Forcing pass systems

[Flame]

I'm curios to know, does forcing pass systems are supirior to "normal" system ?

Are there world class players who play them, and successed with them ?

Do you think they will eventually be allowed in the world regulation ?

How long do you think it will take ?

Do you think even long time from now, that those systems will be common, more common then "normal" systems ?

[csdenmark]

I'm curios to know, does forcing pass systems are supirior to "normal" system ?

No but much more fun to play. Maybe because they are unusual. Due to the 8-12 openings, they technically have some kind of superior to standard openings. But if you have a decent defense system - such really doesnt matter.

 

Are there world class players who play them, and successed with them ?

Balicki/Zmudzinski I am informed. Nobody seems to have their convention card for such - so ?????

 

Do you think they will eventually be allowed in the world regulation ?

How long do you think it will take ?

In Bermuda Bowl and top tourney's nearly everything is allowed - also strong pass systems. In Cavendish Fred has informed of strong system regulations - so I think not there.

 

Do you think even long time from now, that those systems will be common, more common then "normal" systems ?

Never again I think - but I never give up hope!

 

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

 

TEST them yourself. At least Lambda is that simple so all can participate.

 

http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/pass.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/beznazwy.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/lambda.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/moscito.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/regres.msnw

[Free]

Bidtechnically they are superior, because you get one extra bid when you are strong (13+HCP). This means you get more bidding space for all kind of purpose, like relay auctions, slam aproach,... When you have 0-12 HCP (about 66% of the time), you open at 1-level, and has the possibility to destroy most system bases. With 0-7HCP usually people open 1♥, and it takes half the 1-level of bidding space away. Opponents are already in defense before they had a chance to do something.

 

Yes, it has won big events, but I can't give any names. Aparently Balicki/Zmudzinski...

 

They will probably be allowed forever in the biggest events, but from the moment you're not at the top of your country or the world, it'll be banned forever I think. If you look at the general direction the rulings are going, it's most of the time to 'protect' the beginners from too much artificial systems. In some countries a system may not even have a meaningless 'relay'!! :blink: Brown stickers are banned all over the place, as for HUM's, and I don't see any reason why they will ever come back. I also don't see a reason why they should be banned, but it's not in my hands ;)

 

Since they are banned all over the place, I don't see these systems become common. The only medium to spread it is online bridge, and even there you don't see them much. I guess expert level tourneys might have one pair from time to time at this moment, however, I haven't seen them :( ... And if you'd play it, you'd sure get bad comment from opps! Yesterday there was an abalucy tourney and 1 pair was already complaining about our Moscito transfer openings... I thought "whatever", but it seems a lot of people don't like to play against systems they are not used to. And I personally wouldn't start to learn a system which you can't play everywhere, it's a waste of energy and there are a lot of other fun systems (like Moscito) which can do as much as strong pass systems.

[hrothgar]

I believe fairly strongly that Strong Pass systems are technically superior to standard bidding methods. Rather than boring people with a technical presentation about relative frequencies, I'll simply note three useful datapoints:

 

1. The Bridge police have implemented a wide variety of regulations and restrictions designed to protect "standard" methods against strong pass systems. These regulations would not be necessary if standard bidding was able to succeed on technical merit.

 

2. Standards regarding the minimum strength required for constructive opening bids are steadily decreasing.

 

3. Most serious scientific studies of bidding inevitably start leading down the slippery slope towards strong pass.

 

>Are there world class players who play them, and successed with them ?

 

At one point in time, strong pass systems were in relatively widespread use in many parts of the world. Most pairs were forced to abandon these methods because they weren't able to employ them in tournament play. I know a number of leading strong pass players; most of whom are very vehement regarding why they switched to more standard methods.

 

>Do you think they will eventually be allowed in the world regulation ?

>How long do you think it will take ?

 

Depends on improvements in geriatric medicine.

[hrothgar]

>Do you think even long time from now, that those

>systems will be common, more common then "normal"

>systems?

 

On a more serious note:

 

As I already commented, standards regarding the minimum strength necessary for a constructive opening bid are steadily falling and the trend seems to be accelerating.

 

In turn, pairs are being forced to adopt all sorts of complexity in order to make sense of their constructive auctions. Artificial 2C continuations over major suit openings are a classic example of this type of innovation.

