Puppet Stayman after a 1N Opener September 7, 2011
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Advanced, Convention
18 comments
Many people, including myself, play the following basic NT structure when they open 1N:
2
– Stayman
2
/2
– Transfer
2
– Clubs
2N- Diamonds
3– ?
3 – 5-5 minors GF
3 – 31(54)
3 – 13(54)
4– Gerber
4/4– Texas
There are a wide range of views on how to play 3, including 5-5 minors weak, and 5-5 minors invitational. I suggest playing 3 as puppet stayman. The responses are simple:
3– No 5 card major
3/3– 5 of that major
You may be wondering why the responses are different than over a 2N opener, where 3 would promise a 4 card major, and a 3N response would deny one. The difference here is that with 4-4 in the majors, responder would bid regular stayman (which would not be available after a 2N opener). Since 4-4 majors is eliminated, there is no need to show directly whether you have a major or not, if responder has one he can bid 3 of the major he doesn’t have, and opener can bid 3N.
So, the 2 obvious questions are, why play puppet at all, and why use these responses if you do?
To answer the second question first, the goal is for opener to reveal as little about his hand as possible. Think about the auction 1N-3-3-3-3N. Playing standard puppet responses, opener is known to have 4 hearts, and responder is known to have 4 spades. Playing my suggested responses, it is unknown whether opener has 4 hearts. This is a huge gain that can help declarer make life difficult for the opponents during the play.
When responder has no four card major and is just looking for a 5-3 fit, the modified responses are clearly better as it will go 1N-3-3-3N and no needless information about 4 card majors has been given away.
It might seem like standard responses gain when the auction goes 1N-3-3N. With modified responses, the auction would go 1N-3-3-3M-3N, and the opening leader will know which 4 card major dummy has. That is true, and will help the opening leader if he has a lead problem, but for the entire rest of the hand standard puppet responses lose, because declarer will be known to not have a 4 card major, whereas with the modified responses the defense will not know if declarer has 4 of the other major or not. It is my strong opinion that the modified responses will work much better on average even in this situation, but I’ll leave it to you to decide.
If you agree with me, something interesting happens. Logically, you should not only be bidding puppet when you are interested in a 5 card major from partner, you should be bidding it any time you have a 4 card major and a choice of games hand! Compare the possibilities of bidding stayman with those hands vs puppet stayman:
1) 1N-2-2M-3N, vs 1N-3-3-3M-3N. In the first auction, opener is known to have 4 of one major, and dummy 4 of the other major. In the second auction, dummy’s 4 card major is known, but it is not known whether opener has 4 of the other major.
2) 1N-2-2-3N vs 1N-3-3-3M-3N. In the first auction, dummy’s 4 card major is not known to the opening leader. However, after the lead the defense will have an easier time because they know declarer has no 4 card major. This is analogous to the discussion earlier about why to play the modified responses in the first place.
3) 1N-2-2M-3N/4M vs 1N-3-3M-3N/4M. In this case, puppet has lost because the defenders will know opener has a 5 card major rather than 4-5. The gains from 1 and 2 will be much more common than the losses from 3.
So, one reason to play 3 puppet is that it gives away less information than on hands you would normally be forced to bid stayman with. I learned this from my partner Joe Grue when I noticed him doing it and had to figure out why. The more obvious reason is that it allows you to find 5-3 major fits after opening 1N. Don’t bid puppet with 4333, as 3N will probably be best without a fit anyways, but shapes like 4342 with 2 small, or 5332 with 2 small clearly benefit from playing in a 5-3 fit, and it is nice to have a way to find it.
The less obvious reason to play puppet is that it helps your slam bidding by being able to show hand types that are otherwise difficult to show in the common no trump structure I described. Specifically, 5332 with a 5 card minor is easy to show with the auction:
1N-3-3-4m.
This shows exactly 5332 with the minor bid, because if you had a 4 card major and a 5 card minor and slam values you would start with regular stayman followed by 3m. On top of that, if you have a 5-3 major suit fit you will find it immediately with puppet. This is a hard hand type without puppet because if you deal with it by transferring to the minor, it becomes hard to find other fits, and that typically shows 6 of the minor. If you deal with it by bidding stayman followed by 3m, you will not be showing a slam try necessarily, and will be implying a 4 card major. Now if partner is 4-4 in the majors everything gets murky and difficult to sort out.
Showing this hand type becomes slightly trickier if partner responds 3M over 3. If the auction goes:
1N-3-3–
This is pretty easy to sort out. Just bid 3 as an artificial slam try in hearts, and 4 of a minor shows 32(35) exactly (with 5 of the minor bid). However, if the auction goes:
1N-3-3–
The auction is trickier. You can use 4 as all slam tries for spades, but that is extremely bulky and leaves no room to maneuver. Since a slam try in spades will be by far your most common slam try, I recommend just using 4 as a slam try in spades, 4 showing 2335, and 4 showing 2353. This requires some memory work, but it’s worth it.
Another good hand type is (43)42. You start with puppet. If partner bids 3, you show your 4 card major. If partner bids 3N, the auction has now gone:
1N-3-3-3M-3N.
4m now shows your 4 card minor, and implicitly, your entire shape. With (43)(51) you would have started with regular stayman followed by 3m, showing a 4 card major and a longer minor GF. You would still be able to find a 5-3 fit in the other major since partner would bid it twice. Being able to show your 4 card minor below the slam level is important, as often a light slam can be made in a 4-4 fit, but a quantitative auction will have you playing 4N. And of course, if you had a fit in either major, you would discover that easily after puppet.
Judging this convention on my 4 criteria that I described in this post, puppet is extremely frequent, costs little (losing 5-5 minors invite is not something I cry myself to sleep about, in fact the main cost comes when the opponents double 3 on a 1N-3N hand), is effective when it comes up (finding 5-3 fits and giving the opponents less information on normal stayman hands are both nice, and the slam hands take care of the few problem shapes, though those are infequent). The basic responses could not be simpler. The extra slam hands that are added in add a lot of complexity, but if your partnership is not ready for them then just forget about it. You will still be gaining frequently for very little memory work if you choose to do so.
The Negative Effects of Professionalism on Bridge Pros September 6, 2011
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Professionalism
9 comments
NFL coaches are notorious for not going for it on 4th down enough, despite math clearly proving that they should be more aggressive in a lot of situations. How can these guys get paid fortunes to make in game decisions, and consistently make such poor ones?
The answer is simple, job security. If they defy conventional wisdom often in high variance situations, they will be blamed if they lose the game, but they will not get credit if they win the game. This logical inconsistency leads them to be rationally risk averse, because their main goal is not just to win games, but also to not get fired. Worse, if they do get fired for being considered too much of a maverick, they might never get hired again due to that very reputation.
