[Antrax]

I'm trying to go through it again (the first time I put it down because it was too advanced). It's going better, but still, some things I'm not sure about.

First of all, why would jumps in competition be more useful as showing a second suit and not shortness? Let's say the auction is 1♠-(2♥). R/S advocate that 4♥ shows a good spade fit with short hearts, but 4♣/♦ show a good spade fit with a minor side-suit. However, in the uncontested auction, 1♠-(p)-4♣/♦ would show a spade fit with minor suit shortness. What's the rationale for this difference?

Next, the auction is 1♠-(3♣). Your hand is ♠T64 ♥A53 ♦JT64 ♣53. They advocate 3♠. Isn't this going a bit far?

Finally, the book often uses terms like "Game all" or "love all". I think it's some rubber bridge thingie, but what does it mean? Is it like vulnerability or parallel to it? What does it affect?

Thanks.

[JLOGIC]

Re fit jumps rather than splinters:

A) You are much less likely to have a splinter in a side suit when RHO overcalls a different suit. Usually, if you have shortness and slam inerest, it's in the suit they bid since they have length. On top of that, if the auction gets competitive you want partner to be able to judge whether to compete to the 5 level or not, this is made easier if he knows about your second suit since that is usually the key. Them bidding to the 5 level is more likely when RHO overcalls than when RHO passes.

Otherwise,

B) Your second hand only has 12 cards. I assume that there is a fourth spade, otherwise it would be completely insane to bid. With the 4th spade I would still pass, but it's close. Their point I'm sure is that having a 4th trump is big. I agree it's a borderline example, I might would probably pass. Since you have no invitational bids partner will be under pressure over 3S and you don't want it to have too wide of a range, this might mean passing with the bottom of the range of hands you'd like to raise and jumping to game on the top of the range of hands you'd want to bid 3S with. It's debatable where to draw the line.

I think game all/love all is a british thing not a rubber bridge thing. In tennis they use love all also, I think it came from the UK. Love all is w/w, and game all is r/r. In America it's common to say favorable, unfavorable and equal red/equal white, or all vul/none vul, or red/red, white/white. In UK I think they also say green rather than white. It is just a regional thing I think, Robson is from England.

[Antrax]

Oh. lol at the 12 card hand. sic, but at least that makes a lot more sense now. Thanks.

[paulg]

Green is w/r, White is w/w, Amber is r/r, Red is r/w.

I presume Love All, NS Game, EW Game and Game All originate from the rubber bridge world but are still standard for bidding contests in the UK.

Love All in tennis probably originates from the time when we liked the French.

[JLOGIC]

paulg, on 2012-April-06, 01:58, said:

Green is w/r, White is w/w, Amber is r/r, Red is r/w.

I presume Love All, NS Game, EW Game and Game All originate from the rubber bridge world but are still standard for bidding contests in the UK.

Love All in tennis probably originates from the time when we liked the French.

hmm, amber, I haave never seen that on the forums. Thanks for sharing

[aguahombre]

paulg, on 2012-April-06, 01:58, said:

Love All in tennis probably originates from the time when we liked the French.

zero=egg (like in goose egg)=L'oeff=love

[Antrax]

None vul, first seat
♠J632 ♥5 ♦K2 ♣KJ9862
Would you open this 3♣, as they advocate?

At favourable, ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 in first seat?

I wonder how literally I should take the examples. In the second one, even if partner is in on the joke (so we don't wind up in the 5-level on a 9-card fit), it seems he can do nothing but pass whatever his hand is, no?

A more general question, I mostly play MPs in an intermediate field (containing all flavours). Do you think it makes sense at all to try out the agreements detailed in the book, or will the noise factor from the randomness of the club players drown out an attempt to evaluate how well we're doing with those agreements?

[mgoetze]

Antrax, on 2012-May-14, 00:33, said:

♠J632 ♥5 ♦K2 ♣KJ9862
Would you open this 3♣,

Sure, why not?

