the bots - it's enormously valuable - but it's important to have a grounding in something that's more basic, such as SAYC.

IMO it's better to start with a good basic system that's locally popular -- e.g. On BBO, click Account --> Convention Card --> 2/1 .

 

You can edit the card at your leisure and summarize it on your profile. And, of course, playing with a BBO robot -- you can click on a call, to display and learn its meaning. You can practice with lots of like-minded partners. You have less heresy and inferior practice to unlearn, later.

 

Scottish expert, Ying Piper, taught 2/1 to her daughter's primary school class. The girls assimilated it enthusiastically, quickly, and easily. They performed well in inter-school competition,

[pescetom]

Scottish expert, Ying Piper, taught 2/1 to her daughter's primary school class. The girls assimilated it enthusiastically, quickly, and easily. Later they did well in inter-school competition,

 

I've not tried teaching bridge, but I keenly observe the progress of those learning it with various systems.

My conclusion is that (outside of internet) it's best to start with simple strong club systems and then progress to 2/1 or precision.

But starting with a modern 2/1 is feasible.

The worst option of all is to start with "standard" 4 or 5 card major systems, although it's essential to study them later to understand the basis of modern systems.

[RuflRabbit]

IMO it's better to learn a good basic system that is locally popular -- e.g. 2/1 on BBO

 

If it were truly locally popular on BBO, there might be an argument for it. But in my experience, it's not. And just to check my sense of it, I checked the profiles of 100 people playing in casual games. 11 listed 2/1 as one of the systems they played. A beginner, especially, is just not going to sit down at BBO and expect that most partners will be playing 2/1. And even if a beginner who has started learning 2/1 sits with a pard who plays 2/1, it doesn't mean they're going to be on same page for which conventions and treatments they'll be playing as part of the system.

 

I'm not sure exactly where the disagreements are, but just to be clear:

 

I don't think it really matters whether beginners start by learning that a 2/1 call shows a game force or not. Either can work while the fundamentals are being learned. But I do not think it's good for them to be overburdened with conventions at the outset, and in my opinion, GIB 2/1 does that.

 

For those who are fans of starting beginners with 2/1, is there an accessible, relatively complete system summary of the type that the ACBL provides for SAYC?

 

RuflRabbit

[Vampyr]

For those who are fans of starting beginners with 2/1, is there an accessible, relatively complete system summary of the type that the ACBL provides for SAYC?

 

RuflRabbit

 

I suppose you could just use the SAYC system and add 2/1 GF and (semi)forcing 1NT response.

 

There is not any one system called 2/1GF. The term applies to any system where 2/1 is GF. It is easier, in my opinion, than Standard American, because in the latter you have to discuss all sorts of auctions to decide which ones are GF.

 

It is worth noting that the Yellow Card experiment was a failure.

[RuflRabbit]

I suppose you could just use the SAYC system and add 2/1 GF and (semi)forcing 1NT response.

 

There is not any one system called 2/1GF. The term applies to any system where 2/1 is GF.

 

Yes, this was my point in saying, "it doesn't mean they're going to be on same page for which conventions and treatments they'll be playing as part of the system." But I also think there's some extra risk in a beginner sitting down and saying "2/1" when playing opposite a more experienced player. There are certain things that are typically played by those who play 2/1 and more experienced players sometimes assume that anyone playing 2/1 plays them.

 

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said "For those who are fans of starting beginners with some form of 2/1, is there an accessible, relatively complete summary of your favored version such as the type of summary that the ACBL provides for SAYC?"

 

RuflRabbit

[pescetom]

 

I don't think it really matters whether beginners start by learning that a 2/1 call shows a game force or not. Either can work while the fundamentals are being learned. But I do not think it's good for them to be overburdened with conventions at the outset, and in my opinion, GIB 2/1 does that.

 

For those who are fans of starting beginners with 2/1, is there an accessible, relatively complete system summary of the type that the ACBL provides for SAYC?

 

GIB 2/1 is not only overloaded with conventions but also significantly out of date. I see many more 2/1 profiles than you, though.

 

BBO Italia has an excellent 2/1 system summary for beginner/intermediate, unfortunately not in English.

[barmar]

There is not any one system called 2/1GF. The term applies to any system where 2/1 is GF.

