[nick_s]

Hi,

I'm returning to the game after a 25-year hiatus. I'm also now playing in the US as opposed to the UK. Much has changed and I have much to learn and relearn.

In another thread it was suggested that "The Bidding Dictionary" does not define the current "expert standard" for bidding (if it ever did). Doubtless the same could be said about many other works.

I'd like a few suggestions for reading material to get caught up on the current state of the art.

Right now I'm reading "Partnership Bidding at Bridge - Robson/Segal", and back issues of "The Bridge World".

Many thanks
Nick

[foo]

The real problem is that "Expert Standard' is not clearly documented anywhere in print in an easily accessible form.

This is one of my pet peeves, and one of the reasons I participate as much as I do in forums like these.

Whether it's due to lack of desire, or negligence, or a belief that Expert Standard is a "guild secret" that would lose its value if easily found, or whatever, Experts openly documenting Expert Standard just doesn't usually happen.

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 23 2007, 02:07 AM, said:

The real problem is that "Expert Standard' is not clearly documented anywhere in print in an easily accessible form.

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...d&f=bwsall.html

[foo]

BWS is not Expert Standard. BWS is a consensus system based on surveys of the BW readership.

As I noted in another thread, popularity does not necessarily equate to correctness or superiority.

Another problem with defining Expert Standard is that it tends at some point to have regional differences. ES in Long Beach CA and Somerset UK and Bejing CH and ... are not the same thing.

Even within 1 continent like NA, there are serious regional variations.

[foo]

Some places where at a quick glance BWS is clearly inferior to Expert Standard:

1= BWS uses 3014 instead of 1430.
2= BWS does not use minorwood.
Edwin Kantar wrote the presently definitive books on Ace Asking what? 15+ years ago now?
3= BWS does not use UCDA
4= BWS does not use odd/even 1st discard.

[matmat]

for chrissakes...

there is no standard anything.
the whole point of something like BWS is to be able to sit down with a random good/advanced/expert player, exchange greetings, agree to a system in a few words and be able to play a session. BWS might not be perfect, but it is a standard... you can alter it, taylor it, add your own toys, take out things you don't like. but it's as close to a documented expert standard as you're going to get. BBO Advanced is another such thing, but possibly more limited in scope that it is known.

[han]

foo, on Dec 23 2007, 02:31 AM, said:

Some places where at a quick glance BWS is clearly inferior to Expert Standard:

1= BWS uses 3014 instead of 1430.
2= BWS does not use minorwood.
Edwin Kantar wrote the presently definitive books on Ace Asking what? 15+ years ago now?
3= BWS does not use UCDA
4= BWS does not use odd/even 1st discard.

So where are the clearly inferior parts?

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 23 2007, 02:21 AM, said:

BWS is not Expert Standard.  BWS is a consensus system based on surveys of the BW readership.

"Bridge World Standard 2001

A standard system, constructed from the preferences of over 100 American experts"

the part to which you refer is

"Where the experts are in substantial agreement (with close cases decided, when possible, by the votes of Bridge World readers at large), those methods become part of the system."

So your statement of "fact" was hardly a fair one.

[helene_t]

Robson/Segal is extremely good and so is Bridge World. Take a look at the Book Reviews thread.

"Expert Standard" is a semi-joke. Of course expert standard is better than anything else, the only problem is that it's not a standard. If you need a standard, there is BWS and BBO-advanced (and SAYC although some think it will do damage to their "expert" reputation to play that in public).

[Fluffy]

Please guys, the impotant thing here is to help nick, not to show who is more brilliant arguing against the other.

If you didn't play in 25 years, the nuances from BWS, or anything else don't matter for you now. Just find anything about a modern 5 card major system and you will find a good way to start.

Among experts nowadays I think it is growing the number of 2/1 game forcing systems, if you wanna go deeper try this kind of system, BBO advanced for example uses this sort of system, I think you can easilly find the notes in the site.

My personal advice for you would be to avoid SAYC as much as possible, it is a bad system, and something no experts use (without being paid for it at least)

[foo]

Fluffy, on Dec 23 2007, 06:12 AM, said:

Please guys, the impotant thing here is to help nick, not to show who is more brilliant arguing against the other.

If you didn't play in 25 years, the nuances from BWS, or anything else don't matter for you now. Just find anything about a modern 5 card major system and you will find a good way to start.

