Bridge Post

Precision or Natural?

2010-10-20T03:20:00.000-07:00

I have frequently had to address the question: which system is better, strong club (Precision derivatives) or natural? My response goes along these lines:

Natural bidding, especially 5-card majors has come a long way since the glorious days of the Blue Team. Although one can still argue that an uninterrupted strong club sequence will hit the jackpot more often, today's natural systems can virtually match that in most of the hands, the emphasis is on uninterrupted in the phrase before, a rarity.

After this fairly general paragraph, I break down my analysis further, by opening bids:

1 ♣: It limits other openings when strong but suffers from competition. Natural bidders show 2-3 clubs and perhaps gain some clarity in 1 D. So they are even.
1 ♦: Depending on flavor, this can show any number of diamonds, even a void (I like to play it that way) in Precision. Natural has a big plus here, especially in competitive bidding.
1 M: This is the area where Precision-like systems shine. Frankly, whenever your partner opens the bidding with 1M and you're playing strong club, you happen to be the most comfortable person at the table.
1NT: Even; regardless of range.
2 ♣: Big club sucks, double plus for natural bidders. How natural systems utilize this bid is completely irrelevant. Precision 2 C has always been a hit or miss event, especially in pairs.

To sum up, we have two openings, 1 ♣ and 1NT which score even; two minuses, 1 ♦ and 2 ♣, and one (or two if you count the majors separately) plus as far as Precision is concerned. Sadly, most Precision flavors give it back when they adopt a standard raise structure, say, something like simple raise with 6-10, 3M with limit and the rest in forcing 1NT. So, although I like to play strong club, natural seems slightly better unless your major raises can handle thin but odds-on games frequently with a big club system.

3-Card Major Raises

2010-10-07T14:00:00.000-07:00

Nearly all of bidding systems with 5-card majors prefer a delayed 3-card raise if responder has an invitational hand, typically 10-12 points. The most common route they follow is to bid 1NT first and then rebid 3M if possible. So, following auctions crop up time after time:

1 ♠ - 1NT
2 ♦ - 3 ♠

1 ♥ - 1NT
2 ♣ - 3 ♥

etc.

I can sympathize giving a belated 3-card raise but what I do not understand is why we delay it if partner's rebid will not change our own rebid in the first place. Depending on partner's second bid, following can happen:

our hand improves,
it gets worse,
it does not change,
we discover a new and better fit.

Interestingly, most of these systems advocate a single response: raise to 3M; 1M-1NT-2x-3M. Don't you think it is wasteful? Regardless of what opener says, we raise to 3. If you do not have a set of responses catering to all or at least some of the options above, then I think it is better to raise the major immediately, presumably using 3 of a minor or some similar mechanism. The competition will know less about opener's hand if nothing else. Advantage? Your 1NT response will not contain 3 cards in opener's suit. But if you insist giving delayed 3-card raises, you might as well start thinking about how to improve your 1NT structure so that opener's rebid (and effort) really matters.

What Systems Do I Play?

2009-07-20T04:16:00.000-07:00

If you're blogging about bridge, this question will crop up sooner or later. People naturally wonder what bidding systems are my favorites (presume, it also creates some sort of credibility in the eyes of the readers). In matchpointed pairs (MPs), nothing beats good old Acol as far as I'm concerned. Four-card majors, flexible openings in biddable suits, a variable notrump (12-14 non-vulnerable,13-15 vulnerable) and weak-2s in majors, no modern 2-bids of dubious value. 2 ♦ is an Acol-2 and 2 ♣ an Acol-2 in a major or a game-force in clubs. Pretty simple.

But I do not play four-card major systems with pick-up partners. It is a rule I seldom break, if ever. With someone I have just met, I usually play 5-card majors (know all flavors, so no problem there).

At IMPs or teams let us say, we usually stick to a loose Polish/Precision derivative we call Super Red. For the real curious, here are the opening bids and responses to 1 ♣ (usually this is what interests people most):

1 ♣: 16/19+, various hands OR 11-13 flat (without shortage)
1 ♦: 11-18, 3+♦ (usually 4+♦)
1 ♥: 11-18, 5+♥
1 ♠: 11-15, 5+♠
1NT: 14-16, balanced.
2 ♣: 11-15, 6+♣ (may contain a side 4-card suit) OR 5♣-4M-22, 14-15 (if unsuitable for 1NT)
2 ♦: 11/12-15, 4-4-1-4, 4-4-0-5, 34-1-5 shapes.
2 M: weak-2s
2 N: 20-22, balanced.

