How To Spot A Bridge Addict
Imagine yourself at some social gathering and suddenly the topic of bridge comes up. You don’t know how, but before you know it a person with foam flecking the corners of her mouth is staring into your face with the wide-eyed desperation of a heroin addict in need of a hit, trying to convince you that playing bridge is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, fun and that you ought to try it. Now. Really fun. Try it now, right now. The judge, the guests and your bride-to-be can just cool their damned heels for a minute. Really try fun now bridge.
A card table, two other bridge addicts, four chairs, bidding boxes and an endless supply of boards will instantly appear, for all bridge addicts have the cartoon character-like ability to produce these items upon demand from a seemingly normal pant leg. You will be led to your place at the table and the three of them will commence simultaneously to explain to you what each feels are the most important aspects of the game. Once you have received more technical instructions than it takes to assemble a Volvo, the three of them will in unison encourage you to relax and just enjoy yourself because the main thing about bridge is that it’s really, really fun. Really.
Cards pass through your hand and then the first game is over, you guess, because the three of them are chorusing about how much fun they had while inspecting you like a lab animal for signs of addiction. A discussion (‘discussion’ is what bridge addicts call a fight) begins (breaks out) between your opponents. The female of the two complains that her partner did not make the correct uppercut play, whereupon she demonstrates proper uppercut technique by striking his jaw with her fist. A scrum ensues which twists the bridge table into a metallic piece of origami. Your partner, the original bridge addict, manages to separate the two addicts who live in her pant leg and remind them, jerking significant nods towards you, that bridge is really, really fun. The three of them reassemble the bridge table (which now has a permanent wobble) and sit down amid sniffles and threats muttered under the breath, all staring at you with crazed smiles. Time to play another hand. Religious texts refer to your current circumstances as ‘hell’ and suggest that it lasts a very, very long time.
The trouble with spotting a bridge addict and thus avoiding such catastrophe is that they look very much like normal people; that is, very much like people with other, equally severe but less annoying psychological problems. An effort to eradicate them by destroying all books on bridge proved unsuccessful after bridge addicts developed uncanny powers of recall like those rebels in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. That dangerous looking guy on the bus with the mad stare and an ominous bulge in his rucksack, with tattoos all over his shaved head, wearing nothing but a vest, army fatigues and boots in the dead of winter? You may try to comfort yourself by pretending he’s merely a psychotic hatchet murderer but the truth is he’s probably a bridge addict and the tattoos are probably Sanskrit for Jacoby Transfers, that portion of bridge lore entrusted to his care.
No, you’re basically on your own when it comes to dealing with these maniacs, which is why it pays to know how to spot one right off and then get while the getting’s good. So imagine yourself at a party that you suspect bridge addicts might attend. Here are a few dead giveaways:
1. Addicts love to segue into a discussion about bridge from totally unrelated topics:
You: “So the pain my chest was really getting bad and then my left arm went numb. I thought I might just be able to drive myself to Emanuel Hospital which is on the east side of the Fremont Bridge – ”
Addict: “Bridge? Do you play? What conventions do you use?”
2. Anytime a finger is run over a stack of papers, mimicking the sound of a deck of cards being shuffled, a bridge addict will exhibit the Pavlovian responses of dilated pupils, profuse sweating and rapid, shallow breathing.
3. Bridge addicts will move in one direction along the buffet table while insisting that dishes be passed along in the opposite direction. They will often launch into cheerful, spontaneous chatter about how they like to make a balanced food plate for themselves but that sometimes it’s nice to have a whole lot of one kind of dish – what they refer to as the ‘long’ dish – and none of another (the ‘void’ dish). They will ask your opinion on this natter with an expression reminiscent of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
If you notice any of these signs, the first rule is DON’T PANIC! Bridge addicts are well known for their ability to smell fear. However, there is not a moment to lose if you want to get out before it’s too late: Try these techniques:
1. Say to the bridge addict: “You know, I think I heard of a table in Susanville that needs a fourth.” For your own safety, be sure you are not standing in the path to the door when you use this technique. Also, be sure that it is not your car blocking the bridge addict’s as they try to leave.
2. Steer the bridge addict in the direction of a hat rack. Introduce hat rack as a friend who would love to know more about bridge. Quietly slip away. It helps if you’ve already retrieved your hat so you don’t risk disturbing the addict several hours later when you depart.
3. Try this: “Yeah, I have a friend who plays bridge. He said that once he was declarer with a balanced hand, a 3-4 fit and 24 combined points and somehow he made seven spades. How do you figure he did that?”
You don’t have to know what any of these words mean. The effect of them will be to cause the bridge addict to pace back and forth in a corner for hours muttering to herself, her head down and her arms wrapped tightly around her waist. Everyone else at the party will thank you.
4. This is my favorite. Lean nonchalantly against something handy to lean against and intone in a casual voice, “Yeah, I played bridge years ago. Even taught the game for a while. Had this one older guy who was my student who did okay for himself, considering. Fella by the name of Lusky, as I recall. Heard of him?”
This Lusky guy is apparently really, really good at the really, really fun game of bridge, but that doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that the bridge addict will fall to her knees like she’s receiving a visitation from the Angel Gabriel. You now have a slave for life which is really, really handy should you have some yard work that needs to be done.
Also, as the teacher of Lusky, you can now tell the addict anything you want about the game of bridge and even if it flies in the face of everything she knows, she will believe you. For example, tell her that when alerting unusual bids by her partner she should now set down her cards, stand on her chair, scream “Gompers!” at the top of her lungs and then spit on the floor. Take a stroll past the bridge club one evening when she’s playing, I swear she’ll be doing it. Really. In fact, years later, when even she admits that you were putting her on, she will continue to insist that in some strange way following your instructions actually improved her game. But that’s an addict for you.
For my friend Isolde Knaap, the most addicted bridge player I know, on the occasion of her fiftieth birthday.
© Andrew W. Osborn February 18, 2004
Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. Get your Hotmail® account now.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thoughts from a mentee
In the January/February Trumpet Hendrik Sharples touched on a most important aspect of the bridge world - mentoring. Yes, despite the "pro system" which exists, mentorship in its purest form is alive and well.
Here are Isolde’s thoughts:
1) Find a mentor who embraces your communication style. One mentor once told me to "read a book". Hmmm, he didn't know that in general, I hate to read. Another once answered a bridge question in a cryptic three word e-mail. Hmmm, but buy him a drink after the game is over and you will receive a wealth of information. What worked for me is e-mail. From the moment I presented my first hand via the keyboard, we were off. There was something calming about the physical distance, and the forgiving time lapse added to the learning process.
2) Don't get too many mentors. You'll avoid a lot of anguish and confusion if you stick to one or two mentors. This is the problem. For the most part there is a element of style in bridge, and there certainly are different approaches. I once heard three different responses from three mentors to the same question, true story. Pick a style that works for you (for me the style was extremely structured and mathematical, where communication systems were clearly defined).
3) Pay attention to what your mentor says. Take copious notes if you forget (I started writing down all my hands when I played, every last spot card). The most dreaded words I hear are: "Haven't we gone over that?" I don't believe I've heard those words often, but have said on occasion, "we've gone over that already.”
4) Work hard. Add your own blood, sweat and tears to the process. Before you approach your mentor with a difficult bridge problem, check the bridge encyclopedia, do a Google search, check the references your mentor gave you. Can you find an expert who has played the same hand, online perhaps, so you can review his/her declarer play card for card? Now your mentor will see that you are as invested as he/she is.
5) Be a true friend, since you can offer your mentor little besides friendship. Watch him/her play the major events. Congratulate him/her on the big wins. Make sure that your competitive passion is as tuned for your mentor as it is for your own level of play with your partners and teammates. Flowers, cards and the traditional "first place or don't come home" exchange, e-mailed before every "biggie", were my attempts at reciprocal karma.
6) Don't argue with your mentor. If, for whatever reason, you can't accept the guidance he/she gives at the time it was given, use this phrase to end the conversation: "I've heard you and appreciate your thoughts. I'll wait until I get as good as you to understand the concept in its entirety.”
7) Be trustworthy. Full-blown mentorship is a very intense private exchange. Trust that relationship to guard the special communications you share which are not meant for the entire world to hear.
8) Share what you learn. Once you think you are capable, share your mentorship teachings with others. I've written several bridge articles based on my mentor's teachings. I've also developed a special relationship with bridge players "in the making", Laura Beal, Dave Coleman, Paul Cieslak and others.
I can also share two potential problem areas in mentorship situations.
• Get your partner to buy into your mentor's approach to bridge. If it's a constant issue between you and your partner to accept your mentor's teaching, get a different mentor or partner. It isn't going to work for anyone.
• Remember that you will be competing against the person who is there to teach you. Make sure that you know his/her commitment is ultimately to his/her partners and teammates. The fact that he/she is willing to help develop players able to compete successfully at the national level makes goal setting easy. For both you and your mentor it isn't about getting an 80% in the local club game; it's about making it to the third day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs.
Hope these ideas are of help and you will enjoy a mentorship journey soon! For women this journey is essential. We aren't often seen intuitively and socially as national champions. It's such a struggle to break through some of those gender-based barriers. The strength gained through mentorship can be the wellspring of that quiet reserve you need to make it out of the Consolations and into the Finals.
Here are Isolde’s thoughts:
1) Find a mentor who embraces your communication style. One mentor once told me to "read a book". Hmmm, he didn't know that in general, I hate to read. Another once answered a bridge question in a cryptic three word e-mail. Hmmm, but buy him a drink after the game is over and you will receive a wealth of information. What worked for me is e-mail. From the moment I presented my first hand via the keyboard, we were off. There was something calming about the physical distance, and the forgiving time lapse added to the learning process.
2) Don't get too many mentors. You'll avoid a lot of anguish and confusion if you stick to one or two mentors. This is the problem. For the most part there is a element of style in bridge, and there certainly are different approaches. I once heard three different responses from three mentors to the same question, true story. Pick a style that works for you (for me the style was extremely structured and mathematical, where communication systems were clearly defined).
