csdenmark

I dont think it is so difficult to see. If you have 2 classes the world championship will be the one with hardest competition. That is of course where 'everything goes'. Most of those who today see themselves in the exclusive classe will move 1 step down. As they are the majority - it will never happen. Unfortunately this is the likely future: There is no light at the end of the tunnel for bridge.

Fred it is a misinterpretation of me assuming complexity/artificiality/strangeness I see them as more effective than natural systems. I often use the word 'strong systems' but as I remember I have never referred 'natural systems' as weak. Right now I am investigating Rosenberg/Mahmood. It is basically a natural system - and I have rated it at the same level of complexity as fx. Roman Club and Nightmare. In discussions where I think I can afford a balanced view I use the word 'interesting' - I think it is more precise for club/diamond systems. Effectiveness is better used only for pass-systems which pushes opponents into the more difficult terrain of defensive bidding.

Congratulation Fred. Greco/Hampson are great. Hope Ekeblad/Rubin will join too.

Disagree. IMO Most people understand logic and enjoy solving problems that involve logical deduction. But IMO most people do not enjoy learning completely foreign languages, especially when they can barely speak the one language that they already know. You are evidently a member of the 1% or so (no I can't prove that number) who would like to be able to play highly unusual methods regardless of the cost to the other 99%. Aside from the "good of the game" argument, frankly I find it incredible that anyone in such a small minority thinks it is right or fair that the rest of the world should be catering to them. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com If it really was 1%/99% I would agree Fred - and there would be no problem at all. There would be nothing called bridge either - but that is maybe for another discussion. Your assumption is based by all bridge players. That is irrelevant. All those meeting once a week playing social bridge in their local club - 20 hands + coffee and cake - take those away. They are social meetings - they now meets because of bridge but they could easily well have had their weekly get-together based on anything else. Then your 1% of all bridge players are around 10% of the relevant selection. That is something different. Look into Sheveks story. She meant nobody any longer remember and nobody but herself any longer played. The features are ruled out and due to that players have given up. Try to have a small conversation with some of the elder persons on BBO. You fairly quickly know most of them played interesting systems long ago but no longer. Just like me - who still persist - they cannot find partners anymore. The game has been ruled out. Ask your former team mates Greco/Hampson why they slashed their brown sticker features in 2005. Ask them if they think their system is better now or it is just conform to the present regulation.

That is complete rubbish. But perhaps it's true for you, because certainly you never contribute to any of the play or defence threads on the forum. Even basic bidding can be interesting. Take one of my "hearts" threads, where you can virtually write down partner's hand thanks to information from the auction. It's still a difficult exercise to work out what the best contract is. In fact, take away the bidding completely. Play a version of minibridge, where the side with the most high cards get to declare. Declarer gets to see dummy before selecting the final contract. That would still be a very good game. Not as good as contract bridge, but still a good game. I will gladly contribute - Please set up something where it makes sense to use fx. one of those: Suspensor Bocchi-Duboin Club 2001 Nightmare Club

Nobody has any kind of proof for anything. The mis-management started 40 years ago - and as you certainly know - failures have no fathers. Today we know that the rules we have today are completely unqualified. Any fool can write rules favouring one single group, and history has shown awful examples of how they have clamped down opposition. The difficult task is the balanced approach - writing rules for a balanced approach so that all has an opportunity to be enriched from others. For writing such rules you need experts. The best experts we have are the lawyers - they have the special skills needed. Unfortunately we need to realize - they have failed.

There are in fact 3 topics of interest in this discussion. - Pass-systems forcing opponents to use defensive bidding in 85% of the deals - 4+♥ + 4+♠ openings, primarily weak ones - Hammers But else I completely agree with Roland(Codo) - the problem is lazy bridge players. That kind of lazyness has now in fact removed the intellectual part from the game. What is left is the competition in mechanical skills.

Please read what I stated about democratic standards: It is for the majority an obligation to pursue the interests of the electorate who elected them - the majority. But in a democracy it is also an obligation for the majority to guard the rights of minorities. That is what they are to be blamed for not to have done. The american democracy has not guarded the rights of the indians, the australians have not guarded the rights of their aboriginals, the danes have not guarded the rights of the inuits, the Nazis did not guard the rights of the judes. Today we have all excused our deadly mistakes based on violations of basic democratic principles. Democracy is not so easy - not least because there is no precise definition. But there are principles and lawyers knows these. Therefore the lawyers - those are normally the regulators in bridge - are to blame. They act inside a democratic framework violating the basics of what they are asked to protect.

