A proposel

[ArcLight]

>Seems like you think people win in bridge because they use systems their opps are not familiar with. To be honest, this can help sometimes, but usually not against any decent players.

 

I think it certainly helps. Not against the top players so much as against the others. This implies that "decent palyers" have to spend a lot of time studying. There are many intelligent people that like to play deductive reasoning/analytical games without having to spend a huge amount of time memorizing abstract sequences.

 

 

>People win because they bid the right contract, and play/defend as good as possible. Bidding systems can help to get you in the right contract, so WHY would anyone throw away that part of the game where we can improve most? Look how many grand and small slams are missed by using simple systems, look how many people overbid on certain hands,...

 

I have no problem with new systems being played in the open venue. When it it proven to be superior it can replace the others. Evolution = progress and thats usually a godo thing, unless it destroys the deductive reasoning part of the game and replaces it with memorization and bluffing. What I dont want is to deal with those who wish to experiment with the new systems. When Moscito becomes the standard system, then I'll be happy to trade in what I'm using.

 

 

 

>Lets go back to the comparisson with chess: if one player knows his opening moves, and the other one doesn't know them, this last one will usually lose because he's too lazy to do some work and learn more about the game, and he'll feel that after some positional problems. Does he have a reason to complain? No! It's his own fault that he doesn't want to put energy in it...

 

I don't agree at all. My father at one time was a chess master, he was rated in the top 50 in the US. (He almost dropped out of college to pursue chess) He told me that with all the lengthy openings to study and remember that it took away from the actual play and analysis of the game. That if you didn't know the correct opening sequences several+ moves out you would be at a disadvantage. So rather than saying that those who don't want to spend hundrds of hours memorizing sequences of opening moves are lazy, I think they are correct. It detracts form the game itself, that you are forced to memorize so much.

Take one of these players who has memorized all the moves, then switch the position o the knight and bishop, and have them play. Then the better chess player will win, as opposed to the one who wants to spend a huge amount of time memorizing openings.

 

Same for Bridge.

 

 

 

>If they start banning most interesting systems and conventions, soon they might start to ban discard methods, or leads, or perhaps UDCA! These things might also be unfamiliar to some people, isn't it? And why would they keep whining about bidding systems alone anyway?

 

Notice I did not say anything should be banned. I said there should be 2 venues, an open (where anything goes), and a restricted. You play in the open, I'll play in the restricted, and gradually the better systems from the open will make their way into the restricted. And I'll learn them as they come in, without having to spend lots of tiem learning all the others that dont come in.

 

 

 

 

> The game that you want to play seems to emphaisze two elements:

1. Everyone is playing a single system

2. There is no "bluff" bidding.

 

I would prefer to face fewer rather than more different systems.

 

 

>This isn't a game of "deductive"reasoning. This is purely a game of memorization in which players robotically follow a pre-ordained bidding sequence for any given hand that they hold. Determinisitc bidding systems leave very limited opportunities to apply deductive reasoning during the bidding / play.

 

Not at all. Bidding is still subjective. You still have to draw inferences. Why did this opp make this lead? Why did his pard not return that suit? Its not deterministic at all. And you can still false card, I have no objections to that, provided you don't have secret agreements/tendencies that only pard knows.

 

 

>In reality, if you are actually interested in playing a game where you need to think rather than memorize, then you should favor a format with more opportunites to apply that vaunted 'reasoning" power of yours.

 

You have it backwards. Requring huge amounts of memorization doesn't improve the game, and thats what having lots of bidding systems and conventions does. One has more opportunity to play a deductive reasoning game when you can draw inferences from the bidding. Bluff bidding eliminates that. Also, note that I did not claim to be a strong bridge player, and that you are putting words in my mouth and being sarcastic. <that vaunted 'reasoning" power of yours>

 

 

> The reason given for these changes is the one that the ABF gave.To be just like the rest!

 

Perhaps the leadership of the ABF is more attuned to the preferences of their membership than you are?

 

 

>It takes no great intellect to have defences prepared against likely cons/treatments

 

It takes time to have proper partnership agreements, and go over responses. Its not a problem for a few. But when about the exampel you cited where you faced a new system? Are you willing to let the opps stop the game and discuss counters to it for 10 minutes?

[Free]

>Seems like you think people win in bridge because they use systems their opps are not familiar with. To be honest, this can help sometimes, but usually not against any decent players.