3) Pay attention to what your mentor says. Take copious notes if you forget (I started writing down all my hands when I played, every last spot card). The most dreaded words I hear are: "Haven't we gone over that?" I don't believe I've heard those words often, but have said on occasion, "we've gone over that already.”
4) Work hard. Add your own blood, sweat and tears to the process. Before you approach your mentor with a difficult bridge problem, check the bridge encyclopedia, do a Google search, check the references your mentor gave you. Can you find an expert who has played the same hand, online perhaps, so you can review his/her declarer play card for card? Now your mentor will see that you are as invested as he/she is.
5) Be a true friend, since you can offer your mentor little besides friendship. Watch him/her play the major events. Congratulate him/her on the big wins. Make sure that your competitive passion is as tuned for your mentor as it is for your own level of play with your partners and teammates. Flowers, cards and the traditional "first place or don't come home" exchange, e-mailed before every "biggie", were my attempts at reciprocal karma.
6) Don't argue with your mentor. If, for whatever reason, you can't accept the guidance he/she gives at the time it was given, use this phrase to end the conversation: "I've heard you and appreciate your thoughts. I'll wait until I get as good as you to understand the concept in its entirety.”
7) Be trustworthy. Full-blown mentorship is a very intense private exchange. Trust that relationship to guard the special communications you share which are not meant for the entire world to hear.
8) Share what you learn. Once you think you are capable, share your mentorship teachings with others. I've written several bridge articles based on my mentor's teachings. I've also developed a special relationship with bridge players "in the making", Laura Beal, Dave Coleman, Paul Cieslak and others.
I can also share two potential problem areas in mentorship situations.
• Get your partner to buy into your mentor's approach to bridge. If it's a constant issue between you and your partner to accept your mentor's teaching, get a different mentor or partner. It isn't going to work for anyone.
• Remember that you will be competing against the person who is there to teach you. Make sure that you know his/her commitment is ultimately to his/her partners and teammates. The fact that he/she is willing to help develop players able to compete successfully at the national level makes goal setting easy. For both you and your mentor it isn't about getting an 80% in the local club game; it's about making it to the third day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs.
Hope these ideas are of help and you will enjoy a mentorship journey soon! For women this journey is essential. We aren't often seen intuitively and socially as national champions. It's such a struggle to break through some of those gender-based barriers. The strength gained through mentorship can be the wellspring of that quiet reserve you need to make it out of the Consolations and into the Finals.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Juxtaposed: 4th best vs third and low on opening lead against suits
Third and low differs from third and fifth in what you lead from seven card suits. In third and low you lead 7th --the lowest one. In third and fifth you lead fifth. Third from the bottom.
One of the first things a partnership decides when filling out a card is the nature of their length leads. I started playing fourth best leads, but pretty soon after taking the game up seriously, decided to switch to third and low. Many expert D20 bridge players lead fourth best, so I doubt there is a consensus on the best treatment in all situations (or even most of them). Might be a factor of how one analyzes the hand ...or one might learn to analyze hands differently when playing one versus the other. I don't know.
I do know the characteristics of these lead agreements are not the same and it pays to study the differences. From my own personal history, this caused one of the few major public displays of disagreement in one of my past partnerships and I would advise everyone to avoid this at all a costs by studying the issues carefully.
I probably don't have to emphasize that whether you lead fourth best or third and low, you start counting cards from the top. The major differences between these two systems also delineate the major advantages.
Note: length leads from fourth best are always from strength. Discuss with your partner whether it promises the T, J or perhaps even Q minimum, but it has to promise some honor.
Note: length leads from third and low denote count, period. Nothing is promised about the quality of the suit. Third from an even number of cards, low from an odd number of cards. So hereby you see the difference.
1) Using fourth best leads, one leads the 4 form 42, K94, K964, K9642, K96432. There you go, five different lengths on the opening lead and you lead the same card.
2) Using third and low leads, one leads the 2 from 652, J52, K52, KJ2 87532, K7532, KJ532. There you go, the same card from two lengths and three different suit qualitities.
So, what you absolutely know with fourth best length leads is that it is from some sort of strength holding although the actual length of the suit might be unknown until further play has occurred. What you most likely know about third and low leads is the number of cards in the suits, provided you can distinguish from the 3/5/7 two card differences.
It is necesary to hold a brief discussion about what to lead from bad holdings playing fourth best. What does not work is to lead small (as if one has a strength holding). From three small, one needs to decide top of nothing or MUD. From four small, one usually leads second highest.
As if all of this isn't complicated enough, these two different styles are used primarily on opening lead. What your partnership does in the middle of the hand is also a discussion point. Most lead "low from interest".
Which method your partnerhip uses on opening lead might be a matter of philosophy. 4th besters like to send an immediate signal by the opening leader that he/she does or does not like the suit led. 3rd and low leaders like to give an immediately start on counting the entire hand.
Be open to using different methods. If you've traditionally counted on leads from strength holdings, perhaps try other methods to determine high card distribution. Experts use clues from the bidding and first few card plays to figure out where high cards are located.--but, that may be a whole other lesson. See what the future holds?
One of the first things a partnership decides when filling out a card is the nature of their length leads. I started playing fourth best leads, but pretty soon after taking the game up seriously, decided to switch to third and low. Many expert D20 bridge players lead fourth best, so I doubt there is a consensus on the best treatment in all situations (or even most of them). Might be a factor of how one analyzes the hand ...or one might learn to analyze hands differently when playing one versus the other. I don't know.
I do know the characteristics of these lead agreements are not the same and it pays to study the differences. From my own personal history, this caused one of the few major public displays of disagreement in one of my past partnerships and I would advise everyone to avoid this at all a costs by studying the issues carefully.
I probably don't have to emphasize that whether you lead fourth best or third and low, you start counting cards from the top. The major differences between these two systems also delineate the major advantages.
Note: length leads from fourth best are always from strength. Discuss with your partner whether it promises the T, J or perhaps even Q minimum, but it has to promise some honor.
Note: length leads from third and low denote count, period. Nothing is promised about the quality of the suit. Third from an even number of cards, low from an odd number of cards. So hereby you see the difference.
1) Using fourth best leads, one leads the 4 form 42, K94, K964, K9642, K96432. There you go, five different lengths on the opening lead and you lead the same card.
2) Using third and low leads, one leads the 2 from 652, J52, K52, KJ2 87532, K7532, KJ532. There you go, the same card from two lengths and three different suit qualitities.
So, what you absolutely know with fourth best length leads is that it is from some sort of strength holding although the actual length of the suit might be unknown until further play has occurred. What you most likely know about third and low leads is the number of cards in the suits, provided you can distinguish from the 3/5/7 two card differences.
It is necesary to hold a brief discussion about what to lead from bad holdings playing fourth best. What does not work is to lead small (as if one has a strength holding). From three small, one needs to decide top of nothing or MUD. From four small, one usually leads second highest.
As if all of this isn't complicated enough, these two different styles are used primarily on opening lead. What your partnership does in the middle of the hand is also a discussion point. Most lead "low from interest".
Which method your partnerhip uses on opening lead might be a matter of philosophy. 4th besters like to send an immediate signal by the opening leader that he/she does or does not like the suit led. 3rd and low leaders like to give an immediately start on counting the entire hand.
Be open to using different methods. If you've traditionally counted on leads from strength holdings, perhaps try other methods to determine high card distribution. Experts use clues from the bidding and first few card plays to figure out where high cards are located.--but, that may be a whole other lesson. See what the future holds?
Saturday, December 13, 2008
When are Q bids "to play"
It's been ages since I've written to you and for my end of that, I apologize. Fact is, unless I play with you guys somewhat I really don't know where your needs are. (sorry). It's been a good year for me --once the smoke cleared, Freeman and I are the only D20 players representing this unit at both the pair and team events this year (Roger McNay, Eric Stolz and Chris Gibson Q'd but couldn't make it to Detroit). This, for me, is a phenomenal accomplishment and the beginning of true high level play. I'm glad that at least for me, hard work and having fun are not mutually exclusive. Go team and nose to the grindstone!
But, back to serious business for you guys. Yesterday, Jim Smith asked me to inspire him to play better bridge. I hope I accomplished that --it's always a fine line between "inspire" and "overwhelm". Hopefully I made the grade. However, here's what I need to share with this group so we don't mess this up in the finals of the Blue Ribbons. Please learn these sequences. Your developing partnerships may be at odds, and it can cause some discomfort, but I can guarantee you your flight A partners will thank you immensely.
(1m) 3m is natural. Get it --it's not "give me a stop" or "super majors". It's natural. Yesterday, my rho opened 1C and with this hand J,Axx,Tx,QJxxxxx, I bid 3C. To play. Natural.
(1D) 3D is also natural. To play.
The following Q bid sequence is also "natural" barring special within partnership agreements. Yesterday my lho opened 1C and rho bid 1H. Holding AQxx,KQ87xx,Ax,6 I wanted to play hearts so I bid 2H. Duh......natural. I don't care if rho has four of them, I can handle that. 2H is natural in this sequence --it is not "unusual" or "michaels" or asking for a heart stop. It's natural and to play.
In this hot seat sequence, 2m is also natural. The sequence (1C) (1H) 2C --i.e. instead of hearts I bid clubs, is also "to play". I hold something like Axx,x,xxx,AKQTxx. Natural.
Warning --please differentiate (1m) 3m from (1M) 3M. This 3H/3S bid is not natural. Duh, rho has already promised five. This is somewhat of the Western Q bid that is overly used and abused but here it is, in all it's glory. 3M over 1M asks specifically if partner can stop the major from running. This bid promises nine tricks. Not 8.5, not 8 on a good day and/or 7. It promises 9 tricks provided the major can be stopped. Why? Flight A players when they hear this bid will not lead the major. They will lead your long running minor so the QT98 you have in your hand will never be trick 9. You'll be one short. Here's another reason. Pesky flight A players will jam the auction with the major. Something like (1M) 3M (4M). I, as your advancer would now like to know when I can bid 4 nt. i.e. I not only have the major stopped but I have trick 10 for you or perhaps trick 12 for the slam. Vul vs nv at imps you'll be glad you found this and come back to your table with a huge imp win. If there are any questions (hopefully not too confusing), please ask. I'm here to help
But, back to serious business for you guys. Yesterday, Jim Smith asked me to inspire him to play better bridge. I hope I accomplished that --it's always a fine line between "inspire" and "overwhelm". Hopefully I made the grade. However, here's what I need to share with this group so we don't mess this up in the finals of the Blue Ribbons. Please learn these sequences. Your developing partnerships may be at odds, and it can cause some discomfort, but I can guarantee you your flight A partners will thank you immensely.
