Forcing Pass Systems

[jdonn]

MUCH better form than making my insults more snide and underhanded so I can pretend I'm not making them and take the imaginary high ground. Like if I said something along the lines of

It seems that for you "reasonable" and "objective" are synonymous with agreeing with your point of view.

[jdonn]

It seems that for you "reasonable" and "objective" are synonymous with agreeing with your point of view.

In America we call this bad debating.

and this is example of good debating

 

"Now you are just being beyond ridiculous" ?

I backed up my statement, something you seem to not have even attempted to do.

[Cascade]

Full disclosure is not the only issue.

 

Even with full disclosure, your opponents must have a reasonable opportunity to come up with an agreement as to how to defend against your methods. In most games, this will cause an undue delay in the proceedings (certainly in pair events). In some circumstances, it will be a practical impossibility to devise a reasonable defense in a short period of time. And many players will not have the experience or the expertise to come up with a defense on short notice. Thus, the use of some unusual methods creates a situation in which it is fundamentally unfair to use them against unprepared opponents.

 

Some have turned this argument on its head - "the opponents were at fault for not having prepared properly." Why should they have to prepare for a method that they have never heard of or rarely see? At least with unusual allowed methods the ACBL requires that there be an approved defense provided to the opponents. This is a solution to the problem (I didn't say it was THE solution to the problem).

 

There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods. Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. This is accepted at some levels (if the opponents do not know how to deal with a Flannery 2♦ opening, that is their problem). I play 10-12 1NT openings with my usual partner. Is a 10-12 1NT opening superior to a 12-14 1NT opening or a 13-15 1NT opening or any other range? Arguments can be made. But there is no doubt that opening 1NT on a 10-12 point hand causes problems for the opponents. Part of that is due to unfamiliarity. This is accepted by the ACBL and other bridge organizations.

 

But using unusual methods is not accepted at other levels (you cannot spring a transfer 1♥ opening on your opponents). A line has to be drawn, and all bridge organizations decide where to draw the line.

You don't prepare for methods when they come up at the table. You discuss them in advance.

 

I have no idea where this idea has come from that you would expect to do well against anyone if you make up your defense on the fly when it occurs at the table.

 

This approach will be bad whether you are defending against a FERT or a natural 1♠ opening.

[Cascade]

It seems that for you "reasonable" and "objective" are synonymous with agreeing with your point of view.

In America we call this bad debating.

and this is example of good debating

 

"Now you are just being beyond ridiculous" ?

I backed up my statement, something you seem to not have even attempted to do.

Which statement are you talking about?

[Cascade]

MUCH better form than making my insults more snide and underhanded so I can pretend I'm not making them and take the imaginary high ground. Like if I said something along the lines of

It seems that for you "reasonable" and "objective" are synonymous with agreeing with your point of view.

You insult someone then you expect a courteous reply?

[ArtK78]

Full disclosure is not the only issue.

 

Even with full disclosure, your opponents must have a reasonable opportunity to come up with an agreement as to how to defend against your methods.  In most games, this will cause an undue delay in the proceedings (certainly in pair events).  In some circumstances, it will be a practical impossibility to devise a reasonable defense in a short period of time.  And many players will not have the experience or the expertise to come up with a defense on short notice.  Thus, the use of some unusual methods creates a situation in which it is fundamentally unfair to use them against unprepared opponents.

 

Some have turned this argument on its head - "the opponents were at fault for not having prepared properly."  Why should they have to prepare for a method that they have never heard of or rarely see?  At least with unusual allowed methods the ACBL requires that there be an approved defense provided to the opponents.  This is a solution to the problem (I didn't say it was THE solution to the problem).

 

There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods.  Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods.  This is accepted at some levels (if the opponents do not know how to deal with a Flannery 2♦ opening, that is their problem).  I play 10-12 1NT openings with my usual partner.  Is a 10-12 1NT opening superior to a 12-14 1NT opening or a 13-15 1NT opening or any other range?  Arguments can be made.  But there is no doubt that opening 1NT on a 10-12 point hand causes problems for the opponents.  Part of that is due to unfamiliarity.  This is accepted by the ACBL and other bridge organizations.

