Forcing pass systems

[bearmum]

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.

WOW - AM I not allowed to express an opinion

 

PART of my answer WAS about playing on BBO------------- or didn't you read it??

 

I notice you express your opinions and I don't object to that so why are you SO rude to me :)

 

and LOTS of the answers on this string alluded to what is played in different countries - as was mine :( :) ;) :o

[csdenmark]

WOW - AM I not allowed to express an opinion 

 

PART of my answer WAS about playing on BBO------------- or didn't you read it??

 

I notice you express your opinions and I don't object to that so why are you SO rude to me

 

and LOTS of the answers on this string alluded to what is played in different countries - as was mine

I try to avoid to be rude and you are of course like anybody else welcome to express your views. But I see no point in making a lot of comments to obsolete persons in this thread and others too. I am not affected of regulators - not at all. Nobody else here on WEB is.

 

My statement was not especially for you Bearmum - and offence of course not intended. Regulations in Australia I dont know and they dont affect me. Regulations by ACBL I dont know and they dont affect me. Regulations by Danmarks Bridge Forbund I know a little of, probably like anywhere else - and they dont affect me either.

 

What people do outside WEB regarding bridge or anything else - fine with that. But regulations are acc. to my views not relevant to discuss here. We can do nothing about it except to ignore. Disobedience is allowed here - and I think much more fun to do what you like to do instead of discussing what you cannot do - elsewhere.

[the hog]

"Please tell me why you are paying so much attention to regulators outside the WEB."

 

Because we CAN!

Easy solution Claus - don't read the posts!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Quite correct Bearmum re different convention cards. Also all local tournaments allow up to red only. In Nationals you can play "Yellow", anything goes after the first couple of rounds and if you are in the top 75% of the field.

 

Re limited pass systems:

 

There have been a few; the most notable one played in world class competition was TRS. I have the system book written by Tony Forrester. There have been a few others- the Icemen played one and I think the Danes also. There were also a few odd ones floating about in Oz and NZ.

 

The Poms did not have a great deal of success with TRS and from a theoretical point it is not difficult to see why. The most common opening range is 8-12. TRS used a 10-14 opening base. If you pass with this point count , it is VERY difficult to get in over pre emption. eg let me offer a concrete example.

 

1C - 8-12 with H - (2S)

Third hand knows the existence of a H suit and a limited opener

 

P - 10 to 14 any - (2S) Gulp!

Third hand knows nothing about suits, where do you begin to sort this out at the 3 level!

 

One system I came across some years ago played by youth players, (who else!), was P = 9-13 with S. Forgot what the other openings were. But again, this is stuffs up the rest of your opening structure.

[MarceldB]

One system I came across some years ago played by youth players, (who else!), was P = 9-13 with S. Forgot what the other openings were. But again, this is stuffs up the rest of your opening structure.

Do you mean?

 

Lilla Lojliga Saffle Spader

(or Little Saffle Spade) - with following features:

- pass = 8+, at least four spades, unlimited and forcing

- 1C = 8+, at least four hearts, 0-3 spades, unlimited and forcing

- 1D = 0-7 any

- 1H = 8+, forcing, no four card majors

- 1S/1NT = NT-openings without four card majors

- conventional two level openings

[the hog]

No Marcel, this was some homebrew system.

[csdenmark]

Because we CAN!

Easy solution Claus - don't read the posts!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats not the point Ron. The point is all that discussing what you cannot do in organizations not relevant here are blocking the discussion of what and how to do something here to promote.

[Shrike]

Thats not the point Ron. The point is all that discussing what you cannot do in organizations not relevant here are blocking the discussion of what and how to do something here to promote.

What's legal in f2f bridge is highly relevant to most posters on this board. It is far less practical to go to the considerable effort to learn (much less design) a system if that system will be unusable in some or all of the offline competition that the player faces. You say this doesn't matter to you; good for you. But most people who post on here seem to be concerned with offline bridge as well; it seems that most play at least some offline bridge in events that limit conventions. The discussion of those regulations does not block discussion of systems per se, it enhances it by rendering it more practically applicable.

 

Oh, and next time you "try to avoid being rude," (your words) maybe you shouldn't follow someone else's perfectly acceptable and pertinent question with what appears to be a curt dismissal, in boldfaced type.

[1eyedjack]

let me offer a concrete example.

 

1C - 8-12 with H - (2S)

Third hand knows the existence of a H suit and a limited opener

 

P - 10 to 14 any - (2S) Gulp!

Third hand knows nothing about suits, where do you begin to sort this out at the 3 level!

I agree that the 2S (Gulp!) overcall is a spanner in the works. Question is, is it any more of a spanner in the works than:

 

P (13+ any) - (2S)

 

It seems to me that the 10-14 limit on the Pass reduces somewhat the problems of 3rd seat. Of course it does not eliminate it.

 

Furthermore the 2S overcaller may find that he has to be more disciplined, as the hand is more likely to be their way, and possibly at the game level.

