Forcing Pass Systems

[cherdano]

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.

I think Tim wants to know for which methods it might make sense to submit a defense for approval to the C&C committee.

[jdonn]

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.

I think Tim wants to know for which methods it might make sense to submit a defense for approval to the C&C committee.

The answer to that seems obvious to me.

 

Any methods that aren't specifically disallowed (meaning that are only disallowed because they aren't specifically allowed) and that he wants to play.

 

And then he should hope for the best. I am not bothered that this is less convenient for system designers than a procedure that would let them know ahead of time which methods have a better chance of being approved. When I write letters to my congressman I have no idea if it will make a difference or not, but if it's something important to me then it's worthwhile to try.

 

(In fairness, when the committee disapproves a method they should be specific as to why the decision was reached.)

[TimG]

We can call them "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" if you want. I still don't think there is any gray area about it. Those methods are disallowed, and whatever might happen in the future doesn't much matter in the present.

The mid-chart says:

To get a method approved, a complete written explanation of the method and a complete written defense must be submitted to ACBL in Memphis, electronically to the Competition and Conventions Committee at candc@acbl.org

What is gray, or at least a bit unclear, is which of these "methods which are disallowed because they are not specifically allowed" will be considered by the C&C Committee and what criteria will be used by the Committee when considering whether or not to approve such methods.

[TimG]

Any methods that aren't specifically disallowed (meaning that are only disallowed because they aren't specifically allowed) and that he wants to play.

I am reasonably confident that if I wanted to use a 2D opening bid to show a weak hand with 4+ diamonds and a 4+ card major, the committee would not consider* my submission. As far as I can see, this method is not specifically disallowed.

 

I am also reasonably confident that the committee would not consider a 1D opening which shows 8-15 HCP, 4+ hearts and is non-forcing. As far as I can see, this method is not specifically disallowed.

 

I do not have a real problem with either of these methods being disallowed. But, I would like to know upon what basis these methods are disallowed. And, I would prefer this basis not to be a general "the committee feels it is against the best interests of ACBL membership to approve these methods" but rather reference some objective criteria.

 

 

* By "consider" I mean get so far as to evaluate the merits of the defense and provide feedback where they think the defense is lacking. They would dismiss these methods.

[jdonn]

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

[TimG]

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

I did not mean to gripe about an inconvenience, but I can see how it may have sounded that way. The gripe about guessing was not about the inefficiency of the process but rather the apparent arbitrary nature of the decisions.

[RichMor]

<snip out first part>

 

I believe that preparing a defense to one ususual system is easier that preparing defenses to three very different ususual systems all being played by various pairs in a multi-team event.

 

Do you disagree ?

 

No, I agree that preparing 1 defense is easier than preparing 3. However that does not "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests", but just makes some contests easier than others.

 

<snip out last part>

glen,

 

Think I need to back up and take another run at 'fundamental'.

 

A simple and limited meaning:

1. basic: relating to or affecting the underlying principles or structure of something.

2. central: serving as an essential part of something.

(from MSN Encarta)

 

With that definition, I agree than 'preparing 3 defenses instead of 1' is not a fundamental change - but it seems like a significant change. And '6 instead of 1' is more significant - but still not fundamental.

 

 

I mean to use the term 'fundamental change' only for scenarios featuring artificial weak-opening systems. That is what I have tried to do in previous posts. Since I have not been asked to represent my country in any international events(still hoping but it's probably not happening) all I can do is imagine what it would be like to compete against one or more artificial weak-opening systems.

 

This is what I imagine:

1. LHO opens a Suspensor 1♠ which shows 9-12 HCP and long or short Spades.

 

2. Next session a second LHO opens a Suction 1♠ which shows 9-12 with Clubs or 15-18 with the red suits.

 

3. Next session a third LHO opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution.

 

The opps are good players and they have experience with auctions after they open 1♠. The opps have played their methods for several years. Pard and I do our best to compete using whatever detailed or basic agreements we have made. What happens will happen.