 

I think it certainly helps. Not against the top players so much as against the others. This implies that "decent palyers" have to spend a lot of time studying. There are many intelligent people that like to play deductive reasoning/analytical games without having to spend a huge amount of time memorizing abstract sequences.

 

Yes, it helps indeed. Yesterday a friend didn't notice we were playing transfer openings, they ended up in 4♠*-5 after a 1♥ opening (promissing 4+♠s) from Richard followed by a 1♠ bid used as take-out Dbl. Afterwards he told us that he was confused and forgot the transfer stuff. So clearly we won bigtime on that hand because of our system, even though our opps were both good prepared players!

Decent players don't have to study lots of time, they just have some general defenses against certain (usually common) systems and conventions. To give you an example: many people have a simple defense against multi 2♦: Dbl shows ♦, and waiting a round and Dbl is opening hand. Then these people come up against a 2♣ opening which is either weak in ♦ or strong hands, so they use similar defense: Dbl shows ♣, waiting a round and Dbl is opening strength. Did it take a long time to get to such defense? NO! Next turn they come up against multi-purpose transfer preempts which are either preempt in the next suit or strong 2-suiters. Then again they use this same principle.

This has nothing to do with memorizing abstract sequences, it's about having an arsenal of tools against common stuff, and use one of these tools against something new, which is similar to something they already know. And if they really want specialized defenses, ok, then they'll need more time and memory, but not many people put lots of energy in their defenses anyway.

 

>People win because they bid the right contract, and play/defend as good as possible. Bidding systems can help to get you in the right contract, so WHY would anyone throw away that part of the game where we can improve most? Look how many grand and small slams are missed by using simple systems, look how many people overbid on certain hands,...

 

I have no problem with new systems being played in the open venue. When it it proven to be superior it can replace the others. Evolution = progress and thats usually a godo thing, unless it destroys the deductive reasoning part of the game and replaces it with memorization and bluffing. What I dont want is to deal with those who wish to experiment with the new systems. When Moscito becomes the standard system, then I'll be happy to trade in what I'm using.

 

So who decides what systems become standard? The same people who want to restrict things that are weird in their view.

Also the treatment you suggest is rubish (sorry to say): you want 2 venues, one with restrictions all over the place, and one where everything goes. When a certain system proves to be better it would be possible to replace other systems. But how can you compare 2 systems? Should it be plain simple, or should it get you to better results? Or a mix between those 2? And how much percent of this mix does it have to be about simplicity exactly? How much efficiency? Who will decide this?

Bridge is not a game of pure bidding, it's also about carding, defending,... 2 good players with a poor system will still win over 2 poor players with a super system. They have table feeling, good handevaluation,... So how can you ever compare 2 systems if you don't play both, and if you can't play against yourself?

 

>Lets go back to the comparisson with chess: if one player knows his opening moves, and the other one doesn't know them, this last one will usually lose because he's too lazy to do some work and learn more about the game, and he'll feel that after some positional problems. Does he have a reason to complain? No! It's his own fault that he doesn't want to put energy in it...

 

I don't agree at all. My father at one time was a chess master, he was rated in the top 50 in the US. (He almost dropped out of college to pursue chess) He told me that with all the lengthy openings to study and remember that it took away from the actual play and analysis of the game. That if you didn't know the correct opening sequences several+ moves out you would be at a disadvantage. So rather than saying that those who don't want to spend hundrds of hours memorizing sequences of opening moves are lazy, I think they are correct. It detracts form the game itself, that you are forced to memorize so much.

Take one of these players who has memorized all the moves, then switch the position o the knight and bishop, and have them play. Then the better chess player will win, as opposed to the one who wants to spend a huge amount of time memorizing openings.

 

Same for Bridge.

 

Well, if you suddenly start to play bridge with 48 cards, is it still called bridge? Switching the knight and the bishop creates a new game, but it isn't chess, and it would have absolutely nothing to do with chess anyway. Imo you just can't get at the top if you don't put time in it. Either you play the entire day, or you read some books now and then, or you do both. I'm sure your father played LOTS of chess, which would mean he knows how most beginnings are anyway, because he meets them every day. You don't need books alone, you can also practice and learn the hard way. But if you waste your energy before you sit down at the table, then you can use your energy at the table for more important stuff.

This however is not applicable to bridge, since every hand is different, and you don't know what other players have.

