Forcing Pass Systems

[Cascade]

My definition of a destructive method would be a method with no constructive element at all. For example, of course simple things like preempts and weak notrumps have destructive elements to them in that they hamper the opponents' auction, and that might even be their main benefit. But they also have a constructive element. When I open 2♠ I am not only hoping, but reasonably expecting that I can make enough tricks with spades as trumps to either make my contract, or go down less than what the opponents can make. Of course you may have the same hope when you open with a fert of 1♠ for example, but your hand gives you no reason to expect it. There is simply no constructive element to a fert at all (and no, telling partner I have less than some minimum number of high cards is not constructive, merely informative) so I would consider it a destructive method.

 

Where the line is to be drawn (such as opening 2♠ with Jxxxx) I won't even pretend I could either know or figure out. I am happy enough to let a line be arbitrarily drawn, perhaps by the C&C committee.

But aren't two-suited pre-empts like 2♣ 4+ 4+ Both majors deemed destructive.

 

Its fine if a committee draws the line but don't we need to know in advance where the line is drawn.

[hotShot]

If I would overbid a Precision 1♣ with every hand with 2♠ ignoring my shape and strength. I would consider that destructive.

But I don't know why there should be a rule against it, because I would pay with terribly bad scores most of the time. And I doubt that my partner would wish to continue the partnership.

 

Now let us assume we would allow a system where pass is 13+, 1♦,1♥ and 1♠ show 4+ cards in the suit and 8-12 HCP, while the 1♣ bid could be a FERT or 8-12 with 3334 shape (no 4card suit but ♣). That is hardly more complicated that polish club. 1♣ is close enough to pass not to cause much disturbance and since players are familiar with 1♣ opening that don't show clubs or have other meanings it's not to hard to get used to it.

I would not think that this system contains destructive bids.

[jdonn]

My definition of a destructive method would be a method with no constructive element at all. For example, of course simple things like preempts and weak notrumps have destructive elements to them in that they hamper the opponents' auction, and that might even be their main benefit. But they also have a constructive element. When I open 2♠ I am not only hoping, but reasonably expecting that I can make enough tricks with spades as trumps to either make my contract, or go down less than what the opponents can make. Of course you may have the same hope when you open with a fert of 1♠ for example, but your hand gives you no reason to expect it. There is simply no constructive element to a fert at all (and no, telling partner I have less than some minimum number of high cards is not constructive, merely informative) so I would consider it a destructive method.

 

Where the line is to be drawn (such as opening 2♠ with Jxxxx) I won't even pretend I could either know or figure out. I am happy enough to let a line be arbitrarily drawn, perhaps by the C&C committee.

But aren't two-suited pre-empts like 2♣ 4+ 4+ Both majors deemed destructive.

 

Its fine if a committee draws the line but don't we need to know in advance where the line is drawn.

First sentence: I don't think I would consider that destructive, but of course that has to do with my opinion of where the line should be drawn. I think any shorter in either major and I would consider it destructive though. But I'm not even sure about that.

 

Second sentence: Completely agree.

[Cascade]

But I don't know why there should be a rule against it, because I would pay with terribly bad scores most of the time.

This is the best point against disallowing "destructive" bids.

 

There is already a scoring table. If the bid is "destructive" and without merit then you will be punished in the medium to long term by your own scores.

[csdenmark]

But aren't two-suited pre-empts like 2♣ 4+ 4+ Both majors deemed destructive.

Anyhow - both Bocchi-Duboin and Meckwell has stripped their systems for this strong feature during the process to be able to comply with regulations during last 5 years.

 

Funny what looks be the explanations now - a bid must be constructive.

 

- undisciplined preempts to be banned

- bad preempts to be banned

- preempts in any suits must be banned(normally 2♠)

- sacrifice bidding to be banned

- 3♦ Sharif to be banned

 

It will be much wiser to teach bridge players how to grow.

[jdonn]

But I don't know why there should be a rule against it, because I would pay with terribly bad scores most of the time.

