Forcing Pass Systems

[gerry]

But if this trend is to be reversed, it would likely help if:

 

1) People recognize that it exists. Your suggestion to the contrary suggests that at least some of you are in a state of denial.

 

2) People at least be willing to consider explanations other than geography, lack of professional opportunities, etc. This is all a load of crap in my view, especially considering Australia was recently blessed with a $1 million donation to fund the development of that country's international teams.

 

Stop trying to find excuses and take a long, hard, and honest look in the mirror. Perhaps you won't find anything wrong, but if you refuse to look and if there is something wrong, then there is no hope at all.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Well I really must get on to our top players and tell them that they are doing it all wrong.

 

How insulting to suggest that the bridge community in NZ has not spent thousands of sleepless nights and reams of paper doing exactly what you suggest.

 

Success at bridge is primarily a function of A: talent and B: experience.

 

A- Talent is entirely a matter of luck.

 

B- To make the observation that players in NZ have less experience than pairs in the bridge hot-beds of the world is to not make an excuse but rather to recognise one of the factors we have to try hard to rectify.

 

 

BTW The butlers from Beijing...

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Beijing.0...ButlerRR-O.html

 

Newell/Reid from good old NZ 25th of 250. The pairs above them form a very illustrious list indeed. As Wayne has pointed out before this pair can only get together to play 3-4 times a year, but they spend plenty of time working on those elements of the game that can be worked on away from the table and have proved once again that they are a genuinely world class pair. Many of the rest of us actively seek out the events they will be playing in to 'have a crack at them' as it were.

 

The fact that they and others like to tinker with systems is entirely irrelevant.

[fred]

How insulting to suggest that the bridge community in NZ has not spent thousands of sleepless nights and reams of paper doing exactly what you suggest. 

Sorry you feel insulted. I was trying to offer a constructive suggestion which, based on the posts I have read in this thread by players from your country (including you) and Australia, I thought might be an idea that had not previously been widely considered.

 

Newell/Reid from good old NZ 25th of 250.

 

Yes, I know they are a fine pair. Congratulations. If you bothered to read my first post in this thread on this particular subject, I clearly stated my opinion that both Australia and New Zealand have produced some excellent players over the years. I did not think it was necessary to list their names.

 

That is called a "compliment", not an "insult".

 

The fact that they and others like to tinker with systems is entirely irrelevant.

 

Apparently you were too busy reading insult into my non-insulting posts to actually read what I said. My point was that young talented players would be better off not spending their time on such things.

 

Once you already know how to play, by all means tinker away if that's what you enjoy and if you really think it will help your results. But IMO it is nothing more than a distraction for developing players to get involved in such things.

 

From what I have seen, most young players who succumb to this form of distraction never recover and never come close to fufilling their potential, regardless of which country they happen to come from.

 

IMO that amounts to a waste of talent which it seems we both agree is a commodity that is too precious to waste.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Agreed with some parts of your views that i tried to pick and post above. I wonder, why you did not say "I am OK to compete in HUM category".

Because I don't think it's relevant. For the record, I have no objection to playing against HUMs. I wouldn't expect to do very well but maybe I'd learn something.

I suggest there can be three main category :

 

1- Natural systems competitions

2- Unusual systems competitions

3- Highly unusual systems competitions

 

What differentiates these three classes of systems? Who decides? To what extent do we ensure that competitions in the second and third of these categories are regularly available at club level? At low level (Sectional, in ACBL terms) or mid (Regional) level tournaments?

 

99 44/100% of the people around here play some variant (the variations aren't that diverse) of either Standard American, or 2/1. A couple occasionally play Kaplan Sheinwold. Two pairs that I know of (both married couples) play Precision. Are these latter systems "unusual"? How about Schenken Club (which was big 40 years ago, but not so much now. I did play it, for some time, however, with a regular partner a few years ago. In the ACBL, are any systems which are completely GCC legal to be considered "unusual" or "highly unusual"?

[H_KARLUK]

What differentiates these three classes of systems? Who decides?

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidding_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_pass

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...ingSystems.html

 

I do hope it helps your questions. Anything else please, is that all?

[glen]

... My point was that young talented players would be better off not spending their time on such things.

