csdenmark

Completely correct Roland. As always you are sober nailing the point - therefore your arguments will be forgotten. They are not interested. 3. The game will develop quicker when anything is allowed. People will get used to the new stuff and the evolution will take care about the rest. No - too many years have past. They need to admit their basic mistake appointing unqualified persons to handle this kind of matters. They have produced judicial catastrophes - and it all started 40 years ago. They need to scratch their whole law complex and call for lawyers with knowledge of how to handle law-stuff. They need to commit to try to excuse their mistakes actively promoting this kind of systems for at least 10 years. They need to catch up with the world of information technology. Build up a threat at BBF. Several times I have asked if we have come any nearer to a break-away. Unfortunately it looks so that posting is interessant but to do something about it is something quite different. But I would love to see so!

As the bid has nothing to do with pass systems - it is to be treated conventionel. My choice is: Pass: Weak or trap DBL: All purpose force 2♠: 5+♠, Invite 2NT: ASK stop 3♣: Support for ♥ or stopper 3♦: Support for ♠ or stopper 3♥♠(CUE): Slam invite 3NT: Stop all OK 4♣♦: Invite 4♥: Pass/correct

I agree. As I said, unless I could be convinced that the disclosure system was broken, I would opt for method 1 - penalize the pair that is not living up to their responsibilities. However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again. In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system. That makes sense to me. But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer. All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Would be wonderful to see this implemented on BBO. Many star players will be much surprised to be forced to be serious in bridge. A few times I have rejected play of systems without convention card informing them I only accepted SAYC to be played without. A lot of ugly words to come and they left the table.

Is the rationale that not easy for natural systems member players to effectively bid over methods which they're not familiar with ? (Particularly when the strong pass goal mainly depends obstructive in order to break up opp's bidding). I would like to see Strong pass vs Strong Pass played hands samples. Yet my archive limitted with 1980+ records. Such as TRS etc. Particularly when the strong pass goal mainly depends obstructive in order to break up opp's bidding Hamid it is not so. Some non-serious adventure-minded persons try to ruin the game their way. Just as the regulators do in their way. I have tried to describe the objectives for pass systems earlier, they are: Pushing opponents in the more difficult area of defensive bidding, in this thread named to be dominant. I prefer to name this as establishing comparative advantages Strict focus of what this game is about, a game about MAJORs. Whether you hold them or not

No doubt, this topic develops fast to the forums most scientifc discussion has ever taken place here :) Robert Certainly - but it produces nothing. Those who are in favour of hard regulations - have a big majority behind them whose comfort they rightfully can refer to. Those who are against regulations prefer to ignore the majority worries. Democracy seems to be of no importance to anybody. The decicive matter is: Are we any nearer to a break-away now than before this discussion came up. I certainly hope so but I am very pessimistic if it is so. Too many years have been wasted with nothing serious.

Correct Mike - it is very trivial to play defense all the time. But thats not all of it. I think the important thing is you are not threated equal playing against pass systems - other systems than pass systems are deprived rights at the table because in bridge it is more difficult to bid defensive. Your agenda is not important - you need to respond to the challenge you are facing - and the pass systems defines what you are up against. In that respect, and only that, I will agree pass systems are unfair. Players of pass systems have no real defense. It is simply not needed and is waste of time to develop. Only if the 'natural' is able to open in 1st seat they can play their own system. In all other cases the pass system will open the auction. It is around 75-85 %. You can of course influence that figure by changing your system. Lowering your opening requirements are what matters. Playing a pass system yourself is the only way the restore the normal 50-50 equivalence.

The first edition of 'Introduction to weak opening systems - Regres system' is from 1974. Lukasz Slawinski/Stanislaw Ruminski. I have no idea whether the Aussies was before or not. But that was the days of Sharif Bridge Circus and Dallas Aces started. Much creativity in bridge those days.

Maybe we should have 2 games; one called Bridge and the other called Babel. No other solution possible against the restriction lobby. It will come - hopefully before it is too late and all dead.

Completely correct. Pass systems pushes opponents to play defensive in approx. 85% of the hands. If you love to bid according to your own system - play pass systems. If you love defensive methods - find a pair playing pass systems. And the other way around - of course!

