Forcing Pass Systems

[mikestar]

Is it possible that there is a real difference between FP and other highly unusual methods?

 

I think Rozenkranz is on the right track when he calls these systems "dominant": the FP pair dominates the form the auction will take far more often than with non-FP systems.

 

Let's say we are a 2/1 partnership up against (A) a precision pair or (;) a FP pair.

 

We deal and dealer has an opening bid: against either, we are bidding 2/1, not defending Precision/FP.

 

We deal and dealer passes: against Precision, we will be defending Precision if the Precision player opens--if he passes, dealer's partner has a chance to open and we are bidding 2/1 if he does. But if dealer passes against the PF pair, we will always be defending FP --second hand will always open a regular opening, a fert, or a strong pass.

 

Similarly if they deal, we may get to bid 2/1 if the Precison dealer passes, but we are always defending FP.

 

So in 2/1 vs. Precision, we are playing our system about half the time and defending their system half the time--but vs. FP we only get to play our system if we deal and dealer has an opening bid.

 

Emotionally, I find the latter circumstance quite less satisfying than the former--I will enjoy the game less if I can use my preferred methods much less than half the time.

 

I suspect this is true for many players. I am not arguing for or against any particular system regulations. I am putting forth a hypothesis as to why FP seems to generate more controversy than other unusual methods which may be actually harder to defend against.

 

Thoughts?

[mycroft]

That's why I don't really have a problem with a FP system with a 1C Fert. Whenever I mention it, however, the FP people always tell me that it's a stupid idea...which, of course, it is.

 

One of the strengths of the system is that it is dominant, and they don't want to accept that that makes it fundamentally different from aggressive, but non-dominant systems (Precision is nothing - EHAA opens 50+% of hands *with a preempt*, plus all the hands that Roth would open). And the fact that there are now 3-6 "passes" one has to cater for makes "take away 75% of their constructive auctions and force them to defend against us" that much harder.

 

That doesn't stop me from thinking that there shouldn't be more places where it is allowed, however. And frankly, with a day's warning, I'd be happy to play the defence *you* play to FP systems, which of course you have completely documented, right dear FP-playing team? (please note, I didn't say "the defence you suggest against your own system" - you don't get to pull out another one when you hit the other FP table)

 

At a casual table against DrTodd for an afternoon, I have no problem playing whatever we can come up with - and would probably enjoy it.

[hrothgar]

Couple quick questions...

 

Do you play Drury?

Do you requirements for weak two openings change between 2nd seat, 3rd seat, and 4th seat?

[hotShot]

So opps bid something every single time they are dealer, of if our side fails to open in first seat. I don't have a problem with that.

Defensive bidding and play is part of the game.

[mycroft]

Well, then, hotshot, I guess you put 50+% of your time and notes into competitive bidding, and <= 50% into constructive auctions. Good for you, you should. You're definitely in the minority.

 

And don't know if that's aimed at me, Richard, but "Not by an unpassed hand/No/No" depending on the partnership, and "of course. What does that have to do with defending In Second Seat when opener passes as well as when opener bids?"

[hrothgar]

Well, then, hotshot, I guess you put 50+% of your time and notes into competitive bidding, and <= 50% into constructive auctions. Good for you, you should. You're definitely in the minority.

 

And don't know if that's aimed at me, Richard, but "Not by an unpassed hand/No/No" depending on the partnership, and "of course. What does that have to do with defending In Second Seat when opener passes as well as when opener bids?"

Since you brought Rosenkrantz into the picture, it seems appropriate to introduce a quote from "Bridge the Bidder's Game".

 

Shaded third hand openings are an often occurring inevitable necessity in the life of the successful bridge player regardless of the type of bid being played.  These bids are desperately needed to set the stage for the killing lead or a profitable sacrifice.

 

Rosenkrantz played a remarkably complicated system in which the requirements for different opening bids varied dramatically based on what seat he was opening in. In particular, preempts change dramatically depending on whether you are opening in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seat... The requirements for a one level opening in a major change significantly enough that he needs to use Drury to protect against light openings.

 

Playing against Rosenkrantz ANY system is dominant. Regardless of what system you choose to play, he is optimizing and redefining his opening structure depending on whether or not you passed in front of him.

 

However, when Rosenkraqntz is playing against standard systems this is "just normal bridge". When he is playing against something he doesn't like, its suddenly a dominant system.

[RichMor]

Dunno if FP is a dominant system, it sure is a dominant topic.

 

Here are some simple views:

 

1. A system based on weak openings (the term 'WOS' for weak opening systems seems better than 'FP') should have an advantage on hands where first or second hand can open. Since the opening is usually well defined in terms of strength, openers partner has a good idea of their sides total assets.

