[kgr]

...I never played rubber and tried to understand the scoring from wikipedia explanation...
What are the tactics in Rubber bridge?
In clubs where you play for money (...do they still exist a lot?..) they play always rubber bridge? And you are not supposed to play there with your regular partner?
Is level of play in rubber clubs mostly high?

[kfay]

I played rubber bridge maybe once a week up until a year ago. It was a lot of fun, we played for small change.

It definitely felt very funny, just on account of the change in bidding tactics. We definitely went overboard at the start stretching to sac so our opps didn't make rubber. Also staying out of game to be on the safe side just because you've got some under feels so lame. It messed with my head and by now I think I've forgotten all the conclusions I reached about how to adopt my bidding strategy.

I can't say I know from firsthand experience but I thought they played Chicago a lot in the 'rubber' games for money?

[maggieb]

I grew up playing rubber bridge at my parent's bridge parties.

It sounds silly but the most common mistake that duplicate bridge players make when they play rubber bridge for the first time, is that they forget the partscores! They'll bid 1NT-3NT when they have a partscore of 60! Trust me, it happens all the time.

Logically, a constructive bid above gamelevel (which can be as low as the 2-level) must be a slam try, though of course you should still be able to preempt.

In general I'd say that rubber bridge strategy is not so different from IMPs. Bid your games aggressively but don't go overboard. If you can get a large penalty, go for it! Don't go out of your way to sacrifice over their partscore when they already have a score above the line. Keep in mind that even when it works out reasonably, you will still be in a dangerous position on the next hand.

Being vulnerable when the opponents have a partscore is an especially dangerous position (or look at it the other way around: when you are playing against inexperienced players, you can make a lot of money in this position!).

The bottom line is that rubber bridge is a wonderful game with new factors that complicate it, but in the end I still prefer to play duplicate.

[FrancesHinden]

Because nearly all rubber bridge is cut-in - where you get a new partner each rubber, and you cut for partners - it has a lot of partnership-handling issues that you just don't see at duplicate. With a weak partner against a very strong pair, for example, you should almost never sacrifice because you expect to lose the rubber anyway.

Because you are playing with different partners, there are no complicated systems. Mostly very simple systems are played - negative doubles is about as racy as it gets.

The main difference in bidding & play tactics is that partscores are more important than at imps, sacrifices are less successful, and overtricks are unimportant. That makes pre-empts generally very conservative. You will get complaints or rude remarks if you think about overtricks.

Quote

Is level of play in rubber clubs mostly high?

That depends on the stakes. At high stakes rubber, the standard is generally high.

[cherdano]

How much is a partscore of 60 worth, as a rough guideline? (Say at all white.)

[Winstonm]

If you want a good picture of what it is like to play rubber bridge versus other scoring types I would recommend Zia's book.

[gnasher]

cherdano, on Dec 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

How much is a partscore of 60 worth, as a rough guideline? (Say at all white.)

With no one vulnerable a game is worth 350 plus the trick value. (Before making game, your expectation is zero; after making game, your expectation is 700/2 + 500/4 - 500/4.)

Suppose that two partscores are always worth a game, and that it's twice as likely that you can make a partscore as that you can make a game. Having made a partscore, we'll convert it to game 2/3 of the time (1/2 when the next hand is ours; 1/6 when the opponents make a partscore but we then convert).

With these assumptions, a 60 partscore is worth 60 + 350 * 2/3 ~= 240.

That is more science than most rubber bridge games would merit, but it supports the approach that I think most good rubber bridge players would adopt: it's OK to go for 200 against a partscore, but 300 is too much.

[MickyB]

gnasher, on Dec 7 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

How much is a partscore of 60 worth, as a rough guideline? (Say at all white.)

With no one vulnerable a game is worth 350 plus the trick value. (Before making game, your expectation is zero; after making game, your expectation is 700/2 + 500/4 - 500/4.)

Suppose that two partscores are always worth a game, and that it's twice as likely that you can make a partscore as that you can make a game. Having made a partscore, we'll convert it to game 2/3 of the time (1/2 when the next hand is ours; 1/6 when the opponents make a partscore but we then convert).

With these assumptions, a 60 partscore is worth 60 + 350 * 2/3 ~= 240.

