[Winstonm]

Question for JLall:

In your methods, aren't you forced to open 1N as 1C-1S-2C is Rolling Keycard Gerber?

Winston

[Winstonm]

Hannie, on Feb 26 2006, 06:17 PM, said:

I don't castigate Bob for his convictions and neither did Hrothgar.

It his style that I dislike so much. It is his preaching style and it is his brown-nosing.

As with any social interaction, learning the society's rules goes a long way toward deflecting ill-feelings. IMO and IMHO are always good starting points - IMHO.

Speaking of which, this past weekend I got the chance to ask Bob Hamman a question about a bidding sequence. He gave me his views and ended by saying, "But those are just my opinions. That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee."

Nice to see even the greats of the game recognize other views.

Winston

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Feb 27 2006, 03:45 AM, said:

Nice to see even the greats of the game recognize other views.

Just to clarify: It sounds like you're asking me to be tolerant and accept BobH2's right to be intolerant. Sorry, but I'm not that “good” a person.

For better or worse, Bob made a blanket statement that his way is the only way to play quality bridge. This is highly annoying. Even on those occasions where where the person making the statement is factually correct, this type of behavior tends to piss people off. Pull this type of crap in situations that are (at best) ambiguous and folks are going to call you on it.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2006, 09:59 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 27 2006, 03:45 AM, said:

Nice to see even the greats of the game recognize other views.

Just to clarify: It sounds like you're asking me to be tolerant and accept BobH2's right to be intolerant. Sorry, but I'm not that “good” a person.

For better or worse, Bob made a blanket statement that his way is the only way to play quality bridge. This is highly annoying. Even on those occasions where where the person making the statement is factually correct, this type of behavior tends to piss people off. Pull this type of crap in situations that are (at best) ambiguous and folks are going to call you on it.

No. What I was saying is that it would be nice to see Bob place an IMO after or before his thoughts as I know him well enough to realize that he recognizes that Bob Hamman and Justin Lall are superior players and if they believe offshape no trumps are right then he would accept that premise - but I'm just as convinced that he believes for players of lesser caliber it is better to stay within a more structured system. I'm not here to put words in his mouth or speak for him but I can tell you from knowing him so long that he when he wrote what he did he was thinking of intermediate types who wish to play with better players - a good player, seeing an intermediate opening a 5431 pattern 1N, might think that player unskilled rather than being the next Hamman/Lall, so for that reason it would be best to stay structured initially. When one reaches the point of playing with a Justin or a Hamman, then it is entirely a matter of judgment.

When you teach intermediates you tend to get simplistic - if you give them sharper tools they tend to cut off their own toes.

Winston

[bobh2]

Well, I guess it's time for me to take some pressure off of Winston and wade into this to defend myself. Hard to believe that what I said caused that snarling.

I guess I had best issue a disclaimer. What I have to say is both simply my opinion, and is usually stated, tongue-in-cheek. I consider "my opinion" on about anything worth considering, but I sure don't consider is "The Gospel", particularly on bridge. There are some people who will get a lot closer to "The Gospel" than I ever could...Bob Hamman is certainly one of those. Bobby Goldman reaches that in my books too. I had the "pleasure" of getting just run over by those two in Dallas in the late 60's when both of them were members of the Dallas Aces.

That said, I'm not in the mood to back up much. In the first place, you guys ought to realize that you are putting those opinions in the Beginner/Intermediate area. Teaching them to open 1n on hands with stiff Aces has some potential to do some real damage. Instead of their partner being able to see that they had a difficult and rare problem, their partner is going to mark them as "untrustworthy" and if they are playing with a better player, they are going to get no tolerance...they are going to get screamed at. Bridge players haven't changed since I was learning by getting pounded by the Aces...it's just quieter at the table and you can't smoke, either.

