Forcing Pass Systems

[fred]

The thing everyone seems to be either ignoring or not recognizing in the multi 2♥ situation is that what hands responder will pass with defines what hands opener will open. For instance, if responder will bid 2♠ with some hand like Ax, Jx, Kxxxx, Kxxx, opener will be likely to open KQxxxx, x, xxx, xxx but not x, KQxxxx, xxx, xxx. On the other hand, if responder will pass with that hand, opener wouldn't open some goodish hands with spades. That's just not in the same universe as deciding whether to open a natural 2♥ with a 46 hand depending on the location of your honors.

You are still fixating on the wrong set of issues

 

I'm sure you have plenty of well rehersed anecdotes about some pair that played some horrible Brown Sticker Convention and practiced poor disclosure. No one disputes that this happens.

 

I happen to have plenty horror stories about pairs playing natural methods (or worse yet methods that they think are natural). Do you want to hear them all???

I sincerely doubt it...

 

I think that we both recognize that annecdotal evidence is just that... annecdotal.

 

From my perspective, the real issue is that that there are no good standards regarding what consitutes adequate disclosure. (I don't believe that there are even any particularly good examples)

 

The way to solve this problem is to define clear standard.

Apply them consistently

Punish people who fail to meet the standards

 

I can even recommend how to design a real disclosure system for methods that require pre-disclosure.

 

Add a requirement that pairs provide a representative sample of hands that qualify for a given bid. Ideally, this sample should be based on real world play. If the pair in questions has recently changed methods and can not provide a historical record allow them to submit the output of a monte carlo simulation.

 

I think that this type of system is quite workable. I'm sure others can suggest modifications or alternative structures.

 

Implementing this type of system is how you go and solve disclosure problems.

 

Its really quite sad that so many people prefer to fixate on bidding methods rather than the disclosure process. (Especially when they are the ones who can actually effect the disclosure proces)

 

No offense intended, but I think you are the one who is fixated on the wrong set of issues :)

 

When you say:

 

From my perspective, the real issue is that that there are no good standards regarding what consitutes adequate disclosure.

 

How about "just do your best to answer the question" as a good standard?

 

I don't understand why things needs to be as complicated as you propose. IMO there is nothing seriously broken in terms of the rules involving disclosure or the procedures that most major sponsoring organizations choose to adopt in this area.

 

All that is required is for players to honestly answer the questions they are asked to the best of their ability (just like they are supposed to).

 

I like to think that most players try to do this already, but of course it is natural that we all remember the occasions in which our opponents fail to live up to their responsibilities in this area. On most such occasions, the TD, AC, or sponsoring organization will hopefully be in a position to restore equity and/or to ensure that the offending pair doesn't do the same thing again.

 

For those few players who intentionally break the rules in this area, surely education for inexperienced players and sanction for experienced players is more practical than using technology to try to solve this problem.

 

Sorry in advance if I am missing your point.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

To some degree, I think that tactical considerations can be a part of any call (bid or pass).  For certain, some calls are more likely to have tactical considerations than others.  Another certainty is that no disclosure system can be perfect and so you have to pick some happy medium between accuracy and timeliness.

Completely agree.

If you don't have the judgment as to what kind of hands would pass 2♥ then I don't believe it is their job to educate you.

Hmm? You make it sound as though there are certain answers for 'right' and 'wrong' hands on which to pass the 2♥ bid. How can they be educating me about something 100% stylistic and for which it would be absolutely impossible to prove the best hand types to take the action? They are telling me how their partnership does it and their partnership only.

Think it through, run some simulations, play it for yourself and develop your own judgment.

I don't see what my judgment has to do with it. It will be nothing like anyone else's. When it goes 1NT 3NT, there may be slightly different levels of aggression for the 3NT bid but there would be near universal agreement on the hand types and approximate ranges. IMO a pass of the 2♥ wouldn't even come close to that.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the real issue is that that there are no good standards regarding what consitutes adequate disclosure.

 

How about "just do your best to answer the question" as a good standard?

 

I don't understand why things needs to be as complicated as you propose. IMO there is nothing seriously broken in terms of the rules involving disclosure or the procedures that most major sponsoring organizations choose to adopt in this area.

