Forcing Pass Systems

[Cascade]

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.

I think unlike Helene's suggestion this does not allow transfer openings.

 

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play. In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening.

 

This makes no sense at all to me.

 

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

[helene_t]

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

The Shanghai decision was an oops. Normally a 2+ minor suit opening is not protected. Whether a 3+ minor suit opening should be is debatable but since everyone treat it as natural (i.e. a direct cuebid is Michaels, not natural) it makes some sense.

 

A 1NT opening is much more difficult to defend than any minor suit opening regardless of meaning.

 

I am not arguing that the BSC definitions are great but there are so many conflicting criteria at play that we shouldn't expect anything much better I'm afraid.

[awm]

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play. In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening.

 

This makes no sense at all to me.

 

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

Actually, on the General Convention Chart it states:

 

Allowed

....

Defense to conventional calls

 

(it's under Competitive 7a).

 

So even local ACBL tourneys allow an artificial defense to a conventional opening bid like the 1♣ showing 2+.

 

Amusing that the national team tried (and for a while succeeded) to get a defense disallowed in a world championship when the same defense can be played at my local sectional in the USA!

[hrothgar]

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play.  In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening. 

 

This makes no sense at all to me. 

 

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

Actually, on the General Convention Chart it states:

 

Allowed

....

Defense to conventional calls

 

(it's under Competitive 7a).

 

So even local ACBL tourneys allow an artificial defense to a conventional opening bid like the 1♣ showing 2+.

 

Amusing that the national team tried (and for a while succeeded) to get a defense disallowed in a world championship when the same defense can be played at my local sectional in the USA!

For what its worth, when I run into folks playing a short club I often like to use a 2♥ overcall as a weak two in either hearts or spades.

 

Half the appeal is the fact that this is GCC legal...

[Cascade]

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

The Shanghai decision was an oops. ...

Has it been overturned?

[Cascade]

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play.  In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening. 

 

This makes no sense at all to me. 

 

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

Actually, on the General Convention Chart it states:

 

Allowed

....

Defense to conventional calls

 

(it's under Competitive 7a).

 

So even local ACBL tourneys allow an artificial defense to a conventional opening bid like the 1♣ showing 2+.

 

Amusing that the national team tried (and for a while succeeded) to get a defense disallowed in a world championship when the same defense can be played at my local sectional in the USA!

My point is that the artificial 1♣ was being treated as natural by the WBF.

[Finch]

My point is that the artificial 1♣ was being treated as natural by the WBF.

Yes. I'm sure we'll find someone on this thread who agrees with that decision, but currently I don't know anyone who thinks that was anything but obviously wrong.

 

I don't know that many country's own rules, but in those I do know, a 2+ club is treated as conventional.

 

It seems to be all the rage at the moment to open 1C on 5332 12-14 hands with a bad 5-card major, taking the concept of treating these hands as 'balanced' to its logical extreme. Maybe that'll be called natural in the next Bermuda Bowl..

[PeterGill]

A few points:

 

1. Australia's current juniors do not seem to be system-mad,

but I will try to keep an eye on any who take the wrong fork

in the road. The WBF's ban on HUMs at all World Youth events

means that very few youths in the last 15 years have played HUMs.

 

2. I think Fred Gitelman's contributions to this thread

are incredibly insightful and useful.

 

3. Somebody asked what WOR is. It stands for "Weak Opening Relay",

Paul Marston's Forcing Pass system before switching to Moscito about

20 years ago.

 

4. The Australian team which came 5th in the world (our best result

for 18 years) in the most recent Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai in 2007

had three pairs all playing natural 5 card major systems. Usually our

National Open Team has one or two pairs playing some sort of Relay

System. Many locals here did not think they would do that well, not

being regulars in the National Team. Oddly, one player in each partnership dabbled with playing Forcing Pass systems earlier in their careers,

but none of them were obsessed by systematitis very early in their careers.