Next issue: I thought this was a forum, where opinions were placed for discussion and debate. I honestly think Hannie and Hrothgar need to pick up a sense of humor somewhere. Personally, an opinion that is defensible, issued with an interesting turn of phrasing appeals to me, evidently not to them, and all of the sudden, there is whining about style of writing by Hrothgar and an even lower level of personal attack by Hannie. What is the matter with you guys? How about, "I disagree with Bob and here's why"? Oh, I know, it requires a willingness to deal with a subject in a logical manner, which in turn, requires some expenditure of mental energy.

Hrothgar, I really take exception to your comment about what I say being unseemly. I am trying to help some folks learn to play at a level that they can be proud of themselves in their knowledge. This occurs when they handle something right...when they know what they are doing. In my opinion, the most help they need is solid basics. That's where I spend my time. It gives me a charge seeing them become "adept". I take the time to work on their game, item by item in classes, I play with them, in groups or individually, I watch them and make suggestions that I think will help. I talk to them, answering questions as best as I can. I give them my opinion and they find that my opinion is usually functional. All of that is completely free. I do that because I want to give something back to the game that I have enjoyed so much for a half-century. For the record, I do charge a very nominal fee for drill work...trying to straighten out one individual's misconceptions or lack of knowledge, not that that is any of your business. So I ask you, why whine at me? What are YOU doing for the beginners/intermediates/semi-advanced players who thirst for knowledge?

Hannie, you get some of this too, starting with style. How do you propose to tell Joe Newbie that 4 points in Jacks are not worth anywhere close to the value of one Ace? Say, well, yeah, that's that, but there's this, and maybe something otherwise? Joe Newbie needs to understand a lot of things, and if he is going to remember them (maybe you have forgotten how much "stuff" you have to remember to get through one simple hand), he needs to know WHY. Then he needs repetition. And concerning preaching...weaseling doesn't get it. The other thing that galls me is your "brown-nosing" comment. I guess you fall under that same heading as Hrothgar...you are not willing to turn on the brainpower and debate and argue and fuss and present different viewpoints, so you resort to name-calling and slurs. Further, the only thing that I said that might have any basis at all in fact was a compliment I gave to both Justin Lall and Winston Munn. Winston is my regular partner and best friend, I have a ton of good things to say about him, but I'll betcha that was pointed to my comment about saying Justin knows what he is talking about. Is it brown-nosing to be nice? What is the matter with that? Just so you'll know, I have known Justin's Dad for longer than Justin has been breathing, and I played with Justin on okb when his age was in single digits. Brown-nosing? Hardly! Maybe you need to be concerned that if you say something nice about people you like and admire, it might be taken as brown-nosing, but I don't. I think I'll just treat those people just like I truely feel, and rock on down the road. You really need to rethink your attitude on some things.

Having digressed, I'll recap for you, to allieviate the memory strain. To help people get a good, solid grip on the game, you don't teach them to open nt bids with stiff Aces. You try to get them to understand that nt bids are based on flattish hands. Duh. You know top notch players solve some difficult problems with some imagination, which is part of what makes them top notch players, but you don't teach people who are learning the game that that is the best way. They will do what you tell them relentlessly...and stay in the soup pot. You aren't helping.

Oh, yeah, I forgot something. I have an open policy, as in anytime, anywhere...that if someone wants to present their point of view in the classes I teach, with the idea that I am teaching something wrong (Hrothgar referred to "problematical", but didn't seem to be willing to clarify, for some reason), I am perfectly willing to debate anything. All I ask is that the people interested in learning the game learn something from the debate.

Bob Holmes (bobh2)

[Chamaco]

Winstonm, on Feb 27 2006, 04:14 AM, said:

but I'm just as convinced that he believes for players of lesser caliber it is better to stay within a more structured system. 

.......

a good player, seeing an intermediate opening a 5431 pattern 1N, might think that player unskilled rather than being the next Hamman/Lall, so for that reason it would be best to stay structured initially.

.......

When you teach intermediates you tend to get simplistic - if you give them sharper tools they tend to cut off their own toes.

Winston

I agree with this view.