Among experts nowadays I think it is growing the number of 2/1 game forcing systems, if you wanna go deeper try this kind of system, BBO advanced for example uses this sort of system, I think you can easilly find the notes in the site.

My personal advice for you would be to avoid SAYC as much as possible, it is a bad system, and something no experts use (without being paid for it at least)

I agree with all of this.

I consider
_The Modern Losing Trick Count_ by Ron Klinger and
_I Fought the Law_ by Anders Wirgen & Mike Lawrence
to be the basis for modern hand evaluation

Some good references on 2/1 GF as it is usually played in NA are
_Washington Standard_ by Steve Robinson and
_Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century_ by the late Max Hardy

Edwin Kantar's _Roman Keycard Blackwood_ is the best book on Ace asking in existence.

The late Ron Anderson's _The Lebensohl Convention_ is the equivalent for that family of treatments.

25 years ago the standard reference text on conventions was
_Bridge Conventions Complete_ by Amalya Kearse.
The "fat yellow book" has been superseded with the 4 volume set
_Bridge- classic and modern conventions_ by Magnus Lindkvist.

"Our own" Ken Rexford's book on cue bidding is IMHO the most thoughful and provocative on that topic in existence.

etc etc. There are a lot of good books out there.

But no book I know of has standard expert bidding practice documented for such things as
a= if They bid 1 suit, a cue bid w/o an established fit =asks= for a stopper, if They
bid 2 suits, a cue bid w/o an established fit =shows= a stopper (and asks for a stopper in the other suit).

b= Quick. Think of all the ways to bid 5m in a high level contested auction and differentiate how much each of them has their playing strength based on shape+fit vs how many power tricks they each have.

c= how modern expert defensive signalling practice has evolved in the last 25 years.

etc. There's a whole slew of important stuff not in easily accessible print.

[cherdano]

nick_s, on Dec 22 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

Right now I'm reading "Partnership Bidding at Bridge - Robson/Segal", and back issues of "The Bridge World".

This is an excellent choice, IF you keep in mind that many of the treatments (and style recommendations) in Robson/Segal are not standard. I think BWS is as good as it gets in terms of documented US expert practice, even though a few votes would probably end with a different majority today than 2000/2001 (udca, 1430 etc.).

Btw, recommending Ken Rexford's book for someone who wants to learn US standard expert practice is beyond ridiculous. This has nothing to do with whether the book is good or bad, just that the topic of the book is a very non-standard cuebidding style; I am sure Ken would agree on this.

[foo]

Hannie, on Dec 23 2007, 02:40 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2007, 02:31 AM, said:

Some places where at a quick glance BWS is clearly inferior to Expert Standard:

1= BWS uses 3014 instead of 1430.
2= BWS does not use minorwood.
Edwin Kantar wrote the presently definitive books on Ace Asking what? 15+ years ago now?
3= BWS does not use UCDA
4= BWS does not use odd/even 1st discard.

So where are the clearly inferior parts?

1 & 2. Go read Kantar's book
(simple cases to get you going:
a= Pretend ♥'s are trump and you want to ask for Q's. Which would you rather be playing 1430 or 3014? As you can read in the book, the best answer is dependent on which hand is doing the Ace asking, the weaker or stronger of the pair.
b= Now suppose Our fit is in a minor. Can you see why 4m as 1430 is superior to 4N?)

3. UDCA has been shown to be less likely to cost the defense a trick for decades.

4. The Blue Team established the strength of odd/even signalling. Unfortunately, we are only allowed to use it for our 1st discard in the modern regulatory environment.

[hrothgar]

nick_s, on Dec 23 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

Right now I'm reading "Partnership Bidding at Bridge - Robson/Segal", and back issues of "The Bridge World".

Many thanks
Nick

I suspect you'll get the most mileage reading old copies of the Bridge World.

My opinion is that the Master Solver's Club will probably give you the most bang for the buck. Admittedly, this feature is designed to expose the seams/cracks in what passes for consensus in North America. However, its still quite useful.

[foo]

cherdano, on Dec 23 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

nick_s, on Dec 22 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

Right now I'm reading "Partnership Bidding at Bridge - Robson/Segal", and back issues of "The Bridge World".

