What about BEST convention ?

[Cascade]

Issue 1) "Destructive bidding systems."

 

These are not systems or conventions designed to achieve a good contract or snooker the opps out of theirs, but to specifically destroy certain conventions or systems. These are illegal in ACBL land. For example: A forced overcall of 1S showing 13 cards over opps Precision 1C opener. I am not going to argue this one for those that can't see that this is not bridge.

If it works it is bridge.

 

If making a random overcall gets your side good scores why is that not bridge.

 

And if it does not then I don't see why anyone would complain when their opponents play those methods.

[Cascade]

Issue 2) "Highly unusual or overly complex bidding systems or conventions"

 

At anything but the highest levels of play, this is cheating in my opinion. Some of these bids have no value over other methods. Their purpose is to confuse the opps. I am not talking about complex bids that solve a problem or hide a weakness like transfer advances or not-serious 3N. I am talking about bids whose sheer complexity make it impossible for the opps to understand the bid or know all its nuances. Any bid that can't be explained in 1 or 2 short sentences falls into this category.

Do you have an example of what you mean here?

 

In my experience it is just as hard getting all of the nuances out of some "standard" players with their own idiosyncranies.

[Cascade]

Bridge no longer is an intellectual challenge, but work, listening to long-winded, tedious, lawyerly explanations of every bid.

I find playing against new methods refreshing and stimulating.

[Cascade]

You mention the random 1S overcall over a big C. This is perfectly acceptable bridge imo. Should I pass and allow you to have a wonderful uncontested auction to your par contract just because you have a good hand. How absurd! You have chosen to play a big C system and I am going to make it as hard for you as possible. Of course this is bridge.

It just occurred to me that the technical merit of a random overcall is that it exploits a weakness in the strong club.

 

Someone who wants to ban a random overcall because it is destructive is effectively just saying "I want to play my flawed system but only on the condition that you do not expose its flaws".

 

Bridge is a game one (pair or team) against another (pair or team). The fun in playing as I see it is for me to devise strategies to out wit your team. If you choose a poor strategy I should be allowed to exploit its weakness. The weakness in your method should not be protected by an artificial regulation that does not allow me to exploit that weakness.

[the hog]

"If you design a system specifically to sow confusion in your opponents, I don't consider that bridge. "

 

If you and your system are not good enough to deal with that confusion, I certainly do regard it as bridge.

 

"what are we supposed to do? Spend 5 minutes creating a defense? "

 

If your meta agreements are not sufficiently developed to cope with the unusual, then that is your problem and your fault for lack of preparation. You can have agreements which have general principles so that you can deal with virtually everything that is thrown at you.

 

"I don't believe for a minute that the forcing pass system with a 1H fert is as good a system as any of a dozen I might name. "

 

I certainly do. Look at a recent rgb thread. Look at the results of Regres and Suspensor, and look at the results of Marston and Burgess before their system was legislated out of existence. However you have probably heard of none of these.

 

"I don't consider that bridge. Neither does the ACBL. Makes me happy to live here."

 

So again we appeal to the authority of the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons. (ACBL). Makes ME happy to live HERE.

[mikestar]

The random 1S overcall of a Precision 1C should be legal. I don't believe it is all that good against a Precision pair whose defense to intervention is geared toward collecting penalties.

 

One fairly obvious method:

 

Pass=negative

X=penalty, spade length with some points

1N/2C/2D=normal positives

2H=heart positive

2S=art positive with no spade stop

 

Everthing except pass and double denies five+ spades and tends to deny four spades.

 

I'm sure this can be improved. Bidding a random spade against a strucure designed to penalize it cuts away a few steps but leaves you open to being crucified if they have spade length.

[helene_t]

2C = 6+C 10-14 OR weak, (possibly very weak), with 4-4 Ms

2D = weak 6 card M or 5/5 ms

2H/S weak 2 bids with 5 card suits, (sometimes 4).

 

Perhaps, Rebound and Helene. you might like to comment on this point. Would you prefer to play in restricted systems events if these were on offer?