If you want to go to New York your captain will have no problems landing in calm weather. He will use the autopilot. In bad weather it is different, storm or snow, the captain will take control using his skills and his instruments to optimize his options for a safe landing. Thats not all, he also needs to minimize his risks; preparing for a lift off if something goes wrong. For that he will use the odds to decide. In bridge we call this offensive and defensive bidding. We only talk about borderline decisions(bad-weather landings). For calm weather we assume to be in safe heaven without problems. For that we assume all ordinary methods will do the job. In competitive millieus you will try to optimize your competitive advances. You will try to optimize the parameters of your controls. In business you have a wide range of such and you use an interest analyze trying to grip the challenges. Costumers, banks, staff, machinery etc. are what you will be able to influence performance of. You have fewer options, but similar kind of problems, in a game. A game has a strict focus on how well you will be able to optimize. To choose your best tennis rackett, to string it hard or soft depending you prefer groundline og volleyplay. You rackett is of great importance for your success - therefore you need to care. If you are doing well - the market will recognize as well your personal skills as your rackett as successful. Price will rise. OK this can nowadays be much influenced by marketing maneuvres - so try thinking about a horse for jump riding instead. Here you only has one item. The market value will rise if you win tournaments. You will receive price money, invited to more tournaments. As a person your personal fitness for the job matters a lot. But that is not the only thing which matters. Your horse must be well prepared too. Your responsibility is to see to that you and your horse together will be successful. As you win more tournaments the market value of your horse will raise too. If your horse one day is no longer fit, maybe a disease, the market value will tumble of course. In bridge you are also dependent of something else than yourself. You are dependent of optimizing what you have influence of. Your knowledge, you physical and physic balance, your motivation etc. But you are also dependent of what remedies you have available to help you. Your tools are your bridge system and the odds(mathematical assumptions). As a game bridge has never been able to create interest for the game outside those directly involved. Therefore there is no market value to refer to in bridge. Neither for persons nor for remedies used. Does this mean there is no correlation between a player as a person and the tools he is using to achieve his objectives? Does it make sense to say that something does not exist only because I cannot see it? A blind person cannot see this world. A blind person cannot see the blue color. Despite that we all know that this world exists and that there is something called a blue color. Why making assumptions for one thing you can see and a different assumption for another, but similar, you cannot see? Certainly this makes no sense. You need to recognize all tools you are dependent of as important - no matter you can see them or not. You have learned so where there is a market value you can refer to - so you need some kind of proof for rejecting such a correlation to be valid where there is no market value. How to optimize in bridge? - If you are poor on interference handle - you may use hammers as an important tool - If you are good in NT play - you will ask for stoppers - If you are bad in NT play - you will ask for shortness - If you prefer declarer play - you will lower opening threshold - If you hate defensive bidding - you will play a pass system - If you prefer defensive play - you will increase trapping options

Thank you very much Fred. After this we may even land at near the same spot. I will wait until tomorrow for an answer. I need a little more time to think about your answer which I appreciate very much - because it is what I have missed in many of your other postings about this theme. But I am glad to see that you have at east understood the basic of what I mean - in that respect i have had some success this time. Please consider - I am not talking about different equipment for different objectives. I think of different ways using the relevant equipment for the same objectives. If I want to transport persons - I need a bus. If I want to transport more persons - I need 2 busses or a faster bus or maybe a shorter route. If my objective instead will be to transport my persons more comfortable I need to choose a road without holes or maybe feathering the bus better. Maybe serving tea during the trip could be an option for that purpose. Many ways may lead to the same goal. What I decide to choose and why - I need to think over - at least until tomorrow. Have a nice day Fred - and thank you for going my way - at least about considerings.

Acol Players Club perhaps?

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ndpost&p=326609 It is here below: Fred in a discussion arguments go under - conclusions are what we remember. Even I will love very much to agree with you - and to some extend really do so - it is suspicious that your argument is based on super-natural qualifications of persons. You are of course in a much more comfortable position to make a qualified judgement of that. Each time we discuss this topic we talk about beginners versus the very thin world-elite. We talk like everybody really want to be world champions. I doubt it is so. They want to be good and solid but they have a good job and want to a have a good and interesting hobby too. In fact it is so that the Bermuda winners are fairly unknown outside their own country - even inside bridge communities. Last for now - I am very suspicious your arguments go under and your conclusion will be misused by the lazy ones. Even thats not your message - your conclusion is just what the lazy ones like to hear. I would therefore like to have your arguments related to a timeline. I am very sure we in that way will agree - at least to 90% - and for the rest I think I will agree with Peter Gill.

1. Australia's current juniors do not seem to be system-mad, but I will try to keep an eye on any who take the wrong fork in the road. The WBF's ban on HUMs at all World Youth events means that very few youths in the last 15 years have played HUMs. But what to do abut that Peter? Something or nothing at all? 2. I think Fred Gitelman's contributions to this thread are incredibly insightful and useful. Agree - but unbalanced. Fred still needs to explain why man-machine counts anywhere else in society but is of no relevance in bridge. 3. Somebody asked what WOR is. It stands for "Weak Opening Relay", Paul Marston's Forcing Pass system before switching to Moscito about 20 years ago. Thank you for the name. In reality it was a request for notes. Not only about general curiousity but not least because features damned by me as 'misconstruction'.

