HUM and BSC - are they worth it?

[nige1]

Most players are in-between. They occasionally tinker with their conventional weapons but tend to feel safer with legal protection from the unfamiliar. Few of them will be satisfied with any given regulatory compromise.

I don't think this is true. Maybe I have not been talking to the right people, but it seems to me that the English system regulations have progressed to a point where people are largely satisfied. Looking back a few years, there used to be widespread dissatisfaction with a number of issues, for example:

- not being allowed to play a non-penalty double of 1NT;

- not being allowed to open light systemically in third seat;

- not being allowed to make a strong opening on less than 16 HCP, regardless of how good the playing strength was.

These have now been dealt with, and I don't see anything else taking their place as major issues.

Of the EBU players I meet, few have read the Orange book. Of those that have done so, many are unhappy.

 

Most players either haven't read or don't understand systems regulations. Hence some fail to comply with them. Infractions are rarely detected, hardly ever reported, and almost never penalised. Hence, players who comply with the regulations suffer a relative handicap that is occasionally decisive. Take 2 of David_C's EBU examples ...

• Light 1-opener restrictions are little understood and widely ignored. For instance, you may not agree to open rule of 17 (or weaker) hands in 3rd (or any other) seat.
  
• Some popular systems are effectively banned. Thus, you may not open a Moscito 1♣ with 15 HCP (unless you have 8 certain playing tricks or your hand is rule of 25 or better).
  

This kind of thing may also be a problem at International level. IMO the solution is to simplify the rules, drastically.

[hotShot]

We don't open below opening strength without shape, in forcing pass systems you are forced to open such hands.

So opening strength is overrated or forcing pass systems are not as superior as some think.

The former: Most hands are in the 7-12 HCP range, so you open more hands, when you adopt a forcing-pass system. A relatively safe low-level exchange of useful information helps the the partnership whether you end up declaring or defending. Also, you consume opponents' bidding space, winning more partscore battles.

Well the information is also available, if the declarer is on the other side. This declarer is in a better informed than those in his seat at the other tables, that have no information on opps cards.

 

About 65% of the deals the dealer holds up to 12 HCP. If you are forced to open all of them, you will notice that about 1/3 of them is 0-6 HCP. 44% is 0-7 HCP.

 

So a little less than half of the time the FP-player opens, the average strength of our side 23,2 HCP (avg on the 0-7 HCP range). This is usually not enough to make game, but enough to benefit from your side going down with dbl.

 

The point is that too few people play FP-systems, so even fewer are optimizing defenses. So there are no well established defenses available that were tested by hundreds of pairs.

 

FP-systems like any other system have there upsides and downsides. Only if a system is played by a sufficient number of pairs an base of defenses will evolve and after some more time, we could see if there is a real benefit to the system.

 

Banning a system or convention just creates a myth of superiority.

[david_c]

• Light 1-opener restrictions are little understood and widely ignored. For instance, you may not agree to open rule of 17 (or weaker) hands in 3rd (or any other) seat.
  

That is incorrect. I suppose it proves your point about the regulations being little understood. :rolleyes:

• Some popular systems are effectively banned. Thus, you may not open a MOSCITO 1♣ with 15 HCP (unless you have 8 certain playing tricks or your hand is rule of 25 or better).
  

I would agree that this is poor - IMO it should be allowed at L4; but there isn't a mass of people asking for this to be changed, in the way that there was for various things three or four years ago. Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

[Rossoneri]

I must state that personally I am in favour of less restrictions on choice of bidding systems.

 

Wayne, I did not say that most players are now, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I am trying to say that blaming the regulators who have to serve the majority and protect the rights of the minority when the interests of these 2 groups are mutually exclusive can hardly be right.

 

Claus may have a very good point regarding the current state of restrictions, but launching personal attacks on Paul and then Frances and the regulators can hardly help other than earning 2 (so far) angry replies.

 

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

[helene_t]

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

 

If many players are lazy then the regulators have an obligation to work for the interests of the lazy players.