 

But using unusual methods is not accepted at other levels (you cannot spring a transfer 1♥ opening on your opponents).  A line has to be drawn, and all bridge organizations decide where to draw the line.

You don't prepare for methods when they come up at the table. You discuss them in advance.

 

I have no idea where this idea has come from that you would expect to do well against anyone if you make up your defense on the fly when it occurs at the table.

 

This approach will be bad whether you are defending against a FERT or a natural 1♠ opening.

Exactly.

 

But all bridge players have learned how do deal with a natural 1♠ opening. I would venture a bet that less than 1% of all bridge players even know what a FERT is.

 

You are just supporting my argument.

[jdonn]

Who cares if it's courteous? At least stand behind what you say. If you want to insult me then stand up and shout it, don't whisper it then pretend you never said anything and you are the angel to my devil.

 

You acted completely ridiculous (I am being kind when I use that word by the way.) I told you so, which by definition is an insult despite being true. I then explained why, in order to make my comments relevant to the discussion instead of pointless name calling. Your reaction was to complain you were insulted, insult me back with a statement that is not only impossible to back up but untrue, and then pretend you didn't make an insult. Then when pointed out you did so, fall back on "he started it". So is this what I have to resort to from now on to show "good form"? Act stupid, then blame the first person who points it out to me? Sorry I'll stick to the way I do it now thanks.

[Cascade]

Who cares if it's courteous? At least stand behind what you say. If you want to insult me then stand up and shout it, don't whisper it then pretend you never said anything and you are the angel to my devil.

 

You acted completely ridiculous (I am being kind when I use that word by the way.) I told you so, which by definition is an insult despite being true. I then explained why, in order to make my comments relevant to the discussion instead of pointless name calling. Your reaction was to complain you were insulted, insult me back with a statement that is not only impossible to back up but untrue, and then pretend you didn't make an insult. Then when pointed out you did so, fall back on "he started it". So is this what I have to resort to from now on to show "good form"? Act stupid, then blame the first person who points it out to me? Sorry I'll stick to the way I do it now thanks.

Where is the reasoning here?

 

Now you are just being beyond ridiculous, to the point it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. The reason for prealerts is so you don't have to prepare for those methods that are prealertable! What exactly did Adam do wrong? Assume his opponents would follow the rules designed to give him a chance to come up with a defense? Not consider every one of the infinite possible meanings for the 1♠ response in case his opponents would be playing it?

 

Cherdano is right from a few posts back. You have now reached the point where you are completely unable to be objective.

 

This is utter nonsense. You prealert so the opponents "don't have to prepare for those methods".

 

I doubt that you can find anything close to backing up that statement.

 

Even if it comes close to the intention I certainly wouldn't want to play being deliberately unprepared for what the opponents will throw at me.

[RichMor]

ArtK78 wrote

<<

There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods. Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods.

>>

 

Well put. I think this is the center of the issue.

 

If innovators are not allowed to play new and unusual methods then the methods will never become old and familiar. Progress stops and we all revert to Culbertson.

 

On the other hand, if players of unusual methods get favorable results from the opponents' unfamiliarity then we will see an unending stream of 'new for the sake of new' systems. Sort of like pop music. ("I miss that old time rock and roll").

 

Wish I had a sensible opinion about whether the FPs or other HUMs should be allowed or restricted, but I dont. ;)

 

I do have this opinion: preparing a defense for the system-of-the-week is not a good way to spend my limited mental energy.

[jdonn]

This is utter nonsense.  You prealert so the opponents "don't have to prepare for those methods".

 

I doubt that you can find anything close to backing up that statement.

From the ACBL website:

 

# Pre-Alerts (Alerts before hands are removed from the first board of a round or match segment):

 

* Two-system methods (e.g., strong club when equal or favorable vulnerability; a natural two-over-one when not).

* Systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods or preempts.

* Systems which may be unfamiliar to opponents, such as canapé. SuperChart and Mid-Chart methods.

* Leading low from a doubleton

 

Look at the third point. Do you have a suggestion on how I prepare for methods "which may be unfamiliar to" me?

