Forcing Pass Systems

[nige1]

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.

I agree that complex and unnecessary laws and regulations stultify Bridge. I hope Face-to-Face Bridge (and I) survive to see simpler clearer less subjective rules that release the game from stagnation.

 

On-line, Fred and BBO have made great strides in this direction, with non-restrictive system regulations, simple disclosure rules, elimination of mechanical errors, and an improved claim protocol.

 

Incidentally it was Eric Crowhurst, who invented Unusual over Unusual and wrote about it in Acol in Competition (1980). The original is a significant improvement on the currently popular version. Eric invented other excellent conventions like Checkback and Multi-Landy.

[Fluffy]

I would love to see more weird systems allowed, but they should always be played on special events.

 

The main advantage of the weird system is the lack of experience your opponent have under those circumstances (I get problems playing against weak NT because 99.7% of my hands are played against strong NT, I can barelly imagine what I would do agaisnt strong pass).

 

It looks stupid to ban them, what you need to do is create certain events for them, where they can fight each other and have some laughs.

[helene_t]

I can barelly imagine what I would do agaisnt strong pass

What about:

1♣: whatever a double of opponents strong club opening would mean

Other: same as against strong club.

[Fluffy]

Not very good helene, my experience against strong club is also very limited. Of course I can get some feedback from more experienced players who would teach me a chart of bids, but the tools are not enough, you need to know how (and when) to use them.

 

I would myself rather ignore the opening pass and place myself on a comfortable field, the main problem however, is what to do against the weak openings probably.

[TimG]

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.

I think you are right and that this is one of the flaws in the creation of "adequate" defenses.

 

Consider the bridge world before there were weak two-bids. I suspect that you will agree that the defense often has trouble getting back to where they "would have been" had the opponents passed rather than opened a weak two-bid. The standard, natural, single-suited, preempts are accepted, not because the opponents can brush them aside as if nothing had happened, but because they are familiar.

 

If the ability to brush aside the method were the primary consideration, transfer openings would be allowed, and allowed in events with short segments. While defending against a transfer opening is not identical to defending against a natural opening, it can be very close and, if anything, the transfer opening provides the defense with extra space so the defender's should have a theoretical advantage vs a natural opening if they choose to make use of the extra space.

 

I cannot see how restricting a transfer opening to 12+ board segments is a reflection of the opponents' inability to get back to where they would have been had we opened something normal. Can you see what the rationale is?

[fred]

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

While it is true that the 2008 World Championships in Shanghai was not a great tournament for USA teams (only 2 medals - one Silver and one Bronze), if you look back over the past 20 years or so I am guessing you will find that USA has won at least twice as many medals at the World Championship level as any other country. I could be wrong - I am only guessing.

 

Meanwhile if memory serves me correctly, I don't think either Australia or New Zealand has come particularly close to winning a single World Championship medal in this period of time. Apologies in advance if I am wrong.

 

While it is true that Australia and New Zealand have much smaller populations than the USA, some countries with small populations (Norway, The Netherlands, and Canada come to mind) have done just fine. It is also true that the USA has an advantage in Bermuda Bowl years - they get to enter 2 teams. But meanwhile Norway and the The Netherlands (for example) have to perform well in a very tough European Championships just to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl while Australia and New Zealand can basically mail in their entries every year.

 

It also happens to be the case that both Australia and New Zealand have produced several excellent individual players during the past couple of decades.

 

So to me, a more interesting side question would be: has the permissive attitude toward systems in Australia and New Zealand been partly responsible for the consistently poor performance by these countries in international competition over the years?

 

By the way, I believe that one of the reasons why the answer to your side question is "no" is that USA teams tend to appoint outstanding coaches (Jan and Chip Martel being among the best of them) who work very hard to prepare their teams to play against the systems and conventions they will face in the World Championships.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

While it is true that Australia and New Zealand have much smaller populations than the USA, some countries with small populations (Norway, The Netherlands, and Canada come to mind) have done just fine. It is also true that the USA has an advantage in Bermuda Bowl years - they get to enter 2 teams. But meanwhile Norway and the The Netherlands (for example) have to perform well in a very tough European Championships just to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl while Australia and New Zealand can basically mail in their entries every year.

Couple points:

 

First, as I recall, the Conditions of Contest for WBF Championships are designed such that two teams from the US can't meet in the finals.

 

It would be interesting to understand how this format change impacts

 

1. The percentage chance that one team from the US will make it to the finals.

2. The percentage chance that a US team will win the event

 

Gerben, is there any chance that you could modify the code from the simulation studies a couple years back to address this issue?