The point is, there are a lot of *real* experts (not to be confused with BBO experts) who gets annoyed when a BIL player tries to "be smart".

Bidding offshape, and other deviation from mainstream, is most often viewed by such players as "masterminding" rather than "subtle hand evaluation".

In other words, until you are not recognized as a good player, trying to adopt offbeat paths is the best way towards being labeled of the "Futile Willie" type among the circle of local top players, who usually try to avoid as hell such players type.

So I agree with Winston here: a good BIL instructor must be practical above all.
Sound foundations, even with some "hardcore principle".
Might sound like preaching sometimes, but beginning players need some hardcore basic principles at first, before they start learning when to break the rules aand find the "exceptions".

Once one gets good, or at least he has a solid partnership where mutual trust is not broken by frequent offbeat choices, then all is well...

[cherdano]

bobh2, on Feb 27 2006, 01:26 PM, said:

That said, I'm not in the mood to back up much. In the first place, you guys ought to realize that you are putting those opinions in the Beginner/Intermediate area. Teaching them to open 1n on hands with stiff Aces has some potential to do some real damage. Instead of their partner being able to see that they had a difficult and rare problem, their partner is going to mark them as "untrustworthy" and if they are playing with a better player, they are going to get no tolerance...they are going to get screamed at. Bridge players haven't changed since I was learning by getting pounded by the Aces...it's just quieter at the table and you can't smoke, either.

This is not my world. In my world, when a B/I player gives his rebidding problem thought and opens 1N to avoid it, his more experienced partner will appreciate it. And anyway, if a B/I player gets screamed at for making a certain bid, he should be happy to have found out he/she should find another player.

Maybe this is my main problem with your preaching. You are trying to teach strict rules; this gives safety because whatever bad happens when you have followed the rules, it's not your fault, but the rules' fault. When instead you try to think on your own, it's all your responsibility when it goes wrong. Still, that's the way to learn IMHO.

Arend

[hrothgar]

Whining? That's a new one. Normally when people criticize my demeanor they use words like arrogant or asshole. But not whiny... Oh well, on to more substantive things

>Hrothgar referred to "problematical", but didn't seem to be willing to clarify, for some reason

I'm sure that members of the peanut gallery can point to a number of examples where rather questionable advice was presented as dogma. I'll point to a few examples that I found interesting for one reason or another. From my perspective, the most problematic issue during your lectures is your assumption of double dummy defense on hands that you want to go down, while assuming much more lax defense on hands that you want to make. You consistently bias your analysis to justify the outcomes that you like.

The same lecture informed us that after the auction 1S – (P) – 2S, slam is virtually impossible and that slam exploration isn't a consideration in follow-up bidding.

As a final example. Responder holds

987
K75
JT83
QJT

The auction started

1S – 1N
2H – 2S
3C

Following the 3C bid, responder advanced with 4S, reaching a rather poor game. You criticized the 4S bid, stating that responder held a minimum 1NT advance. From my perspective, you missed the crucial issue: Responder limited his hand once with 1NT and a second time with 2S. Knowing this, opener still made a 3C advance. Within the context of the previous bidding, responder has a clear maximum. He has a third trump and all of his HCP are working.

>What are YOU doing for the beginners/intermediates/semi-advanced players who thirst
>for knowledge?

I rarely give lessons to BIL players. Given my idiosyncratic views on bidding, this is probably the best contribution that I can make. With this said and done, I have put an awful lot of work into documenting a good set of notes on MOSCITO and symmetric relay. Many people think that I have the definitive “book” on this topic and a lot of players use my notes to learn the system. I recognize that this really has nothing to do with “Bridge” as played in the United States, but its the area where I think I can best provide some value.