 

By the way, is there a difference between calling what I say "utter nonsense" because you assume I can't back it up (even when I can) and calling what you say "ridiculous"?

[awm]

Oh and if the pre-alert was missing and that would have given you a chance to devise a defense then it is suboptimal to continue playing once the bid is made without calling the director.

Actually we did call the director as soon as the bid was made and alerted. He instructed us to "play on" and he would adjudicate later. We "played on" and got a ridiculous result because of the disagreement over the meaning of double.

 

The director adjusted the result to a (somewhat arbitrary) 3 IMPs for our side.

 

One of the opponents then became very upset and spent the next 40 minutes of our 60 minute swiss team match arguing with the director. This probably should have lead to a further penalty (wasting a huge amount of time) but didn't.

[DrTodd13]

Personally, I think that being courteous and kind to one another is admirable. Both sides in this debate have been guilty of disrespecting the other side to some degree. The use of the term "ridiculous" instead of "incorrect" in my opinion serves only as a means to backhandedly insult the person who made the argument. There is a way to forcefully assert one's position without insulting the other side.

 

I'm disappointed, and now think less of those people who, for example, called the chess analogy ridiculous. Several other people then agreed that the analogy had some illustrative value. I just don't think this style of arguing helps draw us to any conclusion...it only serves to stir up people's passions and mask any true dialogue.

[Free]

Oh and if the pre-alert was missing and that would have given you a chance to devise a defense then it is suboptimal to continue playing once the bid is made without calling the director.

Actually we did call the director as soon as the bid was made and alerted. He instructed us to "play on" and he would adjudicate later. We "played on" and got a ridiculous result because of the disagreement over the meaning of double.

 

The director adjusted the result to a (somewhat arbitrary) 3 IMPs for our side.

 

One of the opponents then became very upset and spent the next 40 minutes of our 60 minute swiss team match arguing with the director. This probably should have lead to a further penalty (wasting a huge amount of time) but didn't.

So what is the problem then??? ;) You didn't get a poor score and you know you should discuss this gismo for the future (+ who cares what mental state our opps are?).

[Cascade]

Oh and if the pre-alert was missing and that would have given you a chance to devise a defense then it is suboptimal to continue playing once the bid is made without calling the director.

Actually we did call the director as soon as the bid was made and alerted. He instructed us to "play on" and he would adjudicate later. We "played on" and got a ridiculous result because of the disagreement over the meaning of double.

 

The director adjusted the result to a (somewhat arbitrary) 3 IMPs for our side.

 

One of the opponents then became very upset and spent the next 40 minutes of our 60 minute swiss team match arguing with the director. This probably should have lead to a further penalty (wasting a huge amount of time) but didn't.

Basically though the unusual method did not cause the "Lousy results".

[fred]

I'm disappointed, and now think less of those people who, for example, called the chess analogy ridiculous.  Several other people then agreed that the analogy had some illustrative value.  I just don't think this style of arguing helps draw us to any conclusion...it only serves to stir up people's passions and mask any true dialogue.

I think you are right. As one of the people who referred to the chess analogy as "ridiculous", I apologize.

 

I disagree with Dr. Todd in the value of that analogy (and I don't think much of the other analogies to other sports mentioned in this thread), but I certainly could have been more polite about the way I expressed this.

 

It has been a good discussion. I hope Dr. Todd's post will result in cooler heads (including mine) prevailing should the discussion continue.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

This is utter nonsense.  You prealert so the opponents "don't have to prepare for those methods".

 

I doubt that you can find anything close to backing up that statement.

From the ACBL website:

 

# Pre-Alerts (Alerts before hands are removed from the first board of a round or match segment):

 

* Two-system methods (e.g., strong club when equal or favorable vulnerability; a natural two-over-one when not).

* Systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods or preempts.

* Systems which may be unfamiliar to opponents, such as canapé. SuperChart and Mid-Chart methods.

* Leading low from a doubleton

 

Look at the third point. Do you have a suggestion on how I prepare for methods "which may be unfamiliar to" me?

