[Flame]

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2004, 07:43 PM, said:

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.

Im not sure at all that you can throw them , you will just get some bad results when your gabling didnt work, it will be more intresting, they will try to catch you, today catching at the 2 level is just too risky (playing imp).

[Free]

Now we have LOTT protection, when you change the penalties and other scores, this whole concept is just trash...

[jtfanclub]

ng:), on Jul 28 2004, 06:24 PM, said:

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.

My opinion is, you can't crush those for a top on a regular basis, there's something wrong with your bidding system. The same goes for people opening with 7 hcp, or opening 1H with a single heart.

Well, the other possibility is that there's something else going on. If the opener's partner isn't raising when he should be, and that's what's keeping you from crushing them, then it's time to call the director.

But assuming they're playing honestly...if they're getting good scores from those, it's because you're letting them. It has nothing to do with the scoring system.

[mikestar]

If it were desirable to make penalty doubles of part scores more attractive by changing the scoring table, increasing the undertrick score is the wrong way to go. Much better would be eliminating the concept of doubling into game. A lot easier to double 3M when you are risking -280 instead of -530/-730. There is also a certain logic to this--if you make a doubled game contract, you don't get credit for slam.

I am absolutely not advocating this change, but am merely stating that if there were a change, this would be better than increasing the undertick penalties.

[Flame]

Free, on Jul 28 2004, 09:09 PM, said:

Now we have LOTT protection, when you change the penalties and other scores, this whole concept is just trash...

Its funny how some people here feels like someone moved their cheeze and get nervourse. This is just a tehoretical subject trying to find if a better scoring table would make bridge a better (more creative intersting,smart...) game.

[hrothgar]

Has anyone noted how popular Poker seems to be vis-a-vie Bridge?

Poker has multiple professional tours...

I know of at least three television series that are currently broadcasting poker on cable television...

The "World Series of Poker" gets a hell of a lot more coverage than the Bermuda Bowl.

I readily admit that there are major differences between the two games. Most notably, Poker is a much simplier game and can be more easily understood by layman.

With this said and done, you really might want to come up with a better name for those elements of Bridge that you don't like. Cause to me, Poker looks to be a hell of a lot more popular than bridge. And I'm willing to bet that "Poker Bridge", what ever that is, is a hell of a lot more interesting than this "perfect" constructive game that you seem to idealize.

In short:

1. You have no God given right to a constructive auction
2. Learn to double for penalties and defend

[ng:)]

I have NO PROBLEM with poker-style bridge. IT'S OK! (Maybe I am a poker-style bridgeplayer, you never know:))

The problem is with the scoring table. If 3 down at NV against VUL in a doubled contract is only -500, you can't be too smart against poker guys.

This is not a "Learn to double for penalties and defend" problem, because they have AN ADVANTAGE WITHOUT TOO MUCH RISK, due the scoring table.

Btw I love poker, but BRIDGE is not only a card game. Bridge is more... I think we all know this.

Gabor

[mikestar]

The scoring table has been tinkered with many times, but down 3 at favorable has always been a good save. +500 loses if you accept it in exchange for a sure game, but has a better expectation than a doubtful game, since sometimes you will go minus. Also it must be remembered that when they are bidding high, your suits won't split and your game is more likely to go down than if they were quiet.

Remember also the Law of Total Tricks: the more you make, the less they will. So if it turns our 4H would have made 5, at least some of that time their save will go for 800.

I've played Precison against agressive intervention and came out fairly well in 1C auctions. Penalty doubles and penalty passes at the 3 level on xxxx are big money winners.

Remember that you can afford a certain amount of loss in 1C sequences--you limited opening bids show a lot of profit (especially with a natural 1D).

As a dedicated precisionista, my approach to intervention over 1C is this:

I am the vampire Lestat. Come on into my auction and I will feast on your blood.

[gabika73]

C'mon, it is not "after-empting" we are talking about... It is PRE-empting...
That is, 1st seat, NV vs Vul, when nothing is known about 3 other hands.

This is what Gabor called poker. It is rather luck that decides scores in this case:
- you can miss a game or a slam;
- opps can miss a game or a slam;
- you will play too high in a part-score;
- opps will play in an otherwise unreachable game or slam;
- you'll concede hundreds for nothing;
- etc, etc

You just have no way of knowing.
And the low scores for 1-2-3 NV undertricks do encourage this in-quick pre-empts.
This way, luck will decide the results, more or less...


Of course, it does have something to do with skills, especially opponent's skills and knowledge about competitive bidding, but more often than not, they are in some disadvantage as they mostly do not expect the kind of hand you happen to have. They (especially if unknown, or at a Pairs event, or online) do not know your style, and rarely will they be alerted to your super-agressive style od pre-empting.

