HUM system definitions

[hrothgar]

You could ask "why does the ACBL find it necessary to protect their players from ice-free water at their tournaments when ice-free water is standard elsewhere?".

 

The obvious answer is "it is not a matter of necessity - most Americans prefer to have ice in their water and the ACBL is trying to do what its members want".

 

Same goes with systems regulations. ACBL thinks that most of its players would prefer to play in events with conservative (compared with other parts of the world) systems regulations.

Once again, I think that there is a lot of discussion going on at cross purposes.

 

From my perspective, the critical issue being discussed here has less to do with the "ends", but rather the "means". I'm not especially upset that the ACBL is serving ice in its water. I prefer water without ice, but I can live with it. What concerns me enormously is the manner in which North America was made safe for "ice".

 

In some ways I see some very interesting parallels between this discussion and some of the debates surrounding the NSA wiretapping. Most of the critiques of the Bush administration's position don't focus on the wiretaps themselves, but rather whether the Executive branch was exercising appropriate authority. I'll note in passing that many of the most vocal critics of the Bush administration are from the far right. These individuals very much fear what might happen a Democratic President started claiming these same powers.

 

As I noted in another thread, I'm fond of Andrew Sullivan's Blog. (I don't agree with much that he has to say, but he does write reasonable well) I find it interesting to note that Sullivan chose to post the following excerpt from "A Man for All Seasons" in one of today's threads:

 

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

 

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

 

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

 

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

[bid_em_up]

Having just read all of this, my head hurts.

 

Will add more later, for what little it will be worth....

 

(EDIT)Ok, its later now.

 

First, in the case of opening 2D to show 4 diamonds and 4 hearts, I believe that the terminology stating "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." applies to an opening bid at the 1 level (not the 2 level), but I could be mistaken. However, the additional phrasing on the midchart of

 

"4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that

weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits

must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits"

 

specifically precludes opening 2D on 4-4 hands even in midchart events. (And they are certainly prohibited in GCC only events).

 

Second, while I fully understand that BBO (and its forums) have a wide variety of participants from around the world who are used to being allowed to play whatever conventions/systems they see fit, many of these same participants attempt to make arguments that the ACBL should allow these conventions/systems in all events, or at least part of the GCC. I believe this is just absurd. My personal observation is that vast majority of ACBL players are non-serious players, who have never heard of transfer openings, multi 2D, Romex, or any of the other things listed in these discussions, nor do they ever care to. If they cant remember that they are playing transfers, or splinters or michaels, how can they possibly be expected to be able to deal with Multi? Transfer Advances? They cant. Nor do they want to. Its that simple. (Sad, but true). If you make the game less enjoyable for what is the majority of ACBL players, you will end up alienating your core base, who will then cease to participate in events they no longer enjoy, due to what they feel are the destructive methods being employed.

 

Additionally, in sectioned events, why would it be "fair" for one section have to compete with the one pair who happens to be employing any of these methods, when all of the other sections arent facing at least a modicum of the same?

 

At this moment, there are approximately 3000 members logged into BBO. Of these, only slightly over 700 are from the United States (and I imagine the percentages stay fairly consistent throughout the course of the day, but again, I could be mistaken). And yet the ACBL has over 150,000 members. (I would be interested in knowing the total numbers of BBO members from the US for this purpose or what percentage of BBO members are US based.). Where are the other 149000 members? At home, going about their daily lives, not caring about bridge on the internet, or going to play at their local club game for social purposes, or they are not computer literate. (Again, sad, but true).

 

It is my general observations that the majority of people playing bridge in the US are a) probably much older than the rest of the world (read over 60), B ) have no interest in having to deal with complex bidding sequences or conventions, and c) if forced to do so, they will find other ways of spending their time/money as they will no longer enjoy the pastime of playing bridge.

 

Many have argued that the ACBL should be promoting these methods as a means of attracting younger players or it will die out. I respectfully disagree. Over the next 25 years, the US population aged 60 or higher will increase by approximately 25% (78 million) according to current US census projections. In the meantime, the average life-span in the US is continually increasing (at least according to the statistics I have seen). It is the rising baby-boomers the ACBL really should be targeting to increase its membership, but again, that is just my own humble opinion. No offense to the younger crowd, but I started playing when I was 18. I received all kinds of strange looks from friends when I mentioned that I played bridge. "Bridge? Isn't that an old folks game?" was a common response, and it is reflected at every participation level, with the possible exception of the Nationals. Club games, Sectional and Regional tournaments are dominated in participation by people over 50, imo. Mind you, I started playing over 25 years ago (meaning I am now in my mid 40's), and I am still frequently one of the "younger" crowd at any club game or tournament. Granted, this could easily be different in other parts of the country, but I suspect that it is not.

