[kenberg]

I and a great many others watched and enjoyed the Vugraph show of the Spingold. It occurs to me that the archives of this and other events have not been adequately tapped for discussion. Let me suggest some topics that would interest me.

1. If I recall correctly (pre-pend this comment to all of my remarks) Grue/Moss play Precision when NV, but 2/1 when Vul. My Take: A very fine pair, having studied both approaches in detail, has concluded that the relatives pluses and minuses are small enough so the choice comes down to details of circumstances. I find this fascinating.

2. I saw that some, I forget who, play CRASH over a big club. Crash must soon be eligible for Medicare. Updated perhaps? At any rate, I would be interested in seeing what defenses were actually used, how often they arose, how they worked out. It has occurred to me that some sort of Multi-Landy/Woolsey/Robinson/etc bids for 2♣ and 2♦ might be nice as a relatively safe and somewhat frequen opportunity to deprive the opponents of the one level responses.

3. Big clubbers have a somewhat, perhaps a very, nebulous 1♦ opening. This seems to get less attention than it should. If the nebulous 1♦ side buys the contract, the opponents may have a more difficult time with the defense because the auction was, perhaps, less fully disclosive of shape. Otoh a pre-empt, say a wjo of 2♠, against 1♦ might be more effective against the nebulous 1♦ than it would be against a more descriptive minor opening. But this is just me fantasizing with my morning coffee. In pactice what happens?

Anyway, we have this treasure trove of high level play. Seems like we need to do some exploration.


Btw, here is one of my favorite hands:

Board 15, first session, Kalita sitting E.

---

Perhaps I should have presented this w/o the NS hands showing, but presenting a puzzle is not my point here.

The opening lead is the 9♣, it goes 9-Q-2-3.
Then T ♥ from the board: T-K-A-2.
A spade to the Jack, back to hand playing the 8 (!), run spades, throw S in with a heart, getting the K♦ on an endplay.

There are reasons that these guys were in the finals. And won. Congratulations and thanks for the show.

[billw55]

I bet if the forum were polled, we wouldn't get many votes for south's 3♦ opening. Shows that polls aren't everything.

[barmar]

 billw55, on 2013-August-13, 08:54, said:

I bet if the forum were polled, we wouldn't get many votes for south's 3♦ opening. Shows that polls aren't everything.

If you compare what bridge pros write to how they play in real competition, it's very much "Do as I say, not as I do". All the books and lesson articles say not to preempt in 1st/2nd seat with a good 4-card major or void, but they do it all the time. While it may occasionally cost your side a good contract, the pressure it puts on the opponents may be more than worth it.

I think this explains why I'm so much better in robot games than playing against real people. The robot opponents are middle-of-the-road bidders, they don't put the pressure on.

[helene_t]

 barmar, on 2013-August-13, 09:24, said:

I think this explains why I'm so much better in robot games than playing against real people. The robot opponents are middle-of-the-road bidders, they don't put the pressure on.

They do alert their jump overcalls as "aggressive" But yes, I agree.

[kenberg]

Interestingly, the opening was 1♦ at the other table. This worked out:
1♦ Pass 1♠ 1NT(!?, but what else?)
3♦ Pass Pass Pass


Of course keeping EW out of 3NT is good only because 3NT can be made with good play!

Which bears on the old issue of the relative merits of play and bidding. Yes, you have to get to 3NT, but you also have to make 3NT. Speaking for myself, I was impressed.
The line of play makes sense, or so I think, but at the time I was watching I, and the commentators, were wondering after T1 how he would play the spades. A good question of course.
I believe I was not the only person unprepared for the heart play at T2, although it makes perfect sense. He needs nine tricks, eight is not enough, and surely an early heart might be the best approach for the ultimate endgame. And when the King comes up, there may well be some restricted choice features. It would be deep to play the K from Kx(x), and from KQ he might have played the Q. So maybe the K is stiff, making the later finesse of the spade 8 more plausible. But skip Restricted Choice, if N has KQ(x) in hearts then the throw in won't work. So give him K stiff, and then the hand is "easy".

Easy for some. One hell of a play, imo.

As for opening 3♦ with the major on the side, I don't let it stop me, especially when it is hearts. Even when pard has hearts, they amy well be able to outbid us in spades. I don't say that four hearts is a plus feature for the preempt, but it's not a deal breaker for me.Anyway, that's one more point for why I think the archives have great potential. I have not made enough use of them at all.

[barmar]

Explains why they're in the finals of the Spingold, and I just barely made it to the 2nd day of the Roth Open Swiss. Here's a hand I didn't get right in the last round (playing against another bottom team):

---

(spot cards approximate -- only the top teams got predealt boards).

The lead was a small club to the King and Ace. I cashed the top hearts, hoping East was 1=2=5=5, with the spade Ace likely to be on my right. It turned out to still be makeable because LHO had ♠AJ (I need him to have any doubleton with the Jack), If I just played the spades from the top I could get rid of a diamond loser in dummy on the 4th spade. But I didn't find this play and went down 1.

