Monday,
July 03, 2006
2:31 AM
Hand Evaluation – Openers ( Old Time Religion )
PITBULLS:
I took an
absence from tournament Bridge during the 1980’s & most of the 90’s up to
when I retired in 2001 . I played mainly rubber bridge
during that period. During that time , something
happened to the game of Bridge for whatever reason. I am reviewing the Spingolds ,
World Championship , Vanderbilts from about 1980 to
present from the Bridge Worlds. During the early 1990’s ,
Meckwell & some Polish pro’s changed the nature
of the game of Bridge for a while. Openers with time honoured principles of
requiring defensive values measured in quick tricks became almost non-existent , vulnerability was not respected , decent suits
were not needed for overcalls at the one level or two level & of course
pre-empts were suicidal. Some Bridge writers advocated changing the
requirements for an opening bid ( quick tricks ) that
has existed for over 65 years. Their sole justification for this drastic
opening bid philosophy change according to them was to open
even more hands to make the opponents guess.
They never do explain how partner is supposed to handle these
“semi-psyches” though. What a very convenient religion for the “solo artists”
to buy into as they “just need a chair” across from them anyway. All the
terrorist tactics that I see in Ray Grace & Osama ,
Willard etc who do it all the time today were prevalent starting in the 90’s.
The Bridge World editors were sarcastic as disasters were reported on by the
dozens but it did not deter the pros because in their mind they got better
results by forcing people to go wrong at the expense of partnership discipline.
They played with clients so partnership discipline was sacrificed to get
results in weak fields. If the good results outnumbered the disasters
, they were ahead. The weak fields made sure that was indeed the case.
In the 2000’s , it is starting to shift back the other way.
The Italians are way more disciplined than the Meckwells
so their lack of discipline are beating themselves except at matchpoints .
I must accept the fact that there was a “crazy period” in Bridge where the
Bergen types advocated no quick tricks for openers ,
color is for kids , pre-empt & overcall with garbage. From the Bridge World
write ups , Bergen was responsible for single handedly destroying some matches with his lack of
discipline so he has not been invited to play on serious teams for a decade
now.
People from my era of
Bridge feel that the so called “modern way” of bidding is just plain pigeon
shooting that Barry Crane did in matchpoints . Crane opened any hand 10 HCP’s & up & his
partners had to field them. He was out to destroy the opponents’ auctions at
the expense of partnership bidding. Terrorism starts with the opening bid.
However, the disease is far more rampant than I
first thought spreading to overcalls. In a local club
game recently Peter Jones had ♠Kxx ♥xxx ♦Jx
♣AK10xx vul vrs nv . I was playing with Mavis ,
opened 1♦ , Jones
passed & Mavis bid 2NT. I bid 3NT . Mavis played it very well & endplayed
Peter away from his spade King to make +460 . Excellent result
? no a dead zero. Everybody & I mean
everybody in the field overcalled 2♣ with Peter Jones hand vul & went for numbers ranging from –500 to -1100 . Peter Jones matter of factly
said “everybody
here bids that way" .
Where did they get this from ? Who did they get this from ? I saw somebody advising Nancy Cook she should have
made a two level overcall with 12 HCP’s holding a
very bad 5 card suit. Nancy refused to overcall so he thought Nancy made a bad bid !!
I play quite
a bit in local club games & I get tops or above averages for passing out
hands. In the local club field , hands do not get
passed out. Quick tricks are not needed for openers so if their queens &
jacks come up to 11, they open. Who taught them this ? Who are they emulating ? Do
they see Osama , Ray & Klimo
doing this so they think this is Bridge ? Do
that get it from Bergen’s books ? I do not think they are
doing it because the only wrong bids in matchpoints
are bids that do not work. I think they just do not know any better
as they lack hand evaluation skills. I also use tactics
to destroy the opponents’ auctions but an opening bid is “off limits” for that
purpose. There are other ways to be destructive in Bridge without sacrificing
partner.
I
think this type of Bridge was started by bored pros who
delighted in what they could get away with so have been so re-enforced with
good results against bad fields. A combination of intimidation & in some
cases borderline ethics with partners
giving them unbelievable leeway. Bridge is a game based on random events so is
based on the laws of probabilities. These tactics cannot work in the long run
unless the opponents let them get away with it. This , in my mind , is what is happening though for
re-enforcement. Nick & Judy have bought into the Meckwell
style with Judy giving Nick unbelievable leeway for his tactical destructive
bids. After some serious thought , I have bought into
the modern
destructive religion nv vrs vul only. I call this the terrorist
vulnerability. I believe you can call me a ¼ or part time terrorist where the
opponents must guess vul. :)
Give me the
old time religion where people had openers with defense
measured in quick tricks , overcalls were lead directing with suits &
pre-empts were not suicidal. It is definitely buying into a religion which I
refuse to buy into. No wonder some people criticized my opening bids for well
over a year calling me a woose for not opening hands
with 11 or 12 HCP’s with not enough quick tricks .
Some of these hands were even poor responses
in my opinion. They were unbelievably adamant that I was wrong with my
opening bids , overcalls & pre-empts style as I was not being destructive
enough to the opponents They were trying to convert me to their
religion preached by Bergen of using an opening bid
as a destructive tool to make “them
guess” !! Suicide pre-empts & overcalls also came with the
territory. They had no fear of their ”meeting with
Allah” by going for a huge set. No wonder Maurice disagreed with almost
everything I was advocating in my articles as I am going against the grain of
the 1990’s Bergen religion but not him. Bergen is Maurice’s role model for
“Bridge is a bidder’s game” & mine is Ely
Culbertson for “Bridge is a partnership game” :) . I feel that the two Bridge
philosophies cannot co-exist. Partner is odd man out. You do not need
to think with hand evaluation skills to
know when or how to bid , you just randomly bid
& damn the consequences. If you cause them to guess wrong before
partner guesses wrong , you
are a single handed hero. You do not need forcing pass theory
, just bid again regardless to get the “last word in”. Simple. You are changing Bridge from a game of great
skill to a game of chance ( luck ) like at a
Casino. Most Bridge players appreciate the skill
that is necessary to play Bridge at high levels. Satisfaction is job one.
I did not realize how deeply this Bergen doctrine
had spread being away from tournament Bridge during
the 1990’s. As George Bush says you are either with the terrorists or
against them. I am still against the terrorists after reviewing these matches
for 25 years . I am also making my own conclusion from
my 40 years of playing the game that this destructive style is very wrong
for a partnership
game. The style is fine for pro’s playing with clients as you are entitled to
make a living. Beyond that , I think this is a phase that Bridge went through
starting from the 90’s & is ending this decade with the Italians as
role models. I sure hope so. For now , it suffices to
know that these “religious
fanatics” do indeed exist so act accordingly. Like
terrorists with suicide vests they blow up themselves ,
partner & their team. They are out to destroy your auctions at the expense
of themselves , partner & team. They are dangerous
to themselves as they think they are right with the stubborness only a religious fanatic can have. Scary stuff
when they are on your team….