 

Realistically, the younger US population usually will not have the time (due to job, family, etc.) or the money or the interest to participate frequently in bridge tournaments. They simply have too many competing interests to make bridge a normal part of their lives, and any attempt to attract larger portions of this demographic is doomed to failure in the US. However the rising baby-boomers over the next 25 years will begin to have, each year as they retire, more time on their hands in which they begin to seek new outlets to occupy this time, and usually more money to spend on discretionary activities than someone say, in college or just out of college, making attempts to reach this demographic more likely to be successful.

 

Finally, please dont infer that I agree with all of the current regulations. I do not. To some degree, I think that there should be ACBL events where you can play whatever you desire, but only as seperate events and advertised accordingly, so that you may choose whether or not to participate in such an event.

 

And I must say, that I find it encouraging that Fred, Jan, Josh, Richard, Tim, et. al, can discuss issues such as addressed in this thread and their subsequent responses with at least (what I have perceived to be) a reasonable sense of decorum. While I can certainly understand why Fred was, um, irritated? with Richards stance and his means of addressing it, I also get the impression that Jan was not quite as irritated as Fred was. (I could be wrong in that assessment, however. Maybe she was and her writing simply didnt reflect it). And I dont think it was Richards intent to insult Chip Martel or Jeff Meckstroth (at least I hope it wasn't), but simply an attempt to show that the means of getting adequate defenses approved is flawed, and his frustration/aggravation with the process.

 

Personally, since I have never attempted to accomplish any of this, I found this whole interaction fascinating, in terms of revealing the processes that actually occur "behind the scenes".

 

As always, jmoo.

[TimG]

Are you sure that a "best possible midchart" would have a significant positive impact on the best long term interests of the ACBL?

No.

[TimG]

There are even things banned on the GCC for no real reason other than the rules were targeting a particular pair.

 

(Someone can correct me if my interpretiation of the following ban is wrong).

 

1N forcing over 1M is allowed, but may not guarantee INV or better values.

I believe you are right. It does seem strange to me: wouldn't it be easier to defend against the forcing 1NT if the opponents knew it was INV or better rather than possibly including some weak types?

 

BTW, the easy work around of the regulation is to include one weak hand-type in the 1NT response. When I play non-forcing new suits and 1NT forcing, I include a weak raise in the 1NT response. Now 1NT doesn't guarantee INV or better and is GCC legal. Makes me think the regulation is rather silly.

[hrothgar]

First, in the case of opening 2D to show 4 diamonds and 4 hearts, I believe that the terminology stating "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." applies to an opening bit at the 1 level (not the 2 level), but I could be mistaken. However, the additional phrasing on the midchart of

 

"4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits"

 

specifically precludes opening 2D on 4-4 hands even in midchart events. (And they are certainly prohibited in GCC only events).

The rule in question was not introduced until after I made my submission.

[hrothgar]

Many have argued that the ACBL should be promoting these methods as a means of attracting younger players or it will die out. I respectfully disagree. Over the next 25 years, the US population aged 60 or higher will increase by approximately 25% (78 million) according to current US census projections. In the meantime, the average life-span in the US is continually increasing (at least according to the statistics I have seen). It is the rising baby-boomers the ACBL really should be targeting to increase its membership, but again, that is just my own humble opinion. No offense to the younger crowd, but I started playing when I was 18.

Have you ever wondered why television shows are always chasing the coveted 18-34 year old demographic?

 

Advertisers have spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying consumers and modelling their willingness to adopt "new" products. I'm making a gross over simplification here, however, old folks are set in their ways. It takes enormous amounts of time/money/effort to get a 50 year old to change their behaviour or adopt something new.

[bid_em_up]

First, in the case of opening 2D to show 4 diamonds and 4 hearts, I believe that the terminology stating "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." applies to an opening bid at the 1 level (not the 2 level), but I could be mistaken. However, the additional phrasing on the midchart of

 

"4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits"

 

specifically precludes opening 2D on 4-4 hands even in midchart events. (And they are certainly prohibited in GCC only events).

The rule in question was not introduced until after I made my submission.

It was my interpretation that one of the posts (not necessarily yours, I believe it was by awm) was making the argument that since the current GCC only requires 3 cards in a minor suit to be considered a natural opening.....

 

The rest was derived from that.

[hrothgar]

At this moment, there are approximately 3000 members logged into BBO. Of these, only slightly over 700 are from the United States (and I imagine the percentages stay fairly consistent throughout the course of the day, but again, I could be mistaken). And yet the ACBL has over 150,000 members.

For kicks and giggle, I'm going to post some membership statistics for different National Bridge organizations, along with the population for those countries. I'm not going to try to interprete the data other than to note that would be an incredibly complicated problem. You need to take a LOT of different variables into consideration - Population density, income... (Even then it gets hard to explain why the Dutch Bridge Federation has roughly 8 times the participation rate as the Belgian Bridge Federation. Either the Dutch are the top of their game in terms of membership recruitment or they define membership VERY differently). If you extend your model to include participation in Internet bridge you have a host of other complexities. Case in point: Historicially Internet connectivity was much cheaper in the US than in Europe (I remember when all the Brits on OKB were paying connection fees to their ISPs) More recently, that pattern reversed itself.