[luke warm]

it seems to me that the combatants in this exchange are coming at the problem from 2 (or more) bridge "worldviews"... what arend and han call preaching, bob calls teaching... the worldview of bob is focused on players who need and have not a good foundation... the worldview of others is that most BIL players have that foundation and are in a sound enough position to exercise bridge judgment and logic... i'm not sure that's necessarily true

if an intermedicate player, such as myself, opens the occasional offshape 1nt, i would expect my regular group of friends/partners/opponents to understand that my foundation is maybe sound enough to warrant the bid... i would be forgiven when such a bid didn't work out (usually), because those with whom i play recognize and understand rebid problems... even so, i wouldn't make a habit of it

i also think that, while it's true this is a forum and people can't be criticized for offering opinions in forums, ad hominem remarks have no place in anything resembling a debate... points aren't awarded (or shouldn't be) for anything other than logic... all those posting possess above average intelligence, verbal, and bridge skills, which means the logic of their positions should stand or fall on their merits

[Sigi_BC84]

cherdano, on Feb 27 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

Maybe this is my main problem with your preaching. You are trying to teach strict rules; this gives safety because whatever bad happens when you have followed the rules, it's not your fault, but the rules' fault. When instead you try to think on your own, it's all your responsibility when it goes wrong. Still, that's the way to learn IMHO.

Fair enough, but he is also saying:

Bob said:

Top notch players solve some difficult problems with some imagination, which is part of what makes them top notch players, but you don't teach people who are learning the game that that is the best way. They will do what you tell them relentlessly...and stay in the soup pot. You aren't helping.

Safety is the most important thing for a beginning player. The game is much too complex to bother people who just begin to understand the foundations of bidding theory with ideas that go against anything they have learned before. The beginner gets safety from having a mentor he or she can trust and listen to -- and I think it's a really good idea to just follow the "rules" your mentor has given you until you begin to understand what's going on. This usually takes quite a long time playing Bridge unless you are very gifted and put a lot of time into the game.

Stating that this gives you an easy way to blame any accident on the rules is very simplistic. A good teacher will tell you that on a given hand a deviation from the rules would have been appropriate, and after you've played enough of these hands you will be ready to deviate more freely from the beaten track.

If you chose to learn the game on your own and if you are in the lucky position to be surrounded by experts who readily bear with your experimental style, you don't have to listen to "solid teachers" like Bob. You being an exceptional player in this regard doesn't make the tried-and-true teaching style of the likes of Bob wrong.

I have read a few of Bob's articles and I must say that I really like them. They are just about right for players at the intermediate skill level.

--Sigi

[pclayton]

I suppose if I was teaching a BIL class I would advocate a 1♣ opener followed by a 2♣ rebid.

If an 'enlightened' student mentions that:

1) 2♣ usually shows around 11-15 and the subject hand has 16;

2) 2♣ also usually shows a 6 card suit.

3) Perhaps a 1♥ (followed by 2♣) or a 1♦ (followed by 2♣) or even a 1N opening might be a 'lesser lie' than a 2♣ rebid.

I would respond in private: You have an excellent grasp of the concepts of basic bidding by anticipating your rebid later. This class is probably too basic for you.

In public chat, I would say, the alternates are certainly possible, and the rationale behind these strategies is beyond the scope of this class. If you wish to discuss these ideas, talk to me later.....

[han]

People who discuss whether intermediate players should be handed simple rules or not are missing the point of my critique. I suspect that these people have not visited Bob's lessons.

Here is an excerpt from Bob's first lesson on game tries. The lesson was well planned. He had people bid hands, every auction was supposed to start with 1S-2S, after which opener would make a natural game try.

I sat down and picked up Jxx KQ109x xx xx. Partner (a good player and recent Vugraph commentator) opened 1S, I bid 2S, partner bid 3H, I bid 4H, partner bid 4S.

Bob: "You cannot bid 4H here, 4H is a slam try."

Han: "Oh, I intended 4H as a place to play, the 5-4 fit.."

Bob: "No, when the auction starts with 1S-2S then you are going to play in spades,.."

Other student: "But 4H is a much much better contract"

Bob: "Stop!"