Is this a rethoric question?

I don't think restrictions are feasible. They are wooly, complex, and differ from country to country. They create a culture in which conventions are designed to exploit holes in the restrictions rather than optimized for genuine efficiency.

 

I would certainly prefer to play in events where everything is allowed, even strong-pass openings. Because the current regulations (as they are in the Netherlands and, as I understand it, most countries outside ACBL control) are ineffective and create a lot of headache for TDs and for players.

 

It's just that I would prefer players not to use conventions that the opps can't be expected to have a defense against. This is difficult since you don't know your opps and you can't change you system 5 times during a pairs event.

 

The alternative is indys, or restrictions on regular partnerships, for example a rule saying that a single partner can't contribute to more than 25% of your MPs in any season. I prefer either that, or teams events where we have time to prepare a defense against the opps system. Recognizing that these alternatives are not realistsic, I vote for total anarchy. Keep it simple.

[inquiry]

Well, look what I started, phew!  :) First, while I personally dislike psyches, I fully understand that the Laws permit them, and I would never cry foul against an opponent who psyched against me. I agree that would just be sour grapes. However, I am sure that many of you will agree that, whether for good or ill, destructive bidding in general tends to be frowned upon. Frankly, in the case of psyches, my opinion is that, as usual, given the opportunity for gain, too many people abuse the psychic bid, spoiling it's contribution to the game of bridge.

 

I welcome your comments.  :D

Here is are two from yesterday that I did (my profile, by the way states right where everyone can see it. ."I psyc occ". For the reconrd. the first hand was maybe the second time I had played with this partner (pclayton), and the second one was the first time I played with that partner (redskin)

 

Hand one...

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=skq765hdaqt53c542&w=sa3hat2d64cakqt87&e=s9hk97543dk92c963&s=sjt842hqj86dj87cj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3NT

Dbl 4♦ Dbl 4♠

Dbl Pass Pass Pass

 

The bidding came to me (1c)-1S-(2H)-?

 

Two hearts was NOT alerted as negative free bid, and even looking at East's hand now, I don't know if he meant it as negative free bid or not. Here are my thoughts, we have at least a 10 card fit in spades (LOTT says for us to compete to 4♠, and they have at most 9 card fit in ♥s (since I have four hearts). They might still have huge diamond or club fit. At this vul (we are, they are not), will probably compete to 5♠ over any game they bid. The questio becomes what should I bid now?

 

There are several options. I can blast to 4♠ since I am going that high anyway. I can try a cute 3♣ cue-bid, 4♣ splinter, 3♥ cue-bid, 3♦, 4♦. 2NT, tricky pass, my prefrence, 3NT.

 

Let's look at each one. The cue-bids, and especially bidding ♦ allow west to double to show ♥-fit, ♦s, or extra values (depending upon which suit I bid). So I eliminate all the off ♠ suit bids. That leaves, pass, 3/4♠ and 2/3 NT. The problem with 3/4 ♠ once you disclose your fit, they will figure out they must have a fit too, and makes it easier for them to find a minor suit game contract. The problem wit pass and 2NT, it is too easy for WEST to introduce ♦ of for EAST to introduce ♦ (say 2NT-P-P-3♦)... So those are out. An immediate jump to 3NT puts maximum pressure on them. And my ♥ are just good enough, both might worry that 3NT is an attempt to play the contract for real. 3NT risk it going 3NT-PPP down many (even down 9 is only -450 versus their sure game then in the 600's... in fact, if down nine the are likely laydown for 6 fo something). 3NT also might give us a chance to play game in ♠ on a hand where there are double game swings, when I eventural get back to ♠ suit.