 

Once you already know how to play, by all means tinker away if that's what you enjoy and if you really think it will help your results. But IMO it is nothing more than a distraction for developing players to get involved in such things.

 

From what I have seen, most young players who succumb to this form of distraction never recover and never come close to fufilling their potential, regardless of which country they happen to come from.

 

IMO that amounts to a waste of talent which it seems we both agree is a commodity that is too precious to waste.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I can see some classical music teacher talking to Elvis in the early 50s:

 

"Once you already know how to sing, by all means tinker away if that's what you enjoy and if you really think it will help your career. But IMO it is nothing more than a distraction for developing singers to get involved in such things."

 

And so Elvis does not "succumb to this form of distraction" and becomes the great opera singer we all love.

 

I think older players need to recognize:

- it is natural for the young to be creative - just because one is no longer creative or has channeled one's creativity elsewhere is no reason to deny it to the young - expect the young to want to be creative, encourage it or lose them to other activities;

- you can still develop playing talent and judgment regardless of the system you play, if you play lots and lots against the best.

 

That said, if you spend lots of time on system design and bidding practice, and relatively little in actual tough competition, you will be as useful as brief contestants on American Idol who worked on their singing mostly in their shower.

[awm]

I suspect the best way to improve at bridge is to play as many hands as possible versus the best opposition possible.

 

However, this means getting beaten down fairly frequently, especially for the advancing player who is trying to "play up." This can be frustrating, and it's easy to give up or start playing in the lower flights in order to win.

 

Tinkering with methods, trying out the newest "innovation" against the best can help to keep the game fresh and obtain a few "wins" (and nice stories) against superior opposition. Playing unusual methods can also help with hand evaluation in some situations, and can help you when you have to play against such methods yourself (I'm talking here more about a big club system or a weak notrump than "really weird stuff").

 

It seems weird to say "most of the best pairs in the world play a big club, but my card play and defense are not up to their level (yet?) so I should stick to playing 2/1." Sure I have lots of dimensions to my bridge game where I need to learn and improve, but just because I'm not one of the top declarers in the world (yet?) doesn't mean I should stop learning better bidding methods and improving my bidding judgement (and my defense, and my opening leads) until my declarer play reaches that level (if it ever does). It's like saying that if I want to be a good baseball player, I should keep trying to hit fastballs until I can do so consistently, and ignore learning how to field or run the bases or hit other pitches until I'm a major-league caliber fastball hitter.

 

I'd be curious as to at what points in their bridge careers some of our successful top-level "mad scientists" (I mean people like Ekeblad-Rubin, or Meckstroth-Rodwell, or the Viking Club guys) started tinkering with non-mainstream methods. I suspect it's earlier in their development as players than Fred seems to be suggesting.

[TimG]

I can see some classical music teacher talking to Elvis in the early 50s:

 

"Once you already know how to sing, by all means tinker away if that's what you enjoy and if you really think it will help your career. But IMO it is nothing more than a distraction for developing singers to get involved in such things."

 

And so Elvis does not "succumb to this form of distraction" and becomes the great opera singer we all love.

There is often a difference between a commercial success and a technical success, especially in show business.

[Cascade]

Playing unusual methods can also help with hand evaluation in some situations, and can help you when you have to play against such methods yourself (I'm talking here more about a big club system or a weak notrump than "really weird stuff").

Indeed I think that playing something that you are not familiar with from time to time is a great way to improve your judgement.

 

Some methods put you in certain sorts of situations more often. The skills you learn there are almost always transferable to other situations.

[TimG]

It seems weird to say "most of the best pairs in the world play a big club, but my card play and defense are not up to their level (yet?) so I should stick to playing 2/1." Sure I have lots of dimensions to my bridge game where I need to learn and improve, but just because I'm not one of the top declarers in the world (yet?) doesn't mean I should stop learning better bidding methods and improving my bidding judgement (and my defense, and my opening leads) until my declarer play reaches that level (if it ever does). It's like saying that if I want to be a good baseball player, I should keep trying to hit fastballs until I can do so consistently, and ignore learning how to field or run the bases or hit other pitches until I'm a major-league caliber fastball hitter.

