Is there a hole in this logic?

[foo]

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now.

 

1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

[helene_t]

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now.

 

1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

The answer is clear to me: we can't agree. At least I can't agree with myself, much less with anyone else. Also, I don't think you will ever agree with, say, The_hog.

 

Case closed. Over to question 2.

[foo]

Adam seems to want a consistent and logical system.  The problem is that the people writing the rules don't care about consistency.

Actually, I think that may be unfair to the vast majority of regulating officials.

IMHO, most of them try very hard to do the right thing as they see it for their membership. And they do it as unpaid volunteers.

 

The problem with any evolutionary system rather than a designed system is that there usually exist internal contradictions. Over time, in fields like Law we deal with them by having the courts decide which precedent holds more weight under certain circumstances.

 

Unfortunately, within Bridge we do not have a regulatory system with such a built-in ability to evolve or resolve conflicts.

 

Thus our only option is to live with the contradictions and/or poor process unless or until the pressure gets too great so that a new system gets put in place.

[foo]

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now.

 

1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

The answer is clear to me: we can't agree. At least I can't agree with myself, much less with anyone else. Also, I don't think you will ever agree with, say, The_hog.

 

Case closed. Over to question 2.

I'm not so pessimistic.

 

For the most part I don't think my POV and The_Hog's are that far apart.

 

The only people I'm not going to ever see eye-to-eye with are those that feel there should not be any regulations.

 

That doesn't work in any other game or sport. Therefore I see no reason to accept that Bridge can get away with no regulations.

 

Every sport or game has rules and regs about how one can play and what equipment one is allowed to use. For Bridge, IMHO bidding methods are a class of "equipment". We even commonly call them "tools".

[foo]

 

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.

That's all I said.

 

I started playing Multi around 1980, probably -81. The convention was in commom use in Norway around 1985. 2-suited preempts like Muiderberg (that name was unknown here) was also common at that time. In the early 90's I used some 2-way preempts too.

yeah, that pretty much jibs with my memories as well.

 

As I quoted above, all I claimed was that multi-suited preempts are relatively new compared to the 80+ year history of bridge.

 

For some reason, that rather mild statement has or had hrothgar quite upset.

*shrug*

 

I'd think he of all people would be glad to see evidence that bidding methods are continuing to evolve.

[Free]

Basically it comes to this imo:

If you allow everything, beginners will have a really hard time to learn the game. So you might protect the beginners with restrictions. Once they know how the game works, you give them some meta defenses and they'll do just fine. I agree that beginners can use restrictions.

On higher levels on the other hand, I really think people shouldn't be lazy and just have to be able to handle the situation, whatever opponents play. If you don't have enough time to prepare, well boo-hoo. Chess players can't use this argument either...

 

People talk about winning because your opponents aren't familiar with a new system. If some pair would have a lot of success, people they play against will start developing defenses, they'll try to know more about the system, they'll crack it open and investigate it's weaknesses,... The edge because people don't know it will just be temporary, and imo quite short.

 

What about randomizing results with bids without much meaning? Well, compare it with tennis: does anyone complain if you decide to go to the net after every first serve? You'll take a huge risk. Opponent can pass you, lob you, but he may also give you the possibility to finish it off. It's sort of randomizing, but the guy going to the net believes he'll win more than he'll lose. It's just a damn strategy, that's all.

[hrothgar]

EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library.  It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago".  Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is.  He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

 

The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable. Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

Matula's book on Polish club was translated into English and Copyrighted in 1994. My understanding is that the Polish version is a few years older.

 

I put a post out on rec.games.bridge to double check the precise age.

Thank you.

The post in question is titled "Two Suited Preempts" and can be viewed at

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...b9474fd/?hl=en#

 

The Aussies, the Brits, and the Scots all appear to have been experimenting with preemptive two suited openings back in the early 70s.

 

I'm still hoping to get something more definitive from some of the Poles.

[foo]

I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N.  I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

 

They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*.  I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids.  The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results.

 

Peter

A bit late in this discussion tnx to an entertaining discussion about 2-suited preempts. Fantunes do NOT open 2♠ on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. They open 1♠ when they have both Majors... However, the point is still valid for hands like Jxxxx-x-Kxxx-AKQ :)

Yep. I remember the 1st time I saw that on vugraph :)

 

F & N have evidently decided that the major purpose of preempts is to deal with problem hands that they do not want in their constructive bidding structure.

...and they "put their bidding where their beliefs are".

 

I consider this an innovation in preempt theory. Time will tell how well it works out in the long run.

