Bob Hamman's assertion

[Walddk]

I need to be enlightened. Where exactly is it that Eric Kokish commented on this topic? EricK is not Eric O. Kokish of Canada as fas as I know.

 

"My last comment will be this which sounds very nice in danish".

 

"Trace the footsteps of Hamman then you will be beating Gitelman. - Thats for sure!"

 

I would also like to know why this sounds particularly nice in Danish. It translates to:

 

Følg i Hammans fodspor, så vil du slå Gitelman - Det er sikkert!"

 

Sludder og vrøvl Claus!

 

Roland

[slothy]

Trace the footsteps of Hamman then you will be beating Gitelman. - Thats for sure!

 

i will give it to you, Claus...you certainly got a way about you that make people wanna love ya

[Winstonm]

Certainly an enjoyable debate, and I hope I offended no one. I do not place myself into the category of being able to instruct capable bridge players how to play or bid better.

 

So for those of us below world class, a story.

 

I had picked up the game of bridge at a fairly advanced age (23) and my experience of it was two months of playing for cash in the locker room of the local golf course. Life led me to Santa Barbara, Califormia, where I knew not one other soul. So I looked up "Bridge Clubs" in the yellow pages, and low and behold there resided a vast array of interesting, intelligent people playing this thing called "Matchpoint Pairs". Then someone told me there were actually books on the subject of bridge if I wanted to improve my game.

 

I was fortunate to have some kind of talent for the game along with the passion of new discovery, and Santa Barbara was fairly well endowed with young players about my age who were willing to help me along.

 

Sometime in this first year, someone mentioned that we should play Precision. The club owner, a fine lady and a straight shooter, said, "Don't teach Winston Precision. He doesn't play well enough yet." It was a crushing blow to my ego, but she was exactly right - I had no idea how to value hands, use judgement, or play the hands to exact the 24 point games to which Precision geared itself. I simply wasn't ready as a driver to hop behind the wheel of a Ferarri. Better for me to drive the dirt circuit for a few years in a souped up Chevy.

 

I don't know how this story would have ended had I been enouraged to play Precision - but overall, I like the way things turned out.

 

Postscript: Many years later, when I did know what I was doing, I adopted and played Power Precision, acutally getting the chance in a Regional to play the system against Sontag and Weichsel. We lost. The hand that cost us had nothing to do with systems - it was a matter of judgement - and their's was better. :unsure:

 

WinstonM

[Fluffy]

3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive". Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision. Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA. If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA. My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.

I have no clue of what EHAA is, but if you are suggesting that a system can wrok better than another specifically against another one this is simply baseless:

 

How do I defend against specific systems is completelly independant from what system do I play, I would clearly overcall 1♥ with a 4card suit against a natural 1♦ opening with 14 HCP and unbalanced hand regardless of what system do I play. It changes nothing. Sam applies to how do I handle a precision 2♣ opening, or a ultra weak 3♠ preemptive, my system has nothing to do with that.

[slothy]

I am going to deviate a bit here....coz i want to make a point and also because i a cant fall asleep and I hope that writing a lot of incomprehensible and tangential dialectic will make me drowsy .

 

And i hope it validates what the majortiy of people are saying.

 

It is 2:30 in the morning so bear with me

 

...and even then, slithering about in the mud has made me quite exhausted

 

I want to take BRIDGE out of the equation, and thus shall be using a rather perverted analogy ..coz it seems (to me at least) that this argument is not about whether one particular system is better than a particular other but whether adopting a different system would have any bearing on ones success as a competitive bridge player.

 

so the basis of the analogy is GOD (i am not evangelising ;) so please bear with me ) and the presumption that you believe he (or she for the Gaiaists amongst you :) ) exists.

 

NB It may be of interest that i dont actually personally believe in God :) but i hope that does not invalidate my analogy :)

 

So you believe in God and, as tradition, upbringing and culture dictate you believe in God through the credo of a religion and belief structure. It doesnt matter whether you are a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or a member of any other religious community, the common denominator is that you believe in God.

 

Just as much as you believe in God you also accept that other people have different manifestations of him and you accept that. It would be foolish not to.

