csdenmark

Todd try look up fert up in your german or french dictionary. I am quite sure you will have some explanation you will find difficult to handle in a bridge context too. For me 5-7HcP, balanced is a suicide bid - not for me.

Todd I am not quite sure what you intend to tell here. I am quite sure we are fairly at the same line here. Basic in pass systems is an improved construction regarding basics of bridge - MAJORs and frequency(8-12). 0-7 opening is high risk zone - you want to get out of the frying pann cheapest possible. The best way is to invite cheap overcalls from opponents. Therefore it is 1♦(Moscito/Tres Boof 1♥). If it is placed higher the risk is higher and you bypass some attrative options about majors. Therefore such tends to be misconstructions. Placing it as 1♠ is silly bypassing both of the most attractive options. Certainly preempts are used, 5-7HcP, 6+cards is a bad and poor preempt in any system and therefore in pass systems too. I doubt anybody will see 5-7HcP, balanced as an attractive bid. Even the well known Meckwell mini-NT(9-12) is fairly un-attractive depending a bit of the keycards to be held.

From: http://www.bridgehands.com/F/ Fert - To open with a weak opening hand (7 points or less) at the one-level. Fert calls are normally associated with partners who play a Strong Pass system. The term Fert is actually a colloquial term, derived from the term "fertilizer". Thank you very much for your kind help. I now understand the word - but I need some more time to figure out the exact meaning in bridge. Fert = 0-7HcP, any distribution? Fert = 0-7HcP + info about holding? English is a very strange language for a dane.

The only forcing pass system I have ever played employed a 1♠ FERT. We only played this FERT when we were not vulnerable. The higher the FERT the more disruptive it is for your side and for the other side - unless you can some how reduce the hands that you put in the FERT. Sorry Wayne I dont understand you. I am a bit handicapped because i dont understand the word 'fert'. My english/danish-dictionary is not very helpful informing of something with fruit. I cannot translate that into bridge. I have understood you that way that you have played Suspensor. What you here say has nothing to do with Suspensor or Bez Nazwy. There is no logic in 0-7 higher than 1♥. You will have less focus for MAJORs in your system. Besides the frequent solid openings(8-12) the focus is what matters for pass systems. If you think a certain pass-system is unsuitable for any vulnerability I think it tends to be misconstructed.

I think the reason Norway (and Italy and USA and Poland and...) tend to do so well is because they have the best players and the strongest partnerships. IMO the specific systems these partnerships choose to play amounts to approximately 0% of their success. The same players could play *any* reasonable system and the results would be the same. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Thank you Fred - you have said something similar before. Nevertheless it is so in most sports that the equipment used by the top-persons are sold for high prices. Horses, skies, bicycles and shoes are the most significant. Here rates the market value that equipment is of great importance for the overall performance. In bridge we dont have opportunities for a rating. I think what comes nearest is something about attendance to Vugraph. I think we agree that systems I call strong/interesting are the runners for Vugraph. The human factor is important of course - but it is not the only important factor.

Fred I think you ought to pay attention to the fact that USA in general have lined their teams up according to the Dallas Aces tradition. Three pairs - Canape'/Precision/Natural. Your former team - Team Ekeblad - had same profile. Time is running out for Dallas Aces persons - I think that was the reason for USA performing less well this time. Poland sended a B-team. Italy, Poland and Sweden have most of the time also had teams employing systems using interesting/strong methods. I think one of the reasons for Norways success this time was the improvements made to Viking Precision. I think the only reason you see no pass-systems in action is REGULATION.

I am not an USA citizen and I think at least half of those raised their voice in the two lately threads about regulations are neither. I doubt there is any light the way you propose here. The problem is not only in USA, it is in fact everywhere. I think it will be neccesary to use the methods used in professionalising other sports - a breakaway. Then a merger can be established somewhat later.

To suggest that "natural methods will do very well" over a bid like 1♠ showing 0-7 and any shape is laughable. I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening. The polish ones uses 1♦ and Moscito uses 1♥. Natural methods will not work well over 0-7 opening. I dont understand why you have misinterpretated that. Over unknown more substance is needed. Thats why conventions like CRASH and Truscott have been invented. They will work both - even better than over the standard opening of 2♣ and in a similar way to what they were created for 1♣. Please note Jan - I recommended a full range defense over 0-7 opening. Lambda is so - and a fairly simple one too. I also mentioned Lambda is good over 1♣ - here I meant Regres because the feature is 'any hand with shortness'. The real difference between the 2 kind of approaches is: - Pass systems focusses on MAJORs - Pass systems discloses limit strength in 1st round and suit-holding in 2nd round - Standard like systems has no specific suit focus - Standard like system discloses suit-holdings in 1st round and strength in 2nd round -------------------- Some months ago I tried to tell some that strategy really matters. It was about the scoring table and how to bid game score via DBL/RDBL. The most profitable in bridge is DBL/RDBL of low level contracts. Nobody understood a word of fundamentals in bridge. We have a long way to go!

