[Winstonm]

In these forums, I see a great many displays of what I would term "captaincy calls" or "captaincy decisions" as a solution to a bidding problem - and in my view that captaincy is often misapplied.

For this discussion we are ruling out auto-captaincy such as relay systems - keep on point to more natural bidding, please.

I take the simple view that captaincy should only apply in a handful of situations, one being when one hand only needs to know basic information in order to place the contract (such as AK, KQJ10xxxx, x, AK needing only to know number of aces) or when one hand can be narrowly defined as in opening NT bids or limit raises. Other than these few times, good bidding should engage a dialogue between two players to arrive at the best contract.

However, what I like and what has worked for me may be different than other viewpoints. I am listening. What say ye?

What is the concensus view of the captaincy issue? How often does it apply? Is its underuse or overuse a matter of style or a matter of good/bad bidding technique?

[blackshoe]

Somewhere around here I have a whole book on the subject of captaincy in bridge. I suppose I should find it and read it sometime.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Jan 17 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

Somewhere around here I have a whole book on the subject of captaincy in bridge. I suppose I should find it and read it sometime.

Only if ordered to do so.

[whereagles]

Have a look at Dennis Klein's book "Capitaincy for advancing bridge players". Some of the stuff there is not found anywhere else.

This issue is extremely important and soooo overlooked.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Captaincy: the captain is the guy, who can pass.

So capataincy occurrs a lot, even in a dialog, just
that the role of the captain is changing with every
response.

What I quite often do is, trying to go slowly, to
gather enough information in the beginning.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[matmat]

hmmm... do you mean captaincy or mindreading? it seems to me that for a lot of the questions you have to figure out first who miss-bid and then make a decision...

[Winstonm]

matmat, on Jan 17 2009, 04:52 PM, said:

hmmm... do you mean captaincy or mindreading? it seems to me that for a lot of the questions you have to figure out first who miss-bid and then make a decision...

They're not one and the same thing?

[Winstonm]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 17 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

Hi,

Captaincy: the captain is the guy, who can pass.

So capataincy occurrs a lot, even in a dialog, just
that the role of the captain is changing with every
response.

What I quite often do is, trying to go slowly, to
gather enough information in the beginning.

With kind regards
Marlowe

In this concept, a captain would be one who expects partner to describe his hand without having the same requirements placed on his own bids - one who expects to place the final contract when enough information is gathered.

Here is a question: Playing SAYC and the auction starts: 1D-1S-3D-?
Is there a captaincy at this point?

[P_Marlowe]

Sure, responder can pass, so he is captain.

If you really want, since opener is limted , responder will usually
be the captain in the later auction.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

Winstonm, on Jan 17 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

Here is a question: Playing SAYC and the auction starts: 1D-1S-3D-? Is there a captaincy at this point?

Sure.

Responder is captain with respect to LEVEL, unless he invites slam, in which case opener is invited to discuss level.

Responder is also captain with respect to SUIT, but opener might pull responder's suit decisions with an extreme 1 suiter.

[JLOL]

Engaging in a dialogue is great, but at some point there is enough information to make a definitive decision about the contract, or to do something like aces then place the contract. Sometimes you are just making an educated guess and usually don't have enough information to be totally sure, but you probably could never get enough information to be totally sure about what to do. Sometimes you make practical decisions.

The other side of people who do things like make committal bids too early and ask for keycard too much is the people who will never make a decision even when the situation calls for it, preferring to give away information needlessly or torture partner and not ever take any small gambles.

The key is balance.

[Winstonm]

JLOL, on Jan 17 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

Engaging in a dialogue is great, but at some point there is enough information to make a definitive decision about the contract, or to do something like aces then place the contract. Sometimes you are just making an educated guess and usually don't have enough information to be totally sure, but you probably could never get enough information to be totally sure about what to do. Sometimes you make practical decisions.

The other side of people who do things like make committal bids too early and ask for keycard too much is the people who will never make a decision even when the situation calls for it, preferring to give away information needlessly or torture partner and not ever take any small gambles.

The key is balance.

Balance good, Karate good, bidding good.

Play still suck.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Responder is captain with respect to LEVEL, unless he invites slam, in which case opener is invited to discuss level.

I would not define this as captaincy, then. In my view captaincy does not occur and then change - captaincy, the way I am defining it, is the ability to place the contract by asking questions without exchanging any information.

Quote

Responder is also captain with respect to SUIT, but opener might pull responder's suit decisions with an extreme 1 suiter.

One reason I brought up the issue is that years ago a very fine player with whom I was playing passed in this auction: 1D-1S-3D-3S. Now, he admitedly has always had some strange bidding notions, but he stated that his hand had been defined therefore my bid of 3S must mean that is where I wanted to play - in other words, his bid had transfered captaincy to my hand.

But how can anyone take over captaincy when we don't know in what suit we are playing?

[whereagles]

Winstonm, on Jan 17 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

In my view captaincy does not occur and then change - captaincy, the way I am defining it, is the ability to place the contract by asking questions without exchanging any information. (...)

One reason I brought up the issue is that years ago a very fine player with whom I was playing passed in this auction: 1D-1S-3D-3S. Now, he admitedly has always had some strange bidding notions, but he stated that his hand had been defined therefore my bid of 3S must mean that is where I wanted to play - in other words, his bid had transfered captaincy to my hand.

But how can anyone take over captaincy when we don't know in what suit we are playing?

The example you give,

1♦ 1♠
3♦ 3♠

is a situation that's very, very far from your definition of captaincy.