 

My suspicion is that players are eventually going to get sick and tired of this type of complexity and recognize that bidding systems designed from first principles actually allow radically simplified bidding structures...

[the hog]

I have played Strong pass , played against it and played SP systems against a SP system. They are technically superior because as has been pointed out, they give you more room. They are also a lot of fun to play.

 

To the best of my knowledge virtually no one plays them anymore because they have been legislated out of existence. Balicki - Zmudzinski USED to play Suspensor, but have played Polish Club for a long time now, at least 10 years.

 

SP systems are still legal in Australia in 14+ board matches in National events. So you get a few intrepid New Zealanders wielding T-Rex, the most horrific system to play and to play against ever.

 

Unfortunately I don't think we will see widespread use of SP systems due to silly system restrictions.

[csdenmark]

Marcel has been very helpful providing me this link:

 

http://groups.google.nl/groups?q=suspensor...d.net.au&rnum=1

 

I have contacted Michal Rosa, Australia and hope soon to have the convention card.

[Free]

Does anybody have a translation in english of suspensor 3k1? I don't understand polish language... :blink:

[csdenmark]

Does anybody have a translation in english of suspensor 3k1? I don't understand polish language... :blink:

I dont understand what you mean by 3k1. But generally Suspensor is very much alike Bez Nazwy. Look into that.

[1eyedjack]

It is true that in major events, except at the pinnacle of the world, SP systems have been legislated out. At club level however they have not (at least not in the UK). At least so I believe. The sponsoring organisation (EBU) delegates to clubs considerable autonomy on the matter of permitted conventions, and of course any club that is not affiliated to a national sponsoring organisation (or perhaps one that is but runs an event that does not qualify for master points) has greater autonomy still.

 

It is then down to clubs to bow to the democratic wishes of their own members.

 

Theory aside that is not much help. The membership of most clubs is made up of players who are not interested in playing SP systems and less interested in defending against them. Even those who want to play them would have their motivation quashed by the realisation that they could not go on to take advantage of that practice in a wider event.

 

I don't think that Hrothgar's analysis (that the existence of legislation proves the merit of the method) is entirely convincing. Taken to its logical conclusion, no legislation would ever be necessary (if the argument were valid) as market forces would lead to extinction those methods without technical merit. In practice, under such a framework, any pair could obtain a substantial advantage by playing a method that has no theoretical technical merit against a prepared opposition but which in the absence of such preparation has increased practical value. To allow that practice would not I think be in the interests of the game.

 

Personally I think that a "Limited Constructive but non-forcing Pass" system may be the best, as it requires the opponents to use constructive methods against it, they do not have "double" of pass available, and they cannot pass in second seat confident of having a rebid. Next to that, I think that a SP (forcing) system that contains some weak options, again to force the opponents to adopt constructive defensive methods, would also be better than a "pure" unlimited forcing SP system.

[the hog]

snipped

I don't think that Hrothgar's analysis (that the existence of legislation proves the merit of the method) is entirely convincing.  Taken to its logical conclusion, no legislation would ever be necessary (if the argument were valid) as market forces would lead to extinction those methods without technical merit.  In practice, under such a framework, any pair could obtain a substantial advantage by playing a method that has no theoretical technical merit against a prepared opposition but which in the absence of such preparation has increased practical value.  To allow that practice would not I think be in the interests of the game.

 

Personally I think that a "Limited Constructive but non-forcing Pass" system may be the best, as it requires the opponents to use constructive methods against it, they do not have "double" of pass available, and they cannot pass in second seat confident of having a rebid.  Next to that, I think that a SP (forcing) system that contains some weak options, again to force the opponents to adopt constructive defensive methods, would also be better than a "pure" unlimited forcing SP system.

I am not going to get involved in a discussion here as it is impossible to convince people who have deep seated views. However the above does require a reply. Market forces do weed out methods without technical merit. Who still plays Monaco for example.

 

To use the argument "not in the interests of the game" is of course, ridiculous. Where is this proven, where is the evidence apart from purely subjective and judgemental opinion? Most of the people making comments like this have never played or played against a SP system and know very little about them. Any pair in serious competition has meta agreements which can be ported to defence against various artificial agreements. The monocled one has also totally contradicted himself as I would be very interested to know how a pair that plays methods that have "no theoretical technical merit" can gain a "substantial advantage", substantial disadvantage more likely.