(1m) 3m is natural. Get it --it's not "give me a stop" or "super majors". It's natural. Yesterday, my rho opened 1C and with this hand J,Axx,Tx,QJxxxxx, I bid 3C. To play. Natural.
(1D) 3D is also natural. To play.
The following Q bid sequence is also "natural" barring special within partnership agreements. Yesterday my lho opened 1C and rho bid 1H. Holding AQxx,KQ87xx,Ax,6 I wanted to play hearts so I bid 2H. Duh......natural. I don't care if rho has four of them, I can handle that. 2H is natural in this sequence --it is not "unusual" or "michaels" or asking for a heart stop. It's natural and to play.
In this hot seat sequence, 2m is also natural. The sequence (1C) (1H) 2C --i.e. instead of hearts I bid clubs, is also "to play". I hold something like Axx,x,xxx,AKQTxx. Natural.
Warning --please differentiate (1m) 3m from (1M) 3M. This 3H/3S bid is not natural. Duh, rho has already promised five. This is somewhat of the Western Q bid that is overly used and abused but here it is, in all it's glory. 3M over 1M asks specifically if partner can stop the major from running. This bid promises nine tricks. Not 8.5, not 8 on a good day and/or 7. It promises 9 tricks provided the major can be stopped. Why? Flight A players when they hear this bid will not lead the major. They will lead your long running minor so the QT98 you have in your hand will never be trick 9. You'll be one short. Here's another reason. Pesky flight A players will jam the auction with the major. Something like (1M) 3M (4M). I, as your advancer would now like to know when I can bid 4 nt. i.e. I not only have the major stopped but I have trick 10 for you or perhaps trick 12 for the slam. Vul vs nv at imps you'll be glad you found this and come back to your table with a huge imp win. If there are any questions (hopefully not too confusing), please ask. I'm here to help
Non forcing constructive -what does it mean, what does it look like, how should it be advanced
I just came off a disaster playing against the Polish team in one of the finest events in bridge. I want to avoid a subsequent gaffe, so let's work on the above-named topic some. So, have you ever heard a term and not known what it meant, failing to look the word/term up somewhere and 'hoping' you would eventually get it from context. Yeah, me too, and the word 'constructive' was one of those terms in bridge.
Trouble is, I never figured it out and finally I got so tired of deciphering it from the pros in all its versions that I asked one of them. 'OK! So tell me what this word represents in bridge lingo: constructive'. As described by them it means 'not junk, below invitational'.
So one application you'll hear often is this: A bid in a new suit is 'non forcing constructive' in this position/sequence. This 'non forcing constructive' term means your hand looks like a weak two. Yep, memorize it --'non forcing constructive' means 'weak two'. For our purposes, our non forcing constructive example hand will be: 87,932,J4,KQJT54. There, a 6322 weak two hand in clubs.
This type of hand is shown in three important sequences: 1) As a response to an opening bid over a TOX. Example: I open a spade, lho makes a TOX and you make a two level club bid. Your hand looks like 87,932,J4,KQJT54.2)
As an advance of an overcall bid: Example: Lefty opens 1H, my partner overcalls 1S. Rho passes and I bid 2C. My hand looks like87,932,J4,KQJT54.3)
As a response to an opening bid over a 1N interference call: Example: Partner opens 1S and rho overcalls 1N. I bid 2C. My hand looks like 87,932,J4,KQJT54. The follow-ups here are very important to examine also. Note that after your pard opens a weak two, one does not usually have a 2N bid 'to play'. 2N bids are usually feature-asking or Ogust asking for forging on to nt games, or suit games, in the preempted suit. Tell me I'm wrong.
By a passed hand 2N should be a relay to a seven card suit hand you didn't preempt in a previous position through a 3c relay. Same situation in all of the above example cases. Don't use 2N 'oh it might play better here'. It rarely does, the strong hand should defer to the weak hand for suit play. 2N should be used to acknowledge the preempt type hand and invite to three if appropriate. Given this advice (and to emphasize it one more time). If you're all red in the Spingold and Polish player rho opens 1H and you hold AQTxx,Axxx,Kxx,9 and dare to overcall 1S. Lho passes and pard bids 2C, Pass. I don't see any reason to further the auction here. Opposite 87,932,J4,KQJT54 the place to play is 2C. If one wants to bid 2N which invites 3N, one should have hearts stopped solidly and a fit with pard. There, -1400 vs 110 avoided and teammates much happier!
Trouble is, I never figured it out and finally I got so tired of deciphering it from the pros in all its versions that I asked one of them. 'OK! So tell me what this word represents in bridge lingo: constructive'. As described by them it means 'not junk, below invitational'.
So one application you'll hear often is this: A bid in a new suit is 'non forcing constructive' in this position/sequence. This 'non forcing constructive' term means your hand looks like a weak two. Yep, memorize it --'non forcing constructive' means 'weak two'. For our purposes, our non forcing constructive example hand will be: 87,932,J4,KQJT54. There, a 6322 weak two hand in clubs.
This type of hand is shown in three important sequences: 1) As a response to an opening bid over a TOX. Example: I open a spade, lho makes a TOX and you make a two level club bid. Your hand looks like 87,932,J4,KQJT54.2)
As an advance of an overcall bid: Example: Lefty opens 1H, my partner overcalls 1S. Rho passes and I bid 2C. My hand looks like87,932,J4,KQJT54.3)
As a response to an opening bid over a 1N interference call: Example: Partner opens 1S and rho overcalls 1N. I bid 2C. My hand looks like 87,932,J4,KQJT54. The follow-ups here are very important to examine also. Note that after your pard opens a weak two, one does not usually have a 2N bid 'to play'. 2N bids are usually feature-asking or Ogust asking for forging on to nt games, or suit games, in the preempted suit. Tell me I'm wrong.
By a passed hand 2N should be a relay to a seven card suit hand you didn't preempt in a previous position through a 3c relay. Same situation in all of the above example cases. Don't use 2N 'oh it might play better here'. It rarely does, the strong hand should defer to the weak hand for suit play. 2N should be used to acknowledge the preempt type hand and invite to three if appropriate. Given this advice (and to emphasize it one more time). If you're all red in the Spingold and Polish player rho opens 1H and you hold AQTxx,Axxx,Kxx,9 and dare to overcall 1S. Lho passes and pard bids 2C, Pass. I don't see any reason to further the auction here. Opposite 87,932,J4,KQJT54 the place to play is 2C. If one wants to bid 2N which invites 3N, one should have hearts stopped solidly and a fit with pard. There, -1400 vs 110 avoided and teammates much happier!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Competing over NT --The Ins and Outs
I thought I'd open up a brief discussion about bidding over nt. I remember dearly the same discussion I had with John -- so many master points ago. It was one of my very first lessons from him and I've cherished it ever since. I asked John: no matter what system (think I was playing Capp at the time) what do you promise when you interfere over nt. How many points, and what shape. If I bid 2D Capp showing majors, am I 4/4, 5/4, 5/5 or what? When I bid 2M showing a major and a minor do I have four of the major and six of the minor or vice versa. What's the deal here. And how many points do I promise.
John told me to remember one salient point: you bid over nt with shape. Period. It's shape that matters. That's why most no-trump interference systems have an ability to show two-suiters. Make sense, now? So, I will pass with 15 counts that are 5332, 4432, 4333, etc, but........I will bid with 54,55,65, etc. hands sometimes with as little as five points. Of course you hope in this instance you're going to find some kind of fit with partner --but that doesn't have to be the case. Let's say you overcall 2H with five hearts and four of a minor. Your partner could be 1/2 in those suits.
When you overcall at nt you are delving into a non-fitting auction. Be careful. If you have a fit with lho or rho and not your partner, you risk going for a telephone number. Bid with shape, period, hopefully you'll land in a fit. Also be careful of this: partner is supposed to pref to the lower ranking suit given equal number of cards in your promised suits.
So, if you promise majors and pard has 2/2 in both majors, he/she will always bid hearts. when one shows majors over nt --you usually bid as to expect pard to pref hearts with equal length. Why is it hearts instead of spades? So that partner can bid 2S with good but not great hands and not raise the level too much. Normally, this is a 6-4 15-count or so: AKJxxx KQ10x Kx x is about normal. Then if he catches you with decent support, you might find a game.
If you make a Capp call promising major/minor two suiter, guarantee five in the major and four in the minor at least. Partner with 2 cards in your major will pref to the major. A singleton in your major and he/she might insist on playing your minor fit, albeit a level higher, or of course bid his/her own suit.
That's why Capp was designed the way it was. So here is an example: Your rho opens 1N and you're itching to get in there with KQTxx,Kxxx,Ax,xx. Suppose you decide to bid 2D majors. So here is Isolde with Ax,xx,xxxxx,xxxx and bids 2H. Remember with equal length I'm supposed to pref to the lower ranking suit. Now your trump suit is xx opposite Kxxx instead of Ax opposite KQTxx. Not cool and it gets worse. Over my advancing call lho bid 3C and pard bids 3H. Now just because I preffed hearts does not mean we have a heart fit as is the case here. SMASH by opponents. A much better hand to show 'majors' is Kxxx,KQTxx,Ax,xx -see the difference?
Sometimes you will feel like intefering over nt without the perfect hand to fit your system. So your choice is to make a disciplined pass, hoping to get in another bid later or that pard will balance; or to make a bid slightly contrary to your system but for which you might have some security. With the hand above one might fess up to spades only --at least you have three honors in the suit and the suit is playable opposite a stiff J. No guarantees, mind you, but there rarely is in bridge especially in non fitting auctions.