 

Pard and I are no longer trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgement. We are instead trying to remember and readjust our agreements depending on all the meanings of all the bids of all three opposing pairs. (There's that darn 'all' again)

 

This seems like a game that is fundamentally different that bridge.

 

This response composed while listening to 'Fundamental' - Bonnie Raitt.

[DrTodd13]

No, if anything, the game you are playing now is fundamentally not bridge. Bridge intends to have you listen to the opponents bidding and adapt to it. You are just used to playing a crippled version of the game that allows you to not think and you've gotten used to it.

[glen]

... I agree that 'preparing 3 defenses instead of 1' is not a fundamental change - but it seems like a significant change. And '6 instead of 1' is more significant - but still not fundamental.

 

I mean to use the term 'fundamental change' only for scenarios featuring artificial weak-opening systems. That is what I have tried to do in previous posts. Since I have not been asked to represent my country in any international events(still hoping but it's probably not happening) all I can do is imagine what it would be like to compete against one or more artificial weak-opening systems.

 

This is what I imagine:

1. LHO opens a Suspensor 1♠ which shows 9-12 HCP and long or short Spades.

 

2. Next session a second LHO opens a Suction 1♠ which shows 9-12 with Clubs or 15-18 with the red suits.

 

3. Next session a third LHO opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution.

 

The opps are good players and they have experience with auctions after they open 1♠. The opps have played their methods for several years.  Pard and I do our best to compete using whatever detailed or basic agreements we have made. What happens will happen.

 

Pard and I are no longer trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgement. We are instead trying to remember and readjust our agreements depending on all the meanings of all the bids of all three opposing pairs. (There's that darn 'all' again)

 

This seems like a game that is fundamentally different that bridge.

First, if it was up to me, either/or openings, that are non-forcing and one of the options is 4+ length in the suit bid, would be banned. Thus you would not face case 1. I don't believe cases 2 and 3 should stress a world class partnership out.

 

Second, at the top levels, strong teams have supporting individuals including non-playing captains, coaches, and advisors, and some of these are assigned the task of reviewing the methods of the opponents and preparing countermeasures. Two of the best pairs in the world for doing this are Eric Kokish/Bev Kraft, and Chip and Jan Martel. If you were to represent your country, I hope you would have the appropriate support for your team, and you would have had the opportunity and time to participate in practice sessions that involved some of these strange methods.

 

Third, for all openings that involve a suit bid (i.e. not a notrump bid, or a call) in an either/or variation, such as in cases 2 and 3, the base countermeasure is relatively consistent and straight forward (double as value showing, or passable takeout, depending on the situation, mostly natural bidding, see Countering Vexing Bids). After a little while, you will find that your opponents, while good and experienced, are being placed in uncomfortable spots by their systems, and soon, instead of being stressed when an opponent "opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution" you are looking forward to a good result. And then you realize these nasty methods of the opponents do not actually fundamentally change bridge, which is about bidding to your spots, and nailing the opponents if they are in a bad spot. So your partnership is still "trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgment", except your best bidding methods include countermeasures to the opponents methods, which is nothing new to the demands of top level bridge.

 

This response composed while listening to 'Fundamental' - Bonnie Raitt.

There was a reason why I quoted my musical reference on the morning of the 25th. As to your reference, I vastly prefer the overproduced Don Was Bonnie to the Was Not barebones Bonnie. And this response was composed to the sound of the US scoring their third and fourth goals.

[ASkolnick]

There are a couple of problems with Forcing Pass in general:

 

1) Short rounds

 

How am I going to say 5 minutes before a pair comes (let's say 12 pairs), let's look at the suggested defense, maybe I like it, maybe I don't. I certainly won't have time to do it.

 

2) It does not allow you to play your system. Even over aggressive style openings, you can play your system, forcing pass does not. I am not quite sure why transfer openings are that big a deal though since you can play transfers in almost any other seat for any other reason.