Quote

At favourable, ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 in first seat?

No.

Quote

I wonder how literally I should take the examples.

The examples are just that, examples. The most important thing is that you agree with your partner on a style and make allowances accordingly.

Quote

A more general question, I mostly play MPs in an intermediate field (containing all flavours). Do you think it makes sense at all to try out the agreements detailed in the book, or will the noise factor from the randomness of the club players drown out an attempt to evaluate how well we're doing with those agreements?

Any purely result-based evaluation is doomed to fail. Anyway, whether you should preempt so freely sort of depends on factors such as how good your cardplay is compared to the rest of the field.

[Zelandakh]

I am not sure about the two you gave but here is one I opened 3♣ at Love All a couple weeks ago: ♠K32/♥J87/♦4♣JT6543. Partner raised to 5♣ and 4th hand took the push to 5♥, doubled for 2 off and a top. I really like wide-ranging preempts (or pressure bids as they call them) a great deal. However every pair has to draw a line somewhere and a 5 card suit with a 4 card major on the side and partner yet to speak is getting pretty rich for most. The downside of this style is less the chance of going for a number than the difficulties it gives partner in how to advance (something they rather gloss over imho).

As the book describes, you are essentially making a bet on whose hand it is. Sometimes you lose but more often you gain. The line about where the gains stop outweighing the losses is not an easy question to answer though. I would suggest that you are right in flagging up Hand G as being very much borderline for this. At the end of the day what really matters is that both you and your partner understand the style you want to use and are prepared for it; also that you are able to describe it to your opponents, of course!

[Antrax]

The description seems easy: "when convenient, our bids are on complete trash" or so
I am wondering, though, if there's any empirical method we can use to try and decide on which style suits our partnership. In other games, I typically try out things and see how they feel and how they work out. I'm not good enough at Bridge to be able to look at an outcome and say "yeah, this is attributable to preempt style" vs. "would've worked out if my declarering were better" vs. "random noise", etc.

[han]

Antrax, on 2012-May-14, 00:33, said:

None vul, first seat
♠J632 ♥5 ♦K2 ♣KJ9862
Would you open this 3♣, as they advocate?

No.

Quote

At favourable, ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 in first seat?

No way.

Quote

I wonder how literally I should take the examples.

As far as I know these are their literal recommendations, and I wouldn't know in which non-literal way one could take them. The fact that they recommend this style doesn't mean that you have to play this way to win, or even that there are many current world class pairs that play this style. These are just their thoughts on the matter. Or actually, they were their thoughts on the matter, who knows how they think about it so many years later.

Quote

In the second one, even if partner is in on the joke (so we don't wind up in the 5-level on a 9-card fit), it seems he can do nothing but pass whatever his hand is, no?

Not at all, he should just be more restrained, and perhaps try to keep you involved. It's not a joke, your best suit is still clubs in both examples, and you have a weak preemptive hand, completely in line with what you have discussed with partner and what you tell the opponents. The variety of hands you can hold is just far greater in this style, and you will have some good and some bad results because of this.

Quote

A more general question, I mostly play MPs in an intermediate field (containing all flavours). Do you think it makes sense at all to try out the agreements detailed in the book, or will the noise factor from the randomness of the club players drown out an attempt to evaluate how well we're doing with those agreements?

I think such considerations make life more difficult than it already is. The same goes for your comment regarding the "empirical method we can use to try and decide which style suits our partnership". This is not rocket science, it's bridge. Shuffle and deal please!

[Zelandakh]

One of the big things about playing this style is that you sometimes run into very bad results because the opponents made a guess and played something that worked they could not possibly have managed without your bidding. Thus you sometimes get bottoms even against the weakest players in the room. You have to have the mentality that the style is a long term winner and accidents happen. If bad results niggle at you then you are better playing a more conservative style which gives more consistent results.