[nige1]

Light 1-opener restrictions are little understood and widely ignored. For instance, you may not agree to open rule of 17 (or weaker) hands in 3rd (or any other) seat.

That is incorrect. I suppose it proves your point about the regulations being little understood.  :unsure:

The regulations are prolix and complex so I'm afraid that David_C may be right about this. But please would he explain how. IMO these are all the Sections in the EBU Orange book that could possibly be relevant ...

One of a Suit Opening Bids

Allowed at Levels 2, 3 and 4

11 C 1  Minimum opening bid strength

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 19.

Allowed at Levels 3 and 4

Minimum opening bid strength in first and second seat

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 18.

Allowed at Levels 3 and 4

Minimum opening bid strength in third and fourth seat

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP.

11 C10 relates to HCP. It does not explicitly relax any of the earlier rule-of-18/19 restrictions.

[nige1]

Well the information is also available, if the declarer is on the other side. This declarer is in a better informed than those in his seat at the other tables, that have no information on opps cards.

Victor Mollo wrote that if you offer a player the option of the whole table playing double-dummy, then a defender should accept but declarer should refuse.

 

He was talking about defensive signalling but, IMO, he is right. And his point also applies to bidding. In general, any such information is more useful to defenders than declarer,

[Cascade]

Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

Might not you be misinterpreting apathy for satisfaction.

 

In my face to face interactions with players I have met a large number of players for whom the system restrictions make little difference to the way they play the game and consequently make little or no comment on them, a significant minority who complain about the severity of the system restrictions and virtually no one who strongly advocates that the current system restrictions are optimal for the game.

 

This notwithstanding that there are those online who advocate for the current severe restrictions on certain types of methods.

[Finch]

Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

Might not you be misinterpreting apathy for satisfaction.

 

In my face to face interactions with players I have met a large number of players for whom the system restrictions make little difference to the way they play the game and consequently make little or no comment on them, a significant minority who complain about the severity of the system restrictions and virtually no one who strongly advocates that the current system restrictions are optimal for the game.

 

This notwithstanding that there are those online who advocate for the current severe restrictions on certain types of methods.

This is all quite likely true.

 

But as there is no agreement on what system restrictions would be optimal for the game, that doesn't help.

 

Even on this forum, there is no agreement on what changes to restrictions would improve the game. Yes, I know that some posters are absolutely certain they know what such changes ought to be, but while they may be right, they have no proof that they are right and there is certainly no general agreement.

[david_c]

Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

Might not you be misinterpreting apathy for satisfaction.

There may be many people who say they don't care, but in my view this is testament to the fact that there is nothing in the regulations which annoys them. If there were serious problems with the regulations then these people might not be so apathetic. So I think it is fair to count them as "satisfied customers".

[Finch]

But else I completely agree with Roland(Codo) - the problem is lazy bridge players. That kind of lazyness has now in fact removed the intellectual part from the game. What is left is the competition in mechanical skills.

That is complete rubbish. But perhaps it's true for you, because certainly you never contribute to any of the play or defence threads on the forum.

 

Even basic bidding can be interesting. Take one of my "hearts" threads, where you can virtually write down partner's hand thanks to information from the auction. It's still a difficult exercise to work out what the best contract is.

 

In fact, take away the bidding completely. Play a version of minibridge, where the side with the most high cards get to declare. Declarer gets to see dummy before selecting the final contract. That would still be a very good game. Not as good as contract bridge, but still a good game.

[csdenmark]

Even on this forum, there is no agreement on what changes to restrictions would improve the game.  Yes, I know that some posters are absolutely certain they know what such changes ought to be, but while they may be right, they have no proof that they are right and there is certainly no general agreement.

Nobody has any kind of proof for anything. The mis-management started 40 years ago - and as you certainly know - failures have no fathers.

 

Today we know that the rules we have today are completely unqualified. Any fool can write rules favouring one single group, and history has shown awful examples of how they have clamped down opposition.