 

2. The same system should have a corresponding disadvantage when first or second hand has constructive values, say 13+ HCP. If all constructive hands start with one call - a bid or a pass - then accurate game, slam, or part score bidding is more difficult.

 

So I think WOS is reasonable concept with pluses and minuses. But in practice it's different.

 

Most WOS systems I have seen use artificial weak openings. Is this an accident? Probably not.

 

Auctions that start with artificial openings and responses create ambiguity for both sides. Seems to me that the opening side, often with less strength that the defending side, benefits more from any ambiguity. And it seems that designers of WOS system probably know this.

 

Once defenders learn how to counteract the current WOS openings, then the WOS system users should change the meanings of their openings and responses to restore ambiguity. Around and around it goes.

 

Maybe we should have 2 games; one called Bridge and the other called Babel.

[awm]

While there is some truth to this "dominant system" business, I don't think that's really the main issue. It's easy enough to play a system where you open almost all hands, like:

 

1-suit = 8+ points natural

2-suit = 2-7 points 5+ card suit, lax suit quality requirements

 

Basically this method passes only hands with 0-1 point, or with 2-7 points and no five-card suit. And yet this method is totally legal, essentially anywhere.

[Free]

Emotionally, I find the latter circumstance quite less satisfying than the former--I will enjoy the game less if I can use my preferred methods much less than half the time.

So your opponents never intervene? :)

 

No offense but this doesn't make sense at all. Why can't your preferred methods be defensive ones? I mean, in our club we used to encounter a lot of precision pairs. We loved them to open 1♣...

 

Seems to me that it's just easier to bid without opposition (because it's also easier to cover every possible scenario), and that's the reason why you prefer opps to be silent.

[fred]

I am not arguing for or against any particular system regulations. I am putting forth a hypothesis as to why FP seems to generate more controversy than other unusual methods which may be actually harder to defend against.

 

Thoughts?

I think the reason that FP systems generate so much controversy is because they strike almost all bridge players as being "highly highly unusual".

 

That is because we are taught from day one "pass with bad hands, open with good hands".

 

FP contradicts bidding lesson number one.

 

Of course that doesn't make FP "bad", but it does make it really strange to the point of "on another planet" as far as most bridge players are concerned.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Is it possible that there is a real difference between FP and other highly unusual methods?

 

I think Rozenkranz is on the right track when he calls these systems "dominant": the FP pair dominates the form the auction will take far more often than with non-FP systems.

Completely correct. Pass systems pushes opponents to play defensive in approx. 85% of the hands.

 

If you love to bid according to your own system - play pass systems.

 

If you love defensive methods - find a pair playing pass systems.

 

And the other way around - of course!

[csdenmark]

Dunno if FP is a dominant system, it sure is a dominant topic.

 

Here are some simple views:

 

1. A system based on weak openings (the term 'WOS' for weak opening systems seems better than 'FP') should have an advantage on hands where first or second hand can open. Since the opening is usually well defined in terms of strength, openers partner has a good idea of their sides total assets.

 

2. The same system should have a corresponding disadvantage when first or second hand has constructive values, say 13+ HCP. If all constructive hands start with one call - a bid or a pass - then accurate game, slam, or part score bidding is more difficult.

 

So I think WOS is reasonable concept with pluses and minuses. But in practice it's different.

 

Most WOS systems I have seen use artificial weak openings. Is this an accident? Probably not.

 

Auctions that start with artificial openings and responses create ambiguity for both sides.  Seems to me that the opening side, often with less strength that the defending side, benefits more from any ambiguity. And it seems that designers of WOS system probably know this.

 

Once defenders learn how to counteract the current WOS openings, then the WOS system users should change the meanings of their openings and responses to restore ambiguity. Around and around it goes.

 

Maybe we should have 2 games; one called Bridge and the other called Babel.

Maybe we should have 2 games; one called Bridge and the other called Babel.

 

No other solution possible against the restriction lobby. It will come - hopefully before it is too late and all dead.

[H_KARLUK]

Giving a party at th others property wldnt b a good idea.

[mikestar]

Emotionally, I find the latter circumstance quite less satisfying than the former--I will enjoy the game less if I can use my preferred methods much less than half the time.

So your opponents never intervene? :rolleyes:

 

No offense but this doesn't make sense at all. Why can't your preferred methods be defensive ones? I mean, in our club we used to encounter a lot of precision pairs. We loved them to open 1♣...

 

Seems to me that it's just easier to bid without opposition (because it's also easier to cover every possible scenario), and that's the reason why you prefer opps to be silent.

For the record, if you want to play FP against me, bring it. What you gain on the other openings, you may well lose back on the fert and the pass.