This is the best point against disallowing "destructive" bids.

 

There is already a scoring table. If the bid is "destructive" and without merit then you will be punished in the medium to long term by your own scores.

As happy as I just was to agree with you, I could not possibly think of a less convincing argument than "we don't need to outlaw destructive bids because the perpetrators will get bad scores anyway."

 

Funny what looks be the explanations now - a bid must be constructive.

 

- undisciplined preempts to be banned

- bad preempts to be banned

- preempts in any suits must be banned(normally 2♠)

- sacrifice bidding to be banned

- 3♦ Sharif to be banned

 

It will be much wiser to teach bridge players how to grow.

Did you bother to read the posts to which you are replying? The discussion might be more fruitful if you would do so. It's very hard to argue with someone who makes up arguments for the other side (or who states conclusions that could only follow from made up arguments.)

 

What you said doesn't follow in any case. For example, sacrifice bidding is clearly not destructive. Your hand and the auction give you reason to expect a better score from going down in some contract than from letting the opponents play in some other contract. If you claim the same thing is true of a fert, you are either lying to me or kidding yourself.

[MFA]

Can anybody clear up for me, why the WBF rules of "no brownstickers & no HUM in pairs - but ok in some team tournaments" are not good enough for ACBL and why it's necessary to go through this ridiculous agony of specifically approving methods if the defense to it can be specifically approved in the first place?

[Cascade]

But I don't know why there should be a rule against it, because I would pay with terribly bad scores most of the time.

This is the best point against disallowing "destructive" bids.

 

There is already a scoring table. If the bid is "destructive" and without merit then you will be punished in the medium to long term by your own scores.

As happy as I just was to agree with you, I could not possibly think of a less convincing argument than "we don't need to outlaw destructive bids because the perpetrators will get bad scores anyway."

So for you there is some other aim when you play bridge than to get a better score than the opponent?

[jdonn]

As happy as I just was to agree with you, I could not possibly think of a less convincing argument than "we don't need to outlaw destructive bids because the perpetrators will get bad scores anyway."

So for you there is some other aim when you play bridge than to get a better score than the opponent?

I'm really not sure how you mean that.

 

If you are saying "any bid that is purely destructive would fade out of bridge because it would get bad scores, so there is no need to do anything about them", then of course you know that's not true since such bids can be a necessary part of a system that gets good scores in other places. (This is exactly the claim I have heard forcing pass supporters make.) Nor do I think it would be a very good reason in any case. It looks to me like saying "no need to do anything about suicide bombers, they will all be dead soon anyway."

 

If you are saying "you should have no need to ban bids that give you good scores when your opponents use them", I don't think it should be legal for my opponents to open 7NT every hand either. I hope I don't have to explain to you why that is.

 

So my answer to your question is "No, but so what?" Maybe beyond that you can clarify what you mean?

[blackshoe]

A couple of years ago, I played with a local expert for a while. Learned a lot from him. One convention he suggested, and which we had on our card (I only played with him for a year or so; it never came up) was what he called the "Reese 4NT". Apparently Terence Reese suggested it back in the 1970s. I was familiar with the bid, because it's also part of Romex as defined in Rosenkranz' books. Some time after we stopped playing, I was looking at the convention charts, and I couldn't find anything that would make this bid legal (it shows a "good" 5 level preempt in either minor, and is not, as I understand it, forcing, although it would rarely be passed). So I wrote to Rick Beye and asked him what he thought. He couldn't find anything that made it legal either.

 

Imagine my surprise when the latest convention charts came out. There's this bid (#13 on the Mid-chart) "opening 4NT to show a strong minor suit". Now, I don't know how Reese originally described it, but the way Rosenkranz describes it, and the way my partner and I (theoretically, anyway) played it, and the way I described it to Rick Beye, it shows a 9 trick hand with no more than 1 loser in any suit, and usually 9 or more trumps, and is not forcing. I suppose that fits the mid-chart description. Yet I was even more surprised to discover that the approved defense to this convention claims that 4NT is forcing. Not only that, they gave it a new name: "Minor Suit Namyats". What the heck is going on here? Is Rosenkranz recommending (and was I playing) a convention that's illegal (because nominally not forcing) under the current regs? Does the defense database define the meanings of conventions, or is that the job of the convention chart (which doesn't say a damn thing about "forcing")? Am I gonna be in trouble if I play this convention, partner opens 4NT, and I decide it looks like that's our best contract and pass? Or if we agree it's not forcing?