Generic or meta defenses or even natural bids work reasonably well against most things.

[Cascade]

This is utter nonsense.  You prealert so the opponents "don't have to prepare for those methods".

 

I doubt that you can find anything close to backing up that statement.

From the ACBL website:

 

# Pre-Alerts (Alerts before hands are removed from the first board of a round or match segment):

 

* Two-system methods (e.g., strong club when equal or favorable vulnerability; a natural two-over-one when not).

* Systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods or preempts.

* Systems which may be unfamiliar to opponents, such as canapé. SuperChart and Mid-Chart methods.

* Leading low from a doubleton

 

Look at the third point. Do you have a suggestion on how I prepare for methods "which may be unfamiliar to" me?

 

By the way, is there a difference between calling what I say "utter nonsense" because you assume I can't back it up (even when I can) and calling what you say "ridiculous"?

Your previous statement was:

 

The reason for prealerts is so you don't have to prepare for those methods that are prealertable!

 

I think there is a big difference between prealert in case the opponents happen to be unfamiliar with your methods and your assertion that prealerts are designed so that players do not have to prepare for those methods.

 

I can't imagine that your discussions with your partner would include:

 

Partner: Lets prepare a defense over canape openings?

 

Josh: We don't need to prepare against them because they are prealerted.

 

Whatever the purpose for a prealert happens to be I don't think it is designed to encourage players not to prepare defenses against relatively unusual systems as your statement contends.

 

"The reason..." as if there is no other reason.

"...is so you don't have to prepare..." is to encourage lack of preparation.

 

Maybe I am wrong that that argument seems to make no sense at all to me.

[DrTodd13]

Does everything that requires a pre-alert also require a suggested written defense? I don't think that is the case. If it isn't then the purpose of the pre-alert must be to give the opponents a chance to "on-the-fly" come up with a defense. Could they do better if they had discussed various unorthodox things they might encounter before hand? Certainly. They should be rewarded for more thorough preparation than their competitors. I don't think it would make sense to classify a bid as requiring a pre-alert and at the same time believe that it is impossible to come up with a reasonable defense on the fly.

 

I think part of the issue here is that the better you are, the higher your standards of reasonableness tend to be. Again, just from my own experience, the people who get the most bent out of shape when they encounter my FP system are either truly world class or mistakenly believe they are world class. Even intermediates just roll with the punches and bid naturally and most disasters are averted. At a world class level perhaps you need some super-complicated defense against a FERT but at the club level I personally don't see much problem from simple, natural bidding.

[mycroft]

No, in that case, the *illegal* method resulted in the board being thrown out and an Artificial Adjusted Score assigned. And then, I hope, more for each board that wasn't available to be played because the players wouldn't accept the original penalty.

 

And that's a different issue. I don't mind playing against a lot of things I haven't "prepared" for. But what I don't like is playing against things that I'd like to play, but don't because they're not allowed. It only rarely happens, but I do make a habit of pointing it out when it does. Petty of me, maybe, but ah well.

 

(totally offtopic, yes)

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, pre-Alerts (under the GCC) are designed for those methods where they think you will need to come to some, quick, agreement you may not have to hand, or you and partner might go different reasonable ways without the discussion, to deal with them - "treat it as NAT/ART"/"takeout of the canape promises 4 in opener's suit"/"Let's play Fishbein against *these* preempts", and so on; or they're odd carding agreements that most wouldn't think to ask about (low from 2 is the one that comes to mind). No agreement allowed under the GCC requires a suggested defence.

 

All non-GCC methods, where legal, require pre-Alerts, whether they require a suggested/approved defence or not.

[H_KARLUK]

I thank you too tho in my view we disagreed.

"Chess opening theory developed since there were no restrictions on what openings could be played. Bridge bidding theory can benefit enormously by lifting arbitrary restrictions on what can be played."

I am sorry, there is also a restriction. Perhaps you skipped. Movement of the pieces aren't restricted?

...

In Chess they don't change the rules when someone starts having success with an innovative opening (or other set of rules).

 

I am sure Chess players would start complaining if they said "from now you can only move your bishop one square" or we are banning you from playing some particular opening.