Maybe that's true on your side of the pond, where 2/1 is a relatively recent import. In the US, I've played with plenty of pick-up partners and there's a pretty common concensus of what conventions are considered part of the default 2/1 system:

 

Forcing 1NT

New Minor Forcing

Fourth Suit Forcing to Game

RKCB (1430 seems to be most popular, but you should confirm with partner)

Inverted Minors

Lebensohl over 1NT interference and doubles of weak 2

Texas Transfer

Splinters

4-way Transfers

 

Plus everything in SAYC.

[pescetom]

Maybe that's true on your side of the pond, where 2/1 is a relatively recent import. In the US, I've played with plenty of pick-up partners and there's a pretty common concensus of what conventions are considered part of the default 2/1 system:

 

Forcing 1NT

New Minor Forcing

Fourth Suit Forcing to Game

RKCB (1430 seems to be most popular, but you should confirm with partner)

Inverted Minors

Lebensohl over 1NT interference and doubles of weak 2

Texas Transfer

Splinters

4-way Transfers

 

Plus everything in SAYC.

I'm not sure that 2/1 has really caught on in UK yet, not to the point where it is the most common system at any rate.

In most of mainland Europe it has, and the default list is considerably shorter:

 

Forcing 1NT

RKCB (1430 seems to be most popular, but you should confirm with partner)

Splinters

4-way Transfers.

 

That's about the only common ground.

 

1NT is more likely to be semi-forcing than fully forcing.

XYZ is more popular than NMF, but many play neither.

Inverted minors are rare.

Pretty much everyone except the French seems to open 4432 as 1♣.

All 2/1 sequences including 1♦ 2♣ are unconditionally game forcing, for some even 1♣ 2♣.

2♦ is more likely to be Multicolor than natural.

2M might well be 2 suited.

Good players will know Lebensohl or Rubensohl, but many play natural or home grown alternatives.

Texas transfers need agreement, as do splinters over minors or auto-splinters.

Michaels and Unusual are common but need agreement.

There's a lot more attention to control-bidding rather than RKCB or heavily loaded splinters.

 

You couldn't play well with a pickup partner without some discussion, but you will usually do little damage with one from your own country or a "similar" country (Italy and Turkey for instance).

[RuflRabbit]

Pescetom, you're saying there are a lot who are playing 2/1 without inverted minors? For reasons that should probably be introduced in a separate thread, I'm interested to know how this is working for them, and whether they have found they have to make any other adjustments to make that work well.

 

RuflRabbit

[pescetom]

Pescetom, you're saying there are a lot who are playing 2/1 without inverted minors? For reasons that should probably be introduced in a separate thread, I'm interested to know how this is working for them, and whether they have found they have to make any other adjustments to make that work well.

 

I play that way myself, and find it works fine. Having said that, I never played inverted minors regularly so I'm interested to know if we're missing anything important. Here's how some of us play it in Italy (many national systems including our own are more natural yet still do not use inverted minors).

 

We play that a 1♦ opening always promises 4+cards, a 1♣ opening promises 2+cards, a 2♣ response is nebulous and game forcing.

 

So the sequences 1♣ 2♣ and 1♦ 2♣ are game forces which handle the upper range of a strong raise in inverted minors.

 

After a natural sequence 1♦ 2♦, a rebid of 3♦ is interdictive, a new suit is forcing (might be 3-card, but a major bid twice is a real 5-6), 2NT 18-19, a jump bid is a splinter and 4NT is RKCB (but I play 4♣ as RKCB here).

 

After a natural sequence 1♦ 3♦, a major shows a stop for 3NT but might turn out later to be a control-bid (rebid of major is a real 5-6). 3NT is signoff, splinters and RKCB are as over 2♦.

 

After a 1♣ opening most responder hands with clubs go through 1♣ 1NT, or 1♣ 1♦ which does not guarantee 4-card ♦ (if opener rebids 2♦ then he must have a 5+card ♣ fit anyway). In the infrequent sequence 1♣ 3♣ responder shows 6+cards limit.

[laz49]

I think on should go to a real bridge club and see what real hands look like. I am certain that the BBO has all kinds of unusual splits and unfortunate lies of the cards. another misfortune is that I find it a convenient place to play and still like any bridge game. I am not the world's best player but I do have over 2000 ACBL master points. I just finished a set of 8 boards and was down a total of 14 tricks. Bad bidding you say? No this was a declare only game.

