5 CARD MAJORS, FRENCH STYLE
Ronald Heath
The success of the French team over the years has aroused my curiosity as
to how their bidding style differs from expert practice in the US. I
understand their methods differ strongly from the 2/1 gf that dominates
in the US. Can anyone recommend a book(s) at the advanced level that
describes their methods. I doubt if an English language text is available
but my French is good enough to tackle a French book on the subject.
Ronald Heath
My curiosity has been aroused as to the differences between bidding
styles using 5 card majors in France and the US. My understanding is
that French practice is not the 2/1 style that dominates in the US. Can
anyone point me in the direction of finding a description of their
methods in a book or somewhere on the net. Would prefer it to be in
English, but my French is good enough that I could get something out of
a French language text.
Nikos Sarantakos
Ronald Heath <rghe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
A succinct exposition of the French "standard" is Berthe's "Memento
des encheres a la francaise" published by Grasset, Unfortunately, I
see that it recently got out of print.
Mark Kerlero has written "Encheres, mode d'emploi" (Grasset), a book
that has received the annual prize for the best French bridge book a
couple of years ago.
The books by Michel Lebel ("La Super Majeure Cinquieme" etc.) offer a
solid initiation to the French style.
Briefly, now, let me point out some differences.
* After a 1NT opening, 4-suit transfers: 2S for clubs, 3C for spades.
* After 1m-1M raising to 2M with three cards is not the French way.
* As opening bids go, the French peculiarity is the 2D opening,
showing a Forcing to game hand. (This idea came from Sam Stayman).
As a corollary, 2C is used for "strong two" hands.
* Two over one is not GF, but it tends to become; perhaps the majority
play it as 90%GF (Mike Lawrence's style).
* Two-suited overcalls are nearly always precise, i.e. they show both
suits. To achieve this, you give up the natural meaning of, say, 3C.
Obviously, there are scores of other differences as well. Perhaps the
most striking feature of French bridge is the great uniformity of
bidding system. Moreover, champions usually are not using radically
different methods than club players.
Nikos Sarantakos
sar...@innet.lu
Luxembourg (but playing in France!)
Robin Michaels
Nikos Sarantakos (sar...@innet.lu) wrote:
: Ronald Heath <rghe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
: * As opening bids go, the French peculiarity is the 2D opening,
: showing a Forcing to game hand. (This idea came from Sam Stayman).
: As a corollary, 2C is used for "strong two" hands.
[snip]
If this idea originated with Sam Stayman, I'd be very surprised;
for one thing, non-GF 'strong two' hands are more a part of European bidding
that US bidding (Culbertson in particular hated them), and I have never seen
them as part of a US system.
On the other hand 'Benjamin Twos' as invented by the Scottish bridge player
.... Benjamin, have been played for years in England as a graft on to the
Acol system to allow weak twos to be played.
I would not dare to suggest that the French call this system 'Benjmins Twos',
and neither would I suggest that Benjamin was the only play to invent it.
I'm sure that some French master came up with the idea independently.
To say that the idea came from Sam Stayman, though, without any evidence, is
in the same league as Ely Culbertson claiming to have invented all natural
bidding systems becuase 'they are all inevitably based on the natural and
superior Culbertson approach-forcing method' (He says stuff _like_ this at
least twice in the Gold book, I think).
In my opinion, this idea is a bad one anyway; Opening 2D is just too high on
a strong hand to have a sensible auction; 2C is bad enough I find.
Further, the 2C opening is even worse. If you have a distributional 20 count,
what is the chance that the next have can preempt ? Do you really want to make
a bid that totally fails to describe your hand type ?
I really enjoy defending against these methods; over the 2C opening, you can
bid even more aggressively than over a strong C, since they usually know they
have the values for game, but have no idea where or whether they can
extract a penalty or not.
Playing some kind of multi, or even giving up on 'strong twos' altogether, and
playing weak 2s in 3 suits, is almost certainly better.
Cheers,
Robin
Donald A. Varvel
In <55jcs9$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> ro...@sp5-3.ma.utexas.edu (Robin
Michaels) writes:
>
>Nikos Sarantakos (sar...@innet.lu) wrote:
>: Ronald Heath <rghe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: * As opening bids go, the French peculiarity is the 2D opening,
>: showing a Forcing to game hand. (This idea came from Sam Stayman).
>: As a corollary, 2C is used for "strong two" hands.
>
>[snip]
>
>If this idea originated with Sam Stayman, I'd be very surprised;
>for one thing, non-GF 'strong two' hands are more a part of European bidding
>that US bidding (Culbertson in particular hated them), and I have never seen
>them as part of a US system.