We still managed to win the board, because at the other table North opened 2♣ and our teammates pushed them to the 5 or 6 level, which had no play (they went down 4 in whatever they were in).

[fred]

 kenberg, on 2013-August-13, 08:41, said:

[size="3"]1. If I recall correctly (pre-pend this comment to all of my remarks) Grue/Moss play Precision when NV, but 2/1 when Vul. My Take: A very fine pair, having studied both approaches in detail, has concluded that the relatives pluses and minuses are small enough so the choice comes down to details of circumstances. I find this fascinating.

Actually the reason they play 2 systems is that Brad wanted to play natural throughout and Joe wanted to play Precision throughout. They decided to compromise, evaluate their results with both systems, and possibly switch to 1 system at some point in the future. My early impression is that they both like the 2 systems thing and that there is a good chance that they will stick with it.

I am certainly biased, but I thought that Brad and Joe played great in the Spingold.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[akwoo]

Re: Grue and Moss playing Precision NV

They were opening VERY light NV. I would not be comfortable playing 2/1 with such light openings, because even with say ♠ xx ♥ KQxx ♦ Kx ♣ KQJxx, I wouldn't feel too certain there would be a game opposite partner's 1♠ opening. It could very well have been ♠ AQxxx ♥ xx ♦ QTxxx ♣ x.

[kenberg]

 fred, on 2013-August-13, 10:47, said:

Actually the reason they play 2 systems is that Brad wanted to play natural throughout and Joe wanted to play Precision throughout. They decided to compromise, evaluate their results with both systems, and possibly switch to 1 system at some point in the future. My early impression is that they both like the 2 systems thing and that there is a good chance that they will stick with it.

I am certainly biased, but I thought that Brad and Joe played great in the Spingold.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

A confession: I was asked to sub in a tourney with about five boards left in the Spingold. I agreed, thinking that Grue and company had it in the bag. OK, tourney over, I am back for the playoff!!


This Vugraph show was everything I could hope for. Even the wrong choices were interesting. It was wonderful to see two young teams go for the prize. I like the international trend in major ACBL events. It was a pleasure, and I am sure that we will see a great deal more of both teams.

It will be interesting to see if they stick with the two system approach.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2013-August-13, 10:33, said:

Explains why they're in the finals of the Spingold, and I just barely made it to the 2nd day of the Roth Open Swiss. Here's a hand I didn't get right in the last round (playing against another bottom team):

---

(spot cards approximate -- only the top teams got predealt boards).

The lead was a small club to the King and Ace. I cashed the top hearts, hoping East was 1=2=5=5, with the spade Ace likely to be on my right. It turned out to still be makeable because LHO had ♠AJ (I need him to have any doubleton with the Jack), If I just played the spades from the top I could get rid of a diamond loser in dummy on the 4th spade. But I didn't find this play and went down 1.

We still managed to win the board, because at the other table North opened 2♣ and our teammates pushed them to the 5 or 6 level, which had no play (they went down 4 in whatever they were in).

One of the many variations on the Rabbi's rule: When the J is doubleton play the KQ.

Fwiw, I agree with 1♥ rather than 2♣, and in fact it worked here, at least in a sense.

[FrancesHinden]

 barmar, on 2013-August-13, 10:33, said:

It turned out to still be makeable because LHO had ♠AJ (I need him to have any doubleton with the Jack), If I just played the spades from the top I could get rid of a diamond loser in dummy on the 4th spade. But I didn't find this play and went down 1.

...or for LHO to be 1165...

[FM75]

 fred, on 2013-August-13, 10:47, said:

Actually the reason they play 2 systems is that Brad wanted to play natural throughout and Joe wanted to play Precision throughout. They decided to compromise, evaluate their results with both systems, and possibly switch to 1 system at some point in the future. My early impression is that they both like the 2 systems thing and that there is a good chance that they will stick with it.

I am certainly biased, but I thought that Brad and Joe played great in the Spingold.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Nice insight!
Thanks.

[inquiry]

Krystolf Martens (spelling) has a book titled "My System" or similar. The book just says when vul, play 2/1 GF, strong NT, strong 2C, etc. Then the entire remainder of the book is how to play an interesting variation of forcing club with weak notrump. Anyone interested, he spends quite some time explaining why the strong club not vul that included opening with 9 hcp not vul.

[chasetb]

1.) Not that anyone would think that Fred was lying, but I was able to talk to Joe Grue for 5 minutes in Philadelphia, and when I asked him what he and Brad Moss was playing, he said "We are playing 2/1 when Vul and Precision when NV. It was a compromise, because I think that Precision is the best thing ever, he thinks that 2/1 is the best thing ever. We are playing a simplified version of each."

2.) Interesting that Krzysztof Martens' book would say that (On Baron Barclay, it's called Marten's System), because in the 2011 Bermuda Bowl he and Jassem played Polish Club when Vulnerable, and Strong Club (15+ bal, 17+ others) and 12-14 NT when NV. They killed it in qualifying.

It would be interesting to play a 2-system card, it is GCC-legal in the ACBL but you must Pre-Alert it.

