DrTodd13

Helgemo played the method in one Bermuda Bowl and then abandoned it. I think that is good evidence for my position that it is an unsound method. Aha...so anything once played in a world championship and later not played anymore is evidence of unsoundness. Thanks for the tip.

LOL. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "unplayable." I would be happy to revise my statement to say "unsound" instead of "unplayable" :) If I recall correctly, Helgemo at some point played this method. Are you suggesting he (or any other WC player that we can find who uses it) would play something he believed to be unsound or are suggesting that in his opinion it was sound but you know better and it isn't?

It depends a bit on what one knows about partner. I see an awful lot of people passing with even 6 or 7 points opposite a 1-level opening. If I know partner will stretch to bid then I may settle for 1♠ but if I don't know my partner's tendencies then 2♣, imo, is less likely to result in a disaster.

If 51% are threatening to leave if X is not allowed and 49% are threatening to leave is X is allowed then simple majority seems the way to go. However, people tend to be more rabid about not wanting stuff than wanting it so something more realistic may be 49% threatening to leave if X is allowed, 2% threatening to leave if X is not allowed and another 49% who think it should be allowed but won't quit even if it isn't. In this case, allowing it wouldn't make much business sense.

No, Wilkosz cannot include both minors. It must have at least one major. Polish standard from the year 2000 (wj2000) included Wilkosz for 2♦ but Polish standard from the year 2005 (wj2005) switched to regular Multi 2♦. Think of it as published updates to SAYC. People wanting to play Polish club with little discussion can agree to the latest published WJ version. So, I have no personal experience but I suspect that most Polish club players switched away from Wilkosz soon after the 2005 edition was published. On a separate issue, poll most bridge players and I think they would wish that their system would dominate their opponents' and deprive them of cue-bids as much as possible. They might not like the complexity or lack of familiarity of a system that would actually accomplish this but the increase in aggressiveness in "normal" systems adds to their dominant behavior. So, I say "so what" to whines that a system is dominant or lacks cue-bids. I say good for them.

I agree. I also think that while the majority's preference is sufficient and the ultimate, proper reason why it is banned that the majority for some reason are reluctant to admit this to themselves. And so there is this impetus to persuade oneself that there is some other reason why you believe it should be banned.

That's got to be one of the worst arguments out there. This discussion is about allowing/banning methods in organized competitions. If you're out to "just have fun" there are other venues available to you. Of course, many of us think that the competition adds significantly to the fun. Sheesh..so picky. Maybe some people just want to have fun at bridge by experimenting with systems and being with people and don't care to aspire to greatness. Clear enough for you? The argument I am hearing is that at least in part these methods should not be allowed so that people can concentrate on what will make them better bridge players overall. This attitude is to presume that people should want to become better players. Some might like to experiment with systems but not care about getting better.

Maybe some people just want to have fun and don't care that much about winning.

Assuming for a second that opponents would be silent, I think the pass and 2♠ responses to the 2♥ weak in either major may be pretty straight-forward. If you have the same number of ♥ and ♠ then pass since it is a pure guess as to what suit partner has. If your ♥ and ♠ are not the same length then assume partner's suit is the one you have fewer of. It will be the majority of the time. Add 6 to the number in the shorter suit and add 7/3 to the number of the longer suit. (7/3 is the number of cards outside the 6 card suit divided by the number of other suits = the average number of cards in each other suit.) Now, compare those two numbers and pass if the greater number is ♥ or bid 2♠ if ♠ has the greater sum. By the way everyone, if you prefer, you can change the number of posts per page that the forums will show you. I think I use triple the normal amount and for threads like this I find 11 pages easier to manage than 33.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred. This is an extraordinary claim and I'd love to see the proof. I am shocked that somebody in your position is making this claim. Have you ever played against a strong pass system? Was their disclosure inadequate? There is just such variety even amongst strong pass systems that I find it impossible to make such a blanket statement. Furthermore, one can take precision and switch 1♣ and pass and get a strong pass system. You can use the same precision responses over the new strong pass and ignore the 1♣ step. So, it seems to me that for your statement to be true that you have to be arguing that something in the responses to the FERT have to be intrinsically difficult to disclose. In general, I find that the more complex the system is the more precise it tries to be and, imho, precision is intrinsically easier to adequately disclose than vagueness.

Hmm? You make it sound as though there are certain answers for 'right' and 'wrong' hands on which to pass the 2♥ bid. How can they be educating me about something 100% stylistic and for which it would be absolutely impossible to prove the best hand types to take the action? They are telling me how their partnership does it and their partnership only. I think there are "right" and "wrong" hands to pass the 2♥ on in an auction where opps don't bid. Do a Monte Carlo analysis with a double dummy solver and you can see which hands you should respond with and in what way to improve your score. Sure, there is the possibility they haven't played the method much or thought about it much and therefore widely diverge from "right and wrong." I would suspect though that people who play this method for very long all come to very similar judgments as to when to pass. Thinking about this more, I am coming closer to your position though...edging into the gray area for me due to anticipation of opponent's reaction which is not easily modeled.