 

All that is required is for players to honestly answer the questions they are asked to the best of their ability (just like they are supposed to).

 

I like to think that most players try to do this already, but of course it is natural that we all remember the occasions in which our opponents fail to live up to their responsibilities in this area. On most such occasions, the TD, AC, or sponsoring organization will hopefully be in a position to restore equity and/or to ensure that the offending pair doesn't do the same thing again.

 

For those few players who intentionally break the rules in this area, surely education for inexperienced players and sanction for experienced players is more practical than using technology to try to solve this problem.

 

Sorry in advance if I am missing your point.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

 

I stated that this is a reason to improve the system by which people disclosure methods. More specifically, I recommended adopting a more explict protocol for disclosure to make it easier to determine whether folks were providing adequate disclosure.

 

If you and Jan want to debate whether or not the current system is adequate, go right ahead. (I don't have a dog in that fight)

 

I am merely saying that if you truly believe that people aren't providing good disclosure you should either

 

1. Penalize the pair for not living up to their responsibilities

 

or

 

2. Improve the disclosure system

 

but not ban their methods

[shevek]

Okay, here we go ....

 

David (DinDip) and I have been playing strong pass in various partnerships in serious state and national teams events (14+ bds) for 20 years. Not all the time. We live in different cities - we often play strong club.

 

System design

Youngish system designers are attracted to strong club systems - there is more room to create, they seem more modern, more aggressive. Whatever. Let’s say we start with the simplest strong club system:

1♣ = 16+, then 1♦ = 0-7, others natural GF

1NT = 12-15

others 11-15 natural, 4-card majors

 

We may or may not add canapé, tweaks imported from Standard, then perhaps even relays. It might then occur to start opening light, to get the jump on “natural” systems. A quick glance at the local Laws suggests Version 2:

1♣ = 13+

1NT = 9-12

others, 8-12 natural, could be canapé

pass = 0-7 (8)

 

It’s important to realise that this is a strategically different system, with the intention to bid a fair bit on hands that belong to the other side. 45% of dealer’s hands have 8-12 pts.

It has become “dominant”, in the sense that our initial actions will set the tone for most auctions. Opponents will have to react rather than act two-thirds of the time. The mini notrump is a weapon, some might even call it “obstructive”. Like all swords, it is two edged.

The other 8-12 openings have their dangers for both sides. If I open 1♥ on four small, they might start to wonder about 4♥ their way. Perhaps (1♥) - 2♥ by the ovecaller should be natural. It’s a worry, some opponents feel anxious about such matters.

1♣ as 13+ is not so great when the rest of the room has started by bidding a suit. It’s not clear how to respond. 1♦ as 0-10 negative is too wide, so we think of splitting it in two, with 1♥ = 6-10 any and game forces starting at 1♠. Better but it stuffs up the new-fangled relays we’ve been trying.

A better solution might be to lower the bridge. This is the early 80s and the local lawmakers are yet to consider the issue, despite some rumblings from Poland. We come up with Version 3

Pass = 13+, then 1♣ = 6-10, 1♦ = 0-5, 1♥+ GF shape-showing

1♣ = 0-7(8)

1♦+ as before

 

We like this better, especially the pass. 1♣ with 0-7 seems a bit silly but we find we don’t get into trouble. In fact it becomes a constructive start to many auctions, like any other limit bid. Just like a negative to a strong club but 1 step lower, partner can relay with 1♦. The main gains come from having partner free to jump around on good hands, knowing we won’t miss game. Of course it should cause zero inconvenience since opponents can play their entire cherished system over it. Sometimes they don’t, they adjust.

Strangely, the strong pass causes them problems too. They feel like ignoring it but keeping 1NT as 12-14 seems crazy and they don’t need their strong 2♣ opening. Then one of them suggests “Let’s do what we do against a strong club.” Suction gets a run but these “obstructive” defences make less sense against 13+. We are surprised - and faintly amused - at the difficulties. We score some undeserved swings and feel a bit guilty.

 

In the 1983 Bowl, there were a few strong pass systems, some last minute inventions. I’m slack on research but I think a Brazillian pair simply tried swapping their 1♠ and pass when not vul. A poor method of course but if it led to opposing pairs spending hours on a beach designing a tailored defence, then it probably worked.