 

You also accept that, even though you truly perceive your God as the one that is responsible for the creation of the (your) Universe, you do not deny that another person of another religion may perceive his own with the same passion and devotion as you do.

 

But if you come together in conference with people from your own religion and from others you soon realise one overriding premise. The ones who have respect, and common respect, are not ones affiliated to any one particular religion but those who have FAITH in the God they happen to believe in, and live their lives in accordance to the rules (tried and tested) set down by that religion and make it their mission to ensure that they deviate as little as possible from their Chosen Way.

 

If one person were to 'jump ship' through either disillusionment of his/her religion or because s/he believed the foundations of another religion suited his her changing philosophy, one does not necessarily question this persons FAITH in God, only that this person intends to worship Him/Her differently!

 

So what am i getting at i hear you all cry in blasphemous cacaphony?

 

What i am getting at is this: Like in bridge, it doesnt matter which God you believe in, but how much FAITH you have in the God you DO believe in. You can wake up one morning and decide to change your religion but what is crucial is not that you changed religion but how much that transition has affected the FAITH you have and the manner in which you intend to worship God. If the transition has given you more Faith, so much the better. Sometimes, your FAITH is unwavered, just that you feel more comfortable in your worship.

 

It ain't the RELIGION per se, its the FAITH you have in it that allows you to worship the God you want to worship more effectively.

 

Right, i feel sleepy now. Most likely, some of you will too, hee hee.

[pclayton]

What I hope others aren't taking out of this debate is that you cannot be lax about your approach (or as Alex calls it, "your faith") or the energy you put into your endeavors. "Simple" for me does not translate into showing up 10 minutes before game time and filling out a cc.

 

Whether you adopt vanilla 2/1, Precision, Moscito or whatever, you must spend a lot of time with your partner on various sequences.

 

Q. What's the right way to play a certain sequence?

 

A. Whatever you and your pard decide on.

 

I'm not embarrassed to say I have about 75 pages of notes with my regular pard - and we play mostly a 'natural' system. Everytime an unfamiliar situation comes up, we try to document it. We also have a fair amount of notes on our defensive carding. Obsessive? Maybe. Effective? We'll see.

 

Sure, read, read, and read again Killing Defense and Master Play. Kibitz good players in person and online (I like to only show one hand when watching a real good player, just like I'm kibbing live) and put in the time with your pard.

 

Do you think its odd that I don't add "playing" to this list? How many club hacks that play several times a week never seem to get any better? Does whacking balls on the driving range make you a better golfer? If you practice with a goal in mind, it can help. But mindlessly playing hands leads nowhere.

 

Certainly, you must play, especially against good competition. But it is only part of the developmental process.

 

How many "pros" stop working on their game after awhile and just show up to play with clients or nationals with other pros? I'd like to think the best are always working on their game, like a pro tennis player is always consulting with their coach on their form.

[helene_t]

I have no clue of what EHAA is, but if you are suggesting that a system can wrok better than another specifically against another one this is simply baseless:

 

How do I defend against specific systems is completelly independant from what system do I play, I would clearly overcall 1♥ with a 4card suit against a natural 1♦ opening with 14 HCP and unbalanced hand regardless of what system do I play. It changes nothing. Sam applies to how do I handle a precision 2♣ opening, or a ultra weak 3♠ preemptive, my system has nothing to do with that.

This is basically true. Assuming that a "pass" in first, second or third seat means the same in 2/1, WJ and Precision, and assuming that your choice of system is unrelated to your choice of defense against other systems, Fluffy just proved that bidding systems compete transitively.

 

But now try to compare Lorenzo, EHAA and Acol. A "pass" in first seat means 8-11, 0-7 and 0-11, respectively. This alters the frequencies with which the opps can open strong, normal, intermediate, weak and camicaze-hands in the second seat. Also, it is more attractive to preempt against a low-informative Acol "pass" than against a high-informative EHAA pass. My guess is that Acol will compete well against EHAA (because you are relatively likely to hold a strong hand after a 0-7 pass from RHO). Lorenzo might compete well against Acol. What about Lorenzo versus EHAA? The Lorenzo camicaze preempts are quite useless after an EHAA 0-7 "pass" while the intermediate EHAA preempts are very useful against an 8-11 Lorenzo "pass". So assuming the three systems are roughly equally strong (which is probably the case since all three systems are used more or less succesfully against SAYC, Precision, WJ etc.) my guess is:

 

Acol > EHAA

EHAA > Lorenzo

Lorenzo > Acol

 

But of course, there might be an optimal bidding system which addapt its second-seat opening scheme to the meaning of opp's first-seat "pass". Bridge is a finite game with imperfect information. Is that sufficient for the existence of an optimal strategy? The only answer I could find to this is that it is sufficient because any sicors-paper-stone problem can be resolved by playing a mixed strategy. But mixed strategie's have a drawback in Bridge because they reduce the amount of information you can convey to partner. The answer is not obvious to me.

[Chamaco]

I had no idea how to value hands, use judgement, or play the hands to exact the 24 point games to which Precision geared itself.

 

Perhaps overbidding to tight (Precision 24 hcp) games is a way to develop card play ? ;)

 

Survival instinct is often much better than studying technique when it comes to learn to swim :-)

 

(Although, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting to drop studying card play technique :) )

[MickyB]

3. Its completely unclear whether bidding systems are "transitive".  Assume that 2/1 Game Forcing > Precision.  Futhermore assume Precision is > EHAA.  If this relationship is transitive, than 2/1 GF > EHAA.  My gut tells me that the rleationship is not transitive.

I have no clue of what EHAA is, but if you are suggesting that a system can wrok better than another specifically against another one this is simply baseless:

 

How do I defend against specific systems is completelly independant from what system do I play, I would clearly overcall 1♥ with a 4card suit against a natural 1♦ opening with 14 HCP and unbalanced hand regardless of what system do I play. It changes nothing. Sam applies to how do I handle a precision 2♣ opening, or a ultra weak 3♠ preemptive, my system has nothing to do with that.

EHAA is -

 

1N 10-12

2 bids 6(?)-12 any 5 card suit

1 bids 4+ cards, 13+ points

 

I disagree with your argument. An example -

If your opps are playing a 16+ club, conventional wisdom suggests that their limited openings should gain over natural systems, and that they lose out with 16+ hands. If you have a four count in first seat, the chances that LHO will have to open a strong club (rather than a limited opening) are proportionally greater than if you have a nine or ten count. Therefore, there is more reason to make a marginal bid (either 1 level or preempt) when you have a ten count to stop LHO from using his limited openers, and less reason to preempt on a four count, in comparison to when your opponents are playing a natural system.

 

Obviously the effect of this is pretty small.

[Gerben42]

Perhaps overbidding to tight (Precision 24 hcp) games is a way to develop card play ?

 

What has this to do with Precision? You can overbid to 24 HCP games in every system. If partner opens Roth-Stone style you just have to lower your standards for GF.

 

I like to play nonstandard systems, this is not a secret.

 

What I have noticed is that: Most "auction" IMPs are swung in judgement decisions. Sacrifice or not? Penalize or bid on? Accept the invitation? Etc.

 

Since it's all the same anyway, why do I like to play these systems? Because I like to be more active in the auction than "standard" allows.

[Chamaco]

Perhaps overbidding to tight (Precision 24 hcp) games is a way to develop card play ?

 

What has this to do with Precision? You can overbid to 24 HCP games in every system. If partner opens Roth-Stone style you just have to lower your standards for GF.

Gerben,

I just referred to the anecdote written by Winston, see above post.

 

"Sometime in this first year, someone mentioned that we should play Precision. The club owner, a fine lady and a straight shooter, said, "Don't teach Winston Precision. He doesn't play well enough yet." It was a crushing blow to my ego, but she was exactly right - I had no idea how to value hands, use judgement, or play the hands to exact the 24 point games to which Precision geared itself. I simply wasn't ready as a driver to hop behind the wheel of a Ferarri. Better for me to drive the dirt circuit for a few years in a souped up Chevy."

 

Nothing else :-)

 

BTW, I wanted to indirectly point out the same thing you say: Precision, played in it's Vanilla form (e.g. no relays), probably seems to pose exactly the same type of problems as other systems, only in different sequences.

