Forcing Pass Systems

[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.

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.

Agree. Having a solid partnership in which the players know what each other's bids mean is critical to success.

 

But the exact system such a partnership chooses to play is not important (IMO) and so (IMO) smart young players are more likely to become great not-so-young players if they don't spend a lot of time during their "learning years" experimenting with such things (IMO).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Bsae Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

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".

Thank you very much for your kind help. I now understand the word - but I need some more time to figure out the exact meaning in bridge.

 

Fert = 0-7HcP, any distribution?

Fert = 0-7HcP + info about holding?

 

English is a very strange language for a dane.

[DrTodd13]

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".

Thank you very much for your kind help. I now understand the word - but I need some more time to figure out the exact meaning in bridge.

 

Fert = 0-7HcP, any distribution?

Fert = 0-7HcP + info about holding?

 

English is a very strange language for a dane.

Claus, generally, forcing pass players will preempt if they can. The point requirements vary but, for example, with a 6+ card suit and 5-7 points they would generally preempt rather than bid the fert. Some also play two-suited weak bids so you may get some preempts with the 5-4+ hands as well. So, the fert becomes something like:

 

0-4 absolutely any shape OR 5-7, bal or semi-bal.

[csdenmark]

Claus, generally, forcing pass players will preempt if they can.  The point requirements vary but, for example, with a 6+ card suit and 5-7 points they would generally preempt rather than bid the fert.  Some also play two-suited weak bids so you may get some preempts with the 5-4+ hands as well. So, the fert becomes something like:

 

0-4 absolutely any shape OR 5-7, bal or semi-bal.

Todd I am not quite sure what you intend to tell here. I am quite sure we are fairly at the same line here. Basic in pass systems is an improved construction regarding basics of bridge - MAJORs and frequency(8-12).

 

0-7 opening is high risk zone - you want to get out of the frying pann cheapest possible. The best way is to invite cheap overcalls from opponents. Therefore it is 1♦(Moscito/Tres Boof 1♥). If it is placed higher the risk is higher and you bypass some attrative options about majors. Therefore such tends to be misconstructions. Placing it as 1♠ is silly bypassing both of the most attractive options.

 

Certainly preempts are used, 5-7HcP, 6+cards is a bad and poor preempt in any system and therefore in pass systems too.

 

I doubt anybody will see 5-7HcP, balanced as an attractive bid. Even the well known Meckwell mini-NT(9-12) is fairly un-attractive depending a bit of the keycards to be held.

[DrTodd13]

Claus, generally, forcing pass players will preempt if they can.  The point requirements vary but, for example, with a 6+ card suit and 5-7 points they would generally preempt rather than bid the fert.  Some also play two-suited weak bids so you may get some preempts with the 5-4+ hands as well. So, the fert becomes something like:

 

0-4 absolutely any shape OR 5-7, bal or semi-bal.

Todd I am not quite sure what you intend to tell here. I am quite sure we are fairly at the same line here. Basic in pass systems is an improved construction regarding basics of bridge - MAJORs and frequency(8-12).

 

0-7 opening is high risk zone - you want to get out of the frying pann cheapest possible. The best way is to invite cheap overcalls from opponents. Therefore it is 1♦(Moscito/Tres Boof 1♥). If it is placed higher the risk is higher and you bypass some attrative options about majors. Therefore such tends to be misconstructions. Placing it as 1♠ is silly bypassing both of the most attractive options.

 

Certainly preempts are used, 5-7HcP, 6+cards is a bad and poor preempt in any system and therefore in pass systems too.

 

I doubt anybody will see 5-7HcP, balanced as an attractive bid. Even the well known Meckwell mini-NT(9-12) is fairly un-attractive depending a bit of the keycards to be held.

Claus, you can't tell us one minute you don't know what a FERT is and then the next minute claim to be some kind of expert in what is good in a forcing pass system. If the alternative is to open the FERT then a weak 2 with 5-7 points is generally a more appealing option.