I assume you mean 02/6+. The good defense is simple and natural - you see it from your own holdings. No, actually what is meant is something like a 2♥ opening bid that shows either length in hearts or length in spades. Or a 2♦ opening bid that shows either a weak 2♥ bid or a weak hand with 5 spades and a 5 card minor (so might have diamond length). That kind of feature I have never seen in a pass system. Pass systems are normally better constructed than that. Pass systems are focussing on what bridge is about: A game about MAJORs - whether you hold them or not. No other kind of systems really bother about the core parts of the game. I therefore think a bid like the above mentioned has been extracted from a fairly standard system. It is used for Auken-von Arnim 2004 but taken off for 2007. Probably the restrictions introduced for 2005 Bermuda was the reason.

Anyhow - both Bocchi-Duboin and Meckwell has stripped their systems for this strong feature during the process to be able to comply with regulations during last 5 years. Funny what looks be the explanations now - a bid must be constructive. - undisciplined preempts to be banned - bad preempts to be banned - preempts in any suits must be banned(normally 2♠) - sacrifice bidding to be banned - 3♦ Sharif to be banned It will be much wiser to teach bridge players how to grow.

I assume you mean 02/6+. The good defense is simple and natural - you see it from your own holdings. Pass-systems are very simple to defend against but they are annoying because you are prevented from playing your own offensive system. Against 0-7 opening - Lambda is a very effective defense. Lambda can also be used over 1♣ opening - else the same defense as used versus weak balanced(Polish Club) is good. Especially against Regres some strategy can be needed. It is not always wise to interfere in 1st round. For the rest no specific defense is needed. Natural methods will do very well.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face? In this instance (World Championship play), it is the pair's opponents, and I am not in any way criticizing the pair or the WBF. Just to be sure I have understood you correct Jan. I am not responsible to be ready. Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings? Correct? I'm afraid I do not understand what you are trying to say. If you are competing in a World Championship where BS and HUM are allowed, you are responsible for preparing to defend against them. The players employing the methods are responsible for describing them fully so that their opponents can prepare a defense. I really don't understand what you mean by "Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings?" Thank you Jan. I think I now understand that I am not responsible myself for what I am doing. I sit right back and look for what comes from opponents and if the commissioner approves opponents may be granted to right to play what they think is good bridge. I have no obligation to be constructive myself. The commissioner always has the right to reject, no matter the reason, even lack of knowledge.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face? In this instance (World Championship play), it is the pair's opponents, and I am not in any way criticizing the pair or the WBF. Just to be sure I have understood you correct Jan. I am not responsible to be ready. Those responsible ones are the persons who have no influence of my doings? Correct?

Jan do you know of any other organization which nurses its members in a way similar to what is happening in bridge? I don't. I think it is for organizations to help its members to improve their skills so they can catch up with the best ones. Football(soccer) is a very good example of that. Earlier succesful players are hired for training and coaching. Right now it is the way for Russia to who have hired several succesful trainers from the Netherlands and the famous dane Michael Laudrup. As I remember one of the dutch trainers has been hired for USA too some years ago(Gus Hiddink). You really think it is the way for bridge organizations to help their members by trying to screen them from competition instead of educate them in what they do not know today? Eduacation don't need always or only to be basic education. Tactic and strategy are important too. If I am a member of an organization I expect them to help me to be better in what I am doing and what I am interested of. I don't expect them to work for helping me equalizing in low level. I expect them to help me with their resources to be champion myself - I will be ready and I will be motivated. I have a clear impression that most in bridge are not ready and not motivated - but then it is for the organization not to vaste resources for them - but to re-direct for those ready and motivated.