The situation in bridge is less dire, as percentage plays are respected, and the math is often easily demonstrable. However, a large part of becoming a great bridge player, good enough to be hired to play on professional teams, is having excellent judgement about when situations to go against conventional wisdom or A priori odds.
Imagine you are a bridge pro, and you have reached a 3 card ending, dummy having AJ9 of a suit, and you having K87 in your hand. You need 3 tricks, and you know RHO started with 2 cards in this suit, and LHO started with 3 cards. You play the king, and lead up to dummy. RHO followed with the 6, and then your LHO fumbled for a second and followed with the ten. Your spidey senses are tingling. Did RHO start with Q6, and now LHO is falsecarding with the ten? Or did RHO falsecard with 6x?
You see this situation all the time. Moderate caliber LHO’s always try to falsecard here. They are nervous you are going to guess the suit. Few RHO’s seem to play the 6 from 6x (yet when they have Tx or 9x they seem to often make this falsecard). Your experience and judgement strongly suggest playing the ace.
The problem here is that bridge players are not judged by imps won, they are judged only by imps lost. If you are right 75 % of the time, you have gained quite a bit over the percentage play of finessing (finessing is a 60/40 proposition A priori because LHO has 3 cards in the suit, and RHO has 2 cards in the suit), but you still risk facing the firing squad 25 % of the time. You still have defied conventional wisdom, and you can be sure your client and teammates will remember that 25 % much more often than the 75 % that you gain. On the other hand if you just finesse and lose to Qx, you tell your teammates that you took a normal percentage play and no one thinks anything of it again, win or lose. Just like no one thinks anything of the NFL coach who didn’t go for it on 4th and 3 in the first quarter on the opposing team’s 45 yard line.
The biggest problem is that you are not just thinking about a bridge problem anymore, that’s the easy part, you’re deciding if making this play is worth possibly getting fired, get a bad reputation, maybe never get hired again and be forced to get a 9-5 job that pays much less.
What about high risk, high return bidding strategies? The most obvious example is preempting. If you watch world championships, it is noticeable how much more conservative Americans are with preempting than almost all other countries. I submit that the risk aversion caused by professionalism is the cause of this. USA is the only country that has sponsored teams in the Bermuda Bowl. If you go for 1100 on an aggressive preempt not made at the other table, your teammates and clients will remember that. If you win a partscore battle or find a mildly profitable save because of it, no one will notice. If you win a game swing because you pushed the opponents too high or into the wrong game, those imps will probably be chalked up to the opponents playing badly and misjudging. Of course, they will more often misjudge when they are preempted, but that doesn’t matter.
Every pro dreads this comparison:
“-1100, sorry”
“Eleven Hundred? What happened there????”
“I opened 3C, it was a little aggressive, but that’s our style”
“Oh, they passed against me, lose 12.”
Trying to explain that this is a long term winning style that has high variance and inevitable numbers every now and then will often just agitate the client, who will wonder if they should have teammates that don’t have a style that goes for eleven hundred.
No problem, your teammates will help make your case for you, right?
Wrong. If your team has performed poorly, changes are probably going to be made. If your teammates don’t want to get fired, then it has to be you, and they know that. Professional bridge incentivizes teammates to talk badly about each other, or at least remember the bad results the other pair had as evidence of why it’s not their own fault that they lost. There has to be some scapegoat, and it can’t be the client, or bad luck, so what else is left? And that 1100, or that hand you didn’t take a finesse, is certainly going to be excellent ammunition.
You could have easily avoided all of this trouble by just not making a marginal preempt. Nobody will realize the imps that you failed to win on some boards, because you did the normal thing. You will win the post-mortem, and your teammates will have no ammunition on you, and your client will have no reason to fire you. Looking at things from a job security point of view, this is extremely palatable.
All of this post-morteming, considering what your teammates will think, or whether your client will fire you, is just distracting you from making the action that will win the most often.
You might think that if your views often work, your success will speak for itself, and the occasional disasters will be forgiven. In an ideal world this would be true. In the real world, we suffer from a lack of hard statistics. How many matches down-the-middle pro wins compared to high-variance pro is impossible to tell. How often the latter’s views work out is impossible to tell. We do not have ESPN to give us statistics about things like that! Without statistics, we just have to go by perception, politics, and word of mouth. All of those things are driven by emotion more than anything else. Unfortunately, human nature is to remember the negative emotions associated with the big losses much more often than the positive emotions associated with the gains. That is true for pros and clients alike. We also always remember when someone does something atypical against us that does not work, and think less of the person, especially if our sample size against that person is small.
Why is conventional wisdom among even professional players to be so risk averse? Being a full time bridge pro means playing a lot of matches on stacked professional teams against amateurs in regionals. Against competition like this, taking big risks is almost never right, as you will almost always win playing down the middle. But keeping this mentality in national events, or against other strong pro teams at regionals, will just lead you to not realize the edge that all of your experience and skill offers. The same skill that allowed you to win enough as an amateur to begin being hired as a professional, how ironic.
A Good Convention August 30, 2011
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Advanced, Bidding, Convention, Intermediate
14 comments
What makes a good convention? There are 4 factors:
- Frequency – The more it comes up, the better.
- Simplicity – The easier it is to remember, the better.
- Effectiveness – The more you gain when it comes up, the better.
- Cost – The less you have to give up in order to play it, the better.
Before your partnership adds a new convention to its system, you should analyze whether it will be beneficial or not under those four criteria.
I was thinking about it recently, and there is one convention that I play that hits a home run from that perspective, and surprisingly few people play it.
Say the auction starts:
1 p 1N p
2 p 2N p
?
You would like to be able to do all of the following:
- Show 5-5 in the majors and force.
- Show 5-5 in the majors and sign off.
- Show 6-4 in the majors and force.
- Show 6-4 i the majors and sign off **(more on this later).
- Pattern out with 54(31) or 54(40) for choice of games purposes (or possibly for slam).
The problem here with natural methods is that you must choose whether 3 and 3 cater to hand types 1 and 3, or hand types 2 and 4. Most people give up on hands 2 and 4, letting partner play 2N in order to improve their game and slam bidding accuracy. However, there is a simple way to have your cake and eat it too.
Play 3 as a relay to 3. This will operate like lebensohl. Over 3 if you bid 3 or 3, it is to play. If you bid 3N it means you had a natural 3 bid, so 5404 or 5413, enabling partner to pull with weak diamonds. This leaves a direct 3 and 3 as forcing. A 3 bid would be standard, showing a diamond fragment.
