Alerting regulations in your country

[paulg]

I have just received my SBU News and Scotland will be using the WBF Alerting Policy from September 1, 2007.

 

So no more alerting of doubles. Even the English visitors can understand that and, if they keep their mouths shut, they will get into no trouble :rolleyes:

 

Paul

[foo]

Some IMHO excellent words on what the spirit of Active Ethics should be:

 

"When my opponent makes a bid, I feel entitled to full knowledge of exactly what the bid means and what developments may ensue, regardless of what I hold. Even in completely unobstructed auctions, I want to be in a position to assess what my opponents may be thinking about. I want to think ahead about what bids I might want to double for a lead or penalty., and I want to be thinking ahead to Our opening lead.

These things are all possible against players who use known methods,and mostly impossible against players using unfamiliar methods."

Roy Hughes, p108 of _Building a Bidding System_

 

 

I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible. I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

 

I also strongly disagree with players being able to use methods that would result in opponents having to "re learn the game" or "play the opponent's system rather than their own". IOW, so called "dominant methods" are =definitely= a problem for most levels of the game, and other methods can be a problem depending on the field in which they are proposed to be used in.

For instance, Novices should not have to put up with the Kamikaze NTs, Frelling 2's, etc, etc.

 

 

...and before I hear the "Mad Scientists" predictably protest, let me remind one and all that =Bridge is a game= and that tournament bridge is a =entertainment business=. People supposedly pay to play Bridge for enjoyment. If customers do not like what they are getting for their money, they will stop spending it on whatever disappoints them.

There is far more than "intellectual purity" at stake when discussing these issues.

[jtfanclub]

I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible. I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

So you're going to ban Standard American?

 

Take a simple uncontested auction...1♣-1♠-1NT-P

 

Have you ever actually described your Standard American 1 club opener? I mean, really, completely, and totally described it? Are there some hands you would open with some partners and pass with others? Are there some hands that you open 1 club with 4-4, or open 1 diamond with 3-3 or 4 diamonds and 5 clubs? How about with a 5 card major, when would you open 1 club with those?

 

Then take the 1 spade response. When would you bypass a 4 card diamond suit? How about a 4 card heart suit? How weak can you be? Will you respond with a shapely 0 count like my example on the general forums?

 

Now how about the 1NT. Can you have 6 clubs? Would you ever bid 2 clubs with 5? How much would you need exactly to bid 2 diamonds? How about 2 hearts?

 

And then there's that pass...

 

All of these things a long time partner should know. Not exactly, but a good feeling of it, how strong you tend to be to reverse, when you tend to pass the 1 club opener, etc. But even if you could somehow put it all into words, you'd be there all week for even a simple auction.

 

If I asked for an explanation of each bid, I'd get:

 

1♣: 12-22 hcp, 3+ clubs.

1♠: 6+ hcp, 4+ spades. If they're really helpful, I'll get "does not deny a 4 card red suit" or "may be weaker with short clubs".

1NT: 12-14 hcp, to play.

 

Even though, in fact, different partnerships have *very* different tendencies for these bids. How can the explanations be the same if the meanings are different?

 

I'm sure you're not one of the people who wants every possible nuance from somebody playing WJ or Precision while explaining every one of your bids as "standard" or whatever Goren or Audrey Grant says the bid should mean. But of course you're going to know things your opponents can't know, and usually that's extremely beneficial. I think if you took the top 100 players and paired them up randomly, and had them play the next 100 players playing in their favorite long term partnerships, that it wouldn't be close. Knowing partner's tendencies is crucial.

 

When an opponent alerts, it's because it's likely to change YOUR bid due to the additional information. Information that isn't sufficient to change your bid isn't, and shouldn't, be alerted. But it can still be mighty helpful.

[hrothgar]

I also strongly disagree with players being able to use methods that would result in opponents having to "re learn the game" or "play the opponent's system rather than their own". IOW, so called "dominant methods" are =definitely= a problem for most levels of the game

I've always felt that the complaints about so-called dominant systems are particularly ill considered, especially when they come from folks who play Drury....