 

The 3NT bid work best it could. West hit it, and partner now shows his second suit. East naturally doubles that. Here, I take "preference" back to ♠. This preference could be based upon two or three card fit, so the opponents who are into a rythem penalty double mode hit that too. As you can see 4♠ is cold for us, and 5♥ is cold for them. Our partners played 5♥ at the other table. Unfortunatley for us, they never heard of the term "saftely play". If five hearts. you play low trump from hand and just cover whatever heart the next hand plays, to protect againt 4-0 split. My teammates began in five ♥ by winning ♠ACE then cashing ♥ACe.... curtains... now must go down. Lead a small ♥ from dummy planning to hook ♥ is safety play. Wnen my partner's hand shows out, can win king, and lead towards AT holding trump loser to one. So we where +590 in one room and should be +650 in the other (total swing 1240 for gain of +15 imps. Note the disaster if I bid 4♠ and they bid and make 5♥ since my teamates missed the simple saftery play, instead of winnig 10 (should be 15), we would lose 13 imps.

 

Being ale to use bride logic and "creativity" is a full part of the enjoyment of the game.

 

Hand two...

Dealer: North Vul: All Scoring: IMP ♠ A9 ♥ JT32 ♦ QJT654 ♣ 3

 

West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♦

 1♠    2♣    2♥    Pass

 2♠    Pass  Pass  Pass

 

 

On this one, opponents laydown for 4♠ so we got 65% score. It could have been 80% but partner underlead ♦Axxx so declearer made his sitff ♦K to make five, so we lost out all the pairs who stopped short of game (we -200. them -170). This points out the need not to blow a trick on defense at matchpoints.

 

BTW, EW called the director and asked for an adjustment because I opened with only "7hcp" (I had 8). This was a tatical third seat opening bid (luis calls third seat the CLOWN seat). If you are goint to play competitive bridge, you better get use to light to very light third seat opening bids. The director naturally ruled rather psyche or not, I had no need to alert this bid, and of course, alerting and saying "hey this in is not a real opening bid" is hardly the right thing to do... To see other examples, search this forum (increase search time to greater than 30 days) for the word CLOWN.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Let me dive into this with both left feet.....

 

 

Issue 3) "An enjoyable night out or why I dropped out of chess"

 

In the last chess tournament I attended, I lost a game to a much lower-rated player because he had read the latest "Chess Informant" that had a refutation for an opening that I favored. I realized that to play in tournaments, even casually, it would take hours and hours of studying every week to keep up with all the grand master games and analysis. That was work, not fun.

 

So, let me get this straight: You're looking for a game in which you can be

 

(A) Lazy

(B) Competitive

[hrothgar]

If I'm playing in a 26 board 13 round match where we get 15 minutes a round and some censored comes to our table and announces that they open their shortest suit instead of their longest, what are we supposed to do? Spend 5 minutes creating a defense?

Silly question: Many folks out there play bizzare methods in which the open 1♣ with a 3 card suit in preference to a 4 card major... How ever do you handle this situation???

 

The fundamental problem here is one of familiarity, rather than complexity. 2/1 game force, the "standard" tournament system used within the United States is a highly complex, highly artificial system. People seem to have adapted to this fairly easily.

 

Unfortunately, many people seem to believe that they have a right to simultaneously:

 

1. Play bad bridge

2. Compete effectively

 

From my perspective, using regulations to protect inferior bidding systems is badly flawed. As Helene pointed out, you simply create a perverse set of incentives in which individuals are constantly motivated to find and exploit holes in the regulatory structure.

 

I think that it would be much better to allow relatively unfettered competition between different bidding approaches. Inferior methods would fall by the way side, while stronger approaches would thrive. What is important to recognize is that whatever population of bidding systems emerged as the "dominant" set of approaches should be relatively stable.

 

At this point in time, we have the best of all worlds:

 

A stable population of theoretically sound bidding systems.

[PriorKnowledge]

How sad and how insulting... Is this how you win debates? Or only how you shut-off further discussion?

 

I like complex conventions. I know 10 times as many conventions as I use. I probably know them better and more thoroughly than people who play them.

 

I developed a Puppet 2N that has over 100 sequences designed to find every possible major fit with mild, invitation and forcing slam tries. All without unnecessarily divulging to the opps opener's distribution.

