Simplified Meckwell Precision system (for students

[jjbrr]

Confirmed, Noble. I realized I had the notes in my e-mail.

 

"Strong hand with a Major: With a forcing hand containing a GOOD Major, jump to 2 of the Major. This would be a hand similar to a standard 2♣ opener and a rebid of a Major (2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠)

 

1♣ - 1♦

2♠ - - Strong, 5+ Major

3♣ = 2nd Negative, opener can rebid 3 of the Major, nf

new suit by opener would be forcing here"

 

Though 2♥ kokish is standard now.

 

Edit: Also, many are playing 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♠ as 5♠, 3♥

 

and 1♣ 1♦ 1M 2♣ 2M is sign off as well (don't know why that's not in OP; 2♦ is just scrambling).

 

Also inconsistent with OP:

"Minor GF: with a game forcing hand and 5+ (usually 6+) in a minor and with NO MAJOR, jump to 3 of minor. If the jump is 3♣, then 3♦ by responder is waiting, or a Major rebid = 5+.

 

1♣ - 1♦

3♣ - 3♦ = waiting bid by responder

 

1♣ - 1♦

3♣ - 3♠ = 5 spades by responder"

[PrecisionL]

Jeremy,

 

Thanks for the post. This is all very interesting. I have been working on 1♣ - 1♦ sequences for months now and will be trying this scheme in 2010:

 

1♣ - 1♦:

 

1M = 4+ cards and one round force (Berkowitz-Cohen / Matchpoint Precision). Also includes 20+ balanced hands with better major. (i have been playing this part for over 3 years now.)

 

1NT = 17-19

 

2m = 16-19 hcp and 1-suited (not forcing)

 

2M = 16+ hcp and 2-suited with 5+M and 4+ in a minor (not forcing, more than 4 1/2 losers)

 

2NT = 16+ and 5-5 in the minors or better (forcing one round).

 

3X = 19+ and semi-solid suit or better asking for A cue or NT = K, or raise with neither (forcing one round).

 

Larry

[Jlall]

And just a btw... are we certain meckwell or whomever else is OK with OP posting this information in such a public place? I know it's not private info or anything, but some credit should be given to the source, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, I received an electronic copy of these notes from Jeff's son a couple years ago after I promised that I wouldn't distribute them without permission. My only point was that if they still feel that public dissemination is inappropriate, perhaps that point should be made clear, and we should respect the wishes they had, albeit a couple years ago.

 

Why are you posting about the system now after posting this? If you agreed not to in order to get the notes, it seems like you are now going back on that agreement.

[Jlall]

Also note: I did not say jjbrr is not free to do as he pleases. However I know jjbrr, and I doubt he wants to go back on an agreement he's made, I'm pretty sure he's just trying to point out the the system OP has outlined is not exactly like the meckwell lite system, however by doing so he is going back on his agreement not to share parts of the notes, which I'm sure is unintentional.

 

IMO if one has made such an agreement and they want to stick to it, by far the best method is to avoid posting on threads like this at all.

[xcurt]

Generally, facts are not subject to copyright, so I don't see how R/M could claim any ownership over the methods themselves.

 

Even if they did have some mechanism to claim ownership I would imagine that trying to enforce it would probably run afoul of the conditions of contest of any bridge event -- and if not, the CoC would be amended as soon as the dubious rights were asserted.

 

There are probably enough R/M boards in the various vugraph files that, given the right computational tools, it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer their agreements. Since the vugraph files indicate that they upgrade liberally on certain hands and are very aggressive in 3rd seat, I could imagine this would be useful information to have.

[rbforster]

There are probably enough R/M boards in the various vugraph files that, given the right computational tools, it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer their agreements. Since the vugraph files indicate that they upgrade liberally on certain hands and are very aggressive in 3rd seat, I could imagine this would be useful information to have.

More than that, bridge is supposed to be a game of full disclosure. Whenever you play a convention in a tournament setting and it comes up, you have to explain it to your opponents and it becomes part of the public record (especially when you're someone famous and have lots of interested spectators). While this means it may take a little while to piece together the full system that a particular pair plays, it should be pretty straightforward now that Viewgraph makes these events more accessible to watch.

[kfay]

Generally, facts are not subject to copyright, so I don't see how R/M could claim any ownership over the methods themselves.

Well I would hardly call a bidding system a fact. It's an interpretation.

[xcurt]

Generally, facts are not subject to copyright, so I don't see how R/M could claim any ownership over the methods themselves.

Well I would hardly call a bidding system a fact. It's an interpretation.

Meaning I could write a document saying

 

Meckwell play 1C as ...

Meckwell play 1C-1D as ...

etc

 

I don't see how they could assert copyrights to prevent me from distributing the document. One can also protect intellectual property using patent and trade secret rights, but I don't see how those apply to me, or any other third party.