 

As for limited constructive, but non forcing pass openings - these have been tried and found wanting. Thy are far too vulnerable to pre emption, more than a straight SP believe it or not! The English system TRS was one such and there were a few others. They died a natural death. As with big club systems like Moscito, it is in fact the limited openings, (8-12 in the case of many SP systems), which are the HUGE winners. The strong pass is a losing bid. The Fert, usually 1D or 1H also gains a little as it forces the opponents to start their constructive auctions at a higher level. As Richard pointed out in a thread on Moscito, where the 1C 15+ opening is not a bid on which you expect to gain, the same can be said for the Strong Pass.

[mishovnbg]

Hi Flame!

 

I'm curios to know, does forcing pass systems are supirior to "normal" system ?

->Mainly depend of ability of opponents to preempt our forcing pass and penalise our 1♦ opening, like precision. In not vul they are superior, in vul - worse.

 

Are there world class players who play them, and successed with them ?

->Yes, in the past - polish, swedish, danish... National teams included at least 1 pair that played SP. Swedish national team had sveral major successes.

 

Do you think they will eventually be allowed in the world regulation ?

->No. The rich players/sponsors are too lazy to permit such cahnge :( '

 

How long do you think it will take ?

As long as money means something for people ;) .

 

Do you think even long time from now, that those systems will be common, more common then "normal" systems ?

->Never, sorry

 

Misho

[helene_t]

[.......]Market forces do weed out methods without technical merit. [........] To use the argument "not in the interests of the game" is of course, ridiculous. Where is this proven, where is the evidence apart from purely subjective and judgemental opinion? Most of the people making comments like this have never played or played against a SP system and know very little about them. [........]

IMHO, this goes too far. Even when playing fairly innocent systems such as T-Walsh and multi-coloured 2♦, I notice a significant advantage when playing against partnerships who have limited experience and agreements as to the defense against such methods. Unexperienced players sometimes find it interesting to try improvising a defense against bizare methods, others don't appreciate it. Depending on the skills and humor of the opps, it may be ethically unacceptable to play any weak, artificial, non-standard methods, or everything may be acceptable, but it is dessirable to keep the rules uniform. The BSC regulations is a compromise. They may be experienced as too liberal by some players and as too strict by others.

 

That a weak pass and constructive openings are considered "standard" may be arbitrary. In a different world, one can immagine, SP systems are tought to beginnes and weak-pass systems allowed only at top level.

[Free]

If you play poker, you're allowed to pass with every hand, and you're allowed to call/raise with every hand as well - no rules. If you call it a bluff, whatever, but it's allowed! Why can't people leave all these silly rules out of the greatest cardgame, and let everybody have his fun in system design? Give the beginners something to think off, and they'll become better players.

[csdenmark]

I tend to agree with Helene. I dont like the restrictions either but in fact I think we are just talking about 2 games with the same name: Bridge.

 

On BBO we don't have such restrictions. So what is the problem. All have the option to choose partners and opps. according to preferences. I think much of the problems are those of us who are proponents of the specialized systems do nothing real to play with and against each other but mostly play opps. to people who prefer not to deal with such. We dont want to accept their complaints for our methods are unfair to those who dont know them and prefer to stay in that way.

 

I tell you I have no problems to play opps. to Moscito with transfer openings once in a while. But if I had to do so often - I would avoid those people.

 

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

 

I have received a message from Michal Rosa. He is moving his residence at the moment therefore it will take a little time until we can have the Balicki/Zmudzinski convention card.

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

 

Misho gave me an impulse to look into info about the scandinavian approach to pass systems. Flodquist have now improved his web-sites very much. For those who can understand the swedish language here:

 

http://w1.836.telia.com/~u83607584/carrot/carrotti.html

 

Regarding danes Lars Blakset informs they mostly played Regres. I know Peter Koch Larsen was one of those. The Aarhus pair Johs. Hulgaard-Steen Schou played a swedish relay system called "Little Säffle Spade". Info about that in "Modern Bridge" 1982 by P. Svinhufvud.

[MarceldB]

Balicki - Zmudzinski USED to play Suspensor, but have played Polish Club for a long time now, at least 10 years.

Correctly.