The cost of playing this is very small, you lose some room when you have a club fragment, but it is room that you usually won’t need anyways.
The simplicity of the convention could hardly be lower. You have to remember that 3 is a relay, that’s it.
The effectiveness of the convention is where it really shines. You no longer have to choose between leaving your partner in 2N when you hold KQxxx AJxxx Q xx, or forcing to a ridiculous game. Same with a hand like KJxxxx AJxx Qx x.
I can already hear some of you saying, “But Justin, wanting to sign off with a 6-4 hand is impossible, because with a weak 6-4 I would have bid 2 not 2. Then when I bid 3 next, my partner knows I have a weak 6-4.”
It is very classical that weak 6-4’s bid spades, spades, hearts, and strong 6-4’s bid spades, hearts, spades. However, it is a very poor way to play. It is too important to introduce hearts over 1N whenever you have 6-4, there are some hands where partner will pass you in 2 but would invite or bid game over 2. And partner might just be 1-4 or 1-5 where 2 is a much superior partscore (remember when partner is 2-3 he will correct to 2 unless his hand is very weak.) This does not even take into account suit quality issues, do you really want to bid 1 then 2 on Qxxxxx AKQx xx x?
But please, stop interrupting me. You know how I like to go off on tangents.
Back to the convention. The frequency of it is reasonably high, because it does not only apply to 1-1N-2-2N. It applies to these auctions as well:
- 1-1N-2-2N
- 1-1N-2-2N
- 1-1-2-2N
Basically, it applies when opener has bid 2 suits, and neither of them was clubs. This is obviously because if you have bid clubs, bidding 3 is now a rebid of your second suit.
There will be some auctions where you have an extra step. If you think this might be confusing, I would recommend just leaving it idle, it is not worth it as it takes away from the simplicity of the convention and adds little to the effectiveness.
However, for completeness, the auction:
1 1N
2 2N
3 3
3
would have no meaning. I like to define it as 5404, whereas 3 then 3N is 5413. Interestingly, you can do the same thing over 1-1-2-2N-3-3, even though partner has bid spades naturally. A direct 3 would show a spade fragment, and having two ways to force in spades is not useful (and non forcing would not make sense… you are forcing too high if you don’t have a fit, and with a minimum 3541 you should be raising 1 to 2 to begin with).
Whatever your level, I recommend that you add this excellent convention to your arsenal, and start thinking about the right things before you add another objectively bad convention to your system just because it seems cool.
A Lightner Double August 29, 2011
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Bidding, Mental, Trials
5 comments
After 75 of 120 boards in the round of 8 of the team trials, our team was up by 45 imps. This may sound like a lot, until you realize that we were playing against the Nickell team. The team that has not missed a Bermuda bowl in an incredible 16 years, since before I even played bridge. Not just that, they have become known for being down significant margins early on, playing perfectly, and winning. They always bring it at this point, and it was our job to stop them.
My partner Joe and I were playing against Meckstroth and Rodwell, my vote for the best pair in the world (and I am not alone). After the first five boards of the fifteen board set, my scorecard read:
-140
-140
-140
-790
-420
I don’t have to tell you the hands for you to know that this is not good. They were not pushing to game when it wouldn’t make, and they had made two games, one doubled. One might have heard thoughts like, “Am I going to be another victim of an inevitable Meckwell comeback? Another statistic…” creeping slowly into my head as I was dealt:
Q95432
KJ52
J
64
Meckstroth on my left opened 1, which could be as short as 2. My partner overcalled 1 and Rodwell bid 2 showing a game force with clubs. I was white/white and just bid 4 based on my shape, maybe we can make and surely it’s a good preempt. This was passed around to Rodwell who leapt to 6. We passed the tray, and Joe doubled it!
This is a lightner double and tells me to make an unusual lead. There were 2 options, my partner had AK or AQ of diamonds (the first bid suit), or he had a spade void and wanted a ruff. Which was it?
This lead felt very important. Not only would it likely swing 20+ imps, it would change the momentum a lot. Meckwell had a solid set against us, and if they got this one in they would be pretty much crushing us. That is tough psychologically. That…
Wake up! Let’s think about the right lead and not the psychology or the importance of the moment. I talk a lot about how I want the rock, how clutch I am, etc, time to put my money where my mouth is, right now.
The key here is that we need two tricks. If partner can ruff a spade, we need another trick. If partner has the ace of diamonds or the ace of clubs, that will set them, but in that case so would leading my stiff diamond! If partner has the heart ace, it is likely to be getting ruffed anyways. Some might argue partner wouldn’t even double with the heart ace and a spade void.
Leading a spade will be necessary if we have a slow diamond trick and a ruff coming, this is possible, but it’s got to be much less likely than partner having the AK or AQ of diamonds and trying to get a diamond lead, or partner having a minor suit ace and a spade void and a diamond lead beating it anyways.
No, leading a spade would be a clear error. A superficial lead that had no thought behind it.
I led a spade.
Partner had the AQx of diamonds, so instead of +300, I got to add -1090 to my scoresheet (declarer had a spade void and pitched 2 diamonds on the AK of spades in dummy).
I did not know the exact score, but in reality it was 0-35 for the set at this point, we were ahead only 10. We had to play Nickell for 2 and a half more long sets, and we were up only 10. And they had the momentum.
It is easy at this point to want to curl up and die. It is easy to be embarrassed that you just made this error in front of thousands of virtual kibitzers. It was easy for me to feel angry at myself, because I did the one thing I say is a complete no-no in bridge, never make a mistake and then know immediately after why it was a mistake. If you do this, it means you should have thought for a little bit longer, checked your work. If you miss something, fine, but if you don’t bother to take five extra seconds in the biggest board of the biggest match of your life when you are the fastest player in the event which effectively gives you limited time…. !@*&$&*$!
It is easy to feel defeated.
These are the kinds of thoughts you need to eliminate from your mind when you’re playing. Maybe they’ll pop up, but you have to forgive yourself for making a mistake, and bear down even harder. Don’t try to make it up, try to grind it out and not give them anything more. Believe in yourself that you can do this, you’ve done it many times before, it is irrelevant that the stakes are now higher. If you want to justify your cocky attitude, prove to the world that you can fight from this point and control your emotions and play your best game.
Joe and I went for a smoke 1 or 2 board later (as was custom for the 4 of us halfway through the set). Joe told me we’re going to finish the set in a solid fashion, not give them anything, and we were goign to stop their huge momentum. I completely agreed. We were in this together.
For the second half of that set, Meckwell continued to play brilliantly and not give us anything, but we didn’t give them anything either. It was a hard fought battle of flattish boards from there, and we went on a 14-0 run. Nothing spectacular, but that’s what we were shooting for.
