RED ALERT!
This morning here in Sao Paulo, I sat down to kibitz Bobby’s first match of the day. With some minutes to spare I socialized with his LHO who happened to be close to a dear friend of mine from Philadelphia (who recently died) but had remarried and moved to this gentleman’s native land. Apparently, they were close and played on teams together. There was an immediate kinship but it proved to be temporary insanity from my standpoint. He was warm, charming and as the game proceeded, I could see he was very ethical and volunteered all necessary information. That was was the only positive statement I can make after I witnessed the sixteen board set. What I watched did not vaguely resemble bridge.
I was startled from the first board to the last as I watched a system called Artificial-Red in all its gory. In fact I came straight from the playing room to the bar to grab a Bloody Mary (appropriately named). Indeed, it was artificial (to say the least) — but the “red” should have had flashing lights and sirens as on a fire engine as no bid had anything to do with the suit they had or inferred they had. For instance, an opening 1S bid showed five hearts. (Get the picture)? IT DIDN’T HAVE THE LEAST SEMBLANCE TO THE GAME I ENDEARLINGLY USED TO KNOW AS BRIDGE. My prime objection is that there is no pre-warning and absolutely no time to prepare how to combat all these artificial bids in advance. Of course, people with systems similar to these, give you ‘their’ defenses — and in a timed event, you and your partner have little time to come up with bids to counter these preposterous calls which don’t vaguely represent the game as the public knows it. THIS IS A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP — NOT A CRAPSHOOT and I would like to see more respect and dignity accorded to the game. It made me want to cry that bridge has sunk to this subterranean level and I use the term deliberately and advisedly.
I sat there in amazement that the illustrious “Conventions Committee” allows such deception and subterfuge. But, according to a member who was asked, he denied its illegality. Maybe it is time we had people on committees who wanted to preserve the concept and good name of Bridge. But between professionalism fostering far less-than-the-best players under their own flag and these now bastardized systems by players who cannot win playing by standard methods — no wonder bridge is going all downhill. What ever happened to that game to be played by ladies and gentlemen? I fear it is soon to become history.
P. S. Despite all the tacks and nails along the roadside, the tread was strong enough to withstand the pricks, and Bobby’s team eked out a victory — but a sad day indeed for bridge when we allow the clowns to take over the game.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Judy,
It took me less than a minute to find the name of Bobby’s LHO from today’s first round: Bobby Richman. He plays for the Australian team and his partner is named George Gaspar. Their convention card is on-line at http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/2009Brazil/Systems/seniorsbowl/australia/richman-gaspar.pdf.
According to the Ecats web site their card has not changed since March 2009. That would seem to offer enough time to prepare counter-methods if one was so inclined. As you say their system is highly artificial and features a lot of bids that have multiple meanings. According to their card an opening bid of 1S shows at least 9 minor-suit cards, 4+ diamonds and 4+ clubs, 9-14 HCP. This may or may not be a good approach to bridge, but I don’t see why this makes them scoundrels.
Gaspar-Richman has a Butler ranking of 37th out of 64 pairs. The Australian team is current 11th out of 22. The results produced by these exotic methods appear to be pretty ordinary.
Were they not playing that 1S showed the minors? How is this more difficult to defend against than a 2NT pre-empt for the minors. Their other 1-level bids are no harder to defend than Jacoby transfers.
Transfer-oriented precision has been around for over 20 years, and pairs convention cards have been on the ecats bridge site for some time also. Plenty of time to prepare an adequate defence.
Hi Ant,
Yes they were, and it is not necessarily more difficult to prepare adequate defenses for their differences from the norm than not. However, in order to be properly prepared and practiced there are some logistic problems.
There being 22 teams in play (in each division) there are roughly 60+ pairs in the event. Besides generally getting ready to play, if each pair (seeding is random by each Captain just submitting blindly his or her lineup and letting fate decide the matchups) spends significant time preparing for systems they never will encounter it becomes a full time job gettiing ready for a World Championship.