 

Dominance and complexity are related to enjoyment. I recall Jeremy Flint (I think) writing about his first bridge soiree. At favourable vul, the auction went something like

(1♥) - 2♦ - (2♥) - 3♦

(4♥)

 

Flint bid 5♦ and was reluctantly doubled for -300. At the end of the rubber, the husband of the hostess took him aside and said “That 5♦ bid was uncalled for. You should let your opponents enjoy their good cards.”

Modern players seem keener to dominate auctions.

The requirements for an opening bid drop by about ½ a point a decade. Just flick through Sheinwold or Roth if you need reminding. A balanced 11-count is fair game these days. In the 1970s, a weak two meant a GOOD 6-card suit, 7-10 pts, no void, no 4 in the other major. Modern players may have no conscious desire to dominate with loose weak twos, they just like to bid. Some opponents wish they didn’t.

The point is that all systems and all players like to dominate, to take the opponents from their comfort zone. Strong pass systems lead the way but the world is catching up. Cue Truman quote.

 

The real issue is complexity. I had this idea once that players should be allocated 10 or so disposable Alert cards at the start of a session, one for each alertable bid. When you ran out, it was back to Goren. We’d be gone after a few boards.

Americans in particular seem to feel uneasy about perceived complexity. I recall an ACBL pamphlet around Year 2000 with defences to Multi 2♦. It was an amusing document, running over several pages, with two defences spelled out to 6th position! What on earth were they thinking? Maybe they were hoping to engender enough complaints along the lines of “Why do we have to learn this *****?” to justify a ban. Sneaky and far-sighted but perhaps I give them too much credit.

The way to defend against a multi is to sit down and play, do a bit of thinking. Yes you need a few agreements but they will come, maybe from an English magazine.

Our “defence” - strange term that, very pessimistic - runs to a few lines.

X = tko of spades, 2♥ = tko of hearts, both with Lebensohl.

X of p/c bids for takeout

Pass then X = penalty suggestion

 

So all tko hands act immediately. Not much chop and we lose the 2♥ overcall but we do okay. The BIG plus for is that it’s part of our generic defence to anything. We never look at opponents’ convention cards since we have a few simple schemes that deal with whatever they throw at us. Admittedly, their ferts need preparation but anything else - Ekrens, Wilkosz, Namyats, 2♠ minor pre-empt - is trivial. We make stupid bids but at least we can work out what those stupid bids mean.

There is some head-scratching, part of the game. I recall Wolff railing against the Multi 2♦ with an auction something lke

(2♦) - 3♦ - (no) - ?

Where 4th hand didn’t know whether 3♥/♠ should be stopper or suit. I forget. His point being that people shouldn’t be expected to solve this problem on the fly. Well I think they should! Part of the game, a good part. If the Multi perpetrators get some undeserved good results from this, then knuckle down.

 

The V3 strong pass system is tame so we decide to shuffle the bids around for various reasons. For one thing, we play it at all vuls because we are lazy & forgetful plus we don’t mind giving the opponents a few free kicks. It occurs that a 9-12 vul NT is not too smart so we move it down the ladder. Likewise, opening 1♠ with spades is crude since we throwall spade hands in there, even 4-3-3-3. It’s hard to bid constructively over that so we decide to try submarine openings (one lower than transfer) so 1♣ = hearts, 1♦ = spades. We slot 8-12 balanced at 1♥ for similar reasons so look what we end up with:

Pass 13+

1♣ = hearts, 7-12

1♦ = spades, 7-12

1♥ = 7-12 balanced, no major

1♠ = 0-6 (7)

1NT = diamonds

 

So the fert comes out at 1♠ with no real malice aforethought. We couldn’t find a lower slot. This is a back-breaking system, the straw that breaks the back of a few camels. People - foreigners at any rate - might throw their arms up. “Enough. Why do we have to play against this crap!”

I kind of agree but it’s not crap. Many of the posters on this topic would suggest this method has little merit, that the good results we get are through confusion and unfamiliarity. With respect, people who hold that view are guessing, they have no basis for that assessment.

 

This time a specific defence is needed.

The submarine openings are okay, just double for takeout of the anchor suit, bid that major naturally, 1NT should be strong, overcalls sound, etc.