[csdenmark]

Todd try look up fert up in your german or french dictionary. I am quite sure you will have some explanation you will find difficult to handle in a bridge context too.

 

For me 5-7HcP, balanced is a suicide bid - not for me.

[mycroft]

Gotta love weekends out of town...

 

I think we've got the Midchart move down, however, thanks to the Internet Archive, we have:

- Dec 28, 1996 (First available)

- May21,2001 (Last pulled before change)

- Mar 27, 2002 (First pulled after change)

- Pre Jan 3,2005 (pdf)

- Jan3, 2005 (pdf) (here's the "defence limited to match length" cutin)

- Today (pdf)

 

One can see how, no matter what the intentions of the committee, the theory that the whole point behind the defence database initiative was to gut the Mid-Chart is difficult to falsify.

 

Fred, I do trust you. I'm not so sure I trust your web of trust, though; and I certainly don't trust their web of trust. Given that I have butted heads with some fairly major Names in American bridge over this issue (what should be allowed over what is; using restrictions to avoid dealing with poor disclosure; using the Mid-Chart in general as a "but we allow greater freedom, you just have to find a game" while making Mid-Chart games inconsistently available in such a way as to effectively neuter any interest in learning a Mid-Chart *system* (as opposed to playing bolt-on 2-bids or the like); it's not fair because it's unfamiliar; it's unfair because I need to carry around 100 pages of notes (which basically boiled down to "it's unfamiliar", as that person was happy with remembering 8-15 4+, 11-15 5+, 11-18 4+, 12-21 5+, or 13+ opening 1M defences, but not 2D mini-multi, 2D full multi, 2D weak in H or GF - I'm sure "ideal" defences to the former set are no less complicated, and at least two of the natural ranges are equally rare)) most of whom either said "it won't be allowed here" or "it shouldn't be allowed" somewhere in the conversation, the chance that one of that set is both someone you trust, and also someone who would use his power to get what he wanted should he have that power, whether it was the "right way" or not, is not negligible; and the chance that one of that set is in the two-degrees cloud is decent. Now, whether said person, should he exist, *has* the power, is another story altogether.

 

All of that is saying that, even for someone who tries to trust until disappointed, and usually succeeds, the visuals in this case are important; for the more suspicious, only more so. If the C&C committee isn't doing what the more suspicious believe they are, and if they want the suspicions to not be so plausible to a new viewer, then they've dug themselves a pretty big hole, and they need to make fixing the visuals a priority. And if that means finding someone willing to be and capable of being a scribe for minutes/agenda/reports; if it means finding someone willing to write and capable of discerning and transcribing guidelines for defence submissions and answers to "why was this [crazy] decision made" - if it's been asked to death, well, that's what FAQs are for; if it means putting some work into getting a new defence (any new defence, provided it's not totally hamstrung with "you can play this convention and these followups; if you do anything - at all - different, you'll need to submit your defence" - that's not approving defences, that's approving partnerships) approved, even actively assisting the appellants; if it means finding someone who can and will respond in a timely manner, even if it is "we'll discuss this at the next NABC, so don't expect to hear anything until March"; then that needs to be done. It can be - it may be very hard, I know, but it's not impossible - if the end is desired enough.

 

Apologies for the Kafkaesque sentence structures.

[mycroft]

A couple of quick minor points of various degrees of sincerity:

 

- Well, if you're not going to open 5-7 BAL with *something*, it's kind of hard to play FP.

- "Innovation" doesn't necessarily have a positive connotation if you work in the computer industry - or if you have enough experience with "new and improved" products.

- I'd feel a little uncomfortable playing my strong club defence against a 13+ FP; but then again, I'd feel a little uncomfortable playing my strong club defence against a 13+ any 1C call as well. My strong club defence is like my strong NT defence (which I don't play against 12-14 NTs, either, for the same reason), it explicitly gives up on what few games are available in favour of frequency of competition and safety. With 24 or 25 HCP available to me at max, that's pretty safe; with 27, not so much.