If you're fessing up to a single suited hand, have a six bagger or be prepared to apologize when it doesn't work out. The above example hand does not have six spades but it is in the 'shape' category. For you die-hards, in the balancing seat one might make an exception with 4/4 in the majors protecting against an lho who opened xx,xx,AKQJxx,AKx 1N (they do it, trust me) P.S. Now that you know what you know, what do you think of my rho's bidding when she showed 'majors' holding AKJxx,Jxxx,xx,xx in the National Mixed BAM?
John told me to remember one salient point: you bid over nt with shape. Period. It's shape that matters. That's why most no-trump interference systems have an ability to show two-suiters. Make sense, now? So, I will pass with 15 counts that are 5332, 4432, 4333, etc, but........I will bid with 54,55,65, etc. hands sometimes with as little as five points. Of course you hope in this instance you're going to find some kind of fit with partner --but that doesn't have to be the case. Let's say you overcall 2H with five hearts and four of a minor. Your partner could be 1/2 in those suits.
When you overcall at nt you are delving into a non-fitting auction. Be careful. If you have a fit with lho or rho and not your partner, you risk going for a telephone number. Bid with shape, period, hopefully you'll land in a fit. Also be careful of this: partner is supposed to pref to the lower ranking suit given equal number of cards in your promised suits.
So, if you promise majors and pard has 2/2 in both majors, he/she will always bid hearts. when one shows majors over nt --you usually bid as to expect pard to pref hearts with equal length. Why is it hearts instead of spades? So that partner can bid 2S with good but not great hands and not raise the level too much. Normally, this is a 6-4 15-count or so: AKJxxx KQ10x Kx x is about normal. Then if he catches you with decent support, you might find a game.
If you make a Capp call promising major/minor two suiter, guarantee five in the major and four in the minor at least. Partner with 2 cards in your major will pref to the major. A singleton in your major and he/she might insist on playing your minor fit, albeit a level higher, or of course bid his/her own suit.
That's why Capp was designed the way it was. So here is an example: Your rho opens 1N and you're itching to get in there with KQTxx,Kxxx,Ax,xx. Suppose you decide to bid 2D majors. So here is Isolde with Ax,xx,xxxxx,xxxx and bids 2H. Remember with equal length I'm supposed to pref to the lower ranking suit. Now your trump suit is xx opposite Kxxx instead of Ax opposite KQTxx. Not cool and it gets worse. Over my advancing call lho bid 3C and pard bids 3H. Now just because I preffed hearts does not mean we have a heart fit as is the case here. SMASH by opponents. A much better hand to show 'majors' is Kxxx,KQTxx,Ax,xx -see the difference?
Sometimes you will feel like intefering over nt without the perfect hand to fit your system. So your choice is to make a disciplined pass, hoping to get in another bid later or that pard will balance; or to make a bid slightly contrary to your system but for which you might have some security. With the hand above one might fess up to spades only --at least you have three honors in the suit and the suit is playable opposite a stiff J. No guarantees, mind you, but there rarely is in bridge especially in non fitting auctions.
If you're fessing up to a single suited hand, have a six bagger or be prepared to apologize when it doesn't work out. The above example hand does not have six spades but it is in the 'shape' category. For you die-hards, in the balancing seat one might make an exception with 4/4 in the majors protecting against an lho who opened xx,xx,AKQJxx,AKx 1N (they do it, trust me) P.S. Now that you know what you know, what do you think of my rho's bidding when she showed 'majors' holding AKJxx,Jxxx,xx,xx in the National Mixed BAM?
Monday, December 8, 2008
Fourth Chair Openings
Chuck Baker asked me to enter into a discussion about fourth seat openings. I think this was an excellent request and a really important discussion point for your developing partnerships. I certainly have a section in all of my advanced partnerships' bridge notes regarding this area!
The important thing is of course to find your plus position. Either go plus in your own contract or force the opps so high that they go minus in theirs. There are virtually no opening bids that aren't shaded somewhat differently given the fact that no one has of yet owned up to an opening or preemptive hand when the bidding goes P P P to you. 1N and 2N are the exceptions, I surmise. Barring special agreements, no difference in the shape and strength of those opening calls in fourth seat.
For one level openings, I use the rule of 15 pretty religiously having stubbornly bypassed it once and regretted it immensely. If you use it, you'll usually have a lot of field protection. The rule of fifteen has to do with the number of HCP and spades in your hand. Add these two qualities up, if you get to 15, open the hand. If you don't, pass the hand out. So AT98,KJ3,QJ43,54 is an opener. A4,KJ3,QJ43,8763 is not. Two/three level bids should be annoying as they are in the other seats, and they also need to jam the auction so that the opps can't find their missed opportunities cheaply.
You shouldn't get in there with pure preempts because in that case you know the opps have probably missed something important. 2M is 10-13 six card suit. 3M are 7.5 tricks with outside strength. 3m should probably be a tad more. 3N (the gambling type hand) should be an ACOL type hand with seven of the minor, sometimes broken and outside strength. Here's an example. KT,3,AKQ8653,KJ5 Aside from that, there is always judgment as to vulnerability and type of scoring.
Once I was faced with the decision to open or not to open in fourth chair at favorable imps with a minor suited quackish hand. I figured the opps probably had spades and on a bad day I'd be giving up +400 (3N making)--on a good day I'd be -0 instead of -140. On a really good day I'd be -0 instead of -620, the opps now finding their vulnerable imp spade game after my opening. I passed. Sure enough, Connie and Sherwin brought back the expected 620 for win a bunch.
Some of this judgment will come with time as you can picture the hands and get to know your opponents and teammates. Hope this is somewhat helpful. Ask if you have further questions!
The important thing is of course to find your plus position. Either go plus in your own contract or force the opps so high that they go minus in theirs. There are virtually no opening bids that aren't shaded somewhat differently given the fact that no one has of yet owned up to an opening or preemptive hand when the bidding goes P P P to you. 1N and 2N are the exceptions, I surmise. Barring special agreements, no difference in the shape and strength of those opening calls in fourth seat.
For one level openings, I use the rule of 15 pretty religiously having stubbornly bypassed it once and regretted it immensely. If you use it, you'll usually have a lot of field protection. The rule of fifteen has to do with the number of HCP and spades in your hand. Add these two qualities up, if you get to 15, open the hand. If you don't, pass the hand out. So AT98,KJ3,QJ43,54 is an opener. A4,KJ3,QJ43,8763 is not. Two/three level bids should be annoying as they are in the other seats, and they also need to jam the auction so that the opps can't find their missed opportunities cheaply.
You shouldn't get in there with pure preempts because in that case you know the opps have probably missed something important. 2M is 10-13 six card suit. 3M are 7.5 tricks with outside strength. 3m should probably be a tad more. 3N (the gambling type hand) should be an ACOL type hand with seven of the minor, sometimes broken and outside strength. Here's an example. KT,3,AKQ8653,KJ5 Aside from that, there is always judgment as to vulnerability and type of scoring.
Once I was faced with the decision to open or not to open in fourth chair at favorable imps with a minor suited quackish hand. I figured the opps probably had spades and on a bad day I'd be giving up +400 (3N making)--on a good day I'd be -0 instead of -140. On a really good day I'd be -0 instead of -620, the opps now finding their vulnerable imp spade game after my opening. I passed. Sure enough, Connie and Sherwin brought back the expected 620 for win a bunch.
Some of this judgment will come with time as you can picture the hands and get to know your opponents and teammates. Hope this is somewhat helpful. Ask if you have further questions!
Friday, November 28, 2008
Opponents can't see through the back of the cards. make them prove their defense
The nationals -- a sure-fire place they will put your skills to the test. One of the many important concepts John taught me as a neophyte bridge player was: hey, Isolde, your opponents can't see through the back of the cards. I keep that little slogan with me when I play, and sometimes, when I guide you to better bridge I add the following:
1) Make the opponents prove their carding
2) Make the opponents prove their defense.
This issue came up no less than three times in one session of the finals of the BAM. Yes, field these hands with me with the finest of the finest. And before we get started let me just say I'm going to totally isolate the declarer issues --and let you all decide within your partnerships how to overcome these ruse plays. Suffice it to say, I pulled off two myself, but got caught in two as well.
Polish player lefty landed in 3S with this hand AKQ864,Q2,AQ2,T7 opposite T93,JT86,654,J32. Pretty soon after getting the lead, he put the pressure on by playing the HQ. You can see the problem. Without any other entry to dummy one does need to isolate the fourth heart. Since the AK of hearts were split in both hands, neither defender knew the true situation of the honor cards and declarer scored an undeserved heart trick. voila (how do you say that in Polish) Not good in BAM -land.
Norwegian player righty pulled off an even greater ruse. He, too, was in some number of spades (non game) with AKQ982,A,KT3,742 opposite J63,J876,J742,J5. Once again, very few entries to dummy and those looming Jxxx in the offsuits. He played the DK and partner, not knowing exactly where the Q was ducked. Then declarer Norwegian started running the spades. Convinced that Norwegian player had the DQ the later play produced low diamond to my now stiff Q and partner's A. Oops, two significant honors on one trick and an overtrick for declarer (not good in BAM-land)
Ok, so enough of this foolishness it is now Isolde's turn (snicker snicker snicker). Weichsel (American) was on my right and overcalled 1S over 1C. I very confidently bid 3N with these tickets KQ64,A65,752,AJ3 and bought the contract there. Low spade to this dummy: v,K72,QJT9,KQ8542. Ok, I pitched a heart and after some tank Weichsel flew A. Good, two tricks for Isolde in the spade suit. Spade back and I stiffed the HK in the dummy and they could just spend a lot of brain power wondering what that was all about. I played a heart to the K and "finessed" the DQ (or so they thought).
Lefty (also American -boring lol) thought a long time and finally ducked. He didn't know I was trying to sneak the overtrick and that his partner had the other honor. So there you are--I'm only entitled to ten tricks but made 11 (good in BAM land for the declaring side)--side note, don't pay attention to the yelling that ensues.
There are many analytical skills and communication skills necessary to play good defense. But, it always pays to put the opponents to the test. Sometimes these two areas are just not good enough, or there has been inadequate information in the play of the hand so far to get enough deductive reasoning going.