Also, it is good to make an honest evaluation about how good your card play is against the room. If you are the best card players then you are likely to win playing "normal" bridge. If you are in the top half but not the best then you need an extra edge which can only come from the bidding. In essence you reverse standard Pairs tactics - instead of trying to get 5 x 60% you instead work on 2 tops, 2 averages and a bottom, or something like that.

In terms of evaluating the payoffs, this is quite difficult but after every club game I take the hands and run an analysis of every hand against par. This gives me a decent indicator of where we are in terms of our card play against the room, as well as flagging any problems that turn up. This is probably about as good as you can do. My statistics say that the style is a real "bunny-killer" but still effective against the better players in the club. The sample size is not really large enough to be statistically significant though given the variability.

[Cyberyeti]

I read the book many years ago and took some of the ideas on board verbatim (fit jumps) and some more as general philosophy (first seat being a position where you preempt very light and wide ranging).

Your personality is important here. If you're the sort of person who opens a vile preempt, dials 1100 and it puts you off making bids that systemically you should make, then don't play this style. If you (and partner) can shrug it off and play on as if nothing has happened, then you're much more suited to this style.

Bizarrely while I've gone for my telephone numbers, I've actually collected more than I've gone for on these boards, that's not actually the main risk, which is opps bidding and making a game they'd have stayed out of without the preempt.

My anecdote was the first time after agreeing to play 4 card weak 2s (as the logical extension of this preempting policy) I picked up w/r 1st seat Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx and opened 2♠, LHO eyed up his 2254 14 count and decided he had to do something so bid 3♦, partner eyed up his 2N opener with ♦AQ10x and knew what to do, this was worth a 4 figure penalty on a partscore board.

[gwnn]

Some stuff are very good and some ideas are just weird. One good idea that you should take to heart is to show your fit early in competitive auctions and "in quick, out quick". Stuff you shouldn't follow:
-FNJs after, say, (1S)-2H-(2S). 3m should be natural.
-"should I bid now?" unfortunately I followed them and was shocked to find out that what they advocate is not absolutely true http://www.bridgebas...sign-the-blame/
Actually this is also a consequence of "in quick, out quick" - you have a constructive hand with 4+ cards in the unbid major - cool - show it right now! Don't just pass wisely saying "oh yes I don't need to bid now do I?" Bidding can get very fierce very fast, you should always try to show your hand type as early as possible, perhaps at the cost of seemingly overloading early actions but you will never have to pass and think later "am I being robbed?" or something like that.
-also, http://www.bridgebas...n-segal-advice/

I would say also look carefully at their example hands. When they advocate opening a weak 2 in a major on only 5 cards, they never have 5332 hansd and always have at least QJTxx or something like that. I used to think "oh cool! 5 card preempts!" and did it on nonsense like JT9xx Kxx xxx Qx and then was surprised that we went for -200 (undoubled, -4) against air. Their example hands are rather more pure than stuff you will actually be dealt.

[Antrax]

han said:

As far as I know these are their literal recommendations, and I wouldn't know in which non-literal way one could take them. The fact that they recommend this style doesn't mean that you have to play this way to win, or even that there are many current world class pairs that play this style. These are just their thoughts on the matter. Or actually, they were their thoughts on the matter, who knows how they think about it so many years later.

Of course, but this book is often very highly recommended, so I would tend to take its content to heart.

han said:

The same goes for your comment regarding the "empirical method we can use to try and decide which style suits our partnership". This is not rocket science, it's bridge. Shuffle and deal please!

Zelandakh said:

You have to have the mentality that the style is a long term winner and accidents happen.

I used to make a living out of people with a similar mentality. Let's say I misunderstand some concepts in R/S and habitually preempt on Jxxxx, and let's (for the sake of discussion) assume that this is always a bad (-EV) move. How can I figure this out if I keep chalking up the bad results to "meh, I probably have some good results to offset this"?