[fred]

I completely disagree with those who claim that the lack of copyright on certain material is sufficient justification for doing whatever they want with that material.

 

Just because something is legal, does not mean that it is right.

 

Consider the case of a newspaper bridge columnist who carefully constructs a beautiful deal for his column. Like bidding systems, bridge deals are also not subject to copyright law, but how would you feel if you were the columnist in question and saw "your hand" appear in other authors' newspaper columns (perhaps with the suits switched around to make it look original)?

 

It would not matter if you received attribution or not (you can bet you would not in the bridge column case) - this is not about ego.

 

Many top players and teachers try to be protective of the bidding systems that they create because they have invested a lot of time and effort in the development of such systems and because they believe that such systems give them a competitive advantage (which in some cases helps to ensure that they are able to make a living). Of course such people recognize that bridge is a game of full disclosure, but that has nothing to do with these people not approving of those who reverse engineer and then publicly distribute their creations without their approval.

 

My personal take on this is that, if you want to reverse engineer a bidding system and then use it in your own partnerships that is one thing, but to publicly distribute the notes of such a system without first seeking the approval of the original system author is profoundly disrespectful.

 

IMO what copyright law has to say about this doesn't matter - it is simply wrong.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

Just because something is legal, does not mean that it is right.

 

Full disclosure means full disclosure. I shouldn't have to reverse engineer their system (not that I have or would want to.) They should make it available to all, not just to their family and friends. (Reminds me of an Ontario-wide business game I played in high school (accounting class) where the previous year's winner gave his 'system' to his brother, luckily I came up with a better system.)

 

I want the Masters winner to be the guy who played best, not the guy with the best golf clubs.

 

I want the Wimbledon winner to be the guy who played best, not the guy with the best racquet.

 

I want the National League MVP to be the guy who played best, not the guy with the best chemist.

 

IMO what 'accepted practice' has to say about this doesn't matter - it is simply wrong.

[jjbrr]

however by doing so he is going back on his agreement not to share parts of the notes, which I'm sure is unintentional.

I don't think I've done this, and I don't think the agreement was to "not share parts of the notes". Semantics, though, and I see your point. I'll use PM from now on.

 

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about this topic. I assure you I couldn't really care less what OP posts or doesn't post. If I were someone else, though, and I wanted to post the system as OP did, I would cite the source, or make some reference to where the information was received, or at least note that someone else did all the work thinking this stuff up and none of the information is his own.

 

Also, what is the "for students" business? It's clearly not "for students." It's for everyone. I don't think it's appropriate to say something is for a certain group when the intent is clearly just to educate the masses. As if saying "for students" makes it acceptable to plagiarize someone's work or something. That's merely my opinion, and I accept that not everyone will disagree.

[jonottawa]

That's merely my opinion, and I accept that not everyone will disagree.

LOL

[jjbrr]

LOL. sorry. agree i meant.

 

fml

[bluecalm]

Many top players and teachers try to be protective of the bidding systems that they create because they have invested a lot of time and effort into development of such systems and because they believe that such systems give them a competitive advantage (which in some cases helps to ensure that they are able to make a living). Of course such people recognize that bridge is a game of full disclosure, but that has nothing to do with these people not approving of those who reverse engineer and then publicly distribute their creations without their approval.

 

There are countless videos on the net with analysis of Federer hitting and serving technique. In chess there are databases and public analysis of different players style and opening choices. Nobody sees nothing wrong with it and tennis and chess aren't games where you are OBLIGED to give full explanation of your methods.

 

Bidding systems are in different category than composing hands or puzzles. They are in the same category as technique in ski jumping or in tennis. Everybody can follow, analyze, modify and write about it and even more so it's positive side of those sports that it's the case. I wouldn't go as far as making every pair publish their system notes but once its part is used in any bridge event it's fair game to analyze, write about and follow it.

[fred]

Bidding systems are in different category than composing hands or puzzles. They are in the same category as technique in ski jumping or in tennis. Everybody can follow, analyze, modify and write about it and even more so it's positive side of those sports that it's the case.

Even if I grant you this, there is still a big difference.

 

When you watch sports on TV you are able to properly analyze only what has happened - not what might have happened under different circumstances. If a ski jumper has his own secret technique that he will use only in rare weather conditions, nobody gets to see or analyze it unless the weather happens to cooperate.

 

I wouldn't go as far as making every pair publish their system notes

 

Agree - this would be a very bad idea. My point is that, as long as "publishing your own system notes" is not mandated by the rules, it is wrong for other people to publish your system notes without your blessing.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

Agree - this would be a very bad idea. My point is that, as long as "publishing your own system notes" is not mandated by the rules, it is wrong for other people to publish your system notes without your blessing.