Yes, I think Bridge World Championships are worth all the effort to be expended which is necessary, but along with that should be the obligation of the parent organizations (the USA and Canada, but do not know about Mexico) to provide more than 20% of the expense money required to attend. Also the Captain and Coach should be useful and ever present to organize the planning and the discipline necessary to accomplish what we all want.
Instead. unnecessary administrators are sent, with (in most cases) complete expenses paid to enjoy socializing, rubbing shoulders with the bridge greats, and claim to getting things done. Also there is a continuing lobby to reduce the amounts of money being spent on International Bridge, which at least to me, keeps our game from turning into an Old Folks home (of which category I possibly belong) instead of an unbelievably electric and immensely challenging game of our lifetime, besides the more than side benefit of turning bridge into a “Bridge for Peace” which is so evident because of the significant respect all the players (especially the better ones) accord each other and from all countries around the world.
To directly answer your provocative question, Yes all teams should be better prepared, but until the players are treated more generously (and kindly) it is hard to expect them to bust their guts getting ready to play systems they are unlikely to have to play against and consequently (since those systems are known by every real expert around the world) to be technically inferior to the tried and true (that’s is why norm is norm) systems which are played by the favorite teams. The strange systems are 100% (over the years) played by the significantly lesser teams in order to intimidate and creep up on unsuspecting opponents in order to make up for lack of expertise.
Yes it may be similar to old American football offensive formations which were designed to confuse their better opponents and sometimes succeeded, but is bridge ready for that? I think not, but again thanks for bringing the subject up. I could write in detail so many more specific problems with what those bridge systems bring to the table, but I need to go play bridge now.
Thanks for writing.
Bobby Wolff
Dear Judy and Bobby,
You may or may not be aware that your posts have sparked comment from Ron Klinger in the most recent issue of Australian Bridge. I and I’m sure many others would like to hear your response to the points he makes, in particular his analysis of how easy it is to defend against the Richman/Gaspar system, even WITHOUT having done any prior preparation.
Personally, I have played similar methods myself in Australia at various points. Players who have been playing for a little while, certainly most who play in our national tournaments (let alone on our international representative teams), do not seem intimidated by transfer-style openings, responses, advances, etc. Frankly, if you understand the logic of how bidding works at all, then bidding when the opponents have shown a specific suit is not at all difficult, irrespective of whether they actually bid the suit they show naturally or not. Do you really believe that if I open 1D to show 4+H you need any more than the briefest of discussions with your partner about how your defensive bidding will change compared to when someone opens 1H to show 4+H? These methods are not confusing in the slightest and are not designed to be so.
The European Multi 2D is certainly a much more taxing opening to deal with, yet the whole world is comfortable defending against it, so much so that it has a special exemption from brown sticker status (NB, transfer openings are not brown sticker either). Why? Because players are familiar with the Multi 2D. That is the crux of the issue. You fear the unknown because no-one in the USA plays transfer openings. If just a few pairs played such methods in your national tournaments, then you would quickly realise how much of a non-issue this is AND more importantly all the other US players would quickly learn how to bid against such methods. Yet the ACBL continues to stifle system design progress with draconian system restrictions. I would not have become as involved with the game of bridge as a young player had the creative aspect of system design not been present. Surely you must realise that had your attitude been pervasive during the early years of contract bridge then conventions such as Blackwood, Stayman, Jacoby transfers (shock-horror!) and systems such as Precision etc would never have been taken up, the science of bidding would never have developed and we’d still all be playing non-forcing change-of-suit responses to opening bids …. transfer openings and the like are merely the continuing evolution that started with the first approach-forcing systems back in the 20s/30s.
Please note that, currently, I do not play transfer openings with my regular partner. We’ve moved on. We’re playing a modernised version of strong NT 2/1 GF, with natural openings. I trust this makes you less concerned. I also trust that my partnership’s extensive use of transfer-style responses (eg 1C – 1H = 4+S) will not cause any raised eyebrows, given that several top american pairs are playing similar methods regularly in ACBL nationals and such methods are given international exposure in match reports published in the Bridge World. I fail to see any fundamental difference between responding 1H to show spades, and opening 1H to show spades.
Regards,
Griff Ware