 

The #3 analogy was meant to show how many view these conventions. 90% of bridge players play once or twice a week and cannot make it a full-time career. They take a bridge vacation once a year to a large tournament. Are they allowed to be competitive? Or only the 10% who spent countless hours devising Yet Another Useless Convention (named after themselves, of course) for the sole purpose of confusing the opponents.

 

... and these constant arrogant attacks against America... Too bad USA wins most of the world championships and is the source of most of the advances HA HA HA. Only Italians have a right to be so arrogant. My great respect for Italian bridge knows no bounds.

[jtfanclub]

"I don't consider that bridge. Neither does the ACBL. Makes me happy to live here."

 

So again we appeal to the authority of the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons. (ACBL). Makes ME happy to live HERE.

I don't consider the ACBL an authority on anything. They didn't decide out of thin air that forcing pass should be illegal. A vast majority of their members asked that it be eliminated, and so it was legislated out of existance. My point is that this is the prevailing view here.

 

Where exactly can you play a Forcing Pass system in two-board-a-round matches?

[inquiry]

"I don't consider that bridge.  Neither does the ACBL.  Makes me happy to live here."

 

So again we appeal to the authority of the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons. (ACBL). Makes ME happy to live HERE.

I don't consider the ACBL an authority on anything. They didn't decide out of thin air that forcing pass should be illegal. A vast majority of their members asked that it be eliminated, and so it was legislated out of existance. My point is that this is the prevailing view here.

 

Where exactly can you play a Forcing Pass system in two-board-a-round matches?

Forcing pass is also banned by WBF.. .for most events. Now, the argument can be made that ACBL as larges tmember of WBF had soemthing to do with the banning of it in the WBF. I don't know the history of the bannishment of such bids.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

... and these constant arrogant attacks against America... Too bad USA wins most of the world championships and is the source of most of the advances HA HA HA. Only Italians have a right to be so arrogant. My great respect for Italian bridge knows no bounds.

America's success at internation bridge is a simple consequence of

 

(A) Population

(B) Sponsored professionals who are able to focus exclusively on bridge

© An influx of internation stars like Zia, Rosenburg, Gitelman, Fallenius,...

 

The "superiority" of North American bidding methods has little/if anything to do with this.

 

With this said and done, the fact that countries like Italy, France, Poland, and Norway have been able to compete effectively despite a stacked deck is somewhat suggestive...

 

Some people think that this is suggestive of cheating, others feel that its suggestive of that maybe the American's methods aren't all their cracked up to be.

[hrothgar]

I don't consider the ACBL an authority on anything. They didn't decide out of thin air that forcing pass should be illegal. A vast majority of their members asked that it be eliminated, and so it was legislated out of existance. My point is that this is the prevailing view here.

???!!!!!!

 

The vast majority of North American players don't know what a Weak Opening System is, let alone have any kind of informed decision.

 

Weak Opening Systems were preemptively banned in North America. North American Pros started running into Weak Opening Systems like Regres and Suspensor in international competition and quickly decided that they wanted no part of anything like this.

 

The ACBL ban on this method was based on the protecting interests of a relatively small elite. I will readily admit, however, that I expect that most ACBL members would have been quite happy to ban Weak Opening Systems if they actually understood the issues involved.

[the hog]

... and these constant arrogant attacks against America... Too bad USA wins most of the world championships and is the source of most of the advances HA HA HA.

 

snipped

What amazing powers of logic and deduction to come to the conclusion that a criticism of the ACBL is an attack against America. This beggars belief!

 

As for being the source of most advances, this comment just displays ignorance.

[paulhar]

What amazing powers of logic and deduction to come to the conclusion that a criticism of the ACBL is an attack against America. This beggars belief!

Indeed, it's likely that most of the criticisms of the ACBL come from within America!

[Free]

... and these constant arrogant attacks against America... Too bad USA wins most of the world championships and is the source of most of the advances HA HA HA. Only Italians have a right to be so arrogant. My great respect for Italian bridge knows no bounds.