 

The difficult task is the balanced approach - writing rules for a balanced approach so that all has an opportunity to be enriched from others. For writing such rules you need experts.

 

The best experts we have are the lawyers - they have the special skills needed. Unfortunately we need to realize - they have failed.

[david_c]

11 C10 relates to HCP. It does not explicitly relax any of the earlier rule-of-18/19 restrictions.

It is explicit enough for me. Maybe not for you, but I think you should be able to work it out anyway. What else could it mean? If the rule-of-18/19 restrictions still applied then there would be no difference between 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th seats; the fact that the regulation is split into two parts (11C9 and 11C10) clearly implies that there is a difference.

[Cascade]

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

 

If many players are lazy then the regulators have an obligation to work for the interests of the lazy players.

Over the past ten days or so I have watched much more than my usual share of sport on television.

 

This included:

 

Two NFL games - On Sunday night Minnesota Vikings much to my satisfaction since I had money on them came from behind to defeat the New England Patriots including a 99 yard touchdown.

 

Two All Black games completing the Grand Slam in which they defeated all four home Unions (Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England).

 

The Rugby League World cup final in which the New Zealand Kiwis upset the hot favourite Australian Kangaroos.

 

The Australian Masters Golf tournament. On Saturday Robert Allenby holed his three wood second shot into the wind on the par five seventh hole from 223m (about 244 yards) for an albatross.

 

As I write this David Beckham is causing hysteria at Auckland airport as he and the LA Galaxy football team arrive for an exhibition match against an Oceania All Stars team this coming Saturday.

 

Strangely the administrators of these games do not see the need to cater to the majority who cannot kick the ball as hard as Beckham, run as fast as Bernard Berrianor pass as accurately as Gus Frerotte, be as strong as All Black Tony Woodcock or Kiwi Manu Vatuvei or have the precision and control of Robert Allenby. They do not make rules to give those without the physical attributes or too lazy to train as hard as these athletes a chance.

 

Why then in a mind sport like bridge do the administrators have an obligation to the intellectually lazy?

[csdenmark]

But else I completely agree with Roland(Codo) - the problem is lazy bridge players. That kind of lazyness has now in fact removed the intellectual part from the game. What is left is the competition in mechanical skills.

That is complete rubbish. But perhaps it's true for you, because certainly you never contribute to any of the play or defence threads on the forum.

 

Even basic bidding can be interesting. Take one of my "hearts" threads, where you can virtually write down partner's hand thanks to information from the auction. It's still a difficult exercise to work out what the best contract is.

 

In fact, take away the bidding completely. Play a version of minibridge, where the side with the most high cards get to declare. Declarer gets to see dummy before selecting the final contract. That would still be a very good game. Not as good as contract bridge, but still a good game.

I will gladly contribute - Please set up something where it makes sense to use fx. one of those:

• Suspensor
  
• Bocchi-Duboin Club 2001
  
• Nightmare Club
  

[paulg]

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

 

If many players are lazy then the regulators have an obligation to work for the interests of the lazy players.

Over the past ten days or so I have watched much more than my usual share of sport on television.

 

This included:

 

Two NFL games - On Sunday night Minnesota Vikings much to my satisfaction since I had money on them came from behind to defeat the New England Patriots including a 99 yard touchdown.

 

Two All Black games completing the Grand Slam in which they defeated all four home Unions (Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England).

 

The Rugby League World cup final in which the New Zealand Kiwis upset the hot favourite Australian Kangaroos.

 

The Australian Masters Golf tournament. On Saturday Robert Allenby holed his three wood second shot into the wind on the par five seventh hole from 223m (about 244 yards) for an albatross.

 

As I write this David Beckham is causing hysteria at Auckland airport as he and the LA Galaxy football team arrive for an exhibition match against an Oceania All Stars team this coming Saturday.

 

Strangely the administrators of these games do not see the need to cater to the majority who cannot kick the ball as hard as Beckham, run as fast as Bernard Berrianor pass as accurately as Gus Frerotte, be as strong as All Black Tony Woodcock or Kiwi Manu Vatuvei or have the precision and control of Robert Allenby. They do not make rules to give those without the physical attributes or too lazy to train as hard as these athletes a chance.