This is an excellent choice, IF you keep in mind that many of the treatments (and style recommendations) in Robson/Segal are not standard. I think BWS is as good as it gets in terms of documented US expert practice, even though a few votes would probably end with a different majority today than 2000/2001 (udca, 1430 etc.).

Btw, recommending Ken Rexford's book for someone who wants to learn US standard expert practice is beyond ridiculous. This has nothing to do with whether the book is good or bad, just that the topic of the book is a very non-standard cuebidding style; I am sure Ken would agree on this.

Some of Ken's treatments are indeed "out there" and he'll be the first to admit it.
I did say "provocative" in describing the book.

OTOH, the more basic stuff in his book, is by his own statement, based on extensive thought and discussion with experts he knows.

Endorsing the book as a good read on how to think about the subject is not an endorsement for adopting every treatment he has in there. Ditto any decent bidding book.

At least until someone actually writes a book called _Expert Standard_ that is definitive on the subject.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 23 2007, 02:48 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2007, 02:21 AM, said:

BWS is not Expert Standard.  BWS is a consensus system based on surveys of the BW readership.

"Bridge World Standard 2001

A standard system, constructed from the preferences of over 100 American experts"

the part to which you refer is

"Where the experts are in substantial agreement (with close cases decided, when possible, by the votes of Bridge World readers at large), those methods become part of the system."

So your statement of "fact" was hardly a fair one.

"constructed from the preferences of over 100 American experts."

America may have invented Bridge, but it is far from being definitive of WC level expert bidding practice nor is it the sole source of the best bridge knowledge or best bridge players.

The other problem with consensus systems like BWS is that systems should not be just random collections of tools thrown together. They are supposed to be carefully considered unified approaches to handling all the important situations one is likely to encounter ATT.

Every choice you make influences every other choice you make. A consensus system has a nasty tendency to not get that completely right.

Don't get me wrong. It's =far= better to have agreements, even possibly inferior ones, than to have no agreements. Being able to say "BWS?" to someone from another country who knows it simplifies System discussion tremendously.

The other major purpose BWS serves is to show how expert consensus evolves over time. That's valuable also.

[jdonn]

Foo you are entirely missing the point. Who cares if it is the best or even good agreements (although the fact experts prefer them implies that they are at least very good.) It is a consensus of the agreements preferred in a vote by experts, you even refer to it yourself as an "expert consensus". What do you think expert standard would mean?

I would not expect you to back away from baseless statements like that they are playing clearly inferior methods, which after all is nothing more than saying "My preferences are right, the experts' preferences are wrong". But you could at least admit you were wrong when you tried to imply it is not the preferences of experts ("BWS is a consensus system based on surveys of the BW readership.")

[Free]

BWS is just a fine tool to organize individual championships, knowing that everyone plays the same system and it has a lot of expert treatments.

There's only one thing that really strikes me: in BWS, 1M-3M is invitational!

[Stephen Tu]

Foo, if your position is that BWS isn't "expert standard" because of its regional bias + consensus nature, then basically you are claiming that "expert standard" doesn't really exist, which is a reasonable view. I mean how else would you determine what "expert standard" was, if there is a single such entity? No reasonably large group of experts is going to 100% agree on what should be considered "standard". If you are claiming that "expert standard" exists, what's your definition of it, who gets to choose the treatments?

Nick_s, I think all one can do is read through the better authors to get an idea of what's out there, each have their own idiosyncrasies. You can figure out on your own whom you agree with in which areas, choose combinations of treatments along with your partners that still work together.

Books I've found worthwhile:
Lawrence - Workbook on 2/1, Uncontested Auctions
Robinson - Washington Standard
Bergen - Better Bidding w/ Bergen
Miles - Stronger Competitive bidding, Competitive Bidding in the 21st century, Modern Constructive Bidding
Robson/Segal - Partnership bidding which you already have

Gitelman's articles on 2/1 on the BBO website are also excellent.

Stuff I haven't had a chance to look at yet that rate to be decent:
software CDs: Lawrence 2/1, Kokish "Modern American Bidding"

[y66]

Think you're off to a good start.

In addition to BWS + discussions in Bridge World, there are many excellent examples and discussions in Modern American Bidding (software) by Erik Kokish and Beverly Kraft and Washington Standard (book) by Steve Robinson.