[kenrexford]

A friend of mine once sat down years ago at a table in a club game with a friend who had a great sense of humor and an equal level of general bridge acumen. He pre-alerted that they were playing the Xango Club system (no such beat). The opponents just asked that they alert everything. So, one of them opened 2♥.

This was alerted as showing 6-7 spades and at most two hearts (a correct guess). After a double, Responder bid 3♦, alerted as denying seven diamonds (could have more or less, just not seven -- correct again). Advancer bid 3NT, doubled. This was alerted as showing the AQxxxxx of spades (correct). This double was left in by Responder, with the pass alerted as asking for a club lead (correct again). The director was called, and there is more hilarity to the story, but the point was that the guessing was more likely to be right than random because of some general bridge principles and the expectations of the predispositions and humor of each person's partner, and the needs of the developing auction.

On a similar note, I once played in a midnight game with a guy I had never played with before. I knew that he had a strange strong club homespun system with weird two-level openings. We discussed opening bids for his system, just opening bids, and then played. He had mentioned that the follow-ups were intricate; I responded, "Great! Let's do that then" and we played without further discussion. We each guessed what the other would think a particular bid meant, often using either-or meanings that catered to different possibilities, and won the event.

On a more practical question. Given auctions and decisions occur all the time where discussion has not occurred. How do most people decide when a call is "too esoteric" to pull on partner? If you think it is too esoteric, but partner does not, then he may take a false inference. If you think it should be read but partner does not, similar problem. Simply going passive, then, is no solution.

Just curious about others' thoughts on this.

[han]

I don't believe your stories. I'm not claiming that you are lying.. just saying that I don't think the stories are true.

[pclayton]

Some players are very adaptable in this regard. I could sit down with some players and say "Manley - Berkowitz precision", "Hardy 2/1", or "Aces Scientific" without any other discussion and expect to have a reasonable game.

My regular partner has a real penchant for remembering certain sequences. If it comes up once, and we discuss it, it will be ingrained in our agreements. I try to keep our syste notes current, but this is a hassle sometimes.

So what's "too" esoteric? Certainly your empathetic splinters (or whatever you called them) would qualify without prior discussion.

I appreciate it when partners try to improvise. Had a sequence here last week:

(1N) - dbl - (pass) - 2C
pass - 2N

We were playing Meckwell where dbl shows one minor or both majors. Any guess what 2N shows?

[pbleighton]

I once read that you should "never test partner".

Works for me.

Peter

[pclayton]

pbleighton, on Feb 9 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

I once read that you should "never test partner".

Works for me.

Peter

This makes sense in a rubber game with a partner thats an unknown quanity. SJ Simon would certainly agree.

With someone thats intelligent, I think you are doing your partnership a disservice by not trusting your partner to figure out what a certain call means.

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on Feb 9 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

I once read that you should "never test partner".

Works for me.

Peter

Dang it.... never test partner, I thought the saying was never trust partner... now that you help me understand it, maybe my game will improve.

[kenrexford]

Hannie, on Feb 9 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

I don't believe your stories. I'm not claiming that you are lying.. just saying that I don't think the stories are true.

I cannot vouch for the first, as it might be a fish tale.

The second is not that bizarre, considering Midnight Swiss realities and beer.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Feb 9 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

Some players are very adaptable in this regard. I could sit down with some players and say "Manley - Berkowitz precision", "Hardy 2/1", or "Aces Scientific" without any other discussion and expect to have a reasonable game.

My regular partner has a real penchant for remembering certain sequences. If it comes up once, and we discuss it, it will be ingrained in our agreements. I try to keep our syste notes current, but this is a hassle sometimes.

So what's "too" esoteric? Certainly your empathetic splinters (or whatever you called them) would qualify without prior discussion.

I appreciate it when partners try to improvise. Had a sequence here last week:

(1N) - dbl - (pass) - 2C
pass - 2N

We were playing Meckwell where dbl shows one minor or both majors. Any guess what 2N shows?

This is interesting.