 

Also for the record, 2/1 is not my preferred system--I am trying to emulate the mindset of a very fair number of club players I know.

 

However, the purely emotional point about playing against FP is my own and is not the same as wanting to play with no intervention. Playing Precision, partner opens 1♣, I tend to be pleasantly surprised when 3♠ or the like doesn't hit the table before I speak. Coping with intervention is part of the game--an enjoyable one.

 

My point was, I dislike having to play defense 85% of the time (or whatever the correct number is). By "defense" I mean "they open, we intervene", not "we open, they intervene".

 

I have never once asserted that my personal preferences should be a basis for systems policy or any other bridge regulation.

 

However, we all know players who would legislate their preferences if they could--and they can, as witness the ACBL, WBF, etc.

[DrTodd13]

What other basis is there for regulation other than personal preference?

[csdenmark]

My point was, I dislike having to play defense 85% of the time (or whatever the correct number is). By "defense" I mean "they open, we intervene", not "we open, they intervene".

 

Correct Mike - it is very trivial to play defense all the time. But thats not all of it. I think the important thing is you are not threated equal playing against pass systems - other systems than pass systems are deprived rights at the table because in bridge it is more difficult to bid defensive. Your agenda is not important - you need to respond to the challenge you are facing - and the pass systems defines what you are up against.

 

In that respect, and only that, I will agree pass systems are unfair.

 

Players of pass systems have no real defense. It is simply not needed and is waste of time to develop. Only if the 'natural' is able to open in 1st seat they can play their own system. In all other cases the pass system will open the auction.

It is around 75-85 %. You can of course influence that figure by changing your system. Lowering your opening requirements are what matters.

 

Playing a pass system yourself is the only way the restore the normal 50-50 equivalence.

[mikestar]

What other basis is there for regulation other than personal preference?

I can think of several

 

1) The perceived good of the game.

 

2) The perceived good of the regulating authority.

 

3) Competitive advantage--let's say I personally prefer FP but think my nation's team in the Bermuda Bowl would have a better shot if HUM's were banned... (not saying this is rational, but certainly possible for someone to believe).

 

...

 

 

As an aside, I've known quite a few people who will perpetrate atrocities for altruistic reasons that they wouldn't do for selfish reasons. Isn't it possible that this is descriptive of some few individuals involved in system regulations?

[DrTodd13]

What other basis is there for regulation other than personal preference?

I can think of several

 

1) The perceived good of the game.

 

2) The perceived good of the regulating authority.

 

3) Competitive advantage--let's say I personally prefer FP but think my nation's team in the Bermuda Bowl would have a better shot if HUM's were banned... (not saying this is rational, but certainly possible for someone to believe).

 

...

 

 

As an aside, I've known quite a few people who will perpetrate atrocities for altruistic reasons that they wouldn't do for selfish reasons. Isn't it possible that this is descriptive of some few individuals involved in system regulations?

All your answers have "perceived" or "personally." The only difference is whether your personal preference is lack of regulation, good of the game, good of a team, etc. In short, everything comes down to personal preference so long as some divine entity isn't handing out commands.

[shevek]

Just posted this in the original thread.

I'll inflict it unedited here, partly because I wrote about dominance.

 

Nick

 

 

 

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.

[H_KARLUK]

I think Rozenkranz is on the right track when he calls these systems "dominant": the FP pair dominates the form the auction will take far more often than with non-FP systems.

 

Is the rationale that not easy for natural systems member players to effectively bid over methods which they're not familiar with ? (Particularly when the strong pass goal mainly depends obstructive in order to break up opp's bidding).

 

I would like to see Strong pass vs Strong Pass played hands samples. Yet my archive limitted with 1980+ records. Such as TRS etc.

[csdenmark]

I think Rozenkranz is on the right track when he calls these systems "dominant": the FP pair dominates the form the auction will take far more often than with non-FP systems.

 

Is the rationale that not easy for natural systems member players to effectively bid over methods which they're not familiar with ? (Particularly when the strong pass goal mainly depends obstructive in order to break up opp's bidding).

 

I would like to see Strong pass vs Strong Pass played hands samples. Yet my archive limitted with 1980+ records. Such as TRS etc.

Particularly when the strong pass goal mainly depends obstructive in order to break up opp's bidding

Hamid it is not so. Some non-serious adventure-minded persons try to ruin the game their way. Just as the regulators do in their way.

 

I have tried to describe the objectives for pass systems earlier, they are:

• Pushing opponents in the more difficult area of defensive bidding, in this thread named to be dominant. I prefer to name this as establishing comparative advantages
  
• Strict focus of what this game is about, a game about MAJORs. Whether you hold them or not