 

(and contrary to Peter's claims, I've never taken any stance as to how well or poorly F-N preempts score. I frankly don't care because they do not seem to. How they score is not the point of why F & N are using their preempt style.)

[pbleighton]

(and contrary to Peter's claims, I've never taken any stance as to how well or poorly F-N preempts score. I frankly don't care because they do not seem to. How they score is not the point of why F & N are using their preempt style.)

 

Yes you did. You wrote:

 

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter.

 

Get it together, dude!

 

:)

 

Peter

[TimG]

F & N have evidently decided that the major purpose of preempts is to deal with problem hands that they do not want in their constructive bidding structure.

...and they "put their bidding where their beliefs are".

It seems to me that there are some terminology problems in this thread. Here "preempt" is used to mean an opening bid higher than the one-level, other places "preemptive" is used to mean a weak bid. My preference would be for preemptive to mean "taking up lots of bidding space" while weak means, well, "weak".

 

There has also been some problem with "disciplined". It can mean either "good suit quality" or it can mean "conforming to guidelines".

 

I don't think F-N opening 2S with Jxxxx x AKQx Kxx is "undisciplined", I think it conforms to their definition of a 2S opening bid. (I also think this 2S opening is preemptive, even though it is not weak.)

[foo]

(and contrary to Peter's claims, I've never taken any stance as to how well or poorly F-N preempts score. I frankly don't care because they do not seem to. How they score is not the point of why F & N are using their preempt style.)

 

Yes you did. You wrote:

 

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter.

Exactly how does that quote of mine say =anything= about how well or poorly F-N preempts score?

 

Regardless of how they score, F & N =are= paying a high price for using their preempt style. To play their system and style, they are forced to preempt on many hands systemically whether they want to or not.

 

Preempting on low ODR hands is not one's preference if your goal is to get the most out of each preempt. But that is not the purpose of F-N preempts. For F-N, preempts are a place to put hands that are deemed too dangerous to pass yet not good enough to be used as constructive openings.

 

How well or poorly they score is an irrelevancy.

[hrothgar]

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now.

 

1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

(I apologize in advance for a posting that is very specific to the ACBL)

 

For what its worth, I agree that we should strive to remove ambiguities from the regulatory system. At the same time, I help but believe that focusing on minutia like defining the expression “Destructive” is somewhat akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic. From my perspective, the ACBL's system suffers from a number of severe structural problems. I think that its crucial to address the root causes of the problem. Slapping on band aids is (largely) a waste of time and, quite frankly, a distraction from the real problems. I think that the most critical issue is that the ACBL doesn't have any kind of definitive reference materials. Other organizations like the EBU have invested considerable effort in producing documents like the Orange Book and the White book. Tournament Directors and regulators are all working from the same basic source. In contrast, the ACBL has a confusing jumble of contradictory opinions, assertions, and speculations.

 

I'd like to offer a couple data points in support of this opinion.

 

First: A few months back, AWM and I got into a disagreement regarding the definition of “conventional”. I claimed that a 2S that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is a convention opening and, therefore, not legal at the GCC level. AWM claimed that the same 2S opening is a natural bid, and, therefore, legal at the GCC level. Regardless of your opinion about the “right” answer, I would hope that folks would agree that this is a fairly simple issue. One would think that you should be able to poll a set of experienced Tournament Directors and get a fairly consistent answer. In fact, no one has a CLUE what's going on. Adam and I ended up forwarding the question to Memphis where Mike Flader and Richard Beye gave complete contradictory answers.

 

Second: Last week, for the first time in a long time, I played in a “real” ACBL event. Partner and I almost got involved in a Director call on the final hand. (I made a Break in Tempo. Partner felt that the BIT suggested cue bidding and signed off in game. We missed a good slam that happened to go down because of a bad trump break and score an undeserved top). One of the opponents ended up lecturing us that we must completely ignore the BIT and bid as if there wasn't any hesitation. This advice didn't match my understanding of the laws, so I posted the hand to David Stevenson's Bridge Talk forum to get some advice. (The thread is available at http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=2858) From my perspective, one of the most interesting datapoints that emerged from this discussion is that the ACBL publishes a booklet called “Duplicate Decisions” that advises Tds to instruct players to ignore the hesitation. Even more interesting, is the fact that this official ACBL publication has no legal standing. Moreover, the ACBL tournament directors don't agree with the recommendations contained inside Duplicate Decisions. For example, in the case of a BIT, the ACBL's senior Tds agree that players can not choose an action that was suggested by the BIT.