Try the Stayman System, as described in a book in the early
1950's. Whether Stayman read Benjamin or Benjamin read
Stayman, or they both invented the idea independently,
I don't know.
Many, many Americans have fought against unlimited 1-bids.
The only author I know of who actually thought they were a
good idea (rather than just better than the alternatives)
was Albert Morehead. Acol 2's, even with Multi to handle
"strong 2's" in the minors, don't handle the very common
"flexible" hands with 5422 and 5431 and 4441 distributions,
so don't really limit the opening 1-bids.
While an extremely high percentage of rank-and-file American
players use "strong 2C" systems, American international
teams rely on Meckwell (Precision), Hamman-Wolff (Blue Club,
with modifications), Ekeblad-Sukonek (canape club with weak
notrump) and Cayne-Becker (Schenken with relays, aka
"Ultimate Club"); not to mention Deas-Palmer and Kathie
Wei and partner, playing Precision; and Amalya Kearse and
partner, playing ... Benjamin Twos!
Limited 1-bids are much more common among *top* American
players than among the rank-and-file.
The first published version of Romex also used 2D as a true
game-force and 2C for somewhat weaker hands, some of which
are opened 2C in SA.
[...]
>To say that the idea came from Sam Stayman, though, without any evidence, is
>in the same league as Ely Culbertson claiming to have invented all natural
>bidding systems becuase 'they are all inevitably based on the natural and
>superior Culbertson approach-forcing method' (He says stuff _like_ this at
>least twice in the Gold book, I think).
I think it's *very* tacky to say things like this out of ignorance.
You stop just short of calling the original poster a liar.
Sam Stayman advocated, published, and played methods in the early
1950's (and possibly before) that were based on what are now called
Benjamin Twos. I read his book in a library. My 1976 edition of
the Encyclopedia gives his version of the bids. It is quite
possible that the methods used in present-day France were inspired
by Stayman and not Benjamin.
>In my opinion, this idea is a bad one anyway; Opening 2D is just too high on
>a strong hand to have a sensible auction; 2C is bad enough I find.
>Further, the 2C opening is even worse. If you have a distributional 20 count,
>what is the chance that the next have can preempt ? Do you really want to make
>a bid that totally fails to describe your hand type ?
>I really enjoy defending against these methods; over the 2C opening, you can
>bid even more aggressively than over a strong C, since they usually
know they
>have the values for game, but have no idea where or whether they can
>extract a penalty or not.
>Playing some kind of multi, or even giving up on 'strong twos'
altogether, and
>playing weak 2s in 3 suits, is almost certainly better.
In case anyone doesn't recognize this, it's exactly the argument
that is commonly used against Big Club systems. While I tend to
agree with the conclusion here (a weak 2D buys you more than the
limited 1-bids, I think, although I could easily be wrong), in
fact it isn't that easy to destroy these openings by competing.
These methods are in fact *very* popular in America. Go play in
the nearest American Bridge Association tournament if you don't
mind being the only white person in the room, and you'll get to
play against Benjamin Twos a lot. (You'll also have a lot more
fun than you do at the usual ACBL tournament. There. Let's see
if *that* starts some discussion.)
-- Don Varvel (.sig under reconstruction, but Netcom mail now readable)
NStraguzzi
Nikos Sarantakos writes:
>Obviously, there are scores of other differences as well. Perhaps the
>most striking feature of French bridge is the great uniformity of
>bidding system. Moreover, champions usually are not using radically
>different methods than club players.
First, much thanks to Nikos and Henk for keeping RGB up-to-date on the
Olympiad results.
Second, could someone in France report on how closely the French media and
the average club player followed the Olympiad? Were results published
daily? Was the victory front-page news....or, at least, was it published
*anywhere* in most major French newspapers? Did non-tournament (i.e.,
rubber) bridge players follow the French team's progress?
I'm asking because I think the biggest problem with bridge in America is
that almost no one at the grass roots level cares a whit about how our
teams do in the World Championships. The link between the top experts and
the mom-and-pop players was broken years ago. Part (and I stress only
part) of the reason is that the methods employed by American experts are
so vastly different than what's used -- and, in fact, what's permitted --
at the typical ACBL tournament that our internationals are playing, for
all intents and purposes, a completely different game. The average player
doesn't understand the methods, so he or she doesn't care about the
Olympiads or Bermuda Bowl any more than he cares about the World Cribbage
Championships.