I can think of several 1) The perceived good of the game. 2) The perceived good of the regulating authority. 3) Competitive advantage--let's say I personally prefer FP but think my nation's team in the Bermuda Bowl would have a better shot if HUM's were banned... (not saying this is rational, but certainly possible for someone to believe). ... As an aside, I've known quite a few people who will perpetrate atrocities for altruistic reasons that they wouldn't do for selfish reasons. Isn't it possible that this is descriptive of some few individuals involved in system regulations? All your answers have "perceived" or "personally." The only difference is whether your personal preference is lack of regulation, good of the game, good of a team, etc. In short, everything comes down to personal preference so long as some divine entity isn't handing out commands.

To some degree, I think that tactical considerations can be a part of any call (bid or pass). For certain, some calls are more likely to have tactical considerations than others. Another certainty is that no disclosure system can be perfect and so you have to pick some happy medium between accuracy and timeliness. In the end, I'd like to be able to say that agreements must be disclosed but the factors on which one bases one's judgment need not be. Unfortunately, I don't think this division is clear cut so you're stuck with a gray area. Personally, though, I don't find a pass of this 2♥ bid to be in such a gray area. If you don't have the judgment as to what kind of hands would pass 2♥ then I don't believe it is their job to educate you. Think it through, run some simulations, play it for yourself and develop your own judgment. A good-hearted jab at Fred here might be that if he thought some passes might require explanation (disclosure) then he should have provided the ability to provide explanations for passes in FullDisclosure. :)

Fred. If the auction went 1♠ - 3♠ (limit raise) - pass, does it make any sense to ask for detailed descriptions on the type of hands that opener might pass with? The generic answer is "I used my judgement to determine that I think 3♠ is the best spot" or another answer is "not suitable for any other bid." Personally, I think the same standard for thoroughness of response should apply to both this auction (in the rare event the question were actually asked) and to the auction 2♥ (either major) - pass. In fact, I think this problem applies to asking for the explanation of almost any pass. I think if you find yourself resorting to comments like "it is just judgement that you aren't entitled to" on the first then that should be an acceptable answer for the second.

Jan...if it were shown that on average you could scramble over a FERT to a fit and play that to lose fewer points on average than whatever the opps could get by declaring would you concede that FERTs are sound and therefore not destructive?

What other basis is there for regulation other than personal preference?

Does everything that requires a pre-alert also require a suggested written defense? I don't think that is the case. If it isn't then the purpose of the pre-alert must be to give the opponents a chance to "on-the-fly" come up with a defense. Could they do better if they had discussed various unorthodox things they might encounter before hand? Certainly. They should be rewarded for more thorough preparation than their competitors. I don't think it would make sense to classify a bid as requiring a pre-alert and at the same time believe that it is impossible to come up with a reasonable defense on the fly. I think part of the issue here is that the better you are, the higher your standards of reasonableness tend to be. Again, just from my own experience, the people who get the most bent out of shape when they encounter my FP system are either truly world class or mistakenly believe they are world class. Even intermediates just roll with the punches and bid naturally and most disasters are averted. At a world class level perhaps you need some super-complicated defense against a FERT but at the club level I personally don't see much problem from simple, natural bidding.

Personally, I think that being courteous and kind to one another is admirable. Both sides in this debate have been guilty of disrespecting the other side to some degree. The use of the term "ridiculous" instead of "incorrect" in my opinion serves only as a means to backhandedly insult the person who made the argument. There is a way to forcefully assert one's position without insulting the other side. I'm disappointed, and now think less of those people who, for example, called the chess analogy ridiculous. Several other people then agreed that the analogy had some illustrative value. I just don't think this style of arguing helps draw us to any conclusion...it only serves to stir up people's passions and mask any true dialogue.