1♥ is a bit awkward. I reckon X as 16+ with the rest as 12-15. That’s easy for me because I’m comfortable being forced to play strong club an that board. Standard players might find it distressing, having no affinity or feel for strong club systems.

I guess the real issue is the 1♠ fert. I’ll admit we could have slotted it at 1♥ and prepared for their Heart Attack with our neat Coronary Bypass. However, we meanly chose 1♠ because it is more awkward. (Plus 1♥ is better for the flat hands)

Hope I’m not boring you.

Not so great to double 1♠ with 16+ because you don’t want 1NT or 2♣ as a negative. The best defence is to admit the pain and aim to inflict some in return. Bids from 1NT up should be transfers, to get a second shot with good hands. Double should be 14+ balanced. Needs to be balanced to help partner pass 1♠x with a few spades. Then the poker begins. I thrive on these auctions and happily report the occasional -1100 vs their 460 but 1♠ has proved at nett IMP gainer.

If partner can’t pass 1♠x, then 1NT to play, 2♣ like Extended Stayman, 2♦/♥ transfers etc. Yes we’ll agree that there is a deal of work to do. You should start by trusting us to give you the best advice. After all, we KNOW.

 

World Championships are better organised these days with systems lodged well in advance. You can devise antiferts at your leisure and bring your defence to the table. Warning - people who bring pages of defence to our table and riffle through them tend to do badly. They come with a defeatest attitude. They should come looking forward to a challenge, an interesting 16 boards.

 

Behaviour. This is a major sore point. Designers of relay or strong pass systems have tended to be - how shall I put it - geeky, surly, uncommunicative, unsocial. Their system cards have tended to be cryptic and their explanations brief and patronising. Matches drag on as opponents ask after every alert. Relay auctions can take ages - bad form that, when the bids mean nothing to most players. In short, players of complex systems need to do a lot to lift their game. Actually, I think their (our) behaviour is the main reason for complex methods being driven from the game. Okay, plus the conservatism of ageing players and administrators. I won’t go there ...

 

Nick Hughes

 

PS. When we get organised in the next few weeks, Nicoleta and I will arrange to open a regular FP table at BBO, probably at some private club, not sure. We’ll post links to system summary and recommended defence plus I’ve laboriously keyed the whole thing into Full Disclosure. I know, I need to get out more.

[DrTodd13]

If you don't have the judgment as to what kind of hands would pass 2♥ then I don't believe it is their job to educate you.

Hmm? You make it sound as though there are certain answers for 'right' and 'wrong' hands on which to pass the 2♥ bid. How can they be educating me about something 100% stylistic and for which it would be absolutely impossible to prove the best hand types to take the action? They are telling me how their partnership does it and their partnership only.

I think there are "right" and "wrong" hands to pass the 2♥ on in an auction where opps don't bid. Do a Monte Carlo analysis with a double dummy solver and you can see which hands you should respond with and in what way to improve your score. Sure, there is the possibility they haven't played the method much or thought about it much and therefore widely diverge from "right and wrong." I would suspect though that people who play this method for very long all come to very similar judgments as to when to pass. Thinking about this more, I am coming closer to your position though...edging into the gray area for me due to anticipation of opponent's reaction which is not easily modeled.

[the hog]

With all due respects, there is another argument here that is often ignored I know I will probably get howled down, but I genuinely this this to be true:

The last time I looked, Bridge consisted of bidding to a contract and then playing the cards to the best of one's ability as declarer or as a pair of defenders. Bidding, then playing. This means that bidding is an integral part of the game. There is nothing in the rules to allocate geater importance to the three key components, bidding, card play and defence.

 

This means that if I am interested in bidding and say, (for the sake of argument, though this is in fact not the case), bored by card play and/or defence, I cannot see why I should be penalised for devoting hours of my time to the former. I am not penalised for learning Winkles and other exotic squeezes etc by reading books and studying end positions for hours and hours, yet these affect the outcome of the game as do bidding systems and arcane conventions.

