HUM and BSC - are they worth it?

[awm]

Adam most persons have no or only a very vague knowledge of what it is about. They dont play it - and most dont know any who plays such systems.

 

If you want to know something about persons and pass-systems I think you should take a look in this Forum in threads about such kind of systems. I haven't done so - but as I remember the threads are all very short and with only very few contributors and each time the same few ones.

I'm not trying to "learn about forcing pass systems" -- that's not what the poll is about at all.

 

I'm also not that interested in whether people who have spent a lot of time developing and playing forcing pass systems think they should be legal in top-level competition. The answer to that question is fairly obviously "yes" but also fairly obviously not relevant since this set of people is a tiny minority (even once we restrict to "serious" bridge players).

 

The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority.

 

Since the goal is for bridge to be an enjoyable, competitive game for as many people as possible I think it is unreasonable to expect rules changes which cater to the wishes of a very small minority while going against the wishes of most players.

[RichMor]

We seem to have this discussion about one time a year on these forums. What I still can't understand Fred, and what no one has been able to explain to me adequately, is why we don't have 2 tiers - one where anything goes, and say a restricted where everyone plays the same system. Wouldn't this make both sides happy? (Maybe it would make both sides unhappy  :) )

While I am all in favor of having more tiers or options if there is the demand to support them, has anyone at all requested one where everyone plays the same system? Maybe so, but I doubt it's many people.

I remember some kind of 'green card' games many years ago at a local club.

Everyone had to play the same general method, treatments, conventions.

 

Don't know if green card events still exist. Probably not.

[Free]

I remember some kind of 'green card' games many years ago at a local club.

Everyone had to play the same general method, treatments, conventions.

 

Don't know if green card events still exist. Probably not.

Sounds boring...

[csdenmark]

Adam most persons have no or only a very vague knowledge of what it is about. They dont play it - and most dont know any who plays such systems.

 

If you want to know something about persons and pass-systems I think you should take a look in this Forum in threads about such kind of systems. I haven't done so - but as I remember the threads are all very short and with only very few contributors and each time the same few ones.

I'm not trying to "learn about forcing pass systems" -- that's not what the poll is about at all.

 

I'm also not that interested in whether people who have spent a lot of time developing and playing forcing pass systems think they should be legal in top-level competition. The answer to that question is fairly obviously "yes" but also fairly obviously not relevant since this set of people is a tiny minority (even once we restrict to "serious" bridge players).

 

The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority.

 

Since the goal is for bridge to be an enjoyable, competitive game for as many people as possible I think it is unreasonable to expect rules changes which cater to the wishes of a very small minority while going against the wishes of most players.

The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority.

 

Yes certainly but none have questioned that the present rules are according to the pleasure of the majority. The discussion is not about the majority but about the minority and how the minority has been reduced to what it is today. We will probably never have an answer about 'why'. The problem started 40 years ago - and the majority is very close to reach the end - 'Endlosung'.

 

If people knew that what is called world elite today is nothing else than 2nd garde - they would certainly have something to give a second thought.

 

Then it is very important to have in mind - it is not only pass-systems which have been stephmotherly treated - it is all non-standard features. Todays players have no knowledge of the past - it is too many years since the real damage began. Persons can only have a fairly qualified view about topics they have some fair knowledge about.

 

The blind ones will never be able to see how beautiful the world really is.

[Cascade]

This suggests that the regulators are doing more or less what the majority of people want in this respect. Of course, the numbers might change as more poll results come in.

This sort of poll is necessarily biased.

 

The numbers might also change if the status quo was different. For example if the current regulations were to allow Forcing Pass in pairs events then many more might be happy with that.

 

If these highly unusual bids were more usual then players might not see the need for change.

 

It is natural for players to not want others to do what they have not experienced.

 

My understanding is that Ferts and Forcing Pass were once allowed in pairs events in New Zealand - in fact I am told that a pair won the New Zealand Pairs playing Ferts.

 

I have never ever heard of any of anyone who played in that environment claiming that it was unfair or unreasonable.

 

Given how quickly the masses have adapted to brown sticker methods and the like in environments where they have been allowed in pairs events my feeling is that the spin that these methods are difficult to deal with would evaporate within a few months of them being allowed in practice.