 

My head hurts. :P :( :(

[jikl]

I also found Arclight's insinuation that we are all basically cheats highly offensive.

 

In regard to Cascade's guess of the number of people in Australia that play against weak 55 unanchored 2 suiters; assuming that the roughly 30000 people registered play once a month (not an unfair assumption), I would guess at least half would come up against it, if not more. None of them will care, they have seen it all before.

 

The side question which is interesting, is all this molly-coddling of the masses hurting the US in international competition?

 

Sean

[JanM]

The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.

I assume you mean 02/6+. The good defense is simple and natural - you see it from your own holdings.

No, actually what is meant is something like a 2♥ opening bid that shows either length in hearts or length in spades. Or a 2♦ opening bid that shows either a weak 2♥ bid or a weak hand with 5 spades and a 5 card minor (so might have diamond length).

 

Pass-systems are very simple to defend against but they are annoying because you are prevented from playing your own offensive system.

 

Against 0-7 opening - Lambda is a very effective defense. Lambda can also be used over 1♣ opening - else the same defense as used versus weak balanced(Polish Club) is good. Especially against Regres some strategy can be needed. It is not always wise to interfere in 1st round.

 

For the rest no specific defense is needed. Natural methods will do very well

 

To suggest that "natural methods will do very well" over a bid like 1♠ showing 0-7 and any shape is laughable.

[JanM]

Can anybody clear up for me, why the WBF rules of "no brownstickers & no HUM in pairs - but ok in some team tournaments" are not good enough for ACBL and why it's necessary to go through this ridiculous agony of specifically approving methods if the defense to it can be specifically approved in the first place?

The only WBF events in which HUM or BS can be played are ones in which systems are disclosed substantially in advance (at least 2 months) and teams know which other teams they will play at least a reasonable length of time in advance, so teams can prepare defenses to HUM and BS methods. That is never true of ACBL events. Some players in ACBL events want to be able to employ methods that are defined as BS by WBF (2♠ showing a random preempt in a minor for example). They have persuaded C&C to allow that so long as there's an adequate defense available. There are other methods (multi, which of course would be BS if it hadn't become so popular before BS methods were defined), bids showing weak hands with both Majors, transfer preempts, I'm not sure what else) for which the average player in a Midchart event isn't prepared, so those also require an adequate defense that can be given to the opponents. For WBF events, players have to develop their own defenses to such methods and have to memorize the defense.

 

I don't understand the second half of your sentence.

[the hog]

Come on Jan, they are not "impossible" to defend against - by "they" I mean both ferts and the 2 way bids you describe in the above post.

 

Actually Claus does have a point..one suggested method of dealing with ferts is to use natural bids. So, over your 1S opening above, 1NT shows a balanced/semi balanced 12-15, and bids are natural. opening bids. Sure you have to start one level higher. Introducing just a tad of artificiality, X are 16+ with the next bid a negative. Most lols we played against when we were allowed ot play ferts, coped admirably with little more than this. Mind you, this is NOT the best method by any means; the better methods do introduce a measure of complexity.

 

The point that I am making however, is that it is not THAT hard as you appear to be making out. I am dead convinced that part of the problem is unfamiliarity and that won't be alleviated by banning these methods.