They did 2 sessions with Suspensor for a bid contest for the Dutch bridge Magazine IMP (Jan/Feb. 2003). For your info I have made today a pdf

file of the 1st session.

 

Please do not blame me that at the same time I have added my bidding sequences according REGRESsion too :(

 

Regards,

Marcel

[1eyedjack]

I am not going to get involved in a discussion here as it is impossible to convince people who have deep seated views.

Not like you, eh?

However the above does require a reply.

This from someone who accuses me of contradicting myself:

The monocled one has also totally contradicted himself as I would be very interested to know how a pair that plays methods  that have "no theoretical technical merit" can gain a "substantial advantage"

There is a world of difference between a method that has "no theoretical technical merit" and one that has (to correct the quote) "no theoretical technical merit against ... opposition ... in the absence of ... preparation". As the rest of the post relies on confusion between these terms it does not warrant further response, suffice it to say that a case that relies on misquoting is in my view a case conceded.

[MarceldB]

Balicki - Zmudzinski did 2 sessions with Suspensor for a bid contest for the Dutch bridge Magazine IMP (Jan/Feb. 2003). For your info I have made today a pdf file of the 1st session

and herewith the second session of 6 boards:

 

 

 

cheers,

Marcel

[the hog]

"There is a world of difference between a method that has "no theoretical technical merit" and one that has (to correct the quote) "no theoretical technical merit against ... opposition ... in the absence of ... preparation".

 

A method either has technical merit or not. To say that preparation, or the lack of it, contributes or changes the level of technical merit is a reductio ad absurdum.

[1eyedjack]

"There is a world of difference between a method that has "no theoretical technical merit" and one that has (to correct the quote) "no theoretical technical merit against ... opposition ... in the absence of ... preparation".

 

A method either has technical merit or not. To say that preparation, or the lack of it, contributes or changes the level of technical merit is a reductio ad absurdum.

Agreed. It does not change the level of technical merit in a method. But it does change your expected gain or loss from its use.

[the hog]

So if we extend your above agreement to the comment you originally made, you are arguing that to play Acol in Poland or say SAYC in Australia is "bad for bridge", because you would expect to lose due to the level of unfamiliarity. Clearly this is silly. In a post on rgb one poster comments on how he had to alert an Acol 1C opening and 2C over 1C when playing that system in Poland, due to the unfamiliarity of local players with these methods.

 

Any half way serious pair has meta agreements to cope with the unexpected. When we played against T-Rex our system discussion was: "The usual?" "Ok!"

 

Are you suggesting that unfamiliar methods are "bad for bridge?" Where is the evidence for this? There is a body of evidence to suggets the opposite is correct. Let me quote from Lukasz Slawinski:

 

"THE ADVANTAGES OF WEAK OPENING SYSTEMS

 

As recently as 10 years ago, almost everyone used the same basic bidding methods; only a handful of players used Weak Opening Systems.

 

There were many traditional systems, of course, but in relative terms these differed only slightly, and this is still true today.

 

However, Weak Opening Systems are something completely different: they destroy the foundations on which the traditional systems are built and erect new ones in their place.

 

Are Weak Opening Systems good or bad for bridge?

 

Let us examine the matter.

 

The main characteristic of Weak Opening Systems are:

 

1) A high frequency of opening bids (80% of hands)

2) Opening the bidding with weak hands

3) Unusual methods of describing distribution.

 

These characteristics make bridge a much more interesting game so that:

 

YOU DON'T GET BORED!

 

You enter the bidding on nearly every hand – even with a yarborough.

 

OPPONENTS' BIDDING BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT!

 

And this is merely because you have opened the bidding (it is well known that defensive bidding is difficult, even for experts).

 

YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY STIMULATED!

 

The unusual and original nature of Weak Opening Systems makes them an interesting intellectual pastime, providing you with freshness and novelty.

 

Hence, it is obvious that:

 

Weak Opening Systems make bridge a more interesting game

 

The attraction of Weak Opening Systems has resulted in a constant growth in their popularity, to such an extent that in Poland at present they are seriously challenging orthodox systems.

 

Weak Opening Systems are rarely mentioned in the bridge press, no experts use them at the highest levels of the game, and yet in Warsaw alone there are over 200 players who use them!

 

And the majority of those became interested in bridge only after they had discovered Weak Opening Systems !