As I understand Meckwell, 1NT-2NT shows a strong major two-suiter, so that is not possible.

I also thought that 1NT-X might also me an unbiddable strong hand, usually unbalanced. The most logical assumption, then, is that 1NT-X-P-2♣-P-2NT shows a strong hand (duh), but what about shape? The logical assumption I'd make is strong minors, the least biddable Meckwell holding.

[han]

kenrexford, on Feb 9 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Hannie, on Feb 9 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

I don't believe your stories. I'm not claiming that you are lying.. just saying that I don't think the stories are true.

I cannot vouch for the first, as it might be a fish tale.

The second is not that bizarre, considering Midnight Swiss realities and beer.

I agree, the first one is definitely far more bizarre.

Now more seriously, I think your question is a good one. I agree that it depends very much on what you know of partner (and what you know partner knows of you) but it also depends on the game you are playing in. For example, when doing practice bidding I like to make some "esoteric" calls that I would not make when something is at stake (for example, a splinter in a suit bid naturally by partner), just so that we can discuss the calls afterwards.

Some might do this in a club game too, but I prefer not to for two reasons. One is that I think it is a good habit always to try to win. If I make the same calls as I would in a "big game", partner will know what to expect then.

The other reason is that I hope that the other people in the room are playing serious bridge (not to confuse with good bridge) so I feel obligated to do the same thing. I consider the behavior in your first story unethical. The pair in question might think that the club game is not important and so they can fool around, but for other people in the room it might be an important game. It would be interesting to hear if other people also consider this unethical.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Feb 9 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 9 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Hannie, on Feb 9 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

I don't believe your stories. I'm not claiming that you are lying.. just saying that I don't think the stories are true.

I cannot vouch for the first, as it might be a fish tale.

The second is not that bizarre, considering Midnight Swiss realities and beer.

I agree, the first one is definitely far more bizarre.

Now more seriously, I think your question is a good one. I agree that it depends very much on what you know of partner (and what you know partner knows of you) but it also depends on the game you are playing in. For example, when doing practice bidding I like to make some "esoteric" calls that I would not make when something is at stake (for example, a splinter in a suit bid naturally by partner), just so that we can discuss the calls afterwards.

Some might do this in a club game too, but I prefer not to for two reasons. One is that I think it is a good habit always to try to win. If I make the same calls as I would in a "big game", partner will know what to expect then.

The other reason is that I hope that the other people in the room are playing serious bridge (not to confuse with good bridge) so I feel obligated to do the same thing. I consider the behavior in your first story unethical. The pair in question might think that the club game is not important and so they can fool around, but for other people in the room it might be an important game. It would be interesting to hear if other people also consider this unethical.

I agree.

I am also a little worried about the proprieties of the second story altho I actually became an ACBL Lifemaster many years ago playing a midnight game in which my partner and I agreed that any non-notrump opening hand with no suit more than 4 cards would be opened 1♣, any hand with a 5 card suit, 1♦, any hand with 5-4 or 5-5 1♥ and all 6+ card suit openings would be 1♠. In all cases, the cheapest response was a relay, promising (if memory serves) 10+ hcp and merely asking for more information. It is the type of 'system' two slightly intoxcated 20-something players might come up with in a pub after the second session, waiting for the speedball pairs to start. We never found a single 4-4 major suit fit (we had several, I think) and won by a mile: 3N seemed to score very well

It says something about the aging process that I would probably be offended it two eager young players tried something like that at the club Of course, that would mean we'd have to actually FIND two eager young players at the club

[han]

mikeh, on Feb 9 2007, 05:32 PM, said:

I actually became an ACBL Lifemaster.

Nice, congrats Mike!

[pbleighton]

"With someone thats intelligent, I think you are doing your partnership a disservice by not trusting your partner to figure out what a certain call means."

It's not intelligence, Phil, it's the level of bridge experience. You play at a higher level than I do. I'm not saying I never have to hope my partner "gets it". What I do is to try to avoid creative (i.e. not agreed upon) calls with non-natural meanings.