 

Let me also say at this point that I totally agree with disclosing methods - within reason. I go along with providing a simple and effective defence to my methods even though I do not agree with having to do so. The following scenario is frequently ignored. Lets say that i recognise a complex end play. My lho is on lead and defeat my end play by leading something. If you believe in full disclosure and in providing defences, should I not be obliged to say, "Look you can beat this by leading....?" Yes, I agree, this scenario is absurd, however is it any more absurd than having to provide a defence to methods I like?

 

Fred and others have argued that we who like complex systems are a small minority who often spoil the game for the vast majority. Well, I don't enjoy someone say double squeezing me when I could have broken up that squeeze a few tricks ago, but didn't recognise the situation.

 

You know these things work both ways.

 

Ron

[Aberlour10]

Okay, here we go ....

No doubt, this topic develops fast to the forums most scientifc discussion has ever taken place here :)

 

Robert

[the hog]

With regard to passing the 2H bid, NV I have played this 2H = weak 2 in H or S.

we pased when we held a good 5 card H suit and no S tolerance because the odds were that pd held S. We also passed sometimes, no agreement - when we were weak, the opps were vul and we had equal tolerance for both Ms - dont mind going 5 or 6 down undoubled against the opps game.

 

If you play the same bid vul as well, you are much more likely to bid 2S over 2H, hence if you hold H you will have 6 very good ones maybe even 7. This was never written in stone in our system notes, but really anyone who thinks about this for a couple of minutes will arrive at this hand set.

Looking at world champ books, I notice the Swedes played it the same way. With all due respects, it is not rocket science to work this out, its common sense and I find it surprising to read that professional players seem so threatened by this.

[JanM]

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred. Certainly a disclosure method which included specific hands for specific bids would help, but when the purpose of a bid is to cause confusion (such as the multi 2♥) it's not at all surprising that the proponents actually haven't given a lot of thought to what hands will be opened - they're going to throw the ball up and see what happens. With a bid like 2♣ showing 0-7 any, but not in the context of a strong pass system, so it's optional, there are lots and lots of things (not least the temperament of the bidder and his or her view of how well the opponents will deal with this sort of bid) that will affect the decision of whether to make the bid on a specific hand. I don't think that the proponents of that particular bid are deliberately trying to be misleading when they can't provide much information about what hands they will open, I just think that it is inherently more difficult to describe such a bid than to describe most bids.

 

By the way, the fact that a bid is difficult to describe is very unlikely to be anywhere near the top of the list of reasons a bid might be barred. Much more important reasons include the difficulty of preparing an adequate defense and the frequency of the bid. Obviously, the less likely it is that you will get a good description of the hands opened, the harder to prepare a defense, but it is the difficulty of preparing a defense that causes the bid to be barred, not the failure to describe it adequately. If I said something that sounded like "classes of bids should be banned when they often aren't adequately described," I didn't intend to.

[DrTodd13]

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred.

This is an extraordinary claim and I'd love to see the proof. I am shocked that somebody in your position is making this claim. Have you ever played against a strong pass system? Was their disclosure inadequate? There is just such variety even amongst strong pass systems that I find it impossible to make such a blanket statement. Furthermore, one can take precision and switch 1♣ and pass and get a strong pass system. You can use the same precision responses over the new strong pass and ignore the 1♣ step. So, it seems to me that for your statement to be true that you have to be arguing that something in the responses to the FERT have to be intrinsically difficult to disclose.

 

In general, I find that the more complex the system is the more precise it tries to be and, imho, precision is intrinsically easier to adequately disclose than vagueness.

[mike777]

edit

 

As a nonexpert, yes I have played, over the decades, against FP and EHAA,home made strong club, super strong club and etc.

As a nonexpert many WC do not explain.This includes playing against ACBL board. This includes players who have won open WC.

 

 

Btw those who explained well are close friends. OTOH I have seen numerous American WC players go out of the way to explain, "basic" bids.

 

 

btw2 I should add I have seen a few non usa players do the same. Helgamo(sp) and those, you know who, from Italy, stick in my mind but I am sure there have been others.

[hotShot]

Let's look at a simple example.

 

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.

Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.

Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

 

1♣ - 1♦

 

 

It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

 

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

 

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

 

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

[mike777]

Let's look at a simple example.

 

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.

Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.

Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

 

1♣ - 1♦

 

 

It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

 

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

 

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

 

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

btw Walsh is not an alert in ACBL.