 

Nearly every bidding system out here changes the meaning of the opening bid structure based on seat. A first seat preempt looks nothing like a 4th seat preempt. The strength required to open 1M and first seat is dramatically different than than required in third seat. Many pairs make significant changes to their response structures to protect against light openings in third / fourth seat (Drury, semi-forcing NTs, etc)

 

I'm not complaining that people make these changes. Indeed, I think that it is logical that they do so. However, I think that every system is equally dominant...

 

At the end of the day, complaints about Light Opening Systems boil down to some people's assumption that they have a god given right to an uncontested auction and that they shouldn't need to work on their defensive methods.

[foo]

I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible.  I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

So you're going to ban Standard American?

 

Take a simple uncontested auction...1♣-1♠-1NT-P

 

Have you ever actually described your Standard American 1 club opener? I mean, really, completely, and totally described it? Are there some hands you would open with some partners and pass with others? Are there some hands that you open 1 club with 4-4, or open 1 diamond with 3-3 or 4 diamonds and 5 clubs? How about with a 5 card major, when would you open 1 club with those?

 

Then take the 1 spade response. When would you bypass a 4 card diamond suit? How about a 4 card heart suit? How weak can you be? Will you respond with a shapely 0 count like my example on the general forums?

 

Now how about the 1NT. Can you have 6 clubs? Would you ever bid 2 clubs with 5? How much would you need exactly to bid 2 diamonds? How about 2 hearts?

If I'm using SA in a field were SA is common or commonly expected, my opponents know all the inferences you are worrying about here that matter.

 

Some inferences don't matter to a specific board. "The difference that makes no difference is no difference."

 

Admittedly, there are inferences that may matter that may be missed. That's why Opening leader is allowed to ask questions before leading and their partner is allowed to ask questions before the opening lead is faced.

 

This is also why pairs must have a CC available for inspection at any time by the opponents.

 

 

...and FTR, experts play in pick up partnerships all the time w/o much system discussion beyond "SA pard?" or "2/1 pard?" and they do =quite= well at figuring out what the hands are around the table.

Your comment re: the top 100 pairs is simply wrong; and would likely be wrong for more than the top 1 =million= pairs in the world.

[foo]

I also strongly disagree with players being able to use methods that would result in opponents having to "re learn the game" or "play the opponent's system rather than their own".  IOW, so called "dominant methods" are =definitely= a problem for most levels of the game

I've always felt that the complaints about so-called dominant systems are particularly ill considered, especially when they come from folks who play Drury....

 

Nearly every bidding system out here changes the meaning of the opening bid structure based on seat. A first seat preempt looks nothing like a 4th seat preempt. The strength required to open 1M and first seat is dramatically different than than required in third seat. Many pairs make significant changes to their response structures to protect against light openings in third / fourth seat (Drury, semi-forcing NTs, etc)

 

I'm not complaining that people make these changes. Indeed, I think that it is logical that they do so. However, I think that every system is equally dominant...

 

At the end of the day, complaints about Light Opening Systems boil down to some people's assumption that they have a god given right to an uncontested auction and that they shouldn't need to work on their defensive methods.

Drury is not even close to Dominant. Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term.

 

The comment about all systems being equally dominant seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the term.

 

Perhaps some players "feel a god given right to an uncontested auction", but I'd be surprised if you could find one. Especially amongst experts.

 

You are being dismissive to an inappropriate degree about an important problem.

 

For instance, there is only =one= viable defense strategy vs. Forcing Pass systems.

a= be in 1st chair

b= else play a FP system yourself.

If a pair playing a FP system comes to your table, the only reasonable defense on any board where We are not in 1st chair is to play their card and not your own. =That's= why they are called "Dominant."

 

Now let's look at a less extreme example. The Kamikaze NT.

This flat preempt is actually fairly bad bridge if the opponents have a proper defense and use it with proper discipline. That's why you don't see it much at the highest levels.

Unfortunately, the proper defense requires a fairly complex structure and has reasonably high memory overhead.