We try not to lose at bridge

Peter

[Winstonm]

It is a good and well thought out question - but it makes me believe you never played a lot of bridge for cash. (But I could be dead wrong here and it may just be an interesting question from a bright mind, so please don't take my comment the wrong way.)

Those who learned to play by putting up hard-earned cash learn early that practical leads to better net worth.

However, if you are trying to win a tournament with a bright partner, esoteric can be fun and mentally stimulating - but IMO for best results practical is still best under the gun and "esoteric" left for between session discussions.

[kenrexford]

Two separate issues.

First, as to the propriety of the stories from an ethics perspective. The first story was from 30 years ago, or so, when the culprits were youing and foolish. The simple answer is of course not ethical, but some things are too funny to not do on the cuff. As to the proprieties of systems at midnight swiss, I remind you that beer if often more important than results in that event. One pair even played "no peek," and certainly no one complained, so long as they received their fair share of beer.

As to the serious question. The same goes for card play of defense. I'm of the general opinion that the "esoteric" becomes less frequent if sufficient discussion occurs, obviously. However, what I suppose I am seeking is the degree of complexity to default understandings.

I mean, contrast "If it sounds natural, then it is" with "A new suit bid after ownership has been established by the opposition is lead-directional" or with "serious 3NT tends toward internal values whereas Last Train tends toward asking about external values."

[kenberg]

If people want to %&$* around they should go to a hotel where they rent rooms by the hour. If they want to drink beer they should go to a bar.

I don't think I want to seriously discuss either of the approaches but here is one point. The opening bid was 2H, alerted as showing spades and no more than two hearts. In fact that is not, as I understand it, their agreement at all. Their agreement is that a priori 2H could mean anything and partner is to judge partner's most likely intent by consulting his own hand. A different statement entirely. If they are going to do this they could at least give honest explanations.

What I get out of this is a couple of talented bridge players decided to hold some club players hostage to what they describe as humor. Back when I was 17, a long time ago, I got hauled off with my buddies in a paddy wagon for some misbehavior in a movie theater. One of the cops, as he pulled me along, said "You're a little old for this, aren't you son?". I gave that some thought and decided that I was.

[kenrexford]

Yes. Very serious stuff.

I also see the concern, here. Someone might have paid good money to drive all the way in for the tournament, hoping to further the MP race for the year. They show up at each event, expecting very serious and good competition. They then show up at the afternoon game, only to be disappointed by yet another failure to add on to the excellent afternoon score with a semblance of a fair evening set, denied, once again, that 2.47 gold points so desperately sought this week.

So, to at least gather some respectability for the week, and to keep up with Mr. Jones in the NABC Master unit race, the person talks bis partner into joining the midnight game on saturday.

The finals come, and the question now is simply how much. The possible committee action from the last round in reserve fora tie-breaker, the person sits down against my team.

At the other table, my teammates are still arguing about the stupid smoking rule, smoking anyway, into half-empty beer cans they accidentally drank from last round. So, the younger teammates play them, the seasoned vets play us.

I then have the audacity to pre-alert such nonsense as "strange opening bids, with guessed follow-ups." No completed convention cards. This may result in many director calls (snickering by the TD not appreciated) and unreasonable rulings, but they play.

The whole experience is ridiculous. "These idiots stumble-bunny into the right contract." Unlike their stumble bunny auctions, which are not alerted, "these guys alert their messed-up auctions as if the bids were intentional!" And, we have the poor taste to win the event, "largely because the TD was laughing too much about some joke I did not get to make a fair ruling."

After the game, our teammates actually do sneak off to that hotel to $@#&!, while my partner and I finish the evening off that the bar.

That would be ridiculous and juvenile. I agree. Adults should not drink, or even think about $@#!%-ing, during a serious game of midnight, ACBL-sanctioned, silver-point awarding tournament play. Quite right.

[kenberg]

When your argument sucks, try sarcasm.

[kenrexford]

kenberg, on Feb 10 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

When your argument sucks, try sarcasm.

The point was not sarcastic rebuttal.