In countries where the link hasn't been broken -- that is, the
internationals play something similar to what the club and social players
play -- bridge seems to be a lot healthier. It seems that the critical
issue isn't artificiality so much as uniformity. And again, it's not the
only factor that's contributed to the decline of bridge locally, but I
think it's a major factor. A sport nees to be strong at the top to
survive....at least here in the U.S.
There a lot of implications to all this, regarding how bridge should and
should not be played and what our rules should and should not allow and
perhaps, fundamentally, exactly what our sport is and is not all about.
Some of the implications (and possible solutions) are extremely
distasteful to experts, and others are extremely distasteful to the
average tournament player. Sooner or later, however, *someone* is going
to have to address all this and, no pun intended, rebuild the bridge from
the roots to the top.
Congratulations to France, by the way! Who won the Women's championship?
Nick
===================+=======================================
Nick Straguzzi |
Mullica Hill, NJ | "Got no use for the tricks of modern times"
-------------------+ - Al Stewart
nstra...@aol.com |
===================+=======================================
Ronald Heath
ro...@sp5-3.ma.utexas.edu (Robin Michaels) wrote:
>Nikos Sarantakos (sar...@innet.lu) wrote:
>: Ronald Heath <rghe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: * As opening bids go, the French peculiarity is the 2D opening,
>: showing a Forcing to game hand. (This idea came from Sam Stayman).
>: As a corollary, 2C is used for "strong two" hands.
>
>[snip]
>
>If this idea originated with Sam Stayman, I'd be very surprised;
>for one thing, non-GF 'strong two' hands are more a part of European bidding
>that US bidding (Culbertson in particular hated them), and I have never seen
>them as part of a US system.
>.... Benjamin, have been played for years in England as a graft on to the
>Acol system to allow weak twos to be played.
>I would not dare to suggest that the French call this system 'Benjmins Twos',
>and neither would I suggest that Benjamin was the only play to invent it.
>I'm sure that some French master came up with the idea independently.
>in the same league as Ely Culbertson claiming to have invented all natural
Apparently the forcing to game 2 diamond bid is a Sam Stayman idea. He
is given credit for it in the Encyclopedia of Bridge, 1972 Edition and
more recently by Amalya Kearse, in Bridge Convention Complete. It does
look as though the French play Benjamin Twos. Whether they call it that
is another question.
Thanks for your input,
Ron Heath
Nikos Sarantakos
var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
>In <55jcs9$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> ro...@sp5-3.ma.utexas.edu (Robin
>Michaels) writes:
>>
>>To say that the idea came from Sam Stayman, though, without any evidence, is
>>in the same league as Ely Culbertson claiming to have invented all natural
>>bidding systems becuase 'they are all inevitably based on the natural and
>>superior Culbertson approach-forcing method' (He says stuff _like_ this at
>>least twice in the Gold book, I think).
>I think it's *very* tacky to say things like this out of ignorance.
>You stop just short of calling the original poster a liar.
>Sam Stayman advocated, published, and played methods in the early
>1950's (and possibly before) that were based on what are now called
>Benjamin Twos. I read his book in a library. My 1976 edition of
>the Encyclopedia gives his version of the bids. It is quite
>possible that the methods used in present-day France were inspired
>by Stayman and not Benjamin.
Hey, Donald thank you for stating the obvious truth.
BTW, one should have in mind that back in those days bridge books were
rarely translated and bridge players were less multilingual than now.
The book by Stayman exposing his system (and, presumably, the 2D GF
idea) was translated in Italian and, if I am not mistaken, in French.
Jose Le Dentu, the French champion and writer, has written against the
2D opening explicitly calling it "a Sam Stayman idea".
BTW, at my partner's insistence, I no longer use it. We open 2D
Flannery instead (a sacrifice of mine!). As a result, we have an
average of three director calls per session...
Nikos Sarantakos
sar...@innet.lu
Luxembourg
Nikos Sarantakos
uij...@desy.de (Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)) wrote:
>Nikos Sarantakos writes:
>> Perhaps the
>>most striking feature of French bridge is the great uniformity of
>>bidding system.
>Yes, but isn't this born out of necessity? I've seen quite a few
>changes in the line-up of the top French pairs. For example, in 1980
>in Valkenburg, the FFB sent in convention cards for all possible
>permutations of the top 4 (Chemla, Lebel, Perron, Mari), just
>in case one of the default partnerships would blow up halfway through
>the event. This didn't happen, but if there are frequent changes
>in the partnerships, then you better have a system that can be played
>by the entire group of top players. If not, then the partnerships
>will still be discussing basic by the time the event is over.