[Impact]

As one who has played FP on and off for 30 years:-

 

a) it is relatively easy to develop generic defences to the different ferts depending on your orientation and vul (my preferred defence depends on both opponents' vul and our vul);

 

:) in pairs events where irregular partnerships are playing, it DOES have the potential to slow the movement as there will be some discussion as a matter of course by that partnership;

 

c) LOLs are remarkably undisturbed by the course of proceedings;

 

d) the "wouldbes" who are most vocal about their own skills and the pros when playing with clients are the most put out;

 

e) the more exotic and precise the system the more likely full disclosure, including negative inferences is likely to be - partly because it HAS been thought out/discussed, partly because of a perceived need to be ethical and a flagbearer and partly because of a desire to win on merit - rather than just to win (ok this last maybe personal)!

 

Seriously the number of options and negative inferences that have to be extracted from experienced/expert players who are playing "natural" can be like drawing teeth!

 

regards

[awm]

The thing is, usually the goal in designing defenses is to get more or less back to where you "would have been" if opponents opened something normal. Obviously you will win on some hands and lose on some hands, and there will be times you end up penalizing opponents instead of bidding your normal contract. But I think it's reasonable to say that if it's possible to more or less get back to "normalcy" and the suggested defense is nowhere near doing this, then the suggested defense is not really very good.

 

The issue with fert bids is that the "normal" opening for opponents on those hands is PASS. Most pairs (especially in a top-flight event) play a lot of methods when their side opens the bidding. So to get "back to par" you more or less need to design an entire system.

 

Now it's certainly possible to design an entire system over the fert. You lose a little space, but you can recoup most of the losses (maybe even more than the losses) by penalizing the opponents on various misfit hands. However, methods like "just bid naturally" really don't cut it. You want methods that are roughly the equivalent to what you'd have over natural openings. So for example maybe 2♣ is "natural" over the fert, but then you want something like "precision 2♣" style followups (2♦ relay, etc). Maybe double shows some hand types, but then you will again need the followup sequences to show extra values etc. This is going to end up being essentially a "whole system" which is a lot of work, and even then the people using it will be "out of their comfort zone" because they are reading a brand new system out of 20-30 pages of system notes as they go.

 

On the other hand, I am curious about forcing pass systems without artificial fert bids. For example, what if your opening range is just 0-12 and all your one-level bids are natural showing four or more cards in the suit? This doesn't seem particularly hard to defend, yet I suspect it is illegal at most (all?) levels of competition.

[Cascade]

To suggest that "natural methods will do very well" over a bid like 1♠ showing 0-7 and any shape is laughable.

Natural bids work reasonably well against other pre-empts. Since over a FERT we potentially need to get any one of four suits into the picture I would be very surprised if something natural didn't work reasonably well. Especially with regard to suit overcalls.

 

If we didn't have the current draconian system restrictions then we might have a chance to know whether natural or something artificial worked better against a FERT. And also whether in fact Forcing Pass systems were able to cut it against more natural systems.

[Cascade]

The thing is, usually the goal in designing defenses is to get more or less back to where you "would have been" if opponents opened something normal. Obviously you will win on some hands and lose on some hands, and there will be times you end up penalizing opponents instead of bidding your normal contract. But I think it's reasonable to say that if it's possible to more or less get back to "normalcy" and the suggested defense is nowhere near doing this, then the suggested defense is not really very good.

 

The issue with fert bids is that the "normal" opening for opponents on those hands is PASS. Most pairs (especially in a top-flight event) play a lot of methods when their side opens the bidding. So to get "back to par" you more or less need to design an entire system.

 

Now it's certainly possible to design an entire system over the fert. You lose a little space, but you can recoup most of the losses (maybe even more than the losses) by penalizing the opponents on various misfit hands. However, methods like "just bid naturally" really don't cut it. You want methods that are roughly the equivalent to what you'd have over natural openings. So for example maybe 2♣ is "natural" over the fert, but then you want something like "precision 2♣" style followups (2♦ relay, etc). Maybe double shows some hand types, but then you will again need the followup sequences to show extra values etc. This is going to end up being essentially a "whole system" which is a lot of work, and even then the people using it will be "out of their comfort zone" because they are reading a brand new system out of 20-30 pages of system notes as they go.