[helene_t]

Just had a chat about this thread with a beginner (she is a good whist player but has only played some 100 boards of bridge in total. She has learned a lot from watching vugraph and BIL sessions though).

 

There is a long thread on bbf about system restrictions, for example that you can't play an opening pass showing 14+ points. Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

 

I rather think the game is made unpopular by the number of restrictions.

 

Would you enjoy playing in a tourney where everything is allowed, for example a 2♣ opening that shows 0-7 points, any shape?

 

I don't pay attention to opps bidding because I don't understand it anyway so that isn't really an issue.

 

Is it fun to watch the auctions or do you come for watching the play, mainly?

 

The auctions are great fun to watch if they get explained, such as on vugraph.

[csdenmark]

Just had a chat about this thread with a beginner (she is a good whist player but has only played some 100 boards of bridge in total. She has learned a lot from watching vugraph and BIL sessions though).

 

There is a long thread on bbf about system restrictions, for example that you can't play an opening pass showing 14+ points. Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

 

I rather think the game is made unpopular by the number of restrictions.

 

Would you enjoy playing in a tourney where everything is allowed, for example a 2♣ opening that shows 0-7 points, any shape?

 

I don't pay attention to opps bidding because I don't understand it anyway so that isn't really an issue.

 

Is it fun to watch the auctions or do you come for watching the play, mainly?

 

The auctions are great fun to watch if they get explained, such as on vugraph.

Helene your player is not relevant for this kind of bridge discussed. Those relevant are something like those with solid knowledge of standard. This means it is the persons competing from regional/sectional up to world elite.

 

Those below that level ought not to be bothered with pass-systems and canape'-systems. Both of those are based on quite different philosophies. Especially for pass-systems, where you in fact has no real option to play your own system, you need very good skills.

 

Club-systems are different and will be OK because it is good the acquire some experience with limit-bidding features. Rest is fairly natural.

[csdenmark]

Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway.

 

I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key.

 

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway.

 

Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences.

[jdonn]

Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway.

 

I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key.

 

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway.

 

Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences.

You sure love to complain. What are you doing to actually improve the world?

[csdenmark]

What are you doing to actually improve the world?

My options are of course very limited but I have tried to do what I think I am able to for encouraging persons interested. http://www.bridgefiles.net

 

More can be done of course - and I know that Fred knows that I, and presumably others too, will be ready for cooperation if such can be helpful.

[Finch]

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx.

I think there's a slight English-as-second-language problem. What does this sentence actually mean?

 

(the only meaning for 'fx' that I know is foreign exchange, but I don't think that's what you intend)

[helene_t]

fx means for example.

[Echognome]

Of course I would think that fx means "effects" as in "special effects" in movies. At least that is how I've seen it used.

 

fx as for example is weird, when we already have the abbreviation "e.g."

[gwnn]

I think it means forcing X (doubles).

[Finch]

fx means for example.

if it means "for example" the sentence still makes no sense at all.

 

cue JLOL...

[nige1]

Just had a chat about this thread with a beginner (she is a good whist player but has only played some 100 boards of bridge in total. She has learned a lot from watching vugraph and BIL sessions though).

 

There is a long thread on bbf about system restrictions, for example that you can't play an opening pass showing 14+ points. Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

 

I rather think the game is made unpopular by the number of restrictions.

 

Would you enjoy playing in a tourney where everything is allowed, for example a 2♣ opening that shows 0-7 points, any shape?

 

I don't pay attention to opps bidding because I don't understand it anyway so that isn't really an issue.

 

Is it fun to watch the auctions or do you come for watching the play, mainly?

 

The auctions are great fun to watch if they get explained, such as on vugraph.

I've taught Bridge for many years and conversed with other teachers. We share Helene's experience. Most students are desperate to learn new systems and conventions, even before they have any real clue about the play.

 

Ex-pupils who have given up bridge after trying out proper club-tournaments, complain not about their opponents methods but about their rudeness.

 

When asked to elucidate, it almost always turns out that they've been involved in an acrimonious dispute with more experienced opponents over an adverse ruling based on sophisticated subjective laws and regulations that they find incomprehensible.

 

I gather that such players would appreciate fewer simpler clearer rules that they had some chance of understanding; and would be harder for secretary-birds to exploit. And that preference probably also extends to system regulations.

[csdenmark]

fx means for example.

if it means "for example" the sentence still makes no sense at all.