* Take special note of the red suit ranges, 11-18.

Responses to 1 ♣

1 ♦: 0-7, negative.
1 M: 8+, 4+M, longer minor possible
1 N: 8-11, balanced
2 m: 8-11, 5+m; denies 4M
2 ♥: 11/12+, 5-4 minors
2 ♠: transfer to 2NT, game-force
2 N: 12-13, balanced
3 m: 10-12/13, 6-card minors, good suit, spread out values.
3 M: 4-7, 7+ in M
3 N: 14-16, balanced.

This pretty much sums it up.

On Major Suit Raises

2009-07-09T12:10:00.000-07:00

Four of a major: the Holy Grail of bridge! Naturally, this has led theoreticians and practitioners alike to improve the common raise structure, namely the limit raises to three and four. Three so called improvements seem to be popular:

Bergen raises

Marty Bergen has come up with a few exotic (my opinion, no pun intended) shapes and/or types of raises by utilizing three of a minor responses as mixed and three-card raises and thereby getting rid of rarely used jump shifts.

Apart from the fact that I have difficulty in understanding which is which, I can not say I like the idea. Making responder bid anything but no-trumps or 2/3 M gives opponents a cheap opportunity for a lead directing double. You reach a theoretically correct game (or stop short) only to go down because the defenders find the right lead (failing to double is also a clue). Oh, and that new pre-emptive 3M raise of 0-5 points with a bunch of trumps. I simply could not find such partners who would raise to three like that.

Jacoby/Stenberg 2NT raises

This seems like a good idea within the confines of 5-card majors and 2/1 game force. Several variants fly by but my favorite is the one showing a GF raise. I am not fond of mixing the so called invitational raises here. I do not want to know if partner has an extra trump or a singleton somewhere if I'm not slammish. By the time you learn it, you are already committed to four, so what's the purpose? Better play it (if you must) as pure game force to investigate a probable slam. One good (and simple) variant is Schmittberg.

Good/bad raise to 2M

Or healthy/poor raise as they say. Now, this one is good. The typical limit of raising to two is wide and it is good to know whether partner has a sound raise or not. Some do it via a 1NT, some disguise it in 2m (and adding really minimum hands with support); your choice, your style. The bottom line is it works and is worth the extra effort.

An unseen plus of differentiating good and bad raises is it keeps the bidding open with a few trumps and a sub-minimum hand. If you can not bid a natural Acol-2, i.e. if you're playing weak-twos, you will benefit from it immensely when partner does not pass with three points and three trumps.

Where can I Learn Bridge?

2009-01-24T07:51:00.000-08:00

When Lori Cordeiro said "I don't play bridge. My parents tried to teach me when I was younger, I just did not get it. I'm glad you enjoy it!", it suddenly occurred to me that some of you might be interested to learn the game. What will you do when you get older?

Well, teaching the game here is beyond the scope of this blog but I can surely give a few links along the way, that will help you start. What I can do, however, is answering your questions either in the Q and A section or as a separate article. Most of the bridge tutoring sites are static, some are really dated and you may not find someone to ask for a clarification most of the time. If that is the case, think of this place as a last refuge and I will do my best. Now, without further ado...

For the novice I can really recommend Richard Pavlicek's site for bridge players. In addition quizzes, articles, bidding practice, polls and contests, puzzles and humor, Richard also teaches bridge on-line. Starting from the basics, he very nicely wraps up the essentials of the game in a clear and efficient manner;

Bridge is by far the greatest card game of all, and it can provide immense challenge and enjoyment for the rest of your life. This lesson is intended for the complete beginner, one who knows nothing, or almost nothing, about bridge. If that is you, read on.

Where to begin? Bridge is more complicated than other card games, and beginners are sometimes discouraged by this. Relax! After this lesson you will understand the card play involved and be well on your way to becoming a bridge player. Take your time! There is no hurry. And have a deck of cards handy.

I concur his last advice, have a deck of cards ready.

Flat Hands, Flat Choices

2009-01-07T06:53:00.000-08:00

♠	AQJ3
♥	KQ2
♦	KT9
♣	953

Bidding:

West	North	East	South
	p	1NT	p
2♦	p	2♥	p
3NT	p	?

You start with a strong (15-17) notrump, your partner bids 2♦ as a transfer. You complete the transfer with 2&hearts, having nothing extra. Partner raises to game with 3NT. Your turn...