 

Why then in a mind sport like bridge do the administrators have an obligation to the intellectually lazy?

Because they pay for that right? The are the basic funders of bridge.

 

Sport is different, it is not funded by the lesser players of the game. It is funded by the physically lazy who pay for the NFL, Premiership and David Beckham through TV rights.

 

p

[awm]

Cascade -- all these sports have rules though.

 

The rules of football (soccer) seem to be designed to help people with weak throwing arms. By disallowing me to pick up the ball with my hands and throw it into the opponents goal, they make it much more difficult for me to score. And they are helping all these people who are good kickers and bad throwers.

 

Many bridge players do not view "ability to design and memorize and defend against weird methods" as one of the core skills required for an elite player, just as being able to throw hard and accurately is not one of the core skills for a footballer. It is true that the rules of the game disadvantage people who are very good at this skill and not so good at other skills... but this is simply how the game is.

[hrothgar]

I will gladly contribute - Please set up something where it makes sense to use fx. one of those:

• Suspensor
  
• Bocchi-Duboin Club 2001
  
• Nightmare Club
  

Claus, I'm not sure you understand how these forums work:

 

I don't think that anyone is going to jump through a bunch of hoops creating new threads so that you will deign to describe the wonders of Suspensor...

 

There are a lot of threads discussing any number of topics related to bidding and/or card play. Is it too much to hope that you might some day post a relevant on topic comment?

[Cascade]

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

 

If many players are lazy then the regulators have an obligation to work for the interests of the lazy players.

Over the past ten days or so I have watched much more than my usual share of sport on television.

 

This included:

 

Two NFL games - On Sunday night Minnesota Vikings much to my satisfaction since I had money on them came from behind to defeat the New England Patriots including a 99 yard touchdown.

 

Two All Black games completing the Grand Slam in which they defeated all four home Unions (Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England).

 

The Rugby League World cup final in which the New Zealand Kiwis upset the hot favourite Australian Kangaroos.

 

The Australian Masters Golf tournament. On Saturday Robert Allenby holed his three wood second shot into the wind on the par five seventh hole from 223m (about 244 yards) for an albatross.

 

As I write this David Beckham is causing hysteria at Auckland airport as he and the LA Galaxy football team arrive for an exhibition match against an Oceania All Stars team this coming Saturday.

 

Strangely the administrators of these games do not see the need to cater to the majority who cannot kick the ball as hard as Beckham, run as fast as Bernard Berrianor pass as accurately as Gus Frerotte, be as strong as All Black Tony Woodcock or Kiwi Manu Vatuvei or have the precision and control of Robert Allenby. They do not make rules to give those without the physical attributes or too lazy to train as hard as these athletes a chance.

 

Why then in a mind sport like bridge do the administrators have an obligation to the intellectually lazy?

Because they pay for that right? The are the basic funders of bridge.

 

Sport is different, it is not funded by the lesser players of the game. It is funded by the physically lazy who pay for the NFL, Premiership and David Beckham through TV rights.

 

p

I am pretty sure that is not the reason.

 

Rugby has been professional for less than 20 years. When I played rugby as an amateur in an amateur competition the rules were excepting some minor tweaks essentially the same as what is now played.

[hotShot]

Strangely the administrators of these games do not see the need to cater to the majority who cannot kick the ball as hard as Beckham, run as fast as Bernard Berrianor pass as accurately as Gus Frerotte, be as strong as All Black Tony Woodcock or Kiwi Manu Vatuvei or have the precision and control of Robert Allenby. They do not make rules to give those without the physical attributes or too lazy to train as hard as these athletes a chance.

 

Why then in a mind sport like bridge do the administrators have an obligation to the intellectually lazy?

When people play soccer in private, they use false balls and wrong sized goals, they build teams that don't have 11 players, they substitute players as often as they want and usually they don't have proper markings on the ground. In short they adapt the rules as they like. Since they know that they don't perform at world class level they accept knowingly that they ignore rules to fit the game to their needs.