 

In any case, the first number is total population (taken from the CIA World Factbook).

The second number is the size of the Bridge Federation.

The last is the membership as a percentage of the population

 

North America

436282591

155876

0.00035728

 

US

295734134

140272

0.00047432

 

Canada

33098932

15322

0.00046292

 

Mexico

107449525

282

0.00000262

 

European Union

456953258

387684

0.00084841

 

Netherlands

16491461

89888

0.00545058

 

Belgium

10379067

8275

0.00079728

 

France

60876136

100444

0.00164997

 

Germany

82422299

28724

0.00034850

 

UK

60609153

37089

0.00061194

 

England 26317

Scotland 7330

Wales 1962

Ireland 1480

 

Denmark

5450661

24740

0.00453890

 

Sweden

9016596

16530

0.00183329

 

Poland

38536869

6863

0.00017809

 

Turkey

70413958

2147

0.00003049

 

Italy

58133509

31594

0.00054347

 

Australia

20264082

32574

0.00160747

 

New Zealand

4076140

16238

0.00398367

 

Brazil

188078227

990

0.00000526

[bid_em_up]

Have you ever wondered why television shows are always chasing the coveted 18-34 year old demographic?

 

Advertisers have spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying consumers and modelling their willingness to adopt "new" products. I'm making a gross over simplification here, however, old folks are set in their ways. It takes enormous amounts of time/money/effort to get a 50 year old to change their behaviour or adopt something new.

This is not the same thing. In your scenario, those marketers are targeting "hip" products to a "want it now" society, with slick advertising being one of the most effective ways to reach that core demographic. Bridge is not something you can go to your local dealership or store and buy to take home for immediate consumption. It is a lifestyle activity.

 

Try comparing the time/effort/money necessary to convince a new retiree (or older divorcee or widow/widower) to take a bridge class against someone who is 28, just married, working full-time, recently bought a house, a kid thats 2-3 and another one on the way. Which one is more likely to be seeking new activities to occupy their time? As one of the latter, I can tell you if it wasnt for the internet, I could not play bridge. I do not have time to go and spend 3-4 hours at a local club, nor can I afford to attend out of town tournaments.

 

I am fairly certain that it will not take near as much time/effort/money to motivate a sixty year old who has recently retired from work, kids are now grown and moved out of the house, and has more free time on their hands than they know what to do with as compared to the 18-34 year old in the above scenario. They, in many cases, are bored and/or lonely, and already actively seeking new activities to occupy the extra time that has been derived from their lifestyle changes. Especially ones that are social in nature, relatively inexpensive (at least at the club level), and easy to do.

 

I, myself, am a member of a local spades meetup group. Many of the people who belong to it say "I would like to learn to play bridge, but I dont have the time" or "I learned to play in college but I dont....."

 

District 7 publishes a newsletter about once per quarter (other districts may do this as well, I do not know). In it, they list recent life masters and usually give some general information regarding the person and who their favorite partners are. I cannot begin to tell you how many times the words "Learned to play bridge at a young age but was only able to pick up the game again after kids were grown ", "Learned to play bridge in college, but recently took up the game after retirement" or "just picked up the game 3 years ago after...." are included in these testimonials.

 

Mind you, I am not saying that no effort should be spent on marketing to the younger crowd. Anybody that learns the game of bridge in their earlier years is certainly a potential future ACBL member. If they learn the game as a teenager and stick with it, great!

 

However, it is my sincere belief that if the ACBL truly wishes to increase its membership base over the next 25 years that it should be concentrating its efforts more on the influx of the large amount of retirees due to the baby-boomers, people who will be seeking new activities as opposed to those in the 18-34 crowd whose plates are already full.

 

And the bottom line in regards to HUM systems in the ACBL is the older crowd will not want to participate in the "free-for-all, anything goes" environment that is continually suggested as a means of attracting new (younger) players to the ACBL.

 

As always, jmoo.

[helene_t]

(Even then it gets hard to explain why the Dutch Bridge Federation has roughly 8 times the participation rate as the Belgian Bridge Federation. Either the Dutch are the top of their game in terms of membership recruitment or they define membership VERY differently).

The Netherlands and Denmark are notorious for their "Association culture". In both countries, almost everybody is a member of several associations: charity associations, sports and leasure associations, lobbying associations. A lot of people who would, in other countries, play in some informal coffeehouse setting, join a bridge club which is a member of the BF.

[joshs]

(Even then it gets hard to explain why the Dutch Bridge Federation has roughly 8 times the participation rate as the Belgian Bridge Federation.  Either the Dutch are the top of their game in terms of membership recruitment or they define membership VERY differently).

The Netherlands and Denmark are notorious for their "Association culture". In both countries, almost everybody is a member of several associations: charity associations, sports and leasure associations, lobbying associations. A lot of people who would, in other countries, play in some informal coffeehouse setting, join a bridge club which is a member of the BF.

This raises an interesting question (although nothing to do with this thread). De Tocquville noticed 180 years ago that americans were obsessed with joining organizations. What happened to change this?

