BBO Discussion Forums: Teams troubles - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Teams troubles

#1 User is offline   AL78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,024
  • Joined: 2019-October-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE England
  • Interests:Bridge, hiking, cycling, gardening, weight training

Posted 2021-January-23, 05:05

I suck at teams as well as pairs.

It has been said that I am too passive and that is why I defend a disproportionate frequency on average. Here is what happens when I bid aggressively, in these cases reinforcing my pattner's pre-empt.



Four off, -800. Teammates went one off in 5X when they forgot to draw the last trump, 14 imps out.



I should have probably taken more notice of the vulnerability and bid only 3, I did think for a few seconds at the time, and it seemed timid with a 10 card fit and ruffing potential in clubs. I was punished for my aggressiveness with a -500 against opponents only bidding 3 going one off undoubled, that was another 9 imps out.

For a bonus, here is what happens when I take a conservative view.



I asked what the 2 bid meant, and got the answer "I don't know".

I have suggested to partner to ditch the opening 1 on two cards with this East shape, but she doesn't want to make the change. When she bids 3, I have got quite a good hand in terms of HCP but it sounds like the K is over me and game sounds less than 50%, so I passed. Wrong, 10 tricks come in when partner holds the king because she played the hearts from the top and dropped the doubleton jack. Flat board at least.
0

#2 User is offline   eagles123 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,831
  • Joined: 2011-June-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK Near London
  • Interests:Crystal Palace

Posted 2021-January-23, 05:44

Board 1. Meh, these things happen. Opponents judged well (I would suggest more through luck than judgement) to defend rather than play. Partner has pretty much the worst possible shape for you, with a void opposite your AK. And it's not your fault your teammates misplayed 5D! Opps are cold for literally any game other than 5C, so going for 800 at imp I mean it's hardly a disaster, and on a more friendly distribution for partner's 3C bid, it would either be -300 for a few imps in, or -500 for a virtually flat board.

Board 2. Firstly North's bidding is nuts. Secondly you have to blame your teammates here again, how are they letting opponents play 3S here? It's difficult to say how the auction should go, but I would think 4SX-2 here would normally be a push or close to usually depending on whether N/S defend or go to their making 5 level contract.


Board 3. Not the best game, non-vul at imp I wouldn't be too worried about missing this at all. Again, the opponents bidding is ludicrous.
"definitely that's what I like to play when I'm playing standard - I want to be able to bid diamonds because bidding good suits is important in bridge" - Meckstroth's opinion on weak 2 diamond
4

#3 User is offline   LBengtsson 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 974
  • Joined: 2017-August-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-January-23, 05:57

board 1. - un-lucky
board 2. - un-lucky
board 3. - borderline
0

#4 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2021-January-23, 08:30

AL78 'I suck at teams as well as pairs. It has been said that I am too passive and that is why I defend a disproportionate frequency on average. Here is what happens when I bid aggressively, in these cases reinforcing my partner's pre-empt. Four off, -800. Teammates went one off in 5X when they forgot to draw the last trump, 14 imps out.
+++++++++++++++++
IMO, you both bid well. Rub of the green.
AL78 'I should have probably taken more notice of the vulnerability and bid only 3, I did think for a few seconds at the time, and it seemed timid with a 10 card fit and ruffing potential in clubs. I was punished for my aggressiveness with a -500 against opponents only bidding 3 going one off undoubled, that was another 9 imps out.
++++++++++++++++++
IMO, again you both took normal actions. Opponents could have bid at least game in .
AL78 ' For a bonus, here is what happens when I take a conservative view.I asked what the 2 bid meant, and got the answer "I don't know".I have suggested to partner to ditch the opening 1 on two cards with this East shape, but she doesn't want to make the change. When she bids 3, I have got quite a good hand in terms of HCP but it sounds like the K is over me and game sounds less than 50%, so I passed. Wrong, 10 tricks come in when partner holds the king because she played the hearts from the top and dropped the doubleton jack. Flat board at least.'
++++++++++++++++
You were both conservative. Some partnerships play 3 by West as just competing but a new suit or double as a G/T.

1

#5 User is offline   TylerE 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,760
  • Joined: 2006-January-30

Posted 2021-January-23, 23:55

1. I don't like bidding a sacrifice at imps with two virtual sure defensive tricks. If I was going to take a shot, I'd rather bid 3N and make them figure out what's right. Can always retreat to 4!C if doubled.