This incident is true.
Now, some other facts. The French team that won 3rd (or 2nd?) place in
the 1995 Europeans in Vilamura was: Chemla-Perron, Reiplinger-Soulet,
Lebel-Mari. However, Christian Mari left the team, allegedly furious
against Chemla. For the Beijing World Championship, Philippe Cronier
was brought in.
However, he also left the team after Beijing (France got 3rd place).
The next season saw the same team with five members: Lebel would play
with everyone except for Reiplinger, and various other permutations
were taking place. The team started very well the new season.
However, for reasons unknown to me, Michel Lebel also quit the team
who decided to continue as a foursome. They lost the finals of the
French trials, against the eventual Olympiad winners. One of them was
Christian Mari. There were also Levy and Mouiel, team-mates of Chemla
and Perron in the 1992 victorious team who later broke with them.
So, while well-oiled partnerships in France do have very elaborate
understandings, the fact that the "foundation" of their system is
common to all lets them change partners and team-mates easily!
Nikos Sarantakos
Luxembourg
Robin Michaels
Donald A. Varvel (var...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <55jcs9$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> ro...@sp5-3.ma.utexas.edu (Robin
: Michaels) writes:
: >
: >Nikos Sarantakos (sar...@innet.lu) wrote:
: >: Ronald Heath <rghe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[note the indentations]
[snip]
: >To say that the idea came from Sam Stayman, though, without any evidence, is
: >in the same league as Ely Culbertson claiming to have invented all natural
: >bidding systems becuase 'they are all inevitably based on the natural and
: >superior Culbertson approach-forcing method' (He says stuff _like_ this at
: >least twice in the Gold book, I think).
: I think it's *very* tacky to say things like this out of ignorance.
: You stop just short of calling the original poster a liar.
: Sam Stayman advocated, published, and played methods in the early
: 1950's (and possibly before) that were based on what are now called
: Benjamin Twos. I read his book in a library. My 1976 edition of
: the Encyclopedia gives his version of the bids. It is quite
: possible that the methods used in present-day France were inspired
: by Stayman and not Benjamin.
I apologise for my presumption, and any offense I may have caused.
I do get a bit tired of people claiming such things falsely from time
to time, and so react against it from time to time.
This time I was wrong. :-(
Oh well. I'll keep trying. :-)
btw I'll write on my cc that I play Marx 2C over 1N to ask for a 4 card major.
:-). Is that ACBL legal ?
btw, Donald:
I think the Benjamin 2C opening is _more_ vunerable to preemption than a
strong C, because the strong partnership are far more likely to be ready to
play in a suit game, and unable to double the preemptor, while a strong club
is more frequently balanced or semi-balanced, and hence able to effectively
penalise oppo.
Cheers,
Robin
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
Nikos Sarantakos writes:
> Perhaps the
>most striking feature of French bridge is the great uniformity of
>bidding system.
Yes, but isn't this born out of necessity? I've seen quite a few
changes in the line-up of the top French pairs. For example, in 1980
in Valkenburg, the FFB sent in convention cards for all possible
permutations of the top 4 (Chemla, Lebel, Perron, Mari), just
in case one of the default partnerships would blow up halfway through
the event. This didn't happen, but if there are frequent changes
in the partnerships, then you better have a system that can be played
by the entire group of top players. If not, then the partnerships
will still be discussing basic by the time the event is over.
> Moreover, champions usually are not using radically
>different methods than club players.
I'm not sure if this is good or bad. It's probably good for the
kibitzers but a top partnership of long standing SHOULD IMHO have
discussed far more situations than the average club player.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: he...@desy.de
University of Oxford WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter/
DESY-F01 Phone: +49.40.89983133
Notkestrasse 85 Fax: +49.40.89983092
Hamburg, D22603, Germany Home: +49.40.3898954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.
Nikos Sarantakos
nstra...@aol.com (NStraguzzi) wrote:
>Nikos Sarantakos writes:
>>Obviously, there are scores of other differences as well. Perhaps the
>>most striking feature of French bridge is the great uniformity of
>>bidding system. Moreover, champions usually are not using radically
>>different methods than club players.
>First, much thanks to Nikos and Henk for keeping RGB up-to-date on the
>Olympiad results.
Well, thank you!
>Second, could someone in France report on how closely the French media and
>the average club player followed the Olympiad? Were results published
>daily? Was the victory front-page news....or, at least, was it published
>*anywhere* in most major French newspapers? Did non-tournament (i.e.,
>rubber) bridge players follow the French team's progress?