 

The difference is that many bridge player don't even know the rules, and are unaware that they bend them.

 

Even at soccer pros don't know all the rules ....

This weekend a pro in Greece learned that he did not know the rules good enough.

He tackled a streaker to help the security people to clear the field and was rewarded with a red card and had to leave the field. Player are not allowed to tackle on the field, not even people that are not part of the game.....

[Cascade]

When people play soccer in private, they use false balls and wrong sized goals, they build teams that don't have 11 players, they substitute players as often as they want and usually they don't have proper markings on the ground. In short they adapt the rules as they like. Since they know that they don't perform at world class level they accept knowingly that they ignore rules to fit the game to their needs.

They do that in the world championships in bridge.

[fred]

The soccer analogy is completely inappropriate IMO.

 

One of the problems with high-level bridge these days is, even with the current restrictions that are in place, the vast majority of the world's bridge players don't have a clue as to what the most of the bids mean. To these people bridge at the highest levels is already a completely different game than the game they know and love. The players are speaking a completely different language than they speak and the game makes no sense to them.

 

Most of these people have no interest in watching. As a result, most corporations have no interest in sponsoring major tournaments and high-level bridge is a largely ineffective mechanism for promoting the wonders of our game to new players.

 

This is a bad thing.

 

If the rules of bridge were changed so that "anything goes" the "vast majority" I refer to above would become "almost everyone".

 

That would be a worse thing.

 

In soccer, regardless of whether the size of the field and ball are exactly the same when average people play and when the World Cup is going on, everyone understands the game.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gerry]

 

In soccer, regardless of whether the size of the field and ball are exactly the same when average people play and when the World Cup is going on, everyone understands the game.

Yes, but people understand football skills. Average players do not understand the thought processes behind decisions at high level bridge and never will. Dumbing down bidding doesn't help; no matter how simple you make it high level bridge is a different game. People don't watch chess in their millions either for the same reason. Bridge will never be a spectator sport.

 

BTW I played forcing pass the other week at the club and nobody gave a rats arse. Rather the opposite actually.

[Cascade]

The soccer analogy is completely inappropriate IMO.

...

In soccer, regardless of whether the size of the field and ball are exactly the same when average people play and when the World Cup is going on, everyone understands the game

I disagree.

 

I have no idea of the intricacies of a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-2 or 5-3-2 formations. I didn't even know all (or any) of these existed until I did a google search. I was just aware that different formations were in use.

 

When "my" team gets a goal because my favourite player is left unmarked I care little whether this is because of a player's defensive error or that my team have exploited a weakness in the particular formation employed by the opposing team. Similarly if my team is the defending team in this situation I have no idea whether it is a player out of position or poor instructions from the manager.

 

I see the goal and I jump for joy or scream at the TV despite my ignorance of what really caused the problem.

 

This seems to me to be completely analogous to bridge where I don't understand the intricacies of the auction that got to or missed a key slam. I can still appreciate or mourn the +/- 13 IMPs that my team scored or gave away.

 

Incidentally these intricacies that I do not understand are present whether the players open a suspensor 1♠ showing 0-2 or 6+ spades followed by a relay auction or a Standard American 1S followed by Jacoby 2NT some modified responses, a frivolous 3NT slam try, some modified RKCB response and then a specialized Grand Slam try.

[fred]

Average players do not understand the thought processes behind decisions at high level bridge and never will.

Disagree.

 

IMO Most people understand logic and enjoy solving problems that involve logical deduction.

 

But IMO most people do not enjoy learning completely foreign languages, especially when they can barely speak the one language that they already know.

 

You are evidently a member of the 1% or so (no I can't prove that number) who would like to be able to play highly unusual methods regardless of the cost to the other 99%. Aside from the "good of the game" argument, frankly I find it incredible that anyone in such a small minority thinks it is right or fair that the rest of the world should be catering to them.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com