2. Normal I guess.

3. At IMPs I'm just going to pretend I have another jack and open 1NT. Easy game from there, and partner's hand is the exact reason I think this is right. After a (not at all unlikely) 1M response I want to bid 2.5M, which I obviously can't do. 3M is an overbid, but 2M is way too pessimistic. So, split the difference. Whether it makes or not is frankly immaterial. With an 8 card fit in a major and 25 highs, I want to be game 100% of the time at imps.
0

#6 User is offline   wuudturner 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 2011-November-07

Posted 2021-January-26, 11:08

When I see someone starting out showing hands like this, I want to remind them there are a lot of facets to playing good bridge. One of them is just getting good partners, good teammates. You can either find them, or to help create them. I'll get to that point later. But now to the hands you show:

On board 8, you showed a hand where you bounced a preempt to 5♣. Not vul all around, that was not overtly terrible, but you had good defense, AND you had a flat hand. A good rule I recall from a friend long ago, was "Flat hands defend.". xxx and xx in side suits are a recipe for bad things to happen. At IMPs, on a hand where they are not even in game yet, you might not want to stick your neck on the guillotine and dare them to double you. They might take you up on the dare.

Ok, that board cost you. But what happened with your teammates? They forgot to draw the last trump, going down 1. If they just count trumps, that turns a 14 IMP loss into what, a 9 imp loss?

And the next board, I see a hand where you again bounced. This one was not too bad, with a side suit stiff. but this time you were vulnerable at imps, versus not vul. Yes, you had a side suit stiff. Yes, you had a known 10 card fit. But you were red versus white. Red versus white is like a stop sign, or at least, a SLOW DOWN sign when you are preempting.

But as importantly on this second hand, did you have teammates? I see at your own table, that North bid 3♣, NOT a negative double. If I were their teammates, I might ask why not? How is it that your teammates allowed 3♠ to play, and not try 4♡ on their fit? At the least, this may either have pushed their opponents also into 4♠, to perhaps push the board, or they would have significantly reduced the loss on the board by making game. That is, if N-S are +420 on the board at their table, your team loses only 2 IMPs.

Finally, you show a hand where you and partner did not get to game, to push 3♡ making 10 tricks. Part of that may be your partner's insistence on a short club. But you seem willing to go along with it, since you bid 1♣. Honestly on the East hand there,

AQJ3
T942
K63
A2

I would have considered the bids

1. 1♢
2. 1NT
3. 1♠
4. 1♣

1♢ is the correct bid in my eyes, but 1♣ is down at my 4th choice. And tell partner what you think about a short club. Stop enabling partner to not learn to bid better. Had you opened 1♢, partner might like their QJT in diamonds a little more.

Even on the bidding as you had it though, you might have chosen to bid more aggressively too. Is your hand closer to a raise to 3♡, than to only 2♡?

What I am trying to say here is a not insignificant part of your problems lie with your teammates. And yes, you might decide to just dump them and find better teammates, that is, if you can. But better yet is to work with them so that all of you improve. After matches with my usual crop of teammates, often there is a flurry of e-mail going around, where we will question what WE should have done better. And this must be CONSTRUCTIVE. You might be surprised to find that after some time at this, you all start to improve.

For example, after a recent game, I sent out mail to my usual group of friends. Most of them saw nothing I could have done better, but one pointed out a logical agreement that perhaps I SHOULD have had with my partner that would have resolved everything very early in the bidding. As a result, we all got just a little better.
0

#7 User is offline   AL78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,024
  • Joined: 2019-October-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE England
  • Interests:Bridge, hiking, cycling, gardening, weight training

Posted 2021-January-26, 12:54

 wuudturner, on 2021-January-26, 11:08, said:

When I see someone starting out showing hands like this, I want to remind them there are a lot of facets to playing good bridge. One of them is just getting good partners, good teammates. You can either find them, or to help create them. I'll get to that point later. But now to the hands you show:

On board 8, you showed a hand where you bounced a preempt to 5♣. Not vul all around, that was not overtly terrible, but you had good defense, AND you had a flat hand. A good rule I recall from a friend long ago, was "Flat hands defend.". xxx and xx in side suits are a recipe for bad things to happen. At IMPs, on a hand where they are not even in game yet, you might not want to stick your neck on the guillotine and dare them to double you. They might take you up on the dare.