1. Xango was "unethical" in the traditional sense. However, more importantly, it rudely made light of other people, exaggerating the normal conflict that nice club players face when dealing with tournament players, especially those with attitudes. That being said, it was a rudeness many moons ago and nonetheless funny, if you can get past or actually enjoy this sort of humor.

2. Not playing a "serious game" in a midnight event might also be unethical by tournament rules. However, no one in that event took that event seriously. I know of a small few who do. It is the midnight swiss. I thought this was understood by anyone who plays in a midnight swiss, at least in my area.

So, the point was, perhaps, to lighten up on the ethics commentary. These stories were meant not to suggest that this sort of bidding is a good idea all the time, but rather as hunorous illustrations of how two partners can be on the same page with minimal established agreements and maximized theory, on-the-spot interpretation using general principles.

If people can figure out meanings in wild situations like this, then it seems fair to imagine that more restrictive auctions might lead to fair chances at on-the-fly meanings and reads.

[kenrexford]

It is with great sham that I must confess to completely fabricating the original auction concerning the Xango club in its infancy and must now issue retractions. I was simply trying to look smart.

In practice, the opening bid by Dealer, which happened to be the first bid ever made in Xango, was 2♠. Ken Eichenbaum, who had not read the system notes for Xango because Xango is from oral tradition more than text, alerted his partner's opening bid. When asked by LOL to explain, proffered that 2♠ showed 6-7 hearts (not the reverse) with three of the top four honors and 7-11 HCP. LOL, in second seat, doubled. Ken bid 3♣, which his partner, who is currently still being sought, alerted. LOM requested, explained as denying a seven card diamond suit, with 4-7 HCP. (All correct so far.) LOM further asked if the diamond suit could be a six-card suit. This was confirmed, as often it could often contain a six-card suit, but never seven. Eight was also possible, but rare and discouraged.

LOM, applying Hamman's Rule, bid 3NT. Ken's partner doubled, which was alerted. [Edit. Granted, this double would now not be alertable, but the Laws called for a double here at that time.] The double confirmed a seven-bagger.

LOL now bid the obvious 4♠, doubled without alert, ominously. When asked about this double, Ken's partner replied, "Sounds like a spade stack to me." At this point, the opponents were confused and called the director. Up to this point, all seemed normal, but this part required intervention.

The TD arrived. After being apprised of what had transpired, with alerts and explanations properly provided, the TD checked the traveler. The par result was 4♠-1 (-50). The TD extended to LOL and LOM the option of either declaring 3NT doubled or 4♠ undoubled, with the opponents allowed to consult with each other as to their decision.

Since 4♠ seemed to be doomed for a set, they decided on 3NT doubled.

The TD was about to leave the table when Ken noted to her that the auction was not over yet. She agreed, at which point a pass by LOL yielded a pass by Ken. This was of course alerted.

When asked, he explained that "this pass showed exactly two hearts and directed the lead of the Ace to crash the stiff King in dummy." This lead was made, the first seven tricks were taken, and the contract failed by three tricks, proving the merits of Xango.

The TD, however, ruled that Xango was too advanced for the local club game (note that the idea of suggested defenses was not yet commonplace). The result stood, but Xango would no longer be allowed in that club.

As Ken and his partner left the table, LOL and LOM said, "That's quite a system you have there."

Many of us now remember these infancy bids, and we laugh at how far Xango has come. Just like Goren Standard, Xango too was quite elementary before some more scientific bids were introduced in the 70's and 80's, parallel with the rise of Precision.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Feb 9 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

Some players are very adaptable in this regard. I could sit down with some players and say "Manley - Berkowitz precision", "Hardy 2/1", or "Aces Scientific" without any other discussion and expect to have a reasonable game.

I think you could sit down with an unknown partner, say "strong NTs?", have partner agree, and expect to have a reasonable game.

I think you'd be surprised how infrequently conventions come up and also be surprised at how infrequently it is important to to know things like whether you're playing limit raises or forcing raises, whether 1NT is forcing or not, or even whether you're playing 4-card or 5-card majors.