csdenmark

But, much to Claus' disappointment I'm sure, I think my original question is largely moot. Paul I am never disappointed to be informed of the real meaning of something. No matter I am proven right or wrong I am interested in a basic friendly and hard conversation hoping to touch the nerve of the arguments. My limited skills in your language may occasionally cause problems - but such kind of misunderstandings we just need to clear up and go ahead. Below your words I am still unable to read in any other way than that your intensions was to ask for a ban of some difficult stuff without the need to give up aspirations to win well reputated tournaments. So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.

Your intensions to quote me right for this? Unfortunately it is so that information technology is lightyears away from how the persons in bridge organizations think life has to be. We are talking about a population of approx. 10.000 relevant persons. Present and former players, officials and board members incl. 200-300 Vugraph commentators. I count something like 5 persons. Given this in my vocabulary the number is equivalent to 'No-one' and not 'everyone' as Fred states.

As others have said, that is a totally ridiculous thing to say. Why on earth should not participating in a 47-page BBO forum discussion thread be seen as 'proof' that someone doesn't care about the survival of the game? --------------------------- Everyone cares about that, Claus. This is the statement I refer to blaming they are not here. I dont blame specific persons(even I name some of the few I know names of). I blame there are so many which ought to be here and none of them is here. If they care of something - what do they care about and where?

When in Rome, do as Romans do. The right to criticize comes from working. In other words those who haven't done it shouldn't criticize it. Things seem easier to the one who isn't involved. People commonly notice and criticize other people's decisions, but it is less common for someone to point out his/her own faults. Time is money. Try to join wonderful ACBL or WBF caravans if you can. He who does not wish for little things does not deserve big things. Okay? Play or be a working TD there in top events, and then enlighten the others if really needed. You know what they say! No pain no gain! http://www.worldbridge.org/people/person.asp?qryid=15115 Rick BEYE U.S.A. WBF Code: USA&500801 I'm quite certain he has earned respect. ♥ Go go go Rick, good work :) ♥ Hamid I would be ready to buy your argument if we talked about Danish or Turkey bridge organizations. But we do not. We are talking about an american organization with great importance to what happens elsewhere. So it is for USA in politics so it is for USA in bridge. A world power has special responsibilities to be a good example for all. Those responsible from all the other nations are not here - thats the real proof they don't care about the survival of the game. Jens Auken is an example of that. He plays online and he is vice-chairman of the European Bridge Organization. But to stand up for what he is doing there - he is not interested of.

Thank you Ron. Then I only have to change the name from 'Moscito' to'Weak opening Relay'. Right? If so I wonder what makes you prefer WOR? You have something on Moscito perhaps? Merry Christmas Ron.

How many times? Claus the original Moscito was NOT a strong pass system. What part of that do you not understand? Then it was what Ron? This is the file I received from you: http://bridgefiles.net/VAR/MarstonStrongPass-full.htm I think I have understood the system(maybe except Aspro conv), but I think it is a poor system compared to the polish systems.

Sorry it was a mistake by me to forget Jan. It would be right to include her. In this thread we have discussed two kind of topics. A very detailled part about regulation of specific bids and a broader about system regulation with emphazis on pass systems. As I remember all three(Tim, Jan and Frances) has only participated in the specific bid part and not in anything broader about principles what will be able to bring some kind of hope. Thats the way I remember this very long thread. What I think of who are missing are for example Roland Wald, David Burn, Jens Auken, Ulven(sorry dont remember his name but he is part of swedish Bermuda Team and I have seen he has read the thread but silent). Where are all the young commentators, OK we have one today 'Mich-B' from Israel as I remember but we need many more to have a broader perspective. We are also in need of statements from some players who have seen themselves handicapped due to regulation. Or perhaps they dont find themselves handicapped but instead thankful that the regulators have directed them into what they are and do today. Who knows? We 5-10 persons out of 6000 BBF members are a small but excellent selection.

Everyone cares about that, Claus. Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival. As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Everyone cares about that, Claus No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care. Where are all the Vugraph-commentators? Some are very well-qualified. Do they care? If they do why are they not here? I know you care Fred but your loyalty to those who dont care will not pay off. They are not ready to 'go to Canozza'. Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival. I am not a proponent of anything goes, anytime and anywhere. I am in favour that persons who want to act in a aggregated system must do their still harder homework the higher they want to compete in the pyramid. When we have reached country level - then I am all in favour of 'anything goes' with no limits. As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival. I know that. The answer to that is not handicap those 'ready, willing and able' but to help those who need help to catch up. I have said before and like to repeat, your flash version and 'Full Disclosure' are very important here. Unfortunately it is so that information technology is lightyears away from how the persons in bridge organizations think life has to be.

A really interestring attempt to do something about the stallmate. I am more in favour of handicaps as known from several other sports, most known in golf. I think your focus on 'destructive' is wrong. As a basic everything needs to be assumed as constructive - maybe from one perspective only. I doubt any proposals will be able to come on agenda of present bridge organizations. There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

I dont like Moscito. I think it is a rubbish system. If it has to be - then the original pass version. I think Regres and Suspensor are the superior systems.