Ok, that board cost you. But what happened with your teammates? They forgot to draw the last trump, going down 1. If they just count trumps, that turns a 14 IMP loss into what, a 9 imp loss?

And the next board, I see a hand where you again bounced. This one was not too bad, with a side suit stiff. but this time you were vulnerable at imps, versus not vul. Yes, you had a side suit stiff. Yes, you had a known 10 card fit. But you were red versus white. Red versus white is like a stop sign, or at least, a SLOW DOWN sign when you are preempting.

This as a club random teams competition, 1st round, where players enter as pairs and are randomly assigned teammates. We could have done much worse than the teammates we were allocated.

But as importantly on this second hand, did you have teammates? I see at your own table, that North bid 3♣, NOT a negative double. If I were their teammates, I might ask why not? How is it that your teammates allowed 3♠ to play, and not try 4♡ on their fit? At the least, this may either have pushed their opponents also into 4♠, to perhaps push the board, or they would have significantly reduced the loss on the board by making game. That is, if N-S are +420 on the board at their table, your team loses only 2 IMPs.

Finally, you show a hand where you and partner did not get to game, to push 3♡ making 10 tricks. Part of that may be your partner's insistence on a short club. But you seem willing to go along with it, since you bid 1♣. Honestly on the East hand there,

AQJ3
T942
K63
A2

I would have considered the bids

1. 1♢
2. 1NT
3. 1♠
4. 1♣

1♢ is the correct bid in my eyes, but 1♣ is down at my 4th choice. And tell partner what you think about a short club. Stop enabling partner to not learn to bid better. Had you opened 1♢, partner might like their QJT in diamonds a little more.

Even on the bidding as you had it though, you might have chosen to bid more aggressively too. Is your hand closer to a raise to 3♡, than to only 2♡?

What I am trying to say here is a not insignificant part of your problems lie with your teammates. And yes, you might decide to just dump them and find better teammates, that is, if you can. But better yet is to work with them so that all of you improve. After matches with my usual crop of teammates, often there is a flurry of e-mail going around, where we will question what WE should have done better. And this must be CONSTRUCTIVE. You might be surprised to find that after some time at this, you all start to improve.

For example, after a recent game, I sent out mail to my usual group of friends. Most of them saw nothing I could have done better, but one pointed out a logical agreement that perhaps I SHOULD have had with my partner that would have resolved everything very early in the bidding. As a result, we all got just a little better.


This was a random teams event, where pairs get randomly assigned teammates. The teammates we got were far from the worst in the field.
0

#8 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,025
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2021-January-26, 16:57

Wuudturner criticizes opening 1C on 4432 hands.

I am personally a very strong advocate of the style, and should point out that it is very common indeed amongst top pairs, except of course for those who play a forcing club method.

The style makes bidding clubs more difficult, especially in competition, since responder can't usually afford to raise with 4 card support and has to be cautious about even 5 card support.

However, it has the opposite effect in terms of being able to bid diamonds. When 1D shows 3+, responder has to be careful, but when it shows 4+, then responder is able to compete far more freely.

Note that diamonds outrank clubs, so in the (admittedly infrequent) situations where both sides have a minor fit, diamonds is the more important, powerful suit.

One further advantage to 4432 1C openings will only arise as the partnership advances in its bidding knowledge. Transfer walsh (there are different versions) is a powerful approach, and it is useful to increase the frequency of 1C opening bids in order to make maximal use of it. For example, in one current partnership we open 1C on 3343 hands out of range for 1N

Wuudturner was making his arguments in the context of the third hand you gave.

I do understand the reasoning behind discounting the spade holding due to the spade bid, but I think you failed to give due weight to the 'explanation' of the 2C bid.

I suspect, to the point that (were I a betting man, which I am not) that I'd put good money on the notion that your LHO was worried that 2C was a takeout bid, and so he was competing in what might be a 9 card fit. If you took responder's 3H as invitational, then North rates to have almost all the missing hcp, plus of course responder might well have short spades and/or be able to use your spade suit, even after losing a finesse, to pitch a club loser.