First the full deal:

♠	T94
♥	86
♦	QJ843
♣	T84

♠	652
♥	T9753
♦	A75
♣	AQ

♠	AQJ3
♥	KQ2
♦	KT9
♣	953

♠	K87
♥	AJ4
♦	62
♣	KJ762

Much have been said about sticking to notrumps with flat distributions like this one, a meagre 4-3-3-3. So, your initial reaction could be passing the 3NT bid.

The hand is taken from Cap Volmac 1995 and all pairs choosing the notrump game regretted their actions, down one, losing 12 imps, after the obvious club lead. Others correcting to the heart game had an easy ride.

The only clue, if any, is the three small clubs which should a be deterrant for choosing the notrump game. True, you can come up with a West hand with which 3NT will be the right choice but statistics is not always "damn lies".

An interesting exercise could be how the weak (12-14) notrumpers would fare. The auction would probably start 1♣ - 1♥ -1NT (presumably showing 15-16 points) and deviate considerably depending on each pair's style. Some would resort to check-back Stayman and discover the 8-card heart fit. In those auctions, West will decide on the final contract and almost all Wests are going to choose the superior 4♥ game.

Bridge has always had its subset of shooters and a few would no doubt bid 3NT after 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT, to lose eventually.

Nuisance One Spade

2009-01-05T02:50:00.000-08:00

It is usually accepted by most that artificial systems, especially strong club openers are superior to natural systems. Leaving this discussion aside, there is one thing you should not do when defending against such systems: giving them a comfortable, uncontested auction. You must have some sort of convention as a good measure.

Perhaps, the simplest of them all that requires no change to your over-call style is the Nuisance 1♠. The convention is simple: you switch the meanings of pass and 1♠. After a strong 1♣ you over-call 1♠ with all hands that you will normally pass and pass with all hands you will bid 1♠.

Nuisance 1♠ is no burden on memory and effective against most of big club systems. Residents of ACBL land should first check if it is legal in ACBL sponsored events.

Handling Competition

2009-01-05T01:58:00.000-08:00

♠	43
♥	K98
♦	T9
♣	AT8765

Bidding:

West	North	East	South
			1NT
p	2NT	p	3♣
X	3♦	X	p
?

After South's strong notrump and North's conventional 2NT showing diamonds (weak or strong), South shows a diamond raise with 3♣ and you, East make a cheap double, taking the opportunity. North reverts to 3♦ confirming a weak hand with diamonds and your partner, silent so far, bids a responsive double as diamonds were bid and raised by the opponents. Now what?

It is interesting to observe so many partnership spending countless hours to hone their bidding but neglect competitive auctions. It is really difficult to find silent opponents these days and most of the sequences these partnership work on will unfortunately remain as theory. Many would go astray here. The full deal first:

♠	986
♥	62
♦	A86542
♣	93

♠	43
♥	K98
♦	T9
♣	AT8765

♠	Q752
♥	AQJ75
♦	3
♣	KJ2

♠	AKJT
♥	T43
♦	KQJ7
♣	Q4

The hand was taken from Cap Gemini 2000, a prestigious event. Sitting West was Zia and in the East was Andrew Robson. In response to Robson's responsive double, Zia bid his three-card heart suit and Robson raised to game, bidding 4♥. They were the only couple reaching the ironclad heart game.

OK, you may not have the guts to bid game as Robson did but even getting to 3♥ was good enough to get a good score at IMPs.

Valentines Bidding in Bridge

2009-01-02T11:18:00.000-08:00

Few bidding systems surprised me like Valentines (No, I do not play it). Being the brainchild of Colin Ward, it excels in novelty while still being a playable system. I know that there are a lot of bidding systems enthusiasts out there, and I am sure some approaches if not all of Valentines will provide many hours of musing and tinkering. This, from the introduction:

Unlike strong club systems, Valentines is a forcing club system which prides itself not so much on its slam-bidding as on its part score and competitive bidding. As such, it is an excellent duplicate system while retaining a capability to generate huge swings in teams play.

In learning Valentines it is important to unlearn everything known about standard, approach-forcing systems. For example, reverses do not show extra strength. Opener never bids 3-card suits as "natural". There are no jump rebids on 3-card suits. In this regard Valentines is more natural than standard approaches.

Valentines derives its name from its concentration on the Heart suit. After the forcing (but not necessarily strong) 1♣ opening and negative 1♦ response it is a 1♥ rebid which shows a strong hand. In many slam-bidding sequences 4♦ invites a slam in Hearts while 4♣ invites a slam in any of the other three suits. The reader will see many other instances where the heart suit affects the auction more than any other suit.