Zelandakh said:

My statistics say that the style is a real "bunny-killer"

This, precisely, is my other concern. I don't want to be a good club player, I want to play Bridge well. In chess, for instance, you can often do well by memorizing some offbeat openings and playing with short time controls. That can get you a high rating quickly, but it doesn't make you a good chess player.

[gwnn]

BTW they also overdo lebensohl situations in my experience.

[Zelandakh]

Antrax, on 2012-May-14, 03:25, said:

I used to make a living out of people with a similar mentality. Let's say I misunderstand some concepts in R/S and habitually preempt on Jxxxx, and let's (for the sake of discussion) assume that this is always a bad (-EV) move. How can I figure this out if I keep chalking up the bad results to "meh, I probably have some good results to offset this"?

The mentality is necessary at the table. As Yeti says the most common bad scores are where they guess to bid 4♥ over the preempt with, say, a combined 22 count that fits perfectly and make with the rest of the fiels in 2♥. You know you are getting a bad board, most likely a bottom. You have to be able to move right onto the next board and neither become too cautious nor try to make up for it.

Afterwards you can run the analysis on whether the bid was actually a good bet or not. It is a bit like going all-in on a bluff in poker. If they call you lose - what are the odds of them calling on the given range of hands they can hold? Difficult to tell perhaps - but what you can do is find patterns for when it works and when not. Not exactly a perfect analogy but nonetheless. Try it for a while and I daresay you will pretty quickly see the patterns, despite the noise, if you are running a full analysis each time.

Antrax, on 2012-May-14, 03:25, said:

This, precisely, is my other concern. I don't want to be a good club player, I want to play Bridge well. In chess, for instance, you can often do well by memorizing some offbeat openings and playing with short time controls. That can get you a high rating quickly, but it doesn't make you a good chess player.

Oh I know this well from chess too. I was a walking opening book on the Sicilian Dragon when I played. I had one league game which was "book" to around move 39 or so. The thing is this - I did not play the Dragon simply because I had better book theory than my opponents but rather because I knew that the type of positions I would get from it suited my style of play. Similarly for wide-ranging preempts. There are plenty of good players around who are great playing a safe, cautious style but find it difficult to cope with pressure bidding. Heck, even experts will sometimes struggle if they get bumped high enough, quickly enough.

By getting into accelerated auctions often you stack the game towards bidding decisions and judgement over cardplay. If this is your strong point then you are playing good bridge, even if this wuld be losing bridge for a different pair. On the other hand, if you find high level bidding decisions difficult and are an excellent card player then you would almost certainly be better off with a more conservative style. Again, try and create positions that are good for you and less good for your opponents. As a chess player I think you can understand this mentality better than anyone.

As an aside, you probably notice that my chess style (tactical and aggressive) matches my bridge style. I usually play poker the same way. Perhaps that means that this is more a factor of my personality than anything else. You may indeed also be able to learn something of your bridge personality through your choice of openings (and therefore middle game patterns) if you were playing chess at a high level.

[gnasher]

Antrax, on 2012-May-14, 00:33, said:

None vul, first seat
♠J632 ♥5 ♦K2 ♣KJ9862
Would you open this 3♣, as they advocate?

At favourable, ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94 in first seat?

It's interesting that people seem to dislike the second one more than the first. Personally I prefer the second: there's less risk that we can make game and more chance that the opponents can make game, and the vulnerability makes a big difference. Change the order of the suits to x Jxx xxxx QJ109x, and I might even do it.

Quote

In the second one, even if partner is in on the joke (so we don't wind up in the 5-level on a 9-card fit), it seems he can do nothing but pass whatever his hand is, no?

If so, that's not particularly a problem: the big gains from preempting are when the opponents get to the wrong contract because you took away their space for exploring. Finding a sacrifice is much less useful, because the potential gain is smaller and there is rarely certainty that sacrificing is correct. There's a reason that we call them "preempts" rather than "sacrifice suggestions".