[Guest Jlall]

Bob has also said that people used to play their cards better because their bidding was so bad (again jokingly). I asked him about the original quote and he said he said it 35 years ago and it was included in the book because it was funny.

[fred]

Trace the footsteps of Hamman then you will be beating Gitelman. - Thats for sure!

Perhaps something is lost in the translation to English since I don't really understand what this is supposed to mean. Perhaps, even though you state you are not trying to be offensive, you should be more careful about what your choice of words.

 

If you are trying to say that "Hamman rates to beat me in a bridge match", I cannot argue with that.

 

However, if you think the reason is that Hamman's "superior system" gives him some kind of advantage, then there is only one answer to this stubborn and ignorant assertion that you keep making:

 

Claus, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Hamman rates to beat me because he is a better bridge player than I am. System has nothing to do with it.

 

Perhaps you think your great experience playing "superior systems" in online games and creating web sites that describe such systems qualifies you to make the kind of authoritative (and wrong) statements that you are so fond of making.

 

My experience, on the other hand, consists of actually playing 1000s of boards against Hamman and his team in events like the Spingold, Vanderbilt, and the Bermuda Bowl. Believe it or not, when we compare scores, I actually notice the boards on which we lose IMPs and I realize why we have lost IMPs.

 

I have also had extensive discussions with Hamman (who is a good friend of mine) and other players who are better than me about this very subject. I believe that the vast majority of truly "world class" players would agree with me. Of course it is your right to think you know better, Claus, but adding the occasional "in my opinion" is not a lot to ask for.

 

I have found that listening to players who are more experienced, more successful, and more skilled than I am is an excellent way to improve my knowledge of the game. I have had this attitude since I started playing bridge over 20 years ago and, since I (unlike you apparently) still think I have a lot to learn, I continue to feel this way.

 

Of course there are times that I do not agree with these the opinions of better players, but I still listen to them and think about what they have to say. Even if I think I *know* that they are wrong, I still treat them with the respect that they have earned through their success.

 

I suspect that it is too late for you to learn what is important about bridge, Claus, but it may not be too late for you to learn some manners.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

Sludder og vrøvl Claus!

Now is perhaps a good time to tell what this translates to:

 

Nonsense and rubbish Claus!

 

It doesn't sound any nicer in Danish I can assure all of you, perhaps mainly because it's very difficult to pronounce for foreigners.

 

Roland

[Blofeld]

I don't speak any Danish, Roland, but I think that you're denying Claus the benefit of the doubt. What he said doesn't sound very nice in English, and it could well be that your translation isn't very nice in Danish, but into any language that isn't totally constrained (Newspeak anyone?) there are almost always several ways of translating something, perhaps even (owing to imperfections in translation) with very different meanings.

 

Why don't you let Claus furnish you with his original before you lay into him for that (not that there aren't enough things to lay into him for already) ?

[Finch]

I agree with the many posters that choice of system does not give much of an edge (as long as you aren't stupid). But I think playing my system gives me an edge.

 

This is a contradiction. What do I mean?

 

I think choice of basic system is important, because of another "human" factor. With my two most regular partners I play strong NT (sometimes with a mini) and 5 card majors. I do not feel very strongly about whether this is theoretically better than a 4CM system, but I do know for certain that I play better bridge when I play a 5CM system. I am simply more comfortable with it. It's not a memory issue, or a judgement issue. The style of auction you end up with and the types of judgement decision you get just work well for me psychologically. This isn't simply because I have more experience with it: I was brought up with weak NT/4CM and played it for years before my partner persuaded me to switch. I was immediately more comfortable with the new methods.

 

Hamman may (I don't know him) simply have a rapport with a 4CM style.

 

I'm sure there are truly great players around who would win playing absolutely anything. But I believe one factor behind lasting great partnerships (rather than players) is a similarity of approach to bidding.

[csdenmark]

..

[Guest Jlall]

well said

 

edit: meant about franceshindens post

[slothy]

Geez Fred

 

i had to bring GOD into my explanation to get my point across:))

 

 

Alex - (Angel-in-waiting)

 

edit: bears no relationship to FrancesHindens post whatsoever

[slothy]

I would also like to know why this sounds particularly nice in Danish. It translates to:

 

Følg i Hammans fodspor, så vil du slå Gitelman - Det er sikkert!"