Thank you for your - not so well meant - advice Richard. I am sorry to inform you that I am not going to accept your advice.

That is NOT your job Frances. In a democratic body your job is to pursue the interests of the majority. Your only restriction - but thats is in fact the most important part of the job - is to guard the rights of minorities. The rights of the minorities - which lawyers ought to know everything about - the regulators have violated rigourosly for many years. I have no idea what you are talking about here. "Best for the game" must mean "best for those people who play the game", there is no such thing as the "game" in isolation of the players. To whom are you aiming this comment? If you think that I have ruled in a biassed way then please give a specific example. 'Best for the game' is a meaningless eufemism. You are regulating for persons and for nothing else. You are asking who the message is aimed for. It is for the regulators. As you mentioned you are a part of those - therefore it is aimed for you too. But also for Jens Auken - one of the few names I know of. Biassed for years. Look back - what have you done other than removing rights for the minorities. You have never added anything. Shevek told a bit higher in this thread about Paul Marston and Moscito. The last blow was around 2005, something like restricting number of brown sticker features.

That is NOT your job Frances. In a democratic body your job is to pursue the interests of the majority. Your only restriction - but thats is in fact the most important part of the job - is to guard the rights of minorities. The rights of the minorities - which lawyers ought to know everything about - the regulators have violated rigourosly for many years. It is a disgraceful performance what we see as the outcome of persons who say they try to do their best - but in fact rule in a biassed way which is contradictionary to democratic principles.

Yes it is surprising. They are elected and working in a democratic system - at least formally. As a majority they have rights to rule according to their preferences. What is wrong here? They have not paid attention to basic in democratic structures. The basic is a majority has a right to decide but they also has the obligation to secure the rights of minorities. In the last they have failed fundamentally.

Wrong Nigel - most of them see themselves as a part of an exclusive classe. They simply prefer to break an arm instead of having a game with deadly persons. And that is though they are only champions in simple bridge. The only exception I know of is the swede Peter Berthau, but he is also one of the persons playing a solid system. Berthau-Nystrøm was one of the pairs who were forced to strip their system last time - 2005 - the regulator lobby excessed their discressions.

This sounds more reasonable Paul. I think you will be well adviced to switch your position helping your countryfellows by advocating their rights to be able to get solid practice against all kind of features. Until then you may tell them they can have all the practice they need on WEB. Here we have no restrictions. I am ready and I am very sure Shevek will be pleased too.

Wayne you are normally known to be well informed - therefore I certainly trust you that Balicki-Zmudzinski played Suspensor in 1991. They reached 2nd position, it should be the year Icelandic Precision(symmetric relays) won 1st position. Maybe you have some information Wayne about Paul Marston. As far as I am informed 1991 was the year for converting Moscito from a pass-system into a club system. I wonder the reason if pass-systems were generally allowed by that time.

What was your intensions here Paul?

Nobody can remember how affective they were. The merits of HUMs were debated 20 years ago but now they are virtually extinct. So, who (else) has played a Forcing Pass or similar in a major national event recently? Wrong - some of them, at least the simpler ones, are fairy well known in as well Australia and Poland. In Poland pass-systems were allowed at national level until I think January 2007. But this is not only about pass-systems. The latest move from the weak ones were tightening the rules for Bermuda Bowl 2005. By that time nearly all systems of the top-players were stripped according to that. What is left of the gloriousness, is the name and nothing else. Paul started this thread hoping to gather some sympathy for his weak players to be able to win something odd carrying a glorious name. In the annals you dont see the competion level is much lower today than 20-30-40 years ago.

Find serious opponents is the good solution. An alternative will be to load a dummy card - can even be an empty one.