So I strongly disagree....1d does not imply a 4 card major. :)

 

 

"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

[csdenmark]

Okay, here we go ....

No doubt, this topic develops fast to the forums most scientifc discussion has ever taken place here :)

 

Robert

Certainly - but it produces nothing. Those who are in favour of hard regulations - have a big majority behind them whose comfort they rightfully can refer to. Those who are against regulations prefer to ignore the majority worries. Democracy seems to be of no importance to anybody.

 

The decicive matter is: Are we any nearer to a break-away now than before this discussion came up. I certainly hope so but I am very pessimistic if it is so. Too many years have been wasted with nothing serious.

[hotShot]

Let's look at a simple example.

 

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.

Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.

Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

 

1♣ - 1♦

 

 

It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

 

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

 

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

 

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

btw Walsh is not an alert in ACBL.

So I strongly disagree....1d does not imply a 4 card major. :)

 

 

"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

Mike what i wrote has nothing to do with Walsh.

[hotShot]

deleted double post

[mike777]

Let's look at a simple example.

 

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.

Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.

Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

 

1♣ - 1♦

 

 

It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

 

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

 

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

 

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

btw Walsh is not an alert in ACBL.

So I strongly disagree....1d does not imply a 4 card major. :)

 

 

"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

Mike what i wrote has nothing to do with Walsh.

?

 

Where did you alert and announce that? Again I am a nonexpert, you seem to make expert comments that you assume nonexperts know.

 

"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

[Free]

With all due respects, there is another argument here that is often ignored I know I will probably get howled down, but I genuinely this this to be true:

The last time I looked, Bridge consisted of bidding to a contract and then playing the cards to the best of one's ability as declarer or as a pair of defenders. Bidding, then playing. This means that bidding is an integral part of the game. There is nothing in the rules to allocate geater importance to the three key components, bidding, card play and defence.

 

This means that if I am interested in bidding and say, (for the sake of argument, though this is in fact not the case), bored by card play and/or defence, I cannot see why I should be penalised for devoting hours of my time to the former. I am not penalised for learning Winkles and other exotic squeezes etc by reading books and studying end positions for hours and hours, yet these affect the outcome of the game as do bidding systems and arcane conventions.

 

Let me also say at this point that I totally agree with disclosing methods - within reason. I go along with providing a simple and effective defence to my methods even though I do not agree with having to do so. The following scenario is frequently ignored. Lets say that i recognise a complex end play. My lho is on lead and defeat my end play by leading something. If you believe in full disclosure and in providing defences, should I not be obliged to say, "Look you can beat this by leading....?" Yes, I agree, this scenario is absurd, however is it any more absurd than having to provide a defence to methods I like?

 

Fred and others have argued that we who like complex systems are a small minority who often spoil the game for the vast majority. Well, I don't enjoy someone say double squeezing me when I could have broken up that squeeze a few tricks ago, but didn't recognise the situation.

 

You know these things work both ways.

 

Ron

The biggest difference imo is that declarer play and defensive methods don't result in extra "work" for your opponents, while complex systems do.

 

That being said, I agree that one should be able to choose to specialize in any part of the game they want. This is similar to triathletes: all have their best discipline, but the winner will have to be able to do all 3 very well.

 

In bridge it's like swimming is less important than the other disciplines.

[blackshoe]

Let's look at a simple example.

 

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.

Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.

Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

 

1♣ - 1♦

 

 

It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.

Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

 

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

 

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

 

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

Meh. That's one style. It's a good style (I play it, pretty much). But beginners are taught "bid 4 card suits up the line". Beginners bid four card suits up the line. Beginners count their points, and if they don't have at least six, nothing else is relevant - they pass. If they have at least six, they look at their suit lengths. With 4 diamonds and no longer suit, they bid 1♦, regardless of the rest of their hand, unless they can in their system bid 2 or 3 NT. Even non-beginners do this.

[hrothgar]

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred. Certainly a disclosure method which included specific hands for specific bids would help, but when the purpose of a bid is to cause confusion (such as the multi 2♥) it's not at all surprising that the proponents actually haven't given a lot of thought to what hands will be opened - they're going to throw the ball up and see what happens.

Fine: You want to focus on methods that are difficult to disclose rather than pairs that practice poor disclosure.

 

So be it...

 

This doesn't change the crux of my argument. If the disclosure system is broken, fix the disclosure system, don't ban the methods.

 

I would love to see you introduce a constructive component to this discussion rather than just complaining about methods, pairs you've encountered, what have you.

 

You seem to like to focus on on this multi 2♥ opening. (You bring this same example and this same pair up almost every time this topic gets discussed)

 

Can you describe what you would consider adequate disclosure for this opening?

 

What do you need?

 

A WBF convention card?

A written description?

A representative sample of hands?

An algorithm written for dealer or some other program that generates hands?

 

If you can't describe what you want, there's very little hope that you're going to get it...

 

Then again, maybe that's the point

[fred]

Richard,

 

Thanks for clarifying re disclosure.

 

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

 

I did not think that Jan said or suggested that and I see now that she has tried to set the record straight about this point.

 

If you and Jan want to debate whether or not the current system is adequate, go right ahead.  (I don't have a dog in that fight) 

 

I am not much interested in this either. As I said, I don't think there is much wrong with the current system.

 

I am merely saying that if you truly believe that people aren't providing good disclosure you should either

 

1.  Penalize the pair for not living up to their responsibilities

 

or

 

2.  Improve the disclosure system

 

but not ban their methods

 

I agree.

 

As I said, unless I could be convinced that the disclosure system was broken, I would opt for method 1 - penalize the pair that is not living up to their responsibilities.

 

However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again.

 

In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system.

 

That makes sense to me.

 

But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer.

 

All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Richard,

I am merely saying that if you truly believe that people aren't providing good disclosure you should either

 

1.  Penalize the pair for not living up to their responsibilities

 

or

 

2.  Improve the disclosure system

 

but not ban their methods

 

I agree.

 

As I said, unless I could be convinced that the disclosure system was broken, I would opt for method 1 - penalize the pair that is not living up to their responsibilities.

 

However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again.

 

In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system.

 

That makes sense to me.

 

But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer.

 

All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Would be wonderful to see this implemented on BBO. Many star players will be much surprised to be forced to be serious in bridge.

 

A few times I have rejected play of systems without convention card informing them I only accepted SAYC to be played without. A lot of ugly words to come and they left the table.

[H_KARLUK]

2008 soon ends. From start point nearly 28 years passed. Say ban started in 1990. So 18 years passed. May someone tells me the benefit of such a discussion? Do we really all have credit to WBF?

 

Are there anyone who can lift this topic to water cooler please?

First of all, they're not banned, but restricted heavily.

 

Second: what gives you the right to claim this topic should be moved to the water cooler? There are many people who are interested in this topic.

 

Third: people have been working centuries at laws and regulations in regular life, and they keep changing. Why would regulations never change in bridge? Just because some philosophy is currently accepted? Perhaps some people at the top suddenly get an open mind about this and decide to allow HUMs. You never know...

Agree with your second and third points, but as to the first:

 

Generally speaking, it seems that "banned" is accurate in most places, and "restricted heavily" in those few places where "banned" does not apply. On balance, "banned" is pretty damn close.

Second: what gives you the right to claim this topic should be moved to the water cooler? There are many people who are interested in this topic.

 

Simply "noone."

 

It is similar to question and/or discuss BBO decisions. It is similar to discuss The Great Bridge Scandal - Alan Truscott and A story of accusation - Terence Reese books.

 

In practice, long years passed and there's still an active running WBF code. I respect and wait from the others to declare they respect it.

 

I still agree with Thomas Jefferson's (3rd US President;1801-09. Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826) “All authority belongs to the people” words.

 

And the nations formed a legal organisation named WORLD BRIDGE FEDERATION. It is not same acronym World Books Fair.

 

*Try to Treat Others As You Would Have Them Treat You- By L. Ron Hubbard/L.A.

*THE UNDERLYING RULE FOR RIGHT AND WRONG BEHAVIOR "Treat Others As You *Would Like To Be Treated." Golden Rule

*Teaching Guide: Respecting Others for grades 5-9

*The golden rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation."

 

One may see WBF policy as "my way or highway". Fair. Really. Same applies "your home, then your rules".

[fred]

With regard to passing the 2H bid, NV I have played this 2H = weak 2 in H or S.

we pased when we held a good 5 card H suit and no S tolerance because the odds were that pd held S. We also passed sometimes, no agreement - when we were weak, the opps were vul and we had equal tolerance for both Ms - dont mind going 5 or 6 down undoubled against the opps game.

 

If you play the same bid vul as well, you are much more likely to bid 2S over 2H, hence if you hold H you will have 6 very good ones maybe even 7. This was never written in stone in our system notes, but really anyone who thinks about this for a couple of minutes will arrive at this hand set.

Looking at world champ books, I notice the Swedes played it the same way. With all due respects, it is not rocket science to work this out, its common sense and I find it surprising to read that professional players seem so threatened by this.

I agree that it is not rocket science to figure this out. In fact, it sounds a lot like the strategy that I came up with (after very little thought) in my previous post.

 

But I think you are wrong to suggest that professional players feel "threatened" by this. The reason Jan and I were annoyed by the 2H opening is that we could not get the pair in question to tell us something like what you posted. Conventions and systems aren't threatening - they are challenging. But it is not fair for the other side to enter such a challenge unless they are told what they are up against.

 

Sure we could have guessed that this would be a sensible way to respond. Probably we did guess that. But it should not be up to us to guess what the opponents think is sensible. It should be up to them to tell us what they do. The degree of (perceived) rocket science does not come into play.

 

Anyways, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine the auction goes:

 

2H-P-P-DBL

 

Now the 2H opener has to decide when to Pass and when to bid 2S. Maybe this still doesn't qualify as rocket scicence, but to me there is no obvious answer as to which of the following strategies is best:

 

1) Always Pass with hearts, always bid 2S with spades

2) Always Pass

3) Hands with spades can exercise their judgment based on the qualify of their spade suit and their degree of fit in hearts

 

Whatever the answer is, I would be surprised if it did not change depending on whether or not you are vulnerable. Maybe there is even a case for using RDBL to mean something.

 

Whatever the answer is, it will have an impact on how the other side's defense should work from this point forward (and perhaps even from this point backwards).

 

Perhaps there is a clearly right answer and perhasp to you the clear answer does not qualify as rocket science, but IMO it is crazy to think that the opponents should be expected to figure this out at the table and that they both be on the same wavelength. If you really believe that they should be on their own here, then I am afraid we are playing 2 different games (and I have no interest in playing the game that you play).

 

This simple example also illustrates why these conventions can be a lot harder to defend against than many people (including you!) seem to think. There are a lot of ways the auction can continue and, in many of these variations, there are several possible sets of agreements that the opponents might have. For a defense to have any hope of being effective, it must take these variations into account.

 

Just saying "double is always takeout" might result in you landing on your feet more often than not at the local club, but when the goal is to win a World Championship the players (and the coaches responsible for preparing them) need to do better (much) than that.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

There are now over 100 poll-votes.

 

About 80% would allow FP in long matches and 25% would allow them in *all* top-level events but a disappointing 15% would ban them.

 

IMO...

 

BBO members represent the future of Bridge. On-line players are younger and more adventurous than face-to-face players. Thus, it is sad that so many would want to curb possible progress.

 

The most plausible argument against such BSCs is that their advantage lies in their unfamiliarity rather than their technical superiority. This may seem a valid point but there are ameliorating factors. For example

• An approved written defence, that opponents may consult at the table, creates a more level playing-fiield.
  
• Natural Selection. If a BSC is allowed and it works, then more players will adopt it and it will soon become familiar. If it doesn't work, it will die.
  

Among spurious arguments against BSCs are:

• Inadequate disclosure. This is as much a problem with popular methods as it is with unusual methods. The solution is to improve disclosure across the board. Not to ban BSCs
  
• High variance. High-risk, aggressive, randomising, disruptive, and destructive methods are always popular (Weak no-trumps, pre-empts, Weak twos, Bergen, Multi, and so on). Many pairs, like Meckwell, enjoy walking a dangerous tight-rope. For example, they shoot (and make) highly speculative games. They are as exciting to play against as they are to watch. They make Bridge more interesting, enjoyable, and attractive.