 

I agree with that in case you were given those system notes and publish it.

I think that reverse engineering and analyzing hands from public vugraphs are fair game though.

[xcurt]

I completely disagree with those who claim that the lack of copyright on certain material is sufficient justification for doing whatever they want with that material.

 

Just because something is legal, does not mean that it is right.

 

Consider the case of a newspaper bridge columnist who carefully constructs a beautiful deal for his column. Like bidding systems, bridge deals are also not subject to copyright law, but how would you feel if you were the columnist in question and saw "your hand" appear in other authors' newspaper columns (perhaps with the suits switched around to make it look original)?

 

It would not matter if you received attribution or not (you can bet you would not in the bridge column case) - this is not about ego.

 

I think you are using a false analogy. In the newspaper column case:

 

* the original deal is not a fact (it wasn't dealt in a bridge tournament), it's a literary or artistic work

* presumably it was published by a publishing house that takes the proper steps to protect their copyrights

* even if there is no legal copyright on the hypothetical bridge deal, the second author, who in your example did not contribute anything new, is presumably violating the ethical and journalistic standards of their own publication and would normally be disciplined (more likely, fired) for doing so

 

Many top players and teachers try to be protective of the bidding systems that they create because they have invested a lot of time and effort in the development of such systems and because they believe that such systems give them a competitive advantage (which in some cases helps to ensure that they are able to make a living). Of course such people recognize that bridge is a game of full disclosure, but that has nothing to do with these people not approving of those who reverse engineer and then publicly distribute their creations without their approval.

 

 

This paragraph attemps to draw a parallel between a literary or artistic work (the bridge deal) and an invention (the Meckwell Lite bidding system, let's ignore whether this invention is actually patentable for a moment). However, the legal framework governing these two types of intellectual property are different.

 

* As a third party, I am not allowed to reproduce the copyrighted work, but I may produce derivative works. An example would be if I took a published

deal (ignore the fact that this deal is actually a fact, for a moment) that has a cook and modified it to make it more interesting I would be within my rights to republish.

* As a third party, I am not allowed to use patented work unless I have a license from the owner of the patent. However, I am allowed to make further improvements and patent those improvements myself. Obtaining patent rights requires that the original inventor disclose the new know-how.

 

My personal take on this is that, if you want to reverse engineer a bidding system and then use it in your own partnerships that is one thing, but to publicly distribute the notes of such a system without first seeking the approval of the original system author is profoundly disrespectful.

 

IMO what copyright law has to say about this doesn't matter - it is simply wrong.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

I hope you are asserting that redistributing the original notes is wrong. If so, I agree with you (and redistribution probably runs afoul of copyright too). If, for example, you left your notes under my table at a NABC I would either return them or destroy them. On the other hand, if I played a Spingold match against you and noticed that, say, you had a really good defense to NT that nobody else was playing, I think I'm totally within my rights to figure out the method and republish it. If I reverse engineer Meckwell Precision 2009 and I want to write a book about it, all I have done is do something useful from knowledge that is in the public domain. jjbrr is different -- he accepted notes from a Meckstroth -- and if I were in that position I wouldn't feel free to publicly disclose anything related to R/M precision, and maybe to strong club bidding systems generally. I wouldn't publish even if I felt that there was no legal prohibition on me doing so, generally for the reasons you cite. Regarding the OP (stjk) I don't know where these notes came from, but I assume he is untainted unless someone produces information to the contrary.

 

Finally, a comment. This is how intellectual property works -- if you want the benefits of public use (such as winning bridge tournaments) or disclosure (any of the bridge articles you've published, which presumably help you get sponsorships, better partners, ..., these are analogous to me giving a talk at a conference), you also accept that you can't always control what happens to your creative work.

[fred]

even if there is no legal copyright on the hypothetical bridge deal, the second author, who in your example did not contribute anything new, is presumably violating the ethical and journalistic standards of their own publication and would normally be disciplined (more likely, fired) for doing so

Actually in the real world of bridge writing, this goes on all the time and I have never heard of a bridge author who got punished in any way for engaging in this practice.

 

I am glad you mentioned the word "ethical" because to me that is really what this is all about. No offense intended, but most of your post sounds like it came from a lawyer. That fine of course, but for me at least, in this case the ethical considerations win out regardless of what the legal considerations happen to be.

 

I hope you are asserting that redistributing the original notes is wrong.

 

Yes, that is what I was asserting. Sorry my post was not clear about this - I should not have made any references to "reverse engineering".