[Cthulhu D]

paulg, on 2012-April-06, 01:58, said:

Love All in tennis probably originates from the time when we liked the French.

1065?

More seriously, Robson seems to still play in national events - does he still play this style? I think at the end of the day the point - about the need to show fit ASAP and judging double fits/ODR as key to taking the 5 level push etc are probably worth taking away even if you don't adopt his style.

[nige1]

Antrax, on 2012-April-06, 00:19, said:

I'm trying to go through it again (the first time I put it down because it was too advanced). It's going better, but still, some things I'm not sure about. First of all, why would jumps in competition be more useful as showing a second suit and not shortness? Let's say the auction is 1♠-(2♥). R/S advocate that 4♥ shows a good spade fit with short hearts, but 4♣/♦ show a good spade fit with a minor side-suit. However, in the uncontested auction, 1♠-(p)-4♣/♦ would show a spade fit with minor suit shortness. What's the rationale for this difference? Next, the auction is 1♠-(3♣). Your hand is ♠T64 ♥A53 ♦JT64 ♣53. They advocate 3♠. Isn't this going a bit far? Finally, the book often uses terms like "Game all" or "love all". I think it's some rubber bridge thingie, but what does it mean? Is it like vulnerability or parallel to it? What does it affect?

Antrax, on 2012-May-14, 00:33, said:

None vul, first seat. Would you open this 3♣, as they advocate? ♠J632 ♥5 ♦K2 ♣KJ9862
At favourable,in first seat? ♠7532 ♥J63 ♦4 ♣QJT94
A more general question, I mostly play MPs in an intermediate field (containing all flavours). Do you think it makes sense at all to try out the agreements detailed in the book, or will the noise factor from the randomness of the club players drown out an attempt to evaluate how well we're doing with those agreements?

"Partnership Bidding" is clear as pea-soup but tastes delicious. Chaotic and opaque but brilliant. Their new terms like "Offence/defence ratio" and "Assumed fit" facilitate conceptualisation and discussion.

"Game all" and "Love all" are UK (tennis) terms that permit two-letter abbreviations for all vuls (NS, EW, LA, and GA) . I prefer old-fashioned Traffic-light jargon;

• Green (They vul)
• White (None vul)
• Amber (Both vul) and
• Red (We vul)

Justin's argument is powerful but I still prefer splinters to fit-jumps. Robson and Segal themselves admit that there is a slight problem with fit-jumps. Typically you have four-card support for partner and a good five or six-card suit of your own. It makes quite a difference to your ODR (offence/defence ratio) whether your suit is headed by the ace or not,

Antrax's examples

• ♠ T643 ♥ A53 ♦ JT64 ♣ 53: (assuming the missing card was a extra trump) after 1♠ (3♣) ?? IMO 3♠ is reasonable in an attempt to shut out opponent's assumed ♥ fit . Although, you could argue, on Robson-Segal principles, that when LHO is made aware of your ♠ fit, paradoxically, it is safer for him to bid, even at the higher level. Hence, IMO, 4♠ is a reasonable alternative!
• ♠ J632 ♥ 5 ♦ K2 ♣ KJ9862: None vul, first seat Would you open this 3♣, as they advocate? IMO Yes and Zia would approve too. If you occasionally pre-empt with a non-classical shape and scattered honours, it harder for a skilled declarer to use judo techniques on your partner. Reese famously said "A pre-empt that is known to be weak is a blunt sword".
• ♠ 7532 ♥ 63 ♦ 4 ♣ QJT94: Pre-empt 3♣ at favourable,in first seat? IMO this is a NO-NO for a professional player because, as Justin points out, rivals will ignore successful outcomes and concentrate on the occasional -1100. Nevertheless, Cohen and Berkowitz demonstrate, but few ordinary players have taken on board, that Bridge is a game of bluff

I concede that Antrax's examples are more pertinent to match-pointed pairs than teams.