 

 

So, I will disagree with Dr. Todd saying it is reasonable to play against.

 

However, that being said, there is no reason I should not have to play against it in a National Trial or International Event (Even real KO events such as Spingold) with the following:

 

A) Notes submitted in Advance

:) Defence submitted in Advance

 

I don't care if you put on a website or whatever. I can look at my draw and figure out if I need to concoct something or I like what was suggested.

 

If more people play something and more people defend against it, eventually the defense will catch up.

 

While I understand why Forcing Pass may be a problem, what I don't understand being illegal are:

 

1) Transfer Openings

Disadvantages: Overcaller now has two extra calls, Dbl and bidding the xfer suit.

2) Multi 2D - Really not that hard

Disadvantages: 2H over 2S

3) 2H Muitenberg - Which is natural.

Disadvantage: Don't know, but it is no different than 2 Hearts and less likely you want to come in.

4) Power 2D (4+-4+ in Majors) - I can plau natural, but I know I have bad splits.

 

So, having the ACBL draw a line in the sand somewhere is OK as long as its clear. But there needs to be at least a more liberal policy and I think people will think of adequate defenses against all of these if given the ability to play against them.

[Cascade]

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

Basically you are accepting that players that play some methods (more or less standard) have a right to have an advantage over those that play other methods.

 

This seems inherently unfair to me.

[Cascade]

The opps are good players and they have experience with auctions after they open 1♠. The opps have played their methods for several years. Pard and I do our best to compete using whatever detailed or basic agreements we have made. What happens will happen.

 

Pard and I are no longer trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgement. We are instead trying to remember and readjust our agreements depending on all the meanings of all the bids of all three opposing pairs. (There's that darn 'all' again)

 

This seems like a game that is fundamentally different that bridge.

The opponents also have to defend against whatever meaning you give to 1♠. You are likely to have had more experience than them playing that method. You also had free choice in choosing your method.

 

It seems completely fair to me that they should be allowed to choose their methods.

 

And to me this is fundamentally what bridge is at least in the auction stage of the game.

 

Fundamental to the game is that sometimes the opponents get to call first. Everytime that happens you have to adapt to whatever they choose to do.

[jdonn]

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

Basically you are accepting that players that play some methods (more or less standard) have a right to have an advantage over those that play other methods.

 

This seems inherently unfair to me.

I'm probably better off not getting into another debate with you. Suffice to say I do not consider it inherently unfair that players who want to play a method that is disallowed are disadvantaged compared to players who want to play a method that is allowed. I won't waste any energy trying to convince you to agree with me.

[Cascade]

There are a couple of problems with Forcing Pass in general:

 

1) Short rounds

 

How am I going to say 5 minutes before a pair comes (let's say 12 pairs), let's look at the suggested defense, maybe I like it, maybe I don't.  I certainly won't have time to do it.

 

2) It does not allow you to play your system.  Even over aggressive style openings, you can play your system, forcing pass does not.  I am not quite sure why transfer openings are that big a deal though since you can play transfers in almost any other seat for any other reason.

If you wait until five minutes before a pair arrives that is your problem. The reality is far different. If Forcing Pass was allowed you would have however much time before an event that you wanted to devote to writing and agreeing a forcing pass defense.

 

Of course you can play your system. If your system is badly designed and does not cater to the opponent in first seat acting before you then that is entirely your problem.

[Cascade]

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

Basically you are accepting that players that play some methods (more or less standard) have a right to have an advantage over those that play other methods.

 

This seems inherently unfair to me.

I'm probably better off not getting into another debate with you. Suffice to say I do not consider it inherently unfair that players who want to play a method that is disallowed are disadvantaged compared to players who want to play a method that is allowed. I won't waste any energy trying to convince you to agree with me.