I go for 2NT. 3♣ will be safe heaven if minimum. If any of the other options - 3NT is perfect or at least worth giving a try. --------------------------- Below Blue Team Precision responses: 2•-Pass=0-9cP,6-7• 2•-2=0-9cP,4+ 2•-2=0-9cP,4+ 2•-2NT=#ASK distrib 2•-3=0-9cP,4+cd 2•-3=11-12cP,5+ 2•-3=11-12cP,5+ 2•-4=11-12cP,5+ 2•-Game=Signoff over 2NT: 3=3-4-1-5 3•=4-3-1-5 3=min,4-4-1-4 3=MAX,4-4-1-4 3NT=min,4-4-0-5 4=MAX,4-4-0-5

Australia has for many years been a front runner in tele-medicine and tele-education. Other big countries with spread and low population areas like Canada and Alaska have tried to switch their disadvantages into advances. Therefore I read your interesting statement as a defensive excuse. Your argument is fairly valid for Denmark, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein etc. But even in Denmark we are now starting to talk about using advanced methods to overcome our relatively small problems about reaching remote areas for a solid and equal service to all citicens. Tele-medicine has come higher on the agenda. For some years Greenland has been offered tele-medicine from our main hospital in Copenhagen. On BBO you can see that even an organization like ACBL is experimenting with the options offered via internet. Several other countries bridge organizations are very positive too, take a look into their web-sites. In a few years their members have migrated to here and you will see most coummunities, not only in bridge but also in bridge, to be virtual communities. Facebook and the like will need to develop content and that will be what is of interest to the masses. Card play is entertainment for the masses. So it has always been and so it will remain. But it will be in new formats, virtual formats. Maybe you think that nothing will be able to replace face to face but I am pretty sure that this is the way for bridge too. If there is any future of course! Everybody else can communicate via internet: Messenger, Skype and sharing documents so why not the australians?

This forum is not representative of ACBL membership. From ACBL's point of view, those posting here about less restrictive system regulations are a handful of fringe thinkers in a membership of 150,000. Completely correct Tim. Most of the proponents in this thread are, like me, not members of ACBL. ACBL is used as a buh-man here substituting most national bridge organizations. I dont blame you, I dont blame Fred, I dont blame anybody saying the majority are not interested and demand is very low. They are justified and completely right. Sad to say but thats the truth. I blame all those, who like me, are all in favour of 'everything goes' for doing nothing about it. We have on internet all the options we need. It is simply not credible year after year bashing those who are responsible to balance views without making constructive steps themselves. Of the posters in this thread I know of 1, or maybe 2, who employs those systems themselves. Several would like to see them in action, but are not ready to do their homework to enable this to happen. Wayne has been very active in this thread, strong advocater of anything goes. Excellent - but looking into Waynes doings. He played such systems many years ago, he is giving free lessons, not about pass systems or anything like that, but about standard systems, ACOL. Action is needed and action is possible, if we some day want to prove Fred, Tim and the others wrong.

314 posts in this thread and no signs of action in sight. Words are patient and I am sure we start next year, once again from the top, with the same arguments.

I think what Fred is getting at, and I'm inclined to agree, is that of all those dimensions you are trying to improve to better yourself as a bridge player, learning better bidding methods has dubious merit in terms of imrpoving your overall bridge. Sure it is a good way to improve a particular system and/or partnership, but I don't think it improves your overall bridge game. Maybe it does a little, but nowhere near as much as more important things like bidding judgement, declarer play, defence, etc do. For the argument to be valid a timeline is needed.

I will be ready any time. http://bridgefiles.net/VAR2/Systems/SYS-Nightmare.htm

Probably true. But also, people want big tournaments, so any kind of segregation needs good justification. I think people would rather have twice as many venues, or twice as many time slots, to chose from, than restrictive/premisive. Because most don't care. people want big tournaments If people want big events - then they have that each evening on BBO. Nothing in the bridgeworld is near to be able to compete with BBO-attendance. It is here we hold the power - ACBL and the bridge organizations are rightful afraid for a break-away. Until now there is nobody who has been able to collect a group of persons to start a movement of some kind. The bridge organizations counts that this also will be the future.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid". Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction Wrong Tim - now you are talking against better knowledge - at least I hope. In this thread you have had the option to be enlightened. The complications are in 1st round - and only there. They are over 0-7 opening and might be 1 and two more. The complications are to defend over unknown. For that you have several simple and american conventions. The best knowns are CRASH and Truscott. Rest is pure natural just like SAYC or any other natural system. You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. Wrong Tim - each time your side has no opening for 1st seat you will be pushed into defensive - thats approx. 85%. In fact you have no option to play your own offensive system against pass systems. Thats the triviality of this - but there is no complications about it. ----------- Please Tim - admit the regulations against pass systems are nothing but lack of knowledge and scareness of independent thinking human beings.

OK - I think I still disagree. I also think this is the reason why Moscito in fact hasn't suffered from the transition away from a pass system. To differentiate between various dead hands without entries are for lunatics only. It is an invite for a bloodbath! I tried to Google WOR but gets no hits except construction of steel bridges. You have something about WOR?

Could be so of course but not according to the file I some years ago received from you as the original version of Moscito. 1♥ for 0-7 is still a poor construction but it is the logic of Moscito. '1♠ bid showing any 0-4' is foolish and waste of important space and options only. You are increasing your own risks for suiside highering the threshold for opps. to take over. You are bypassing the important goals you try to achieve, the MAJORs. A clear misconstruction

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this? There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true. Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this? By me it is 3 pages There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements Due to regulations, and therefore the need to disable core parts of the system, you are right. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true. And then what? A topic for anybody but the lazy ones? They are all offered a written suggestion for defense on a silverplate.