 

Finally, a comment.  This is how intellectual property works  -- if you want the benefits of public use (such as winning bridge tournaments) or disclosure (any of the bridge articles you've published, which presumably help you get sponsorships, better partners, ..., these are analogous to me giving a talk at a conference), you also accept that you can't always control what happens to your creative work.

 

Maybe I have to live with the fact that other people will do this to me, but for me that does not justify doing the same thing to other people. Needless to say, I also do not find "because it is legal" to be sufficient justification.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

I often disagree with Fred about systems, however on this point I totally concur. I don't think you can stop anyone reverse engineering a system and playing it himself. However to publish a system that a pair has spent hundreds, (thousands in Meckwell's case), of hours in developing without their permission really is lacking in ethics.

[xcurt]

...

Actually in the real world of bridge writing, this goes on all the time and I have never heard of a bridge author who got punished in any way for engaging in this practice.

 

I should have added "presuming he got caught" (and maybe presuming an original author made some noise out of it).

 

I am glad you mentioned the word "ethical" because to me that is really what this is all about. No offense intended, but most of your post sounds like it came from a lawyer. That fine of course, but for me at least, in this case the ethical considerations win out regardless of what the legal considerations happen to be.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I have created a fair amount of intellectual property (patents and trade secrets).

 

Finally, a comment.  This is how intellectual property works  -- if you want the benefits of public use (such as winning bridge tournaments) or disclosure (any of the bridge articles you've published, which presumably help you get sponsorships, better partners, ..., these are analogous to me giving a talk at a conference), you also accept that you can't always control what happens to your creative work.

 

Maybe I have to live with the fact that other people will do this to me, but for me that does not justify doing the same thing to other people. Needless to say, I also do not find "because it is legal" to be sufficient justification.

 

As someone who created IP, ethical and legal conduct is just as important to me. I think it's doubly so at the bridge table (and by extension, in the bridge sphere) because the rules that proscribe conduct in the bridge sphere tend to presume everyone will act according to the same. For example

 

* I get UI through some action of my partner, and I take advantage of it. The procedure presumes I did not deliberately try to take advantage of the UI, it merely tries to restore equity. In the public sphere, the legal procedures include an element of deterrence. Ergo, a sufficiently skilled unethical player could exploit UI for their own benefit.

* I think some opponents have a concealed partnership understanding. I am not allowed to approach you at a tournament and say publicly "I think Player X is cheating."

 

But in trying to understand the rights and obligations that go with using third party IP I don't think you can separate moral and ethical considerations from legal ones. The two inform each other. And to the extent that the system we have in place promotes the sharing and bettering of human knowledge, I think it's a pretty good system.

 

Curt

[TimG]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but it seems to me that system notes can be copyrighted while the methods themselves cannot be owned. Sort of in the same way that an article about a baseball game can be copyrighted, but there is nothing to prevent an individual from watching the game and writing his own account. Or, from watching a hitter's technique and then using it himself or selling it to others through paid instruction.

 

I don't see anything wrong with people observing Meckstroth-Rodwell in action and then using the methods they've learned through observation or even writing articles on the methods they've observed and selling those articles.

 

Tim

[xcurt]

One more thought and then I'll leave it. If someone were to reverse engineer Meckwell Precision and publish it, Meckwell would still have the advantages of

 

* their understanding of the bidding system and their experience with it

* their partnership

* their superior card play

 

None of these are embodied in their system notes. Of course, if someone did publish their system, they would lose (some of the) potential revenue from any book they might publish in the future, but in that case I think they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[EricK]

Why doesn't "Full Discolosure" imply that all players must make available their complete understanding of their own bidding system?

 

I thought that the "powers that be" didn't approve of people trying to win through other's unfamiliarity with their methods.

[jonottawa]

Why doesn't "Full Discolosure" imply that all players must make available their complete understanding of their own bidding system?

 

I thought that the "powers that be" didn't approve of people trying to win through other's unfamiliarity with their methods.

Because familiarizing yourself with your opponents' methods would be rilly rilly disrespectful, or something like that. And as long as your opponents pinkie promise that they 'believe that their systems give them a competitive advantage' it's okay if they don't tell you what they're playing because they have like families to feed and stuff.

[rbforster]

Why doesn't "Full Discolosure" imply that all players must make available their complete understanding of their own bidding system?

 

I thought that the "powers that be" didn't approve of people trying to win through other's unfamiliarity with their methods.

I'm with you 100% on that. However, just because that full disclosure is the intention, many pairs try to gain an (unfair?) advantage by revealing as little as is required about what their bids mean, what negative systems inferences may be available, etc, even when prompted.

 

This whole tangent on posting systems notes basically comes down to some people trying to maintain an advantage through secrecy that they shouldn't be entitled to under the rules. Of course they can hope people don't learn and/or remember their bidding system from playing against it, but they should have no expectation of this.