I said '[I]f you took responder's 3H as invitational' because that seems to be how you did take it. Others have properly pointed out that it is standard practice, amongst advanced or better players, to use 3H here as purely competitive.

Say one held, as responder, something like xx KQxxxx QJx xx. No way do you want to sell to 2S yet game is almost surely out of reach. So you'd bid 3H.

How, then, do you show an invite? It is common to play that either a new suit is a gametry (it may be a game force but you just bid again if partner signs off) or when no gametry makes sense, double to show extra values but no clear direction.

Here, partner doubles, and you might well leave it in with your hand, although South will probably run to 3C (if North heard the question about 2C, and the answer, he cannot (imo) ethically run. He is not entitled, in my view, to knowing that his partner wasn't sure he showed clubs).

On the second hand, I agree with your 4S bid, even at unfavourable. You bought unluckily in that they were able to double, despite having a double fit, and neither heart honour was onside (declarer might end up having to make a good guess if one of them were). You can be morally certain that the opps have some game somewhere, and they don't always defend even when they should.

Put another way: you bid 3S and they bid game...are you happy passing?

Btw, a good rule of thumb is that if your opponents always make the winning call when you apply pressure, find someone else to play against. They're either the best players the world has ever seen or they are looking at the hands:)

In addition, defending 4H, which is presumably the alternative, would cost you 10 imps when your teammates butchered a simple hand to go down in a cold contract.

On the first hand, once again I have sympathy and once again you caught a very unlucky lie. Partner will rarely hold a void, and when he does it isn't always, though it often is, in your 'side suit'. Imagine a vanilla xx xx xx AKxxxxx hand (not that I am a fan of preempts with 7222 shape) and picture both 5C and the defence to 4M.

In 5C you are down 300 and they are cold for either game unless clubs are 1-1 and neither opp has short diamonds. Plus, and this is important, they have to double you.

You post a lot of examples where you think that your approach has led to a poor result. Sometimes I agree with you but I suspect part of the problem is that you dwell on reasonable decisions that don't work, and that can lead you astray.

If you made the same bids on hands 1 and 2 multiple times, you should expect to be a net winner, but if you allow the actual results to cause you to bid more conservatively in the future, you will be a net loser.

Lots of players make what, to a good player, would be terrible calls or plays, and get good results, and think that that means their bid or play was correct...leading to terrible bids and plays in the future. I fear you may be about to 'learn' the same but opposite lesson: you made two reasonable to good calls, and got terrible results.

Bridge is a very hard game to learn to play well precisely because it is a game not only of the probabilities of how the cards lie but also the psychology of the players.

When I learned the game, the prevailing expert approach was to 'avoid disasters'. Play and bid down the middle, avoid or minimize mistakes.

In more recent years, the approach is completely different: try to make the opponents make mistakes. Apply pressure as often and as aggressively as possible. Don't assume the opps will always do the right thing. I think that this is because, at the expert level, play and bidding became so good, when the opps weren't in your face, that sitting back and letting the opponents have relatively uncontested constructive auctions was a sure way to lose the board or, at best, break even. Mix it up...let them guess.

As an example, on the hand you bid 5C, South might well have chosen to bid 5H...had he Qxx Axxxxx Jxx A he surely should, and now your partner leads his stiff diamond and you beat 5H.

Also, when you give examples of your partner's bidding or play (and I know you are not doing this to show them up or to blame them) your partner has often made a very bad play or bid. That isn't the case here, in any of the 3 examples.

However, if you want to improve, you need to find partners who either already know a bit more than you do or are very interested in getting better. Then try to find some good books on bidding or play....and both read them! Or find a mentor who will work with you and your partner.

If you can't find such a partner, try to find a mentor who will work with you, but read, read and read.

BBF is a useful resource, though its best days are now years in the past. There are few experts posting here. I suspect that I am the most experienced frequent poster, which was far from the case 5-10 years ago:( On the plus side, there are relatively fewer appallingly bad posters as well! But the reduction in activity means that you are not going to get a lot of sound advice here compared to the way it used to be. Justin Lall, Josh Donn, Richard Reisig, Frances Hinton and others (including rarely Fred G) were true experts who posted a lot of good stuff here.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope you find some useful information here.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
2

#9 User is offline   AL78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,024
  • Joined: 2019-October-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE England
  • Interests:Bridge, hiking, cycling, gardening, weight training

Posted 2021-January-27, 14:52

 mikeh, on 2021-January-26, 16:57, said:

Wuudturner criticizes opening 1C on 4432 hands.