If you want to prepare against every possible meaning then knock yourself out. Nothing I've suggested would prevent that. I'm just saying it is possible to play forcing pass in a club game. I've done it for goodness sake and the club didn't sucked into a vortex of madness. Look, you can say my observations don't mean anything but I'm speaking from personal experience. With over 5 years of playing a forcing pass system on BBO nearly every day, my experience is that even the shortest of discussions allows people to avoid ridiculous things like playing trump contracts with less than 7 trumps or way over or under bidding. The absence of the ridiculous on an average hand I would call reasonable. Sometimes people reach ridiculous contracts even with "normal" systems so the occasional crazy result against a FP system should be treated as a learning experience and not as evidence it should be banned. If subjecting average people to FP would lead to hand after hand of ridiculous results it wouldn't be any fun to play it and my average would be a lot higher than 0.65 imps/board. People were mentioning chess and I thought the situation was somewhat analogous. I'm not a big sports fan but I think something else analogous is the whole concept of an illegal defense or formation in football or basketball. The game would seem to be more interesting with more variety and those rules seem arbitrary. As such, I find it interesting that different games have handled the situation differently. After the rules are as they are for sometime people tend to think it could not help but be that way. The only thing I'd like people to realize is there's nothing magical about how the rules were formed and that unusual systems are banned simply to keep people happy and not because they are inferior, destructive, or malicious. Sometimes people can just be making conversation and don't have to have an agenda. If I believed that they should be removed then I would argue that they should be removed. I would prefer that they be removed but I believe that the majority should decide what happens and so my preference doesn't matter. Like I said, I think chess players and bridge players have adopted different mentalities. I was pointing out that others facing similar problems have made different decisions. I was responding to multiple people and posts, not just you. I didn't to imply that you argued it wasn't feasible.

Who said I think bridge and chess are the same because I made a hypothetical comparison on one small point? If I know the names of several chess defenses then you should assume I know a little about the game. With respect to jdonn, I'm not against pre-alerts. So, while I take your point about the partnership aspect being different I think that pre-alerts gives them a chance to devise something reasonable on the spot. You don't have to pre-prepare for every possible meaning. Time constraints are something else appended onto the laws in practice as a matter of public preference. There are two separate issues here. #1 Should unrestricted bidding be allowed? #2 Is it even feasible for unrestricted bidding to be allowed at all levels? With respect to #1, I am not lobbying here for unrestricted bidding to be allowed. Sure, that would be my preference but I didn't start this thread. I've said time and again that the public opinion rules here and that the public doesn't want it. So, I really resent Fred saying some statement was self-serving when I'm not trying to change it or even complaining about the current state of affairs! With respect to #2, what I am starting to hear in this thread is that it is not even possible to ever accommodate unrestricted bidding. While I agree that given current rules, regulations, and time constraints that it isn't possible, if every bridge player woke up tomorrow and started demanding unrestricted bidding then my assertion is that it would be possible to re-configure bridge events to satisfy public demand...flexible movements that accommodate slow or fast tables based on system complexity, different timing regimes, defense workbooks with prepared defenses to various things that people could reference, etc. Just because I argue that this is possible does not mean that I believe it should be done. There is no shame in preferring a more restrictive and therefore simpler game to maximize your enjoyment or the number of people playing but at least have the balls to say that this is purely a matter of preference rather than trying to pile on specious arguments about how its not even feasible.

It isn't a technical equivalence I'm talking about but an equivalent theme of preparedness. In unrestricted bridge you have to be prepared for any system or convention that may come up. Likewise, in chess you have to be prepared for any opening or defense. There are some rare openings that have fallen out of favor but my understanding is that occasionally someone will spring one on someone who may have not prepared against it because it is so rare. Chess players have decided as a whole that they like this situation and they would dislike artificially limiting the game by banning certain positions in the early game. Bridge players have come to the opposite conclusion and have chosen to place artificial restrictions on the game that aren't present in the laws (the authority to do so is there I grant you). The opinion of the bridge mob will rule as in the rest of life and the bridge public does not seem to care a lot about the purity of the game but instead favor ease.

To me, the chess equivalent of banning forcing pass is like saying it takes too much time and effort to play against the Sicilian defense and for the enjoyment of chess players we'll ban it from almost every competition. So, we'll let you play the french, queen's or king's gambit....you don't need anything else to enjoy the game do you?

You can't just take a new system you haven't played much and start this test. You'd have to get "equally" comfortable with both systems to in any way have a fair test. I don't know how one would measure equally comfortable though or even the specifics of what it means. I would say that "comfort" is largely a function of familiarity. Sure, when you first start playing a new system and have to think about everything you'll get exhausted fast but play it for a while and most of the system will become automatic.

And not 10000 of one and then 10000 of the other. That is too prone to your other skills improving or degrading. You'd have to play one session of one then one session of the other and repeat until you had a large sample of both.

As I've said before, I don't think that running parallel events based on system complexity will work. Inevitably, the most complex event will be viewed as "real bridge" and the others for relative bridge weaklings. People will feel pressure to play in the most complex possible to maintain their ego but simultaneously they won't like it. Something like this has already been tried in the ACBL. They ran SAYC sections which still allowed a little variation I believe, just much more restrictive. IIRC, these sections were abandoned due to lack of demand.