Maybe I should start a different thread in the WC....

[Sigi_BC84]

For kicks and giggle, I'm going to post some membership statistics for different National Bridge organizations, along with the population for those countries.

 

Netherlands 

16491461

89888

0.00545058

That is huge. I'm interested in some commentary from the Dutch.

 

France 

60876136

100444

0.00164997

Not bad either, and they're all playing the same system (you have to alert 12-14 notrump!).

 

Germany 

82422299

28724

0.00034850

Ugh.

 

Poland 

38536869

6863

0.00017809

VERY surprising, I've been told there is a lot of Bridge in Poland, that there are lots of huge players and we all know that BBO is filled with Poles. I'm strongly suggesting something is wrong with these figures. Probably many people are not registered members or there are different organizations.

 

Turkey 

70413958

2147

0.00003049

Also very surprising. So many Turks on BBO (well, not all of them being huge players...), I can hardly believe there are only around 2000 members in their national organization (or it's a young organization and basically all of them play on BBO as well).

 

Australia 

20264082

32574

0.00160747

 

New Zealand 

4076140

16238

0.00398367

These clearly include those who emigrated from the US in order to play proper Bridge. At least it shows you can have healthy memberships while allowing many conventions and systems.

 

Very interesting figures after all Richard, thanks.

 

--Sigi

[Aberlour10]

 

Poland 

38536869

6863

0.00017809

VERY surprising, I've been told there is a lot of Bridge in Poland, that there are lots of huge players and we all know that BBO is filled with Poles. I'm strongly suggesting something is wrong with these figures. Probably many people are not registered members or there are different organizations.

 

There are about 7000 players registered in The Polish Bridge Union,

but it has nothing to say how popular this game in Poland really is.

 

For example, one of the most important polish newspapers started a big poll about

favorites sports in Poland. Over 60% of male population stated that

they play bridge or tried to play or would like to learn it.

Bridge took the first place in this poll.!

 

Robert

[Sigi_BC84]

There are about 7000 players registered in The Polish Bridge Union,

but it has nothing to say how popular this game in Poland really is.

 

For example, one of the most important polish newspapers started a big poll about favorites sports in Poland. Over 60% of male population stated that they play bridge or tried to play or would like to learn it. Bridge took the first place in this poll.!

Now for the most interesting question:

 

What system regulations are typically in place in Poland?

 

Edit: I'm also interested in the average age, and why it is so popular. How do new players get introduced into the game?

[Aberlour10]

Now for the most interesting question:

 

What system regulations are typically in place in Poland?

 

According to the oficial system policy of Polish Bridge Union

there are 3 categories of the competition:

http://www.polbridge.pl/sedziowie/pol_sys_projekt.htm

 

Category 1 (Polish Team Championships, polish trials for Bermuda Bowl,

European Championships etc, bridge matches with > 17 boards)

 

allowed are:

 

Green (natural systems, or systems like Polish Club or "Strefa")

 

Blue (Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong

and all other systems that are not classified as Yellow or content

elements of Brown Sticker.) "EDITED"

 

Yellow (HUM)

 

Brown Sticker

 

Category 2 (Polish Championships -open, women, pairs, mixed, juniors, seniors or teams with < 17 boards/match)

 

allowed are: Green, Blue, Brown Sticker

 

Category 3 ( bridge tournaments, pairs, teams, ind. -local, regional, bridge meetings, congresses)

 

allowed are: Green, Blue, and it is possible to use Yellow & Brown Sticker if

the opponents are agreed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some special regulations are valid.

 

Robert

[Sigi_BC84]

allowed are:

Green (natural systems, or systems like Polish Club or "Strefa")

Blue (Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong)

[...]

allowed are: Green, Blue, Brown Sticker

[...]

allowed are: Green, Blue, and it is possible to use Yellow & Brown Sticker if

the opponents are agreed.

So apparently they use WBF color codes. Is the Red category not being used at all? I find it a bit odd that they allow Yellow on mutual agreement in the lowest category but Red isn't even mentioned.

 

--Sigi

[Aberlour10]

So apparently they use WBF color codes.  Is the Red category not being used at all?  I find it a bit odd that they allow Yellow on mutual agreement in the lowest category but Red isn't even mentioned.

 

--Sigi

I checked it out.

 

correctly should be....

 

Blue ( polish "niebieski" ) contents systems:

 

Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong)

AND all other systems that are not classified as Yellow or content

elements of Brown Sticker.

 

so "polish Blue" = Blue + Red ( in WBF version)

 

Robert

[mycroft]

But from the sound of things, "Polish Green" is Green + Red, as it includes a Forcing, but not necessarily strong (and, of course, not necessarily natural), 1 Club opening (Polish Club).

 

As Standard Polish (in whatever format, including Nasz, "Natural") is a WBF Red system, this isn't really a problem, *except* for the fact that they go to WBF events and claim their system is Green - which of course it is in Poland. I don't think the reputation for lack of disclosure is totally warranted, but when their opponents (some of whom are already biased) are presented - again - with WBF CCs with the most basic piece of information clearly wrong, it doesn't help.