As for the other issue: "let us read the rules (i.e. scoring), and let us adjust our style and methods to maximize the scores". This is true. However, rules are to serve us. In an effort to make this game as enjoyable, as creative, as entertaining, as challenging, as put-here-anything-you-want, as it can or should be. Therefore rules are not sciben into stone. They can be modified if that serves our common goal.


/// off-topic

Football (soccer, if you happen to live overseas...) some decades ago gave 2 points to the winner. So everybody was defending, because it was not worth to take some risk for an extra point. This meant 0-0 draws after boring matches. What happened? They have changed the rules: winner gets 3 points: risking 1 to get 2 points is better...

Well, now again defending have come to top again opposed to attacking, as at Euro2004. Curious, if this keeps happening, whether they will modify some rules again...

[Trpltrbl]

Dwayne, on Jul 28 2004, 02:49 AM, said:

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.

Everybody can play strong suit systems, but most can't do a lot after some good interference.

Mike

[Cascade]

mikestar, on Jul 30 2004, 03:07 AM, said:

As a dedicated precisionista, my approach to intervention over 1C is this:

I am the vampire Lestat. Come on into my auction and I will feast on your blood.

Sadly blood is not always available.

Any artificial strong opening that does not begin to bid suits (or natural NTs) is vulnerable to pre-emption. Natural Canape openings and Short Club and Diamond openings are also vulnerable to a lesser extent.

[mikestar]

Cascade, on Aug 1 2004, 04:00 AM, said:

mikestar, on Jul 30 2004, 03:07 AM, said:

As a dedicated precisionista, my approach to intervention over 1C is this:

I am the vampire Lestat. Come on into my auction and I will feast on your blood.

Sadly blood is not always available.

Any artificial strong opening that does not begin to bid suits (or natural NTs) is vulnerable to pre-emption. Natural Canape openings and Short Club and Diamond openings are also vulnerable to a lesser extent.

All too true ... but the pair that is on the lookout for blood will get a lot more than a pair that is totally focused on finding its own contract in spite of the intervention. I have seen too many Precision (and other systems as well) players pass up too many golden opportunites for satisfying penalties.

The general rule--the more often we can find the penalty double, the less their intervention costs us. The cost will never be zero, but it doesn't need to be: if we can minimize our losses on 1C hands, we come out way ahead of 2/1 players due to our sizable gains on our limited openings.

[pbleighton]

"All too true ... but the pair that is on the lookout for blood will get a lot more than a pair that is totally focused on finding its own contract in spite of the intervention. I have seen too many Precision (and other systems as well) players pass up too many golden opportunites for satisfying penalties."

Mike - after 2 level interference, followed by pd's card showing double, would you give a few hands where you would leave in the double for penalties, but it is a close decision, and other strong club pairs may not.

Would you ever do it with Axx and enough points to drive to game?

Peter

[mikestar]

pbleighton, on Aug 1 2004, 11:03 AM, said:

"All too true ... but the pair that is on the lookout for blood will get a lot more than a pair that is totally focused on finding its own contract in spite of the intervention. I have seen too many Precision (and other systems as well) players pass up too many golden opportunites for satisfying penalties."

Mike - after 2 level interference, followed by pd's card showing double, would you give a few hands where you would leave in the double for penalties, but it is a close decision, and other strong club pairs may not.

Would you ever do it with Axx and enough points to drive to game?

Peter

Generally not with Axx, but I've done it often with xxxx. At the two level with this sort of trump holding, I would tend to leave in only with minimal game values. Say our CSD is 5-7, I might leave in with 20-21 but go for game with 22+. At higher levels the leave in is more frequent--the harder it is find the right game, the more likely we will do better defending.

The big money in the CSD is when you don't have enough for game--then I might gamble a leave in on Axx at the two level. it's risky, but down two nv or down one v is a top if we have no game.

An actual hand for 1C-(2S)-X-(P)-P both vul:

S xxxx H AQx D AKQxx C A

Spades run for them in 3N and 5D is down (partner had 2 spades and the heart finesse loses). But they go down one in spite of their solid trumps, +200 for the good guys, better than the -100 most of the field got even without intefernce.

More than a few will try 3D on this hand.

I'll post more examples later.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Jul 31 2004, 11:00 PM, said:

Sadly blood is not always available.

Any artificial strong opening that does not begin to bid suits (or natural NTs) is vulnerable to pre-emption. Natural Canape openings and Short Club and Diamond openings are also vulnerable to a lesser extent.

I find the two most common hands we have when we open 1C are:

1. 16-18 hcp, balanced.
2. A long, powerful suit, which may have less than 16 hcp (AKJxxxx x AJT9 x).

I don't think that opening these 1C makes them more vulnerable to pre-empts than opening them 1NT or one of a suit. People have all sorts of systems for bidding over 1NT for a reason, and you'll have a heck of a time showing just how powerful that hand is if you open 1S when they interfere. It's not the 1C bid that's vulnerable to pre-emption, it's the sorts of hand that get opened 1C. IMHO, of course.