I am personally a very strong advocate of the style, and should point out that it is very common indeed amongst top pairs, except of course for those who play a forcing club method.

The style makes bidding clubs more difficult, especially in competition, since responder can't usually afford to raise with 4 card support and has to be cautious about even 5 card support.

However, it has the opposite effect in terms of being able to bid diamonds. When 1D shows 3+, responder has to be careful, but when it shows 4+, then responder is able to compete far more freely.

Note that diamonds outrank clubs, so in the (admittedly infrequent) situations where both sides have a minor fit, diamonds is the more important, powerful suit.

One further advantage to 4432 1C openings will only arise as the partnership advances in its bidding knowledge. Transfer walsh (there are different versions) is a powerful approach, and it is useful to increase the frequency of 1C opening bids in order to make maximal use of it. For example, in one current partnership we open 1C on 3343 hands out of range for 1N

Wuudturner was making his arguments in the context of the third hand you gave.

I do understand the reasoning behind discounting the spade holding due to the spade bid, but I think you failed to give due weight to the 'explanation' of the 2C bid.

I suspect, to the point that (were I a betting man, which I am not) that I'd put good money on the notion that your LHO was worried that 2C was a takeout bid, and so he was competing in what might be a 9 card fit. If you took responder's 3H as invitational, then North rates to have almost all the missing hcp, plus of course responder might well have short spades and/or be able to use your spade suit, even after losing a finesse, to pitch a club loser.

I said '[I]f you took responder's 3H as invitational' because that seems to be how you did take it. Others have properly pointed out that it is standard practice, amongst advanced or better players, to use 3H here as purely competitive.

Say one held, as responder, something like xx KQxxxx QJx xx. No way do you want to sell to 2S yet game is almost surely out of reach. So you'd bid 3H.

How, then, do you show an invite? It is common to play that either a new suit is a gametry (it may be a game force but you just bid again if partner signs off) or when no gametry makes sense, double to show extra values but no clear direction.

Here, partner doubles, and you might well leave it in with your hand, although South will probably run to 3C (if North heard the question about 2C, and the answer, he cannot (imo) ethically run. He is not entitled, in my view, to knowing that his partner wasn't sure he showed clubs).

On the second hand, I agree with your 4S bid, even at unfavourable. You bought unluckily in that they were able to double, despite having a double fit, and neither heart honour was onside (declarer might end up having to make a good guess if one of them were). You can be morally certain that the opps have some game somewhere, and they don't always defend even when they should.

Put another way: you bid 3S and they bid game...are you happy passing?

Btw, a good rule of thumb is that if your opponents always make the winning call when you apply pressure, find someone else to play against. They're either the best players the world has ever seen or they are looking at the hands:)

In addition, defending 4H, which is presumably the alternative, would cost you 10 imps when your teammates butchered a simple hand to go down in a cold contract.

On the first hand, once again I have sympathy and once again you caught a very unlucky lie. Partner will rarely hold a void, and when he does it isn't always, though it often is, in your 'side suit'. Imagine a vanilla xx xx xx AKxxxxx hand (not that I am a fan of preempts with 7222 shape) and picture both 5C and the defence to 4M.

In 5C you are down 300 and they are cold for either game unless clubs are 1-1 and neither opp has short diamonds. Plus, and this is important, they have to double you.

You post a lot of examples where you think that your approach has led to a poor result. Sometimes I agree with you but I suspect part of the problem is that you dwell on reasonable decisions that don't work, and that can lead you astray.

If you made the same bids on hands 1 and 2 multiple times, you should expect to be a net winner, but if you allow the actual results to cause you to bid more conservatively in the future, you will be a net loser.

Lots of players make what, to a good player, would be terrible calls or plays, and get good results, and think that that means their bid or play was correct...leading to terrible bids and plays in the future. I fear you may be about to 'learn' the same but opposite lesson: you made two reasonable to good calls, and got terrible results.

Bridge is a very hard game to learn to play well precisely because it is a game not only of the probabilities of how the cards lie but also the psychology of the players.