I do not think there was a worthy coverage. There were brief notes in
the Equipe, the leading French sports daily newspaper, stating just
the results & rankings of the French teams. On Saturday, the bridge
column of Liberation, a big national daily, held news that France is
close to the title and gave a hand played by Alain Levy some years
earlier.
On the other hand, having WWW access I did not seek information in
French press. Perhaps there was something more after all -but I'd be
surprised.
Here in Luxembourg, however, members of our local club were following
closely the progress of the team, either by the Net or via telephone
calls. You see, the national squad were all members of our club! They
had a terrific tournament finishing at 24-25th place, beating many
good teams, including Poland, S.Africa, Argentine and China.
>I'm asking because I think the biggest problem with bridge in America is
>that almost no one at the grass roots level cares a whit about how our
>teams do in the World Championships. The link between the top experts and
>the mom-and-pop players was broken years ago. Part (and I stress only
>part) of the reason is that the methods employed by American experts are
>so vastly different than what's used -- and, in fact, what's permitted --
>at the typical ACBL tournament that our internationals are playing, for
>all intents and purposes, a completely different game. The average player
>doesn't understand the methods, so he or she doesn't care about the
>Olympiads or Bermuda Bowl any more than he cares about the World Cribbage
>Championships.
About this topic: an indicator of the rupture is, perhaps, the number
of subscriptions to the Bridge World. While its quality is always
high, it had more than 20000 subscribers in the '60s. Nowadays it only
has some 8000.
Tom Goodwin
var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
>Many, many Americans have fought against unlimited 1-bids.
>The only author I know of who actually thought they were a
>good idea (rather than just better than the alternatives)
>was Albert Morehead. Acol 2's, even with Multi to handle
>"strong 2's" in the minors, don't handle the very common
>"flexible" hands with 5422 and 5431 and 4441 distributions,
>so don't really limit the opening 1-bids.
The original Roth-Stone system, back in the 1950's, had no forcing
opening bid, and therefore unlimited one-bids. I believe they thought
this was "right," not just better than the alternatives. I do not
know whether Roth actually changed his mind about this, or simply gave
in to the overwhelming weight of expert opinion; in any event, later
editions of The System have included two clubs as the forcing opening
bid. Still no "intermediate" opening, though.
Another author, S. Garton Churchill, also advocated for no forcing
opening bid, and did so as recently as 1979 ("Churchill Natural
Bidding Style at Contract Bridge"). Church was not the national
figure that Roth and Stone were (and that Roth still is), but he had
his moments. He attracted a small but loyal group of followers,
mainly in New York (where he lived) and New England (where he
summered); some would say that he did this through force of
personality, not because of the merits of his bidding ideas....
Robin Michaels
Tom Goodwin (t...@ime.net) wrote:
: var...@ix.netcom.com(Donald A. Varvel) wrote:
: >Many, many Americans have fought against unlimited 1-bids.
: >The only author I know of who actually thought they were a
: >good idea (rather than just better than the alternatives)
: >was Albert Morehead. Acol 2's, even with Multi to handle
: >"strong 2's" in the minors, don't handle the very common
: >"flexible" hands with 5422 and 5431 and 4441 distributions,
: >so don't really limit the opening 1-bids.
: The original Roth-Stone system, back in the 1950's, had no forcing
: opening bid, and therefore unlimited one-bids. I believe they thought
: this was "right," not just better than the alternatives. I do not
: know whether Roth actually changed his mind about this, or simply gave
: in to the overwhelming weight of expert opinion; in any event, later
: editions of The System have included two clubs as the forcing opening
: bid. Still no "intermediate" opening, though.
: Another author, S. Garton Churchill, also advocated for no forcing
: opening bid, and did so as recently as 1979 ("Churchill Natural
: Bidding Style at Contract Bridge"). Church was not the national
: figure that Roth and Stone were (and that Roth still is), but he had
: his moments. He attracted a small but loyal group of followers,
: mainly in New York (where he lived) and New England (where he
: summered); some would say that he did this through force of
: personality, not because of the merits of his bidding ideas....
At pairs, this isn't such a bad idea.
If you are playing a set of obstructive 2 level bids, that allow you to get
most auctions early without much risk, then it may be worth losing the strong
2C bid, which only gains on rare hands (and which even then might not gain
much, since opening at the 1 level only turns out badly occasionally, expecial-
ly when oppo are keen to balance), in favour of this preemption which gains on
many hands.
