[EricK]

Rhetorical Question 1: Is it fun to be able to log onto BBO (or go down to a club), play with a pick-up partner, have a short system discussion, and get results which are someway indiciative of your skill?

Answer 1: Yes

Rhetorical Question 2: Is it fun to be able to play with a long-term partner, hone one's system and understandings, and challenge equally equipped pairs?

Answer 2: Yes

Rhetorical Question 3: Are these two things compatible?

Answer 3: No. Not as things stand. There is no way I could sit down opposite a parter of equal strength and hope to compete long term against a well-seasoned pair of equal skill. This is especially true if their system is at all "unusual" to me or my partner.

What can be done about this?

The problem is that there is nothing published (at least nothing I know about) which shows how to defend against any new convention one comes across. While there is this lack, there is never going to be any hope for pick-up partners (especially if they come from different parts of the world) to adequately defend themselves.

Until an excellent set of general defenses is widely known, there is really no hope of reconciling these two types of bridge, and also no hope of National Sponsoring Organisations easing their system restrictions.

So all those in favour of easing restrictions, do your bit: write a book or web page or whatever demonstrating how best to defend against anything you may want to throw at us. Maybe a start would be to outline your general defenses in this thread.

Eric

[paulg]

I recommend Richard Pavlicek's "Junkyard Defense" for competing against all those non-specific 2-suiter openings.

http://www.rpbridge.net/7g19.htm#65

His system has a number of generic defences that may be useful to pickups.

Paul

[Rado]

hi all
When gunpowder was invented there was not available any defence. After that armour was invented. All progress of Humanity is similar and I believe new conventions and defences are good for the development of the game
Rado

[Trpltrbl]

Answer 3: No. Not as things stand. There is no way I could sit down opposite a parter of equal strength and hope to compete long term against a well-seasoned pair of equal skill. This is especially true if their system is at all "unusual" to me or my partner.

What can be done about this?

The problem is that there is nothing published (at least nothing I know about) which shows how to defend against any new convention one comes across. While there is this lack, there is never going to be any hope for pick-up partners (especially if they come from different parts of the world) to adequately defend themselves.

Eric [/QUOTE]
That's why we are here and play and learn.
Better run into it on BBO and start talking to people asking about possible defenses and learn from that.

Mike

[EricK]

Rado, on Jul 30 2004, 06:48 PM, said:

hi all
When gunpowder was invented there was not available any defence. After that armour was invented. All progress of Humanity is similar and I believe new conventions and defences are good for the development of the game
Rado

I agree 100% with this.

But if these defenses are not published and made widely available how can I and my pick-up partner agree what to play in a few minutes. It is no good me having one set of defenses which I may have developed with my long term partner, and he another. We still won't be able to compete.

We need these things to be so well known that I could say to a fairly well-read random player "We''ll play 'Rado' against their two-level bids and 'Inquiry relays' over their transfer openings" (or whatever).

Eric

[the hog]

EricK:
Two simple defences against transfer openings Moscito style
eg
1D = H
X = opening vaues with D, 1H = t/o of H, 2D = normal overcall, 2H = Michaels

OR
X = t/o of H, 1H = opening bid bid with Ds-(get even by re transferring!!), 2D = normal overcall, 2H = Michaels

Against multi style 2 bids

If the multi can contain a weak 2 in S - ALWAYS assume that it does
(2D) X = t/ of S, 2N = 15-18, rest natural
(2D) X (P) (2H)
(P) X = penalties, you did have a t/o x of S after all

If a 2S bid comes back to you X = t/o

Ron

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Jul 31 2004, 12:56 PM, said:

If the multi can contain a weak 2 in S - ALWAYS assume that it does
(2D) X = t/ of S, 2N = 15-18, rest natural
(2D) X (P) (2H)
(P) X = penalties, you did have a t/o x of S after all

I've played with partner's like that...

When they bid I want to double partner for penalties.

I guess you mean:

(2D) X (2H) P
(P) X

This is a good general rule:

If they bid a suit that we have shown or implied then double is for penalties.