Then you dont need to worry at all. The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems. They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'. The masses plays WHIST. Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file. It seems like your argument is "they wouldn't understand anyway, so who cares if we alienate them?" My argument is as follows: 1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not. 2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions? 3. The "right" way to regulate is a tautology. It has come about through a long process of discussion and trial-and-error by a lot of smart people. So here you are saying you have a "better way". Who are you to say it's better? Don't you think a more lax system has been tried before? Why did they change it to the current system? 4. The rank and file should get enjoyment out of watching the world championships. Look at all the armchair sports fan that get enjoyment out of watching the same game that they play on the football pitch, the cricket pitch, the baseball field, etc. Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file. I think I havent said anything like that. To me repeated discussions in this Forum about different ACBL-tournament set-ups looks silly. Stop it and elect people with knowledge and interest in perspectives to the rule-setting bodies. 1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not. For 98% - the masses - it will change nothing at all. Take a look into Vugraph and you will see each time a strong system is coming up the commentators awakes. Often they know they dont have the qualifications to commentate - but they certainly try to do their best. They are all handicapped by the crap allowed these days. 2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions? Taking my position we stop nowhere. Modern technology will help all interested to catch up. The BBO flash component is an important tool here.

Then you dont need to worry at all. The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems. They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'. The masses plays WHIST.

I have never had severe log in problems. I am using download accelerator. Mine is opening 10 simultaneous connections. The free version opens 5 connections. Maybe worth to give a try!

This comment is spot on. If you don't have pros and you are playing pros then you are mostly going to lose - usually by a large margin. Except in the mostly utterly neutered of competitions this will apply regardless of the specific conditions of contest. Nit picking over "highly unusual" versus "high variance" methods is just that - nit picking. It is true that bith "high variance" and "highly unusual" will sometimes help the underdog a little (if these methods a used to advantage by the underdog), but the underdog will still mostly lose. Some time ago, in the sport of Rugby Union, there was enforced, or supposedly enforced amateurism. A club could not hire and pay its players. And for a long time that was sort of OK - if you accept the Victorian, "stiff upper lip" mentality of "its not the winning that counts". However, in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they started to get round the rules with "sponsorship" deals. As a result the principle Southern Hemisphere nations at this particular sport managed to move to at least a semi professional model. The principle Northern Hemisphere teams (England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France) were getting thrashed - and as a result the rules were changed and professional players were allowed universally. And the playing field became a lot more level as a result. Bridge is no different. Since quite a few bridge pros make their money from teaching, writing, partnering wealthy clients and money rubber bridge (i.e. are to an extent self employed) trying to ban professionalism is obviously a non flier from the start. Therefore, if you don't have pros, get some. Bitching about the conditions of contest will not solve your problems. Nick Certainly Nick. Until 20 years ago we did not have professional football in Denmark. We always lost to all big nations, even with Netherlands we were unable to compete with. Now we have prof. football and today we are fairly competitive - OK our best players still plays in other leages. But Laudrup and Schmeichel we would have had in no other way. Thats the good story about this. The bad story our societies experience these days. We have had very hard times to compete with the anglo-american way for financial service. We have therefore also de-regulated our markets. We got competitive but the whole buble blasted. In bridge I certainly agree to this Therefore, if you don't have pros, get some. Bitching about the conditions of contest will not solve your problems. But thats not the whole story. It is also about personal drive. I am not sure how many of the italian and polish top players who are profs. I think at least not all - but heavyly sponsored I am sure they are. But what about the norwegians this year and the icelanders in 1996. I think all has a chance even in high level competition if they have the right ego to be serious about their sport. What I can see on BBO is that very very few have some of that what is needed. Instead of trying to compete on unequal terms I think it might be a better way to create some kind of world league. Maybe we some day can have a revival of our bridge. De-regulation is urgent in bridge.

For a relatively small country, with no professional players, this is a real concern (as can be seen by our performance in the two major championships this year). Our trials process and lack of top-flight players means that it is inevitable that inexperienced pairs will be playing for us. Paul In what right do the british think they have a right to compete on highest level without the relevant qualifications? Paul similar proposals like yours have now for 40 years, step by step, ruined bridge to what it really is today - whist. That can be interesting too. A few days ago I watched the film '80 days around the world'. Still a marvellous film and mr. Philias Fogg is still a passionated whist player.

Canape' systems are very little affected of low level interference. The disadvantages are all of the side of opponents because they are in darkness of best suit and of real values. Take a look into Roman Club, Arno Club and Blue Club. The same advantages are used by Bocchi-Duboin 2001/2003 using canape' overcalls.

Share your file with your partner - then both always have latest version. That will also be the one used by BBO. https://www.foldershare.com/home.aspx