[ng:)]

I think today's bridge is too aggressive. It is OK, but the poker guys CAN DO THIS WITHOUT RISK. Against strong clubs, the poker guys can bid anything on level 1 or 2 at NV vs Vul, they get rare a big number (1100 by penalty dbl). The IMP numbers of high level team matches are very large, so the lucky-factor is too big now, destructive bidding is the main trend. It is not bridge, rather poker, I think.
They open 2 hearts with
xx, Qxxxx, xxx, xxx
or 1NT with
Jxx, AJx, xxxx, KJx

at NV vs Vul. instead of pass. On second seat you have to guess. The result: most of the time they are lucky WITHOUT RISK.

My suggestion: Let's change the scoring table! (as in the 80's)

UNDERTRICKS

NOT VULNERABLE
Doubled Redoubled
1 undertrick 50 100 200
2 undertricks 100 400 800
3 undertricks 150 700 1400
4 undertricks 200 1000 2000
5 undertricks 250 1300 2600
6 undertricks 300 1600 3200
....

VULNERABLE
Doubled Redoubled
1 undertrick 100 200 400
2 undertricks 200 600 1200
3 undertricks 300 1000 2000
4 undertricks 400 1400 2800
5 undertricks 500 1800 3600
6 undertricks 600 2200 4400
....

So at NV for each additional doubled undertricks you get 300, at Vul 400.

What do you think? I bet: less cowboy-bridge, because they will pass sometimes:)

Gabor

[1eyedjack]

Risk management is a skill worthy of reward.
Remove risk and you remove the scope for skilful risk management and the opportunity to reward it.

[Dwayne]

Gabor,

keep the posts coming...please.

Better still...rather than changing the scoring table as you propose...may I suggest a law change.

Ahem (clearing my throat for big announcement).
I suggest that from hereonin interference over conventional strong, forcing openings (strong club, strong 2C or strong 2D) is banned and punishable by no less than 3 IMPs per board or an average - score at MPs.

Oh...and you have to have thirteen to open too.

Dwayne (is still my name)

[Free]

Not a good idea imo. Most of us know my style, and I bid quite agressive! With my f2f partner, we open 2M NV with 0-7HCP and a 4+ card. To give an extreme situation: with 32-5432-5432-432 we open 2♥ with pleasure!

They changed the scoring tables, and lots of new conventions and light openings were introduced. Mini-NT (Luke Warm's favorite), Lorenzo-two's (my favorite), preempts on 5 card,... The current scoring allows players to be creative, and imo that's a good thing. It's a skill rather than luck to know weither you have to bid or not, weither you have to prebalance, bid at 2-level with a good 4 card,... This way, real experts can be recognized, luck has nothing to do with it.

[Free]

Dwayne, on Jul 28 2004, 08:49 AM, said:

Ahem (clearing my throat for big announcement).
  I suggest that from hereonin interference over conventional strong, forcing openings (strong club, strong 2C or strong 2D) is banned and punishable by no less than 3 IMPs per board or an average - score at MPs.

Oh...and you have to have thirteen to open too.

Dwayne (is still my name)

Ahem ahem!! I can't breath anymore! Ahem! Pfff, that's better.

Interfering over a strong 1♣ is the funniest there is! I just love their faces in my local club when they open 1♣, afraid of getting their so many-est bottom because of our interference. Then we bid, and I see responder sighing Their first answer is at least at 2-level, and lots of times at 3-level.
In Belgian pairs semi-final and final, there was only 1 pair playing big ♣. We met them in both events, and they opened 3 times with 1♣, we got 3 tops However, we met them again at Carta Mundi, a big tourney, and then they didn't open 1♣ at all. We had 2 bad scores...
If people want to play strong ♣, they have to take this disadvantage with it imo. If you start protecting strong clubbers, then this system would become too good opposite the rest of the systems.

I always have 13 to open: 13 cards. So no problem there.

[Gerben47]

It wouldn't be as much fun! I am sure you will be able to find games where everyone adheres the rule of 2 and 3. But don't ask me to play in one.

Gerben

[Flame]

I had this thought too. it might be a good idea to raise the penatly alittle bit.
One problem is that low level doubles are very rare, many players even stoped playing redouble 1x (D) R , as a way to punish, because its just too rare.
Its almost thory proven (law of total tricks) that you shouldnt sell out at the 2 level and ofcourse not at the 1 level, this mean we gave up the chance to play in those level, and u can interfere too easy on them.
There is a logic to think that if our side is very strong, say 25+ hcp, and someone get into our aution he will get punished for this, but its rarly will be worth to punish at the 1/2 level, so basiclly we tell them enter pls.

[Flame]

1eyedjack, on Jul 28 2004, 01:03 AM, said:

Risk management is a skill worthy of reward.
Remove risk and you remove the scope for skilful risk management and the opportunity to reward it.

Exactly, and today there is no risk in entering the aution at the 1 level, this is why we need a change.

[Dwayne]

Flame, on Jul 28 2004, 05:39 AM, said:

and today there is no risk in entering the aution at the 1 level, this is why we need a change.

Not so. Bilski/ Brown, during their run of three consecutive years playing in the Australian Open Team during the early 1990s played penalty doubles at favourable at the one-level and as I recall reaped plenty of penalties.

The real problem lies with many partnership's inabilty to take the penalty opportunities dished up to them. How often has a pair bid on to game after interference then post mortem realised any opposition contract would have been a bloodbath?