When I learned the game, the prevailing expert approach was to 'avoid disasters'. Play and bid down the middle, avoid or minimize mistakes.

In more recent years, the approach is completely different: try to make the opponents make mistakes. Apply pressure as often and as aggressively as possible. Don't assume the opps will always do the right thing. I think that this is because, at the expert level, play and bidding became so good, when the opps weren't in your face, that sitting back and letting the opponents have relatively uncontested constructive auctions was a sure way to lose the board or, at best, break even. Mix it up...let them guess.

As an example, on the hand you bid 5C, South might well have chosen to bid 5H...had he Qxx Axxxxx Jxx A he surely should, and now your partner leads his stiff diamond and you beat 5H.

Also, when you give examples of your partner's bidding or play (and I know you are not doing this to show them up or to blame them) your partner has often made a very bad play or bid. That isn't the case here, in any of the 3 examples.

However, if you want to improve, you need to find partners who either already know a bit more than you do or are very interested in getting better. Then try to find some good books on bidding or play....and both read them! Or find a mentor who will work with you and your partner.

If you can't find such a partner, try to find a mentor who will work with you, but read, read and read.

BBF is a useful resource, though its best days are now years in the past. There are few experts posting here. I suspect that I am the most experienced frequent poster, which was far from the case 5-10 years ago:( On the plus side, there are relatively fewer appallingly bad posters as well! But the reduction in activity means that you are not going to get a lot of sound advice here compared to the way it used to be. Justin Lall, Josh Donn, Richard Reisig, Frances Hinton and others (including rarely Fred G) were true experts who posted a lot of good stuff here.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope you find some useful information here.


Your post may have been long, but it was excellent.

I wanted to ditch the 1 could be as short as two, on the basis that the only time it will ever be that short is with the 4432 weak NT hand, which is very infrequent. I would rather open 1 with that shape, which makes little difference overall, because opening 1 is almost always going to be 4+ cards, so just treat it as such when responding. My partner wasn't convinced and wanted to keepm it as it is.

Regarding the competitive auction, I understand that having direct raises as competitive and cue bids, new suit bids or double showing constructive raises is commonly played, and I like it. I will suggest it to this partner but she is the type of player who does not like going out of her comfort zone as far as bidding is concerned, and wants to stick with what she is familiar with. I happen to think I lose a fair few matchpoints on the competitive auction because of lack of agreement over whether a raise is constructive or competitive, or whether a pass is forcing or not, or whether one of us should be doubling our opponents to try and get +200 when they keep bidding over us, or how to treat those awkward hands with support which are too good for a pre-emptive raise, but not enough for a game invite.

Easier said than done finding good partners who I can learn and grow with. The decent players in a club tend to be paired off with other decent players, so they are mostly not interested in playing with me. I don't really know anyone who has a drive to be competitive and is willing to learn new things. Novice players who feel ready to have a go in the main duplicate have the same problem, they can only partner with their novice friends and get hammered, but don't know why. That is why before lockdown I took a novice under my wing to give her a game in one of our main duplicate evenings once a month, in the hope I might be able to pass on advice, and that my bidding is sound enough she can infer properly from it. I did manage to get a monthly game with one of the club's decent players last year, but the closure of the physical club has put a stop to that. I am limiting my online bridge, because I have a day job that involves sitting in front of a computer all day, so three hours of bridge in front of a computer on top of that regularly is a bit much.

The psychology game - yes I lose that one regularly. I easily get frustrated with bad sessions, especially runs of bad sessions, and that can incite me to make careless or reckless decisions at the table. It's something I need to work on.

I have always thought this forum was very good. I've tended to believe there are several superb players on here, internationals, maybe high up in the world rankings, hence I post many hands on here to get insight from experts who are going to be brutally honest if I messed up, but reassuringly also will tell me it wasn't may fault. I used to post hands on rec.games.bridge before I found this forum, there were some very good players on there, but then number of times I posted a hand on there and got hammered in the post mortem was a fair bit in excess of here.

"Lots of players make what, to a good player, would be terrible calls or plays, and get good results, and think that that means their bid or play was correct...leading to terrible bids and plays in the future."