Enjoy it all, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
1) Make the opponents prove their carding
2) Make the opponents prove their defense.
This issue came up no less than three times in one session of the finals of the BAM. Yes, field these hands with me with the finest of the finest. And before we get started let me just say I'm going to totally isolate the declarer issues --and let you all decide within your partnerships how to overcome these ruse plays. Suffice it to say, I pulled off two myself, but got caught in two as well.
Polish player lefty landed in 3S with this hand AKQ864,Q2,AQ2,T7 opposite T93,JT86,654,J32. Pretty soon after getting the lead, he put the pressure on by playing the HQ. You can see the problem. Without any other entry to dummy one does need to isolate the fourth heart. Since the AK of hearts were split in both hands, neither defender knew the true situation of the honor cards and declarer scored an undeserved heart trick. voila (how do you say that in Polish) Not good in BAM -land.
Norwegian player righty pulled off an even greater ruse. He, too, was in some number of spades (non game) with AKQ982,A,KT3,742 opposite J63,J876,J742,J5. Once again, very few entries to dummy and those looming Jxxx in the offsuits. He played the DK and partner, not knowing exactly where the Q was ducked. Then declarer Norwegian started running the spades. Convinced that Norwegian player had the DQ the later play produced low diamond to my now stiff Q and partner's A. Oops, two significant honors on one trick and an overtrick for declarer (not good in BAM-land)
Ok, so enough of this foolishness it is now Isolde's turn (snicker snicker snicker). Weichsel (American) was on my right and overcalled 1S over 1C. I very confidently bid 3N with these tickets KQ64,A65,752,AJ3 and bought the contract there. Low spade to this dummy: v,K72,QJT9,KQ8542. Ok, I pitched a heart and after some tank Weichsel flew A. Good, two tricks for Isolde in the spade suit. Spade back and I stiffed the HK in the dummy and they could just spend a lot of brain power wondering what that was all about. I played a heart to the K and "finessed" the DQ (or so they thought).
Lefty (also American -boring lol) thought a long time and finally ducked. He didn't know I was trying to sneak the overtrick and that his partner had the other honor. So there you are--I'm only entitled to ten tricks but made 11 (good in BAM land for the declaring side)--side note, don't pay attention to the yelling that ensues.
There are many analytical skills and communication skills necessary to play good defense. But, it always pays to put the opponents to the test. Sometimes these two areas are just not good enough, or there has been inadequate information in the play of the hand so far to get enough deductive reasoning going.
Enjoy it all, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Beyond TOX, the Power Double
I alluded in a previous post that most of us "grew up" learning that power doubles over opening bids (beyond the 4441 TO types) start with 17 points. Some of us discarded that notion pretty fast once we started playing in expert partnerships.
Here's the discusion. Seventeen counts are easily handled with one level overcalls. If partner doesn't respond (bid 1N with 8 or so, or raise with 6 or so) then you don't belong in game. Staying at the one level is good enough. Should partner show a limit raise or better with a Q bid, we know what to do. Bid game. If partner shows a simple raise, we might have our game tries down within our partnership and evoke those sequences. Easy. The hands we absolutely need to start with a TOX are those hands with which advancer would not bid a notrump nor make a simple raise and the hand might still belong in game.
You know how 2C openings are basically nine tricks? Well these power X are basically eight tricks. My partner had such a hand in the pro am the other day. He needed to field this hand over a 1D opening at the two level. ATxx,Kx,A,KQJTxx. Now, if he bids two clubs, what am I going to do with Kxx,Txxxx,xxx,Ax? Ugh, probably pass. Cold for 3N. Partner needs to start those hands with a double.
Warning, whenever you start a TOX with such hand and you are meager in the opener's suit, you might expect it to go all pass. There you are, defending the opening bid at the one level. That's why it's a lot safer to power double with appreciable "stuff" in the opener's suit or no-trump type hands too strong to overcall 1N directly. Then partner is not likely to have a stack in opener's suit.
A couple of prologues I need to share with such actions. Keep this one handy. If it goes 1m (X) all pass then your obligation is to lead a trump. As one of my mentors once told me, if you don't have a trump, leave the room and look for one. When you find one, return and lead it. Yes, it is that important. Partner will have QJxxx(x) in the trump suit and the last thing you want to do is finesse yourself into declarer setting up a high card in his/her hand......or allow a ruff in dummy. Lead trump, period.
Another prologue is everytime you double and subsequently bid your suit, you have such an eight trick hand (unless you talk about specific exceptions with your partners). So, even if the opponents put the auction to the test with raises, if you've taken a free bid as advancer you are forced to keep the auction open. For example, the auction (1C) X (2C) 2D, (P) 2S cannot be passed. If you've taken a free bid over responder's bid, you've promised six points at least and with a partner who promised eight tricks by doubling and bidding his/her suit, you are absolutely commited to game. See how this all works together?
As per usual, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Isolde
Here's the discusion. Seventeen counts are easily handled with one level overcalls. If partner doesn't respond (bid 1N with 8 or so, or raise with 6 or so) then you don't belong in game. Staying at the one level is good enough. Should partner show a limit raise or better with a Q bid, we know what to do. Bid game. If partner shows a simple raise, we might have our game tries down within our partnership and evoke those sequences. Easy. The hands we absolutely need to start with a TOX are those hands with which advancer would not bid a notrump nor make a simple raise and the hand might still belong in game.
You know how 2C openings are basically nine tricks? Well these power X are basically eight tricks. My partner had such a hand in the pro am the other day. He needed to field this hand over a 1D opening at the two level. ATxx,Kx,A,KQJTxx. Now, if he bids two clubs, what am I going to do with Kxx,Txxxx,xxx,Ax? Ugh, probably pass. Cold for 3N. Partner needs to start those hands with a double.
Warning, whenever you start a TOX with such hand and you are meager in the opener's suit, you might expect it to go all pass. There you are, defending the opening bid at the one level. That's why it's a lot safer to power double with appreciable "stuff" in the opener's suit or no-trump type hands too strong to overcall 1N directly. Then partner is not likely to have a stack in opener's suit.
A couple of prologues I need to share with such actions. Keep this one handy. If it goes 1m (X) all pass then your obligation is to lead a trump. As one of my mentors once told me, if you don't have a trump, leave the room and look for one. When you find one, return and lead it. Yes, it is that important. Partner will have QJxxx(x) in the trump suit and the last thing you want to do is finesse yourself into declarer setting up a high card in his/her hand......or allow a ruff in dummy. Lead trump, period.
Another prologue is everytime you double and subsequently bid your suit, you have such an eight trick hand (unless you talk about specific exceptions with your partners). So, even if the opponents put the auction to the test with raises, if you've taken a free bid as advancer you are forced to keep the auction open. For example, the auction (1C) X (2C) 2D, (P) 2S cannot be passed. If you've taken a free bid over responder's bid, you've promised six points at least and with a partner who promised eight tricks by doubling and bidding his/her suit, you are absolutely commited to game. See how this all works together?
As per usual, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Isolde
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Law of Restricted Choice (LRC) - An application of statistics!
Your best friend (nerdy statistician type) asks you what you believe the odds are that any one Oregonian picked at random will give birth within the next year. Your surmise it's close to zero. Your friend now gives you new information: The person is female and pregnant.You drastically revise your estimate based on the new information.
Monty Hall tells you the prize is behind one of three doors. As requested, you pick one door at random. He now shows you one of the remaining two doors which does not contain the big prize and asks if you would like to change your mind and choose the one door which is left. You now have new information. Of the remaining two doors, Monty would not show you the door which held the big prize. Your odds at getting the right door (and the big prize)improve from 33%to 66% if you switch.
Your favorite pro is playing bridge at the Portland regional. As kibitzer you watch him/her play a contract which contains the following card combination AT3 opposite
K98534. After playing the A, your pro sees a Q or J fall from RHO. Your pro has new information. Both opponents could not play low.
The three scenes above are classic examples of the branch of mathematics called "Bayesian statistics". Simply defined, it is a mathematical science for revising the probability of events based on new information.
Let's concentrate solely on the bridge application. What thoughts are going through your pro's mind when he/she looks at this card combination, plays the ace, and an honor flops from an opponent. No doubt the pro is wondering whether he/she should finesse LHO for the missing honor or drop Q/J doubleton.
This is a direct application of the law of restricted choice, a bridge play based on a concept of Bayes theorem .
However, before the pro decides on which play to make he/she mentally goes through the qualifying checklist.
1) Does RHO randomly play the Q or the J from Q/J holdings. If so, the law applies and he/she should finesse. If not, the law does not help him/her locate the missing honor.
2) Are the missing cards of equal value? In this case "Yes". The law of restricted choice has no merit when the missing spots are Q873.
Having one spot card fall versus another, does not indicate the nature of the splits nor helps locate the Q in the suit. If both of the above conditions apply, the pro will finesse LHO for the missing honor. If both conditions do not apply, the pro will not be able to apply the law of restricted choice to help him/her determine the splits, nor locate the missing honor.
The question begs, is the above card combination the only card combination on which you can apply this Bayesian-based theory called Law of Restricted choice (i.e. nine card fits missing the Q/J) to help you locate missing cards? The answer is, "No". This theory applies in many other situations aswell. It applies with eight and seven card fits provided the cards you are trying to locate are of equal value and opponents are known to pitch randomly from those equal holdings.
Example 1: You have an eight card fit missing QJ. You see one of these equal-value cards fall on trick one. Since there is the possibility your opponent is offering a false card from QJx, you have to eliminate that possibility first -- i.e. based on the bidding or other factors which indicate the distribution of the hand is this particular opponent likely to hold a doubleton in the suit.
If he/she is, apply the other criteria as well and you are likely to make a better decision when playing the suit.
Example 2: You have a seven card fit holding KQx opposite A8xx. When playing the K/Q you watch the JT fall from RHO. Odds on that the finesse of the 9 spot through lho is the proper play. Once again those lovely spots are of equal value and you've got to give opponent RHO credit for randomly playing cards from JT9 to hide the true nature of the situation.