What a new scoring table will do is punish creative bidding. I played against Stephen Burgess in January this year and basically his failure to overcall at either the one or two level pretty much indicated the lack of a 5-card suit. His methods were nothing short of destructive and I applaud his enterprise.

I'm all for poker-style bridge. The rest is boring as bat-poo.

Dwayne (Boogie Woogie)

[hrothgar]

Personally, I think that you are putting the cart before the horse.

You're starting with a highly subjective concept regarding what bridge should be, and then advocating manipulating the scoring table to force players to conform with your ideas.

Personally, I prefer to define bridge based on the only "objective" criteria that we have available: The Laws of the game. Furthermore, I am perfectly happy to allow players the option to adapt their strategies (bidding and otherwise) to the regulations.

I will, however, note in passing that I prefer environments that provide a lot of opportunity for creativity and exploring new ideas. Quite frankly, if succeeding at bridge required nothing more than mastering a known recipe for success, I'd lose all interest in the game almost immediately.

[1eyedjack]

It is perhaps an interesting intellectual exercise to consider which set of laws provides the greatest opportunity for the exercise of skill and provision of commensurate rewards. To that extent it is not "putting the card before the horse", although it will remain only an intellectual exercise. The coin will land on its edge before any change in laws arises from a discussion in this forum.

I think that the safety of a one-level overcall (assuming it is indeed so free of risk) is perhaps a price worth paying in order to encourage more competitive decisions later in the auction where the exercise of skill really counts. You have to look at all of the effects of the overcall on the subsequent auction. Concentrating solely on the opportunity to double at the 1 level is simplistic.

[Flame]

I agree with "putting her cards before the horses" this is true, its my subjective view that bridge would be more intresting and creative if the bidding will be more creative and less obstractive.
ofcourse any change should be eximine very very carfully.

[phileaston]

Fascinating, the same people who argue in favour of "creative bidding" will bleat on for hours in other forums about why they should be alerted, who was at fault, and so on.

Gabor's initial post was about destructive bidding. Those who call it "creative bidding" are just using a term which sounds more acceptable. And Gabor was not saying such bidding should be banned. Simply that if you want to play bridge that way then the points system should penalise you, not give you an advantage.

Sounds fair to me.

[bambi1]

There is a big difference between destructive bidding and creative bidding!

[inquiry]

bambi1, on Jul 28 2004, 09:44 AM, said:

There is a big difference between destructive bidding and creative bidding!

What about when the creatvie bidding is destructive?

[mikestar]

Destructive bidding works because we have forgotten how to double for penalties. Read Culbertson's Blue Book where he asserts that gaining penalties is the primary objective of Bridge, with constructive bidding second priority when a satisfactory penalty is not available.

The takeout double was invented because the penalty double of one of a suit is essentially impossible, not merely against the odds. In this day and age we have negative doubles, support doubles, maximal doubles, action doubles, card showing doubles--it is rare that we can double for penalties. This style is playable if we also use aggressive penalty passes, but how many of us do?

A modern method that is well designed to curb "creative" bidding is the defense to Multi advocated by the Granovetters and several others:

X=major suit
2H=clubs, good hand
2S=diamonds, good hand
3C=clubs, moderate hand
3D=diamons, moderate hand

This is geared to collect penaties when intervenor has that same major as opener rather than giving up penalties. This defense significantly reduces the gains from opening Multi.

Similarly, Big Club pairs must be ready with the axe. I've seen 1C-(3S) bid against me on Jxxxx x xxxx xxx. Partner made a card showing double and I left in with AKQx (I would have left it in with a great deal less) at unfavorable. They made 1 trick, so our +2000 outscored the +1430 we had in 6H.

This is rather spectacular, but don't despise the +200's, +300's, and +500s that are readily available--these score much better than your doubtful game going down or bidding game in the wrong denomination or stretching to slam when you should have stayed in game.

[ng:)]

"Gabor's initial post was about destructive bidding. Those who call it "creative bidding" are just using a term which sounds more acceptable. And Gabor was not saying such bidding should be banned. Simply that if you want to play bridge that way then the points system should penalise you, not give you an advantage."

EXACTLY.

Btw, I LOVE CREATIVITY! But 2H opening with xx, Qxxxx, xxx, xxx
or 2D (Ekren&Co.) with Qxxx, Qxxx, xx, xxx is not creativity. It is poker bridge.

So at NV -100, -400, -700, -1000... score for doubled undertricks would be OK.

Why -100, -300, -500, and THEN -800, -1100?


Gabor

[the hog]

Changing the penalties would lessen the quality of the game. Part of the thrill is being able to tread the fine line between profitable sacrifice and disaster. Don't forget that penalties have already been increased some years ago, to stop sacrifices at the 6 and 7 level on J to 6 and similar.

[Flame]

What would happend if instead of -100 -300 -500 you would get -200 -400 -500.
In other worlds incrising the penalty for small number of down tricks. (the numbers were just an example)
Will this make the game more creative or less creative ?
Will it make put more luck into bridge or more logic ?
This as i see it will increse the potential gain from lower level doubles.
As it is today, doubling 2M or 3m at imp is a real problem, due to the low panishment for small number of trick down, and also due to the great bonus if it makes.

[the hog]

200 for the first undertrick is a very silly concept and would totally alter the game. Your tnt bids, Bergen raises etc could be thrown out of the window as 1 down doubled would be a disaster at MPs.