"Complex" methods

[jeremy69]

There is a discussion going on in England at present about what methods you are allowed to play in tournaments. Most English tournaments are played at Level 4 which allows most things but not, say, HUMS.

Some clubs are more restrictive and there is also a novice level.

 

At recent tournaments there has been a small number of players using a system of transfer one level openings or similar. As a rule they are good about disclosure and bring a suggested defence to the table(not required). What they are doing is unquestionably legal at present.

 

Quite a few players are not happy that these methods are allowed particularly in short rounds (say under 10 boards), some complaints have been received and thus the discussion about whether to restrict them. It doesn't help, of course, that the players removing the others from their comfort zone are relatively young and play the system aggressively.

Should there be a change to something more restrictive? At present there is much hot air but a distinct feeling from a significant number also that something ought to change because it is putting off more traditional players from entering events. I am not sure that as yet there is any evidence to back up this last assertion.

 

A discussion is also going on at http://ebulaws.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-s...-play-that.html

[hrothgar]

Is Frances' article on defending against artificial systems available on line?

[paulg]

Is Frances' article on defending against artificial systems available on line?

Part 1 is available on the EBU site.

[jeremy69]

Thanks for the hints and I have made arrangements for parts two and three to be posted and all be put together in the next day or so.

[TMorris]

Having failed miserably to find a way to comment on the EBU blog - my fault my computer is no doubt sulking.

 

I have never played against this system. I would certainly be very disappointed if we went down the ACBL route of wrapping people in cotton wool. I can see an arguement of not allowing it for very short matches (say 3 board rounds or less) but personally I would be happy enough to play against it if there was a suggested defence available that I could consult during the auction whatever the length of the match. I am very strongly against killing off innovation. The main problem bridge has is attracting enough younger people into the game. If new systems are not allowed they are the people who will be put off and the game will die.

[bluejak]

I remember playing a forcing pass system in Crockfords. It was allowed in four k/o rounds, and no other English event. The year we played it we were the only pair playing any Experimental Licence system or convention. We lost our match, so in practice one pair played against it for 16 boards that year - and they thought it great fun.

 

When it was discussed in the EBU Council it was basically killed off because "allowing Experimental licences means that people will continually have to play against such systems: every other match will be a terrible burden". The people we played against were not asked for their opinion.

 

The thing to remember is that it is a rarity, and this is the way methods develop.

 

that the players removing the others from their comfort zone are relatively young and play the system aggressively

If I am "relatively young" then what are you, Jeremy?

[shintaro]

Having failed miserably to find a way to comment on the EBU blog - my fault my computer is no doubt sulking.

;)

 

Dont see why ypu had a problem I just logged on and posted

 

Try again

 

<_<

[campboy]

I don't agree with the one-size-fits all approach of the current EBU diary. Of course these methods should be allowed in the big events, but why does that mean they should be allowed in a B flight congress Swiss teams? The gap between level 2 and level 4 is enormous -- certainly big enough for level 3 to be useful.

 

Actually, Groove in the Heart is really tame compared to some things available at level 4. The Stevenson 1♠ -- a HUM allowed at level 4, incidentally -- and the wide range of BSCs allowed are much tougher to defend against with minimal discussion. Admittedly, not many people play them. But we should expect to see the number of people playing strange methods rise, and we should prepare for it.

[Vampyr]

I don't agree with the one-size-fits all approach of the current EBU diary. Of course these methods should be allowed in the big events, but why does that mean they should be allowed in a B flight congress Swiss teams? The gap between level 2 and level 4 is enormous -- certainly big enough for level 3 to be useful.

 

A solution might be to offer flight B in nearly all events. It can be self-flighting, so that people who have reached certain masterpoint levels should not be forced to play in an event in which they are not comfortable.

 

Actually, Groove in the Heart is really tame compared to some things available at level 4. The Stevenson 1♠ -- a HUM allowed at level 4, incidentally -- and the wide range of BSCs allowed are much tougher to defend against with minimal discussion. Admittedly, not many people play them. But we should expect to see the number of people playing strange methods rise, and we should prepare for it.

We played a 2-board round against Groove in the Heart this past weekend. Our opponents offered us a suggested defense, but we thought that it would be simpler to just bid their "real" suit for takeout. Transfer openings give more room for competition, so I don't think complaints that they are difficult to contend with are valid.

 

I think that the EBU has a reasonable approach. It has become quite popular lately for people to play all 2-level suit openings as Multi-style; here a little assistance, such as Frances' series, can do a lot of good.

 

I didn't appreciate, a few years ago, facing that 2♣ fert we discussed earlier in a 2-board round a few years ago, especially as it was not pre-alerted (my first-time partner and I certainly had no default defenses in place!) I think, though, that that was technically illegal, as it gave certain specific meanings to a pass. Is it still allowed, Jeremy or others?

 

Finally, I do not have a personal interest, being middle-aged, but I think that the EBU should be nurturing its younger members rather than its older ones. It is a question of survival, and perhaps we can understand why the ACBL membership is ageing, while the EBU membership, as far as I know, is not.

[campboy]

A solution might be to offer flight B in nearly all events. It can be self-flighting, so that people who have reached certain masterpoint levels should not be forced to play in an event in which they are not comfortable.

I'd like to see this happen, but my point was that even B flight events are currently level 4. I think they need to be level 3, as Level 2 would be sufficiently unpopular ("you mean we can't play the multi??") not to be feasible. But the EBU don't like level 3 :P

[Vampyr]

A solution might be to offer flight B in nearly all events. It can be self-flighting, so that people who have reached certain masterpoint levels should not be forced to play in an event in which they are not comfortable.

I'd like to see this happen, but my point was that even B flight events are currently level 4. I think they need to be level 3, as Level 2 would be sufficiently unpopular ("you mean we can't play the multi??") not to be feasible. But the EBU don't like level 3 :(

Yes, I suppose I didn't say it, but I meant to say that the flight B events would have a different level of system restrictions.