Valentines is a distributional bidding system. Players open their four card suit, not their 5-carder. This is true regardless of the relative strengths of the suits.

The Opening Bids:

1♣ : either

Canapé from a 4+card club suit into a 5+card suit, 12-16 HCP, or
Club 1-suiter with 6+ clubs, 12-16 HCPs, or
Flat hand with 4-2-3-4 or 4+ Clubs only, 12-16 HCP, or
Strong hand with 17+ HCP and any distribution.

1♦ : either

Diamond one-suiter, 15-17 HCP, or
Balanced with 4 diamonds and not 4 hearts OR 4-3-4-2, 12-16 HCP, or
Canapé diamond 2-suiter (diamonds are shorter), or
3-suiter with short clubs.

1♥ : either

4+ hearts in a flat hand (less than 4 Spades) 12-16 hcp, or
Canapé 2-suiter with hearts, or
suiter with 6+ hearts, 15-17.

1♠ : either

1-suiter (6+ Spades or 5-2-3-3 distribution) 15-17, or
Canapé 2-suiter with spades and a longer second suit, 12-16.

1NT: Balanced with 5-3, 4-3 or 4-4 in spades and hearts (in that order) and 12-16.
2♣ : 3 suited with clubs (Roman) and 12-18.
2♦ : 1-suiter with 6+ diamonds, 11-14.
2♥ : 1-suiter with 6+ hearts, 11-14.
2♠ : 1-suiter with 6+ spades or exactly 5-2-3-3, 11-14.
2NT: Your choice.

As a teaser, let me give you the responses to 1♣ opening:

1♦ : 0-7, negative but don't be fooled before seeing other responses.
1♥ : Artificial positive; 8+ HCP unbalanced or 9+ balanced.
1♠ : 4+ spades, natural and non-forcing, 0-10 HCP.
1NT: balanced (includes all 5332 shapes), 6-8 HCP.
2♣ : 4+ clubs and 5+ diamonds, 0-6 HCP.
2♦ : 1-4-5-3-ish shape or 1-3-6-3 with weak diamonds, 8-11 HCP.
2♥ : 1-5-4-3-ish, denies a second spade or a fourth club, 8-11.
2♠ : 6+ spades, 0-5 HCP.

Read the rest at Colin Ward's.

Revision Club (Revised Precision)

2009-01-01T09:59:00.000-08:00

Revision (short for "revised Precision") by John Montgomery is a big club system that is similar to, and based on, Precision. Of existing published methods, it most closely resembles the Precision style presented by Barry Rigal in his book Precision for the 90s.

I have closely followed -and used for some time)- the evolution of Precision since C.C. Wei published his book after designing the system to be first used by Chinese Teams in international events. As an aid to memory, this was the original design of Wei:

1♣ : 16+ hcp, strong, forcing for one round
1♦ : 11-15, three or more diamonds
1♥ : 11-15, 5+ hearts
1♠ : 11-15, 5+ spades
1NT: 13-15, balanced
2♣ : 11-15, 5+ clubs
2♦ : 12-15, 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 shape, short diamonds
2♥ : weak-two
2♠ : weak-two

Precision had several design flaws (my subjective view):

1♣ threshold is too low. In all competitive auctions, this leaves the strong club opener with no suit bid.
1♣ - 1♦ sequence. Despite being the most common sequence, the least attention has been given.
1♣ - positive responses. It is really difficult to limit the hands after a positive.
2♣ opening. This is the Achilles heel of most big club systems and little can be done about it within this framework.
2♦ opening. An opening bid has been assigned to a rare distribution.

Montgomery addressed a few of the above in a most exhaustive (I mean it) way. First, he switched the negative 1♦ response to a simple waiting bid where most of the positive responses now reside and moved all semi-positive hands in the range of 5-7 points to the positives; i.e. 1♣ - 1♥ now shows five or more hearts with 5-7 points. This, compared to the original design and most of the later Precision derivatives is a clever approach. By allowing responder to introduce a suit early in the auction, the partnership is now better positioned against an interference by fourth hand; plus, it facilitates finding a part score, not to mention that semi-positive hands, the most common ones against a big club, are now considerably better described.