 

Reducing the minimum values of an unlimited forcing Pass to 13 (just an example that I picked up from one of the existing systems around) helps, as it requires constructive opposition methods when a pass that shows precision 1C style strength is asking for trouble. On the other hand a Pass that shows 13+ is more frequent as a result, and if the advocates expect a net loss on those hands ...

 

Not that I am claiming that any of these methods is best. I haven't given it enough thought. Perhaps a Pass that shows some distributional constraints as well as a limit on values would be better.

[csdenmark]

What's legal in f2f bridge is highly relevant to most posters on this board.

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

Oh, and next time you "try to avoid being rude," (your words) maybe you shouldn't follow someone else's perfectly acceptable and pertinent question with what appears to be a curt dismissal, in boldfaced type.

Please note it is the responsibility for all posters here to try to post in correct sections. Failing to do so posts are likely to be subject for removal acc. to the rules as I right now remember Ben has informed. The section for OFF LINE bridge is this:

 

Offline Bridge

Tournaments, etiquette, and general discussion about playing live bridge.

Forum Led by: inquiry

 

This is second time you express you feel embarrased of my postings. From that I assume you are still reading them!

[Vampyr]

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.

 

At the YC you can play FP so long as you submit a summary of your system in advance. But for the reasons above, when FP is played, it is not a fully-realised system; rather it is a one-off, just for fun. The last time a FP system was trotted out, the pair using it won comfortably.

[awm]

I have a lot of doubts about the technical merits of forcing pass methods.

 

Suppose we compare forcing pass against a fairly vanilla strong club. We can divide the hands into point ranges:

 

0-7 points: Strong club passes, forcing pass bids the fert.

8-10 points: Strong club passes, forcing pass opens.

11-12 points: Both systems open showing a suit.

13-15 points: Forcing pass, strong club opens showing a suit.

16+ points: Strong club opens 1♣, forcing pass passes.

 

It seems to me that strong club is ahead in the following situations: (1) With 16+ points. If opponents bid, partner is much better placed knowing I have 16+ rather than 13+. Even if opponents pass, the single step gained by the forcing pass is probably not enough to compensate for the lower minimum strength. (2) With 13-15 points. If opponents bid, partner is much better placed to know more about my shape. If opponents pass, we are behind on space but way ahead on description and should do at least as well as forcing pass on these hands. (3) With 11-12 points. Both systems open by showing a suit, but we tend to do better when opener is towards the minimum end than when opener has a max, because we avoid informative invitational auctions and we reduce the difficult "pass or compete" decisions in competitive sequences.

 

This leaves the 8-10 point hands and the 0-7. It's likely that the fert is a huge winner against unprepared opponents, but this seems less true against prepared opposition. There is the chance to go for a number (or just down a few in the wrong partial) and if partner has the strong hand we have lost a lot of space relative to a sequence like Pass-Pass-1♣ strong. Most people who play forcing pass don't seem to think the fert is a big winner against prepared opponents either.

 

This leaves the 8-10 point hands. These are certainly extremely common. However, it's not clear to me that opening them is necessarily a huge win. The weaker the hand, the more likely my opponents will end up declaring. In this situation, the opening has helped them locate shapes and high cards in our hands. Of course, there is also the chance of a competitive auction where opening could help us to preempt them or find a sacrifice; however a lot of the forcing pass systems I've seen open most of these with very cheap calls that don't carry much shape information (like 1♣ showing 4+ hearts). If we are playing IMP scoring, there's also the issue that our 13+ point hands are likely to swing a lot of imps (i.e. we need to find our game or slam, or determine the best contract) whereas the 8-10 point hands are often partscore battles that will swing only 4-5 imps.

[dake50]

Like so many other topics, the proof is in the pudding.

Give me the details. What hands are in PASS? Which not?

Why that choice?

How is a NT-ladder implemented?

For example, I like a strong spades hand capping my

weak/middling spade showing.

But I want my hearts generally well into any auction.

Minors I want preempting generously.

That's not a 13+ PASS rule.!

[Crunch3nt]

To clarify Australia/New Zealand actual regulations, this is what they are:

 

In matchpoint events HUM systems are banned in both countries, while brown sticker is banned altogether in NZ and in all but very top matchpoint events in Australia. This is much more annoying in NZ where 80% of tournament bridge is still matchpoints, while in Australia 90% of tournament bridge is imps.

 

In team events, with matches of 8 or more boards, HUM systems are allowed in both countries, but the entire team loses its seating rights for the whole of the swiss qualifying (including the matches when the HUM pair are not playing in a 6 person team). Also you are not allowed to play the HUM system for the first 3 rounds of the swiss qualifying event, and then if you drop out of the top 3rd of the field in terms of your placing, you are not allowed to play it until you regain top 3rd. Also you need to lodge your full system notes with the directors 2 weeks before the event and provide a bona-fide suggested defence.

 

One incorrect statement on here is that HUM systems are allowed in the Bermuda Bowl - they are not allowed in the qualifying round-robin at all, and only, in theory, can be used in the knockout stages. The reality is different. I play (and co-created) the dreaded T-rex mentioned by Hog, although we call it "Crunch!" now. In 2009 Crunch was submitted to the WBF by New Zealand to play in the Burmuda Bowl in the event we made the knockouts but the chairman of the WBF systems committee John Wignall (interestingly, a New Zealander) banned it from even the final stages! The Bermuda Bowl truly is a "no-fear" event.