Hope this is of some use to you as you face these complicated card combinations as declarer player! Plenty of websites which addressthe issue should you like to explore the concepts above more thoroughly.
Monty Hall tells you the prize is behind one of three doors. As requested, you pick one door at random. He now shows you one of the remaining two doors which does not contain the big prize and asks if you would like to change your mind and choose the one door which is left. You now have new information. Of the remaining two doors, Monty would not show you the door which held the big prize. Your odds at getting the right door (and the big prize)improve from 33%to 66% if you switch.
Your favorite pro is playing bridge at the Portland regional. As kibitzer you watch him/her play a contract which contains the following card combination AT3 opposite
K98534. After playing the A, your pro sees a Q or J fall from RHO. Your pro has new information. Both opponents could not play low.
The three scenes above are classic examples of the branch of mathematics called "Bayesian statistics". Simply defined, it is a mathematical science for revising the probability of events based on new information.
Let's concentrate solely on the bridge application. What thoughts are going through your pro's mind when he/she looks at this card combination, plays the ace, and an honor flops from an opponent. No doubt the pro is wondering whether he/she should finesse LHO for the missing honor or drop Q/J doubleton.
This is a direct application of the law of restricted choice, a bridge play based on a concept of Bayes theorem .
However, before the pro decides on which play to make he/she mentally goes through the qualifying checklist.
1) Does RHO randomly play the Q or the J from Q/J holdings. If so, the law applies and he/she should finesse. If not, the law does not help him/her locate the missing honor.
2) Are the missing cards of equal value? In this case "Yes". The law of restricted choice has no merit when the missing spots are Q873.
Having one spot card fall versus another, does not indicate the nature of the splits nor helps locate the Q in the suit. If both of the above conditions apply, the pro will finesse LHO for the missing honor. If both conditions do not apply, the pro will not be able to apply the law of restricted choice to help him/her determine the splits, nor locate the missing honor.
The question begs, is the above card combination the only card combination on which you can apply this Bayesian-based theory called Law of Restricted choice (i.e. nine card fits missing the Q/J) to help you locate missing cards? The answer is, "No". This theory applies in many other situations aswell. It applies with eight and seven card fits provided the cards you are trying to locate are of equal value and opponents are known to pitch randomly from those equal holdings.
Example 1: You have an eight card fit missing QJ. You see one of these equal-value cards fall on trick one. Since there is the possibility your opponent is offering a false card from QJx, you have to eliminate that possibility first -- i.e. based on the bidding or other factors which indicate the distribution of the hand is this particular opponent likely to hold a doubleton in the suit.
If he/she is, apply the other criteria as well and you are likely to make a better decision when playing the suit.
Example 2: You have a seven card fit holding KQx opposite A8xx. When playing the K/Q you watch the JT fall from RHO. Odds on that the finesse of the 9 spot through lho is the proper play. Once again those lovely spots are of equal value and you've got to give opponent RHO credit for randomly playing cards from JT9 to hide the true nature of the situation.
Hope this is of some use to you as you face these complicated card combinations as declarer player! Plenty of websites which addressthe issue should you like to explore the concepts above more thoroughly.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Light third seat openings --Handle them with confidence!
Hi all,
It was very early in my bridge experience that I learned that third seat openings were suspect. As a college student, we left Boulder U. of Colorado to attend the Denver bridge club to see if we could beat "the women in polyester pants suits". ;-) --yes we were all young once --now we may be one of those women. The acronym: WPP's!
After a third seat opening I negotiated a part score contract that the WPP let us have. When I tried to place some values in her hand I found out in the end game that she had but five points. When I queried that action, she but flashed a coy smile.
Third seat openings are suspect, especially nv at mp. Get in there with your lead direct or get in there just to muddy up the water. Last weekend I opened this gem 9875,543,AJT93,T 1D and opps not being able to negotiate their strength could not manage to find their cold game for 35/36 mp.
Some time ago my frisky-ness got the better of me and nv at mp in third seat I opened this gem A2,T865,A982,QT7 1H. Hey the bridge Gods gave me two bullets!! The upshot of that was that we were on for four --. Ten count openings in third seat protect against a lot of hands which have legitimate contracts opposite a passed partner.
Have my frisky openings backfired! Indeed they have! But not enough for me to discontinue them all together.
The point of this missive is not to expound on third seat openings, just to make you aware that they are done routinely and that every partnership needs to be prepared to show strength after such nonsense! So here, this is what needs to be assimilated and practiced in every partnership.
Strong suit hands:
The tradition is to start the double with 17 counts --throw that notion away, that is way too light. Overcall your suit and make a game try later after a raise. If you're afraid your partner may pass a non fitting six count if you overcall, start your hand out with a double and show your suits later. These hands look almost like 2C openings but are approximately a K lighter.
Strong balanced hand: 15-18 --overcall 1N
19-21 -- X and then bid one no-trump if you have opps suit stopped.
X and Q bid if you don't have four card support for the major your pard offers and don't have their suit stopped.
If you have support for pard's major jump in the major and bid one less level than you would if you had opening the hand (remember, pard may have a zero count, don't go too crazy)
22+ X and bid 2N.
If the opponents get totally frisky and raise their suits, remember repeat doubles show the same take-out shape but add a K of value every time you pull the red card.
If you're solid on all these competitive calls, the third seat light openings will hardly bother you at all in the bidding. You'll also know how to double them off when it seems to be to your advantage.
However, sometimes light third seat openings create havoc in your decisions as to the play of the hand and will get opponents off to an optimum lead. Once, an opponent vul vs vul at imps bid this hand 1S in third seat. A7432,xx,xxx,xx. Yep, with a straight face. Once we negotiated 3N with the methods above, the leader started unblocking at trick one with his third best spade. Down one. Our teammates weren't so frisky and a normal fourth best spade produced a spade block. Lose 13.
That's how it is in big-boy land (and even with those women in polyester pants suits)--get prepared or lose the board.
As per usual, I'd be willing to answer any questions. Isolde
It was very early in my bridge experience that I learned that third seat openings were suspect. As a college student, we left Boulder U. of Colorado to attend the Denver bridge club to see if we could beat "the women in polyester pants suits". ;-) --yes we were all young once --now we may be one of those women. The acronym: WPP's!
After a third seat opening I negotiated a part score contract that the WPP let us have. When I tried to place some values in her hand I found out in the end game that she had but five points. When I queried that action, she but flashed a coy smile.
Third seat openings are suspect, especially nv at mp. Get in there with your lead direct or get in there just to muddy up the water. Last weekend I opened this gem 9875,543,AJT93,T 1D and opps not being able to negotiate their strength could not manage to find their cold game for 35/36 mp.
Some time ago my frisky-ness got the better of me and nv at mp in third seat I opened this gem A2,T865,A982,QT7 1H. Hey the bridge Gods gave me two bullets!! The upshot of that was that we were on for four --. Ten count openings in third seat protect against a lot of hands which have legitimate contracts opposite a passed partner.
Have my frisky openings backfired! Indeed they have! But not enough for me to discontinue them all together.
The point of this missive is not to expound on third seat openings, just to make you aware that they are done routinely and that every partnership needs to be prepared to show strength after such nonsense! So here, this is what needs to be assimilated and practiced in every partnership.
Strong suit hands:
The tradition is to start the double with 17 counts --throw that notion away, that is way too light. Overcall your suit and make a game try later after a raise. If you're afraid your partner may pass a non fitting six count if you overcall, start your hand out with a double and show your suits later. These hands look almost like 2C openings but are approximately a K lighter.
Strong balanced hand: 15-18 --overcall 1N
19-21 -- X and then bid one no-trump if you have opps suit stopped.
X and Q bid if you don't have four card support for the major your pard offers and don't have their suit stopped.
If you have support for pard's major jump in the major and bid one less level than you would if you had opening the hand (remember, pard may have a zero count, don't go too crazy)
22+ X and bid 2N.
If the opponents get totally frisky and raise their suits, remember repeat doubles show the same take-out shape but add a K of value every time you pull the red card.
If you're solid on all these competitive calls, the third seat light openings will hardly bother you at all in the bidding. You'll also know how to double them off when it seems to be to your advantage.
However, sometimes light third seat openings create havoc in your decisions as to the play of the hand and will get opponents off to an optimum lead. Once, an opponent vul vs vul at imps bid this hand 1S in third seat. A7432,xx,xxx,xx. Yep, with a straight face. Once we negotiated 3N with the methods above, the leader started unblocking at trick one with his third best spade. Down one. Our teammates weren't so frisky and a normal fourth best spade produced a spade block. Lose 13.
That's how it is in big-boy land (and even with those women in polyester pants suits)--get prepared or lose the board.
As per usual, I'd be willing to answer any questions. Isolde
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Juxtaposed: Negative vs Responsive Doubles
Definitions:
Negative Double: Showing other suits (mostly major) after partner has opened and rho has overcalled
Responsive Double: Showing other suits after partner has overcalled and the opponents have bid and raised their suit
**********
**********
The bridge Gods have given you the following tickets. Axxx,xx,KJxx,xxx . Picture it!
What do you do when the bidding has gone 1C by pard, 1H on your right? (negative double position)
What do you do when the bidding has gone 1C by lho, 1H by pard and 2C on your right? (responsive double position)
The basic question I wanted to ponder in this piece is -- are the qualifications for negative doubles vs responsive doubles the same? Both these double sequences show "remaining suits" i.e. they are TO in nature, not penalty. Since virtually everyone would make a negative double with the above hand, is it appropriate to make a responsive double with this hand?
I'll tell you what happens if you do! Pard bids his/her three card diamond suit and there you are -- cold zero. You should be in 2H, your 5/2 fit.
Why do we have different specifications in neg double situations as opposed to responsive double situatations, i.e. a lot more distribution with responsive doubles or compensating high card values for the (missing) fifth card(s)? The perfect responsive double would look more like this: Axxxx,xx,KJxxx,x.
Here are two good reasons we have different specifications for the two positions!
1) You are not as eager to find subsequent fits with responsive X's as you are with plain old negative doubles since pard by virtue of overcalling has announced a relatively good suit. Imagine what a 1D opening call could look like. xxx? Would anyone ever overcall on such a suit? If my pard has overcalled a heart he/she ranks to have five with some good ones!