 

But at least I now know why I keep seeing these Polish Club CCs self-labelled Green.

Michael.

 

(Edited for clarity)

Edited May 4, 2006 by mycroft

[JanM]

This thread has become so diverse and interesting! I keep thinking “I should respond to that” and by the time I get ready to do so there are three more pages of posts to read, by which time I have to go do something else. So I’m afraid this is going to be a bit long and rambling, for which I apologize.

 

I agree with several people who have mentioned that the ACBL convention charts are far from a model of clarity. I think there are several reasons for that, and for the fact that it’s very unlikely we’ll see any change. The convention charts were a valiant effort to do what all of us want done – describe in clear, general language what methods should be allowed at different levels of competition. That sounds easy, but in fact it is incredibly difficult. I know just how hard it is because a few years ago when I took on the project of drafting General Conditions of Contest for the USBF I foolishly thought I could write Systems rules that would allow us to ignore the GCC, Midchart, & Superchart that I found difficult to understand. I was doing this in an easy setting – I didn’t have to worry about the Mom and Pop club players, or even Regional players, only experts. I had to deal only with Round Robin and KO phases. I was writing for events that require advance entry and thus could require advance submission of methods. Nonetheless, after struggling with definitions for a while (and driving my husband crazy ?), I gave up and reverted to allowing Midchart methods in the Round Robins and Superchart in the KOs. Then I tried to define which Midchart methods required advance submission (and provision of a recommended defense). Although that was easier and I thought I had succeeded in writing reasonably easy to understand lists of what should and should not be submitted in advance, in fact people frequently submit methods they do not have to and fail to submit those that they should. I don’t know why; I don’t know how to make things more understandable, although I did try again this year. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the problem is some people pay more attention and read more carefully than others.

 

Which gets me to another area where there’s a problem – defenses. Josh complains, correctly, that an adequate defense to 2NT showing a 3 preempt should certainly say whether (2NT)-DBL[cards]-(3♦)-3♥ is forcing. I didn’t look, but I believe him when he says that it does not. And I can understand his frustration that there are such clearly inadequate defenses included in the database when at the same time new defenses are subjected to stringent examination and rejected as being inadequate. The problem is that the defense database has changed over the years. Initially, when the C&C committee foolishly believed that convention charts could be written that would adequately define what was allowed, and that only a few unusual methods would be allowed in Midchart events, they had the noble idea that the committee could produce defenses to those conventions, publish them, require the people playing the methods to bring the defenses to the table and then everyone would be happy – the proponents could play their unusual methods and their opponents wouldn’t have a problem because they could look at a defense whenever one of the unusual bids arose. So the committee wrote some defenses to some bids. We have two multi defenses because some members of the committee thought it was better to “get back to “normal” by having DBL show a T/O DBL of spades and 2♥ show a T/O DBL of hearts and others thought it was better to take advantage of the multi bid by using DBL to show a weak NT, a hand that would have to pass over a natural weak 2 bid. We have incomplete or inadequate defenses because the people writing the defenses hadn’t had a lot of experience either playing or opposing the methods involved. We still have those defenses today because, I suppose, no-one has complained and they’re there. Sometimes someone does complain, or the committee on its own notices that something isn’t adequate and removes it. In that case, they hope that one of the people who uses the method will notice that it no longer has an approved defense and submit one (guess who does more complaining – the people whose pet method isn’t allowed even though it was last tournament or the people like Josh who discover that a defense isn’t adequate?).

 

Sometime along the way, someone (I don’t know who) suggested that the defense database could be used to regulate methods – broad definition wasn’t working and there was general agreement that new things should be allowed so long as the opponents had a fair chance to defend reasonably against them. So the Midchart was changed to say that most Midchart methods would be allowed only if there was a defense posted, and defenses would be posted only after approval (I’m not at all sure that these two things happened simultaneously, that may be why your defense to TOSR was first posted and then removed). Thus the onus of coming up with an adequate defense is where it belongs – on the people who want to employ the method and who should know what problems it causes. But of course, it doesn’t work perfectly. Partly because those who like to experiment with new methods may not be good at developing defenses and at presenting them. I have a lot of sympathy with that – it’s very hard to develop a defense; to present it in such a way that someone can pick it up and use it with no advance study is even harder.