It is unfair that some players get to play their methods without any interaction with some committee or other whilst other players have to battle with the committee to seek approval of their preferred methods.

[jdonn]

Perhaps some people consider it unfair that there is an avenue specifically designed to allow people who aren't on any committee to recommend rule changes.

 

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

 

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

[DrTodd13]

2) It does not allow you to play your system. Even over aggressive style openings, you can play your system, forcing pass does not. I am not quite sure why transfer openings are that big a deal though since you can play transfers in almost any other seat for any other reason.

 

 

So, I will disagree with Dr. Todd saying it is reasonable to play against.

How about a system where pass is 0-3 and other 1 level bids are hyper-aggresive. Still not a forcing pass system but it sure would dominate your system. Look, this is a continuum. If opps regularly open 12 counts and then start opening 10 counts, they have to some degree stopped you from using your most constructive opening methods. The 12 to 10 reduction may represent a 5% reduction in your ability to open the bidding. Assuming that you use a defensive system to defend a forcing pass bid rather than your normal openings then forcing pass systems reduce your ability to open by 50%. So, please tell me exactly what your magic number is between 5% and 50% that represents too much for you. Getting the opps out of their constructive system should be one of your goals (what do you think preempts are?). In short, in bridge, there is no such thing as a right to get to use your own constructive system just because the opponents hands aren't very good.

[qwery_hi]

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

 

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

[fred]

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

 

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

Unless of course he believed in Y. Then his standard move would be to attack the integrity of X.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

 

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

I anxiously await your recommendation, which I assume will either be to implement a system where 100% of bridge players get to vote on what is allowed, or where people serving on any committee are banned from playing bridge.

[qwery_hi]

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

 

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

I anxiously await your recommendation, which I assume will either be to implement a system where 100% of bridge players get to vote on what is allowed, or where people serving on any committee are banned from playing bridge.

Let me help you with your anxiety then.

 

Who said anything about any committee? The committee which gets to decide what I'm allowed to play in a championship, however, is a different proposition.

 

Or we could go on pretending there are no conflicts of interest in the current system.

[qwery_hi]

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

Unless of course he believed in Y. Then his standard move would be to attack the integrity of X.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

Correct. Just like all the people who questioned the integrity of Justice Scalia when he didn't excuse himself from this case.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/scalia.recusal/

 

One doesn't have to be on the side of Y to question X's integrity.

 

Federal laws dictate judges or justices should remove themselves from cases if questions arise about their fairness or impartiality. Some people might think this law is stupid, but I don't.

 

And since we are so enamoured with the integrity of the committee members, I suggest we allow them to sit on their own appeals committees in the tournaments.

[fred]

One doesn't have to be on the side of Y to question X's integrity.

I think you missed the point of my last post, but no matter...

 

I have asked several times (sometimes nicely sometimes not) that people refrain from attacking, through BBO Forums, the integrity of the people who serve on these committees.

 

But you just keep attacking so I will asking you explicitly:

 

Please either keep your integrity-attacks to yourself or post them on some other site.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

 

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

I anxiously await your recommendation, which I assume will either be to implement a system where 100% of bridge players get to vote on what is allowed, or where people serving on any committee are banned from playing bridge.

Let me help you with your anxiety then.

 

Who said anything about any committee? The committee which gets to decide what I'm allowed to play in a championship, however, is a different proposition.

 

Or we could go on pretending there are no conflicts of interest in the current system.

I don't understand your suggestion, but you missed the point anyway.

 

No one has pretended the current system is close to perfect, despite your implying so. So since you have such a big problem with it, suggest something that would alleviate the problem. Otherwise people might think you are just complaining because complaining is easy.

[nige1]

I have asked several times (sometimes nicely sometimes not) that people refrain from attacking, through BBO Forums, the integrity of the people who serve on these committees.

Fred rightly deplores ad hominem attacks ;)

but, IMO, in a microcosm with freedom of speech, a committee as a whole, is fair game :)