2) In the responsive double postion, you are in a overcall competitive situation which are non forcing constructive. In the negative double position you can go ahead an establish a one round force with a direct bid of your four/five card suit.
Example: 1C (1H) 1S forcing
1C (1H) 2C (2D) non-forcing
In other words, if you've got two suits, perhaps you ought to make a direct bid in the negative double situation forcing the auction until you get a second chance, whereas in the responsive double position you need to get both suits in with one bid for fear of getting passed since bidding a new suit is non-forcing.
Hope this helps you structure up your bidding somewhat and pard is not wondering why you are offering up such meager hcp and suits when you make a responsive double with the above hand, although he/she would eagerly anticipate a negative double with the same hand! Also remember whereas negative doubles concentrates on "the other major", responsive doubles always promises the unbid suits!
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Negative Double: Showing other suits (mostly major) after partner has opened and rho has overcalled
Responsive Double: Showing other suits after partner has overcalled and the opponents have bid and raised their suit
**********
**********
The bridge Gods have given you the following tickets. Axxx,xx,KJxx,xxx . Picture it!
What do you do when the bidding has gone 1C by pard, 1H on your right? (negative double position)
What do you do when the bidding has gone 1C by lho, 1H by pard and 2C on your right? (responsive double position)
The basic question I wanted to ponder in this piece is -- are the qualifications for negative doubles vs responsive doubles the same? Both these double sequences show "remaining suits" i.e. they are TO in nature, not penalty. Since virtually everyone would make a negative double with the above hand, is it appropriate to make a responsive double with this hand?
I'll tell you what happens if you do! Pard bids his/her three card diamond suit and there you are -- cold zero. You should be in 2H, your 5/2 fit.
Why do we have different specifications in neg double situations as opposed to responsive double situatations, i.e. a lot more distribution with responsive doubles or compensating high card values for the (missing) fifth card(s)? The perfect responsive double would look more like this: Axxxx,xx,KJxxx,x.
Here are two good reasons we have different specifications for the two positions!
1) You are not as eager to find subsequent fits with responsive X's as you are with plain old negative doubles since pard by virtue of overcalling has announced a relatively good suit. Imagine what a 1D opening call could look like. xxx? Would anyone ever overcall on such a suit? If my pard has overcalled a heart he/she ranks to have five with some good ones!
2) In the responsive double postion, you are in a overcall competitive situation which are non forcing constructive. In the negative double position you can go ahead an establish a one round force with a direct bid of your four/five card suit.
Example: 1C (1H) 1S forcing
1C (1H) 2C (2D) non-forcing
In other words, if you've got two suits, perhaps you ought to make a direct bid in the negative double situation forcing the auction until you get a second chance, whereas in the responsive double position you need to get both suits in with one bid for fear of getting passed since bidding a new suit is non-forcing.
Hope this helps you structure up your bidding somewhat and pard is not wondering why you are offering up such meager hcp and suits when you make a responsive double with the above hand, although he/she would eagerly anticipate a negative double with the same hand! Also remember whereas negative doubles concentrates on "the other major", responsive doubles always promises the unbid suits!
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A asks for Attitude; K asks for Count --discussion against suit cotracts
Most of you will run across this convention sooner or later. One of you asked me to put it on our card. I pretty violently refused that request. Here's why.
First off, this convention is seriously misnamed. It should not be called "A asks for attitude, K asks for count". Rather, this convention should be named (relatively nice) "A requires attitude and K requires count". Or, (not so nice) "A demands attitude and K demands count". Or, my true feeling "the Control Freak Convention".
Now that I've elicited your emotion, let's get to bringing forth some of your bridge logic. Presumably, this convention allows opening leader holding the A/K of a suit to pick a high honor and require partner to signal according to his/her presumed needs. Trouble is 1) opening leader will rarely know from the bidding what his/her needs are and 2) opening leader isn't always dealt the A/K of a suit, rather KQ(x) or Ax(x) only. And another special case is AK tight.
Here are some clarifications.
1) My partner bid diamonds. I held KQx in the suit. I led the K (having no A choice) and dummy decked xxx. Partner dutifully gave me a count card. Big deal, that's not what I needed to know. I needed to know where the A and the J were. I have the same problem if I had led from Kx. Note this is problematic even if pard hasn't bid the suit.
2) Suppose on some auctions you decide to lead the A from A(x)(x). Remember, partner is required by your convention to give an attitude card but here's the problem with that. Partner will not know if you hold the K so is he/she supposed to give you an atittude card for the K or Q? With standard methods you don't know that either but guesses are much more accurate.
3) With standard methods you can often show partner a doubleton holding. For example if you have agreed to lead A form A/K --holding AK only you would simple reverse that position, leading K form AK. Vice versa leading K from AK. With the above-named method one would not know whether partner were showing a doubleton or merely requiring you to give an attitude vs count card.
Suppose you held the golden suit combination for this method. AKx(x).Here's the problem. Often you would not know what you need from partner until you see the dummy. If dummy shows up with the Q, well you obviously don't need an attitude card. You know the attitude. If dummy shows up with xx, then you need an attitude card for the Q, wishing to know whether partner or declarer held the Q.
So with my expert partners I play thus. If one of us leads a high honor and dummy shows Qx(x)(x), partner gives a count card. If dummy does not show a Q, partner requires to give opening leader an attitude card for the Q.
How does this last treatment differ from the above-named convention? Simple, opening leader is not assuming he/she knows what is needed before seeing dummy. In otherwords he/she waits for one more piece of information to start the D going in the right direction.
Here's a perfect "mess up" using this convention. Opening leader holding Q85,AK954,Q4,J62 heard the auction go (1D) 1H (3D!) 4H, (5D) P (P) X at all nv imps. He decided that before the dummy came down he needed a count card from pard. HK. (side note, I don't know why, perhaps he thought there were a side suit somewhere). At any rate, the dummy decked J76,87,T9872,QT5 and partner dutifully gave him a "count" card from 942,JT3,6,AK8743. Not knowing what to do, opening leader continued hearts. I knew what to do, pitch a spade from dummy and claim down one -100 only. My hand: AKT3,Q62,AKJ53,9. This is clearly a mistake, the second heart should never have been cashed. With me? Partner would have led A or K per agreement. I would have offered the J denying the Q and partner finds a switch. Now the HQ
never sets up for a pitch.
Now, believe it or not, I've played this treatment with partners who have insisted on doing so.(Yes, even I can be that acquiescent). I'm convinced that it "works" when you hold AKQ in a suit and you "know" the attitude for the Q. So in this case, you clearly request a count card from pard. Is this slight feature, not available in standard methods, worth giving up the non-confusing and solid D that other more "traditional" methods provide.
I think not.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Isolde 8500
First off, this convention is seriously misnamed. It should not be called "A asks for attitude, K asks for count". Rather, this convention should be named (relatively nice) "A requires attitude and K requires count". Or, (not so nice) "A demands attitude and K demands count". Or, my true feeling "the Control Freak Convention".
Now that I've elicited your emotion, let's get to bringing forth some of your bridge logic. Presumably, this convention allows opening leader holding the A/K of a suit to pick a high honor and require partner to signal according to his/her presumed needs. Trouble is 1) opening leader will rarely know from the bidding what his/her needs are and 2) opening leader isn't always dealt the A/K of a suit, rather KQ(x) or Ax(x) only. And another special case is AK tight.
Here are some clarifications.
1) My partner bid diamonds. I held KQx in the suit. I led the K (having no A choice) and dummy decked xxx. Partner dutifully gave me a count card. Big deal, that's not what I needed to know. I needed to know where the A and the J were. I have the same problem if I had led from Kx. Note this is problematic even if pard hasn't bid the suit.
2) Suppose on some auctions you decide to lead the A from A(x)(x). Remember, partner is required by your convention to give an attitude card but here's the problem with that. Partner will not know if you hold the K so is he/she supposed to give you an atittude card for the K or Q? With standard methods you don't know that either but guesses are much more accurate.
3) With standard methods you can often show partner a doubleton holding. For example if you have agreed to lead A form A/K --holding AK only you would simple reverse that position, leading K form AK. Vice versa leading K from AK. With the above-named method one would not know whether partner were showing a doubleton or merely requiring you to give an attitude vs count card.
Suppose you held the golden suit combination for this method. AKx(x).Here's the problem. Often you would not know what you need from partner until you see the dummy. If dummy shows up with the Q, well you obviously don't need an attitude card. You know the attitude. If dummy shows up with xx, then you need an attitude card for the Q, wishing to know whether partner or declarer held the Q.
So with my expert partners I play thus. If one of us leads a high honor and dummy shows Qx(x)(x), partner gives a count card. If dummy does not show a Q, partner requires to give opening leader an attitude card for the Q.
How does this last treatment differ from the above-named convention? Simple, opening leader is not assuming he/she knows what is needed before seeing dummy. In otherwords he/she waits for one more piece of information to start the D going in the right direction.
Here's a perfect "mess up" using this convention. Opening leader holding Q85,AK954,Q4,J62 heard the auction go (1D) 1H (3D!) 4H, (5D) P (P) X at all nv imps. He decided that before the dummy came down he needed a count card from pard. HK. (side note, I don't know why, perhaps he thought there were a side suit somewhere). At any rate, the dummy decked J76,87,T9872,QT5 and partner dutifully gave him a "count" card from 942,JT3,6,AK8743. Not knowing what to do, opening leader continued hearts. I knew what to do, pitch a spade from dummy and claim down one -100 only. My hand: AKT3,Q62,AKJ53,9. This is clearly a mistake, the second heart should never have been cashed. With me? Partner would have led A or K per agreement. I would have offered the J denying the Q and partner finds a switch. Now the HQ
never sets up for a pitch.
Now, believe it or not, I've played this treatment with partners who have insisted on doing so.(Yes, even I can be that acquiescent). I'm convinced that it "works" when you hold AKQ in a suit and you "know" the attitude for the Q. So in this case, you clearly request a count card from pard. Is this slight feature, not available in standard methods, worth giving up the non-confusing and solid D that other more "traditional" methods provide.
