[jillybean]

Winstonm said in the other thread

WasWinM, on 2025-July-14, 12:26, said:

I see this as a choice of styles, one side preferring a bidding style based on captaincy while the other side looks for an exchange of information.

When I was learning bridge, my late, dear mother often talked about captaincy as she bid 3nt over any opening bid I made.

In modern bidding, this notion that one partner is in control seems to have disappeared in all but keycard auctions.

[Stephen Tu]

jillybean, on 2025-July-15, 06:40, said:

When I was learning bridge, my late, dear mother often talked about captaincy as she bid 3nt over any opening bid I made.

In modern bidding, this notion that one partner is in control seems to have disappeared in all but keycard auctions.

No, that's not true. Anytime one partner has finished describing their hand within somewhat narrow limits, their partner effectively becomes captain of the auction. Anytime you do something like open 1nt/2nt or rebid 1nt/2nt limiting your range, or make a NF raise of partner's bid, you've effectively ceded captaincy to partner. They will control whether the auction continues, whether game/slam is explored/reached. They may inquire more information from you to make the decision. They may also show stuff about their hand so you can choose which game.

WasWinM's (not WinstonM, a long-time different poster) comment about captaincy in the other thread was nonsense. It has nothing to do with captaincy on that auction. It's an argument of which information should take priority and is most useful after partner makes an artificial forcing bid, and he's arguing for not so useful information to be shown while simultaneously removing room for partner to show the hands he's most likely to have at a convenient level. Captaincy is irrelevant, once opener bids 2d they have limited their hand and will never be captain. It's a question of what info for opener to show first, which also affects leaving room for responder to show their info so opener can cooperate initially to find the best strain for game.

[jillybean]

I may be wrong but I think you'll find WasWin and Winston is the same guy.

I was going to include NT auctions in the "captaincy" auctions but even in those, if it's a simple shape/strength question, partner of the nt bidder is in control but any further exploration is more about communication, all of which you say above.

[DavidKok]

Captaincy is a continuous scale, not a boolean property of an auction. It is related to the useful space principle: how much room do we need, or might partner need, to describe their hand? If we're pretty much done describing, let partner take the reins. If we have a lot more we haven't disclosed yet, take more initiative.

The concept is vague and nebulous, examplified by the cited misapplication. A while back mikeh and I had an explosive disagreement about captaincy on a forcing pass auction.

The concept is very much alive and well, though in practice it's mostly called on by relay aficionados.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-July-15, 09:42, said:

Captaincy is a continuous scale, not a boolean property of an auction. It is related to the useful space principle: how much room do we need, or might partner need, to describe their hand? If we're pretty much done describing, let partner take the reins. If we have a lot more we haven't disclosed yet, take more initiative.

The concept is vague and nebulous, examplified by the cited misapplication. A while back mikeh and I had an explosive disagreement about captaincy on a forcing pass auction.

The concept is very much alive and well, though in practice it's mostly called on by relay aficionados.

lol. I think I recall the ‘discussion’. My take is that David exploded because he took a comment I made as a personal criticism, which was not my intention then or now. We have a very basic difference of opinion about some FP sequences.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2025-July-15, 07:43, said:

WasWinM's (not WinstonM, a long-time different poster)

Actually, the same person. WasWinM explained in a Water Cooler post the he had to create a new ID due to some unfixable BBO problem with the old ID.

[WasWinM]

 jillybean, on 2025-July-15, 09:40, said:

I may be wrong but I think you'll find WasWin and Winston is the same guy.

I was going to include NT auctions in the "captaincy" auctions but even in those, if it's a simple shape/strength question, partner of the nt bidder is in control but any further exploration is more about communication, all of which you say above.

You are correct as to Winston. There are nuances in captaincy though, unless you use asking bids. Think of a NT and Stayman auction where responder either raises the bid major to 3 or bids the other major at the 3-level (slam try). In both cases captaincy has been replaced by a cooperative effort.

In the other thread my point was simple: there’s no reason to treat 2S as artificial, although it may be. It’s enough to be aware that the suit may not be real. That is no reason to bid your had differently. KQx, xx, AKJxxx, xx . After 1D-1H-2D- 2S any bid other than 3S is ridiculous. 4S in a 4-3 fit may well be the best contract.

[mycroft]

"If you have a choice, and one of your choices limits your hand, take that one. When you limit your hand, your partner is captain. One of the first three bids in an auction should be limiting. This is the primary fault of standard [in context, limited opener] systems." -- From (memory, from) very old (and probably "acquired") two-way club system notes I used to play.

Obviously, captaincy can be relinquished or transferred (5NT after Blackwood, for instance, when it promises all keycards. Clearly it's a grand slam try, and if your hand says you can make 13 tricks if you can make 12, you're allowed to not answer king(s) and just go). "Advanced masterminding" consists of not relinquishing captaincy when it is possible that partner may be able to make the final decision better than you if you tell them what decision to make and what you have, and is a classic strategy of players who have been shamed or de-partnered out of basic masterminding (refusing to limit hands or ignoring captaincy decisions). It works better because it's harder for partner to figure out what you're doing (it could just be "lack of vision" or "not good enough to realize" or "not subtle enough to give the right information"), and you still get to make the decisions.