[mikl_plkcc]

Bludgeon is a bidding system which has no forcing bid, and initially played with no conventions (although Stayman and Blackwood were added afterwards). All bids are limit bids where both members of the partnership bid to the number of tricks they expect to make.

For example, a 1-level opening shows 6-7 losers; a 2-level opening shows 5-6 losers, etc.; while a 1NT opening shows 12-15 HCPs.

Does anyone play this system seriously? Is this bidding system good for beginners?

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-April-02, 08:23, said:

Does anyone play this system seriously? Is this bidding system good for beginners?

No and no...

Here's my recommendations with respect to choice of bidding system for any beginner

First and foremost, you really need to be able to look at a pair of hands and decide where these two hands want to play before you worry about bidding systems. Whatever bidding system that you're going to use is a crutch that will - hopefully - allow you to approximate what you're doing here.

The better you are an knowing what the right contract is, the easier its going to be to apply the different tools that your bidding system provides

Next, play the same stuff that the majority of the folks around you are playing.

Is this necessarily the theoretical optimal system to be playing - probably not. but the benefits of

1. Understanding your opponent's bidding
2. Being able to find good books and the like describing what you are playing
3. Being able to ask locals for advice when something went wrong

all far outweighs the technical merits of some alternative system

Last, with respect to Bludgeon or EHAA or what... These systems can be fun to play but they require a lot of judgement and you really need to play the pants off your Moysians

[pescetom]

 hrothgar, on 2025-April-02, 08:44, said:

No and no...

Here's my recommendations with respect to choice of bidding system for any beginner

First and foremost, you really need to be able to look at a pair of hands and decide where these two hands want to play before you worry about bidding systems. Whatever bidding system that you're going to use is a crutch that will - hopefully - allow you to approximate what you're doing here.

The better you are an knowing what the right contract is, the easier its going to be to apply the different tools that your bidding system provides

Next, play the same stuff that the majority of the folks around you are playing.

Is this necessarily the theoretical optimal system to be playing - probably not. but the benefits of

1. Understanding your opponent's bidding
2. Being able to find good books and the like describing what you are playing
3. Being able to ask locals for advice when something went wrong

all far outweighs the technical merits of some alternative system

I agree with all of that, especially the emphasis on joint hand evaluation and choice of contract.

I would also add that if you do want to start with a simplified system rather than just whatever else is predominant locally, then a simple strong club system can be much easier to learn than anything purely natural.

[jillybean]

Unfortunately, unless you have partner(s) willing to learn the strong club, you have no choice other than to learn the local system.
This is why we all had to struggle with SAYC in NA

[mycroft]

Jilly: You don't actually mean SAYC, do you? Nobody knows how to play SAYC. They know how to play SA with "we all know this" gadgets, sure; but as my "bridge" email account has said for years (and it was old when I took it; new when I added it to my .sig file, but that disappeared about 1999): "You're told your opponents play SAYC, but all that means is that they can find the letters 'S', 'A', 'Y', and 'C' on their keyboard." -- Adam Beneschan.

Hrothgar: again, hard agree. But to me the biggest reason to learn the "dominant system in your area", even (or especially) to begin if it is a minimal version of it, is "if you ask someone to play, they can play your system." So the number of potential partners (and therefore, potential regular partners) goes up. I'll get more luck in a random club (YC is different) in England if I can play something close to Acol than if I can only play Western NA-style 2/1, and vice versa in Alberta.

OP: I love crazy systems, always have. It's a failing of younger players, and I've always "felt young" as a bridge player. Feel free to engage in that pursuit, if it's fun for you. But know that "playing a normal, time-tested system and putting your energy into playing and defending the good contracts the system gets you to" will make you a better bridge player and lead to better results, faster. Of course, not having fun will lead to burnout, and nothing leads to worse results than "not playing any more". So if you want to have some fun, go ahead and have some fun; if you want to Git Gud Fast, resist those impulses except for very occasionally or as a break from improving your declarer play and your defence.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-April-02, 14:33, said:

Jilly: You don't actually mean SAYC, do you? Nobody knows how to play SAYC. They know how to play SA with "we all know this" gadgets, sure; but as my "bridge" email account has said for years (and it was old when I took it; new when I added it to my .sig file, but that disappeared about 1999): "You're told your opponents play SAYC, but all that means is that they can find the letters 'S', 'A', 'Y', and 'C' on their keyboard." -- Adam Beneschan.