 

5. In Australia there's kanga cricket for kids, seven a side rugby,

half court tennis and minigolf. I sometimes think that bridge

should experiment whether to promote several variants, perhaps

Bridge (the current form), Two Bid Bridge (each player allowed only

two bids), Three Bid Bridge and Free Bridge (all systems allowed).

Personally I would make the Bermuda Bowl be Free Bridge and

all other events Bridge (the current form), with all forms controlled

by the WBF. The simpler forms Twobb and Threebb (which need better

names) might become useful tools for teaching bridge, with (of necessity)

very simple natural bidding.

 

6. Despite a fairly unrestrictive environment, Forcing Pass systems

and HUMs are almost but not quite extinct in Australia, with just

Sebesfi - Curtis and sometimes Hughes - Giura left.

 

Peter Gill

Sydney

[csdenmark]

A few points:

 

1. Australia's current juniors do not seem to be system-mad,

but I will try to keep an eye on any who take the wrong fork

in the road. The WBF's ban on HUMs at all World Youth events 

means that very few youths in the last 15 years have played HUMs.

 

2. I think Fred Gitelman's contributions to this thread

are incredibly insightful and useful.

 

3. Somebody asked what WOR is. It stands for "Weak Opening Relay",

Paul Marston's Forcing Pass system before switching to Moscito about

20 years ago. 

 

4. The Australian team which came 5th in the world (our best result

for 18 years) in the most recent Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai in 2007

had three pairs all playing natural 5 card major systems. Usually our

National Open Team has one or two pairs playing some sort of Relay

System. Many locals here did not think they would do that well, not

being regulars in the National Team. Oddly, one player in each partnership dabbled with playing Forcing Pass systems earlier in their careers,

but none of them were obsessed by systematitis very early in their careers. 

 

5. In Australia there's kanga cricket for kids, seven a side rugby,

half court tennis and minigolf. I sometimes think that bridge

should experiment whether to promote several variants, perhaps

Bridge (the current form), Two Bid Bridge (each player allowed only

two bids), Three Bid Bridge and Free Bridge (all systems allowed).

Personally I would make the Bermuda Bowl be Free Bridge and

all other events Bridge (the current form), with all forms controlled

by the WBF. The simpler forms Twobb and Threebb (which need better

names) might become useful tools for teaching bridge, with (of necessity)

very simple natural bidding. 

 

6. Despite a fairly unrestrictive environment, Forcing Pass systems

and HUMs are almost but not quite extinct in Australia, with just

Sebesfi - Curtis and sometimes Hughes - Giura left.

 

Peter Gill

Sydney

1. Australia's current juniors do not seem to be system-mad,

but I will try to keep an eye on any who take the wrong fork

in the road. The WBF's ban on HUMs at all World Youth events

means that very few youths in the last 15 years have played HUMs.

But what to do abut that Peter? Something or nothing at all?

 

2. I think Fred Gitelman's contributions to this thread

are incredibly insightful and useful.

Agree - but unbalanced. Fred still needs to explain why man-machine counts anywhere else in society but is of no relevance in bridge.

 

3. Somebody asked what WOR is. It stands for "Weak Opening Relay",

Paul Marston's Forcing Pass system before switching to Moscito about

20 years ago.

Thank you for the name. In reality it was a request for notes. Not only about general curiousity but not least because features damned by me as 'misconstruction'.

[fred]

Fred still needs to explain why man-machine counts anywhere else in society but is of no relevance in bridge.

I am sorry, Claus, but I do not understand what it is you are asking me to explain.

 

If you clarify your question and if I think I have any insights into the answer, I will try to express them.

 

I am guessing that, if I can provide a meaningful answer at all, my answer will be something along the lines of "apples are not oranges".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ndpost&p=326609

 

It is here below:

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.

 

Fred in a discussion arguments go under - conclusions are what we remember. Even I will love very much to agree with you - and to some extend really do so - it is suspicious that your argument is based on super-natural qualifications of persons. You are of course in a much more comfortable position to make a qualified judgement of that.