 

And they would complain more if this ban came after certain players had started having success against the masters with the now banned opening.

Do you really play chess or just an assumption?

[maggieb]

The use of the term "ridiculous" instead of "incorrect" in my opinion serves only as a means to backhandedly insult the person who made the argument.

Ridiculous is not the same as incorrect. I would be sad if all my mistakes turned out to be ridiculous. (Cause I've made more than my share of them! ;) :) )

[TimG]

Does everything that requires a pre-alert also require a suggested written defense? I don't think that is the case.

I don't think it is the case, either. I believe that canape methods require a pre-alert, but not a written defense, for instance. Variable NT ranges might also be an example.

[H_KARLUK]

Forcing pass is like the latvian gambit. It may or may not be theoretically unsound but it needs quite a lot of preparation to defend against it. If you don`t prepare, you will sometimes lose despite being better in other parts of the game.

 

This is 100 % the same with a FP system: Maybe it has no merrits, but you need an awful lot of preparation to defend against it. So whoever claims that he does not want himself or the LOL to spend much time in preparation against this method has a fair point. It needs time.

 

The chess players live with this problem and have a more or less vague idee what they will do when this opening is played- or they even have a defence memorized.

 

The bridge players decided to ban the lativian gambit instead of working on a defence.

 

Freds analogy was right too: If you use the given "vocabulary"  with a total different meaning, this is not understandable for the opponents.

 

 

 

This is a real tricky issue and I belive that anybody who tries to paint black/white pictures will not be able to see the beauty of the rainbow.  :)

*What is the object of playing a gambit opening?... To acquire a reputation of being a dashing player at the cost of losing a game.

 

**The beauty of a move lies not in its' appearance but in the thought behind it.

 

***One doesn't have to play well, it's enough to play better than your opponent.

 

MD. Siegbert Tarrasch (March 5, 1862 – February 17, 1934) was a leading chess player

 

 

Days are passing quickly. I still have no idea why HUM professionals do not object WBF policy.

 

OTOH is it really bad to arrange competitions between stickers assigned by WBF?

A final somewhere and sometime hard ?

 

So we can see if only to play a HUM sys enough to win or not.

[DinDIP]

As, alas, happens virtually every time HUMs and weak opening systems are discussed, there is lots of heat and not nearly as much light. A few thoughts from someone who, as Fred would say, has spent too much of his time on such systems to become as good a player as he could have, but who still derives enormous pleasure from bidding theory:

 

 

Destructive vs constructive methods

Jan Martel (it’s good to have people in such positions as hers participating in discussions like this) argued that “Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.” (Digression: In Australia there has been a heated debate this year about whether exhibited photos of a nude, pubescent, teenage girl are art or pornography.)

 

I think that reflects a bias about how one should play “a good game of bridge”. A key reason for bidding on 8-12HCP hands – the core of weak opening systems [not the fert as some misguidedly suggest] – is that it helps to make it more difficult for the opponents to find their best contract. This has long been recognised (and set out in print at least since S.J. Simon’s masterful Design for Bidding of 1949) as another way to achieve the objective of all serious bridge players: beating absolute par.

 

(Short explanation: absolute par is the least worst score that can be achieved by both sides on any board. If the NS par is 4S making four and the EW par is 4H making four then absolute par is EW playing 5HX, one down. NS cannot do better by bidding 5S and going down; EW cannot do better by letting NS play in 4S, making, or even in a S partscore, depending on vulnerability.)

 

Absolute par can be beaten either by reaching our best contract or by preventing the opponents from reaching their best contract. That is why almost all systems include elements of both approaches in their design, for example preemptive three-level and higher openings. (But not all systems: S Garton Churchill, an American theorist whose praises are not sufficiently sung, abjured most preempts until late in his life, I understand.) Some go further, for example, opening light in third seat or making weak jump overcalls or jump raises when the opponents open or weak jump-shifts or raises after partner opens.