I think it more akin to saying that if you want to be a NBA player you shouldn't spend time perfecting your slam dunk contest skills or playground moves. You may need detailed system agreements to become World Class, but you don't need exotic systems to become World Class, and it's not even clear that exotic systems would help the World Class player achieve better results.

 

Of course, most of us will never be World Class let alone a true expert.

[gerry]

Sorry you feel insulted. I was trying to offer a constructive suggestion which, based on the posts I have read in this thread by players from your country (including you) and Australia, I thought might be an idea that had not previously been widely considered.

Actually I never post on a topic without first reading every previous post.

 

I am quite sure you were trying to be constructive, however telling us in a paternalistic fashion that we are "in a state of denial" and to "stop trying to find excuses" seems hardly designed to get us to concentrate on your main point.

 

My point about Newell/Reid was simply that they are, to an extent, a counter example to your point. Peter learned to play bridge in about 1981 and was playing forcing pass and what have you with Stephen Blackstock from very early in his career. But maybe Im wrong and he would be a better player if he had kept it simple...

 

Anyway its all nonsense and unprovable. Many of our best players have always been staunch advocates of natural sound bidding methods. There is no apparant correlation here between the success of players and their preferred methods; which is of course to simply restate what people have said over and over in these forums.

[H_KARLUK]

Playing unusual methods can also help with hand evaluation in some situations, and can help you when you have to play against such methods yourself (I'm talking here more about a big club system or a weak notrump than "really weird stuff").

Indeed I think that playing something that you are not familiar with from time to time is a great way to improve your judgement.

 

Some methods put you in certain sorts of situations more often. The skills you learn there are almost always transferable to other situations.

Hi :lol:

 

May I have your opinions please about below mentioned items. Thanks in advance the attention you may pay.

 

1) What are the most important educational principles for beginners and intermediates even for advanceds ?

 

2) Starting with highly improved bidding or starting to learn about trick taking potentials?

 

3) Which one is by far the most important skill ?

 

4) Is there anything in bridge history haven't done about judgement?

 

Hamdi KARLUK

 

ps. I started with Hugh Walter Kelsey series. Winning Card Play was my first book. I liked the reasonings behind manouvres with their defensive views.

 

After a while ACOL was like a first love.

 

Jumped to Precision when Taiwanese beated USA.

 

Then impressed from SAYC.

 

My friends brought me to read TRS1-2 (Tony Forrester-Raymond Brock-Steve Lodge methods) i find time to study but there were no very good partner to apply.

 

With th internet i met 2/1.

 

When I surfed on web I inspected largely Lanzarotti-Buratti methods. I think someone named it as "nightmare". Still no great partner to apply it ,so playing 2/1 with well known gadgets.

 

Seems I've ended my bridge journey for now.

[brianshark]

Sure I have lots of dimensions to my bridge game where I need to learn and improve, but just because I'm not one of the top declarers in the world (yet?) doesn't mean I should stop learning better bidding methods and improving my bidding judgement (and my defense, and my opening leads) until my declarer play reaches that level (if it ever does).

I think what Fred is getting at, and I'm inclined to agree, is that of all those dimensions you are trying to improve to better yourself as a bridge player, learning better bidding methods has dubious merit in terms of imrpoving your overall bridge.

 

Sure it is a good way to improve a particular system and/or partnership, but I don't think it improves your overall bridge game. Maybe it does a little, but nowhere near as much as more important things like bidding judgement, declarer play, defence, etc do.

[csdenmark]

When I surfed on web I inspected largely Lanzarotti-Buratti methods. I think someone named it as "nightmare".

I will be ready any time. http://bridgefiles.net/VAR2/Systems/SYS-Nightmare.htm

[csdenmark]

Sure I have lots of dimensions to my bridge game where I need to learn and improve, but just because I'm not one of the top declarers in the world (yet?) doesn't mean I should stop learning better bidding methods and improving my bidding judgement (and my defense, and my opening leads) until my declarer play reaches that level (if it ever does).

I think what Fred is getting at, and I'm inclined to agree, is that of all those dimensions you are trying to improve to better yourself as a bridge player, learning better bidding methods has dubious merit in terms of imrpoving your overall bridge.