 

Next: I think that you draw completely the wrong conclusions regarding being able to "mail in" entries to WBF championships. As you note, the Europeans are forced to compete in some very grueling trials to enter events like the Bermuda Bowl. Yes, this might decrease the chance that the Dutch Team gains a spot in any given year. At the same time, I would guess that all this competition stands the Dutch in good stead during those years that they are able to qualify (which, as I recall, happens fairly often)

[csdenmark]

Fred I think you ought to pay attention to the fact that USA in general have lined their teams up according to the Dallas Aces tradition. Three pairs - Canape'/Precision/Natural. Your former team - Team Ekeblad - had same profile.

 

Time is running out for Dallas Aces persons - I think that was the reason for USA performing less well this time. Poland sended a B-team.

 

Italy, Poland and Sweden have most of the time also had teams employing systems using interesting/strong methods. I think one of the reasons for Norways success this time was the improvements made to Viking Precision.

 

I think the only reason you see no pass-systems in action is REGULATION.

[hrothgar]

It also happens to be the case that both Australia and New Zealand have produced several excellent individual players during the past couple of decades.

 

So to me, a more interesting side question would be: has the permissive attitude toward systems in Australia and New Zealand been partly responsible for the consistently poor performance by these countries in international competition over the years?

As it happens, I had the chance to talk to a number of Aussies on this very subject when I was in Sydney a few years back... (One of the bodies over there had just conducted a study trying to figure out why Australia didn't do better in International Competition)

 

The study pointed at two main issues:

 

Issue 1: Limited opportunities for Australian teams to compete against top international talent

 

Issue 2: Limited opportunties for professional players in the Antipodes.

[TimG]

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

I doubt the "molly-coddling" has much of an effect at the top levels. As Fred points out, the US teams have people who work 100s of hours on preparing counter methods and the players are likely skilled enough to be able to easily adopt them for the most part, especially given that they can decide which pairs face which HUMs.

 

If you were talking about throwing average ACBL up and comers and average Australian up and comers into an event with liberal system/convention allowances, I would expect the ACBL players to have a bit of a handicap. But, I don't think the handicap would last that long.

 

Whether the ACBL rank and file would be able to adjust quickly and how much loss of entries would result in a more permissive atmosphere is unknown. This unknown seems to be something ACBL is (somewhat understandably) reluctant to test.

[fred]

I think one of the reasons for Norways success this time was the improvements made to Viking Precision.

I think the reason Norway (and Italy and USA and Poland and...) tend to do so well is because they have the best players and the strongest partnerships.

 

IMO the specific systems these partnerships choose to play amounts to approximately 0% of their success. The same players could play *any* reasonable system and the results would be the same.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[qwery_hi]

Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.

Do we really?

 

Consider the following system NV vs V:

 

1 of a suit = 0-5 , 4+ cards in the suit.

 

1nt = 12-14 balanced

 

2 of a suit, 12+, 5+ cards in the suit.

 

etc.,

 

The 1 bids are not destructive, since following the law of probability and the LoTT,

 

1. The opponents probably have game, since they will have on average 25+ points

2. We will have a 7 card fit on average.

 

Hence,

3. We have a good sacrifice.

 

Isn't this the principle behind preempts?

[csdenmark]

I think one of the reasons for Norways success this time was the improvements made to Viking Precision.

I think the reason Norway (and Italy and USA and Poland and...) tend to do so well is because they have the best players and the strongest partnerships.

 

IMO the specific systems these partnerships choose to play amounts to approximately 0% of their success. The same players could play *any* reasonable system and the results would be the same.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Thank you Fred - you have said something similar before.

 

Nevertheless it is so in most sports that the equipment used by the top-persons are sold for high prices. Horses, skies, bicycles and shoes are the most significant. Here rates the market value that equipment is of great importance for the overall performance.

 

In bridge we dont have opportunities for a rating. I think what comes nearest is something about attendance to Vugraph. I think we agree that systems I call strong/interesting are the runners for Vugraph.

 

The human factor is important of course - but it is not the only important factor.

[awm]

I think the reason Norway (and Italy and USA and Poland and...) tend to do so well is because they have the best players and the strongest partnerships.

 

IMO the specific systems these partnerships choose to play amounts to approximately 0% of their success. The same players could play *any* reasonable system and the results would be the same.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I'm not quite convinced of this.

