[32519]

I stumbled across this entry on Bridge Guys website http://www.bridgeguy...ary/GlossC.html

Coombs Gambit
Devised by Mr. Norman Coombs. This is a defense device against an Artificial Club and Artificial Diamonds opening. The specifics are unknown at this time.

QUESTION 1:
Does anyone know more about the specifics of this gambit?


The only other gambit I know about is the Grosvenor Gambit http://www.bridgebum.com/grosvenor.php


QUESTION 2:
Do you know of any other gambits? If so, what are they or where can they be found?
(I am not referring to the various coup's here. There are a whole string of those e.g.the Crocodile Coup)

BRIDGE versus CHESS
This thread attracted a number of references to chess. For those interested there is a very interesting article comparing these two games on Migry Zur Campanile's website. Read it here. http://www.migry.com/pdf/mindgames.pdf

[Zelandakh]

Gambit is a term borrowed from chess. It means to offer material in order to achieve something in return. This has very little application in bridge. You can give away a trick which misleads the opps into giving it back to you (Grosvenor), or you can offer the opps a penalty which is worth less than their game or slam (sacrifice) but there is nothing obvious that you can give away in the bidding directly over a strong club. Most likely this is a misnomer.

[Free]

I know many gambits, but not in bridge...

[gwnn]

I've never heard of the "Grosvenor gambit", just Grosvenor coup. But I see Wikipedia has the former as the article title.

anyway, there are sacrifices in bridge, just like in chess maybe

1♥-p-2♥-p
3♥ as a preempt is sort of a gambit?

[Free]

After reading Zelandakh's post, I guess a striped-tail monkey Dbl is some sort of a gambit. Basically your opponents have slam, but you double them at 5-level to scare them off. 5Yx+1 is a poor score compared with 6Y=. Obviously you need an escape in case opps redouble...

[Zelandakh]

Just an additional note, the primary difference between a gambit and a sacrifice in chess is that the former always occurs in the opening. Neither require that you actually lose the material and some of the most popular gambits in chess are really fakes in that the opponent can never actually keep what is offered. The difference is essentially irrelevant for non-chess players though.

[gwnn]

Yes but in bridge you don't have an opening so the distinction is meaningless It is true, though, that studying openings and trying to learn your partner's stupid relay system can be similar logically, so sometimes people say that openings~bridge systems.

[semeai]

The Merrimac Coup certainly seems like a gambit. You're giving up a trick (in the suit you lead the high card in) for a non-material gain. In the wikipedia example hand, if you add a third club to dummy, then it's even an example of a gambit that should be refused!

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2011-October-25, 02:15, said:

Yes but in bridge you don't have an opening so the distinction is meaningless It is true, though, that studying openings and trying to learn your partner's stupid relay system can be similar logically, so sometimes people say that openings~bridge systems.

Similarly logical and similarly rewarding. The last person I found "stupid" enough our results went up over half an IMP per board when switching from a (detailed) natural system to my stupid relay methods, even when partner had not learned the complete system. For most club-level chess players the results from knowing their opening theory perfectly would be similarly noticeable.

[gwnn]

Zelandakh please don't take my post too seriously. The last time I played a relay system it was because I insisted and my partner relented.

@semeai: I don't agree. Here you have obvious material gain. In bridge (cardplay) you have tricks and not much else, while in chess you have (according to the old ideas) time, space and material. In gambit play you give up material in return for time and/or space. In bridge you can presumably give up tricks to get more tricks in the end but then you didn't give up tricks at all. I don't see any other factor at play in bridge, except maybe psychological ones (like the Grosvenor gambit exchanges some potential tricks to some psychological frustration on opps' behalf).

[Free]

Isn't it possible to win tempo by sacrificing a trick? (for example if partner only has 1 entry and he needs 2, you may give up a trick to develop the suit anyway before he needs his entry)

[gwnn]

Yes I guess you have "time" in bridge too.

[manudude03]

I tried putting Coombs Gambit into Google, the first result was this thread. The second result was the BBF front page then the rest seemed non-bridge related. I have noticed that Bridgeguys don't seem to double-check their own information on occasions.