Low level players who are still having trouble with more basic aspects of the game are at a seriously unfair disadvantage when facing a pair playing the KNT.

Most of the good results obtained by the KNT pair when playing against such opponents is due to the KNT pair "pulling a fast one" due to information they have that the opponents don't, not due to superior bridge skills.

Clearly there is a need to restore equity here. Less so than in the FP example, but still seriously so.

 

Compared to either of these or a number of other examples I could give (Multi-2D, Most 2suited 2bids, etc etc), Drury is a =minor= problem for the opponents to defend against since you can use effectively mostly standard defensive methods with a few tweaks against it.

[helene_t]

I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible.  I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

So you're going to ban Standard American?

 

Take a simple uncontested auction...1♣-1♠-1NT-P

"Natural" system are inherently difficult to disclose because so much is left to style: what to bid if no call fits, or if several calls fit. On the other hand, most players know the basics.

 

So when do you feel best informed: when playing against an SA pair, the system of whom you're completely familiar with but the style of whom is an enigma, or a Symmetric Relay pair, the system of whom you didn't know beforehand but the style of whom are completely formalized so you can get answers to all your questions? I don't know. Maybe I'd feel more comfortable against the SA pair in a 3-boards-per-round pairs tourney, but more comfortable against the Symmetric Relay pair in a 96-boards team match.

 

Of course in a perfect World everybody would play similar Symmetric Relay systems so that it would be feasible to learn everything about opps' system, even in the 3-bords-per-round pairs tourney.

[hrothgar]

Drury is not even close to Dominant. Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term.

 

The comment about all systems being equally dominant seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the term.

I think that you misunderstand my point: I am not claiming that Drury is "dominant". I am, however, claiming that the very notion of a dominant system is meaningless and that the existing of Drury is evidence of that fact.

[hrothgar]

You are being dismissive to an inappropriate degree about an important problem.

 

For instance, there is only =one= viable defense strategy vs. Forcing Pass systems.

a= be in 1st chair

b= else play a FP system yourself.

If a pair playing a FP system comes to your table, the only reasonable defense on any board where We are not in 1st chair is to play their card and not your own. =That's= why they are called "Dominant."

I'd say that the most reasonable defense against a forcing pass system is learning to defend against a forcing pass system.

 

As I said, you seem to assume that you have some god given right to an uncontested auction. Why should I give a rat's ass whether you get to use your preferred opening structure in 4th seat?

 

I'd hazard a guess that at least 80% of the "work" in designing bidding systems is predicated on the assumption that there is going to be an uncontested auction. Pickup any book you want on bidding. What percentage of that book deals with uncontested auctions as opposed to competitive bidding sequences? I'd argue that this focus is a mistake.

 

For what its worth, I very much agree that bridge would look different if strong pass systems were in common use. People would be spending a lot more time developing overcall structures/generic defenses that can be applied against a variety of different opening bids. However, the fundamentals of the game would be the same. I'd even go so far as to say that the game strikes me as being a lot more interesting...

[helene_t]

Richard, I'm sorry but I don't follow your logic. A dominant system is a system in which an opening pass has an "unusual" meaning which makes a "normal" opening scheme an inadequate defense so that opps are forced to play an "unusual" opening scheme as well.

 

I don't see what that jhas to do with a different opening scheme in 3rd seat. Even if we agree to play 0+ openings in 3rd seat, it doesn't force opps to do something against our 3rd seat pass (which might not even exist, then).

 

Of course if we play 3+ major suit openings with 0+ points in 3rd seat and 6+ minor preempts, then a pass in 3rd seat shows at least 5/4 minors and then I agree.

 

If your point is that "normal" and "unusual" in my definitions are subjective and that SA would be a dominant system in a weak-opening culture, then I agree.

 

Also, you could say that short minor suit openings are dominant in the sense that they force opps to discuss when a cue-bid is natural and when it's not. But then everything becomes dominant. I think the term "dominant", in the absolute sense, can only be defined in a meaningful way when applied to the opening pass. And then only in the context of a culture with a specific "normal" meaning of the opening pass.