 

In the United States, where strong club methods are definitely not the norm and where we have pretty conservative system restrictions in many of our local events... we frequently send teams to the Bermuda Bowl where two of the three pairs are using complicated strong club systems.

 

This includes your recent team (Greco-Hampson playing big club, Ekeblad-Rubin playing very complicated big club). It includes the very successful Nickell team (Meckstroth-Rodwell famously complicated big club, Hamman-Soloway big club).

 

We have also seen a number of "surprise" teams winning in the finals, and often these teams include one or more pairs using a very complex strong club method (i.e. the "Ultimate Club" team a number of years back, or the Viking Club pair on the recent Norwegian team).

 

Certainly there are pairs who have success at the very highest levels using "natural methods" too (for example Gitelman-Moss, Nickell-Freeman), but I suspect that the percentage of pairs using an "artificial system" in the Bermuda Bowl is higher than it would be in the Life Master Pairs (for example) which is in turn higher than it would be in a typical regional field, which is in turn higher than it would be in a typical club game...

 

I believe that there is a high correlation between complex systems (and strong club in particular) and successful bridge partnerships, and that this correlation exists at virtually all levels of the game. Again, this is not to say that all strong club pairs are good (there are plenty of bad strong club pairs) or that all good players employ a strong club. But I think a fairly straightforward analysis of results and methods could confirm this observation.

 

Playing better methods can win an average of a board or two a session. This can easily be the difference between winning and losing. Obviously bad declarer play could easily lose five or six boards in a session (and bad defense likely twice as many), but system still provides an edge that could easily be the margin of victory.

[Free]

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

A few years back there was a team that played 1♠ fert on Vugraph (I think in the BB), but I don't remember which country...

[Cascade]

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening.

The only forcing pass system I have ever played employed a 1♠ FERT. We only played this FERT when we were not vulnerable.

 

The higher the FERT the more disruptive it is for your side and for the other side - unless you can some how reduce the hands that you put in the FERT.

[H_KARLUK]

Kinda "Traffic Regulations" discussion.

 

There must be a main pattern to follow. Right, left, mid not diffs. Otherwise impossible to avoid clash.

 

Opposition comes face to face.

Guy1 "Hey, this is my right to drive here."

Stranger "Oh nay, get out of my way. See the place i come and live. We patronize and rule everywhere"

 

-_-

[TimG]

1 of a suit = 0-5 , 4+ cards in the suit.

It has been my experience that methods which may have a tendency to pick off the opponents' suit are more likely to be considered destructive.

 

If your 1H opening shows 4+ hearts and 0-5 points, the opponents will want to play in hearts some non-negligible percentage of the time. This means that defenses are harder to devise.

 

I believe this was one of the significant objections to 2D = weak with 4+-4+ in the majors. No cue-bids because the opponents have to cater to playing in one of the majors is a killer for getting a defense approved (in ACBL). Or, was, the method is simply banned now.

[Cascade]

Meanwhile if memory serves me correctly, I don't think either Australia or New Zealand has come particularly close to winning a single World Championship medal in this period of time. Apologies in advance if I am wrong.

Australia were fourth in the Bowl in 1989 which included (New Zealanders) Marston and Burgess I believe playing a Forcing Pass system.

 

While it is true that Australia and New Zealand have much smaller populations than the USA, some countries with small populations (Norway, The Netherlands, and Canada come to mind) have done just fine. It is also true that the USA has an advantage in Bermuda Bowl years - they get to enter 2 teams. But meanwhile Norway and the The Netherlands (for example) have to perform well in a very tough European Championships just to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl while Australia and New Zealand can basically mail in their entries every year.

 

As you state the US has a huge advantage by being able to enter two teams.

 

The Netherlands have relatively a very large bridge playing population for the size of their population. Norway have some very strong players not least of which is Geir Helgemo.

 

The fact that European teams have to play a strong international competition to qualify is to my mind an advantage not a disadvantage. Personally I would prefer that New Zealand (and Australia) had to qualify in a bigger competition perhaps by merging with Zone Six. There is in fact I believe a step towards this with the Zone Seven Championships to be held concurrently with the Zone Six Championships but with separate qualifying groups. Both New Zealand and Australia both usually perform creditably in the Zone Six Championships.

 

New Zealanders in general are inexperienced in international competition. This is because it is usually a long way and relatively expensive for us to travel to major international competitions. There are many major events in Europe and North America. I am sure that this confers an advantage to teams and players from those regions.

