Echognome Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 I asked DWS on the weekend that if opponents opened an Ekren 2♥ (weak ♥ and ♠) and you double, is it alertable if it's penalty or takeout? Not an easy one. Then I asked about Lucas 2♥ which are the same under the laws in terms of being natural or not. I don't think I got a clear answer on it, but to say the least, it's not easy! NB: In order to be considered a natural bid, a suit bid must show that suit and not distributional information about a different suit. Hence Ekren and Lucas 2s are not considered natural bids according to my reading of the orange book. You also will have difficulties on things like: P - 1NT - P - 2♦P - 2♥ - P - PX Alertable if it's takeout (and similar to Frances' example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 I asked DWS on the weekend that if opponents opened an Ekren 2♥ (weak ♥ and ♠) and you double, is it alertable if it's penalty or takeout? Not an easy one. Then I asked about Lucas 2♥ which are the same under the laws in terms of being natural or not. I don't think I got a clear answer on it, but to say the least, it's not easy! NB: In order to be considered a natural bid, a suit bid must show that suit and not distributional information about a different suit. Hence Ekren and Lucas 2s are not considered natural bids according to my reading of the orange book.Agree that Ekren and Lucas are not natural according to the OB. But ... For alerting of doubles, it no longer matters whether the bid is defined as "natural" or not. The word "natural" appearing in the previous regulations has been replaced by "showing the suit bid". Ekren and Lucas certainly do show the suit bid, so an unalerted double is takeout. (Which is what you would hope, since people defend against Lucas in the same way as they defend against a natural weak two.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalislol Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 :) To 'nonsense' and 'twaddle' I would add 'babble' and 'gobbledegook'. Is there no way we can get a uniform code so that people can play BRIDGE, and not conventions, against each other? Bridge evolved from non-bidding card games, wherein the PLAY was the essence of the game. The change to contract, etc added some spice to the old game...but spices should be used sparingly, as any good chef would inform the unenlightened...one wants to taste the FOOD, not additives. It would be so nice if we could all pick up our cards and get down to it, EVERYONE knowing what the bids mean, without having to memorize volumes of non-conventional conventions. Because I was raised on Goren, I would vote for this fairly natural system, but would compromise on ACOL or SAYC...anything in which I would not have to be referred to p127 of vol2, footnote3 to understand (maybe) 'wot happened?' I realize that this post will not sit well with teachers and pros who earn their livings by promoting this nonsense, but would really love to hear if other 'commoners' share my view...wouldn't you rather just play BRIDGE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 :) To 'nonsense' and 'twaddle' I would add 'babble' and 'gobbledegook'. Is there no way we can get a uniform code so that people can play BRIDGE, and not conventions, against each other? Bridge evolved from non-bidding card games, wherein the PLAY was the essence of the game. The change to contract, etc added some spice to the old game...but spices should be used sparingly, as any good chef would inform the unenlightened...one wants to taste the FOOD, not additives. It would be so nice if we could all pick up our cards and get down to it, EVERYONE knowing what the bids mean, without having to memorize volumes of non-conventional conventions. Because I was raised on Goren, I would vote for this fairly natural system, but would compromise on ACOL or SAYC...anything in which I would not have to be referred to p127 of vol2, footnote3 to understand (maybe) 'wot happened?' I realize that this post will not sit well with teachers and pros who earn their livings by promoting this nonsense, but would really love to hear if other 'commoners' share my view...wouldn't you rather just play BRIDGE? Spare me your whining... Don't start bitching because people don't like playing your own idiosyncratic set of rules and treatments. I'm sure that Goren makes a lot of sense if you were raised on it, however, if your first experience was playing Polish club I suspect that you'd have very different ideas about what the right way to play is. As to your last comment... I play BRIDGEI think that you'd be happier playing spades... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 :) Because I was raised on Goren, I would vote for this fairly natural system, but would compromise on ACOL or SAYC...anything in which I would not have to be referred to p127 of vol2, footnote3 to understand (maybe) 'wot happened?' I had a long post, and cut it. It's not worth posting, since it's not going to change anybody's mind anyways. I'll just leave the ending. CC Wei's book on Preicision was 50 pages on how to play it, and an equal number of pages on examples of it working in tournaments. And this was a little, pamphlet sized book. Audrey Grant wrote two volumes over 200 pages each on Standard American. These were full sized books, not little mini-paperbacks. Which system, exactly, do you think is going to refer you to p127 of vol2, footnote 3 to understand what happened? If you still believe that 'Standard American' is simpler or more natural than Precision, Polish Club, or a host of other systems, try taking