Bob: "People, listen to me, you might actually learn something!! When the auction starts 1S-2S then you are going to play in spades, this is SET IN STONE. So 4H is a slam try, and this hand is not worth a slam try."


This went on and on. The audience consisted for about 50% of people who called themselves advanced (including myself). Every time someone disagreed with Bob's opinion (not unlikely, since his opinions can be quite controversial) we were told that his opinion is Set IN Stone and that we should listen to him.

Bob used a similar tone in his post on this thread, read it again and perhaps you can hear it too.

[Sigi_BC84]

Hannie, on Feb 27 2006, 06:28 PM, said:

Bob: "People, listen to me, you might actually learn something!! When the auction starts 1S-2S then you are going to play in spades, this is SET IN STONE. So 4H is a slam try, and this hand is not worth a slam try."

This went on and on. The audience consisted for about 50% of people who called themselves advanced (including myself). Every time someone disagreed with Bob's opinion (not unlikely, since his opinions can be quite controversial) we were told that his opinion is Set IN Stone and that we should listen to him.

That doesn't sound like much fun. An explanation for his behaviour might be that he was afraid to lose control over his carefully prepared lesson if other people (or students even) start to propose different methods to approach the hand.

It would certainly be interesting to hear his own position.

--Sigi

[bobh2]

Well, one issue at a time:

Chamaco has it about pegged. If you really get into the game, and the people you become friends with are trying as hard as they can to understand, just as you are, all of you will be reading, talking, arguing, pushing, and pulling, trying to get just one thing right, out of several kabillion. You'll try to pick the minds of people who seem to know what they are doing, and you'll spend tons of money on books. All of that. What you will learn after going through the same process but different situations, is that the "middle-of-the-road" conclusions will work almost all of the time, and once in a while, out of the corner of your eye, you'll spot something wierd...a way to deal with an odd problem that doesn't quite fit the mold. What you do about it depends on how big your curiosity bump is. Nobody, me in the forefront, says that working out how to deal with the small percentage situations is wrong. There is a problem, however. You may be able to spot those, and determine that they are "different" from the norm.

What I am dealing with is a lot of people who want to learn to play. I want them to learn to play, too. (I started to type this, but in the interest of harmony...lol..) In my opinion, for whatever that is worth, when Joe Bridge Player, a beginner/intermediate/advanced(try defining that one) player, is trying to get a real mountain of information so he can use it to feel comfortable, as opposed to a wrung out dishrag, he needs to know what usually will work and what he won't look like a bumbling idiot doing. As he reads and starts to understand, there are a whole lot of ways to skin a cat at bridge, but he needs to have that middle ground solid. That said, all you have to do is hang around people trying to get there and if you are paying attention, you are going to see some things you won't believe. This has to do with practical application of knowledge. Example: Hannie was talking about the bidding drill I was overseeing, with the auctions starting 1s-2s. Yeah, I know, as well as you do that if opener now rebids 3H and responder rebids 4H, there is a good chance that Hearts, not Spades is the best trump suit. On the other hand, suppose one of these folks has just read about "advance Q bids", more likely here, Joe doesn't really know what 3H means? Or he is totally unclear about when to bid 3H as a long suit game try or rebid 3S as a general power game try? All of this stuff gets wound up in a knot. Joe doesn't know, he hasn't got a good enough grasp on the basics to know. My response: (some things understood, without being nitpicked). Spades are trumps (understood to mean: at your skill level and experience). The quote, "Written in Stone" (understood to mean: at your skill level and experience). Hyperbole is a classic way to make a strong point. (Exceptions understood...there are exceptions to exactly everything at bridge). Joe needs to understand that he can count on something, spades being trumps. This his partner is not going to strand him if he trots out a Q bid on a void. (The question here is not when the last time this happened to you, but how many times has it happened when you were sorting this stuff out?). Joe doesn't realize yet, that for certain sure, 1s-3s-4H is a Q bid. If he learns that 1s-2s-3H-4H is a way to find a different trump suit, what about 1s-3s-4h?