In my mind, this was a key moment in the match mentally for both Joe and myself. We knew Meckwell were coming for us. We knew they were going to play great. But we also knew that even if there was adversity, we were going to be tough and see what happened. Going through something like the first half of that set (and that board in particular), and not steaming or giving them anything else was really important for our partnership confidence.
We were fortunate enough to be able to go on to win that match. Our teammates played great, and we had the best of the luck. We weren’t another statistic, we were there to fight for the right to represent USA in the Bermuda Bowl, and we now all believed we could actually win it.
I wrote many years ago about defining moments, who would have thought that one of my positive ones would be making a horrible error in a crucial point of a crucial match?
Why Teenagers Should Actually Play Bridge August 28, 2011
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: future, promoting
7 comments
If you are a teenager, you have probably laughed at some of the reasons people tell you to learn bridge.
“It will increase your math and logic abilities!” Great, so will Madden…
“It will keep your mind sharp when you’re 70!” Don’t I rate to be dead by then?
“BRIDGE IS COOL, the ACBL said so!” hahahaha, good one.
The fact is, older people seem to have no idea knowing what our priorities were as a teen, and why bridge might be appealing. I’m in the unique position of still being young, and having played bridge since I was 10 (my whole adolescence). I’m going to tell you what I gained by playing bridge as a teenager, and what I think you might gain.
Social-
- People your own age– A common misconception about bridge is that there are not that many teenagers who play bridge. I was friends with a lot of people my own age who played bridge when I was a teenager. The biggest problem was geography, I lived in Texas, they lived in New York or wherever. However, with technology, this was not really a big deal. I got to talk to them online every day, I got to play bridge with them on BBO as often as I wanted. We would often go to the same tournaments, and I’d get to hang out with them there. Playing bridge, I met my best friends who are still friends today and probably life long friends. In school I was always popular and friends with a lot of people my own age, but meeting more people from different places broadened my horizons, and obviously one can never have too many friends. When I was a teenager, every activity I did was really centered around being able to hang out with my friends, and bridge was no exception. No matter how bad or good I was, at the end of the day I had a common interest with people that we could talk about, play, and begin to build a friendship around. The way I saw it, the larger the pool of people I could choose my friends from, the better quality my friends would be (and the more I would have).
- People slightly older- As a teen, you probably rarely get to hang out with people 5 years older than you. How often does an 8th grader hang out with a college kid? A lot of parents or older people might think this is a bad thing, but since the young bridge community is smaller and more close-knit, small age differences don’t matter as much as they do normally. In the bridge world, 20 year olds are often friends with 16 year olds, since they’re much closer in age than a 60 year old would be. It’s all relative. I would say that experience was awesome for me socially, just as having a sister a few years older than me was. I got good advice from people who had been through the normal social problems I would have. I got a broader horizon. This kind of experience gives you more confidence in general in social skills, it gives you more wisdom about stuff like college decisions, problems with the opposite sex, etc. And let’s be real, without the common interest of bridge, I would never have gotten to be friends with those people. I felt like I had much more maturity and wisdom by virtue of all of the bridge friends I had that were in college or a little bit past graduated.
- Girls- (This is intended for guys, I cannot really speak to what it’s like for a girl to have a lot of interactions with guys at this age). Yeah, there are pretty girls that play bridge. A lot of them are from Europe. Interacting with these girls was pretty easy, not because I was naturally smooth, but simply becuase they wanted people to talk to around their age, and we had a common interest. Being able to talk to girls easily is a skill that is learned through experience, and going to bridge tournaments and meeting people gave me a lot of that experience sooner than most people got it. And again, I didn’t have to be at a tournament to speak to them after I had met them, there was the internet. I was friends with all of the caddies, and eventually dated one bridge player, but it wasn’t about that. It was simply about being in a lot of social situations with them and having a leg up over meeting a girl at the mall or at school. This is something every guy wants to become more comfortable and better at no matter what their level is, and bridge is actually great for it. Think about it, you’re at a bridge tournament with 20 young people, not much to do but play a session and hang out and talk. It’s perfect.
- People much older- This actually doesn’t sound that great, but a lot of these older people have great stories. More importantly, learning to interact with older people is a skill that will make you better in other social situations, and help you a lot in whatever business/career you decide to pursue, where you will be the young upstart interacting with older bosses, people, etc. This experience is not just valuable, but it introduces you to a world you would otherwise not have gotten to be a part of.
- People from different cultures- Americans often have the stigma of the ugly american who knows nothing about other cultures and is stuck in their own bubble. This is often largely true. Through bridge I was able to meet people from every continent and every major country. I got to hang out with them, see their views on the world and our country as well as their own, and just generally get a better understanding of the world. That is the great thing about bridge, you will meet people with every background, from every place, with every story. This was really important to me, and I feel much more well rounded because of it. It’s also just a lot of fun.
- Results- For the record, people in my non bridge life always said I had great social skills, was confident, made friends easily, was “mature for my age” etc. This all came from bridge. I ended up living in NYC with 5 of the friends I made from bridge. I am going to be getting a place in Vegas from a friend I made through bridge. These social aspects really helped me a lot, and it wasn’t even really about the game of bridge itself, just the opportunities it presented.
Competitive- I was great at track and good at soccer and baseball in junior high. In high school, the world got much bigger, the people got better, and I was average at soccer, and average plus at track. There was no hope of me playing college level sports, people at that level were just too good. And I was someone who was naturally pretty athletic, which not everyone is. However, I had the desire to compete. It kind of consumed me. Bridge offered me that outlet without being a great athlete, athleticism just didn’t matter. And even in the beginning, when I sucked at bridge, I got great pleasure out of winning a 0-5 game against people of my experience. Bridge offers competition for all levels, and becoming better than my peers faster was an achievement. Breaking average in a flight A game was a huge achievement. I didn’t have to be the greatest player ever to make a team and compete and sometimes win, like I would have in a big high school or college. And the ceiling is unlimited, unlike sports which is limited by your physical capabilities.
The truth is, bridge is hard. You will usually lose no matter how good you are. But there are a ton of goals to meet, and constant progress, and that will really feed your competitive drive. I won a world junior championship with my best friends, but that feeling in that moment was honestly probably equivalent to how I felt the first time I won a 2 session flight C pair game, because that was my biggest goal at the time and it felt amazing to do it. Bridge lets everyone compete on an even playing field. Being able to do this gave me a lot more confidence.