I think this is very close to what I was first playing.
It is funny seeing the SOS redouble on here, no beginner I know understands what an SOS redouble is. I learnt the hard way, at Penticton in my first team game.
(1S) 2C (Vulnerable, my bad overcall on 5 cards) (X) XX
Oh, my partner thinks I can make it! (Isn't that what all BBO XX's mean?)
I went for something like -3400. 2nd or 3rd hand in game, lesson never forgotten.

[mycroft]

Yep. And negative doubles, but only to 2♠. And J2NT. and...

It's not surprising at all. It's not a system for beginners. It never was.

Wasn't designed to be; wasn't even ever intended as a good system to learn to play.

It was explicitly a camel - an elephant designed by committee. It was a compilation of "standard, with agreements and conventions regular tournament players in North America in 198x could play."

Sure, that was 30 years ago, but still - it was a system designed to be played by serious tournament players, who were saying "we don't want to have to understand all these crazy systems, just have normal bidding and let the play decide." And they tried it.

And it was a horrendous failure. Turns out, all those people just wanted the pesky opponents to not play their weird stuff, not tp\o be forbidden from playing their sound, sensible system.

Until Matt Clegg needed a "standard system" that "everyone" on his new internet-thingy text-based(!) bridge client could play, even if one was in St. Louis and the other in Uppsala. And look, there's this book...

[johnu]

Personally, I like the point count opening bid system better.

1♣ - 12-13 HCP
1♦ - 14-15 HCP
1♥ - 16-17 HCP
1♠ - 18-19
etc

I believe something like this is still played in remote villages in India, and somebody once sent me draft of this type of "system" because they saw my name in a bridge publication.

Anyways, Bludgeon sounds like it would have very severe problems, and you would be lucky to find a single player who would be willing to learn and play it with you. If you don't know the general system in use in your area, good luck finding another partner. Even if you restrict yourself to internet play, you would have trouble finding anybody good to learn and play this system.

[mikl_plkcc]

jillybean, on 2025-April-02, 20:35, said:

I think this is very close to what I was first playing.
It is funny seeing the SOS redouble on here, no beginner I know understands what an SOS redouble is. I learnt the hard way, at Penticton in my first team game.
(1S) 2C (Vulnerable, my bad overcall on 5 cards) (X) XX
Oh, my partner thinks I can make it! (Isn't that what all BBO XX's mean?)
I went for something like -3400. 2nd or 3rd hand in game, lesson never forgotten.

I will consider the XX as for penalty, showing a big hand with great strength (strength-showing redouble).

Only at the pass out position XX is for takeout, such as 1C - (X) - / - (/) - XX.

I have now made an explicit agreement with my regular partner that all direct XX is for penalty and will create a penalty X situation, and balancing XX is for takeout if a penalty X situation hasn't been created (such as by preempting, by showing a fit, etc.).

[akwoo]

hrothgar, on 2025-April-02, 08:44, said:

First and foremost, you really need to be able to look at a pair of hands and decide where these two hands want to play before you worry about bidding systems.

The vast majority of bridge players will never acquire this skill. What do you think they should do?

[hrothgar]

akwoo, on 2025-April-03, 13:42, said:

The vast majority of bridge players will never acquire this skill. What do you think they should do?

Play War or tic-tac-toe.
I've heard that some people enjoy gardening...

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills is supposedly quite popular

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2025-April-03, 03:17, said:

Personally, I like the point count opening bid system better.

1♣ - 12-13 HCP
1♦ - 14-15 HCP
1♥ - 16-17 HCP
1♠ - 18-19
etc

I believe something like this is still played in remote villages in India

Thanks for this, I never heard of it but it is an obvious candidate for a simple and effective bidding system.

Did the same player later invent Gazzilli ?

akwoo, on 2025-April-03, 13:42, said:

The vast majority of bridge players will never acquire this skill. What do you think they should do?

In Italy the wiser ones return to Burraco.

[akwoo]

hrothgar, on 2025-April-03, 14:06, said:

Play War or tic-tac-toe.
I've heard that some people enjoy gardening...

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills is supposedly quite popular

Honestly if that was the advice I could only round up maybe 6 tables total of bridge players within 250 miles (and at most one table within 70).

So if I want a local game we have to be more accommodating.

[hrothgar]

akwoo, on 2025-April-03, 16:42, said:

Honestly if that was the advice I could only round up maybe 6 tables total of bridge players within 250 miles (and at most one table within 70).

So if I want a local game we have to be more accommodating.

Do you derive any satisfaction from clubbing baby seals?