halle1@houxz.UUCP (J.HALLE) (05/22/84)
There have been a lot of "Test Your Play" problems lately (thanks, Rob; keep 'em coming), but little else of substance. How about some debates or discussions of various topics? Any new ideas you've had? Any problems you'd like to air? Favorite or least favorite conventions? As a start, what is your favorite approach or system? And most importantly, WHY? Post replies to get the fur flying. I'm particularly interested in hearing what the non-North Americans have to say, as they tend to use a much wider range of systems than we do here.
wildbill@ucbvax.UUCP (William J. Laubenheimer) (05/26/84)
OK, I'll bite. I believe that what system you play is not nearly as
important as all of the system-mongers of the world would have
you believe. The important thing is to have a firm set of agreements
as to what you play with your partner(s). The more agreements you have,
the fewer situations for which you are not prepared will arise; since
these are the situations which cause the most problems, the fewer
problems will emerge. Mike Lawrence, in his new pamphlet on partnership
understandings, is a strong supporter of this view.
Note that "more understandings" does not necessarily mean "more complicated
understandings". In fact, many of the auctions you will cover in the
process of formulating your understandings can lead to natural, common-
sense meanings. If you don't like memorization, you can try to keep the
understandings simple; if you don't care, make them exotic.
Another point in formulating understandings: it is much more important
to agree on principles than it is to delineate specific auctions. For
example, in my two strongest partnerships I have the general agreement
"doubles in front of the long hand when the opponents have bid and
raised a suit are \\not// for penalty below game". This covers a wide
variety of competitive auctions, from simple ones like 1S-2H-2S-X to
complicated ones such as 1D-X-1H-1S-2D-2S-p-p-X. Given this general
understanding, figuring out specific meaning is relatively easy even
if the acution has not been discussed. The first one is (by agreement)
responsive, showing the minors plus some tolerance for hearts. The
second one must be good diamonds, a useful piece in hearts (probably
honor-x), and probably club tolerance and short spades, leaving partner
the option of converting or bidding any suit at the 3-level depending
on his hand, the type of contest, the vulnerability, etc.
What system to use thus becomes a matter of fashion and personal preference.
These days it is fashionable to use a 2/1 or Eastern Scientific framework,
so many pairs use one of these closely related systems. Strong club
systems are not as prevalent now as several years ago, especially at
matchpoints where many pairs perceive their system as leading to non-field
contracts, placing their score more at the mercy of the cards than
what they can do with them. My own personal preference is for a more
standardish-looking card, primarily because I appreciate the freedom
of being able to do the right thing as opposed to being locked in to
a given sequence. As do 5/8 of the members of what are probably the
two strongest U.S. teams currently, I prefer weak notrumps (Martel-Stansby
and Ross-Pender play them throughout, and Kaplan-Kay when not vulnerable),
but since my partners generally do not, I wind up playing strong notrumps
far more frequently. Areas which look the same on most cards are notrump
structure (modern a la Walsh), major-suit raises (limit, with 2NT or 3C
a forcing raise of some sort), no forcing 1NT, minor suit openings (3+)
and raises (inverted), first response to 2C (2D semi-automatic),
weak 2D, 4th suit and new minor forcing, some sort of conventional
defense vs. strong 1C, various defenses vs. all 2-suited takeouts,
negative and responsive doubles through a fairly high level (at least 4H),
minimum overcall strength, responses to jump overcalls by unpassed hand,
methods after opponents' takeout doubles (2NT and often 3NT/majors are
raises) and weak 2's (Lebensohl is very helpful here), direct cuebid
(some variety of 2-suiter, at least 5-5, either to make or to save),
and many aspects of defensive carding (normal signals (although sometimes
upside-down), low from xxx vs. suits (except when I have raised partner),
high against NT, J:10:9 shows 0 : 0 or 2 : 0 or 2 higher cards (except
Rusinow vs. suits with one partner)). Almost all of this represents
personal preference, though, and often changes depending on partner.
In summary, my views on system can be summarized as:
1) Play a system with which both you and your partner are comfortable;
2) If you intend to invest any effort at all into building a partnership,
try to formulate agreements on as many auctions as you can;
3) Make such agreements as general as possible.
If you are at all serious about the game (defined as playing because you
want to do well as opposed to playing just for fun), you will find it
worthwhile to spend time learning the systems you are likely to encounter
(Standard, 2/1, Kaplan-Sheinwold, basic Precision plus one or two dialects
thereof are a good start; throw in Acol if you're really feeling masochistic).
The best way to learn is to find someone who likes the system and play
it with him. What you are looking for is:
1) How does this system fit my style?
2) What inferences are available (very important, since even if you decide
the system is not for you, you can still use these when defending
against other pairs playing it) in the common auctions?
3) Are there any specialized features of this system which I can
use with other partners?
OK, now. Let's see if this starts anything.
Time for one more True Tale from the Wild World of Bridge: Three years
ago, I was playing in a Mixed Pairs at a local Regional. One of the hands
which our table was to duplicate for the first session was:
S-K H-Q D-AKJ9876532 C-J. We were all amused by the thought of this hand
going around the room in one of the wackier events of any tournament.
The following evening (the event was horizontally scheduled for two
consecutive evenings), we returned to the table, and on the first board
out, the following auction ensued:
North East South West
--- --- 1 S pass
2 D dbl 2 H pass
4 NT pass 5 H pass
7 D dbl (all pass)
The play was quickly over. Partner laid down the spade ace, which held the
first trick, and then shifted to the jack of diamonds. Declarer then
claimed! The full hand:
North
S-K5
H-void
D-AKQT9876542
C-void
West East
S-QJ876 S-A
H-T6 H-KQ8543
D-3 D-J
C-T9752 C-KQ863
South
S-T9432
H-AJ972
D-void
C-AJ4
A 10-card suit and an 11-card suit in the same event! My only comments
were "Nice lead", to partner, and "Sheesh! What are they going to do
with this board in the Individual???" to myself.
____ Bill Laubenheimer
___ / \ ___ UC-Berkeley Computer Science
/ \ | o o | / \ ucbvax!wildbill
------+++----------()----------+++------
...Killjoy was here!