Tournaments- This is like a combination of competitive and social. First of all, going to tournaments as a teenager was really fun socially. I got to meet new people and see people I had already met and talked to and played with online all the time. It was kind of like a party. We slept in hotels (often 6 to a room because we had no money), played games, shot the shit, made fun of each other, and had a great time (you can see why these guys ended up as basically my brothers). We would play the midnight games and make crazy psyches (bluffs) and laugh about it (these games were not that serious). We would explore new places together. I feel like this is the kind of stuff that people get excited about for college; freedom, adventure, fun with new friends, etc. I had some crazy times, and I had some emotional times, but it was always a great ride. And during the day we played bridge. Tournaments were just more intense competitions. Nationals gave me the opportunity to get pounded by the best players in the world, then go play in a flight C regional event and prove how much I had improved by winning that. It had everything in the way of competition, and more of it.
Travel– This one should be obvious, you get to travel around all over the country to play bridge. If you get good enough, you can play in international junior tournaments and have your expenses paid for (free European trip with your friends to play bridge!). I have been to Australia, China, Thailand, the list goes on in on, for free, because of bridge. But even if you don’t reach that level, you can still travel to tournaments and then go home and tell everyone about where you went. They won’t be talking badly about bridge for very long when they realize where it’s taking you, they’ll be flat out jealous. Don’t get me started on junior bridge tournaments either, they are universally considered a blast.
I debated whether to put in “making lots of money!” I am a bridge professional, but I don’t really think that is something most teenagers would want and it is very hard to get there, so I left it off. The point is really that it doesn’t matter how good you become, you will still broaden your horizons so much socially and be better off for it, make great friends, travel around and have fun.
I also left off the obvious, bridge is an awesome game. This is true, but misses the point. If you don’t like bridge you will quit, and before that it helps to know all of the other great things bridge might offer before you even decide if it’s worth your time to learn something that is just a great game.
At the end of the day, bridge can be whatever you make it to be. You can play a little, and not be great, but that’s true of most games. You can decide you have to reach expert level, and enjoy that road too. Either way, it will definitely offer a lot of unique benefits that playing Call of Duty will not.
Mind Games? August 27, 2011
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Advanced, Defense
2 comments
I have gotten a lot of questions about a hand I played in the semi finals of the team trials this year.
I held: K9 JT8 8543 KJ83.
The auction went 1 on my right, 1N (forcing) on my left, 2 on my right, 3N on my left. My partner led the 3 (4th best), and I saw:
AQT74
K6
AJ72
T4
Declarer won the K, and I played the J (unblocking in case partner had A9xxx), and he followed with the 4. Next, he crossed to his hand with the K, and led the jack of spades around to me, partner following low. Partner’s low spade was a suit preference play, asking for a club. I won and played a small club. Why?
Of course, I know what a surrounding play is. The standard play here is to shift to the jack of clubs, in case declarer has Qxx, to surround the ten and ensure four winners. By leading low, I give declarer the chance to run it around to the ten and score his queen later. Let’s rule out a brain-fart, and I’ll ask again; why did I not play the jack of clubs?
Say you are declarer. Say your competent RHO knows you have the queen third of clubs, and shifts to a small club. Dummy has Tx. You also know that RHO does not have 6 clubs. What do you play? Of course in that case, you should play the queen, because RHO would have shifted to the jack from HJ or Jxxx, so your only hope is that RHO is underleading AKxx, right?
Now say you have Q9x, and Tx in dummy. RHO knows that you have queen third, and you know RHO doesn’t have 6 clubs. They shift to a small club. You would just play for the jack onside, as it’s 50 %, rather than the AK onside which is 25 %, correct?
The problem here is that it is not a perfect information game, even in this simplified form. RHO, if he is not holding the 9, does not know who has the 9. So if he shifts to a small club, maybe you should play the queen from Q9x. In that case, maybe with HJxx he should shift to a small one, to pick up Q9x with you as well as Qxx.
So, the bridge media and my friends were correct, after moving to Las Vegas and playing more poker, I have started playing mind games with my opponents in surrounding play situations. Well, not exactly.
They made the same error many of you made, that I had perfect information about the club suit. Let’s go back and evaluate things from my perspective.
I know that declarer probably has about 12 points, and probably a good diamond fit from the auction. 1N is a strange bid to make even playing forcing NT for a good player with a game forcing hand. Most likely, he had a sound invite that got upgraded from the 2 bid, like a 12 count with good diamonds.
Given partners signal for clubs, he probably has the ace of clubs. This means declarer has the KQ of diamonds, J, A, and one more queen, either clubs or hearts.
What about his shape? He probably has 2 spades, 4 diamonds, and 4-3 either way in the round suits. Partner led the 3 of hearts and the 2 was out, if LHO was a weak player I would assume partner had it, but as it was a strong declarer I knew he was capable of hiding the 2 of hearts at trick one and playing the four (this is a VERY important technique). If my partner had 4 small hearts, he would have led the 2nd highest one. However, with 5 small we just lead our 4th highest one. So, if declarer has the AQ of hearts, his hand is definitely:
Jx
AQx
KQT9
?xxx (the 9 being unknown)
If he has the club queen, he could be 2344 or 2443. However, if he has queen fourth of clubs, I will not beat the hand no matter what I do so let’s forget about that. This makes the relevant holding
Jx
Axxx
KQT9
Q?x (9 unknown)
You see, in the first case, if I make the expert surrounding play I block the suit when declarer has 9xxx. I will survive if he has xxxx as my partner will unblock the clubs for me, but it is 4 times as likely when declarer has 4 small that it includes the 9 (an easy way to look at this is partner has AQx, and there are 5 possible x’s, 4 of them not being the 9).
In the second case I will not beat declarer if he has the 9 by playing the jack back. So I would have to think the second hand type is quite a bit more likely than the first to play the jack back at the very least, assuming declarer always guesses correctly when I lead a small one back. Is it?
With A9xx of clubs and Q9xx of hearts, partner might have chosen to lead a club. That said, I would expect my partner to have led a heart with that and consider it to be the expert standard lead, so that wasn’t much of a clue. With 9xxx of clubs, perhaps declarer would not bid 3N? It’s possible, but what can he do, his only options are 2N and 3N and his hand is too good for 3N. I believe anyone who would bid 3N with the first hand would bid it with the 2nd.
Can we read anything into declarer winning the K in dummy to cross in diamonds and finesse the spade, rather than just winning the heart in his hand? No, he was just trying to hide the fact that he had the A, in an attempt to get me to continue hearts. He might do this with either hand.
Would my partner do something like play his second lowest spade without the AQ, and the lowest with it? Perhaps if I was playing with Kevin Bathurst, as that is his style, but playing with Joe I know he would never do this, feeling that making a clear signal is more important than making a murky but more graded signal. Joe knows I have to play clubs to beat the hand, so he is going to play low.