[gwnn]

But just in case you want to learn a cool defence against strong club, try

x=majors
1D=natural
1M=natural
1N=minors
2C=clubs or diamonds
2D=4 diamonds and a long major
2H=hearts or spades
2S=4 spades and a long minor

this only works if you're NV. if you are V I would like to propose

x=majors
1x=natural
1N=minors
2x=natural
2N=more minors

[Free]

gwnn, on 2011-October-25, 07:41, said:

But just in case you want to learn a cool defence against strong club, try

x=majors
1D=natural
1M=natural
1N=minors
2C=clubs or diamonds
2D=4 diamonds and a long major
2H=hearts or spades
2S=4 spades and a long minor

this only works if you're NV. if you are V I would like to propose

x=majors
1x=natural
1N=minors
2x=natural
2N=more minors

FYP

[kenrexford]

I just corresponded with a mutual friend of mine and of Norm, and he has no idea what the heck the "Coombs Gambit" could be. In fact, that friend played on a team with Norm this past weekend.

That said, the guess was that Norm probably did some sort of "nonsense" involving bidding or transferring into his short suit, merely because Norm would do something crazy like that.

[semeai]

@gwnn Ultimately everything in chess is material too, with the only material being the king. Maybe the problem is that chess as a whole is harder than the card play of one bridge hand?

Even so, most think in reductive terms even in bridge. Certainly we have the phrase non-material in bridge, as in say non-material squeezes, and have things like entries and stoppers and so forth.

The difference between double dummy and single dummy suggests there are other types of non-material things about in a bridge hand as well.

[ggwhiz]

If I'm not mistaken, the gambit only becomes a coup after it works.

After getting 2 mutts from the pound and wondering what to name them, we BBQ'd steaks and gave a bone to each. One scarfed hers down while the other 1 savoured hers. First one ran to the front gate barkng like all hell broke loose. Second one gave chase and zoom, 1st 1 doubled back for the 2nd bone.

Grosvenor! My favorite pet of all time.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

gwnn, on 2011-October-25, 07:41, said:

But just in case you want to learn a cool defence against strong club, try

x=majors
1D=natural
1M=natural
1N=minors
2C=clubs or diamonds
2D=4 diamonds and a long major
2H=hearts or spades
2S=4 spades and a long minor

this only works if you're NV. if you are V I would like to propose

x=majors
1x=natural
1N=minors
2x=natural
2N=more minors

What about CRASH over a strong 1C ?

DBL! = 2 suits of same Color
1D! = 2 suits of same Rank ( either minors or majors)
1NT! = 2 suits of same Shape ( pointed Sp/Diam or rounded Ht/Cl )

1H = natural, one suited
1S = natural, one suited

[Zelandakh]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-October-25, 17:27, said:

What about CRASH over a strong 1C ?

DBL! = 2 suits of same Color
1D! = 2 suits of same Rank ( either minors or majors)
1NT! = 2 suits of same Shape ( pointed Sp/Diam or rounded Ht/Cl )

1H = natural, one suited
1S = natural, one suited

Better than this is modofied CRASH, eg:-
X = hearts
1D = spades
1H = 2 same colour
1S = 2 same shape
1N = 2 same rank

Aguably the "standard" more complex defence in the UK is Truscott

P = no desire to compete or good hand
X = C+H
1D = D+H
1H = H+S
1S = S+C
1N = D+S
2C = C+D
others = natural and weak

For a "cool" defence then look up Suction or, better yet, Psycho Suction. Here the overcalls show either one suit or the next higher 2 suits. In Psycho Suction the possible 1-suiter is the suit bid but there is a whole family of defences based on Suction. At the other extreme you can play something incredibly simple and still be effective. So X = majors, 1NT = minors is popular (as above) or simpler yet X = clubs, 1NT majors or minors, 1 level overcalls sound, 2 level overcalls weak is quite playable. You can also come up with something more customised based on your favoured 2-level opening bid structure or 1NT defence if desired and not wanting too much exttra to remember. It is not difficult to produce workable schemes. The key points to remember are that calls below 1H give the opponents more space and therefore should either be sound (as in modified CRASH) or easily raised (as in Truscott) and that calls above 1H will often take your opponents out of relays (and therefore you should generally strain to make such bids as often as possible).