Einige hier die deutsche Statbürger sind. Deshalb glaube ich das es dabei keine ernsthaftes Probleme geben wird. Vielleicht besser für dich Maschinübersetzung zu benutzen. Es ist ganz solid zwischen Deutsch-Englisch. Claus Sönderköge, Dänemark

1. If you think that regulation 'only' allows traditional Acol, then I think perhaps your English skills have failed you. I didn't quote the additional regulation allowing a strong, or a polish-type, 1C opening but together these allow e.g. Moscito. 2. Paul (Cardsharp) was not trying to ban HUM and BSC at all. He was asking something completely different. I have no intensions to mis-interpretate Paul. The last sentence I can read in no other way than he want to ban them. The reason for that is my interpretation based on the discussion. If you think that regulation 'only' allows traditional Acol Certainly not. I dont expect you have careful read the whole thread here. Much of it is nothing but boring details. But if you had you would have been informed that I care very little about the exact regulations. I am not affected is an important matter for that but not the only reason. What I care about is the american abuse of ordinary principles for solid judicial decision making and the general lack of knowledge/understanding/applaying to good standards for democratic behavior by all bridge organizations.

Wow, and England was not even on the Fred/Santa Claus list of "Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Poland". Has this sensible set of regulations resulted in a lack of talent development? No England was not on the list of countries where you may expect creativity and a widespread interest for experiments. Frances refers to a regulation based on fair judicial principles, ordinary proof. The american approach is based on reverse proof. Frances refers to a regulation which allows the traditional way for ACOL to be applied. Not much else as I read it. England is therefore not even close to come on the list. Whether it has weakened the british players is difficult for me to judge. Maybe try to ask Cardshap(Paul). He started a thread aimed to ask for sympathy about an attempt to ban HUM and BSC. The argument was such features are faced so rare that he feels the british players are unable to compete when they face those in international tournaments.

Sure - please tell more. Looks very interesting.

I am very sure you are fairly right about age and loss of players. But to blame regulations for that is unfair and you know that Roland. They are not frightened of anything. They have never heard the words and have no knowledge of what you are talking about. The age of players is fairly much due to nature of the game. The problem is nobody seems care to come up with ideas on how to attract new segments. In that respect this thread is empty loop only. Maybe the regulations do not scare anybody off but the lack of freedom may discourage some new players coming to the game. No Wayne - regulations is no topic until you are well established in the game. Internet and information technology is the challenge. Topics the persons responsible to run the bridge organizations has the similar lack of knowledge of such as they have about judicial matters.

I am very sure you are fairly right about age and loss of players. But to blame regulations for that is unfair and you know that Roland. They are not frightened of anything. They have never heard the words and have no knowledge of what you are talking about. The age of players is fairly much due to nature of the game. The problem is nobody seems to care to come up with ideas on how to attract new segments. In that respect this thread is empty loop only.

http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/SantaClause2.gifhttp://bridgefiles.net/Picture/SantaClause2.gifhttp://bridgefiles.net/Picture/SantaClause2.gifhttp://bridgefiles.net/Picture/SantaClause2.gif Santa Claus will be happy to visit as many as possible in this busy season. Choose a system from: http://bridgefiles.net/VAR/SearchINFO.htm and you will have a download system for free(incl. FD-convention card). After download you will be able to play that from the 'Play now' site. Mail your choice + your BBO-ID to: csdenmark@hotmail.com http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/santaGIFT.gif http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/santaGIFT.gif http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/santaGIFT.gif http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/santaGIFT.gif http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/santaGIFT.gif http://bridgefiles.net/Picture/santaGIFT.gif Merry Christmas - Claus Sønderkøge

Benjamin? http://bridgefiles.net/Conv/Benjamin.htm

Rumors say that he prefers to play Viking or Icelandic Precision :P Wise to walk the footsteps of the Bermuda Bowl winners I think

Thank you very much Fred - you are close to - LOL. You know Santa lives in Greenland - and I live far north too - but not that far.

For that statement Fred I think you ought to include Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. OK Claus. Because you asked so nicely, I will admit it: Perhaps Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Poland are not most countries. While you are at it, why don't you try to provide a list of all the other countries where bridge is played? If you do that for me I will be happy to admit that the 100+ countries in that list do, in fact, constitute "most countries". Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com I am quite sure Fred there are countries, even big ones, who will be right to count for your position. Germany, France, Spain and Portugal, Great Britain and Ireland. I assume you can count on Turkey too. For Eastern Europe I dont know, but I assume the Slawes also in such kind of life will have a position leaning to each other - that will be the polish way. Next time you talk with Roland I am quite sure he will be able to provide valid information for this. It is not bad will Fred but in fact I am quite relaxed of all this regulation thing. I am not affected of anything. I live in remote area and only plays online.

For that statement Fred I think you ought to include at least Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors. Thanks. Whatever it means, most of what I said still applies, but: 1) I can't claim that I have personally played this convention and given it up because I think it sucks 2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com 2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention Baliciki-Zmudzinski - the name of the convention is "Multi Balickiego". http://www.bridge-forum.pl/multi.php http://bridgefiles.net/PictureBOOK2/Polish...lishClub-83.jpg http://bridgefiles.net/PictureBOOK2/Polish...lishClub-84.jpg

Wilkosz convention: http://bridgefiles.net/Conv/Wilkosz.htm

Unfortunately, it seems clear-cut that ACBL has failed on all counts. You know why Adam? It is because it is based on principle of reversed proof. That is a judicial very doubtful method because there is no protection for culpa. Normally that principle is only used when life is serious threatened, f. ex. protection against cancer diseases. Then the standard is to create positive lists. In bridge organizations they had no idea what they were doing as they started. Now nobody has courage to 'speak up against Roma'. To that it comes they have all the time been violating basic principles for democracy. They have probably no knowledge of that either.