Everybody knows

[AL78]

So just to add a piquant footnote to this story comes a player named pitiful getting a bollocking from Zia in this episode of New Tricks from yesterday.

Made me feel a little less hopeless.

 

Is it really necessary to keep bollocking your partner after they accepted they made a mistake?

[paulg]

So just to add a piquant footnote to this story comes a player named pitiful getting a bollocking from Zia in this episode of New Tricks from yesterday.

Made me feel a little less hopeless.

pitiful has won the British Gold Cup seven times, mostly with different partners, the 2018 Silodor Open Pairs and the 2019 Vanderbilt with a first-time partner. He blew the 2019 Reisinger by only finishing fourth. Clearly someone who makes lots of mistakes.

[pilowsky]

I'm not a huge fan of team sport in general.

But playing or watching Rugby, Cricket or Tennis I do not see the same animus directed towards team mates if someone fails to make a winning play that I see constantly in Bridge.

 

BBO has today posted an appeal to the Bridge community by L. Cohen (not the singer) to attract and 'deal' with a new crop of Bridge players (My link).

His plan is to appeal to wealthy retirees.

This plan does not strike me as a plan for sustainable growth.

Without a change in the culture of Bridge where an addiction to the norms of the 1950's - straight out of Bill Bryson's life and times of the thunderbolt kid - where use of normal language is considered outrageous the sport is doomed.

As for the nostalgic image of families playing cards around the kitchen table like we did, the constant site of parents with young children both staring at screens ought to give one pause for thought.

 

Cohen makes the point that the current crop of players are older people that started playing in University - a common story.

Mais ou sont les common rooms d'antan?

They aren't coming back - and neither is the kitchen table. Cohen rightly points out that the nature of gaming (I assume he means mind games specifically) has changed irrevocably.

He's right.

If Bridge doesn't move with the times it will go the way of the horse and buggy and then old players will sit around w(h)istfully wondering where all the flowers have gone.

[AL78]

"IMHO, the main way to keep our game going and growing is by getting retirees to take it up."

 

That is already being achieved by the structure of duplicate being as hard as possible for young people to play. If something is optimised for retired people, you shouldn't be surprised when you get mostly retired people participating.

 

If bridge moves online permanently and replaces F2F bridge, I will give up the game. The physical social interaction is a big part of the enjoyment of bridge. Take that away and I will find something to do in the evenings that involves having in a social life. I work in front of as computer for 8+ hours a day, why would I want to sit in front of it for another three hours straight after?

[pilowsky]

"IMHO, the main way to keep our game going and growing is by getting retirees to take it up."

 

That is already being achieved by the structure of duplicate being as hard as possible for young people to play. If something is optimised for retired people, you shouldn't be surprised when you get mostly retired people participating.

 

If bridge moves online permanently and replaces F2F bridge, I will give up the game. The physical social interaction is a big part of the enjoyment of bridge. Take that away and I will find something to do in the evenings that involves having in a social life. I work in front of as computer for 8+ hours a day, why would I want to sit in front of it for another three hours straight after?

 

There is no reason why both are not possible.

Sure, keep the duplicate bridge clubs where people can grimace and shout at each other for a couple of hours - or as you put it - socialise.

But why not, for example, introduce a hybrid option.

Why not get rid of the cards and use computers - four at a table.

In this way, a briefly - or even indefinitely - incapacitated player can easily compete.

 

With a hybrid approach people might even be able to start introducing their children/grandchildren to the game.

 

Telling the tide to go back didn't work for King Canute - it won't work for Bridge.

The pie is getting smaller. Rich old people is not going to make it bigger.

[helene_t]

Why does a double asking for a ♠ here?

The idea is that we trust the opponents to have bid correctly. So double doesn't mean that you think they lack a stopper in the 4th suit or that they don't have enough points.

 

Double must mean that the board is splitting badly for them. In other words, we have strong spades behind dummy's spades.

 

Therefore, partner will lead his highest spade, as Nigel says. Declarer is short in spades on this auction, so leading the honour from Hxx will not cost.

 

Double works if partner can lead ♠10, but also if declarer needs to lose a trick in some other suit, for example if partner has ♥Jx.

 

Mike's point about MP vs IMPs are good but I think I would dare to double even at MPs.

[gszes]

ahhhh MP again. at IMPS where I risk (assuming no xx) I risk 4 imps to pick up 13 the x certainly seems reasonable. At MP everything looks terrible (for us) and even if p leads a top spade (other than the T) we can all too easily be turning a totally normal board into a zero. P might find a spade lead to hit us looking at their (presumably) close to zero power. I am not from the school that demands a lead of dummy's first bid suit for this x but I would certainly be prepared for it. MP pass IMPS X.

[pescetom]

Some pairs just agree that it does (or does when other rules do not apply).

 

But the traditional meaning of double of 3NT by the non-leader is "lead dummy's first bid suit, it goes down if you do, and you'd never find the lead normally." Here, spades.

 

The idea is that, like doubles of slams, you're never getting rich on voluntarily bid 3NT contracts, and gambling 150 (if you're wrong) vs 50 or 100 (if you're right) is a bad gamble, especially when you're giving away the hand to declarer. Sure, it might be +300 or +500 instead of +100 or +200, but it could also be -650 or -950 instead of -430 or -630 (or, again, -5/750 vs +50/100 if they wouldn't have made it if you were quiet).

 

So it should be used as a "do something unusual" beacon instead

 

But it takes an experienced and committed partnership to make "do something unusual" work, even against slam.

Some pairs have (other) rules about "lead my suit / your suit / the less obvious of the two", with even more risk.

At I/A level I think the combination "dummy's first suit if / spades if not" is a good compromise with little room for memory or judgement errors.

Even just spades is useful and not that low frequency.