 

cue JLOL...

If you still have problems to understand - but interested to do so please mail me and I will try to explain using other words. csdenmark@gmail.com

[shevek]

Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway.

 

I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key.

 

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway.

 

Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences.

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

[csdenmark]

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

 

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

 

I am all in favour of some disciplinary fees for BBO services.

[paulg]

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

 

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

Claus is right, doubling is not enough. I think we should triple the rate.

[jdonn]

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

 

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

Claus is right, doubling is not enough. I think we should triple the rate.

That is outrageous during these difficult economic times. From now on when I commentate I will accept half my normal pay rate. I hope the other commentators will make a similar sacrifice for the good of bridge.

[mikeh]

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

 

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

Claus is right, doubling is not enough. I think we should triple the rate.

That is outrageous during these difficult economic times. From now on when I commentate I will accept half my normal pay rate. I hope the other commentators will make a similar sacrifice for the good of bridge.

I stopped doing commentary because I was having trouble making ends meet at the existing rate, and Roland turned down my very polite request for a cost-of-living increase of 2.2%... now you want us to take a cut in pay???

 

Next, you'll want us to stop making analytical errors! or bad jokes!

 

But, if you are going to insist on cutting your pay, maybe Roland can use the savings to pay me my back-pay.

[gerry]

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.

I learnt to play bridge when it was 'anything goes'. It is not surprising that, to me, that is what bridge is.

 

About six years ago at a provincial club in NZ we had a pair visiting from the USA. We bid 1nt-2D alerted and explained as a transfer. Our guests became very angry, we were informed that we only played this to "confuse the opponents", and the director was called. She was completely at a loss to understand the problem, being unaware that other parts of the world played bridge differently than we.

 

Anyway I guess my point is that this "cost" you mention to this mythical 99% is in a sense self inflicted. Also it highlights the obvious point that what is "highly unusual" is by definition relative.

 

Where I learnt many pairs experimented, we did not regard the laws/regulations of bridge as "catering" to us, they just were. The game has changed, that is not my fault, and it is not unreasonable that some of us should look back fondly to the good old days when pairs like those I described above had not been brainwashed into believing that their way of playing bridge was the only right one.

[mikestar]

<snip>

About six years ago at a provincial club in NZ we had a pair visiting from the USA. We bid 1nt-2D alerted and explained as a transfer. Our guests became very angry, we were informed that we only played this to "confuse the opponents", and the director was called. She was completely at a loss to understand the problem, being unaware that other parts of the world played bridge differently than we.

</snip>

This US pair was running a scam. Six years ago (and for that matter at least 15-20 years ago) Jacoby transfers were standard practice among good club players all over North America and virtually everyone who didn't play them had encountered them frequently.

 

Just prior to the change in the ACBL alert procedure which initiated announcements of transfers and other items, a revision was seriously considered that would require an alert of 2♦ and 2♥ if they weren't transfers. (Ultimately defeated as it seemed too weird to many players to alert 2♦/2♥ natural.)

 

So don't be too hard on your director, America doesn't play differently than NZ on this point. Some Americans unfortunately validate the "ugly American" stereotype--I say this as natural born US citizen, lest any of my countrymen think they are being libeled by "some foreigner".

[H_KARLUK]

"A strong-pass partnership will always open the bidding when playing first position, or when second position after an opposing natural pass. Thus, partnerships playing against a strong pass system will be on defense much more often than normal, and must have highly developed defensive methods for handling situations where the partnership possesses game strength or more.

The strong pass is mostly limited to world team competitions, special invitation tournaments and friendly games."

 

I have no idea why there's not a championship "only strong/forcing pass sys allowed" or "unusual vs highly unusual systems allowed events championships".

 

As an old swimmer I think it can be categorized similar for Bridge game. My bro is an old wrestler, they also had categories and weights. Many forms of wrestling, but wld be unfair a challenge between light and heavyweight contestants.

 

We are all bridge players. Seems some of us prefer natural, others prefer unusual, others prefer highly unusual. So th best way to avoid clash is giving competitions in each category. Later on each category winners may compete with another category champions or not.

 

It all depends if it's necessary. Similar organisations already working. Open, Woman, Seniors, Juniors, Schools, IMP, MPs, Ind., Teams. Only bidding sys of contestants not divided in to events.