 

Sure it is a good way to improve a particular system and/or partnership, but I don't think it improves your overall bridge game. Maybe it does a little, but nowhere near as much as more important things like bidding judgement, declarer play, defence, etc do.

For the argument to be valid a timeline is needed.

[helene_t]

Once you already know how to play, by all means tinker away if that's what you enjoy and if you really think it will help your results. But IMO it is nothing more than a distraction for developing players to get involved in such things.

I have some mixed feelings about this.

 

When I started playing bridge myself, I was quite fanatically against artificial obstructive methods, especially the multi 2♦ which forces you to have agreements about how to defend against a bid in a suit which they may or may not have (the paradox responses). What annoyed me was that new partners always insisted on spending hours discussing defense against those methods, and how we can design equally confusing but unfamiliar obstructive methods ourself to make sure that we confuse opps more than they confuse us.

 

That left less time for discussing and learning the essentials. Most players would learn multi and Muiderberg before learning negative doubles. Or before discussing with p whether they play negative freebids or not.

 

But on the other hand, it is much more fun to invent conventions yourself than to look them up in a book. Homo Sapiens is a playful animal and bridge is something you play. Our propensity for playing evolved in order for us to train our creative skills. I am quite sure that I wouldn't have been playing bridge today if it wasn't because the permissive Dutch laws allowed us to invent conventions ourselves. I know a lot of bridge players find card play and bidding judgment fascinating and consider innovation of conventions to be an abstraction. For me, what makes bridge much more appealing than so many other mindsports is that it allows partnerships to invent new means of communication.

 

Also, inventing conventions like T-Walsh has taught me a lot about bidding theory. If you learn a convention by reading a book, you can be lazy and just learn all the stupid rules without considering why the rules are as they are. If you invent it yourself, you have to learn to think systematically through the implications a given agreement has on your bidding system.

 

So for me, a good compromise might be to allow any opening or overcall that promises at least (say) 11 points, and any follow-up to those. But at the same time put restrictions, or otherwise discourage, artificial obstructive methods. I am not really suggesting this since probably most people either can't live without artificial preempts and/or won't like opps to play unusual constructive methods. Also it may be impractical to legally distinguish between constructive and obstructive methods.

[csdenmark]

314 posts in this thread and no signs of action in sight.

 

Words are patient and I am sure we start next year, once again from the top, with the same arguments.

[TimG]

314 posts in this thread and no signs of action in sight.

This forum is not representative of ACBL membership. From ACBL's point of view, those posting here about less restrictive system regulations are a handful of fringe thinkers in a membership of 150,000.

[fred]

I am quite sure you were trying to be constructive, however telling us in a paternalistic fashion that we are "in a state of denial" and to "stop trying to find excuses" seems hardly designed to get us to concentrate on your main point. 

Well what I said was this:

 

Your suggestion to the contrary suggests that at least some of you are in a state of denial.

 

Note I said "at least some of" and "suggests". That is very different from saying "all" and "are" (which I agree would be "paternalistic"). My choice of words was very mild.

 

In particular these words were directed to Sean (who happens to be my friend) whose post I was responding to strongly suggested (to me) that he did not recognize that a problem exists. I concluded that it is likely that there exist other strong and thoughtful players in his part of the world who feel the same way.

 

I will take your word for it that this state of denial is not even close to being universal and, more important, that significant #s of strong players are concerned. I am glad to hear that.

 

My point about Newell/Reid was simply that they are, to an extent, a counter example to your point.  Peter learned to play bridge in about 1981 and was playing forcing pass and what have you with Stephen Blackstock from very early in his career.  But maybe Im wrong and he would be a better player if he had kept it simple...

 

Right - all I am saying is "maybe" (and that it is worth thinking about this possibility with an open mind). I can't say I know for sure of course. I have admitted at least once in this thread that my opinions may be biased due to my own personal bidding preferences. I have tried to remain objective, but it is impossible for me to know how much my bias gets in the way. I will repeat that it might be healthy for some of those on "the other side" to recognize that their views may be biased as well :(

 

Anyways, even if what I believe happens to be true for most bridge players, perhaps it is not a universal truth. Perhaps Newell and Reid are exceptions.