 

A long time ago we developed a defense to a 2♣ “fert.” I haven’t looked at it in years, so I have no idea whether it was a good defense or not; I do know that it included transfer overcalls, which is useful when you’re starting at that high a level. We were coaching a team in the Bermuda Bowl who were playing against a team using this method. Our team was trailing sufficiently in a KO match that we didn’t think the other team would use their “toy.” So we gave the defense to a pair that hadn’t played against this method before without much (if any) discussion. They were doing very well in the set, the opponents opened 2♣, one player read the defense, the other didn’t – they played in the transfer bid. Not a good result and one that changed the momentum in the match. I’ve always felt somewhat to blame for the fact that they lost. Now, before we give our players defenses, we discuss them and make sure that the specific pair is comfortable with the general approach – for example, I know that the “option 2” defense to Multi is “better.” But for some pairs, it’s not, because they just aren’t comfortable with being in a different context than normal. Just as most pairs would feel “funny” playing that a DBL of 2♦ that shows 4+ diamonds was penalty – it might be the right way to play, but it’s not a practical way and it’s not something to give a pair that isn’t going to study the defense in advance.

 

Why hasn’t a defense to MOSCITO been approved? I’m just guessing, not passing on Chip’s comments, since he hasn’t made any. There are two huge differences between something like multi and an opening 1 level bid that shows a limited hand with 4+ in the next suit and possibly a longer side suit. First, and the reason I’d be very surprised if any defense to MOSCITO would be approved for an event with 2 board rounds, multi, even as some of us use it, comes up maybe two or three times a session; the MOSCITO opening 1 bids probably come up every other round. Why does that matter? Because if someone comes to your table and says “we’re playing multi (or two under preempts or Precision 2♥ or any of the other things for which there are approved defenses)” your reaction (and it’s the right one) is to say OK, if it comes up we’ll use the recommended defense. You don’t worry much about whether the defense will be right for you, because you know that probably the bid won’t arise and if it does you may not care. If someone comes to your table and says “we play transfer one bids,” you’re much more likely to want to look at the defense in advance and discuss it a bit – not only do you know it’s reasonably likely to come up, but you know that you’re going to be in a substantially different position from everyone else who plays the board (when someone opens a preempt, whether natural or artificial, it’s reasonably likely that everyone has to confront some sort of disruption, so you might be in a marginally worse (or better) position than the rest of the field, but you won’t be in a significantly different position). So there’s going to be a time loss every round. That’s one of the things that we all want to avoid in pair events. The second difference that makes it difficult to develop a defense to MOSCITO is that the transfer bid affects the rest of the auction – the defense needs to deal with a lot of potentially different from normal continuations. And we can’t expect people to apply their “normal context” judgment. Sometimes when people say something is missing from the Option 2 multi defense, I can answer them by saying – just imagine that the person who doubled 2♦ opened a weak NT and figure out what your bids would mean (and sometimes people look at me as if I’m crazy – they just can’t translate that way). It’s harder to make the same sort of “translation” in the transfer opening bids auctions. The auction looks “normal” but it isn’t, and that can cause surprising problems. Here’s another story, most of which I’ve forgotten, to illustrate that. In the Jamaica Bermuda Bowl, our team had to play against a pair using a strong pass system. The WBF was only just starting to deal with things like that then. There weren’t things like written defenses, the team hadn’t had to submit their methods in advance, but if I’m remembering correctly, the on site tournament committee decided that the team would lose their seed when the strong pass pair played. So Chip & Lew played against this pair all the time. I looked at all of the early hand records to see what sort of hands were coming up. Chip developed a defense that seemed appropriate – when the opponents “opened” a Pass, our side’s bids would be overcalls (except I think that 1♣ was a weak NT, but I’m not positive). That made sense and didn’t seem as if it would be difficult to remember or to play. On one hand, the opponent Passed, Chip or Lew (I forget) “overcalled” 1♠ and then the auction went on a bit. Later in the auction Chip or Lew made a bid based on the fact that the 1♠ bid had been an overcall. The other one looked at the bidding tray and forgot that that the initial Pass was a bid. I think they ended up playing in a cuebid, although I’m not certain – at any rate, here was a very experienced pair, who had carefully thought out what they were doing and who are generally good at dealing with “science” who had an accident because the auction looked like something it wasn’t. That’s the sort of thing that can easily happen with transfer one bids. Of course, if half the field played them, the rest of the field would become used to them and the context wouldn’t be strange any more, but in our current world, it is.

 

Oh, that reminds me – early in this thread, Tim (I think) commented that probably Chip has a defense to MOSCITO that he considers nearly optimum. When I responded that in fact we don’t, I forgot one of the main reasons why – in WBF events, you have to memorize your defense to transfer 1 bids; you are allowed written defenses only to BS bids. The defense that is “right” when it has to be memorized is very different from the defense that is “right” when it’s written.

 

I’ve gone on way too long here, but I was amused to see Mycroft’s post, which almost brought this thread back to where it started :ph34r:. Polish club is, I think everyone agrees, a WBF “Red” system. But in Poland, it’s “standard.” The Verona Conditions of Contest require that “Red” systems be submitted in advance. I’d be willing to bet lots of money that we won’ see more than one or two Polish Club systems on the advance submission website. And I’d even be willing to bet that someone from Poland would argue that their 1♣ is no more unusual than mine (clubs or a strong NT). The context in Poland is different from that elsewhere. And that context difference makes it difficult for any of us to understand the issues confronting systems regulators in other countries.