Would declarer ever forget to hide the heart 2? However often he forgets makes it more likely that he has hand 1. No, I think he would play the 4 99 % of the time at least. It is a common error to give your opponent too much credit, but this is a standard play for a good player (this is why I said earlier that it is very important, even though I know he will always do it, he has protected his AQx holding where he simply followed with the 4).
So basically I viewed these hand types as equally likely, and I win more often on hand 1 than hand 2 (since if it’s hand 2 I need declarer to not have the club 9). So even if declarer will always guess correctly when I lead a low club back, I think it is right to play a small club. The fact that he might misguess clubs on a low club back from Q9x or Qxx is just a bonus. Was I surprised when he had Qxx and got it right?
Not at all. Some people have claimed had I played a low club in better tempo (I thought for a long time), declarer would get it wrong, and other arguments like that. The real story is that declarer knows our signalling methods too. The suit preference spade 2 was a great help to me, otherwise I would just continue hearts hoping my partner had A9xxx. However, declarer was also privy to that information. Joe might falsecard his suit preference, but it is possible declarer has Jx Axx Kxxxx Kxx and I have to continue hearts to set him (he could make by playing a club up but he will test diamonds). Besides, it is hard to always figure out the entire hand enough by the time you have to give your suit preference or smith signal that you can confidently falsecard it. In reality, this just doesn’t happen.
Fred Gitelman said something about good players almost always carding honestly in the first few tricks as a general practice, giving your partner information is more important than falsecarding declarer. This has been my experience as well, and I’m sure declarer just took Joe’s play at face value.
Finally, I don’t think my tempo gave it away anyways necessarily, if I had AKxxx of clubs I would think long and hard before underleading, risking declarer having Qx (and having no chance of beating it if partner had Qx). I might figure everything out, but if I didn’t have 4 diamonds and wasn’t sure if declarer had 5 of them or not I would have to consider the possibility of cashing a high one.
So in response to this quote from Irwin Boris’s word document on Peggy Kaplan’s blog:
Lall took his time and shifted to a low club. Declarer guessed right and ducked. Since Joe had the nine, a shift to the jack would have beaten the hand. Bridge at a high level is a beautiful game isn’t it?
I would just say that it’s the same game that you, my readers, and everyone else plays. We are counting shape, points, and watching our partner’s signals carefully to try and make the best possible play. The beautiful parts of this hand were declarer’s play of the HK to leave the heart situation unknown, then his falsecard in hearts to leave the count unknown, then Joe’s ability to signal for clubs anyways. These little things matter a lot. I had a close technical decision that I still feel good about that didn’t work out this time. Don’t feel bad about not thinking about the AQx of clubs possibility though, many great players were blinded by looking at all of the hands and taking their minds where it wanted to go.
Hopefully that is not a disappointment, but I find it much more pleasing than some poker game with a lot of randomness!
Five Uncommon Conventions You Should Play April 5, 2009
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Convention, Intermediate
20 comments
Generally I think most players, especially intermediates, play too many conventions. Most of the time they come up too infrequently or have very small gains that aren’t worth the trouble. However, there are a few conventions that are both frequent and useful that most people aren’t yet playing. Here they are in no particular order.
A jump cue as a transfer to 3N in the auction 1m-(1M)-3M. If you think about it, with almost every holding you have in overcaller’s major you want partner to declare the hand. Axx, AQx, Kxx, AKx are the most obvious examples. You give up a splinter to play this, but a splinter in support of a minor is very rare compared to an antipositional 3N bid.
Transfers after 1M-(X)-? starting with 1N. This is becoming more popular, and for good reason. Losing your natural 1N bid frees up two ways to raise the major. The direct raise is weak, and a transfer raise is constructive. This is very good, because with 3 trumps you always want to preempt the opponents, but you can’t jump to 3 the same way you can when you have 4 trumps. Being able to bid 2 and not have partner game try or jump to game is like having your cake and eating it too. Losing the natural 1N is not a big loss, with 10 you can XX and with 7 you should pass anyways, so you are only losing with 8 or 9 balanced without 3 trumps. In return you get not just 2 ways to raise, but also the ability to immediately show your suit regardless of whether you are weak or strong because you are guaranteed to get another chance to bid. You would hate to have to XX with a strong 1 suiter and be susceptible to preemption by LHO. You would also hate to have to pass with a good 6 card suit and nothing else. Another example of getting to have your cake and eating it too.
Jump cue as a mixed raise after an overcall. This is a convention I see misused all the time. The biggest question is, what the hell is a mixed raise? The best definition I can come up with is a hand too good for a preemptive raise, and a hand not good enough for a limit raise, with at least 4 trumps and offensive values. With nobody vulnerable if the auction goes (1) 1 p ?
KJxx x xxxx xxxx bids 3
KJxx x Axxx Qxxx bids 2
KJxx x Kxxx xxxx bids 3
The third hand is a common hand type that is very difficult to show. I see people bid 3 with hands strong enough for a limit raise, and hands that are more balanced and defensive (which should just bid 2) so often that it takes away from the value of having a mixed raise to begin with. You can get to a lot of light games by using these correctly.
Suit Preference in the trump suit. Ok, this is a carding agreement, but it’s a very important one that all top pairs and few intermediates use. The idea is simple, you show whether you like the high or low suit (sometimes the middle is in play) by the way you play your trumps. With 2 just play up the line with no preference. That way only a high low is a strong signal. With 3 play the middle for no preference. This extra signal can make all the difference for the defense.
Invitational jumps at the 3 level after partner opens. These apply when partner opens 1x, and you bid 3y where y is lower than x. This is also only for 2/1 players. The problem is an auction like 1 p 1N p 2 p 3. This could just be a weak hand with long clubs and isn’t invitational, so with 9 to 11 points and a good suit you need another way to bid. I propose bidding 1 p 3 with that hand type. It also protects you from preemption and sometimes has a preemptive effect of its own. Ideally you would have a good 6 card suit and not Hx in support of partners major, but you aren’t always dealt an ideal hand. Just remember partner will pass with a stiff and a minimum, because if he bids anything else it’s forcing.
I think if everyone reading this adds these methods my email will be flooded with thank you notes.
You’re welcome!