 

Anyway its all nonsense and unprovable.  Many of our best players have always been staunch advocates of natural sound bidding methods.  There is no apparant correlation here between the success of players and their preferred methods; which is of course to simply restate what people have said over and over in these forums.

 

As you probably know, I agree with this strongly. I have said several times (both in this thread and others) that I don't think choice of system is important.

 

My point here, however, is that it is best to wait to do the majority of your system-tinkering until "later in life". IMO it is the case that many talented young players see the most successful players in their country as role models and try to emulate their methods and styles from early on. If the leading players in a given country happen to be strong advocates of complex highly-artificial methods, it is natural for young players to go in that direction before they are ready. It is also natural for the highly successful players to push them along this path - I am sure you know just how attached great (and not-so-great) players can become to their own ideas.

 

I am glad to hear that a broad spectrum of bidding methods (including sound and natural) is present among New Zealand's leading players.

 

Sorry again that you read my earlier post as being paternalistic and insulting. That was not my intention. I hope there are no hard feelings.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

I have admitted at least once in this thread that my opinions may be biased due to my own personal bidding preferences. I have tried to remain objective, but it is impossible for me to know how much my bias gets in the way.

Fred,

 

I seem to recall that early in your bridge life you spent a year playing virtually no conventions with Joey Silver and that this was a significant step in your development as a bridge player. (I hope my recollection is not that far off.) I wonder if you might briefly share with us how that experience influenced both your bridge learning and your thinking about unusual methods.

 

Tim

[csdenmark]

314 posts in this thread and no signs of action in sight.

This forum is not representative of ACBL membership. From ACBL's point of view, those posting here about less restrictive system regulations are a handful of fringe thinkers in a membership of 150,000.

Completely correct Tim. Most of the proponents in this thread are, like me, not members of ACBL. ACBL is used as a buh-man here substituting most national bridge organizations.

 

I dont blame you, I dont blame Fred, I dont blame anybody saying the majority are not interested and demand is very low. They are justified and completely right. Sad to say but thats the truth.

 

I blame all those, who like me, are all in favour of 'everything goes' for doing nothing about it. We have on internet all the options we need. It is simply not credible year after year bashing those who are responsible to balance views without making constructive steps themselves.

 

Of the posters in this thread I know of 1, or maybe 2, who employs those systems themselves. Several would like to see them in action, but are not ready to do their homework to enable this to happen.

 

Wayne has been very active in this thread, strong advocater of anything goes. Excellent - but looking into Waynes doings. He played such systems many years ago, he is giving free lessons, not about pass systems or anything like that, but about standard systems, ACOL.

 

Action is needed and action is possible, if we some day want to prove Fred, Tim and the others wrong.

[fred]

I suspect the best way to improve at bridge is to play as many hands as possible versus the best opposition possible.

Agree.

 

Other good ways to spend your time include:

 

- studying the moves of very good players (kibitz, watch vugraph, read World Championship books)

- talk bridge with people who are better than you and listen to what they have to say

- read the best bridge magazines (especially The Bridge World) and the books of the best bridge authors (Kelsey, Reese, Lawrence, etc.)

- hire a pro (yes I know this can be expensive)

 

I'd be curious as to at what points in their bridge careers some of our successful top-level "mad scientists" (I mean people like Ekeblad-Rubin, or Meckstroth-Rodwell, or the Viking Club guys) started tinkering with non-mainstream methods. I suspect it's earlier in their development as players than Fred seems to be suggesting.

 

If my belief is even true, it is entirely possible that some/all of these people may constitute exceptions to my belief.

 

But I think it is misguided to use Meckstroth and Rodwell as examples for several reasons:

 

1) They are both extraordinarily talented. Very few of the rest of us (certainly including me) have their natural gifts.

 

2) They found each other at a relatively early point in their bridge careers and made a serious committment to stick together and become the best. Very few of the rest of us (certainly including me) are fortunate enough to find their bridge soulmates so early on.

 

3) They have both been full time professional players forever. Very few of the rest of us (certainly including me) are able to devote as much time and energy to bridge as these two have.

