Forcing Pass Systems

[han]

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe I lost you when you started talking about football. Never having been to Australia, I wasn't sure which sport you meant.

 

Maybe I lost your logic earlier than that.

[jikl]

Wayne is from NZ, they play rugby there (rugby union to be specific).

 

Sean

[han]

OK, clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about. :P

[jdonn]

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

The impression I get is that anyone who decides to be insulted by this

But it is far more frequent that the opponents who do this shoot themselves in the foot.

In New Zealand we call this bad judgement.

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 then would say this

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Is not a person worth debating any further.

[qwery_hi]

I see. I don't think it is fair but you declare it fair. Nothing arbitrary about that.

 

The stranger the bidding, the less accessable the game becomes to the masses

 

Regarding (3), bridge bidding can be made most simple by allowing only stayman and blackwood. Perhaps we should do this then?

 

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe this is a sarcastic question that you do not expect me to answer and what you are really saying is "drawing the line at Stayman and Blackwood is extreme to the point of absurd."

 

It seemed to me that you were defending the current regulators by advancing an argument of the majority view.

 

I am defending where the regulators have placed the line because I believe that the majority (including me) thinks that the line is in a reasonable place right now and that's about the best that we can realistically hope for given the challenges of the regulators' (impossible?) task.

 

Sure there are many people who would move the line a little to the left or a little to the right, but I believe that the number of extremists who want move the line all the way to one of the extremes make up a relatively small minority.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I was not sarcastic. In fact, I think I'd enjoy playing bridge with only with only stayman and blackwood allowed. Or without those two being allowed also

 

Furthermore, calling the current regulations "arbitrary" is being generous. Especially when methods currently played by the regulators are not banned, even though

 

1. Many players might not like defending against them

 

2. There are as artificial as a 1H fert.

[H_KARLUK]

Oh c'mon good guys. There were enough villains in the last story I read.

Sort of a built-in defense system: anything that questions an idea, no matter how logical the argument is.

Interesting defense mechanism. It's like sit in a field, and just go.

Truce please, boom boom boom ? :)

[Cascade]

I think the problem here is that you are arguing against this point

 

Destructive ---> Banned

 

When the point being made is actually this

 

Destructive ---> Most don't want to play against it ---> Banned

 

Those two chains of reasoning are simply not the same thing.

I think the latter is exactly what I was arguing against in my football analogy.

 

Sacking Quarterbacks is destructive -> A "HUGE majority" of Quarterbacks don't like getting sacked -> This is therefore a good reason to ban manhandling Quarterbacks.

 

I was going to reply separately to the other points in your earlier post but I will do it here.

 

It is irrelevant that you think the play in football is not similar to the bidding in bridge. I am simply arguing against the train of reasoning from "destructive" to "unpopular" to "banning".

 

Football and bridge have many rules no one is arguing against that. And if you play the game then you have to play by the rules. It was noted in this discussion that some Polish players have changed their methods to comply with system regulations. And many Forcing Pass players have given up the methods because of the regulations. This discussion is all about whether it is reasonable to ban Forcing Pass methods. Around 85% of the respondents to the poll think they should be allowed at some level.

 

 

You can make the following arguments if you want:

 

1. These methods are not destructive.

2. It is not the case that most people don't want to play against them.

3. These methods being destructive is not the reason most don't want to play against them.

4. Most people not wanting to play against something is not a good reason to ban it.

 

But if you keep trying to argue:

- A method being destructive is not a reason to ban the method.

Then you are missing the point entirely as far as I'm concerned. That is because it is not inherent that these methods are banned because they are destructive, it is inherent that they are banned because people don't want to play against them, and the reason for that happens to be that they are destructive.

 

As for the above four arguments, I would counter them as follows:

1. These methods are destructive (as I would define that word), because they contain little in the way of constructive elements (as I would define that word.) To state it differently, no one would play 2♥ as a weak two bid in either major because they think it will help their own side find the best contract. (I would note that preempts and weak notrumps, though obviously aimed at stealing room from the opposition, have great constructive elements as well.)

 

I think we have a stalemate here since "destructive" is not well defined there is no way of definitively resolving whether or not a method is destructive.

 

2. We can never really know, especially since it varies so much geographically. So I feel the best we can do is let the regulators decide. In fact I can't even think of another way to make such a determination that is at all feasible.

 

In other sports rules are used on a trial basis. Sometimes the trials are successful and then implemented on a more permanent basis. Sometimes they are not and they are discarded.

 

Trying out allowing these methods and seeing if there are real problems would seem to me to be a hole lot better than just speculating on whether or not allowing these methods will cause problems. Especially when the admittedly limited hard evidence from where these methods are played is that in practice they cause few problems and some, perhaps many, average players are willing to embrace HUMs and Brown Sticker Conventions.

 

3. If the regulators have determined 2 to be false (meaning most do not want to play against these methods), then 3 is essentially irrelevant.

 

4. I would simply have to agree to disagree with anyone who believes such a thing.

 

So would you ban 4-card majors if most did not want to play against them?

 

Would you ban weak 1NT if most did not want to play against it?

 

Would you ban Blackwood if most did not want to play against it?

 

...

 

Maybe I am wrong but I am seriously doubt that you really hold the view that if the majority don't want something then it should be banned. There are many things that are allowed on the ACBL GCC for example it is possible that a majority would not want to play against e.g. mini-NT, canape openings ... It even seems that some sort of non-forcing pass that could contain a strong hand would be allowed: Maybe something like Pass 0-4 or 15-20 but Not Forcing; 1-level suit bids 8-14 Natural; 1NT Forcing; 2-level suit bids 5-7 Natural; 2NT something else (Is anyone interested in playing this crazy system?). Maybe I have missed something but this seems to be GCC legal to me. If not I am sure I could exercise some creativity and relatively easily find something legal that would not be popular.

 

Other than the part where I still feel you are missing the point by arguing against the wrong connection (the first diagram), your main point seems to essentially be 4., that if something has merit toward improving your score in any way then you should be allowed to play it (in other words, people not wanting to play against it would be an inadequate reason for a ban.) As I said above, I simply don't agree, so I suppose I would have to accept this is an impass where there isn't much more for anyone to say.

 

I hope I have dispelled your theory that I have missed that point.

 

If the aim of system regulations was to allow the popular and disallow the unpopular then why is this not stated explicitly and polls held regularly so that the regulations really reflect the majority.

 

I happen to think this would be particularly silly since what is popular will be strongly influenced by what is allowed especially when the starting point is a very restrictive environment.

[Cascade]

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe I lost you when you started talking about football. Never having been to Australia, I wasn't sure which sport you meant.

 

Maybe I lost your logic earlier than that.

I was talking about American Football.

[Cascade]

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

The impression I get is that anyone who decides to be insulted by this

But it is far more frequent that the opponents who do this shoot themselves in the foot.

In New Zealand we call this bad judgement.

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 then would say this

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Is not a person worth debating any further.

excuse me for taking offense at your's and Han's insults.

[jdonn]

Calling what han said an insult takes some truly amazing creativity, but you have shown a knack for that throughout this thread (and I mean that as a compliment!)

[Cascade]

Calling what han said an insult takes some truly amazing creativity, but you have shown a knack for that throughout this thread (and I mean that as a compliment!)

Maybe I misinterpreted what Han intended.

[jdonn]

I have no idea why I'm about to bother, but

 

It is irrelevant that you think the play in football is not similar to the bidding in bridge.  I am simply arguing against the train of reasoning from "destructive" to "unpopular" to "banning".

Not only is it completely relevant (even if you declare it's not), but it's also relevant that there is no similarity in the comparison between quarterbacks and bridge players. Or the rules of a sport and the rules of a card game. Why in the world would you expect the same rules to apply between two things that have nothing to do with each other? Because they are both games? Candy is edible and bananas are edible, so since candy is unhealthy so are bananas.

 

This discussion is all about whether it is reasonable to ban Forcing Pass methods.  Around 85% of the respondents to the poll think they should be allowed at some level.

That is seriously your argument? You would make a great pollster for Fox News, I'm pretty sure they had McCain with 90% of the vote!

 

I think we have a stalemate here since "destructive" is not well defined there is no way of definitively resolving whether or not a method is destructive.

I feel like I have said this a thousand times. It's not the word 'destructive' itself that matters. It's how it is defined by the people who have chosen to ban certain methods, if that is part of their reasoning.

 

In other sports rules are used on a trial basis.  Sometimes the trials are successful and then implemented on a more permanent basis.  Sometimes they are not and they are discarded.

 

Trying out allowing these methods and seeing if there are real problems would seem to me to be a hole lot better than just speculating on whether or not allowing these methods will cause problems.  Especially when the admittedly limited hard evidence from where these methods are played is that in practice they cause few problems and some, perhaps many, average players are willing to embrace HUMs and Brown Sticker Conventions.

Obviously this would never work. Can you imagine the beginner who, even if he would like complicated methods if he tried them, doesn't know that and thinks he doesn't like them? Tell him he has to play against them for 2 months but it's ok since you think he will end up liking them later, and see how often he shows up at your bridge game for the next 2 months.

 

So would you ban 4-card majors if most did not want to play against them?

 

Would you ban weak 1NT if most did not want to play against it?

 

Would you ban Blackwood if most did not want to play against it?

YES! The only reason it's hard to believe is because most players do not want those things banned. What in the world do you think using unrealistic examples demonstrates?

 

Maybe I am wrong but I am seriously doubt that you really hold the view that if the majority don't want something then it should be banned.

Come on, I'm not the only liar in that case. Don't forget Todd. And Fred.

 

There are many things that are allowed on the ACBL GCC for example it is possible that a majority would not want to play against e.g. mini-NT, canape openings ...  It even seems that some sort of non-forcing pass that could contain a strong hand would be allowed:  Maybe something like Pass 0-4 or 15-20 but Not Forcing; 1-level suit bids 8-14 Natural; 1NT Forcing; 2-level suit bids 5-7 Natural; 2NT something else (Is anyone interested in playing this crazy system?).  Maybe I have missed something but this seems to be GCC legal to me.  If not I am sure I could exercise some creativity and relatively easily find something legal that would not be popular.

So what do you want me to admit, that the GCC is badly written? That a bridge player who wastes his time trying to come up with the most complicated method it would allow, no matter how absurd, can outsmart the GCC?

 

I hope I have dispelled your theory that I have missed that point.

So many possible answers to this, but I will settle for an unsarcastic 'sorry to disappoint you'.

 

If the aim of system regulations was to allow the popular and disallow the unpopular then why is this not stated explicitly and polls held regularly so that the regulations really reflect the majority.

Because you are not president of the WBF? What do you want me to tell you? Do you think this proves anything at all?

 

I happen to think this would be particularly silly since what is popular will be strongly influenced by what is allowed especially when the starting point is a very restrictive environment.

So what? If people think they are happy then they are happy. The possibility they might be equally as happy or even happier in a different situation does not obligate them to try and find out.

 

By the way, wasn't the starting point "everything is allowed", with MORE restrictions added over time? I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot with your final argument.

 

Calling what han said an insult takes some truly amazing creativity, but you have shown a knack for that throughout this thread (and I mean that as a compliment!)

Maybe I misinterpreted what Han intended.

I can honestly understand that. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said that I was rude in reply to, which even now looks more insulting to me than what han said to you. But probably you see that exactly the opposite way, so what can I say.

[Cascade]

I think we have a stalemate here since "destructive" is not well defined there is no way of definitively resolving whether or not a method is destructive.

I feel like I have said this a thousand times. It's not the word 'destructive' itself that matters. It's how it is defined by the people who have chosen to ban certain methods, if that is part of their reasoning.

I am arguing here about your specific point 1.

 

1. These methods are not destructive.

 

and your rebuttal of that point

 

As for the above four arguments, I would counter them as follows:

1. These methods are destructive (as I would define that word), because they contain little in the way of constructive elements (as I would define that word.) To state it differently, no one would play 2♥ as a weak two bid in either major because they think it will help their own side find the best contract. (I would note that preempts and weak notrumps, though obviously aimed at stealing room from the opposition, have great constructive elements as well.)

 

Maybe that wasn't clear.

 

But in the context of this point the word "destructive" is almost all that matters.

 

Perhaps the regulators have defined "destructive" but I have not seen their definition nor do I believe it is widely promulgated.

 

The only real experience I have had suggests that it is a widely misunderstood concept. I will look up who exactly made the comment later if I can but it was a director in an ACBL game on BBO one of the first times I ever played in one of those events who told me that my GCC 10-12 1NT was "destructive" and therefore I wasn't allowed to psyche it.

[vang]

# It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

 

(not directed to anyone, just found it interesting ;-)

[Codo]

but it's also relevant that there is no similarity in the comparison between quarterbacks and bridge players. Or the rules of a sport and the rules of a card game. Why in the world would you expect the same rules to apply between two things that have nothing to do with each other?

You repeat this, so you seem to belive it.

 

Actually it is a strength of a thinking being to compare similar situations and learn from the analogies. You would be much worse in bridge, if you would not be able to think that way.

 

F.E. When you learned a finesse with the spade ace and queen, you are very quickly learning that it is surprisingly the same when you have these cards in diamonds. And when you think a little deeper, you will find out that the principle works with the King and Jack too. Even in hearts.

 

So please stop this silly remark that Bridge is unique and nothing is comparable.

It is unique, but you can still try to find some similarities to other parts of life.

And maybe we can learn from more successful federations what they do different.

 

And yes Bridge is unique. The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year.

Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't been there to protect the frightend majority.)

[H_KARLUK]

# It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

 

(not directed to anyone, just found it interesting ;-)

Big words. Anyway he also quoted this one :

All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire.

Aristotle

(384 BC - 322 BC)

Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist

[TimG]

Destructive ---> Banned

 

When the point being made is actually this

 

Destructive ---> Most don't want to play against it ---> Banned

I'm much more comfortable with the first. The second is vulnerable to the arbitrary evaluation of regulators and can lead to inconsistencies in convention charts. (Both of which I consider bad.)

[jdonn]

but it's also relevant that there is no similarity in the comparison between quarterbacks and bridge players. Or the rules of a sport and the rules of a card game. Why in the world would you expect the same rules to apply between two things that have nothing to do with each other?

You repeat this, so you seem to belive it.

 

Actually it is a strength of a thinking being to compare similar situations and learn from the analogies.

Fantastic. Find me a similar situation instead of all these un-similar ones, and I'm sure we will get a good analogy.

[ArtK78]

I found the football analogy interesting.

 

But it was misapplied.

 

A quarterback sack is not destructive. It accomplishes one of the main goals of the defense - preventing the offense from advancing the ball. In that sense, it is highly constructive. And it is entirely within the rules to tackle any player who is holding the football.

 

A better analogy would be a personal foul - such as tackling the quarterback well after he has passed the ball to a receiver. In a sense, tackling the quarterback in this situation will accomplish a goal of the defense - winning the game - in that the tackle may cause the quarterback to be injured as he is not expecting to be attacked after the play is over (at least the play is over as far as he is concerned). Injuring the quarterback will likely result in his being replaced by someone with less ability. But hitting the quarterback when he does not have the ball and is not otherwise involved in the play is considered to be destructive, as it does not improve the outcome of the particular play for the defense and it causes harm to the quarterback. So it is against the rules and is subject to a penalty.

 

This is analogous to the use of a fert. A fert has no true constructive meaning - it is really defined by what it is not - it is not 8 or more HCP and it is not a hand which can be described by another bid (a higher preemptive call) which is used for other hands of less than 8 HCP. Whether it actually promises some length in a particular suit may be coincidental. The use of the fert is dictated by the fact that all other calls have some constructive meaning (unless the partnership is using more than one fert). But defining a call negatively - it isn't this and it isn't that, etc. - makes it extremely difficult to defend. In and of itself, a fert is a destructive call - it serves no constructive purpose. In the overall context of a bidding system, it does serve a useful purpose - it fills a hole, "describing" a hand that fits the meaning of no other call. But that does not solve the problems for the opponents created by using the fert.

 

In the sense of filling a hole that is not covered by any other call, it is similar to the Precision 1♦ opening as some play it - 11-15 HCP but not promising any diamonds. That bid is also defined by what it is not - it is not a 1NT opening, it is not a 1♣ opening, etc. But the fact that it does show opening values and usually shows diamonds makes it recognizable and defensible - and, more importantly, constructive.

 

I hope this adds something to the discussion.

[Cascade]

And yes Bridge is unique. The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year.

Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't been there to protect the frightend majority.)

This is certainly possible.

[Cascade]

I found the football analogy interesting.

 

But it was misapplied.

 

A quarterback sack is not destructive. It accomplishes one of the main goals of the defense - preventing the offense from advancing the ball. In that sense, it is highly constructive. And it is entirely within the rules to tackle any player who is holding the football.

Similarly bidding before the opponents with a weak hand is a well established tactic of disrupting the opponent's offense from bidding accurately to their best contract.

 

A better analogy would be a personal foul - such as tackling the quarterback well after he has passed the ball to a receiver.  In a sense, tackling the quarterback in this situation will accomplish a goal of the defense - winning the game - in that the tackle may cause the quarterback to be injured as he is not expecting to be attacked after the play is over (at least the play is over as far as he is concerned).  Injuring the quarterback will likely result in his being replaced by someone with less ability.  But hitting the quarterback when he does not have the ball and is not otherwise involved in the play is considered to be destructive, as it does not improve the outcome of the particular play for the defense and it causes harm to the quarterback.  So it is against the rules and is subject to a penalty.

 

We are not discussing deliberately (or otherwise) breaking the rules we are discussing changing the rules. I agree that breaking the rules - turning up to play forcing pass in an game where this is not allowed is bad. I don't agree though that not allowing forcing pass is a sensible rule.

 

This is analogous to the use of a fert.  A fert has no true constructive meaning - it is really defined by what it is not - it is not 8 or more HCP and it is not a hand which can be described by another bid (a higher preemptive call) which is used for other hands of less than 8 HCP.  Whether it actually promises some length in a particular suit may be coincidental.  The use of the fert is dictated by the fact that all other calls have some constructive meaning (unless the partnership is using more than one fert).  But defining a call negatively - it isn't this and it isn't that, etc. - makes it extremely difficult to defend.  In and of itself, a fert is a destructive call - it serves no constructive purpose.  In the overall context of a bidding system, it does serve a useful purpose - it fills a hole, "describing" a hand that fits the meaning of no other call.  But that does not solve the problems for the opponents created by using the fert.

 

Pretty much the same as a PASS in a standard bidding system it too is defined by what it is not. We all happily defend against a "standard" PASS. There are some advantages and some disadvantages that come from defending against a FERT rather than a PASS. An advantage is that the FERT is better defined than a PASS. A disadvantage is that over most FERTs you have to start your defense at a higher level than over a "standard" PASS.

 

In the sense of filling a hole that is not covered by any other call, it is similar to the Precision 1♦ opening as some play it - 11-15 HCP but not promising any diamonds.  That bid is also defined by what it is not - it is not a 1NT opening, it is not a 1♣ opening, etc.  But the fact that it does show opening values and usually shows diamonds makes it recognizable and defensible - and, more importantly, constructive.

 

A FERT is defensible and it is recognizable (at worst you will recognize it the second time you see it).

 

To suggest it is not is just fear-mongering.

 

The entire argument against unrestricted system regulations seems to me to be based on fear-mongering.

 

These methods are:

 

"destructive" - without even defining the term;

 

"difficult" - when mostly they are not, they are just different;

 

"unpopular" - without hard evidence or any experience of those they claim will think these methods are unpopular actually playing against these methods;

 

"poorly disclosed" - when this is hardly the sole domain of players playing unusual methods.

[csdenmark]

The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year. 

Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't  been there to protect the frightend majority.)

I am very sure you are fairly right about age and loss of players. But to blame regulations for that is unfair and you know that Roland.

 

They are not frightened of anything. They have never heard the words and have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

The age of players is fairly much due to nature of the game. The problem is nobody seems to care to come up with ideas on how to attract new segments.

 

In that respect this thread is empty loop only.

[Cascade]

The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year. 

Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't  been there to protect the frightend majority.)

I am very sure you are fairly right about age and loss of players. But to blame regulations for that is unfair and you know that Roland.

 

They are not frightened of anything. They have never heard the words and have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

The age of players is fairly much due to nature of the game. The problem is nobody seems care to come up with ideas on how to attract new segments.

 

In that respect this thread is empty loop only.

Maybe the regulations do not scare anybody off but the lack of freedom may discourage some new players coming to the game.

[qwery_hi]

This is analogous to the use of a fert. A fert has no true constructive meaning - it is really defined by what it is not - it is not 8 or more HCP and it is not a hand which can be described by another bid (a higher preemptive call) which is used for other hands of less than 8 HCP. Whether it actually promises some length in a particular suit may be coincidental.

What do you mean by constructive? It it supposed to be a bid that helps us reach a contract we can make? Then I suggest we ban sacrifices. Is it supposed to be a bid that helps us get the best possible score on a hand? Then I suggest we allow any bidding system that can mathematically be shown to accomplish this.

[han]

Wayne, I should clarify that I don't disagree with many of your points. For myself I enjoy playing against pairs who play less common methods and I like to play some methods myself that are not legal at the local level in the US. I also like to tinker a little with methods although not as much as some others here. I often find the convention chards incomprehensible in some respects and I can't help thinking that it should be possible to make them more consistent and easier to understand. Unfortunately I have never played at the international level so as you said, I don't know what I'm talking about there.

 

What I disagree with most strongly is that bridge should be bridge in its purest form, without any convention regulartions, and anything else is not bridge. The rules of most games and sports have evolved over time and bridge is as it is, nothing less and nothing more. You can state that you'd enjoy bridge more if the rules were different, or that it would attract more people if the rules were different, or that it would be a great benefit to the game if there were less regulations because they would be easier to understand. You could even try to argue that most North Americans would enjoy the game better if they got accustomed to the freedom of regulations that you are familiar with. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that the current WBF bridge rules as they are now are intrinsically wrong.