[NickRW]

Tonight I picked up a rather pretty hand, something like:

♠ xx
♥ KQJxxx
♦ ATxxx
♣ -

I opened it 1♥. LHO slapped down 5♣ with a flourish. A new partner that I'd played against quite a bit but someone I've never played with pushed out 5♠. RHO, not the best player in the club, contributed 6♣.

I thought briefly - what is going on? Who can make what here? Dunno - seems like 6♠ is what I should say though - so I did. LHO now pulls out 7♣ and partner doubles - though he really needn't have bothered - it was going to be a top or a bottom with or without the double - I suppose it stopped me from thinking about 7♠.

Well, to cut a long story short, partner perhaps unwisely led his ♠A and 12 tricks were there for the opps, but LHO couldn't avoid losing the ♦A. I sort of have some sympathy with her - if her partner had that card instead of the trebleton KQJ♠ she might have made.

I mentioned this auction to another player on the way home - his comment was something like "Yeah, bridge is becoming more like poker as time goes on". I suppose he is right in that auctions are more competitive that they were, but I am not sure I agree entirely - people just seem more willing to try to squeeze out every last matchpoint that they possibly can.

There have been a few threads on here lately about the multi 2♦, what responses there should be and how do you defend it along with one or two comments that it should be banned or restricted and so on. In the light of the degree to which auctions have become competitive, my main thought is "multi, what are you all so afraid of when in every other aspect of the game no prisoners are taken".

Anyway, that is my thought for the day. Perhaps some of you might comment...

Nick

[blackshoe]

Some might argue that matchpoints is not bridge. I wouldn't, but it is very different from IMPs.

As for multi, people fear what they don't understand — and people who aren't familiar with multi don't understand it, and probably won't understand it the first time (or two, or three) it's explained to them at the table.

[Winstonm]

Just play contrarian card: Fishbein, 4-card majors, and strong jump shifts.

[JLOL]

LOL

[SteelWheel]

And remember the classic defense against a strong 1♣ opening: Double is for takeout, 1♦ is for penalty.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[whereagles]

I remember when I used to play junior international events that anytime I had like 16+ points, the auction would reach me at the 4 or 5 level

Just business as usual. Move on

[barryallen]

When you consider that the only criteria required for any bid is to have a long term percentage value, influenced by the prevailing conditions, it's on for young and old.

[ArtK78]

SteelWheel, on May 16 2009, 02:40 AM, said:

And remember the classic defense against a strong 1♣ opening: Double is for takeout, 1♦ is for penalty.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

This sounds like "Ethnic" Fishbein (insert the name of your favorite ethnic group).

Double is for takeout, the next suit is for penalty.

As for matchpoints not being bridge, a better description would be matchpoints is matchpoints, IMPs is IMPs. They are two different games.

(I play poker quite a bit - more than I play bridge now. At the poker table, no one ever says "Poker is becoming more like bridge every day.")

[NickRW]

ArtK78, on May 16 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

(I play poker quite a bit - more than I play bridge now. At the poker table, no one ever says "Poker is becoming more like bridge every day.")

Hmm. I think maybe there are more bridge players that play poker than the other way round - possibly.

Nick

[mtvesuvius]

Agree with Justin.

[Old York]

"Is bridge becoming more like poker?"

No, of course not. Poker players would never be so reckless

Bridge does seem to be reverting to Whist, however
The object of whist was to make as many tricks as possible with a randomly determined trump suit. Just like modern bridge, the trump suit was chosen at random, but no longer at the turn of a card. Now we use random bidding methods instead

There is only one remaining bridge rule, but this has been affected by inflation since the thirties, so now reads:

If in doubt, bid 5 more

Tony

[hanp]

Also agree with Justin, well said.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on May 16 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

I remember when I used to play junior international events that anytime I had like 16+ points, the auction would reach me at the 4 or 5 level

Just business as usual. Move on

That is especially annoying when you are in first seat

[Cascade]

NickRW, on May 17 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

ArtK78, on May 16 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

(I play poker quite a bit - more than I play bridge now.  At the poker table, no one ever says "Poker is becoming more like bridge every day.")

Hmm. I think maybe there are more bridge players that play poker than the other way round - possibly.

Nick

I think this is unlikely.

There are three groups:

1. Those who play poker but not bridge

2. Those who play bridge but not poker

3. Those who play both games

Therefore the number of bridge players who play poker is exactly equal to the number of poker players who play bridge

[NickRW]

Cascade, on May 16 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 17 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

ArtK78, on May 16 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

(I play poker quite a bit - more than I play bridge now.  At the poker table, no one ever says "Poker is becoming more like bridge every day.")

Hmm. I think maybe there are more bridge players that play poker than the other way round - possibly.

Nick

I think this is unlikely.

There are three groups:

1. Those who play poker but not bridge

2. Those who play bridge but not poker

3. Those who play both games

Therefore the number of bridge players who play poker is exactly equal to the number of poker players who play bridge

Mathematically you are, of course, 100% right - my use of the word "number" was sloppy - perhaps I should have said percentage.

Nick

[gnasher]

NickRW, on May 17 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

Hmm.  I think maybe there are more bridge players that play poker than the other way round - possibly.

NickRW, on May 16 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

Mathematically you are, of course, 100% right - my use of the word "number" was sloppy - perhaps I should have said percentage.

You mean you wanted to say, "The percentage of bridge players who play poker is higher than the percentage of poker players who play bridge"?

That's just another way of saying that more people play poker than play bridge (and that at least one plays both).

[hanp]

Maybe being a bridge/poker player is not the same as being someone "who plays bridge/poker".

[Wackojack]

Old York, on May 16 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

"Is bridge becoming more like poker?"

No, of course not. Poker players would never be so reckless

Bridge does seem to be reverting to Whist, however
The object of whist was to make as many tricks as possible with a randomly determined trump suit. Just like modern bridge, the trump suit was chosen at random, but no longer at the turn of a card. Now we use random bidding methods instead

There is only one remaining bridge rule, but this has been affected by inflation since the thirties, so now reads:

If in doubt, bid 5 more

Tony

The level of skill required to survive has gone up a level, because of the developments in competitive bidding. Call it poker skills if you like. (Certainly not whist skills) Those that can't cope just grumble.

[Old York]

Whist skills are certainly not out of place at the bridge table, poker skills do have their place but tend to be overused. You still need to know when to fold

Tony

Edit: Poker players never publish their disasters
I would love to see a team match, Bridge vs Poker, preferably non-goulash