 

From this we can draw the conclusion that:

 

Weak Opening Systems help to recruit

new players for duplicate bridge

 

Should you doubt the added interest of Weak Opening Systems, remember the last time you found yourself in this situation:

 

It's one of those days when you seem to pick up the same 5 or 6 point count on every hand; you continually pass with ever–increasing despondency. Not only you are bored to tears, but worse, you have no control over your results, and are reduced to hope that opponents have a bidding accident or pull the wrong card out.

 

It's different with Weak Opening Systems !

 

More than ever, the result of a tournament becomes independent of how good your hands are.

 

This is because:

 

1) You open the bidding very frequently (always if you get a chance)

 

2) The meaning of opening bids is often unusual, though easy to comprehend.

 

In effect, the opponents are reduced to defensive bidding, which is difficult even for experts.

 

Thus, Weak Opening Systems deprive seasoned players of the advantage they would normally enjoy due to their experience.

 

They have to play as well as they can, with great care. They cannot sit back and relax, counting on beating their inexperienced opponents without too much effort."

 

Unfortunately I believe that the Poles have now also imposed restrictions. It will be interesting to see if the numbers playing bridge drop! Look at the grossly over-regulated environment in the US and then look at the decreasing numbers playing bridge. Compare this to Australia and NZ where regulations are far more liberal and then notice that numbers are actually increasing. What is NOT good for bridge is the stifling of innovation, especially when done for reasons as intimated by Misho in his post.

[MarceldB]

What is NOT good for bridge is the stifling of innovation, especially when done for reasons as intimated by Misho in his post.

Regarding innovation I saw in r.g.b a very good hit, which I would like to quote here:

 

"Unless you play a totally natural system, at least one of your bids (most likely more than one) is a conventional call. If it is conventional, it must have been at some stage invented and developed, if it has been invented, it has at some stage been an innovation.

If you have decided to adopt this convention (or system) you must see some merit in it. So innovation is good for bridge - from your point of view at least with the respect to the conventions you have decided to use.

And now that you are happy with your system and conventions you have chosen, you want to restrict the right of other people to chose their own innovations, conventions and systems. How very nice of you.

EOT from me."

[bearmum]

If you play poker, you're allowed to pass with every hand, and you're allowed to call/raise with every hand as well - no rules.  If you call it a bluff, whatever, but it's allowed!  Why can't people leave all these silly rules out of the greatest cardgame, and let everybody have his fun in system design?  Give the beginners something to think off, and they'll become better players.

OK my 2¢ worth

 

I believe that IF players want to use highly unusual systems they SHOULD be allowed to do so ------- UNLESS it makes playing against them almost impossible, which IMHO means in game on BBO with a pick -up partner :( OR against beginners --- after all the rules DO state that the opps are entitled to know what the bids mean and IF you had to explain EVERY one it would take a HECK of a long time to bid a hand ;) BTW THAT's why I play bridge NOT Poker

 

Having said that if you TOP players want to get a game going where ANYTHING goes - good luck to you :)

 

However I feel that the ACBL in the USA is TOO restrictive in high level tournaments where the partnerships are normally well established, and prealert sheets could be made available so enebling a systematic defence to be agreed.

 

I'm of the mind that maybe Australia's rules sre getting to the balance between TOP players and beginners (and I guess The Hog will correct me if I have got it wrong?) in that types of systems are rated "green, blue, red and yellow" and the 'yellow' (into which I think a forcing pass system would fit) cannot be used if playing in a local tournament against the basic green and blue ---- which once again I believe Acol SAYC and Basic Precision fit

[csdenmark]

Please tell me why you are paying so much attention to regulators outside the WEB. They don't read the postings here on WEB.

 

On WEB we don't have regulations.

[1eyedjack]

As for limited constructive, but non forcing pass openings - these have been tried and found wanting. Thy are far too vulnerable to pre emption, more than a straight SP believe it or not!

Can you expand on this? Am willing to believe it but I find it surprising. It is, I thought, a generally held view that a more narrowly defined call is less vulnerable to preemption than a call having a wider definition. Why should this be an exception?

 

That some limited pass systems have been tried and found wanting does not necessarily conclude the matter. Perhaps the best limited non-forcing pass method has yet to be invented.

 

I can appreciate that it may place stress on the rest of the system, and that may outweigh the positive aspects.