One trouble with this is that there is not currently a great variety of events offered; I can't go to a regional and decide between the GCC Swiss and the mid-chart Swiss. It's sort of a one-size fits all approach. Tim it is for an organizer to organize fair and just events. It is for the participants to see to they apply to rules according to such. Your organization and other bridge organizations seems to be more interested what you have nothing to do with instead of handling your own responsibility in a decent way. Earlier in this thread Uday tried to make a comparison to boxing events. That was a good comparison. Look to division into men-women-seniors-youth. Fair enough to have some protection for youth but the others are nothing but remains from an old patriarcalic society. There are no physically reasons in bridge for such. An outdated format for convention cards are for WBF mandatory. For USBF a format is in fact not existing. For other national organizations I doubt they are even there. You may scratch 75% of your odd rules simply by making 'Full Disclosure' the way to describe your methods. The rules will simply be in depth level to be described. Such is simple and fair. In other sports(cycling, ski and golf) they create handicaps to create fair contests where level of competitors differs fairly much as the case is in bridge. Thats the way for bridge too and bridge organizations ought to be very busy to make reforms which can help the gasping game to re-vitalize.

Who has the responsibilty to see to that a pair is well equipped for the competition they may expect to face?

Perhaps the answer might be to make up another name and claim it is a cousin of bridge, just as whist is, only this would be the OTHER side..whist is simpler, bridge in the middle and this other game, whatever it is, could be called something else.Bridge could be left relatively traditional and the other could be a free for all for those with that sort of dedicated interest. It's difficult to imagine another game which encompasses the range of the fabled 100 pages of specialized agreements of some partnerships and the game played in living rooms while claiming both to be the same game. In these internet days it ought not to be so difficult to defect from the mess created in bridge. The real question is: Who want to sit back with 2nd garde only? Certainly opening 1 of something with 0-7 points and no more than a 5 card suit is far from being anything like suggesting what you expect to be able to actually make. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to be a dishonest bid whose only job is to be destructive to the opps communication. Well, you aren't allowed to throw sand in the first baseman's eyes when he is about to catch the ball that will put you out and I personally don't see that much difference. Yes it is a misunderstanding - the philosophy of pass-sysstems, but also canape'systems, are quite different than what most persons assume what bridge is based on.

Agree. As there are no longer software changes some merges in those 3-4 forums will be right too. Last post in slovenian forum February 6, 2007 Last post in italian forum May 28, 2008 ------------------ Looks like a new forum about laws, regulation etc. might be worth considering.

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or? I am all in favour of some disciplinary fees for BBO services.

if it means "for example" the sentence still makes no sense at all. cue JLOL... If you still have problems to understand - but interested to do so please mail me and I will try to explain using other words. csdenmark@gmail.com

My options are of course very limited but I have tried to do what I think I am able to for encouraging persons interested. http://www.bridgefiles.net More can be done of course - and I know that Fred knows that I, and presumably others too, will be ready for cooperation if such can be helpful.

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway. I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key. It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway. Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences.

Helene your player is not relevant for this kind of bridge discussed. Those relevant are something like those with solid knowledge of standard. This means it is the persons competing from regional/sectional up to world elite. Those below that level ought not to be bothered with pass-systems and canape'-systems. Both of those are based on quite different philosophies. Especially for pass-systems, where you in fact has no real option to play your own system, you need very good skills. Club-systems are different and will be OK because it is good the acquire some experience with limit-bidding features. Rest is fairly natural.

I'm not trying to "learn about forcing pass systems" -- that's not what the poll is about at all. I'm also not that interested in whether people who have spent a lot of time developing and playing forcing pass systems think they should be legal in top-level competition. The answer to that question is fairly obviously "yes" but also fairly obviously not relevant since this set of people is a tiny minority (even once we restrict to "serious" bridge players). The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority. Since the goal is for bridge to be an enjoyable, competitive game for as many people as possible I think it is unreasonable to expect rules changes which cater to the wishes of a very small minority while going against the wishes of most players. The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority. Yes certainly but none have questioned that the present rules are according to the pleasure of the majority. The discussion is not about the majority but about the minority and how the minority has been reduced to what it is today. We will probably never have an answer about 'why'. The problem started 40 years ago - and the majority is very close to reach the end - 'Endlosung'. If people knew that what is called world elite today is nothing else than 2nd garde - they would certainly have something to give a second thought. Then it is very important to have in mind - it is not only pass-systems which have been stephmotherly treated - it is all non-standard features. Todays players have no knowledge of the past - it is too many years since the real damage began. Persons can only have a fairly qualified view about topics they have some fair knowledge about. The blind ones will never be able to see how beautiful the world really is.

Adam most persons have no or only a very vague knowledge of what it is about. They dont play it - and most dont know any who plays such systems. If you want to know something about persons and pass-systems I think you should take a look in this Forum in threads about such kind of systems. I haven't done so - but as I remember the threads are all very short and with only very few contributors and each time the same few ones.