- I thought about getting my Mid-Chart convention approved (it's got my name on it as "translator", but you'd have to hit the Internet Archive for that, too) but never tried. I was pretty certain a 1D (almost, but not quite, 0+ Precision) - 1H showing most weak hands without 4 hearts (among others), and with the opener expected to pass with hearts and not spades, was not going to fly, no matter what defence I put in. Could I have been wrong? Quite likely. Doesn't matter now, the partners who would play it are miles away.

[the hog]

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.

Claus,

The original WOR system used by Marston and Burgess had a 1S bid showing any 0-4 and a 1H opening showing any 5-7.

 

Fred,

There are a number of reasons why Oz teams don't do that well - lack of preofessional Bridge, smaller population, lack of popularity of bridge, lack of opportunities. Systems has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Despite this, Aust has had some pretty good players, but usually imports from other countries - Tim Seres, one of the all time greats, Jim and Norma Borin - one of the best mixed partnerships of all time, Marston - Burgess, but both from NZ. Dick Cummings was an Aussie and a fine player.

[Cascade]

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.

It occurred to me that this is very likely to be the conclusion that one would come up with if you play most of your bridge in an environment in which system innovation is discouraged meaning that most play fairly standard methods.

[jikl]

Wow, Fred, you jumped down the throat of Australian and New Zealand bridge. Marston and Burgess won either a silver or bronze in Perth World Champs Pairs playing FP about 20 years ago, probably the start of this controversy really. (They are both actually from NZ by the way but moved to Aus for greater oppurtunities bridgewise) From memory we also had an Australian as part of a partnership in the World Mixed Pairs championship. Sure these are not the medals that anyone wants, but in some ways we are still overperforming on a per capita basis as we do at the Olympics every 4 years. Our bridge problem is as Richard said, we are too far away from both North America and Europe; hopefully we will leave Zone 7 and join Zone 6 to have more regular competition; much as our soccer team has done. If we miss out on a few world champs because of this it will induce the match practice we need. What I meant by my molly-coddling question was that Europe sees far more diverse systems than America will ever allow. Now this counts for their juniors also who are theoretically the next players on the open team; if they have never played against something allowed in the Worlds when they get there, are they at a disadvantage? That was my question, not an attack on the US.

 

Sean

[nickf]

To set the record straight here:

- Australia came 3rd in the 1971 and 1979 Bermuda Bowls

- Australia came 4th in the 1989 Bowl, Marston Burgess were playing a system where 2C was 0-6, any.

- M-B came 3rd in the 1986 World open Pairs. I can ask PM but I doubt they were playing a strong pass system.

- Fiona Brown came 4th in the World Mixed Pairs in 2006.

 

As far as I am aware these are the only signifcant results by Australia in World Championships, plus a couple of Youth medals at the world level.

 

nickf

sydney

[jikl]

Thanks for the clarification Nick, I wasn't that far off :)

 

Sean

[Codo]

May someone clarify for me some details:

 

Did I understood it correctly that the reason for forbidding the Mosquito and FP systems is to protect the majority from these new systems?

 

Why does the majority need protection? I got the impression that they would need too much time to develop defences against HUM and that this is no fun. Is this correct?

 

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.

 

If it is true that Bridge will win more supporters when the audience can follow and understand the bidding, why does the ACBL not ban anything but sayc? This is easy to be understood and simple to follow.

 

If these are not the reasons why they ban FP and other systems, what are the reasons?

 

When it is a law that the C&C committee must state their ideas in minutes, why don't they make them? When the volunteer members of the committee do not have the time to put their descissions in written words, why does the ACBL not offer a secretary service?

[cherdano]

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?

 

There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.

[csdenmark]

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?

 

There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?

By me it is 3 pages

 

There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements

Due to regulations, and therefore the need to disable core parts of the system, you are right.