I think not.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Isolde 8500
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Dedicated Players--We're Cool, Too!
Hi all,
I've been meaning to write about this for a long time and the words are finally coming to some kind of coherent order. I've been working with all of you somewhat and I hope that relationship is pretty well established so that some of the information below will come more of an 'aha!' then an ultra shock causing a major myocardial infarct.
I think it would be silly to deny that once one establishes a dedication to this fascinating game of bridge and becomes somewhat successful at it --something significant happens. Although most of us started geek-like we become even more so. Lots of the male players are accomplished attorneys. Lots of the females players are mathematicians dismayed by society to follow that course and 'vent' in this arena. Ask, you'll see that there is some merit to this.
Above that, however, we're human. We laugh and cry and send our sons/daughters in harm's way and are upset by that. We have goals beyond bridge and sometimes we are happy when we achieve them and upset when we don't. However, the latter is hardly noticeable as we practice our passion.
When we come to the table, we come to play. We've studied systems, card combinations, rules, advanced theories. Talk about the plant sale next door, the acquisition of a favorite pet or who is dating whom these days is not what's on our minds. In fact, it's distracting from performing the many analytical skills necessary to bid/play a hand. Please understand when we move the commotion/conversation back to the next hand.
Along with that we play very slowly. It's often important to us whether pard follows with the '2' or the '3' in an off suit. We make high-card and distribution decisions made on such plays. Forgive us if we ask to see the last trick for a long time as it languishes on the table. In general we post mortem 'on scene' very little. Most of the stuff we can talk about between boards, we did years ago. The rest takes much more analytical skill and emotion than what is available during the event. Excuse us if we don't commit to the discussion as to whether five spades was a good save or not. Mostly we know, and we also know if it is field protected.
We routinely call directors and have directors being called on us. It's normal, part of the game and we let the directors do their jobs and quickly get on to the next hand. No particular emotion about feeling guilty or animosity occurs. When we call the director, the person who calls speaks. The directors will then generally ask the others if the situation was explained accurately. Now is the time for others to talk.
In general we allow the opponents the dignity to come to terms with a bad board within their own partnership away from the opposition. So even if we successfully accomplish something, don't expect us to say much. If we screw up, silence is likewise appreciated, i.e. avoid saying 'the diamond was good in dummy' :)
We do love to talk about bridge and happily entertain questions about systems and hands we've played. However, we do that after the event is over for the most part -and we're particularly violent about it with email.--come join us.
It sometimes appears we overzealously ask questions about systems and carding. This is because most of us have thoroughly discussed these issues and just want to know if you have done likewise. We understand the term 'no previous discussion, assume standard' Please don't take it as an affront to your systems, we're just trying to analyze beyond imagine the high card and distribution placements of the cards. Let us be the geeks we are. Expect us to discuss defenses to your new conventions on the fly so we're ready for them.
Most of us have habits acquired over years of learning and growing that may seem foreign to you. For example, when someone asks us to be teammates and we have a commitment to other teammates we merely say 'we're not available'. We know choices about teammates can be as sensitive as choices about events and partnerships. We handle all that with kid gloves because we know there are egos on the line (mainly ours)
Most of us don't get overly excited about a particular event score or win/loss. Sometimes this is in our control (e.g. we got enough rest or nutrition to perform well) or not in our control --(e.g. the cards didn't match our system well --weak nt is a good example). We get much more excited about that one save that worked out well, or the intra finesse play we found or the one hand that matched our system perfectly. So expect conversations to steer in that direction. Major regional and national events are notable exceptions of course.
Often, as seeded players, we get to field comments like: "Man, I've been avoiding playing against you all day.""Oh, now we're really going to get beat up.""Oh, do we have to play against you good players, too." Although to a certain extent we value our commitment to the game and relish in executing it successfully, there isn't one of us who wouldn't temporarily step into your lives and embrace your achievements. We're jealous of the math degree from Stanford, the Public Health awards you've received, the businesses you've established and the careers you've had educating our young folk! Professor emeritus from Annapolis, you've got to be kidding me --Head of the math department at SOU --you've got to be kidding me! Professor of Dentistry at OHSU, you've got to be kidding me. Please be appreciative of that two-board moment we get to enter each other's lives and if by chance we find that slam against you that no one else has, or we take a daring sequence that works, or we force you to play good defense, talk to us about it afterwards. Many times I've played hands against you where later I wished I had had the opportunity to chat. What better resource might you have for your bridge growth.
Above all, we take it as a compliment when someone who is excited about bridge and has potential asks us to play with them. Keep asking, knowing, however that our main commitment is to our own events and partnerships. But please be forgiving if you might on occasion experience a bridge culture shock playing with us. A couple more hands and you'll be right where we are! Trust me on that one. It's infectious. And quite frankly our behavior and demeanor is so religiously practiced that it truly becomes second nature -to us anyway.
Of course there is another salient reason I entered into this discussion. Misunderstandings of others' behavior can lead to isolation --(or much worse) and we all know there are plenty of other reasons more serious than bridge that cause between-person frustrations! See you (smiling with appreciable understanding) at the tables.
Isolde 6322
I've been meaning to write about this for a long time and the words are finally coming to some kind of coherent order. I've been working with all of you somewhat and I hope that relationship is pretty well established so that some of the information below will come more of an 'aha!' then an ultra shock causing a major myocardial infarct.
I think it would be silly to deny that once one establishes a dedication to this fascinating game of bridge and becomes somewhat successful at it --something significant happens. Although most of us started geek-like we become even more so. Lots of the male players are accomplished attorneys. Lots of the females players are mathematicians dismayed by society to follow that course and 'vent' in this arena. Ask, you'll see that there is some merit to this.
Above that, however, we're human. We laugh and cry and send our sons/daughters in harm's way and are upset by that. We have goals beyond bridge and sometimes we are happy when we achieve them and upset when we don't. However, the latter is hardly noticeable as we practice our passion.
When we come to the table, we come to play. We've studied systems, card combinations, rules, advanced theories. Talk about the plant sale next door, the acquisition of a favorite pet or who is dating whom these days is not what's on our minds. In fact, it's distracting from performing the many analytical skills necessary to bid/play a hand. Please understand when we move the commotion/conversation back to the next hand.
Along with that we play very slowly. It's often important to us whether pard follows with the '2' or the '3' in an off suit. We make high-card and distribution decisions made on such plays. Forgive us if we ask to see the last trick for a long time as it languishes on the table. In general we post mortem 'on scene' very little. Most of the stuff we can talk about between boards, we did years ago. The rest takes much more analytical skill and emotion than what is available during the event. Excuse us if we don't commit to the discussion as to whether five spades was a good save or not. Mostly we know, and we also know if it is field protected.
We routinely call directors and have directors being called on us. It's normal, part of the game and we let the directors do their jobs and quickly get on to the next hand. No particular emotion about feeling guilty or animosity occurs. When we call the director, the person who calls speaks. The directors will then generally ask the others if the situation was explained accurately. Now is the time for others to talk.
In general we allow the opponents the dignity to come to terms with a bad board within their own partnership away from the opposition. So even if we successfully accomplish something, don't expect us to say much. If we screw up, silence is likewise appreciated, i.e. avoid saying 'the diamond was good in dummy' :)
We do love to talk about bridge and happily entertain questions about systems and hands we've played. However, we do that after the event is over for the most part -and we're particularly violent about it with email.--come join us.
It sometimes appears we overzealously ask questions about systems and carding. This is because most of us have thoroughly discussed these issues and just want to know if you have done likewise. We understand the term 'no previous discussion, assume standard' Please don't take it as an affront to your systems, we're just trying to analyze beyond imagine the high card and distribution placements of the cards. Let us be the geeks we are. Expect us to discuss defenses to your new conventions on the fly so we're ready for them.
Most of us have habits acquired over years of learning and growing that may seem foreign to you. For example, when someone asks us to be teammates and we have a commitment to other teammates we merely say 'we're not available'. We know choices about teammates can be as sensitive as choices about events and partnerships. We handle all that with kid gloves because we know there are egos on the line (mainly ours)
Most of us don't get overly excited about a particular event score or win/loss. Sometimes this is in our control (e.g. we got enough rest or nutrition to perform well) or not in our control --(e.g. the cards didn't match our system well --weak nt is a good example). We get much more excited about that one save that worked out well, or the intra finesse play we found or the one hand that matched our system perfectly. So expect conversations to steer in that direction. Major regional and national events are notable exceptions of course.
Often, as seeded players, we get to field comments like: "Man, I've been avoiding playing against you all day.""Oh, now we're really going to get beat up.""Oh, do we have to play against you good players, too." Although to a certain extent we value our commitment to the game and relish in executing it successfully, there isn't one of us who wouldn't temporarily step into your lives and embrace your achievements. We're jealous of the math degree from Stanford, the Public Health awards you've received, the businesses you've established and the careers you've had educating our young folk! Professor emeritus from Annapolis, you've got to be kidding me --Head of the math department at SOU --you've got to be kidding me! Professor of Dentistry at OHSU, you've got to be kidding me. Please be appreciative of that two-board moment we get to enter each other's lives and if by chance we find that slam against you that no one else has, or we take a daring sequence that works, or we force you to play good defense, talk to us about it afterwards. Many times I've played hands against you where later I wished I had had the opportunity to chat. What better resource might you have for your bridge growth.
Above all, we take it as a compliment when someone who is excited about bridge and has potential asks us to play with them. Keep asking, knowing, however that our main commitment is to our own events and partnerships. But please be forgiving if you might on occasion experience a bridge culture shock playing with us. A couple more hands and you'll be right where we are! Trust me on that one. It's infectious. And quite frankly our behavior and demeanor is so religiously practiced that it truly becomes second nature -to us anyway.
Of course there is another salient reason I entered into this discussion. Misunderstandings of others' behavior can lead to isolation --(or much worse) and we all know there are plenty of other reasons more serious than bridge that cause between-person frustrations! See you (smiling with appreciable understanding) at the tables.
Isolde 6322
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