 

On the other hand, I am curious about forcing pass systems without artificial fert bids. For example, what if your opening range is just 0-12 and all your one-level bids are natural showing four or more cards in the suit? This doesn't seem particularly hard to defend, yet I suspect it is illegal at most (all?) levels of competition.

The problem with your argument as I see it is that you are treating individual bids (e.g. the FERT) or calls (e.g. the Forcing Pass) on their own whereas the reality is that they are an integrated system.

 

After a FERT it is simply not possible to get back to where you were before the FERT (well maybe if the FERT was 1♣). You have lost bidding space. Get over it. You have lost the same thing that you lost if for example Marty Bergen opens 2♠ on five-small - others will be passing with that hand. He will reap his reward for that opening or pay his penalty. That is exactly the same for a FERT except that it is more constrained by the system. You can't get back to where you were before because the opponents happen to be playing a method that consumes the bidding space. This is their right. Bridge is a four-handed game and that means that if you are in second or third (or fourth) position you or opponent might choose to bid before you. You don't have a right to force them to take some action that would be more convenient for your methods. To me that notion seems unbelievably niave and somewhat arrogant.

 

On the other hand against the Forcing Pass you have gained space. Others will be opening 1♣, 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ or possibly a weak 1NT with many of these hands. This will often allow our side to overcall more economically than if the opponent's played standard methods. It will also allow our side to pre-empt more vigorously and effectively.

 

These two things go together. System design and bidding styles in general are all about swings and roundabouts and trying to etch out a small advantage. What you lose against a FERT you gain against a Forcing Pass. Make the most of it. And do your best against the mini-preemptive FERT. Perhaps the Forcing Passers will have a small advantage, perhaps they will not. I am pretty convinced that if their system and our defense are both designed (just) reasonably well then the swings and roundabouts will more or less balance out.

 

If I sit in second seat it is fundamental to the game of bridge that I have to cope with whatever first seat throws at me. There is nothing I can do about that except cope the best I can against whatever curve or fast ball is thrown.

[Cascade]

As happy as I just was to agree with you, I could not possibly think of a less convincing argument than "we don't need to outlaw destructive bids because the perpetrators will get bad scores anyway."

So for you there is some other aim when you play bridge than to get a better score than the opponent?

I'm really not sure how you mean that.

 

If you are saying "any bid that is purely destructive would fade out of bridge because it would get bad scores, so there is no need to do anything about them", then of course you know that's not true since such bids can be a necessary part of a system that gets good scores in other places. (This is exactly the claim I have heard forcing pass supporters make.) Nor do I think it would be a very good reason in any case. It looks to me like saying "no need to do anything about suicide bombers, they will all be dead soon anyway."

 

If you are saying "you should have no need to ban bids that give you good scores when your opponents use them", I don't think it should be legal for my opponents to open 7NT every hand either. I hope I don't have to explain to you why that is.

 

So my answer to your question is "No, but so what?" Maybe beyond that you can clarify what you mean?

For me fundamental to the game of bridge is that my sole aim within the laws is to get the best score that I can possibly get.

 

To that end anything that gets me a better score is definitely constructive to my aim.

 

And therefore the sole measure of constructive is the scoring table.

 

The problem is that I don't know for certain whether a certain action (certainly this applies to most marginal actions) is constructive or destructive to my aim. And even considering the higher skill level of many on committees that decide system regulations I am not sure that they will know either.

 

If something helps me get to the right contract it is constructive.

 

If something hinders the opponents getting to the right contract while not causing my side to suffer too many penalties then that is constructive too.

 

If something causes me too many penalties then that is destructive to my side.

 

But why would you care as my opponent. If it is bad for me it is good for you.

 

So long as I am not making these bids in a frivolous way not trying to get a good score then I can't see how it can be bad for the game. If they are good then you will join in with my innovation if they are bad you will beat me. You win either way.

[benlessard]

In a strong NT universe (Canada) most strong and ALL average players defend much worse against a weak/mini NT then over a 15-17 setup. Its not the first bid the problem its the follow up. If bridge was just about the first bid we wouldnt playing it.