Secondly, 5-4 clubs and a major hands are now in 1♦ opening and 2♣ shows 6 or more clubs. Although it crowds the 1♦ opener, it is a way better approach than bidding 2♣ with 5 clubs and a 4-card major. Losing a major fit after a 2♣ opener was almost a certainty in Wei's original scheme (and in most of Precision derivatives) if responder was not good enough to relay.

Third, 4-3-1-5 and 3-4-1-5 shapes have been stuffed into the 2♦ to make a rare event less rare. I still do not like it but there really is no way to solve it without making the 1♦ opening a mess.

Fourth is the explanation of why I used the word exhaustive to define Montgomery's work. He analyzed every possible meaning by giving an account of fifth or sometimes sixth round of bidding. And this is what sets Revision Club apart from others floating in the net. Revision Club (zipped pdf, 1.72 MB) is not an amalgamation of ideas taken from other systems, it is an in-depth and complete work. It is a system.

Think Before You Reach Dummy

2008-12-30T04:51:00.000-08:00

♠	3
♥	A5
♦	J9642
♣	J8763

♠	AKJT764
♥	983
♦	A
♣	A4

The bidding:

West	North	East	South
			1♠
p	1NT	p	4♠
p	p	p

Although a lot can be said about the choice of opening bid, you fortunately managed to land on the contract of 4♠. West leads the ♥K. Plan the play.

A habit you should definitely hold on to is thinking about your prospects before you touch a card in dummy. You have four losers: a trump, two in hearts and one in clubs. one of the heart losers can be ruffed in dummy but the danger is your unkind opponents can remove the dummy's single trump before you take your ruff.

Suppose you win the opening lead with dummy's ♥A and play another heart. A not sleeping East can rise up with the heart jack or ten and play a spade through your holding. Having no trumps left in dummy, if the finesse loses to ♠Q, you are one down. What can you do about it?

Try holding up the ♥A at trick one, allowing West's ♥K to win. You are now in full control. No matter what West returns the contract is safe: you will either take your heart ruff (if West returns a minor suit) or you will not lose a trump to the ♠Q as West will give you a free finesse by returning a trump.

The full deal:

♠	3
♥	A5
♦	J9642
♣	J8763

♠	Q85
♥	KQT4
♦	T853
♣	T5

♠	92
♥	J762
♦	KQ7
♣	KQ92

♠	AKJT764
♥	983
♦	A
♣	A4

The deal has been taken from Barbara Seagram and David Bird's "25 Ways to Take More Tricks as Declarer."

What is a Bidding System?

2008-12-29T09:32:00.000-08:00

For starters, it surely is not a few conventions you scribbled on a convention card. True, with a pick-up partner you incidentally meet in a club, there is little else to do. For the serious, however, and by serious I mean partnerships, more than a framework of gadgets built on a, say natural system is required.

I have three regular partners and because of Madame Fortune's evil curse at the time I was born, I play three different systems with each of them. This, of course does not make me or them better players but it does make us better partnerships. What I hate most at the table is crafting an unnecessary bid for the fear of being misunderstood when there is a perfectly logical bid available. If the puritan in me forces me to make the right bid, I hate the result. And when I choose the safe option I hate myself. For what it's worth, I do not like to play bridge with a pick-up partner.

I can write hundreds of essays on bidding theory and conventions, and I plan to write a few here, though, lower than the hundreds range, the best article that sums up what constitutes a bidding system is written by John Montgomery, in his foreword to Revision Club[1]:

Perhaps surprisingly, the basic framework, or outline, or convention-card-level description of the methods you play is not overwhelmingly important. A competent pair could probably pick up the convention card of another competent pair and, using that as a starting point, devise a true system that is just about as good as whatever would be arrived at by starting with their own personal preferences. How can I say this? How, for example, can it not make a difference what notrump range you play? Or whether or not your strong bid is 1♣ or 2♣ or something else? Well, it does make a difference, but not that big a difference. We know this because of the remarkable variety of basic approaches that have been successful in actual play. Notrump openings of the preemptive variety (10-12 or, where allowable, 9-11 or 9-12) have been used successfully. So have weak and strong notrumps of various ranges, and even super-strong notrumps (17-19, 17-20, even 18-20). "Standard" methods have won national and world championships, and so have big clubs, forcing-but-not-necessarily-strong clubs, and methods even farther out than that. People who don't even bid their longest suit first (canapé) have won at the highest level. What is really important is not the basic framework you play on the first round of bidding, but that you know what your bids mean after that. And this is where most players fall down. For various reasons, they do not put in the work to develop a true system, one that is internally self-consistent and sufficiently detailed to make their framework function optimally.