All I try to do is get people "about right", when they are all over the lot. Down the road, they can explore the odd things, it's certainly a treat waiting for them. Getting bent out of shape about the way I make a point is strange...you say middle-of-the-road isn't always the best place. I agree. But how about getting them "on the road, at all" before worrying about worrying about skirting the edges?

Re: Cherdano's note: I learned to play in a different world than that. My ears, in f2f games or online, tell me nothing has changed. What I see (and hear) is people catching hell from more experienced players because "they were too stupid" to make "normal" bids. Do you really think that most bridge players have the good humor, patience, and understanding to appreciate a lesser experienced player trying to figure out a solution to a problem at the table, getting a zero (or losing 12 IMP) because that inexperienced player spotted one of those non-middle-of-the-road hands and did his best to deal with it? Yeah, right! Dreamer. IMHO (see? there I go again), get 'em up and running...pointed in the best direction with all the wheels touching the ground, we'll teach 'em how to deal with the hairpin curves later. If they are off target to start (and how many teachers do you know, online or off take the time to reach critical depths before going on to the next item of business? If you try teaching, it will dawn on you that your students or you might die of old age before you get enough covered for them to have any fun at all), they will never need to know the nifty little things, they will wipe out on the flat, dry straighaways.

Re Hrothgar's note: You try flash analyzing 50 hands an hour, while monitoring bidding woes, and answering questions at the same time. See how perfect your analysis is. Again, a way to get it close to right, that's all.

On the example you gave, we obviously have a different concept of how good those bids are. We also have different opinions about how much Q's and J's contribute to game contracts as well as how little 4333 patterns contribute. There seems to be a problem, too, with which partner should be aggressive when needed, too. Those problems are certainly debatable, and while from a "pure bridge" standpoint, I am not saying that this is the Word, from a "teaching folks how to get close" standpoint, this is my best opinion. Frankly, I wouldn't bid game on that hand if you held a gun to my head. That said, and that strongly, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that 30% the time, it made. And, if it made 50% of the time, my best opinion is that you are missing games by not making aggressive enough games with opener's hands, far too often.


re Lukewarm's input: I think he is right, about the world view. I "know" this because I play with the folks who attend my lectures, I watch them play, all of that. Want an example: I put together a team game of attendees. I kinds just stuck them in slots, no real organized partnerships. 6 boards. They swung a ton of IMPs...seems like 60? Yeah, I know, brilliancies can occur...opening leads, slams, etc. Guess again. Virtually all were mistakes, easy to spot and easy to avoid with full control of "The Basics".

re Sigi's note: First I dont like "rules". Reason why? A newer player cannot remember 'em all. They get lost in the deep blue of all the other rules. People get things muddled together, misremembered, messing with rules. My approach is to pick one subject....Hannie mentioned he was there with game tries over major openings. We have first discussed how to evaluate cards, one at time, then how to evaluate hands, where the cards are residing (go read the notes) exhaustively. Then we discussed the how's and whys of a 1-2 raise, and finally got to game tries, a logical next step. Using what we learned before, we discussed game tries until I just ran out of things to say, and we went to the partnership bidding room, where I had set up constraits for the random hand generator. The object was to put all this theory to work, and the key to that is see a lot of hands go by. We applied this as best we could, under the idea of "experience is the best teacher" and I pointed out, while whizzing by hands, admittedly. There's not enough time in any one session to hammer in the points about game tries, and discuss defense too...just not enough...you try it, it's impossible. You gotta narrow your focus and get one thing right...next time, another thing right, and right to me doesn't mean memorizing rules. It means digging down real deep and truely understanding why. It also means, that for now, without the experience to grasp it all, my students can get it right most of the time, and in particular, not shooting their own toes off.