That is what I am, or was, a little concerned about. I do occasionally get weird bids against me, sometimes leaves me thinking "what on Earth?!", but it has a nasty habit of working for them and duffing me up, and it is often the same people doing it. Will they learn they can do what they like against me because it will work more often than not? Either they know something I don't, they've been on a lucky streak, or I'm selectively focussing on the bad results and not logging the good results.
0

#10 User is offline   TylerE 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,760
  • Joined: 2006-January-30

Posted 2021-January-27, 15:26

> I wanted to ditch the 1♣ could be as short as two, on the basis that the only time it will ever be that short is with the 4432 weak NT hand, which is very infrequent. I would rather open 1♦ with that shape, which makes little difference overall

Ironically I think this is the best argument FOR opening a short club. Just pretend that 1C shows 3, know that 1D shows 4. If you end up the occasional 5-2 !C fit.. c'est la vie.
0

#11 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,428
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2021-January-27, 16:54

I'm basically on Tyler's side here - you have to put 4=4=3=2s somewhere. It doesn't matter where, just bid like partner promised 4 diamonds, or 3 clubs, respectively. As I wrote in a (very biased, unpublished because of that) article:

Quote

If you play this, bid like you’re playing 5M, 4, *3* (but Announce “could be short” anyway!) If you choose not to play this any more, bid like you’re playing 5M, 4, 3 anyway (even though 3% of the time 1 will also be 3). 100% pay off to the 4=4=3=2s when you have a bad hand or no major. The rest of the time, you’ll be ahead.

When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
1

#12 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2021-January-27, 17:17

 wuudturner, on 2021-January-26, 11:08, said:

Finally, you show a hand where you and partner did not get to game, to push 3♡ making 10 tricks. Part of that may be your partner's insistence on a short club. But you seem willing to go along with it, since you bid 1♣. Honestly on the East hand there,

AQJ3
T942
K63
A2

I would have considered the bids

1. 1♢
2. 1NT
3. 1♠
4. 1♣

1♢ is the correct bid in my eyes, but 1♣ is down at my 4th choice. And tell partner what you think about a short club. Stop enabling partner to not learn to bid better. Had you opened 1♢, partner might like their QJT in diamonds a little more.

 mikeh, on 2021-January-26, 16:57, said:

Wuudturner criticizes opening 1C on 4432 hands.
I am personally a very strong advocate of the style, and should point out that it is very common indeed amongst top pairs, except of course for those who play a forcing club method.
The style makes bidding clubs more difficult, especially in competition, since responder can't usually afford to raise with 4 card support and has to be cautious about even 5 card support.
However, it has the opposite effect in terms of being able to bid diamonds. When 1D shows 3+, responder has to be careful, but when it shows 4+, then responder is able to compete far more freely.
Note that diamonds outrank clubs, so in the (admittedly infrequent) situations where both sides have a minor fit, diamonds is the more important, powerful suit.
One further advantage to 4432 1C openings will only arise as the partnership advances in its bidding knowledge. Transfer walsh (there are different versions) is a powerful approach, and it is useful to increase the frequency of 1C opening bids in order to make maximal use of it. double fit, and neither heart honour was onside (declarer might end up having to make a good guess if one of them were). You can be morally certain that the opps have some game somewhere, and they don't always defend even when they should.
Agree with MikeH:
  • Opening 1 on balanced 11-15 and 17-19 HCP hands (including 4432 shapes) is an improvement on standard 2/1. It is economical to reserve only one bid for such flat hands. Also, If you are going to declare notrump, it good tactics to conceal your exact shape.
  • A beneficial consequence is that a 1 opener is better defined: 5+ card suit (unless 4441) and a singleton or void (unless xy6z)

 mikeh, on 2021-January-26, 16:57, said:

BBF is a useful resource, though its best days are now years in the past. There are few experts posting here. I suspect that I am the most experienced frequent poster, which was far from the case 5-10 years ago:( On the plus side, there are relatively fewer appallingly bad posters as well! But the reduction in activity means that you are not going to get a lot of sound advice here compared to the way it used to be. Justin Lall, Josh Donn, Richard Reisig, Frances Hinton and others (including rarely Fred G) were true experts who posted a lot of good stuff here.
A lot of innovative bidding theorists still enlighten us on BBO. Instructive posts are more helpful and informative but less dismissive, patronising, and condescending than on some other sites.