[joshs]

Jan Thanks for your post,

 

I can't speak about Moscito, but the current incarnation of TOSR was modified from some methods that were played downunder by me so that

a. it coforms to the letter and spirit of the mid-chart

b. so that unusual auctions either fit into the category of

1. Strong Auctions (Game Invivational or better, and the game Invitational auctions become natural at the second round of the auction)

2. Isomorphic (in an obvious way) to a general chart auction with a natural opening

 

I actually put a great deal of time into this project. Time which it turns out I should have put into my career or other things since the ACBL made it all a waste of my time.

 

I also put extensive time into developing good defenses. I looked at well over 2000 hands (5 years ago) for each opening bid and investigated a number of meanings for the interveners bids. When results were close, I selected the easier/more natural sounding defense.

 

It may interest people to know that over the 1D and 1H x-fer opening bid (showing 4+ hearts and 4+ spades) the best uses for x and the 1 level "cue bid" were

a. x=natural, e/g the suit xed and the cue-bid is the takeout x

b. x=the takeout x, and the cue-bid = sound hand with 5+ cards in opener's suit!

 

All other uses for the extra bid (including 12-14 balanced, or a raptor hand etc) were inferior to these two. My orginal submission to the ACBL actually included the 12-14 balanced defense as an alternate defense because people seem to like these sorts of things over multi, but personally I found that despite occuring very often it didn't gain much when it did occur. You also have to play a lot of responsive type x's on the second round of the auction to make this effective at all.

 

 

Defenses a and b were about equal at imps (over 1D b was slightly better, and over 1H a was slightly better). Defense a was better at mps.

 

I decided that since later x's of ART bids in the middle of a relay sequence should be natural, that there was a strong reason to be consistant and use defense a since the principle "x's of ART bids show the suit xed" is easy for people to understand, to use defense a as the main suggested defense.

 

Having said that, I discovered that playing 1S(minors)-x as spades was enough inferior to playing it as takeout for the majors that I made an exception in that case. Otherwise with the sort of hands that would x a natural 1 of a minor opening (or a precision 1D bid) you had to commit to the 2 level, or pass. (I think I might have included the natural x as an alternate defense, I can't remember)

 

Further in the wierd auctions like:

1D(H)-P-2C(weak and not forcing)

I discovered that playing x as a 3 suited takeout was much better than playing it as a two suited takeout, so thats the suggested defense.

 

I am sure many other system designers did not go to the effort that I did, but I did go to this effort....

[DrTodd13]

I agree with several people who have mentioned that the ACBL convention charts are far from a model of clarity. I think there are several reasons for that, and for the fact that it’s very unlikely we’ll see any change. The convention charts were a valiant effort to do what all of us want done – describe in clear, general language what methods should be allowed at different levels of competition. That sounds easy, but in fact it is incredibly difficult.

 

Thus the onus of coming up with an adequate defense is where it belongs – on the people who want to employ the method and who should know what problems it causes. But of course, it doesn’t work perfectly. Partly because those who like to experiment with new methods may not be good at developing defenses and at presenting them. I have a lot of sympathy with that – it’s very hard to develop a defense; to present it in such a way that someone can pick it up and use it with no advance study is even harder.

 

On one hand, the opponent Passed, Chip or Lew (I forget) “overcalled” 1♠ and then the auction went on a bit. Later in the auction Chip or Lew made a bid based on the fact that the 1♠ bid had been an overcall. The other one looked at the bidding tray and forgot that that the initial Pass was a bid. I think they ended up playing in a cuebid, although I’m not certain – at any rate, here was a very experienced pair, who had carefully thought out what they were doing and who are generally good at dealing with “science” who had an accident because the auction looked like something it wasn’t. That’s the sort of thing that can easily happen with transfer one bids. Of course, if half the field played them, the rest of the field would become used to them and the context wouldn’t be strange any more, but in our current world, it is.

To me, the fact that you can't manage to write regulations in such a way as to allow what you want to allow and disallow what you want to disallow indicates that you shouldn't be trying to do it in the first place. I understand you don't want to use words like "flannery" in the regulations and you try to be more generic than that but this genericness opens up the door for stuff you don't want. There is an inherent benefit to consistency. People will adapt to consistent regulations. What we have now is patch on top of patch.

 

"Thus the onus of coming up with an adequate defense is where it belongs – on the people who want to employ the method and who should know what problems it causes."

 

In a related news story, the US introduced a new missile weapons system today. The rest of the world is furious and demanding that we also provide them with defensive systems that can destroy our own missiles.

 

This argument that the auction "looked" normal but wasn't and this caused a problem is not specific to forcing pass systems. Any number of auctions with unusual meanings can appear "normal." If this example motivates anything, it is a ban on all artificiality. They were tired, they lost concentration and screwed up. This happens all the time even against natural systems. My regular pd and I play a forcing pass system almost everyday on BBO. Maybe once or twice in 3 years has some ridiculous auction occurred due to opps not paying attention and forgetting our opening pass was strong. Maybe this has something to do with the superior alerting and auction facilities on BBO.