 

After a penalty X are all other X penalty ? What if opps XX that its to play ?

 

How much stenght is showned by

 

1Nt---(X)----P (to play)------(PULL)

pass--(raise)

 

If you overcall how much strength do i need to raise, how much to bid a new suits ?

 

If you X and bid a suit later how much strength do i need to raise to bid a new suits ?

 

Is a new suit by doubler forcing after advanced made an unforced bid ?

 

What our way to find 4-4 fits after an overcall ?

 

What about balancing positions ?

etc

 

I agree that most is about bridge logic but tuning is still highly necessary.

 

A big part of an average player bidding knowledge is opening/response/rebid by opener. If you remove that by playing a dominant system (dominant as you are forcing them to play in your world of expertise) players just lose a big part of their knowledge and of their fun.

 

Im all for FP system, we are playing relay system with a lot of relay that dont show inv strenght of better that are rarely allowed in tournaments so i feel the pain. Also instead of constantly alerting ill be glad to put my system away for a while, to just relax, try to nail them, preempt when they pass and collect the imps. But most wont be so happy to use their hard-working system only in 1st seat.

 

Just that in reality tuning your bridge for FP system is a pain for everybody.

 

Anyway you have to rely to higher authority to make the decision, im sure that from time to time they are checking the pulse of the population and when they feel the time is right they will allow it in the stronger events and depending of the success theyll make a decision. But dont be too optimist , Im pretty sure that ill have the right to marry a pet mouse before seeing FP in pair events.

 

I remember the ATP where trying slightly bigger balls for tennis they where more visible and despite going the same speed you had the feeling they were slower giving you more control and everything. Ive had great time playing with those tennis balls and im sure all amateur players would have enjoyed them a lot but unfortunatly after asking to the players they decided to switch back to the old ball and the bigger balls disapear from the market. So in the end top level players often have the last word.

 

To suggest that "natural methods will do very well" over a bid like 1♠ showing 0-7 and any shape is laughable

I agree 100% with that statement.

[DrTodd13]

Cascade is right on all counts. Like The_Hog says, the problem is totally one of unfamiliarity. I think FP has done well enough in its rare appearances in international competition to merit its inclusion with other system styles as constructive/competitive systems. The winners and losers in this category of systems should be determined at the table and not by the C&C or the BoD.

 

Jan. For five years I've played a forcing pass system with a 1♥ FERT on BBO. We give the opps a very simple defense that is largely natural. When both opps read the defense and agree to it and apply it with basic bridge sense they do fine and no one has ever complained that the defense was woefully inadequate or too complicated. Thus, I have to disagree strongly with you that a naturalistic defense to a FERT is laughable. On the contrary, it is wholly adequate for most levels of bridge play. Not adequate for international competition but I didn't think that is what we were discussing here.

 

Finally, I wonder historically when the authority for SO's to regulate conventions was added to the laws of bridge? Barring that authority, the laws would seem to value effective systems in whatever variety they may come. With that authority however, the decision goes to the SO's who are not making the decision based on some notion of bridge purity but on other factors like keeping the bulk of the players happy. Player happiness is based on, among other things, the complexity of the game. We can't tell people they should prefer a very very complicated game instead of just a regular complicated game or vice versa. Therefore, all this arguing seems pretty pointless. We all have our preferences and trying to change other people's innate preferences is probably futile.

[csdenmark]

The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.

I assume you mean 02/6+. The good defense is simple and natural - you see it from your own holdings.

No, actually what is meant is something like a 2♥ opening bid that shows either length in hearts or length in spades. Or a 2♦ opening bid that shows either a weak 2♥ bid or a weak hand with 5 spades and a 5 card minor (so might have diamond length).

That kind of feature I have never seen in a pass system. Pass systems are normally better constructed than that.