 

There are any number of similar examples that will back my basic point: The regulatory system is a complete shambles. No one has a clue what's going on.

 

Furthermore, I think that the entire process that the ACBL uses to approve conventions is severely flawed. In particular, I think that the ACBL needs to clarify the relationship between the Convention Charts and the Defensive Database. As I've mentioned in the past, I think that its disgraceful that the Defensive Database is being used to do an end run around the Convention Chart. Simply put, if a Convention is legal at the level of the Midchart, I think that the Conventions Committee has an obligation to approve a defense. If the Conventions Committee doesn't believe that its possible to develop a suitable defense, then the correct course is to amend the Convention Chart. In a similar vein, I find the entire concept of “approving” defenses based on the number of boards in a match to be completely ridiculous. (Please note: I think that its completely reasonable to use a restrictive set of regulations for a pairs event with short rounds and a less restrictive set of regulations for long teams matches. However, here once again I think that the correct course of action is create different Convention Charts)

 

As an aside, I don't think that the Conventions Committee should be in the business of mandating which Convention Charts should be used for which events. Ultimately, I believe that these sorts of issues should be left to the sponsoring body. For example, the Eastern Massachusetts Bridge Association (EMBA) should be granted the latitude to decided which convention chart to use in which event. Hypothetically, if EMBA decided that they wanted to use a restrictive Convention Chart that was designed with pairs matches in mind for a teams type event, I think that they should have this type of discretionary authority.

 

In short: if you want to go off tilting at windmills, I think that you need to start by addressing the “real” issues.

[helene_t]

I know nothing about ACBL-specifc stuff but this seems simple:

 

First: You're both right. Muiderberg is a natural convention.

 

Second: You're right, you can't bid what the BIT suggests if there is a LA.

[mycroft]

Case in point: The Jansma dbl. An occasional double on 4N (Blackwood or whatever) if you think you can beat it. Hoping that opps don't remember what RoPi-like answers they agreed on.

 

Well, that trick works once or twice. Then they learn.

 

Is it good sportmanship to use that kind of strategies against novices?

 

No. However, the problem is that if we "protect the novices" they never become non-novices.

 

Does it matter if a player has 14 MP or 450 the first time they see a check-their-response-scheme double or overcall of Blackwood or SAF 2C? Is it any fairer after they have played for 2 years, if they have been "protected" all that time?

 

What about the preemptive "raise" to 4NT, intending to give up no matter how many Aces opener has? Is that "good sportsmanship"? Or is that just testing a bridge skill - the ability to actually look at your own cards and see they're good enough that RHO can't be interested in slam?

 

I understand the "don't play games against the weak players, you'll win against them anyway". I really understand the "don't try to out-palooka palookas, you'll do worse". I also know that in the protective environment we have generated, there are people with 300-500 masterpoints (in the sparse West; probably the same time playing as 800-900 masterpoints in Florida, New York, or Ontario) who say they need "protection" and "some sort of program" for the new Life Masters who have to play in the open. And they're right. They need it. Why? Because they've been Protected all this time, and don't know what to do.

 

The big one is Psychic bids. We don't tell the new players they exist, and we "protect" them from psychs while they're new. All of a sudden, you look over at RHO and think "I've seen him around a lot, he's pretty good, he should be able to handle this", open a Ferdinand 1H, and the world caves in. Yeah, he's pretty good, yeah, he's got his 400 monsterpoints, but he's never seen a psychic (or a 1NT on a singleton, or a preemptive 2NT/4NT response to a weak 2, or a Precision 1M-4M auction or...) before, and believes that you're C----ing.

 

Warn 'em up front, I say. Tell 'em that this exists, but they probably won't see it for a while, because the good players expect to beat them by playing straight up. Tell 'em that when it does happen, take it as a compliment, because it means the good players think they can no longer beat them by playing straight up. Show 'em that it *usually* doesn't do anything, and *frequently* gives a very bad score; only *occasionally* does it work spectacularly well. Let 'em see it in practice.

 

Having said that, a system designed specifically to work because of loopholes in the disclosure process (systemically opening the weaker minor with a balanced hand, playing 12-14 NT Vulnerable, 15-17 NV (in a non-Announcement environment) - sure it's on the card, and you'll say if asked, but they usually don't ask or check, do they?) is not sporting.

 

Michael.

[pbleighton]

Yes you did. You wrote:

 

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter. 

 

 

Exactly how does that quote of mine say =anything= about how well or poorly F-N preempts score?

 

Regardless of how they score, F & N =are= paying a high price for using their preempt style. To play their system and style, they are forced to preempt on many hands systemically whether they want to or not.