the test to become a Certified Standard American Instructor some time. You will never think that again. The only reason why Standard American still exists is because the ACBL puts rules in place to protect it. It is far too complex a system to use as a standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 The only reason why Standard American still exists is because the ACBL puts rules in place to protect it. It is far too complex a system to use as a standard. I didn't disagree with you until this last bit. I like Standard American, and would prefer to play that with people, rather than 2/1 or other systems. I wouldn't claim that it's the most natural or easiest system, etc. So I don't think that the only reason that it still exists is because there are rules in place to protect it. If you mean that the only reason it still exists as the "standard American" system, then I won't argue with you (nor will I agree with you, I just don't take a stance either way). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalislol Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 :D TO frothgas:1) Look up the definition of 'whining'.2) I'll 'bitch' all I want...especially if it annoys a bigoted azzhole.3) I think YOU would be happier playing with yourself...take that either way. TO the intelligent one:1) My comment re length was of course a deliberate exaggeration, as you knew.2) I have no intention of taking tests or becoming a teacher or a pro...just want to enjoy playing bridge.3) First time I've heard sayc referred to as 'too complex', especially in light of what I'm exposed to while watching VG, where even the experienced comms are often non-plussed. TO both:1) I was probably remiss in posting this here...should have sought a platform where 'commoners' are more likely to be found. Will try elsewhere soon...there MUST be a place to find out how average bridge-players view this issue.2) Yes, I'm an old-timer who would just like to play fun/interesting bridge...my tournament days are long gone...my signature says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 >TO frothgas:>1) Look up the definition of 'whining'.>2) I'll 'bitch' all I want...especially if it annoys a bigoted azzhole.>3) I think YOU would be happier playing with yourself...take that >either way. This is rich. A crotchety old idiot whose early posting on the forums is a complaint about "Queer propaganda" accuses me of being a bigot. Guess I was stupid enough to feed the troll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 Is there no way we can get a uniform code so that people can play BRIDGE, and not conventions, against each other?That's a fair question. I believe the answer is: no, there is no way you can achieve this. System regulations can work to some extent. Imposing a standard system is a particular case of this. But a standard system can never be sufficiently detailed to tell you about every bid that might be made. You're still going to need to have rules telling you what happens after the standard system "ends". Besides, standard systems are terribly unpopular except with the people who were playing them already. It would never happen. Let's be realistic - bridge is a difficult game to write rules for. And certainly a lot of the time the rulemakers make a complete mess of it. But there is no magic solution; the rulemakers are trying to do the best they can for the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 If you mean that the only reason it still exists as the "standard American" system, then I won't argue with you (nor will I agree with you, I just don't take a stance either way). Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. SA is very similar to SEF, for example, but I don't think the French protect their system the way Americans do. So it must have some purpose. To lalislol: 3) First time I've heard sayc referred to as 'too complex', especially in light of what I'm exposed to while watching VG, where even the experienced comms are often non-plussed. So your complaint is what, exactly, that you want to be able to understand VG better so everybody on the planet should play your system? That doesn't seem reasonable. I've played quite a few years in 'anything goes' clubs, and played in open events at the Regional and National levels. During that time, I've played against: -Precision, which is 1♣ showing a strong hand.-Canape, which is Precision with 2♥ and 2♠ showing 11-15 (or so) and a 5 card major, with 1♥ and 1♠ showing 4 or 6 cards in the major, but not 5.-And once, simplified Polish Club, which is where 1♣ shows a hand which either has 4 clubs or a strong hand. You could learn all three in a weekend, none of them are particularly complex. I've seen stranger stuff in VG and mentioned here, but why should I care? If I don't like what they're doing, I don't look at it. As far as complexity, ask yourself this. How often do you get in a disagreement with a long-standing partner about a bid in an uncontested auction? If the answer is 'ever', you're playing a complex system. I have sent somebody two pages of notes and started playing Precision with them, and I don't think we've ever had a bidding misunderstanding in an uncontested auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 -Canape, which is Precision with 2♥ and 2♠ showing 11-15 (or so) and a 5 card major, with 1♥ and 1♠ showing 4 or 6 cards in the major, but not 5. Nope, that's not canapé. Canapé refers to systems where you systematically open your second-longest suit, e.g. Blue Team Club (which also happens to be a strong club system, but this is not necessary.) Precision, incidentally, is a specific type of srong club system with 5 card majors, but there are lots of strong club systems out there which aren't precision (even though they may include 5 card majors...