 

Each time we discuss this topic we talk about beginners versus the very thin world-elite. We talk like everybody really want to be world champions. I doubt it is so. They want to be good and solid but they have a good job and want to a have a good and interesting hobby too. In fact it is so that the Bermuda winners are fairly unknown outside their own country - even inside bridge communities.

 

Last for now - I am very suspicious your arguments go under and your conclusion will be misused by the lazy ones. Even thats not your message - your conclusion is just what the lazy ones like to hear. I would therefore like to have your arguments related to a timeline. I am very sure we in that way will agree - at least to 90% - and for the rest I think I will agree with Peter Gill.

[Cascade]

... and Free Bridge (all systems allowed).

Personally I would make the Bermuda Bowl be Free Bridge and

all other events Bridge (the current form), with all forms controlled

by the WBF.

This suggestion seems impractical to me from the point of view of allowing all systems.

 

If only the Bermuda Bowl allows all systems where do players get experience playing the unrestricted methods and perhaps more importantly against such methods.

 

If there is to be a more permissive system regulations then there needs to be a comprehensive structure of tournaments in which such systems can be played.

[csdenmark]

If only the Bermuda Bowl allows all systems where do players get experience playing the unrestricted methods and perhaps more importantly against such methods.

 

If there is to be a more permissive system regulations then there needs to be a comprehensive structure of tournaments in which such systems can be played.

Acol Players Club perhaps?

[fred]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ndpost&p=326609

 

It is here below:

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.

 

Fred in a discussion arguments go under - conclusions are what we remember. Even I will love very much to agree with you - and to some extend really do so - it is suspicious that your argument is based on super-natural qualifications of persons. You are of course in a much more comfortable position to make a qualified judgement of that.

 

Each time we discuss this topic we talk about beginners versus the very thin world-elite. We talk like everybody really want to be world champions. I doubt it is so. They want to be good and solid but they have a good job and want to a have a good and interesting hobby too. In fact it is so that the Bermuda winners are fairly unknown outside their own country - even inside bridge communities.

 

Last for now - I am very suspicious your arguments go under and your conclusion will be misused by the lazy ones. Even thats not your message - your conclusion is just what the lazy ones like to hear. I would therefore like to have your arguments related to a timeline. I am very sure we in that way will agree - at least to 90% - and for the rest I think I will agree with Peter Gill.

I am still not sure I understand what you are asking, Claus, but I will try to answer...

 

You refer to "equipment" used in other sports and, I believe, are making the claim that bidding systems in bridge are analogous.

 

If that is not what you are saying, then sorry, but that is the point I will try to address. I will use tennis as a comparison - a sport that I play, but not very well.

 

In tennis, technology has produced better and better raquets (equipment) over the years that make it easier and easier for a bad tennis player like me to play what appears to be a competent game of tennis. It is certainly in my short term interest as a tennis player to get one of these fancy raquets. I do not know if it is in my long term interest or not. Probably you would have to ask a tennis coach or at least a very good player if this was the case. Perhaps by relying on my fancy raquet to do so much work for me, I will never develop the skills I need to play the game really well. In this sense, it may sound like the comparison between the raquet in tennis and the bidding system in bridge makes sense, but I don't think that is the case (see below).

 

Technology has certainly impacted the equipment used in other sports as well. Two that I can think of off the top of my head are skiing (a sport I am good at) and golf (I sport I am really awful at).

 

But let's go back to tennis. I claim that the comparison between the tennis raquet and the bidding system in bridge is meaningless. A bridge bidding system is not a piece of equipment. The only equipment we have in bridge are things like comfortable clothess and chairs and good eye glasses. Having this sort of good bridge equipment, while probably not vital to success, can only be good for your game - by all means you should seek it out and use it when you play.

 

The aspects of tennis that are *maybe* analogous to a bidding system in bridge would be:

 

- do you use a 2-handed backhand or not?