 

Preempting on low ODR hands is not one's preference if your goal is to get the most out of each preempt. But that is not the purpose of F-N preempts. For F-N, preempts are a place to put hands that are deemed too dangerous to pass yet not good enough to be used as constructive openings.

 

How well or poorly they score is an irrelevancy.

 

This is incredible, even by the standards of your posts. It is entirely self-contradictory.

 

At first I was amused by your arrogant, ignorant, intellectually dishonest posts. However, I have become tired of them, and will no longer respond to anything you write. Feel free to have the last word.

 

:)

 

Peter

[TimG]

First: You're both right. Muiderberg is a natural convention.

I believe the opposite of "natural" is "artificial" rather than "conventional".

 

So, I agree, the call in question is both natural and conventional.

[david_c]

First: You're both right. Muiderberg is a natural convention.

I believe the opposite of "natural" is "artificial" rather than "conventional".

 

So, I agree, the call in question is both natural and conventional.

Oh we've had this discussion so many times. "Conventional" is defined in the Law book (albeit not terribly clearly), but "Natural" means different things to different people. So not everyone will agree about whether Muiderberg is natural, but there is no right answer - it just depends whose definition you are using. See:

 

blog: What does "Natural" mean?

[skjaeran]

I know nothing about ACBL-specifc stuff but this seems simple:

 

First: You're both right. Muiderberg is a natural convention.

 

Second: You're right, you can't bid what the BIT suggests if there is a LA.

First: Muiderberg is conventional. Look in the Definitions in the laws:

A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

The opening shows an unknown minor side suit, which is "a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named".

 

Second: Agree completely. And this is a point in the laws that can't be misunderstood, if you read law 16A:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

[awm]

The issue with Muiderburg wasn't really the definition of conventional, although I feel that the definition from the laws is deficient because of negative inferences. After all, every bid carries information about alternative strains through negative inference; for example an opening 1♠ that shows "four or five spades" implies a willingness to play in suits other than spades, and a 1NT opening that promises "2+ in each suit" implies a willingness to play in any suit opposite a suitable hand.

 

However, the issue has more to do with the way things are written on the convention charts. The charts specify that "unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed." This does not say conventional methods; it just says methods. A literal reading of the General Chart would imply that all 1♠ openings are disallowed because the opening bid section doesn't say anything about one-of-a-major calls. A natural weak two bid would also seem to be disallowed.

 

Obviously, this is not the case in practice, nor was it the intent of the authors of the charts. So there is some implicit exception which is not specifically stated. The question is: what falls under this exception? Does the exception legalize "natural bids" or "non-conventional bids"?

 

The general chart goes to great length to define natural just prior to the beginning of the allowed methods. A reasonable reading of this seems (to me) to indicate that natural bids are allowed and the definition given makes Muiderberg a natural bid. Others claim that this exception is only for non-conventional bids even though nothing like this is really stated or implied on the charts (which do not bother to define conventional in the definitions). This is perhaps troubling, because the following are in fact conventional:

 

(1) An SAYC 1NT response to 1♦, as this call promises 4+♣.

(2) A 1♠ opening when playing intermediate two bids and weak notrump, because this effectively promises a four-card side suit (or substantial extras) with the one-suited spade hands opening 2♠ (or 1NT if 5332).

(3) Bailey two bids (guaranteeing 2-3 cards in each unbid major and no voids).

 

All of these are frequently played in general chart events without complaint.

[foo]

Yes you did. You wrote:

 

Like all things, there's always the question as to whether the price paid is worth the gains bought. F & N have paid a high price to make their constructive auctions =much= tighter. 

 

 

Exactly how does that quote of mine say =anything= about how well or poorly F-N preempts score?

 

Regardless of how they score, F & N =are= paying a high price for using their preempt style. To play their system and style, they are forced to preempt on many hands systemically whether they want to or not.

 

Preempting on low ODR hands is not one's preference if your goal is to get the most out of each preempt. But that is not the purpose of F-N preempts. For F-N, preempts are a place to put hands that are deemed too dangerous to pass yet not good enough to be used as constructive openings.

 

How well or poorly they score is an irrelevancy.

 

This is incredible, even by the standards of your posts. It is entirely self-contradictory.

 

At first I was amused by your arrogant, ignorant, intellectually dishonest posts. However, I have become tired of them, and will no longer respond to anything you write. Feel free to have the last word.

What in the world?

 

So in your mind, any mention of a "high price" when playing a method means that the method scores badly?