Last comment: I missed responding to this, and Hrothgar commented on it, as an example of something wrong I said, I suppose, but didn't go into any detail. He correctly reported that I said that the auction of 1s-2s precluded slam possibilities. I did, and here is why I said that:

1. I'll mention one more time the concept of getting newer players in position to do reasonably well. With practice and time, they can get to pretty decent. If their basics are strong, they have a chance of getting beyond that. Any step beyond that, however, they will see that there are strange things lurking about the edges of what they have worked so hard to learn...little exceptions to exactly everything.

We both know you can concoct "magic hands" that the hands that start an auction of 1s-2s can make a slam. That is true, no problem at all with that. The problem I have is the math, and your use of it to take potshots. So, like luke said, let logic prevail. In my not real humble opinion, you either are being a s***-disturber or you just haven't thought about this at all. Consider: A 1s bid is not a 2c bid. Therefore, it is limited, by your defination of the strength/loser count of 2c. My concept of standard bidding is, after a few years of playing, that 2c is not a game force, but with a one-suiter, being within one trick of game, and as the hand gets better, in terms of losers and high cards, it's more and more likely to be opened 2c. So, for arguments' sake, let's assume a 1s bid is limited to...er....21 points...say maybe even 22 if mostly soft values. Let's say that a 2s raise is limited to 9 high cards, that's about standard, I think. Do the math. 30-31 highs, total. Did you notice that, without extraordinary distribution, along with both partners having all they can have, the very most, you don't have a slam. It takes something rare and special for this to occur over 1s-2s. I think, so far, this is hard to argue with, after all, it is sorta a basic of the "approach-forcing" concept of bidding, a very old term dealing with how we bid standard and 2/1, today.

Why is that? Because very, very good bidders, with today's modern tools, probably won't be able to bid more than 1 of 20 of those hands. Don't like that estimate? Go to a Regional, and read the score sheets. Add up the 480's and 680's where that score is consistant and see how many times the obviously making slam got bid. So, 1 of 20, 1 of 10, who cares? 1 of 20 might be high, I donno. Now, take all the other times the bidding got started 1s-2s. How many times is this auction going to produce 12 tricks? My experience says about 1 in a thousand, maybe worse. Let's get real frisky, and say 1 of 500. So, being very conservative with my argument, 1 of 500 hands work and of those 500, one of ten has any shot at getting bid......my math says that 1 of 5000 occurrances, what does yours say? So...I tell beginners/intermediates/advanced players to forget the slam over 1Major-2Major? Why, it's got a shot, once in 5000 hands...how remiss of me. And that's assuming players who can play the shine off a ceramic plate. Hmmmmm...and you think I ought to retract what I said? Not on your life. This leaves me with a question, Hrothgar. Do you ever really consider what you say, or do you just babble something out there and see if anybody pays any attention to it?

Let me make a suggestion: Rather than making this personal, how about saying, "Bob said thus-and-so". I disagree, and here's why". Is that too tuff? Then, if I chose, could rebut your argument, and you could clarify, if you chose, and at some point, we'd probably run out of logical stuff to say. At that point, any interested parties could read both of our positions and think hard and decide what makes the best sense to them. Regardless of which side they took, they'd learn a whole lot about the subject, which is, after all, the point, I think.

A bonus might be to stop the counter-productive stuff, which I am willing to do, and which I resort to when pushed on. The bonus for you might be that you aren't doing too well with it, messing with me, and you could stand a break from the verbal drubbing (See what I mean, I say crap like that when irritated?). (All of that is tongue-in-cheek, just trying to make a point...debate is fine, shovelling crap is just a waste of time).

Bob

[HeartA]

Jlall, on Feb 14 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

I find reversing with this hand to be disgusting. Stiff in partners suit and a horrible anchor suit. Sometimes we must reverse or jumpshift with a subpar anchor suit, but I would not stretch to do so.

As for passing a forcing "but weakish" bid, that does not exist. Forcing is forcing. I would rebid 2S on KQJxxx AQx AQx x for instance. Passing a forcing bid opposite an unlimited partner is not bridge and you will be out a lot of partners if you bid this way. Next time partner has a good hand with 5 or 6 spades he will wonder whether he can afford to rebid 2S or if it will be passed.

agree with Justin.