 

Maybe there's a gray scale. Maybe fertilizers and short major suit openings could be said to be slightly more "dominant" than short minor suit openings.

[foo]

Drury is not even close to Dominant.  Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term.

 

The comment about all systems being equally dominant seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the term.

I think that you misunderstand my point: I am not claiming that Drury is "dominant". I am, however, claiming that the very notion of a dominant system is meaningless and that the existing of Drury is evidence of that fact.

"Dominant" when used in a Bridge context is a technical term with a precise meaning.

 

It specifically refers to systems or methods where the only way to restore equity to the opposing side is to force the opposing side to use the same methods as a countermeasure.

 

FP systems are Dominant. Drury is not even close.

[awm]

I don't see how a "dominant" system could exist. For example:

 

RHO opens with a forcing pass. Why would I ever want to play forcing pass now in 2nd seat? I know that LHO is going to bid (RHO's pass is forcing). How does it even matter whether my pass is "forcing" on partner?

 

Certainly it makes sense that if RHO opens with a pass showing 14+ points or whatever, it would be silly for my second seat openings to mean the same thing they would mean if RHO's pass showed 11 points or less. But that doesn't mean I want to play the same methods as RHO. In fact, it seems like my best defense would involve bidding frequently with distributional hands regardless of their overall values (trying to get into what's more likely to be a competitive auction) and passing with balanced hands (even if strong) planning to try to defend doubled later. This is very different from the typical "forcing pass" method where good hands pass and weaker hands bid.

 

Anyways, I also don't see how this discussion of "dominant systems" has much to do with alerting policy.

[foo]

I don't see how a "dominant" system could exist. For example:

 

RHO opens with a forcing pass. Why would I ever want to play forcing pass now in 2nd seat? I know that LHO is going to bid (RHO's pass is forcing). How does it even matter whether my pass is "forcing" on partner?

 

Certainly it makes sense that if RHO opens with a pass showing 14+ points or whatever, it would be silly for my second seat openings to mean the same thing they would mean if RHO's pass showed 11 points or less. But that doesn't mean I want to play the same methods as RHO. In fact, it seems like my best defense would involve bidding frequently with distributional hands regardless of their overall values (trying to get into what's more likely to be a competitive auction) and passing with balanced hands (even if strong) planning to try to defend doubled later. This is very different from the typical "forcing pass" method where good hands pass and weaker hands bid.

 

Anyways, I also don't see how this discussion of "dominant systems" has much to do with alerting policy.

Let me try to clarify things and reduce some confusion.

A Forcing Pass shows any hand with 12-13+ HCP that other systems would Open.

 

The necessary corollary of FPs is "fertilizer bids" or "ferts". Colorfully named to describe the fact that you are bidding on what most other systems would consider garbage AKA fertilizer.

 

Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show anything else about the hand.

 

Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.

 

Now here's why this system is called "Dominant".

The whole point of the FP is to reserve the maximum amount of space for constructive bidding. The point of the ferts is to rob Us of the 1 level when They don't have the values to open.

 

Guess what the best defense is to a FP? Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

 

Guess what the best defense is to a fert? A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

 

Gosh, our defense looks like Their system. We are forced to play Their system in order to restore equity. We can't play our system or some variation of our systems. Our system has been "pwned" by Theirs. Hence the term "Dominant".

[cherdano]

Guess what the best defense is to a FP? Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

 

Guess what the best defense is to a fert? A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

ROTFL. You know this how, exactly?

[foo]

Guess what the best defense is to a FP?  Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

 

Guess what the best defense is to a fert?  A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

ROTFL. You know this how, exactly?

1= I know expert level players who have actually played FP systems enough to "grok" them.

 

2= I know experts who compete at the Interzonal level or higher that have had to create successful defenses vs FP systems.

 

...and I listened respectfully and asked lot's of respectful questions.

 

I've also tried playing the d@mn things a few times in clubs where the owner was free thinking enough to allow it. However, I do not consider myself experienced enough with FP systems on a personal level to claim any serious level of personal competence with them. Let alone "groking" them.