 

Pass systems are focussing on what bridge is about: A game about MAJORs - whether you hold them or not. No other kind of systems really bother about the core parts of the game. I therefore think a bid like the above mentioned has been extracted from a fairly standard system.

 

It is used for Auken-von Arnim 2004 but taken off for 2007. Probably the restrictions introduced for 2005 Bermuda was the reason.

[csdenmark]

Pass-systems are very simple to defend against but they are annoying because you are prevented from playing your own offensive system.

 

Against 0-7 opening - Lambda is a very effective defense. Lambda can also be used over 1♣ opening - else the same defense as used versus weak balanced(Polish Club) is good. Especially against Regres some strategy can be needed. It is not always wise to interfere in 1st round.

 

For the rest no specific defense is needed. Natural methods will do very well

 

To suggest that "natural methods will do very well" over a bid like 1♠ showing 0-7 and any shape is laughable.

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening. The polish ones uses 1♦ and Moscito uses 1♥.

 

Natural methods will not work well over 0-7 opening. I dont understand why you have misinterpretated that. Over unknown more substance is needed. Thats why conventions like CRASH and Truscott have been invented. They will work both - even better than over the standard opening of 2♣ and in a similar way to what they were created for 1♣.

 

Please note Jan - I recommended a full range defense over 0-7 opening. Lambda is so - and a fairly simple one too.

 

I also mentioned Lambda is good over 1♣ - here I meant Regres because the feature is 'any hand with shortness'.

 

The real difference between the 2 kind of approaches is:

 

- Pass systems focusses on MAJORs

- Pass systems discloses limit strength in 1st round and suit-holding in 2nd round

 

- Standard like systems has no specific suit focus

- Standard like system discloses suit-holdings in 1st round and strength in 2nd round

 

--------------------

 

Some months ago I tried to tell some that strategy really matters. It was about the scoring table and how to bid game score via DBL/RDBL. The most profitable in bridge is DBL/RDBL of low level contracts. Nobody understood a word of fundamentals in bridge.

 

We have a long way to go!

[qwery_hi]

One thing worth saying is that if HUM are not allowed, Bridge is going to advance painfully slowly. If I had a wish from the Bridge Genie, it'd be to see CC of the top pairs in 2100.

 

I think it is worth remembering that Bridge bidding theory is still very young. I would say that 2008 bidding theory is about the level of 1900 Chess openings theory. Excellent work by many chess masters has advanced opening theory to the point that there are generic defenses which follow fundamental principles to any opening by the opponent. This was only possible because there were no arbitrary restrictions on chess openings.

 

There is tremendous scope for unearthing fundamental principles of bidding theory in Bridge. For example, having merely played Bridge for 3 years, I can identify only a few generic defenses -

 

when an opponent makes a 2 suited overcall, a cue bid in their lower suit shows a good bid in our lower suit, etc... direct bids being weaker. I think this is called Unusual vs Unusual - and I think is one of the good achievements of bidding theory

 

Lebensohl auctions, where a relay is used to distinguish strength. Another fundamental principle which can be applied irrespective of the specifics of opponents bidding.

 

Lead directing doubles, and the defences to lead directing doubles - redbl showing 1st round control, etc etc...

 

My opinion is that the ACBL is interested in $$ over advancing the theory of bridge, hence these restrictions. This is not a critisicm of the ACBL, one can argue that having more people play bridge is more important. However, it would be wrong to say that the ACBL and the current champions are interested in advancing the theory of bidding in bridge.

 

One day, maybe a 100 years from now, this discussion will be moot. AI would give us the best bidding systems, and we'ed all follow them I think.

[Cascade]

My opinion is that the ACBL is interested in $$ over advancing the theory of bridge, hence these restrictions. This is not a critisicm of the ACBL, one can argue that having more people play bridge is more important. However, it would be wrong to say that the ACBL and the current champions are interested in advancing the theory of bidding in bridge.

It is far from clear that the ACBL have come close to optimizing their dollars.

 

I believe bridge internationally is declining in numbers. Maybe different rules and restrictions would have a positive impact on playing numbers.