 

Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.

And then what? A topic for anybody but the lazy ones? They are all offered a written suggestion for defense on a silverplate.

[csdenmark]

Claus,

The original WOR system used by Marston and Burgess had a 1S bid showing any 0-4 and a 1H opening showing any 5-7.

Could be so of course but not according to the file I some years ago received from you as the original version of Moscito.

 

1♥ for 0-7 is still a poor construction but it is the logic of Moscito.

 

'1♠ bid showing any 0-4' is foolish and waste of important space and options only. You are increasing your own risks for suiside highering the threshold for opps. to take over. You are bypassing the important goals you try to achieve, the MAJORs. A clear misconstruction

[the hog]

Claus, Moscito came AFTER WOR. The ferts in order of time sequence were 1H and 1S, 1H, 2C and 1H again. Moscito is a development of WOR because WOR wasn't allowed to be played any more.

By the way Claus, the contrsuct is not foolish, because you are forgetting P = 13+, 1C = 8-12 with HEARTS and 1D = 8-12 with SPADES, iow the Majors.

[H_KARLUK]

In my culture there's a proverb : Do not add apples to pears when you count.

 

This simply points out an egalitarian view.

 

I cannot say "what diffs ? bridge is bridge". If I say so then I must accept lightweight vs heavyweight boxing matches are fair.

 

Still waiting authorities will classify contests in "bidding systems." For now their classification are men-women-mix-seniors-juniors-schools-imps-mps-teams-ind.

 

To me whoever gives up the idea of a continuing fault before it's too late is a profit. Tho I ve a favorite color like many others I also like to see different colors. On th other hand I have to care th colors of my dresses would be eye-catching.

 

I think the matter is to group in an order. Otherwise incompatibility in all fields of life is inevitable.

[csdenmark]

Claus, Moscito came AFTER WOR. The ferts in order of time sequence were 1H and 1S, 1H, 2C and 1H again. Moscito is a development of WOR because WOR wasn't allowed to be played any more.

By the way Claus, the contrsuct is not foolish, because you are forgetting P = 13+, 1C = 8-12 with HEARTS and 1D = 8-12 with SPADES, iow the Majors.

OK - I think I still disagree. I also think this is the reason why Moscito in fact hasn't suffered from the transition away from a pass system. To differentiate between various dead hands without entries are for lunatics only. It is an invite for a bloodbath!

 

I tried to Google WOR but gets no hits except construction of steel bridges. You have something about WOR?

[TimG]

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".

[hrothgar]

In my culture there's a proverb : Do not add apples to pears when you count.

Interesting... In English the equivalent would be "Comparing apples and oranges"

[H_KARLUK]

In my culture there's a proverb : Do not add apples to pears when you count.

Interesting... In English the equivalent would be "Comparing apples and oranges"

Yes, the idea all are fruits but in different forms. Then there is not equality. So no one may claim what diffs they all are fruits.

[helene_t]

In Dutch the say apples and pears also. I think it's a silly expression since for many purposes a kg of fruit is a kg of fruit. I like the Danish expression "the height of the round tower vs the height of thunder", where the Danish word for "height" can mean loudness as well.

[csdenmark]

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".

Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction

Wrong Tim - now you are talking against better knowledge - at least I hope. In this thread you have had the option to be enlightened.

 

The complications are in 1st round - and only there. They are over 0-7 opening and might be 1 and two more. The complications are to defend over unknown. For that you have several simple and american conventions. The best knowns are CRASH and Truscott. Rest is pure natural just like SAYC or any other natural system.

 

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction.

Wrong Tim - each time your side has no opening for 1st seat you will be pushed into defensive - thats approx. 85%. In fact you have no option to play your own offensive system against pass systems. Thats the triviality of this - but there is no complications about it.

 

-----------

Please Tim - admit the regulations against pass systems are nothing but lack of knowledge and scareness of independent thinking human beings.