[Vampyr]

Maybe that's true on your side of the pond, where 2/1 is a relatively recent import. In the US, I've played with plenty of pick-up partners and there's a pretty common concensus of what conventions are considered part of the default 2/1 system:

 

Forcing 1NT

New Minor Forcing

Fourth Suit Forcing to Game

RKCB (1430 seems to be most popular, but you should confirm with partner)

Inverted Minors

Lebensohl over 1NT interference and doubles of weak 2

Texas Transfer

Splinters

4-way Transfers

 

Plus everything in SAYC.

 

But most of these conventions are played in Acol as well. Not forcing 1NT, and not NMF; rather simple or 2-way checkback. You have just made a list of some of the most common conventions that people will generally play regardless of their general approach. and called it a “default 2/1 system”.

 

When does it become not that? When they play a Multi, or a Mexican 2♦, or 2-way Checkback? When they play Bergen Raises? Weak NT? Kokish? Lucas Twos? Mini-Roman? Transfer responses to 1♣? Polish Club?

 

What defence to their 1NT does this “system” specify? What, if any, forcing M raise? What sort of jump raises? Jump shifts? Jump overcalls? What are three-level responses to a 1NT opening? Is Puppet Stayman played? If so, which way round? How do we respond to weak twos? There are so many other things that would be spelled out in an actual system.

 

What I take from this is that the convention of 2/1 GF is played in combination with a player’s other favourite conventions.

[barmar]

But most of these conventions are played in Acol as well. Not forcing 1NT, and not NMF; rather simple or 2-way checkback. You have just made a list of some of the most common conventions that people will generally play regardless of their general approach. and called it a “default 2/1 system”.

The intent was to contrast with Standard American and SAYC, and to point out that 2/1 is not just any system that where 2/1 is game forcing. I think lots of Precision players also have that agreement, but that doesn't make it 2/1.

When does it become not that? When they play a Multi, or a Mexican 2♦, or 2-way Checkback? When they play Bergen Raises? Weak NT? Kokish? Lucas Twos? Mini-Roman? Transfer responses to 1♣? Polish Club?

Systems are just a baseline, you can make almost any changes you want. If a foreigner speaks with a thick accent and many grammar mistakes, they're still speaking English.

What defence to their 1NT does this “system” specify? What, if any, forcing M raise? What sort of jump raises? Jump shifts? Jump overcalls? What are three-level responses to a 1NT opening? Is Puppet Stayman played? If so, which way round? How do we respond to weak twos? There are so many other things that would be spelled out in an actual system.

There are lots of holes in the 2/1 system that need to be filled in by explicit partnership agreement. I wouldn't make any assumptions about any of those things without discussion.

What I take from this is that the convention of 2/1 GF is played in combination with a player’s other favourite conventions.

Which I think is true of most systems. Does everyone play Acol the same way?

 

If you want something more comprehensive, you need to refer to something like Bridge World Standard. But this is not a useful recommendation for playing with randoms online -- it's a system created by and for experts, most players are not very familiar with it.

[pescetom]

If you want something more comprehensive, you need to refer to something like Bridge World Standard. But this is not a useful recommendation for playing with randoms online -- it's a system created by and for experts, most players are not very familiar with it.

It's very useful for what it is, but a system "created by" experts is maybe a slight overbid - BWS says that it "encapsulates common American expert practices, determined by polls, as a set of partnership agreements." Basically they revise the system periodically by voting on selected (not sure how) controversial aspects, and then blindly implement the majority decision on each. Which is democratic (if you are an American expert), but hardly a design process - imagine that your Ferrari that has just been modified by the votes of a panel of drivers, rather than the design team in Maranello. BWS is great as a sanity check on your own agreements, though.

[Vampyr]

If you want something more comprehensive, you need to refer to something like Bridge World Standard. But this is not a useful recommendation for playing with randoms online -- it's a system created by and for experts, most players are not very familiar with it.

 

It seems to me that if you want to play with randoms online, you should use one of the standard BBO convention cards exactly as written.

[etha]

obviously FD cards are the answer but sadly they no longer exist

[Zelandakh]

Maybe that's true on your side of the pond, where 2/1 is a relatively recent import. In the US, I've played with plenty of pick-up partners and there's a pretty common concensus

Perhaps you would care to explain the consensus on a simple auction such as 1♦ - 2♣; 2♥? As Stefanie is pointing out, 2/1 is a family of systems, although it really goes beyond that as it is also used in, for example, some versions of Precision, so it is also fair to call it a convention rather than as a true basis for a system.