We will be analyzing more than several bidding systems here. Some will be a few paragraphs that I especially liked about the system under consideration. What I do not want is you making a soup out of them and thinking you now have a cool system. Changing a bit here, plugging a bit there does not make it a system. Think of this post as a reminder.

[1] I will write a post about it separately and Montgomery does not have a web page as far as I know.

Ambra: 5-card Majors with a Twist

2008-12-29T06:23:00.000-08:00

Benito Garozzo of Blue Team fame is without a doubt one of the greatest bridge players and bidding theoreticians in the world. In addition to his contribution to systems like Blue Team Club, Roman Club and the Precision, he also crafted a natural two-over-one system for the Italian Junior Team to be used in 2000 World Junior Champs based on 5-card majors. Davide Tavoschi has taken it up and incorporated it into Ambra.

Like Terence Reese, I am not a big fan of 5-card majors although I had to play it through all these years thanks to my ever-insisting and always-resisting partners. No, I am not hostile towards the idea and have no intention of creating a system like Reese's Little Major where a major opening shows either four or 6 cards but never five (British humor can go to extremes)! Leaving this discussion to bidding theory, let us quickly have a look at the opening bids of Ambra:

With the exception of 1♦ one-level openings are pretty standard, a strong notrump (15-17), 5-card majors and a catch-all 1♣ bid. Ambra, rather bidding the best minor a la French where a minor bid can show any number of cards from three upwards, did the right thing and packed some of the minor suiters in 1♣ to have a natural 4-card diamond opener. Having witnessed too many losses due to the ambiguity of minor suit length in competitive auctions, this is not a small improvement.

Another big step forward is the development after two-over-one responses (major openings). Garozzo, tried to overcome the crippled sequences like 1♥-2♣ by changing the natural meaning of the opener's bids at her second turn where,

2♦ : a minimum hand without 4 spades,
2♥ : 5 hearts and 4 spades, any strength,
2♠ : 5 hearts and 4 diamonds, 16+ high-card points (hcp),
2NT : 5+ hearts, 16+ hcp,
3♣ : 5 hearts and 4 clubs, 16+ hcp,
3♦ : 6 hearts and 4 clubs, 16+ hcp.
...

It is a clever idea with a small burden on memory.

A similar trick is also employed by Garozzo after one-over-one responses. All strong openers respond 2♣ which can also be natural and rest of opener's responses show minimum or mid-range hands as naturally as possible. For example, after 1♥ - 1♠,

1NT : natural,
2♣ : either 5 hearts and 3+ clubs any strength, or all hands with 17 hcp upwards,
2♦ : 5 hearts and 3+ diamonds, limited,
2♥ : 6 hearts minimum,
2♠ : 5 hearts and 4 spades, minimum,
2NT : 6 hearts and 4-any with 4-5 losers.
...

Garozzo and later Tavoschi have added a few tricks to most of the sequences and if you want to play a natural (it is hard to play purely natural these days) system with 5-card majors and two-over-one game forcing, Ambra is definitely worth checking.

Let the Game Begin!

2008-12-29T03:27:00.000-08:00

Contract bridge is a fine game. Unlike casino games where betting techniques based on statistics play a great deal, it is a trick-taking game of skill and chance.

A lot has been said about the element of chance but let me add a few things, too. If we compare bridge, for example to chess which is a pure skill game, bridge is practical whereas chess is theoretical. Life is not and can not be a game of chess for the simple reason that there is no uncertainty in chess. Bridge, however, is the life itself. It asks of you to use your skills no matter what the odds are. You have to accept bad luck just like you would accept a rainy day. Bridge is real whereas chess is surreal.

Here in this web log, I will ramble about bidding systems and theory, conventions, carding, declarer and defense play, players, hands, tournaments and events around the world, bridge software and links, you name it. It will be about bridge and only bridge. I do not consider myself an authority but I have degrees at a national level. So, this might comfort you to some extent if you are one those who demand credentials for everything said and written. For the light-hearted, this blog will be another place to spend -hopefully- quality time.

Now, let the game begin!

Q and A Section

2008-12-29T01:25:00.000-08:00

You can leave all your bridge related questions here in the comments section. I will try to answer them as soon as possible, usually in a post, and I will give the link to the post here. In some cases I can simply answer your question here as a return comment. So this section is worth checking every once in a while. An easy way to do this is by subscribing to the comments of this very post.