 

Also, in case you don't know this, they are not both "mad scientists". Perhaps it would be fair to characterize Rodwell in this way (I personally would not call him that), but I believe Meckstroth is mostly "along for the ride" as far as all the science goes. Yes of course Jeff has made some contributions to their system and yes of course he values Eric's genius in this area, but I am guessing that he would be happy playing a much simpler flavor of what they actually play.

 

I can't speak for the Viking Club guys, but I do know that Ekeblad-Rubin are similar to Meckwell in this respect. Russ is the "mad scientist" and Ronnie is mostly "along for the ride". Mind you, it doesn't make much sense to even compare Ekeblad-Rubin or the Viking Club guys with Meckwell. As strong as the other two pairs are, IMO they are not even close to being in the Meckwell class (not an insult to them - nobody is in the Meckwell class IMO and only a handful of pairs are even close).

 

I believe there are very few of these "mad scientist" types among the world's most successful players. There doesn't need to be since the best of them tend to get a lot of mileage. For example, a lot of the best youngish players in North America are now playing a greatly simplified version of the basic methods that Meckwell play.

 

Please also note that Meckwell have played the same basic approach forever. The vast majority of the changes they have made over the years have been in the details. I believe the same is true of the system that Ekeblad and his various partners have played over the years.

 

The main point I have been trying to make is that most of those who delight in "mad science" early on, never make it to the top and that some of these probably would have had they been willing to put the science on the shelf for a while.

 

What is a while?

 

I am guessing that if you learn to play bridge at age 17 and decide you want to be good enough to have a chance to win the Bermuda Bowl one day, you should stick with a relatively simple and relatively popular bidding system until you are in your late 20s. If you have not become sufficiently good at the basics by this point in life to compete at the highest levels then you probably never will (I am using history as a guide in making this claim).

 

A while is roughly 10 years.

 

"Relatively simple" does not mean SAYC. 2/1, Polish Club, Precision, French Standard, etc. are all fine choices. It would be helpful if some of the leading experts in your area played the same thing (though this is getting less important thanks to the Internet).

 

By all means play some fancy conventions if you want, but I would suggest that you don't get too involved in things like:

 

- trying a whole bunch of different notrump ranges

- experimenting with a whole bunch of different 2-bids

- inventing your own strong club or relay systems

- experimenting with completely bizarre systems

 

If you have Eric Rodwell's talent, you might be able to get away with this, but (no offense) you almost certainly don't (and neither do I).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

- talk bridge with people who are better than you and listen to what they have to say

Good advice (as is most of the advice you give on improving), but....

 

One has to be careful which "better than you" player you pick. For example, there's a player here who believes he's better than me because he has 2000 masterpoints and I don't. He might be right that he's better than me (although the bidding example he gave to me didn't show it, imo), but it ain't because he has more masterpoints. The fact that he thinks masterpoints matter makes me wonder. :D

[JanM]

So for me, a good compromise might be to allow any opening or overcall that promises at least (say) 11 points, and any follow-up to those. But at the same time put restrictions, or otherwise discourage, artificial obstructive methods. I am not really suggesting this since probably most people either can't live without artificial preempts and/or won't like opps to play unusual constructive methods. Also it may be impractical to legally distinguish between constructive and obstructive methods.

Ummmm - something like:

 

"All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:

a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values,

b. conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or over-calls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES AND RE-BIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP - and c. conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may be four cards (see #7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart). THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.)

4. Defenses to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.

5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid. "

 

That's from the ACBL Midchart, and these bids are allowed without the requirement for an approved defense.

[fred]

I have admitted at least once in this thread that my opinions may be biased due to my own personal bidding preferences. I have tried to remain objective, but it is impossible for me to know how much my bias gets in the way.

Fred,

 

I seem to recall that early in your bridge life you spent a year playing virtually no conventions with Joey Silver and that this was a significant step in your development as a bridge player. (I hope my recollection is not that far off.) I wonder if you might briefly share with us how that experience influenced both your bridge learning and your thinking about unusual methods.

 

Tim

Your recollection is not that far off. I will tell my story. Not surprisingly, it has had a serious impact on what I have come to believe and on what I have expressed in this thread.