[hrothgar]

Guess what the best defense is to a FP?  Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

 

Guess what the best defense is to a fert?  A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

ROTFL. You know this how, exactly?

1= I know expert level players who have actually played FP systems enough to "grok" them.

 

2= I know experts who compete at the Interzonal level or higher that have had to create successful defenses vs FP systems.

 

...and I listened respectfully and asked lot's of respectful questions.

Pray tell, who were these internationalists? (If you don't think that they would want their names associated with this clap trap, I understand)

 

The recommended defense against the forcing pass opening sounds reasonable. Lots of people prefer to play a "random" 1♠ overcall versus a strong club opening. Describing this as a "fert" is more nomenclature than anything else.

 

The suggested defense against the a forcing pass "fert" is ridiculous. The primary purpose of the fert is to enable the strong pass, however, its also a powerful preemptive tool. By definition, a well designed forcing pass system pushes the "fert" bid to the limits. For example, back when Marston was playing a forcing pass system, he used a 2♣ fert NV and a 1♠ fert when vulnerable. (I suspect that Paul might have gone a bit overboard, but still, this is a useful illustration regarding the amount of bidding space consumed by a fert.)

 

Lets suppose that you want to defend against a 2♣ fert with your own forcing pass. In turn, this requires that you adopt your own version of the fert. (If your pass is promising values, then you need some bid to handle all the weak hands). Here's the problem... The opening side has already used up a lot of bidding space. You're own fert is going to leave you very exposed. Moreover, the opening side has already had the chance to exchange lots of information. Opener's has already limited his hand enormously via the initial fert, so the preemptive value of your bid is sharply diminished.

 

Simply put:

 

1. The cost of your fert is higher than their's

2. The benefits from your fert are lower than their's

 

If you're fert is theoretically sound, then their fert wasn't opened at a high enough level. Equally significant, if they are playing a well designed system, you (probably) don't want to use a fert over theirs...

[MarceldB]

Foo wrote:

>Let me try to clarify things and reduce some confusion.

>A Forcing Pass shows any hand with 12-13+ HCP that other systems would Open.

 

>The necessary corollary of FPs is "fertilizer bids" or "ferts". Colorfully named to >describe the fact that you are bidding on what most other systems would consider >garbage AKA fertilizer.

 

>Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show >anything else about the hand.

 

>Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 >HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.

 

 

Sorry to say but you do not have any (historical) background regarding a WOS (weak opening system; FP is a wrong name) with Pass=13+

 

The Pass with 13+ was not the purpose of such a system. The 8-12 (45% of the hands) is the cornerstone. With priority to describe/handle those hands in a very good way. Reason why all the bids from the 1-level and upwards are used for that purpose.

The logical step was to use the cheapest bid(s) 1♣/1♦ for the 13+ and Pass for the 0-7

 

But by not creating a paradox between 8-12 with less chance for game+ (20/20 diviation) but good handling possibilities and the 13+ with more chance for game+, but less bidding space for and optimal handling, the Pass=13+ with the most amount of bidding space possible was born, put up the disadvantage that the Pass-bid is vulnerable for interference because no shape/suit/pointrange is known.

The 0-7 then as a Fert and originally the 1♦ bid, which creates the best possible way to design a symmetrical treatment enabling you to handle the same sets of openings in both hands regardless the pointrange.

Lateron higher level Ferts were used, but the zone's 0-7, 8-12, 13+ normally maintained or slightly altered.

[pbleighton]

Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show anything else about the hand.

 

Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.

 

This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12.

 

No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are.

I play Precision

 

Not having had the pleasure to play against these systems, I would adopt...

 

Over Pass, 1♣ is the precision club, 1D/1H/1S/2C extend to 8-15 from 11-15, 1NT stays 12-15, 2D and higher keep their current meaning.