There MAY be a point in your partner's arguing, but that's very debateable, even if you don't play 1m-2M as a weak jump shift. Bidding space here is scarce, so responder needs forcing bids. This is why people define "pass" as the only weak bid here. Anything else is game forcing.

[awm]

Perhaps it's better viewed in terms of "asking bids" rather than "relays." Often the captain will need to ask specific questions from partner, and in doing so will probably also reveal something about his own hand. There are few situations in natural bidding that are totally one-sided. The general idea is that one person is captain if:

(1) His/her hand is unlimited in strength, but partner's hand is limited
(2) He/she can pass partner's last bid and/or place a contract such that partner will always pass

So in the auction 1♦-1♠-3♦, responder is captain. Opener's hand is limited to at most 17 or so points. Responder can pass. If responder bids 3NT, opener will always pass.

In the auction 1♦-1♠-2♥, there is not really a captain yet. Both hands are more or less unlimited. Responder cannot pass opener's 2♥ bid, and if he places a contract it is possible that opener (with a truly huge hand) will bid on. Yet opener in many cases cannot place a contract yet either, since responder is also unlimited...

In the auction 1♠-2♠, opener is captain. He can pass responder's single raise. He can sign off in 4♠ and responder will always pass. However, he can also ask a variety of specific questions ("help-suit" bids, or a quantitative ask, or a choice of games, or ace asking) and some of these even involve making non-forcing calls.

[orlam]

Winstonm, on Jan 17 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

Quote

Responder is captain with respect to LEVEL, unless he invites slam, in which case opener is invited to discuss level.

I would not define this as captaincy, then. In my view captaincy does not occur and then change - captaincy, the way I am defining it, is the ability to place the contract by asking questions without exchanging any information.

Quote

Responder is also captain with respect to SUIT, but opener might pull responder's suit decisions with an extreme 1 suiter.

One reason I brought up the issue is that years ago a very fine player with whom I was playing passed in this auction: 1D-1S-3D-3S. Now, he admitedly has always had some strange bidding notions, but he stated that his hand had been defined therefore my bid of 3S must mean that is where I wanted to play - in other words, his bid had transfered captaincy to my hand.

But how can anyone take over captaincy when we don't know in what suit we are playing?

Why is "very fine player" always the introduction to someone saying complete non-sense?

[Winstonm]

awm, on Jan 18 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Perhaps it's better viewed in terms of "asking bids" rather than "relays." Often the captain will need to ask specific questions from partner, and in doing so will probably also reveal something about his own hand. There are few situations in natural bidding that are totally one-sided. The general idea is that one person is captain if:

(1) His/her hand is unlimited in strength, but partner's hand is limited
(2) He/she can pass partner's last bid and/or place a contract such that partner will always pass

So in the auction 1♦-1♠-3♦, responder is captain. Opener's hand is limited to at most 17 or so points. Responder can pass. If responder bids 3NT, opener will always pass.

In the auction 1♦-1♠-2♥, there is not really a captain yet. Both hands are more or less unlimited. Responder cannot pass opener's 2♥ bid, and if he places a contract it is possible that opener (with a truly huge hand) will bid on. Yet opener in many cases cannot place a contract yet either, since responder is also unlimited...

In the auction 1♠-2♠, opener is captain. He can pass responder's single raise. He can sign off in 4♠ and responder will always pass. However, he can also ask a variety of specific questions ("help-suit" bids, or a quantitative ask, or a choice of games, or ace asking) and some of these even involve making non-forcing calls.

This is pretty good analysis. In the auction of 1D-1S-2D-3S, though, the treatment can be thought of in two ways: 1) opener has defined his hand in terms of high card strength, so responder is now setting the contract or 2) responder is captain and asking a question about spade support.

Just for example sake, let's say one holds at MPs: KQJ9xxx, xxx, void, xxx and the auction begins 1D-1S-3D.

Wouldn't you want to be able to bid a non-forcing 3S? So it's not entirely silly to consider 3S as non-forcing.

Regardless of treatment, I would agree that the 3D bid transfered captaincy to responder.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Why is "very fine player" always the introduction to someone saying complete non-sense?

Long ago - possible even before you were born - bidding was not nearly so elegant as it is now but there were many players who could dazzle with cardplay and defense.

This was one such player - and he had some strange ideas about bidding. And back in those days when you were "the man" you didn't dare criticize the bidding if you wanted to play with him again.

(you might want to check out Bob Hamman's experiences with Lew Mathe to get the idea.)

[mycroft]

I read somewhere, and have written in several places, that "if at all possible, one of the first three bids by a side should limit the player's hand. If the best bid doesn't, that happens; but if there's a choice, make the limit bid." Also, once you've limited your hand, partner's captain. Further, the definition of a masterminding player is one who refuses to limit their had, so they can be captain (except when they can open 1NT and play the hand, of course).

I don't play with masterminds.

[Winstonm]

mycroft, on Jan 19 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

I read somewhere, and have written in several places, that "if at all possible, one of the first three bids by a side should limit the player's hand. If the best bid doesn't, that happens; but if there's a choice, make the limit bid." Also, once you've limited your hand, partner's captain. Further, the definition of a masterminding player is one who refuses to limit their had, so they can be captain (except when they can open 1NT and play the hand, of course).

I don't play with masterminds.

I think that is a good position - defining your hand ASAP should be the cornerstone of good bidding.

I have not played the relay systems so cannot intelligently debate whether or not that type of captaincy is an improved structure or not.

But I agree wholeheartedly with your points at standard-type bidding.