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 I have always felt that doubles shouldn't be alerted, as long as they are on a sliding scale between take out doubles and penalty doubles. AGREE! As far as complexity, ask yourself this. How often do you get in a disagreement with a long-standing partner about a bid in an uncontested auction? If the answer is 'ever', you're playing a complex system. I'm sorry but this is not true. "Natural" just doesn't catch all of it. I will challenge you Jtfanclub: You send me your two pages of Precision system note and I will give you an ambiguous uncontested auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalislol Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 ;) Ah, frothgas, I enjoy verbal sparring, and look forward to happy hours prodding you, so please do continue to 'feed the troll'. (A troll, btw, is often considered to be a bridge-guarder, and since BBO...etc...I might consider the term a compliment, but doubt that you meant to use it as such, eh? :huh: Your depiction of me is very lacking: 'crotchety' does not fit, as my friends and acqaintances could assure you (they laugh at you for applying it here); 'old' yes chronologically, but still young at heart; your use of 'idiot' shows that you are desperate, or of limited vocabulary...my IQ of 140-150 must be considerably higher than yours, and I neither babble nor drool, at least not yet. You are definitely a bigot. Reading some of your (all too frequent) posts...truly a masochistical task...shows your considerable intolerance towards the opinions of others, and this is prime bigotry. Your denigration of your betters...e.g. Roland, Ben, Mike...is a bigot's attempt to assert that his position correct, and an admission that you cannot really defend your stance adequately. I AM afflicted with some narrowly defined bigotry (as are most people)...for example... You take issue with my use of 'queer' in reference to male homosexuality. I refuse to use the fine old word 'gay' in describing this perversion. I used to call myself gay...fun, happy-go-lucky...but obviously can no longer do so, else people would think I indulge in unnatural sex acts. I really don't care, and it is no business of mine, what consenting adults do in private...'whatever turns you on'...but become annoyed when they promote their 'cause' in public, and try to get at my tax dollars to boot. ( BTW you can settle a bet by answering the question: Are you queer, or simply strange?...we both assumed the former, but she lost the coin-toss, so is stuck with the less likely choice.) I look forward to more of this fun, but perhaps we should start our own Topic so as not to clutter up this area where others want to discuss more important matters. As for title, I might suggest 'lalislol afflicted with frothgas'...you might prefer something like 'gar bites lalsass'...suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 >my IQ of 140-150 must be considerably higher than yours Ooohhh. Next you'll be telling me you're a member of Mensa... >BTW you can settle a bet by answering the question: Are you queer, or >simply strange?...we both assumed the former, but she lost the coin-toss, >so is stuck with the less likely choice Really not sure how my own sexual preferences are relevant to my position regarding gay marriage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 Anyone who boasts about their IQ is an idiot. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted August 13, 2006 Report Share Posted August 13, 2006 Nope, that's not canapé. Canapé refers to systems where you systematically open your second-longest suit, e.g. Blue Team Club (which also happens to be a strong club system, but this is not necessary.) Precision, incidentally, is a specific type of srong club system with 5 card majors, but there are lots of strong club systems out there which aren't precision (even though they may include 5 card majors...) You're right. Speaking of which, in the latest European Championships: "Natural", 5 card majors (2/1 GF, Standard American, etc) = 33Strong Club systems (mainly precision variants) = 25Nebulous Club (Polish, Carrot, etc) = 16"Natural", 4 card majors = 11Nasz = 5 (Forcing Club, strong 2♣ or 2♦)"Natural", 5+ Spades and 4+ Hearts = 4Magic Diamond = 1 Out of the 95 teams, almost exactly half of them played played a natural club, and half played a Strong or Nebulous Club system. 'Standard American' seems to have lost its dominance at the upper levels in Europe. I'm sorry but this is not true. "Natural" just doesn't catch all of it. I will challenge you Jtfanclub: You send me your two pages of Precision system note and I will give you an ambiguous uncontested auction. I can send you a one page of Precision system notes in which, with any two hands, I can devise an auction in which each bid is clearly defined and will lead to a reasonable contract (defined as unlikely to get a bad result or a common place to end up using other systems). I can't say it'll always lead to a good (or even average) result, or that it can't be greatly improved by adding more possible calls, but there's always at least one clear bid for every hand at any point in the auction. But for ambigiuous contested auctions sure. 1♣-4♦ has no meaning even in the complicated version. If somebody asked me what it meant, I'd probably say 'partner pulled the wrong card'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.