- when do you come to the net?

- to what extent are you willing to risk a double fault in order to make a reasonably hard-to-return 2nd serve?

 

Sorry to any good tennis players out there if these examples are dumb :)

 

But dumb or not, I would consider these things "techniques" or "strategies" as opposed to "equipment". Bidding systems in bridge are similar in this regard.

 

If you can accept all of this, let me preempt you from posting:

 

1) Yes of course techniques and strategies in sports advance over time, just like equipment does

 

2) Yes of course in many/most sports (including probably tennis) it would not make much sense for the rules to prevent players from using the latest techniques and strategies

 

All I can say in response, is that IMO there is not much point in comparing pairs of sports (especially those that are completely different from each other in so many respects like bridge and tennis are) and trying to draw sensible conclusions. The same goes for apples and oranges which arguably have a lot more in common with each other than bridge and tennis do.

 

If you persist in considering bridge bidding systems to be "equipment" and insist on continuing to use (mostly meaningless IMO) comparisons with other sports, then I am afraid you are defeating your own argument: many sports do in fact make rules that put limits on the equipment that is allowed (the size of the raquet in tennis for example).

 

About your request for a "timeline", I think I provided what it is you are looking for in another post in this thread (when I suggested that talented young players would be better off if they spent the first 10 years or so of their bridge careers before they got heavily involved in developing/experimenting with systems).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Thank you very much Fred. After this we may even land at near the same spot. I will wait until tomorrow for an answer. I need a little more time to think about your answer which I appreciate very much - because it is what I have missed in many of your other postings about this theme.

 

But I am glad to see that you have at east understood the basic of what I mean - in that respect i have had some success this time.

 

Please consider - I am not talking about different equipment for different objectives. I think of different ways using the relevant equipment for the same objectives.

 

If I want to transport persons - I need a bus.

If I want to transport more persons - I need 2 busses or a faster bus or maybe a shorter route.

 

If my objective instead will be to transport my persons more comfortable I need to choose a road without holes or maybe feathering the bus better. Maybe serving tea during the trip could be an option for that purpose.

 

Many ways may lead to the same goal. What I decide to choose and why - I need to think over - at least until tomorrow.

 

Have a nice day Fred - and thank you for going my way - at least about considerings.

[awm]

Other sports generally do have rules regarding both equipment and strategies.

 

For equipment:

 

(1) Tennis has rules about the size and shape of the racquet.

(2) Chess players are not allowed to bring chess computers to the table to consult between moves.

(3) Hockey has rules regarding the size and shape of hockey sticks.

(4) Soccer has regulations about the size of the goal, length of the field, and so forth.

 

For strategies:

 

(1) Tennis players are required to serve from behind the baseline.

(2) Soccer players are not allowed to stand in front of the opposing goal and wait for a pass (offside).

(3) Soccer teams are not allowed to substitute a player out, then back in.

(4) Volleyball teams are required to rotate the server.

(5) Chess players are not allowed to trash-talk their opponent during a match.

 

It is easy to see how violating any of these rules about equipment or strategies could lead to greater success (if the rules were not enforced). But the rules are in place to protect the "sanctity" of the game, to make sure it is a contest which matches the types of skills that the game is about, rather than substituting other skills or replacing the skill component entirely with "who has the better equipment."

[TimG]

Didn't someone make something of a mockery of the America's Cup a few years ago by defending a challenge with a catamaran (which created a complete mismatch)?

 

I'm not suggesting that forcing pass systems are the catamarans of bridge. Just citing a sports example of a difference in equipment rendering the competition meaningless.

[helene_t]

All these analogies are meaningless.

 

First, most of the restrictions in other sports have been made for completely different reasons than the reasons for restricting conventions.

 

Second, even if someone came up with a good analogy, so what? Maybe the other sports have it wrong and the bridge legislators have it right?

[H_KARLUK]

Are there really need a rearrangement according to some systematic division into classes or groups ?