 

Sludder og vrøvl Claus!

 

Roland

 

i have to say Roland, when you said it it oozed sex appeal...

[pigpenz]

when i first started playing in the seventies my tutor told me about something Mr Hamman had told him....most players make several mistakes a hand and arent even aware of it

[PMetsch]

I have played several systems and I think with IMP-scoring (teams) it doesn't matter much what system I play. But with matchpoint-scoring I think it does matter. Playing a simple Blue Team Club it was (for us) difficult to get reasonable results. It is very hard to get to the best partscore when the bidding goes 1♥/♠-1NT, because a 2♣/♦ rebid is made with both 5/4 and 4/5 handpatterns.

 

With matchpoint-scoring I would prefer playing something like SAYC, because it gives freedom to choose between 1NT and 2♥/♠ or 3NT and 4♥/♠.

[spwdo]

Trace the footsteps of Hamman then you will be beating Gitelman. - Thats for sure!

volg de voetsporen van hamman en je zal Gitelman verslaan.Dat is zeker

 

Doesnt sound that nice either in dutch.

Havent posted in a while(probaly made you all very happy) , all it took was Claus to state something and Alex to talk about devine things(he has a direct line to the white bearded man above u know)

 

Regards

 

on topic, think best players will win regardless of system, maybe they can get surprised from a new system they had no experience playing against but in the end they ll come on top more often then not as good players.

Anyways i think one should play what he feels comfy with , i seen more then one aucassions where one particuler poster forget his own system several times till it gotten humurous. this all off course in my opninion.

 

P.s i `ll spare you this reply translations inot dutch cause it doesnt look nice

 

Regards

 

Marc

[slothy]

I think choice of basic system is important, because of another "human" factor.  With my two most regular partners I play strong NT (sometimes with a mini) and 5 card majors. I do not feel very strongly about whether this is theoretically better than a 4CM system, but I do know for certain that I play better bridge when I play a 5CM system. I am simply more comfortable with it. It's not a memory issue, or a judgement issue. The style of auction you end up with and the types of judgement decision you get just work well for me psychologically.  This isn't simply because I have more experience with it: I was brought up with weak NT/4CM and played it for years before my partner persuaded me to switch. I was immediately more comfortable with the new methods.

.

 

In the words of George Michael (the pop singer and ex-member of Wham for all those generationally-illiterate people) , Frances, 'you just got to have faith' ...

 

<Alex shrugs his hips a bit and does a groin thrust>

 

 

Alex

[helene_t]

I have very similar experiences to those of FrancesHinden and I'm courious why that is so.

 

I was brought up with a mixture of Goren, Acol and Vienna (usually, when playing with an uncle or aunt at the coffie table during the family reunions, I would have no idea what partner was playing and not even consider it a problem, allthough, when in an ambitious mood, I might clarify if we play weak or strong 1NT. Allways remember to ask if we play Gerber and/or Blackwood, though).

 

When I started playing at clubs, I adopted Danish Bridge Standard and "Dutch Acol" (the name is misleading since it's a 15-17 notrump system), but when I switched to 5-card majors I experienced it as an enormous improvement.

 

Maybe it's a question of mentality. Some people will be more comfortable with more formalized systems and other people will be more comfortable with systems that leave more room for judgement. So maybe I find 5-card majors easier than 4-card majors for the same reason as why I found German easier to learn than English.

 

Another possible reason is that it may be good to change system once in a while in order to get rid of some bad habbits.

 

Btw, something went wrong during the translation of this foodstep thing. It sounds like "Locate Hamman" but is probably meant as "Evolve to bid (and play?) like Hamman". IMHO (I might be wrong since I haven't spoken Danish for I while) the construct "Follow in the foodsteps of Hamman" is ungrammatical, even in Danish. It must mean either "Follow the foodsteps" or "Walk in the foodsteps", and that makes a difference:

 

"Foelg Hammans fodspor" (Follow/trace): To locate

"Gaa i Hammans fodspor" (Walk or travel): To reach the same endpoint in the same way.