 

There is also virtually no professional play or sponsorship in New Zealand. There is some professional play in Australia which attracts many top New Zealand players across the 'ditch' to the West Island. This means that virtually every New Zealand bridge player is at most a parttime player.

 

It also happens to be the case that both Australia and New Zealand have produced several excellent individual players during the past couple of decades.

 

Peter Newell and Martin Reid's 3rd (or 2nd) in the butler datum at Estoril needs to be seen in the above context. These guys play about two or three tournaments per year and as far as I am aware club bridge one session per week.

 

So to me, a more interesting side question would be: has the permissive attitude toward systems in Australia and New Zealand been partly responsible for the consistently poor performance by these countries in international competition over the years?

 

The system restrictions in New Zealand are not particularly permissive - the only things that is regularly allowed and played in New Zealand that would be more restricted in North America are multi-2D, transfer openings at the one-level and relay systems. There are also some aggressive two-suited pre-empts and some pairs playing light openings. If anything over the time I have been playing and the time immediately before that the systems have become more restricted. As far as I can tell that hasn't had an improving affect our performances.

[csdenmark]

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening.

The only forcing pass system I have ever played employed a 1♠ FERT. We only played this FERT when we were not vulnerable.

 

The higher the FERT the more disruptive it is for your side and for the other side - unless you can some how reduce the hands that you put in the FERT.

Sorry Wayne I dont understand you. I am a bit handicapped because i dont understand the word 'fert'. My english/danish-dictionary is not very helpful informing of something with fruit. I cannot translate that into bridge.

 

I have understood you that way that you have played Suspensor. What you here say has nothing to do with Suspensor or Bez Nazwy.

 

There is no logic in 0-7 higher than 1♥. You will have less focus for MAJORs in your system. Besides the frequent solid openings(8-12) the focus is what matters for pass systems.

 

If you think a certain pass-system is unsuitable for any vulnerability I think it tends to be misconstructed.

[qwery_hi]

1 of a suit = 0-5 , 4+ cards in the suit.

It has been my experience that methods which may have a tendency to pick off the opponents' suit are more likely to be considered destructive.

 

If your 1H opening shows 4+ hearts and 0-5 points, the opponents will want to play in hearts some non-negligible percentage of the time. This means that defenses are harder to devise.

 

I believe this was one of the significant objections to 2D = weak with 4+-4+ in the majors. No cue-bids because the opponents' have cater to playing in one of the majors is a killer for getting a defense approved (in ACBL). Or, was, the method is simply banned now.

Yes. It would be interesting to compare this, percentage wise, to the number of times the opponents would like to play in diamonds after a precision 1D.

[hotShot]

Sorry Wayne I dont understand you. I am a bit handicapped because i dont understand the word 'fert'. My english/danish-dictionary is not very helpful informing of something with fruit. I cannot translate that into bridge.

From:

 

http://www.bridgehands.com/F/

 

Fert - To open with a weak opening hand (7 points or less) at the one-level. Fert calls are normally associated with partners who play a Strong Pass system. The term Fert is actually a colloquial term, derived from the term "fertilizer".

[hrothgar]

There is no logic in 0-7 higher than 1♥. You will have less focus for MAJORs in your system. Besides the frequent solid openings(8-12) the focus is what matters for pass systems.

I think that you are confusing two very different issues:

 

1. The level at which one choses to open your FERT

2. The definition that you assign to non FERT bids

 

In my experience, the level of the FERT is (primarily) a function of the relative vulnerability which impacts the risk - reward profile. For example Marston and Burgess sometimes used a 2♣ FERT NV and a 1♥ FERT vulnerable.

 

"Majors First", "Transfer Openings", "Symmetric Relay" and other such design criteria can be imposed on most any set of opening bids.

[fred]

Norway have some very strong players not least of which is Geir Helgemo.

Geir Helgemo is, without a doubt, an exceptional talent. Norway is indeed fortunate that Geir (not to mention others) was born in that country.

 

However, maybe it is not just a matter of fortune...

 

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

Norway have some very strong players not least of which is Geir Helgemo.

Geir Helgemo is, without a doubt, an exceptional talent. Norway is indeed fortunate that Geir (not to mention others) was born in that country.

 

However, maybe it is not just a matter of fortune...

 

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

There are many examples of North Americans who tinker with systems even but not solely in a natural context. I am thinking about players with hundreds of pages of system notes. I doubt that the preparation involved in agreeing such detailed methods is insignificant in their success.