[Mbodell]

 chasetb, on 2013-August-13, 22:47, said:

It would be interesting to play a 2-system card, it is GCC-legal in the ACBL but you must Pre-Alert it.

I did that for a while when partner and I were compromising on what we played (sort of similar to Brad and Joe). Except we did strong club when the opponents were vul, 2/1 when they were nv, under the theory that the strong club would be suspect to interference and that we'd want them red to have to think twice about getting in. I think it is hard though if you aren't playing a heck of a lot. I mean think how often people screw up things when playing just one system!

[kenberg]

In theory, a two card system might well work. For casual players such as myself I am sure that it would be a disaster for the reason you mention. Last night I opened a 2/1 1♣ on a 3=4=1=5 shape with an 18 count, planning on a reverse into hearts. Partner bid 1♠ and rho bid a sandwich 1NT. OK, this was pick-up on-line where no one knows what anything means, but I realized that I had never discussed with any partner, regular or casual, whether the 1NT intervention changes the meaning of my actions in any way. Surely most of us, if we want to imporve our partnerships, need to spend more time with the details of one system rather than venturing off into dual systems. [fwiw, I did bid 2♥, he rebid 2♠ on his 4 count, I bid a hopeless 4♠ game, the defenders cooperated and he made it Another day at the factory.]

In practical terms the Grue/Moss Compromise (where they play two cards as a concession to strongly held views) is indistinguishable from a Grue/Moss System (where they do it because it actually seems to be a good idea). With time we, or at least they, may be able to assess the merits.

Anyway, I remain fascinated by the idea. But only as an observer. No chance I would ever do it.

[kenberg]

I want to push some more about using the archives as a resource for discussion. For example, were there any hands where the catch-all nature of the Precision 1♦ bid seemed to play a role in the outcome? And what methods were in actual use over this bid?

One of the commentators mentioned that Kit Woolsey has an article on BridgeWinners addressing this subject. I have not yet tracked it down.

[mike777]

 akwoo, on 2013-August-13, 10:56, said:

Re: Grue and Moss playing Precision NV

They were opening VERY light NV. I would not be comfortable playing 2/1 with such light openings, because even with say ♠ xx ♥ KQxx ♦ Kx ♣ KQJxx, I wouldn't feel too certain there would be a game opposite partner's 1♠ opening. It could very well have been ♠ AQxxx ♥ xx ♦ QTxxx ♣ x.

yes the more I watch the vugraph and read the WC books the philosophy seems to be just bid game and yes we may play a lot of 23-24 hcp 3nt games. Even if a game has no play, bid it given even excellent players may and do error on defense.

Against non WC players opening light and bidding such games creates pressure. Pressure on the opp and pressure on us to learn to ply the hand.

[blackshoe]

The latest book on Romex Godfrey's Angels, which is about nine years old I think, talks about a two-card system. Romex (2/1, strong 2♣. artificial 1NT) when vulnerable at MPs or when not at favorable at IMPs and Romex Forcing Club, which is basically a Precision variant, when not vulnerable at matchpoints or at favorable at IMPs. I think one of the keys to success with this kind of system is to keep things as much the same as possible across the two systems. For example:

1♣ is either 3+ cards, 12-18 HCP, no five+ card major or 4+ card diamonds unless clubs are longer, OR artificial, 17+ HCP, usually 6+ controls
1♦ is either 3+ cards, etc. OR 2+ cards, etc, but 11-16 HCP rather than 12-18
1M is 5+ cards, longest suit, either 12-18 HCP OR 11-16 HCP
1NT is either artificial, unbalanced with 4-5 losers and usually 6+ controls or balanced 19-20 and 6 controls OR natural balanced 10-12 HCP
2♣ is either artificial, strong, if balanced at least 23 HCP, if unbalanced 3 or fewer losers, will not have primary diamonds OR natural, 6+ clubs, 11-16 HCP.
2♦ is always strong, either balanced 21-22 w/7 controls or 27-28 w/10 controls or unbalanced GF, primary diamonds, usually 2 or fewer losers.
2♥ is either a natural weak 2 or a "Precision 2♦" 3 suiter
2♠ is always a natural weak 2
Higher bids are always preemptive, with the same criteria whichever card is in effect. So the only "dual meaning" bids are below 2♠ and do not include 1M (I don't think the one or two point range difference is significant).

Also, the response structure to the artificial club openings is almost identical, the primary difference being where they start (1♦ or 2♦), and the response structure to the artificial 1NT is very similar.

The downside is that this is a Mid-Chart system because of the 2♥ "Precision 2♦" — and because of the 2NT and 4NT openings, which show a preempt at the next higher level in one of the minors, but those aren't essential to the system.

I seem to remember that Hamman and somebody (Wolff?) played a two card system for a while (2/1 and Precision) but abandoned it. That was a while back though.

[antonylee]

In one of my regular partnerships I play Polish club when red, but when white we swap to WNT and use 2♣ for some sort of preempt leaving 1♣=NAT/SNT/18+any. While not optimal, we just adapted as much as possible of the Polish club response structure to that white 1♣ and it worked reasonably well.