[the hog]

I guess you mean:

(2D) X (2H) P
(P) X

yes, I did!! You are right though, occasionally I want to double pd as well.

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Jul 31 2004, 12:56 AM, said:

EricK:
Two simple defences against transfer openings Moscito style
eg
1D = H
X = opening vaues with D, 1H = t/o of H, 2D = normal overcall, 2H = Michaels

OR
X = t/o of H, 1H = opening bid bid with Ds-(get even by re transferring!!), 2D = normal overcall, 2H = Michaels

Against multi style 2 bids

If the multi can contain a weak 2 in S - ALWAYS assume that it does
(2D) X = t/ of S, 2N = 15-18, rest natural
(2D) X (P) (2H)
(P) X = penalties, you did have a t/o x of S after all

If a 2S bid comes back to you X = t/o

Ron

So if I don't have a t/o of Spades but a 4441 shape, I must pass. I suppose then, that if 2S come round to me, double is penalties, and if 2/3 of anything else comes back to me, X is t/o?

Eric

[the hog]

Yes thats right EricK. Its a fairly simple defence and maybe not the best, but it works ok especially with a pick up pd.

[paulhar]

I think y'all are missing the point here. Of course the original poster, if so inclined, could post on the forum later and find out a defense that he could have been playing at the time but it's too late. The next time he logs on, another unfamiliar convention or system. If the player is into learning new defenses to conventions he'll face once every year or so, more power to him. He might lose a few IMPs along the way due to lack of familiarity, but so what? The player who logs on and picks up a partner is supposed to lose, right?

Maybe the table creator could help out by putting in 'unusual methods' in the description of the table so the casual player could stay away

Eric - great idea, except that most of your random partners aren't going to be well read. A lot of random adv/exp partners appear not to have ever read a bridge book no less a book on defenses to obscure conventions and systems. Perhaps the people that want to play this system or convention would be happy to proivde you with a reasonable defense at the time? If they get tired of doing that, they'll try to seek out other opponents that already know their conventions.

[EricK]

paulhar, on Aug 1 2004, 12:22 AM, said:

I think y'all are missing the point here. Of course the original poster, if so inclined, could post on the forum later and find out a defense that he could have been playing at the time but it's too late. The next time he logs on, another unfamiliar convention or system. If the player is into learning new defenses to conventions he'll face once every year or so, more power to him. He might lose a few IMPs along the way due to lack of familiarity, but so what? The player who logs on and picks up a partner is supposed to lose, right?

Maybe the table creator could help out by putting in 'unusual methods' in the description of the table so the casual player could stay away

Eric - great idea, except that most of your random partners aren't going to be well read. A lot of random adv/exp partners appear not to have ever read a bridge book no less a book on defenses to obscure conventions and systems. Perhaps the people that want to play this system or convention would be happy to proivde you with a reasonable defense at the time? If they get tired of doing that, they'll try to seek out other opponents that already know their conventions.

Most Advanced/Expert players (and even most intermediate players) seem to know a whole load of conventions. They must have picked these up from somewhere.

I want to reach a situation where there are similarly well known defensive conventions to all manner of things. Playing with a defense you have just been provided with by opps is not much of an improvement over trying to explain your own defenses to your partner on the spur of the moment.

Eric

[Chamaco]

EricK, on Aug 1 2004, 10:54 AM, said:

I want to reach a situation where there are similarly well known defensive conventions to all manner of things.

Are you suggesting there should be a "standard" (unless explicitly agreed otherwise) also for defensive tools vs weird openings so no need to discuss them everytime ?

[EricK]

Chamaco, on Aug 1 2004, 11:04 AM, said:

EricK, on Aug 1 2004, 10:54 AM, said:

I want to reach a situation where there are similarly well known defensive conventions to all manner of things.

Are you suggesting there should be a "standard" (unless explicitly agreed otherwise) also for defensive tools vs weird openings so no need to discuss them everytime ?

Yes, there should be (at least) one well-known, named standard. So you could easily put one (or more) on your profile.