 

I admit English can be a a bit unclear, but that's a semantic leap that I simply do not understand.

 

I think having to bid a hand a certain way when you might like to do so in another way, especially when you know it might be wrong from the POV of that specific hand to follow system that rigidly, is a reasonable definition of "high price".

Regardless of score obtained.

 

When system tells you what to do rather than being flexible and allowing you to use it as best suits your hand, system becomes more important than judgement.

At least in some eyes, that's definitely a "high price."

 

No insult or contradiction was stated or intended.

You, of course, may believe anything you choose to.

 

Cheers,

[akhare]

When system tells you what to do rather than being flexible and allowing you to use it as best suits your hand, system becomes more important than judgement.

At least in some eyes, that's definitely a "high price."

 

Wow -- as I see it, the only solution to this conundrum is to invent systems on the fly.

Isn't it a pity that the rules of bridge aren't "flexible" enough to allow us to convey our intention to deviate (because the hand warrants it)?

 

What a "high price" we pay for paying this game -- how dare they limit us to playing one system that clouds our judgment?

[foo]

When system tells you what to do rather than being flexible and allowing you to use it as best suits your hand, system becomes more important than judgement.

At least in some eyes, that's definitely a "high price."

 

Wow -- as I see it, the only solution to this conundrum is to invent systems on the fly.

Isn't it a pity that the rules of bridge aren't "flexible" enough to allow us to convey our intention to deviate (because the hand warrants it)?

 

What a "high price" we pay for paying this game -- how dare they limit us to playing one system that clouds our judgment?

The point was that most systems give you a great deal more flexibility than F-N allows with what hands are allowed to open at the 1level.

[Robert]

Hi foo

 

You might want to look at the record of FN. They should be on any list of modern great players.

 

Bridge World claimed that their system bids had a very positive result.

 

The Italians of decades gone by once rolled up a huge lead and said that they would finish the final playing SA methods. They still won big time. :P

 

Blue Team Club is a very tight system. The book often directed a certain bid for a great many hands. The introduction of one version takes note of this fact and suggests that you follow the book bids and note the results.

 

FN likes to play a certain style that they like. It is a winning decision by a great pair. The rest of the world had better hope and pray that they do not somehow find a 'better' system than their current FN methods.

 

Regards,

Robert

[foo]

You might want to look at the record of FN. They should be on any list of modern great players.

No one I know is disputing that. Including me.

 

F&N have made what may be a significant contribution to bidding in the long term.

 

Preempts have usually been evaluated on their own terms.

Using preempts as a place to put low ODR or otherwise flawed hands rather than having to open them constructively is a new idea.

 

It's also an idea that forces one to not only bid with hands you might like to pass, but to bid a lot with them in one go.

That's a price IMHO. A price that may very well be worth it, but a price nonetheless.

 

What is not clear is how much of F-N's efficacy is System and how much is F & N :P

[Robert]

Hi foo

 

Is that really you? We appear to agree. :P

 

Churchill Natural was published several decades(at least! maybe from the 40s?) ago. He used unlimited one bids(no forcing bid in the system) and he also used very light opening bids.

A10xxx A10xx xxx x was opened

 

If you want to play something different. Churchill Natural is the way to go.

Weak NTs, four card majors, four weak two bids and 'very light' openings.

 

He used the 'utility' NT over all four suit openings to show values that might reply to a 2NT type opening, including shapes like Qxxxxx of a major and out.

 

Single raises in all suits showed the same 8+ values. Jump raises were(shades of Goren) 'forcing.'

 

A change of suit at the one level showed 8+HCP. I learned the system several decades ago, however, I have not had a chance(partner?) to play the method.

At the very least, it would be fun.

 

Churchill held the record for many years(decades?) for having the highest winning score in American play during a major event as I recall.

 

Heavy 'weak' two bids are also nothing new. Trent two bids show a heavy weak two range pretty close to FN style. Roth Stone methods included off shape two bids that started just below the point where his 14+HCP one bids started.

 

Roth would open a 'weak' two bid and rebid to show a 6-5 hand. Many of his fellow experts would open the same hand with a one bid. Roth cut a winning path in American bridge around the 50s as I recall.

 

If FN are paying 'any price' for their methods, the rest of the world had better hope and pray that they do not find a better system.

 

The best bridge players would likely win playing any system is a comment that I often make. FN use fine play, tight defense and good biddding methods to win.

Unless the system was hopeless, they would likely do as well playing many other methods.

 

I believe that players pick different methods because they enjoy playing them.

 

foo and I really agreed, go figure. :)

 

Regards,

Robert