Hang on - one-quarter of the time, the next hand will be ours and we could have bid and made a 100-point game on that hand. Haven't you credited that success to having 60 in?

Also, your final calculation seems to come to 300-odd, not 240.

In theory, the part-score will benefit us 1/4 of the time immediately, when the next hand is ours in part-score; and 1/16 of the time after two part-scores have been made, one for us and one for them. 60 + 350 * 5/16 ~= 170.

However, I'm not sure this reflects the true value of the part-score. It simplifies our objectives - we no longer have to bid to a high level on "game values", which makes it harder for the opponents to work out whether to compete. It also leaves us more room to investigate slam when we need it, but this is probably counteracted by the unfamiliarity of the situation for most players.

[gnasher]

MickyB, on Dec 7 2008, 06:24 AM, said:

Hang on - one-quarter of the time, the next hand will be ours and we could have bid and made a 100-point game on that hand. Haven't you credited that success to having 60 in?

Also, your final calculation seems to come to 300-odd, not 240.

Yes, you're right on both counts. I seem to have subconsciously made an arithmetic error in order to get closer to the answer I wanted.

Quote

In theory, the part-score will benefit us 1/4 of the time immediately, when the next hand is ours in part-score; and 1/16 of the time after two part-scores have been made, one for us and one for them. 60 + 350 * 5/16 ~= 170.

That assumes that a partscore hand is as likely as a game, doesn't it? With my assumption that partscore is twice as likely as game, the figure would be
60 + 350 * (1/3 + 1/9) ~= 215

Quote

However, I'm not sure this reflects the true value of the part-score. It simplifies our objectives - we no longer have to bid to a high level on "game values", which makes it harder for the opponents to work out whether to compete.

True. Another important benefit is that on the hands where we would normally go down in a good game we play in a cold partscore instead.

Rubber bridge seems to have died out in London - all the "rubber" clubs actually play Chicago instead. Is that the same everywhere?

[kgr]

gnasher, on Dec 7 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

Rubber bridge seems to have died out in London - all the "rubber" clubs actually play Chicago instead. Is that the same everywhere?

What is Chicago and do they play ot for money in London?

[gnasher]

Chicago is a variant of rubber bridge where a rubber consists of four deals, each with the vulnerability predetermined. Games receive the same bonus as at duplicate; partscores carry to the next hand.

When I referred to London's rubber bridge clubs playing only Chicago, I was talking about the places where they play for significant stakes and would let someone like me play. I don't know what goes on in the clubs where they play for fun or pennies, or in the places where membership is restricted.

[MickyB]

gnasher, on Dec 7 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

Quote

In theory, the part-score will benefit us 1/4 of the time immediately, when the next hand is ours in part-score; and 1/16 of the time after two part-scores have been made, one for us and one for them. 60 + 350 * 5/16 ~= 170.

That assumes that a partscore hand is as likely as a game, doesn't it? With my assumption that partscore is twice as likely as game, the figure would be
60 + 350 * (1/3 + 1/9) ~= 215

Rubber bridge seems to have died out in London - all the "rubber" clubs actually play Chicago instead. Is that the same everywhere?

Sorry, misread your post, thought you were considering part-scores and game/slam deals to be equi-probable.

Hang on, isn't this methodology still flawed? I think it is ignoring the fact that, if we were to convert on the next hand, we are not 350 points better off - we are 350 points *minus the value of a part-score* better off.

That makes sense really, having a part-score in cannot be worth that close to half the value of the game.

Fourth attempt at a calculation

x = The "added value" of the part-score
y = The value of a game

x = y/9 + 1/3 * (y - x)

=> 4x/3 = 4y/9

=> x = y/3


The highest stake game in Manchester is £5 per hundred, that's been rubber, not chicago, the last two times I've played - Chicago is certainly more common at the lower stakes.

[han]

Quote

Hang on, isn't this methodology still flawed? I think it is ignoring the fact that, if we were to convert on the next hand, we are not 350 points better off - we are 350 points *minus the value of a part-score* better off.

yup

[barmar]

I think most rubber bridge games are Chicago because the length of play is predictable. With 4 people, you can rotate through all the partnerships in 12 deals, so 1 rotation = about 1 hour. And if you have 5 people, with one sitting out each rubber, they know they only have to wait 4 hands.