Eric

[hrothgar]

Comment the first

I think that you are making a major mistake if you you are focusing on developing optimal defenses against specific opening bids like MOSCITO's 1D opening. This type of approach doesn't scale. There are simply too many different bids and style that you could encounter to hope to create specialized defenses for each and every opening. I think that you would be much better served trying to develop a small number of meta defenses that can be applied against a wide variety of different bids.

For example, you might decide that you should adopt the same defense against any bids that show a single known anchor suit and constructive values. Examples might include

1. A Jacoby transfer
2. A MOSCITO 1D opening which promises 4+ hearts
3. A Bergen style "2-under" preempt

While the defense that you decide on might not be optimal against any one of this bids, I suspect that thoroughly familiarizing yourself with an appropriate meta-defense will serve you much better than having an optimal defense available that you need to learn at the spur of the moment. I'll note in passing that most strong pairs from parts of the world where unusual methods are common have adopted this same approach.

Comment the Second:

It has always struck me as perverse that the individuals who develop new methods bear responsibility for developing appropriate defenses. There is a severe incentive problem here - it not in a pairs interest to spend significant amounts of time providing defenses to their own pet methods. More significantly, pairs can't be expected to customize their suggested defenses to the unique bidding style of the pairs who are expected to employee them.

From my own perspective, pairs should be expected to provide complete disclosure regarding their methods to anyone who asks. In particular, advanced disclosure is more than reasonable. However, defenders have obligiations as well. More specifically, they need to be prepared to compete against a wide variety of different approaches.

[goodwintr]

It isn't unreasonable to require people who use "unexpected" methods (in context of the specific event) to provide some guidance to the opponents by way of a suggested defense. This doesn't have to be (perhaps shouldn't be) elaborate or "best," but just a suggestion to facilitate their (short) discussion. For example, suppose you play that a 1C opening bid shows four spades -- that was part of La Majeure D'Abord, a system that is bound to be unfamiliar to most people. The opponents need to know what it means when they double 1C, and they need to know what it means when they bid 1S (or 2S) over 1C. I'd play the spade bids as natural, and the double as takeout of spades, and I'd tell them that and let them make up their own minds. If they don't want to be bothered "until it happens," then why isn't it reasonable (and reasonably fair) to provide them with a "suggested defense" (no more elaborate than the one suggested above) that they can use as a default option?

[TimG]

There's a difference between being required to provide a good, or thorough, defense and being required to provide an adequate defense or simple defensive approach which will facilitate discussion. Richard raises a good point: if I want to use a method which requires a suggested defense, there is incentive for me to provide a defense which meets the minimum requirements of the sponsoring organization while falling short of what I would consider an optimal defense.

I've never played against your "strange spade" opening, still I don't imagine it would be difficult to figure out what the first round defensive bids mean. More difficult would be to figure out what it means when partner doubles (takeout of spades), I advance in a new suit and partner now bids spades. Is that a cue-bid in support of my suit, or is that a natural bid in spades showing a hand that was too good to make a direct overcall in spades? If I double the 1C opening bid, 3rd hand passes and partner bids 1S, is that natural? With a little bit of discussion, it's probably not too difficult to come up with reasonable answers to these questions. But, I wouldn't want to place any bets on coming up with the same answers as partner at the table if the situations were undiscussed.

Tim

[mikestar]

hrothgar, on Aug 1 2004, 01:33 PM, said:

...
I think that you are making a major mistake if you you are focusing on developing optimal defenses against specific opening bids like MOSCITO's 1D opening. This type of approach doesn't scale. There are simply too many different bids and style that you could encounter to hope to create specialized defenses for each and every opening. I think that you would be much better served trying to develop a small number of meta defenses that can be applied against a wide variety of different bids.

For example, you might decide that you should adopt the same defense against any bids that show a single known anchor suit and constructive values. Examples might include

1. A Jacoby transfer
2. A MOSCITO 1D opening which promises 4+ hearts
3. A Bergen style "2-under" preempt

While the defense that you decide on might not be optimal against any one of this bids, I suspect that thoroughly familiarizing yourself with an appropriate meta-defense will serve you much better than having an optimal defense available that you need to learn at the spur of the moment. I'll note in passing that most strong pairs from parts of the world where unusual methods are common have adopted this same approach.
...