 

Over a 1♠ fert, for example...let's see, 1NT is natural, 2♣ retains its meaning as a club suit, 2♥ and 2♠ now have the meaning of 1♥ and 1♠. I can overcall 1NT with 4-4-1-4, so I think I can have 2♦ actually show diamonds, and throw the 2♦ openings in with 2 of a major and 1NT. That leaves the X for 1 club openers. If I was really clever, though, I'd use 1NT for 16+ any distribution and X for 12-15 balanced.

 

I'm sure this isn't the best system, but it seems workable to me.

 

It is a "dominant" system in that I'd have to change my system to mesh, but I don't know that I can't simply use something very close to my natural system to defend against it.

[foo]

Sorry to say but you do not have any (historical) background regarding a WOS (weak opening system; FP is a wrong name) with Pass= 13+

 

<excellent summary of HUMs and how HUMs can be converted into Forcing minor systems snipped>

 

Later on higher level Ferts were used, but the zone's 0-7, 8-12, 13+ normally maintained or slightly altered.

Most players I know call the these Forcing Pass systems. Presumably for the same reasons that we call Forcing Club systems by that name.

 

In the 1980's for a brief time I would occasionally hear the term "Strong Pass" when referring to these systems, but it died out as nomenclature.

 

Of course, one can also call them by their WBF legal term: HUMs; but that is considerably less precise as well as possibly being a pejorative term in the eyes of FP system advocates.

 

From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold.

1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands.

Obviously pass preserves the most space.

 

As you rightly note, the FP has the same weaknesses, only more so, as the Forcing 1C. While it is theoretically true that you've got lot's of room for game and slam exploration, competent opponents are going to do everything they can to destroy it.

 

2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, particularly the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones.

 

 

Some good articles on 1S being used as a fert and other treatments often found in FP systems, one can read stuff by Jeff Rubens in the April, May, and June 1986 _Bridge World_.

[foo]

Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show anything else about the hand.

 

Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.

 

This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12.

 

No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are.

 

Peter

My bad for using an oversimplified example by not explicitly discussing the 8-12 hand types. I ignored them because they aren't the problem. They are both descriptive and limited. The problem is the FP and the fert.

 

I should have been more precise. My apologies.

 

 

My main point was and is that the best defense vs a FP is a fert and the best defense to a fert is a FP. Once you've gone that far, adopting the 8-12 bids yourself is a minor extension.

 

...and I !don't! think FP systems are easy to defend against. OTC, it's the fact that they are hard to defend against and that the best defenses require one to adopt The Enemy's methods to do so that make them something that requires the most stringent regulation.

[hrothgar]

Peter wrote

 

>>This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and

>>all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12.

 

>>No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems >>actually are.

 

And Foo replied

 

>Peter

>My bad for using an oversimplified example by not explicitly discussing the 8-12 >hand types. I ignored them because they aren't the problem. They are both >descriptive and limited. The problem is the FP and the fert.

>

>I should have been more precise. My apologies.

 

 

>My main point was and is that the best defense vs a FP is a fert

>and the best defense to a fert is a FP. Once you've gone that far,

>adopting the 8-12 bids yourself is a minor extension.

 

>...and I !don't! think FP systems are easy to defend against. OTC, it's the fact

>that they are hard to defend against and that the best defenses require one to

>adopt The Enemy's methods to do so that make them something that requires the

>most stringent regulation.

 

Actually, I think that its very interesting that you frame your position in this way...

 

I don't know a single credible source who believes that a Strong Pass opening is difficult to defend against.

 

I've seen some people claim that its difficult to develop adequate defenses against high level ferts. Personally, I don't agree, but that neither here nor there.

 

Nearly everyone agrees that the problem in countering Weak Opening Systems is devising effective defensive to the constructive 8 - 12 HCP systemic opening. These difficulties were compounded by the fact that different families of WoS used radically different opening structures. For example,

 

Playing Regres 1♥ = 8 - 12 HCP, 3-4 Hearts, at most 5 cards in a minor, no shortness

 

Playing No Name 1♥ = 8 - 12 HCP, either (0-2) or 6+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades

 

Playing Delta, 1♥ = 8 - 12 HCP Heart shortness of Club shortness with (long hearts or long Spades)

 

You (obviously) have some strong opinions. Its a pity you don't have any real experience with the subject matter.