 

Neither the bridge scoring table nor the rules of bridge place a premium on one method beating absolute par over the other. So, to claim that so-called constructive bidding (aiming to reach our best contract) is intrinsically better than so-called destructive bidding (aiming to disrupt the opponents from reaching their best contract) is a non-bridge judgement. However, it is a widely held view and has been a critical factor influencing regulators.

 

 

Why are some things prohibited?

Jan also wrote “Forcing pass is barred because to play a forcing pass, you have to play some fert and ferts just cannot be defined adequately and therefore aren't allowed.”

 

Ferts can be clearly defined: when I play one we explain it to the opponents as “0-7HCP, excludes hands suitable for openings of 2M+, might be bad 8HCP BAL, excludes shapely 7 HCP hands with good suits or good controls”. What that does not do is provide the opponents with the familiar things they are used to having as a basis for defensive bidding (a known suit or, after a natural notrump opening, sufficient high cards in opener’s hand so as to make bidding game or slam by the non-notrumpers relatively unlikely). If that’s what regulators mean then let them be explicit as to the reason for the decision.

 

 

Impossible to devise defences?

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

 

Here in Australia lots of LOLs use such methods (e.g. 2H/2S/2N as 55 two suiters rank-colour-odd) and defend against them regularly. I agree that there is no really good defence but the same is true of lots of bids that take away space. (Simple example: I’m happy to compete on shape alone over their strong NT but I do so knowing that it makes it very difficult for us to bid games with much confidence if my 2S bid can be Qxxxxx x Qxxx xx or two aces stronger.)

 

What is harder to defend against is 2H showing a weak two in hearts or in spades (or analogous openings) but, again, a reasonable defence is available: assume they have the suit they bid.

 

 

Is having a defence to unusual bidding an integral part of the game?

If you accept that it is legitimate to take away the opponents’ bidding space as a way to do well then you need to be prepared when the opponents do that to you. Example: until Bergen raises were devised and used widely no-one needed to devise a defence to (1S) P (3C) because it was natural and strong. Now that it shows a weak hand with S support methods are needed: is X showing clubs or takeout of spades?

 

Generic (or meta) defences help to make situations like this easy: our agreement is that X is takeout of the suit they have shown. Yes, generic defences are not always optimal – it might be sensible to play X as lead-directing if their auction is GF – but generic defences that are easy to remember and apply make it possible to play against virtually anything and be satisfactorily equipped.

 

Note that generic defences to the cards the opponents play is considered an essential element of being a good declarer or defender. For example, if you want to encourage a continuation as declarer then you play high if they are using natural signals and low if reverse.

 

Just as such plays become easier – natural even – the more often you make them, so unusual bidding situations become easier to handle when one has generic defences and feels comfortable using them.

 

Restricting the opportunities for players to encounter such methods can only make people less familiar and reduce the need for them to prepare the generic defences that would enable them to compete. And allowing only some (such as Bergen or, until recently in North America, the Multi), leaves regulators open to criticism and accusations of favouritism, especially if these are methods they use.

 

 

Strong Pass or Weak Opening? And why people play such systems

*Strong pass* is somewhat misleading as a name for such systems (forcing pass is even worse). This is in part because not all systems in fact have a strong pass (for example, the Swedish Super Spade system uses Pass to show any hand with 8+points and 4+ spades). Even when showing a better than average hand, in some systems Pass is not unlimited but a limited call (because 1C is retained for stronger hands).

 

*Weak opening* is a better description because the theoretical driver of almost all these systems is to find ways to open hands with 8-12 points. Why? Because these are the most frequently occurring hands. (Hands with 8-12 HCP comprise more than 44 percent of all hands. In contrast, hands with 13+HCP comprise only 27 percent of all hands.) Many players were (and are) willing to overcall with hands in the 8-12 HCP range after the opponents have opened the bidding, so why not bid with them *before* the opponents have had a chance to start describing their hands?

 

For most system designers, a strong pass is a consequence of the desire to play limited openings on these 8-12 HCP hands. Despite the flaws in passing with strong hands (leaving the partnership open to competitive disruption, for example, when no suit has been identified), this has been judged better than alternatives such as lowering the requirements of standard opening bids, making them 8-22 HCP.

 

David