Punishing X’s of Artificial Bids March 29, 2009
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Advanced, Bidding
1 comment so far
One of the biggest problems of modern science is giving the opponents the chance to double (or not double) artificial bids. However, since the doubles give us extra bidding room we should be well versed in turning the tables on the opponents. These opportunities come in four categories: stoppers, competitive bidding, slam bidding, and Stayman. I’ll discuss each:
In stopper ask auctions often you cannot diagnose when both players have a half stopper and sometimes you cannot rightside the contract. These issues are easily solved when they make a lead directing double. Suppose the auction goes
1-(2)-3-(P)-3-(X)
Now a redouble by responder shows the ace so opener can bid 3N with Qx and rightside the hand. Responder can pass with an unremarkable hand which gives opener the chance to redouble with a partial stop. This requires discussion, but common sense dictates that both sides should not be redoubling with the ace. Here if opener had the ace he’d bid 3N himself to try and rightside opposite responder’s possible Qx. Finally if opener XXs responder bids 3N with a partial stop himself (think Qx and Jxx). This is a little tricky, but well worth the effort.
Next are competitive auctions. For Instance,
(1)-1-(P)-2-(X)
Most experts play 2 is weak and pass is a little stronger. In my opinion a superior distinction is between offensive and defensive minimums. This prepares for a 3 level decision. So with 5332 or (gasp!) a 4 card overall, pass, and with 5431 or 6322 bid. Of course use your judgment based on honor location as well. With extra values you have a lot more bids you can make (like XX for starters, which most people have not defined).
In Slam bidding sequences when they double your cuebid going back to your suit is definitely the weakest action. Redoubling shows a first round control. That may seem strange, but you don’t want to redouble with a second round control only to find out your partner has one as well! You should often pass to show interest and see if partner can redouble (first round control since he’s already cuebid the suit) or not, but you may want to cuebid yourself lest you never get the chance.
When they double Stayman the main issues become club stoppers and rightsiding. Remember if opener has no club stopper, responder is the right side.
Here is my favorite structure:
1N-(2)-X-
P- No stopper. Then responder XXs as restayman, and opener responds with the major he doesn’t have (remember who the rightside is!). If opener has no major he responds 2 as usual. If responder does not redouble he’s showing a garbage stayman hand type.
XX- Business, at least 4 very good clubs.
Other bids- Normal Stayman responses and promise a club stop.
As you can see, there are many ways to fight back against these doubles. Sometimes they direct the killing lead, but sometimes they help us find the best contract. If you know how to handle these situations, they’ll probably start doubling less!
1C-(2D)-X… April 22, 2007
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: Advanced, Bidding, Convention
9 comments
I have been thinking a lot lately about auctions that start 1-(2)-X-(p). This seemingly simple auction can quickly become one of the murkiest constructive bidding sequences in bridge.
The double can be made with both 4 card majors, one 4 card major, or a 1 suited hand with a major. It could even be made with 5-5 in the majors and a weakish hand. Opener can then bid a 3 card major himself or make a very nebulous cuebid. Fundamentally both the double and the cuebid are overloaded.
For instance, if the auction started 1-(2-X-(p)-? one might bid 3 with any of the following hands:
- KQ43 KQ2 A43 AJ2
- A2 A3 432 AKQJ32
- KQ32 KQ92 4 A652
- KQ3 AJ2 872 AKJ4
On hand 1 opener cannot just bid 4 as partner may have a 3 card suit, and 3N may be the right spot.
On hand 2 opener just needs a stopper and doesn’t want to bid 4 and bypass 3N.
On hand 3 opener has an invitational strength hand with 4-4 in the majors and wants partner to pick a major. Some people may even be planning to pass a 3M bid by partner!
On hand 4 opener is strong and balanced with no stopper. and is hoping partner can bid 3N.
So the cuebid covers a GF with 1 major, strong with clubs, invitational or game forcing with both majors, or strong balanced with no stopper. Great! The first thing that is clear is that the cuebid needs to create a force. With hand type 3 you just have to bid game or bid 2 of a major. What’s not clear is what responder’s duty is; bid 4 card majors up the line or bid NT with a stopper? If he bids NT with a stopper then a major suit fit may be lost opposite hand type 1 (the most common). If he bids majors up the line then hand types 2 and 3 are screwed. Not to mention that 5-3 fits are going to be very difficult to find.
We also have the issue of finding 3N when opener has one 4 card major and a stopper and responder has no stopper and the other 4 card major. For instance if you have hand 1 the auction might go 1-(2)-X-(p)-3-(p)-3-(p)-3-(p)-? Should responder always bid 3N here, with or without a stopper? This risks some silly 3N contracts as well as wrongsiding the contract if the stopper is Kx or the like.
These aren’t even the only problems with this auction. The other day I had an auction start 1-(2)-X-(p)-2-(p)-3-(p)-? My partner had 4 hearts and a diamond stopper and bid 3N, worried I had a hand like 4333 with no diamond stopper. I had 4 hearts and a game going hand and was worried my partner had bid 2 with only 3. If you don’t believe this is possible, ask yourself what you would do with a hand like Kxx AKx Qxx xxxx. 2N is horrible with this hand type and 2 is really your only choice. Anyways, I passed 3N and we missed our best spot of 4. I pointed out to partner that he should bid 3 and I would bid 3 with 3 hearts and no diamond stopper. While he agreed with this he wondered what would have happened if our fit was spades and not diamonds; I would be endplayed over a 3 rebid.
There are no great solutions to this problem, but perhaps with some artificiality we can improve on this auction.
Bob Hamman has played for a long time that jump shifts are forcing after a negative double. In this auction 3M can be forcing, and that eliminates hand 1 from the immediate cuebid. Over 3 partner can bid 3 without a fit or diamond stopper and opener can bid 3N with a stopper. There is still a guess over a jump to 3 though.
This would leave the direct cuebid to show a strong hand with clubs or a strong balanced hand without a diamond stopper. This would leave responder free to bid 3N whenever they have a stopper, and bid 3M with a 5+ card suit. Definitely a big improvement.
Even better would be to use 2N as an artificial bid. Really, bidding 2N with a weak NT is not a good option anyways, you may have only half the deck and would much rather play 2 of a major. 2N could puppet to 3, then 3 could show 4-4 majors invite, 3M could be that major plus a stopper in diamonds, game forcing. 3N would be 18-19 balanced with a diamond stopper. A direct 3 would simply be GF in clubs or strong balanced without a stopper, 3M would be natural and forcing, denying a stopper, and a direct 3N would be based on club tricks and a diamond stopper (so partner won’t pull with a 6 card major). This solves all hand types and eliminates guessing.
That would mean that 2M could frequently be based on a 3 card suit. Over the cue you only have a problem sorting out stoppers and 4-4 fits if opener has 4 spades and a stopper and responder has 4 hearts, less than 4 spades, and a stopper.
I think this is a great improvement for almost no cost on one of the worst auctions in bridge. You only lose a natural 2N (useless) and invitational 3 of a major bids (of very limited use), in order to gain a lot of clarity on the NT vs major decision. A nice advantage of forcing 3M bids is better slam bidding as well (as trumps are set earlier).