 

BTW, I'd be willing to be that some of your assertions about defending against Strong Pass systems is based on a simple misunderstanding. When people talk about using a Strong Pass as a "defense" against a Weak Opening System, they aren't talking about using a Fert over the Opponent's Fert. They are saying that you should adopt a Strong Pass system as your own Opening structure and thereby preempt the opponent's ability to use their own Weak Opening System (unless they are dealer)

[foo]

My main point was and is that the best defense vs a FP is a fert and the best defense to a fert is a FP. Once you've gone that far, adopting the 8-12 bids yourself is a minor extension.

For Richard, who seems not to realize what I've said.

 

As for the 8-12 HCP openings being tough to defend against, no more so than 1M openings in Precision.

 

The fact that they are effective has nothing to do with equity issues.

 

...and this thread is just about equity issues.

 

The FP and Ferts cause equity issues. Descriptive 8-12 HCP openings do not.

[MarceldB]

There are mixed systems too like

Pass= 0-7 or 17+ any shape

Forcing in your opinion Foo?, thus a FP system ?

well it is not, with f.e. a flat 13 pointer you can pass as well, (2,3% chance for a 17+).

opponent with their handling will help you too by the way.

Reason why - based on the 8-12 openings - such systems are generally called WOS.

And then a further precision of the Pass-bid.

 

>From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold.

 

>1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands.

>2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, particularly >the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones.

 

I have explained you how and why they came to the Pass=13+ (as a necessary evil with all the disadvantages, but in endeffect workable and it's own advantages regarding systemdesign - don't forget 13+= 25%).

 

When Slawinski, the founder of WOS (for the sake of good order in historical view: Frederick E. Ebeling's system from 1958 is the first one using weak openings on the 1-level, with a Pass as 13-17, but he can't be compared with Slawinski's real theoretical views) writes:

 

"The weak openings postulate calls for a change of the orthodox meaning of pass"

 

you can have your POV, but please stick to the history and the real facts.

[foo]

There are mixed systems too like

Pass= 0-7 or 17+ any shape

Forcing in your opinion Foo?, thus a FP system ?

well it is not,  with f.e. a flat 13 pointer you can pass as well, (2,3% chance for a 17+).

opponent with their handling will help you too by the way.

Reason why - based on the 8-12 openings - such systems are generally called WOS.

And then a further precision of the Pass-bid.

 

>From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold.

 

>1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands.

>2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, >particularly the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones.

 

I have explained you how and why they came to the Pass=13+ (as a necessary evil with all the disadvantages, but in endeffect workable and it's own advantages regarding systemdesign - don't forget 13+= 25%).

 

When Slawinski, the founder of WOS (for the sake of good order in historical view: Frederick E. Ebeling's system from 1958 is the first one using weak openings on the 1-level, with a Pass as 13-17, but he can't be compared with Slawinski's real theoretical views) writes:

 

"The weak openings postulate calls for a change of the orthodox meaning of pass"

 

you can have your POV, but please stick to the history and the real facts.

Systems with "multi-way" passes are not FP systems since by definition pass is not forcing ;)

 

These systems actually deserve the label "Weak Opening System".

 

The use of "Forcing Pass System" to describe actual FP systems seems to be common; and is certainly not my idea. I'm simply "part of the herd" and using what seems to be standard nomenclature in that regard.

How the transition in common usage from WOS to FPS came to be for FPS's is something I am not qualified to speak to.

 

...and I've never contradicted nor argued in opposition to the historical facts. In fact, I've complimented you on knowing them and presenting so well.

 

The bottom line is that using pass as a strong bid has the same advantages and disadvantages as using 1C as a strong bid; only more so.

 

...and if FP systems are hard to defend against, systems with more nebulous shape or value definitions for the calls are even more difficult to defend against. Such WOS definitely deserve the label "Dominant".