[jdonn]

"Thus the onus of coming up with an adequate defense is where it belongs – on the people who want to employ the method and who should know what problems it causes."

 

In a related news story, the US introduced a new missile weapons system today. The rest of the world is furious and demanding that we also provide them with defensive systems that can destroy our own missiles.

It's that friendly spirit of looking at the ethics of a game the same way you look at the ethics of war which I'm sure will keep bridge players returning to tournaments for years to come.

[inquiry]

Maybe once or twice in 3 years has some ridiculous auction occurred due to opps not paying attention and forgetting our opening pass was strong. Maybe this has something to do with the superior alerting and auction facilities on BBO.

Having kibitzed you, I think it has more to do wiht the selected nature of your opponents in the main room. Many simply either not to join your table where forcing pass is used, others leave when they realize what you are playing.

 

If they would only allow players to do that in F2F tourneys you would have little trouble there either i guess.

[hrothgar]

I’ve gone on way too long here, but I was amused to see Mycroft’s post, which almost brought this thread back to where it started :ph34r:. Polish club is, I think everyone agrees, a WBF “Red” system. But in Poland, it’s “standard.” The Verona Conditions of Contest require that “Red” systems be submitted in advance. I’d be willing to bet lots of money that we won’ see more than one or two Polish Club systems on the advance submission website. And I’d even be willing to bet that someone from Poland would argue that their 1♣ is no more unusual than mine (clubs or a strong NT). The context in Poland is different from that elsewhere. And that context difference makes it difficult for any of us to understand the issues confronting systems regulators in other countries.

For what its worth, I just reviewed the WBF definite of Red Systems becuase I wanted to triple check a couple facts. I quote

 

Red

 

Artificial: this category includes all artificial systems that do not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition below], other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond systems (see 'Blue').

 

Examples would be a system where one club shows one of three types - a natural club suit, a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a system in which the basic methods (other than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional 'weak' or 'multi-meaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in potentially contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the WBF Convention Booklet.

 

First and foremost, I agree completely that Polish Club is a Red System as defined by the WBF. You are completely correct that anyone playing Polish Club should submit their methods in advance.

 

With this said and done, it would also seem clear that anyone playing Standard North American methods based on sound openings in first / second seat and light openings with Drury / fit showing responses in 3rd / 4th is also playing a red system. (The regulations make clear exception for variance in NT range but say nothing about the rest of this)

 

Is it silly to claim that using Drury and shifting the range of opening bids by a King or so is sufficient for a system to qualify as an artificial? Possibly - though it clearly seems to fall within the scope of the definition. However, I'd argue that its just as silly to label Polish Club an artificial system.

[JanM]

I also put extensive time into developing good defenses. I looked at well over 2000 hands (5 years ago) for each opening bid and investigated a number of meanings for the interveners bids. When results were close, I selected the easier/more natural sounding defense.

 

It may interest people to know that over the 1D and 1H x-fer opening bid (showing 4+ hearts and 4+ spades) the best uses for x and the 1 level "cue bid" were

a. x=natural, e/g the suit xed and the cue-bid is the takeout x

b. x=the takeout x, and the cue-bid = sound hand with 5+ cards in opener's suit!

Josh, I know it can be frustrating when you've tried hard to get something right and it is rejected for what seem like unreasonable reasons. I'm not sure I should suggest this, because I don't know what the result would be, but have you resubmitted your methods and defense since there was the possibility of allowing something for events with more than 2 boards per round? I think that you'd have a much better chance of succeeding today when the method can be limited to longer matches. I say that because of the time issues involved in short rounds - your defense makes sense to me and I suspect I could grasp it and play it with relatively little study, but I'd want to look at it in advance, and people like the pair who insisted on studying the ACBL multi defenses before the round against me in Dallas (surprise - multi didn't come up) would certainly want to look at yours and might not understand it easily. If they're going to be playing a long KO match against you, it's not unreasonable to ask that they take 5 minutes to familiarize themselves with your methods and defense.

 

I find it interesting that you found using the cue bid as natural to be better than using it as some sort of 2-suited takeout, when DBL was T/O. I play transfer responses to a natural 1♣ opening bid. For some reason having to do with the esoterica of ACBL regulations, I don't have to recommend a defense, but if the opponents ask me to I usually recommend what to me is most intuitive - DBL shows the bid suit, cue bid is T/O. After some thought, however, I don't really think that's optimal - I've been playing that DBL is T/O of the real suit (after all, that includes many of the hands that would DBL to show the bid suit). I started out playing that a "cue bid" was natural, but have since changed to using the cue bid as Michaels - 5-5 in the unbid (or rather unshown) Major and a minor) and 2 of the shown Major is natural (as it would be for me if the suit were bid). Obviously, there are different issues when the transfer is a response, but I don't think it's all that different, so I wondered why you found the "natural" cue bid better.

 

And other Josh, whose post just appeared as I was writing this - thank you :ph34r: