Forcing Pass Systems

[jikl]

We do all agree that Gerber sucks still right? *hides*

 

Sean

[csdenmark]

How about trying to regulate the use of destructive conventions , by changes to the scoring rules of the game of Bridge , rather than by regulations imposed by organizations?

 

I mean , for example change the scoring of the game so that

1. If a pair goes down 4 or more tricks (maybe 3 tricks on the 1 level) , the contract is automatically considered doubled.

 

Or :

 

2. If a pair reaches a suit contract with 5 or less trumps between them, and then go down , the penalty is automatically doubled.

 

 

I realize that better , or more precise suggestions may be made, I was just trying to show where I am aiming.

 

It seems to me that once such scoring changes are applied , the "anything goes" crowd can be free to design systems quite freely, because the very need they will have to arrive to reasonable contracts , will prevent them to use too much of destructiveness . On the other hand they will be free to do whatever they like within the rules of the game.

The various federations will no longer have to devote much effort to system regulation, because the bizzare , destructive, hard to defend against systems will become unplayable.

The (Many) "let us play normal bridge" players , will be able to play the game as they love it , because the scoring changes will have only a little effect on them.

 

So, does anybody think there is any merit in this?

A really interestring attempt to do something about the stallmate.

 

I am more in favour of handicaps as known from several other sports, most known in golf.

 

I think your focus on 'destructive' is wrong. As a basic everything needs to be assumed as constructive - maybe from one perspective only.

 

I doubt any proposals will be able to come on agenda of present bridge organizations. There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

[fred]

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

 

Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival.

 

As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[awm]

Wow, I actually agree with Foo's ten-point post. Scary.

 

As far as the methods allowed in ACBL events, it seems like the one substantive change that's gone through in recent years is disallowing multi in mid-chart events with fewer than six-board rounds.

 

I would be very interested to read minutes of the discussion on this topic. Were there large numbers of complaints from players or directors in national events? Was there consideration of the effects on top international players who might be less willing to play at ACBL nationals when a virtually "standard" part of their system is disallowed in the big pairs and BAM events? This decision seems regressive to many of us -- they are banning a convention which many top pairs use (including many top American pairs) and which is extremely common among even club level players in many parts of the world. What was the rationale? What factors did they consider?

[hrothgar]

- in the case of multi, I suspect that a significant % of pairs who use it do so out of necessity (because their system has some other need for 2H and 2S openings) as opposed to any great love of multi itself. The numbers may not tell the whole story here.

Hi Fred

 

I'm not quite sure how to interprete the phrase "Out of Necessity".

 

Consider the following example:

 

I'm playing a 4 card major, canape based opening system with a strong club.

I have a problem showing hands with

 

A 5 card major, 4 Clubs, and 14-16 HCPs

 

I decide to devote the 2♥ and 2♠ openings to show this hand type.

 

I'm lucky enough to have a spare 2♦ opening bid available.

I decide to use a multi 2D opening to show a weak two bid in Hearts or Spades.

 

Does my opening structure necessitate that I adopt a multi 2♦ opening?

 

I'd argue no... I always have the option of opening a weak 2♦ opening and give up completely on the weak 2M hands. The only thing that this shows is that I believe that a multi 2♦ is more useful than a variety of other bids.

 

For what its worth, I think that agree with your general sentiment: It doesn't make any sense to evaluate a multi 2♦ in isolation. The bid needs to be evaluated as part of a set of interlocking opening bids. (The benefits from one bid might very well outweight costs associated with another). However, I think using the word "Necessity" is going a bit far.

 

BTW, I used to track the definition of the 2♦ openings used in the Bermuda Bowl, Olympiad, and the like... As I recall, there were four main reasons that folks we're playing a multi 2♦

 

1. The pair was using 2M as a two suited opening

2. The pair was using an assumed fit 2H and a two suited 2♠

3. The pair wanted to distinquish between good and bad major suit preempts

4. The pair wanted some way to show a strong balanced hand or a strong Roman hand

[H_KARLUK]

I want to be sure about one thing.

 

Logical and equitable criticism is welcomed. But who are the people that mercilessly allege ACBL doing wrong since many years about HUM ? All of them are ACBL members or not? What are their numerical adjective ?

 

If all of them are not ACBL members then what is the problem ? Did they visit USA and their gadgets disallowed ? Or are they advocates of poor(!) silent crowd ? Are they really sure that they have capacity to rescue whole bridge world with fast and magic prescriptions? It may be everything free or restrictions in their official own league at any or all levels. So the rest of world are supposed to follow them blindly?

 

Meanwhile real profesionals of international field remain silent or at least do not comment while their schedule are mostly busy. So far so good, world class category members there with growing competition.

 

Oh interesting, let's wait and see how many months more forum people here will be busy about this sitcom.

 

In my culture there is a proverb :

The hare was angry with the mountain, but the mountain was never aware of it.

 

Have fun !

[fred]

However, I think using the word "Necessity" is going a bit far.

Agree.

 

I meant what you said, but was not careful with my choice of words (or word).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

I want to be sure about one thing.

 

Logical and equitable criticism is welcomed. But who are the people that mercilessly allege ACBL doing wrong since many years about HUM ? All of them are ACBL members or not? What are their numerical adjective ?

 

If all of them are not ACBL members then what is the problem ? Did they visit USA and their gadgets disallowed ? Or are they advocates of poor(!) silent crowd ? Are they really sure that they have capacity to rescue whole bridge world with fast and magic prescriptions? It may be everything free or restrictions in their official own league at any or all levels. So the rest of world are supposed to follow them blindly?

 

Meanwhile real profesionals of international field remain silent or at least do not comment while their schedule are mostly busy. So far so good, world class category members there with growing competition.

 

Oh interesting, let's wait and see how many months more forum people here will be busy about this sitcom.

 

In my culture there is a proverb :

The hare was angry with the mountain, but the mountain was never aware of it.

 

Have fun !

It all sounds a lot like "we won't listen to you if you're not one of us". Sounds like kindergarten to me, but then again, I'm not one of you so you won't even feel offended. :)

 

No, not everyone bitching on acbl is an acbl member. And from what I've heard about it, I'm happy I live in Europe. But that doesn't mean I can't have good suggestions, or that the critique I give is unjustified...

[TimG]

BTW, I used to track the definition of the 2♦ openings used in the Bermuda Bowl, Olympiad, and the like... As I recall, there were four main reasons that folks we're playing a multi 2♦

 

1. The pair was using 2M as a two suited opening

2. The pair was using an assumed fit 2H and a two suited 2♠

3. The pair wanted to distinquish between good and bad major suit preempts

4. The pair wanted some way to show a strong balanced hand or a strong Roman hand

I'm not sure you can call all these "reasons folks were playing a multi 2D".

 

Take #1, for instance. Perhaps they were playing 2M as a two suited opening because they were able to play 2D as multi to handle the weak-two type bids. For #3, maybe the pair liked sound weak two-bids in the majors and were left with 2D undefined, they picked weak multi as the best option from amongst the leftovers.

 

Anyway, it seems like something of a chicken and egg situation.

[awm]

Perhaps the point people are making is...

 

Suppose you had two options. You could either:

 

(1) Play 2M as a natural weak two, and be barred from opening 2♦ ever.

(2) Play 2♦ as multi (weak only) and be barred from opening 2M ever.

 

I suspect that almost all good players would agree that option (1) is superior against decent opposition, even those players who routinely put multi on their card.

 

However, in real systems we are allowed to open both 2M and 2♦. How we assign meanings to these bids depends on many different factors. If there is some other very useful meaning for 2M then it may be worthwhile to play 2♦ as multi (accepting slightly worse results on the hands where we are weak with a long major) in order to obtain the good results from the alternative 2M openings.

[csdenmark]

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

 

Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival.

 

As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Everyone cares about that, Claus

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

 

Where are all the Vugraph-commentators? Some are very well-qualified. Do they care? If they do why are they not here?

 

I know you care Fred but your loyalty to those who dont care will not pay off. They are not ready to 'go to Canozza'.

 

Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival.

I am not a proponent of anything goes, anytime and anywhere. I am in favour that persons who want to act in a aggregated system must do their still harder homework the higher they want to compete in the pyramid. When we have reached country level - then I am all in favour of 'anything goes' with no limits.

 

As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival.

I know that. The answer to that is not handicap those 'ready, willing and able' but to help those who need help to catch up.

 

I have said before and like to repeat, your flash version and 'Full Disclosure' are very important here. Unfortunately it is so that information technology is lightyears away from how the persons in bridge organizations think life has to be.

[foo]

Everyone cares about that, Claus

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

That's an unfair attitude and incorrect statement, Claus

 

JanM isn't exactly "chopped liver", and she has participated heavily in this (very long) thread.

 

There are others besides Jan. Some of them may be posting anonymously, some are not, but there definitely are "heavy hitters" from multiple niches within the bridge world posting to this thread.

 

I'll bet there are even more lurking.

[hrothgar]

Everyone cares about that, Claus

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

That's an unfair attitude and incorrect statement, Claus

 

JanM isn't exactly "chopped liver", and she has participated heavily in this (very long) thread.

 

There are others besides Jan. Some of them may be posting anonymously, some are not, but there definitely are "heavy hitters" from multiple niches within the bridge world posting to this thread.

 

I'll bet there are even more lurking.

So Foo,

 

These "heavy hitters", who are lurking and listening to our words...

 

Do they speak to you? Privately, when no one else can hear?

Do they ever take the form of your neighbor's dog?

Do they tell you to do things? (Maybe even kill people)

 

Do you ever think that a tinfoil helmet might stop them from "lurking"?

[fred]

Everyone cares about that, Claus

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

That's an unfair attitude and incorrect statement, Claus

Actually it is a statement that doesn't make any sense assuming I understand how the conversation has gone....

 

Claus: only those who believe in "anything goes" care about the survival of the game

 

Fred: No - all bridge players care about the survival of the game

 

Claus: No - if they cared they would be involved in this forums thread

 

That doesn't make any sense, no doubt because Claus understands the conversation differently.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[foo]

Fred,

 

I think Claus' negative PoV was based on "you and Frances are the only responsible persons from bridge organizations" participating in this thread.

 

Since JanM is in her own right one of those "responsible persons from a bridge organization", and in addition is married to one who has actually served on the ACBL commitee in question, WHO JAN HAS EXPLICITLY SAID SHE"S CONSULTED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THIS THREAD, it seems more than a bit illogical to make the claim Claus did.

 

Poring through the thread I noticed the logins of other folks who most would consider "responsible persons" in the bridge world as well.

 

...and it is axiomatic that the vast majority of the time there are more people reading a thread than participating in it.

 

All,

 

Just because someone does not agree with your PoV does not mean that they care any less than you about what is best for Bridge.

[csdenmark]

Sorry it was a mistake by me to forget Jan. It would be right to include her.

 

In this thread we have discussed two kind of topics. A very detailled part about regulation of specific bids and a broader about system regulation with emphazis on pass systems. As I remember all three(Tim, Jan and Frances) has only participated in the specific bid part and not in anything broader about principles what will be able to bring some kind of hope. Thats the way I remember this very long thread.

 

What I think of who are missing are for example Roland Wald, David Burn, Jens Auken, Ulven(sorry dont remember his name but he is part of swedish Bermuda Team and I have seen he has read the thread but silent). Where are all the young commentators, OK we have one today 'Mich-B' from Israel as I remember but we need many more to have a broader perspective.

 

We are also in need of statements from some players who have seen themselves handicapped due to regulation. Or perhaps they dont find themselves handicapped but instead thankful that the regulators have directed them into what they are and do today. Who knows? We 5-10 persons out of 6000 BBF members are a small but excellent selection.

[H_KARLUK]

No, not everyone bitching on acbl is an acbl member.  And from what I've heard about it, I'm happy I live in Europe.  But that doesn't mean I can't have good suggestions, or that the critique I give is unjustified...

When in Rome, do as Romans do. The right to criticize comes from working. In other words those who haven't done it shouldn't criticize it. Things seem easier to the one who isn't involved. People commonly notice and criticize other people's decisions, but it is less common for someone to point out his/her own faults. Time is money. Try to join wonderful ACBL or WBF caravans if you can. He who does not wish for little things does not deserve big things. Okay? Play or be a working TD there in top events, and then enlighten the others if really needed. You know what they say! No pain no gain!

http://www.worldbridge.org/people/person.asp?qryid=15115 Rick BEYE U.S.A. WBF Code: USA&500801

I'm quite certain he has earned respect. ♥ Go go go Rick, good work :) ♥

[csdenmark]

No, not everyone bitching on acbl is an acbl member.  And from what I've heard about it, I'm happy I live in Europe.  But that doesn't mean I can't have good suggestions, or that the critique I give is unjustified...

When in Rome, do as Romans do. The right to criticize comes from working. In other words those who haven't done it shouldn't criticize it. Things seem easier to the one who isn't involved. People commonly notice and criticize other people's decisions, but it is less common for someone to point out his/her own faults. Time is money. Try to join wonderful ACBL or WBF caravans if you can. He who does not wish for little things does not deserve big things. Okay? Play or be a working TD there in top events, and then enlighten the others if really needed. You know what they say! No pain no gain!

http://www.worldbridge.org/people/person.asp?qryid=15115 Rick BEYE U.S.A. WBF Code: USA&500801

I'm quite certain he has earned respect. ♥ Go go go Rick, good work :) ♥

Hamid I would be ready to buy your argument if we talked about Danish or Turkey bridge organizations. But we do not. We are talking about an american organization with great importance to what happens elsewhere. So it is for USA in politics so it is for USA in bridge. A world power has special responsibilities to be a good example for all.

 

Those responsible from all the other nations are not here - thats the real proof they don't care about the survival of the game. Jens Auken is an example of that. He plays online and he is vice-chairman of the European Bridge Organization. But to stand up for what he is doing there - he is not interested of.

[Finch]

Those responsible from all the other nations are not here - thats the real proof they don't care about the survival of the game.

As others have said, that is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

 

Why on earth should not participating in a 47-page BBO forum discussion thread be seen as 'proof' that someone doesn't care about the survival of the game?

[csdenmark]

Those responsible from all the other nations are not here - thats the real proof they don't care about the survival of the game.

As others have said, that is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

 

Why on earth should not participating in a 47-page BBO forum discussion thread be seen as 'proof' that someone doesn't care about the survival of the game?

---------------------------

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

This is the statement I refer to blaming they are not here. I dont blame specific persons(even I name some of the few I know names of). I blame there are so many which ought to be here and none of them is here.

 

If they care of something - what do they care about and where?

[Free]

Has anyone informed them about this topic and that people want their opinions?

[qwery_hi]

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

 

Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival.

 

As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I agree wholeheartedly with Fred about this. Allowing "anything goes" at the club level will hurt beginners who, in my opinion, can more easily appreciate the beauty of card play rather than the beauty of unnatural bidding systems. The goal would be to get them hooked on bridge - I can still remember the elation when I first pulled off a throw-in.

 

However, this does not mean that I would want my world champions not to be able to deal with any bidding system out there. The WBF policy of protecting world champions by labeling some systems HUM is flawed at best. These policies reek of those in power enabling their pet systems, at least in ACBL land. The reasons given by the authorities of allowing/disallowing systems fall short of any logical coherence - as some in this thread and other threads have pointed out.

[csdenmark]

Has anyone informed them about this topic and that people want their opinions?

Your intensions to quote me right for this?

Unfortunately it is so that information technology is lightyears away from how the persons in bridge organizations think life has to be.

 

We are talking about a population of approx. 10.000 relevant persons. Present and former players, officials and board members incl. 200-300 Vugraph commentators.

 

I count something like 5 persons. Given this in my vocabulary the number is equivalent to 'No-one' and not 'everyone' as Fred states.

[TimG]

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

This is the statement I refer to blaming they are not here. I dont blame specific persons(even I name some of the few I know names of). I blame there are so many which ought to be here and none of them is here.

This seems to have gotten more than a little confused in translation?

 

Fred said: "Everyone cares about that." "That" referring to the "survival of the game".

 

That there are officials (past or present), vugraph commentators, top level players, bottom level players, BBO forum members, etc. that are NOT participating in this thread in no way means that they don't care about the game.

[dburn]

I am not quite sure why I have been cited as someone who does not care about the survival of bridge, but it is not true.

 

As to my views on forcing pass and other highly unusual systems, I believe that they should be permitted at national championship level and above, but not below that unless there is local demand.

 

My first assignment as coach to the national team was in the 1987 Bermuda Bowl in Ocho Rios, Jamaica. Great Britain had two pairs playing some form of strong pass system: Forrester and Armstrong used TRS, which had other unusual features; Flint and Sheehan used a kind of geriatric strong pass which involved opening 1♣ when you had a pass and pass when you had clubs.

 

New Zealand also had two strong pass pairs, one of whom used a system in which 1♠ was a fert at favourable, 1♥ at equal and 1♦ at unfavourable vulnerability. Brazil had a pair who, non-vulnerable, played a kind of "one under Precision" in which pass showed 16+ hcp, 1♣ was a catch-all, 1♦ showed hearts, 1♥ showed spades and 1♠ was a fert. Vulnerable, they played standard Precision.

 

Was this a problem? No, not really - there were no seating rights, so everybody just got on with it. Occasionally, the HUMs would gain an advantage simply because the auction "looked" different from what it was, and this led to concentration lapses. For example, Mike Lawrence and Hugh Ross had an accident when one of them bid 2♣ over a 1♦ opening that showed a pass; he thought he was opening an artificial game force, but his agreed defence was that 2♣ showed a club suit in a limited opening bid.

 

Lew Stansby bid 1♠ over a pass that showed an opening bid; Chip Martel raised him to 2♠ and he bid 2NT, which would have been an artificial force if he had opened the bidding, but was natural and non-forcing if he had overcalled (as in effect he had). Both of these mishaps led to ridiculous results that cost the USA several IMPs.

 

I felt then, as I feel now, that such occurrences are an undesirable effect of highly unusual systems. But the way to eliminate them is not to abolish these systems at the highest level - it is to ensure that your team has done enough preparation against them to negate as much as possible the aspect of unfamiliarity. Before the British team left for Jamaica, each of its pairs played more than a hundred boards against all manner of unusual methods (there was no shortage of volunteers prepared to give the team some practice) so that we were equipped to deal with Brazil, New Zealand, Sweden and the other countries we encountered who were using strange systems.

 

And we were not all professional players with vast amounts of time and energy to devote to such practice - Kirby, Armstrong and Brock all had full-time jobs. In these days, when most top players devote all or most of their time to bridge, I can see no real reason why such methods should be prohibited or greatly circumscribed. It irks me somewhat to read, for example, Larry Cohen describing some misfortune that befell a pair when a dastardly opponent responded 1♥ to 1♣ to show a spade suit. Surely, the world's leading players do not need molly-coddling to the extent that they never have to cope with anything other than the totally familiar.