0

#13 User is online   smerriman 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,031
  • Joined: 2014-March-15
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-January-27, 18:24

Interesting. A while back I read this article on opening 1 with 4432, which ends with:

Quote

But as long as you are playing SAYC or 2/1 Game Forcing, most experts will tell you that opting to play a short club is an extremely poor choice that is systemically inferior.

I found its logic quite compelling, but perhaps it is misguided. I can see how it could be beneficial if playing something like transfer Walsh though as described above.
0

#14 User is offline   TylerE 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,760
  • Joined: 2006-January-30

Posted 2021-January-27, 18:29

The fundamental flaw in that article is that it assumes always 1D when 4=4 and always 1c when 3=3.

I think that is a flawed style. With xxxx AKQx I'm opening 1, with AKx xxx, 1. I like partner to lead my suit, or at least not be _afraid_ to do so. Leads are important. More so than a borderline "fit" in a minor that we don't want to play anyway, unless perhaps we're going slamming.
1

#15 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,428
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2021-January-27, 19:36

What's "systemically inferior" is all the fear of raising 1 with 5 because "what if it were 2, partner?", or rebidding clubs with 5 "just so you know I don't have 2, partner", and all the contortions and awful bids they make to avoid the normal, simple, correct (and right on almost all hands) bid.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
1

#16 User is offline   TylerE 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,760
  • Joined: 2006-January-30

Posted 2021-January-27, 21:45

Bad bidders make bad bids. I bet they also refuse to bid 3N with an unstopped suit in an uncompetitive auction.
0

#17 User is offline   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2021-January-27, 23:18

 smerriman, on 2021-January-27, 18:24, said:

I found its logic quite compelling, but perhaps it is misguided. I can see how it could be beneficial if playing something like transfer Walsh though as described above.

Two significant objections to the article came to mind on a first reading. It does not consider competitive bidding at all, and that's really common when you open 1C. It can be valuable knowing partner has four diamonds when I decide whether to support at the three-level - not just when giving preference on the second round of the auction. The other, more serious, objection is that it does not look at how the space can be effectively used. If you play transfers over 1C, you gain a lot of useful sequences, to clarify opener's support, to be able to respond light, and so on. If you open 1C more frequently, either by playing it as 2+ or as 'clubs or balanced', you get those benefits more often.

There are certainly some downsides to the approach and I'm not sold one way or the other. But I'm not convinced the author is writing from a position of experience. I have played it a reasonable amount and do think the "clubs or balanced" concept works well. You then have better definition with 1D (4+ unbalanced) and can even use the 1NT rebid as something artificial. And it was very enjoyable when I opened 1C, showed a minimum balanced hand, wound up in 3NT and had LHO lead a diamond into my six-card suit. :)
0

#18 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,906
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2021-January-28, 04:08

 nige1, on 2021-January-27, 17:17, said:

Agree with MikeH:
  • Opening 1 on balanced 11-15 and 17-19 HCP hands (including 4432 shapes) is an improvement on standard 2/1. It is economical to reserve only one bid for such flat hands. Also, If you are going to declare notrump, it good tactics to conceal your exact shape.
  • A beneficial consequence is that a 1 opener is better defined: 5+ card suit (unless 4441) and a singleton or void (unless xy6z)


I got the impression mikeh was talking about diamonds guaranteeing 4+ cards even with a 4432 except when the diamonds suit is 3 or 2 card. I may be wrong, but in any case this less extreme style also exists and has its merits.
0

#19 User is offline   AL78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,024
  • Joined: 2019-October-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE England
  • Interests:Bridge, hiking, cycling, gardening, weight training

Posted 2021-January-28, 04:19

There is a pair at my club who play a 1 opening shows five cards, so the 1 opening could be as short as one.
0

#20 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,025
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2021-January-28, 08:37

 pescetom, on 2021-January-28, 04:08, said:

I got the impression mikeh was talking about diamonds guaranteeing 4+ cards even with a 4432 except when the diamonds suit is 3 or 2 card. I may be wrong, but in any case this less extreme style also exists and has its merits.

In one partnership, 1D will be 5 unless 1444/4144/4441

In my other serious partnership I’d expect 1D to be as well 4 if 4342/3442 and 3343 with 17+ hcp. But with 11-13 hcp we open 1C with 3343/4243/2443
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users