Blogroll Update April 21, 2007
Posted by justinlall in Articles.Tags: blogroll
2 comments
The blogroll was becoming a little haphazard so I decided to organize and update it. It is now broken up into three categories; bridge blogs, other bridge sites, and non-bridge sites. I ended up reading over all of them again and decided that a review was in order.
Bridge Blogs
DavidC’s Bridge Blog– Written by an English junior player, this blog deals mainly with bidding theory and system design. The author has a very good grasp on bidding theory and expresses himself clearly. Some of the principles he writes about have never been written about before though very sound theoretically. The content is mainly for advanced players or higher. He also writes about the laws of bridge. This is probably my favorite bridge blog and I really recommend it to anyone interested in bidding theory. Updates fairly often.
Gavin Wolpert’s Blog– Written by a young bridge professional and recent star of a documentary. Gavin writes mainly about his life as a bridge professional but also has some system related material. If you are interested in the life of a bridge professional this is a great read. Updates frequently.
Stacy Jacobs– This blog has both bridge and non-bridge related material. Stacy is an excellent writer and posts frequently. Her bridge posts are generally short discussing tournaments she’s been to or hands she’s seen recently. The bridge content is mainly geared towards advanced or better players, but she has some great stuff about writing as well.
Jinzhou’s Blog– Written by the star of Singapore’s junior team, this blog outlines his run to the bronze medal at the World Youth Championships in Thailand. A great story to read, but it is obviously not updated anymore. Obviously I enjoyed it.
Mike Develin– Written by a former American junior internationalist, Mike pretty much discusses all of his recent sessions and includes lots of hands. The material is suited to players of all levels, and the blog is updated frequently.
The Korbels– Written by an expert Canadian junior couple, they write about interesting hands they play on BBO and in real life and include some tournament reports. Though one of the best written bridge blogs, it suffers from a lack of updates.
The Beer Card– Written by a keen Scottish player, Paul discusses lots of hands as well as random bridge news and issues. Lots of interesting content, and updated frequently and suitable for everyone.
Ulf Nilsson– Written by a Swedish internationalist, Ulf has great insight onto a lot of hands from high level play (though I don’t always agree with what he says). He also discusses some theory. The only complaint I have is that his hand diagrams are hard on the eyes. Expert players will enjoy this blog a lot. Ulf updates almost every day.
McKenzie Myers– Written by a youngish bridge pro, mainly contains tournament reports and some hands. His writing style is very funny, and I think anyone with a sense of humor will like his posts. Updates frequently.
Jonathan Ferguson– Brand new bridge blog, but knowing Jon he will not be afraid to be very open and vocal about his thoughts. He says he will show you hands that are good, bad, and ugly. So far he averages about 5 posts a day; I doubt he will be able to keep that up though.
Jeff Miller– Written by an expert player from the Chicago area, Jeff posts very interesting hands and ideas and is very in depth. Mostly geared for advanced or better players, he doesn’t update much anymore.
Glen Ashton– Glen covers some pretty esoteric conventions and systems. If that’s your thing you will like his blog. Updates sporadically.
Badmonsters– The author of this blog is very unique because she is an intermediate player. She discusses her attempts at learning to become a better bridge player from that point of view. So if you’re a beginner or intermediate you will really like reading her thoughts; you can probably relate.
Ken Rexford– Written by the author of Cuebidding at Bridge, Ken has a whole blog about cuebidding. His ideas are very far out in left field, but if you like reading about really strange ideas this is definitely the blog for you. He has not updated in a while though.
Raffles Bridge– A group blog written by intermediate or advanced players who are all part of the same bridge club. The content is mainly suitable for that level, and discusses some hands as well as theory. Updates are not frequent.
Other Bridge Sites
BBO Forums– By far the most active bridge related forum. Basically this is just a large community that discusses all aspects of bridge at all levels. I am slightly embarrassed to say that I have over 5,000 posts there. I really recommend this site.
Richard Pavlicek– The most comprehensive bridge site out there. Includes several features like a card combo analyzer, suit break calculator, teaching materials, and play contests. Easily the best bridge site on the web.
The Cavendish Invitational– Website of the only big money bridge tournament in the world. This event is coming up in May and is very exciting even as a spectator. If you don’t know about this event or want to see who’s playing in it, go now.
ACBL– The American Contract Bridge League runs all the tournaments in North America (except for things relating to international play). Lots of information about upcoming and past tournaments, masterpoint races, and other things involving the league.
USBF– The United States Bridge Federation runs all the trials to decide who represents the US in international competition. Mainly useful for information regarding those trials.
Matt Meckstroth– Personal webpage of the son of Jeff Meckstroth, some humorous content as well as interesting features like Hand of The Month and WWJD (what would Jeff do?). Hasn’t been updated in a while though.
Bridge Is Cool– The ACBL’s attempt to market the game to juniors. Although I have been critical of this site, it is at least a start in a proactive campaign to make the game attractive to my generation as well as the next. I know the ACBL is trying to improve on this site as well.
World Bridge Federation– The Federation that oversees all world competitions as well as world rankings. To see the rankings or news from upcoming or past international tournaments go here.
Jerry Helms– Personal site of expert player and teacher Jerry Helms. Includes articles and a biography, as well as information on his seminars.
Poor Bridge– Hilarious site with articles about bad bridge. Lots of articles and features like “Poor Bridge of The Week.” I never fail to leave this site laughing.
Cocktail Bridge– Written in Croatian, but does have some english articles including an interview with me.
Mike Gill– Written by a former US junior player, includes a short biography as well as several interesting hands and a write-up of the World Youth Championships in Thailand. Mike has some really funny hands in the Amusing Deals section.
Siege– System notes for Mike Bell’s system Siege. Very interesting system that has a natural base with lots of artificiality and transfer responses to 1 club. Similar to what I play with Josh Donn.
Inquiry 2/1– Inquiry’s system notes. Includes some interesting stuff including MisIry transfer preempts.
Non Bridge Sites
Overcoming Bias– Great site which discusses many of the inherent and societal biases we have and how to try to overcome them in order to become more rational people. Updated every day and easily my favorite blog on the net.
God of The Machine– Written by a bridge player (using the term loosely) but containing no bridge content. Aaron writes about a lot of things including poetry, literature, ethics, philosophy, and culture. In my opinion his mini-blog is better than his actual blog. The mini-blog is updated frequently but his main blog updates are erratic at best these days.
If you have a good bridge related blog or website that I don’t know about just e-mail me and I will consider blogrolling you.