[DrTodd13]

To me, the chess equivalent of banning forcing pass is like saying it takes too much time and effort to play against the Sicilian defense and for the enjoyment of chess players we'll ban it from almost every competition. So, we'll let you play the french, queen's or king's gambit....you don't need anything else to enjoy the game do you?

[ArtK78]

There is no chess equivalent to a forcing pass system.

[jdonn]

To me, the chess equivalent of banning forcing pass is like saying it takes too much time and effort to play against the Sicilian defense and for the enjoyment of chess players we'll ban it from almost every competition. So, we'll let you play the french, queen's or king's gambit....you don't need anything else to enjoy the game do you?

That's not an accurate analogy. No legal call is banned, it's meanings for calls that are banned. You are suggesting a situation in which legal moves would be banned. As Art said, there is no chess equivalence.

[glen]

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).

...

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

...

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.

...

The other associated thread mentions the Gladwell book Outliers (a must read for every parent), and a key theory of the book is that opportunity matters a lot (as well as the 10K hours of practice). I know you credit Silver and his lack of a complex system as a very important developmental factor, but consider this:

 

- You were well on your way to your 10,000 battle hours

- You were now starting a partnership with one of Canada’s top players

- This partnership would coach/mentor you to become better.

 

Now what would have happened if instead of Silver, you had partnered Kokish over the same Joey years? Instead of 2 pages of system notes, you would have had 2,000 pages. However you would not have wasted much time yourself on system design, as it would have been totally inflicted on you by EOK. Instead, with plenty of time (including bridge as it related to your work), tough competition, and a great writer/analyst/coach/mentor as your partner, you would have seen your game improve immensely.

 

To return to the theories in Outliers, maybe it was the opportunity to play with one of Canada’s top players and the investment of thousands of hours, that spurred your game on? Maybe system had little to do with it at all.

[DrTodd13]

It isn't a technical equivalence I'm talking about but an equivalent theme of preparedness. In unrestricted bridge you have to be prepared for any system or convention that may come up. Likewise, in chess you have to be prepared for any opening or defense. There are some rare openings that have fallen out of favor but my understanding is that occasionally someone will spring one on someone who may have not prepared against it because it is so rare. Chess players have decided as a whole that they like this situation and they would dislike artificially limiting the game by banning certain positions in the early game. Bridge players have come to the opposite conclusion and have chosen to place artificial restrictions on the game that aren't present in the laws (the authority to do so is there I grant you). The opinion of the bridge mob will rule as in the rest of life and the bridge public does not seem to care a lot about the purity of the game but instead favor ease.

[shevek]

To me, the chess equivalent of banning forcing pass is like saying it takes too much time and effort to play against the Sicilian defense and for the enjoyment of chess players we'll ban it from almost every competition.  So, we'll let you play the french, queen's or king's gambit....you don't need anything else to enjoy the game do you?

That's not an accurate analogy. No legal call is banned, it's meanings for calls that are banned. You are suggesting a situation in which legal moves would be banned. As Art said, there is no chess equivalence.

I guess that's true but trivial.

 

There were King's Gambit tournaments in the 1890s, where the first 3 moves were pre-ordained. It was thought it would lead to more exciting games and that happened for a while. In the end, the restriction only served to shift analysis a few moves further into the game. Then - as per usual - the well-prepared would build a winning advantage away from the table and triumph over their more talented but lazier opponents.

 

In bridge there are designated tinkering areas. There are 30 methods over their 1NT opening and 1½ ways to open 1♥. Those who feel the need to invent and have a bit of fun will find an outlet "Look they play strong club! Let's play Wokka Squared!"

 

Transfers are all the rage. Rubensohl, transfer responses to 1♣, transfer rebids by opener, like 1♠ - 1NT - 2♦ = hearts. What fun! The possibilities are virtually endless. Just remember that opening 1♥ with spades is not one of them. That might frighten the horses.

 

Nick