 

When and where I learned to play bridge was in the early 1980s in Canada. At that time and place it was natural for me to gravitate toward Eric Kokish as a role model (because he had enjoyed a great deal of success, because he was very approachable, and because he was obviously brilliant).

 

If I had to do Eric the disservice of summarizing his basic approach to bridge bidding in one phrase I would say something like: natural with weak notrumps and 5-card majors, but highly scientific with every bid in every auction having a well-defined (and frequently artificial) meaning.

 

So I spent the first 5 years or so in my development as a serious player trying to mold my game to Eric's approach.

 

This turned out to be a colossal mistake. Fortunately those years were not totally wasted since I also spent a lot of time studying the technical aspects of bridge. Even in terms of bidding I learned some things during this time that would prove useful later in life.

 

But the bottom line was that I was not much of a bridge player. My bidding system had far too many crutches for me to effectively develop good judgment. Also, when I got a bad result, it was natural for me to try to tinker with the system (as opposed to considering that I had made a mistake). Also, I spent far too much time and energy focusing on things that I have ultimately come to believe are not especially important (like developing and memorizing the best possible structure of followups to a sequence that will arise maybe once per year). Finally, I made far too many stupid mistakes for a player with the degree of technical skill I had, almost certainly because my mind was clouded with fancy bidding that I was not ready to play.

 

I have little doubt that I never would have amounted to anything as a bridge player had it not been for Joey Silver.

 

Joey would be the first to admit that he is not is the same league as a player as my hero Eric. But Joey had the virtue of being a highly practical player (as well as the virtue of caring deeply about winning).

 

He immediately slashed and burned the entire system that I had worked so hard to develop and memorize (which had been based heavily on Eric's way of thinking). In all seriousness, SAYC was considerably more sophisticated than the system that Joey forced me to play. I was terrified and deeply skeptical - I could not believe that it was possible to achieve good results playing "the Joey way".

 

It turned out that not only was I completely wrong about this (we achieved some great results together, including a Gold Medal at the IOC Grand Prix in Salt Lake City that many probably count as one of the great bridge miracles of modern times), but I became a much much better player as a result of this experience. Joey's way forced me to learn to think and judge for myself instead of relying on the system to do all the hard work.

 

Thanks Joey ♥

 

Please note that I am not trying to blame my friend Eric for the rut that I managed to get myself into before Joey came along. He was nothing more than my role model and occasional mentor during this time. Had I bothered to ask him at the time, he probably would have recommended against such a young player getting so involved in *any* system (even his system).

 

Later on Eric came to be one of my closest friends, a frequent teammate, and an occasional partner. I still believe he is brilliant and I now believe I would be ready to play "his way" if I wanted to. In some sense I do want to - my regular partnership with Brad Moss has been certainly been influenced by Eric's way of thinking and I count this as one of our strengths.

 

But probably it is more accurate to say that we reside somewhere in the middle of the "Eric way" and the "Joey way". That is the approach I took my first serious partner after Joey - George Mittelman with whom I was also very successful and from whom I also learned a lot.

 

It is the "middle way" that I prefer to this day - detailed but mostly natural agreements, some complexity in auctions that arise a lot, but a system/style in which you are not completely handcuffed by every bid being well-defined. In other words, I believe in playing a system that gives you the ability to "bid what you think you can make" without that bid carrying any meaning in addition to "I think I can make this".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

So for me, a good compromise might be to allow any opening or overcall that promises at least (say) 11 points, and any follow-up to those. But at the same time put restrictions, or otherwise discourage, artificial obstructive methods. I am not really suggesting this since probably most people either can't live without artificial preempts and/or won't like opps to play unusual constructive methods. Also it may be impractical to legally distinguish between constructive and obstructive methods.

Ummmm - something like:

 

"All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:

a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values,

b. conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or over-calls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES AND RE-BIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP - and c. conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may be four cards (see #7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart). THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.)

4. Defenses to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.

5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid. "

 

That's from the ACBL Midchart, and these bids are allowed without the requirement for an approved defense.

No, the portion of the mid-chart that you cite is for responses and rebid, not for openings (and overcalls) as helene suggested.