For example, in a non-expert (and I mean expert, not just LM) field, I suspect
that (at least NV) opening 2C on any 4333 with 3-7 hcp is a good tactic at
pairs. Not that I expect such a convention to be legal to play in _any_ event
in the near future.
(Or does the ACBL count it as a natural bid, since it shows at least 3C ?
I'd be happy to play natural continuations. :-) That'd be fun to play in
competition)
Cheers,
Robin
John Hoffman
t...@ime.net (Tom Goodwin) writes:
> Another author, S. Garton Churchill, also advocated for no forcing
> opening bid, and did so as recently as 1979 ("Churchill Natural
> Bidding Style at Contract Bridge"). Church was not the national
> figure that Roth and Stone were (and that Roth still is), but he had
> his moments. He attracted a small but loyal group of followers,
> mainly in New York (where he lived) and New England (where he
> summered); some would say that he did this through force of
> personality, not because of the merits of his bidding ideas....
My father, Jerry Hoffman, partnered Churchill occasionally
in recent years at the Vanderbilt Club in Manhasset, NY.
Jerry recalls their first game together. He asked Churchill
what methods they would play. The response:
"I play Churchy."
That meant playing exactly what Churchill played and nothing else.
There was only one conventional bid. After a 1 of a suit
opening, a 1N response was forcing 1 round and showed 0-10 HCP
with no biddable 4-card suit.
In one of those early sessions, Jerry made an overcall
with something like AQJxxx and out. Afterwards, Churchill
asked why he had overcalled. Jerry answered, "So you would know
what to lead."
Churchill replied,
"You don't need to tell me what to lead. I know what to lead."
I met Churchill a few times, and don't recall anyone quite like him.
--
John Hoffman (408) 341-5729 |
HaL Computer Systems, Inc. | Earth: Love it or leave it.
1315 Dell Avenue |
Campbell, CA 95008 |
Nikos Sarantakos
>Ronald Heath <rghe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>My curiosity has been aroused as to the differences between bidding
>>styles using 5 card majors in France and the US. My understanding is
>>that French practice is not the 2/1 style that dominates in the US. Can
>>anyone point me in the direction of finding a description of their
>>methods in a book or somewhere on the net. Would prefer it to be in
>>English, but my French is good enough that I could get something out of
>>a French language text.
I forgot another difference between French and American bidding style:
While many Anerican experts will frequently open with 1NT a hand of
the appropriate strength that contains a 5-card major, this is
considered almost an heresy in France, where 1NT formally denies a
5-card major.
Nikos Sarantakos
sar...@innet.lu
Ray Miller
>In case anyone doesn't recognize this, it's exactly the argument
>that is commonly used against Big Club systems. While I tend to
>agree with the conclusion here (a weak 2D buys you more than the
>limited 1-bids, I think, although I could easily be wrong), in
>fact it isn't that easy to destroy these openings by competing.
>These methods are in fact *very* popular in America. Go play in
>the nearest American Bridge Association tournament if you don't
>mind being the only white person in the room, and you'll get to
>play against Benjamin Twos a lot. (You'll also have a lot more
>fun than you do at the usual ACBL tournament. There. Let's see
>if *that* starts some discussion.)
>-- Don Varvel (.sig under reconstruction, but Netcom mail now readable)
The two or three times I have played in ABA events, they were indeed very
relaxed and easy going affairs. I was, however, not the only white person in
the room.
Ray
Tim West meads
Did anyone else reading Nikos Sarantakos' post about partner-swapping and
fallings out among top French players see the seeds of a TV Soap,
(possibly starring Pamela Anderson as Marie Christian oops) which would
really start to popularise bridge - or am I the only one that warped.
Tim West-Meads
Adam Beneschan
Well, I question your choice of casting. Bridge is an intellectual
game, so I don't see Pamela Anderson playing any part in it---unless,
perhaps, she got the role of the Dummy.
-- Adam
Dave Eisen
>>play against Benjamin Twos a lot. (You'll also have a lot more
>>fun than you do at the usual ACBL tournament. There. Let's see
>>if *that* starts some discussion.)
>
>
>relaxed and easy going affairs. I was, however, not the only white person in
>the room.
Sounds like something worth trying. In particular, I have a
partner or two who finds ACBL tournaments way too serious and
anti-social and would like something more like what the ABA
has to offer.
How would I find a schedule of local ABA events?
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (415) 967-5648
There's something in my library to offend everybody.
--- Washington Coalition Against Censorship