Europe exists out of a lot small countries, USA is one big country. So what do you want? If you have 100x more people, don't you think at least 4 will be better in bridge than anyone in a small country? Put USA vs Europe, and we know who'll win then. It's pure numbers, nothing else.

 

Has this anything to do with regulations in these countries? NO! At the level these toppers play, they don't have the silly rules anymore...

[paulhar]

While I agree with your result, I disagree with how you got there. By your argument, the Indians and Chinese would be invincible in world competitions.

 

Besides, if the USA fielded their best six players instead of some clients, the results might surprise you.

[Gerben47]

The problem is that weak opening systems are now so banned that no one can practice them enough to be able to win the Bermuda Bowl using that system. This happened so soon after they arrived, mostly because narrowminded legislators had too much power, that there has not really been a chance.

 

I'm not sure why such a system is seen as the ultimate evil, it is in essence not much different from a Precision-type system.

 

Gerben

[MickyB]

I can understand why fert openers are banned in short matches, as it isn't an easy thing to defend against. However I don't see why the forcing pass itself is banned, there is no problem defending against that, treat it as a strong club opener. This would allow forcing pass to be played with Lorenzo two bids.

[Rebound]

Man, it could become a full time job just keeping up with this thread. There have been too many points raised since my last post to respond to them all so I'll stick to one.

 

The ACBL makes no secret of its agenda. It believes it has a mandate to nurture and grow the game of bridge through support of beginning and junior players. Now, I don't know about you, but when I was a rookie, playing in my first tournament along with several other rookies, I observed several pairs' deliberate use of intimidation tactics against us to obtain better results because they knew they would work against inexperienced players. Do you really think this is good for bridge?

 

This is the sort of thing the ACBL's restrictions are intended to prevent. They do not want rookies to drop out of bridge after getting smacked around by a room full of bridge players for 4 days.

 

So, whether to coddle new players for a while until their confidence grows to the point where they can learn from running into unusual methods rather than be intimidated by them, that seems to be the central question. Perhaps, you favor a more darwinian approach. However, I have seen with my own eyes how well a nuturing approach can win dividends for the game of bridge.

[1eyedjack]

if the USA fielded their best six players instead of some clients, the results might surprise you.

I suspect that there is a connection: It may be the presence of a ready market of clients in the USA that attracts the best players to emigrate there.

[DrTodd13]

Essentially, fert bids are preempts that tell you nothing about that

person's hand, steal room from the opponents, and make them use

defensive methods rather than their regular methods. Well, BOO-HOO!

Banning something because it is hard to defend against is against the

spirit of the game.

 

Todd

[1eyedjack]

The ACBL makes no secret of its agenda.

I don't see how you can say this with certainty. If it pursues a secret agenda then by definition you are unlikely to know about it. The fact that it has an apparently plausible public agenda does not exempt it from a secret one.

 

But is its public agenda plausible (I am assuming that you have accurately quoted it)?

 

A sensible regime is one that caters for as wide a variety of members as possible. If a new player is likely to be intimidated by complex methods then by all means provide events that cater to them. But I don't see such players as being in the market for mid-chart or super-chart events.

 

Which cross-section of the potential membership as a whole are more likely to object to relaxed licensing methods in major competitions: (a) the relatively new player, or "pretentious student upstart" as I think one expert termed it, or (b) the staid, dyed-in-the-wool 65+ year old player who makes up the bread-and-butter of the vast bulk of the existing membership (and membership subscription revenue)?

 

That is a rhetorical question, by the way.

 

The newbie must be protected, certainly. But it does not take them long to get over the suckling period, in my experience, and then they hunger to experiment.

 

If it regards its mandate as nurturing young players, then it has been singularly unsuccessful in that regard. It has had plenty of time for its current philosophy to reap dividends along those lines. Once a policy is a proven failure it is time to change it.

 

There is something oxymoronic about a policy that is intended to "grow the game of bridge" by introducing measures to inhibit its evolution.