[Crunch3nt]

In New Zealand in the 80's, medium pass (9-15) was played by 3/4 high quality pairs but it went by wayside quickly due to the preemption issues already mentioned.

 

AWM, Here Strong Pass means 15/16+, not 13+, with 8/9-14 openings and a 0-7/8 1H fert.

[nige1]

At Reading Bridge Club, except on beginner's nights, you can play any system you like, including forcing or strong pass, IMO, the law book should specify two-tier system regulation:

• No fear. Simple standard system-card. You may delete conventions but not add or modify them..
• Anything goes. Provided, as at Reading Bridge Club, you supply a written defence that opponents can consult during the auction. Opponents may use their own defence instead.

Clubs like Reading and the Young Chelsea provide a sputtering beacon of hope for Bridge. Top young guns used to be on-side, too. Unfortunately, the rise of sponsored teams means that, unless we get more sponsors of the calibre of CC Wei and George Rosenkranz, the future of face-to-face Bridge seems bleak :(

[Cascade]

To clarify Australia/New Zealand actual regulations, this is what they are:

 

In matchpoint events HUM systems are banned in both countries, while brown sticker is banned altogether in NZ and in all but very top matchpoint events in Australia. This is much more annoying in NZ where 80% of tournament bridge is still matchpoints, while in Australia 90% of tournament bridge is imps.

 

In team events, with matches of 8 or more boards, HUM systems are allowed in both countries, but the entire team loses its seating rights for the whole of the swiss qualifying (including the matches when the HUM pair are not playing in a 6 person team). Also you are not allowed to play the HUM system for the first 3 rounds of the swiss qualifying event, and then if you drop out of the top 3rd of the field in terms of your placing, you are not allowed to play it until you regain top 3rd. Also you need to lodge your full system notes with the directors 2 weeks before the event and provide a bona-fide suggested defence.

 

One incorrect statement on here is that HUM systems are allowed in the Bermuda Bowl - they are not allowed in the qualifying round-robin at all, and only, in theory, can be used in the knockout stages. The reality is different. I play (and co-created) the dreaded T-rex mentioned by Hog, although we call it "Crunch!" now. In 2009 Crunch was submitted to the WBF by New Zealand to play in the Burmuda Bowl in the event we made the knockouts but the chairman of the WBF systems committee John Wignall (interestingly, a New Zealander) banned it from even the final stages! The Bermuda Bowl truly is a "no-fear" event.

 

Some minor quibbles and clarifications of Michael's post regarding the conditions in NZ.

 

1. Brown Stickers are allowed in Pairs events with separate qualification and (semi-)final stages but only in the semi-final stages and above.

 

2. I can't find in the manual the "2 weeks" condition. It seems to just says "prior to the start of the event".

 

3. I can't find in the manual the rules regarding the first three rounds or if you drop out of the top third of the field. Are these rules operative in the New Zealand Teams?

[Vampyr]

Like so many other topics, the proof is in the pudding.

 

This does not make any sense. What you meant to say is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[akhare]

Like so many other topics, the proof is in the pudding.

 

This does not make any sense. What you meant to say is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

True FP practitioners "pass" the eating part -- they have ferts for dessert instead :D...

[akhare]

In New Zealand in the 80's, medium pass (9-15) was played by 3/4 high quality pairs but it went by wayside quickly due to the preemption issues already mentioned.

 

AWM, Here Strong Pass means 15/16+, not 13+, with 8/9-14 openings and a 0-7/8 1H fert.

 

Having played FP myself, I agree with several of the issues that awm raised.

 

1) The 15+ P leaves the responder in more or less the same situation as interference over 1♣. If they don't interfere, we can split responder's hands into GF, semi-positive and double negative and play the same relay scheme over the first two.

 

2) The point about the 1♣ / 1♦ opening bids containing "low" information still stands. In theory, since these openings typically show a 4 card major, responder can blast to the 2-level with say a 3-card fit, but the main problem that opener can hold 5 cards in the suit as well and we may very well have a better fit in a side suit.

 

Of course, one can argue that the whole point is to show the 4 card major immediately and then let the opps to guess at the 2-level. The catch is that responder will often hold an invitational hand and the 1-level relay gives them a chance to introduce their suits cheaply.

 

3) The 1♥ fert is really a double edged sword that hurts our part scores equally. Quite often responder isn't well placed to judge competitive auctions and often has to pass when we could have otherwise competed because we can't tell 0-5 from 6-8.

 

In fact, given that the fert conveys little besides 13 cards with 0-8 points, I would argue that it should be relegated to 1♦ / 1♣.

 

4) It's difficult to find opps willing to play vs. FP, even online. In a way, I can't really blame them because the fert auctions create all sorts of undiscussed situations, which gives us an undue advantage for the wrong reasons.

 

Of course, this would be moot playing a 1♣ fert, but how many FP players are willing to accomodate that?