[han]

Bob,

After visiting your lesson I wrote a very angry post here, but I never pushed "add reply" because I figured that this was not the correct place for my critique, nor was I the person to say something about your teaching.

I think your lessons are well thought out and you clearly invest a lot of time teaching students. I know from several of your students how much they gain from these lessons, and that your extensive lesson notes are a great help to them. Your style of teaching is working for them.

I only have a problem with the condecending tone that I found very offensive during the lesson I visited, and your post in this thread brought back the same feeling.

At least I now understand why you said things the way you did.

[hrothgar]

I think that my objection with the lesson style is the notion that anything should be "Written in Stone". I'm skeptical regarding the benefits of a "rules based" teaching style for novice players. I think that its actively detrimental for an Intermediate / Advance audience. In theory, players at this level should be capable of thinking and reasoning rather than relying on rote memorization to solve all of their problems.

More significantly, using a "Set in Stone" rules based approach is going to cause enormous difficulty if some people happen to disagree with your rules. Case in point: You are teaching that the auction 1♠ - 2♠ precludes slam. You justify this by assuming that a 1♠ opening is limited to 21 points or so. This might be reasonable if we limited ourselves to considering balanced or single suited hands. However, there is another school of thought that believes that two suited hands should be opened with a natural bid rather than 2♣ whenever possible. Some of those 5-5s have enormous playing strength. I think that its a big mistake to resolve this problem by sweeping it under the rug and asserting that "my way is set in stone".

Please note: When your "Set in Stone" rule set simultaneously maintains that

1. Slam is impossible after 1S - 2S
2. The auction 1S - 2S - 3H - 4H is a slam try

People are going to question your credibility

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Mar 2 2006, 05:09 AM, said:

Bob, I agree with (almost) everything you said. Gotta learn the rules before you learn the exceptions.

There are, I believe, two schools of thought about this.

School 1 says you should learn things are they are. That is, include exceptions from the beginning.

School 2 says you should make things easy on people before indulging into more complicated matters. This means teaching rules and only afterwards deal with exceptions.

I don't know much more about it, though. Personally I prefer the ways of school 1, but can understand other people fare better learning through school 2 methods.

[Sigi_BC84]

bobh2, on Mar 2 2006, 04:10 AM, said:

[...]
experience).  The quote, "Written in Stone" (understood to mean:  at your skill level and experience).  Hyperbole is a classic way to make a strong point.  re Sigi's
[...]
note:  First I dont like "rules".  Reason why?  A newer player cannot remember 'em all.  They get lost in the deep blue of all the other rules.  People get things muddled together, misremembered, messing with rules.  My approach is to pick one subject
[...]

Alright, you don't like rules but you present stuff as being "written in stone". At that very moment you are presenting a hard-and-fast rule to your students (which they might keep as a nursery rhyme for a long time, especially since you seem to know quite well how to hammer things down).

So you are clearly contradicting yourself here. I think that rules are good for the beginning player, if they are presented to him/her in a context that explains the whys and hows and (importantly!) hints at possible exceptions from the rules that may be made. But we do not disagree in that point if I understood correctly what you said about teaching a single topic in depth and then make the students apply their knowledge (== the new "rules").

Quote

ought to retract what I said?  Not on your life.  This leaves me with a question, Hrothgar.  Do you ever really consider what you say, or do you just babble something out there and see if anybody pays any attention to it?

I think it's obvious that Richard (hrothgar) is a very smart and considerate individual; most of his contributions to this forum are of tremendous insight and quality in my eyes. Same applies to the system notes he has published (well, publish might be an exaggeration :-). Most importantly he usually gets straight to the point where it is due (i.e. most of the time). You are doing him very wrong with your remark.

Hannie, please apologize my brown-nosing...

--Sigi