I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion. A good meta defense is the best way to handle an unrestricted convention environment.

For a detailed meta defense, enemy strength can be classifed as weak, construtive, game invitational, or game forcing. (This does not imply that every strength range needs a different defense).

Enemy distribution can be classifed by how many suits? how many are known? is the suit bid one of the known suits?

A detailed meta defense may be suboptimal against every single convention it faces but be a big winner because the partnership has a method that comes up often enough to repay a lengthy design porcess ands to give the partnership lots of practice.

Also, you can alway develop an optimal defense against methods you find yourself facing frequently. A multi defense if you play in circles where almost everybody plays it, for example.

If MOSCITO were to become a national standard in some country, people who play there would devise optimal defenses to the transfer openings.

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Aug 1 2004, 01:33 PM, said:

Comment the first

I think that you are making a major mistake if you you are focusing on developing optimal defenses against specific opening bids like MOSCITO's 1D opening. This type of approach doesn't scale. There are simply too many different bids and style that you could encounter to hope to create specialized defenses for each and every opening. I think that you would be much better served trying to develop a small number of meta defenses that can be applied against a wide variety of different bids.

For example, you might decide that you should adopt the same defense against any bids that show a single known anchor suit and constructive values. Examples might include

1. A Jacoby transfer
2. A MOSCITO 1D opening which promises 4+ hearts
3. A Bergen style "2-under" preempt

While the defense that you decide on might not be optimal against any one of this bids, I suspect that thoroughly familiarizing yourself with an appropriate meta-defense will serve you much better than having an optimal defense available that you need to learn at the spur of the moment. I'll note in passing that most strong pairs from parts of the world where unusual methods are common have adopted this same approach.

Comment the Second:

It has always struck me as perverse that the individuals who develop new methods bear responsibility for developing appropriate defenses. There is a severe incentive problem here - it not in a pairs interest to spend significant amounts of time providing defenses to their own pet methods. More significantly, pairs can't be expected to customize their suggested defenses to the unique bidding style of the pairs who are expected to employee them.

From my own perspective, pairs should be expected to provide complete disclosure regarding their methods to anyone who asks. In particular, advanced disclosure is more than reasonable. However, defenders have obligiations as well. More specifically, they need to be prepared to compete against a wide variety of different approaches.

I am not looking for optimal defenses. I want there to be one (or more) all-purpose meta-defenses which become so well known that people can agree to play with pick-up partners.

I suggest that it is the people who devise new bids (or want to play them) who should also publicise the counter-measures, because having well-known counter-measures is the only way (as I see it) that system restrictions will be lifted or eased. So it is in their interests to show that these bids (and indeed any new bids) can be defended by rank-and-file players.

Your comments seem to be addressed at the sort of players who form long-term partnerships and yet still don't want to have to learn to defend against "unusual" stuff.

I am more concerned with two lots of people

1) Pick-up partnerships - If there are no well publicisied general defences there is no way they can compete against stuff they've never seen before.

2) Long-terrm partnerships who aren't very good at system design - I don't think it is right that they should be left to their own devices when it comes to constructing meta-defenses. After all they are not left to their own devices when it comes to constructive bidding because there is so much published material.

Eric

[paulhar]

Quote

I think that you are making a major mistake if you you are focusing on developing optimal defenses against specific opening bids like MOSCITO's 1D opening.

Quite true! Isn't that interesting that if someone plays against a strong 2/1 pair plays, they know how to defend against their system and conventions optimally, and if someone plays that system named after an annoying bug, they AT BEST play sub-optimally and otherwise in a morass of confusion!

Looks like the road to winning is obvious - develop a well-tuned system with components that nobody has heard of and keep changing it often. At best people will be able to play a suboptimal defense against your system. CRASH 2-bids, anyone?

The poor pair that really thinks that 2/1 is the system for them (and it may be because of their country's tournament constraints) suffers a distinct disadvantage in tournmanets that have NOTHING to do with the value of the system, but only to do with the effectiveness of the defenses played against them, and the relative lack of confusion suffered by their opponents.