 

>If they start banning most interesting systems and conventions, soon they might start to ban discard methods, or leads, or perhaps UDCA! These things might also be unfamiliar to some people, isn't it? And why would they keep whining about bidding systems alone anyway?

 

Notice I did not say anything should be banned. I said there should be 2 venues, an open (where anything goes), and a restricted. You play in the open, I'll play in the restricted, and gradually the better systems from the open will make their way into the restricted. And I'll learn them as they come in, without having to spend lots of tiem learning all the others that dont come in.

 

As I pointed out, the major flaw in your suggested structure is the fact that you can't compare systems with eachother the way you would have to. But perhaps there's a sollution for that somewhere ;)

 

> The game that you want to play seems to emphaisze two elements:

1. Everyone is playing a single system

2. There is no "bluff" bidding.

 

I would prefer to face fewer rather than more different systems.

 

I think I can clearly state that NOBODY PLAYS THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM. Change 1 convention and you're doing something else. Uh-ooh, a new convention and I don't know how to defend against it - help!

 

>This isn't a game of "deductive"reasoning. This is purely a game of memorization in which players robotically follow a pre-ordained bidding sequence for any given hand that they hold. Determinisitc bidding systems leave very limited opportunities to apply deductive reasoning during the bidding / play.

 

Not at all. Bidding is still subjective. You still have to draw inferences. Why did this opp make this lead? Why did his pard not return that suit? Its not deterministic at all. And you can still false card, I have no objections to that, provided you don't have secret agreements/tendencies that only pard knows.

 

Bidding is PURE objective! The examples you bring on are for declarer play or defense perhaps, but not for bidding. If you have a 6 card ♠ and your partner opens 1NT, you'll bid according to your system a transfer or natural. What do you have to think about? Nothing, your system tells you what to do...

 

>In reality, if you are actually interested in playing a game where you need to think rather than memorize, then you should favor a format with more opportunites to apply that vaunted 'reasoning" power of yours.

 

You have it backwards. Requring huge amounts of memorization doesn't improve the game, and thats what having lots of bidding systems and conventions does. One has more opportunity to play a deductive reasoning game when you can draw inferences from the bidding. Bluff bidding eliminates that. Also, note that I did not claim to be a strong bridge player, and that you are putting words in my mouth and being sarcastic. <that vaunted 'reasoning" power of yours>

 

I don't think you can make bridge a game where you don't have to memorize stuff, and where you can think about everything. How could you ever play this anyway? What does 1♣ mean? I don't remember, but I'll think about it. Come on! We all need our memory to bid (what does a certain bid mean, don't I forget anything) and play (what cards are left).

 

>It takes no great intellect to have defences prepared against likely cons/treatments

 

It takes time to have proper partnership agreements, and go over responses. Its not a problem for a few. But when about the exampel you cited where you faced a new system? Are you willing to let the opps stop the game and discuss counters to it for 10 minutes?

 

As I pointed out, decent players have defenses against certain bids. If they meet some new system they'll apply a similar defense which they can agree within 1 minute! I have my defense against strong ♣, we come across someone playing strong ♦ (very rare in my region), so we'll use that same defense with minor changes (since we don't have a 1♦ bid available anymore). But our 1NT and higher bids are still the exact same!

 

 

As a general remark, I would encourage to keep a league where everything goes. I know many people want restrictions, and I don't care much about that as long as these restrictions don't keep me from playing the stuff I want to play. I know many people just don't like to play against unfamiliar systems, however I like it, since it's a source of inspiration for me. Everyone has his opinion, and I respect that.

BTW, here in Belgium we have several cathegories of system regulations. Systems get color codes according to it's characteristics, and the cathegories allow or ban certain colours. This is imo a much better structure than keeping only 2 venues, since it's 2 extremes.

Most tourneys here allow green (standard), blue (strong ♣ with natural follow-ups) and red systems (artificial ones, like Moscito) so I don't have much problems with the regulations at this moment, since you can do a lot with artificial systems if you want. Only HUM's and brown sticker conventions are banned most of the time, unless at the 2 highest leages of the competition, and in Belgian pairs semi-final and final, but that's not a really big loss imo. It's just pure fun when you're back at such cool tourneys :D

 

Final remark: this is probably my longest post ever B)

[hrothgar]

Arclight: In all seriousness, have you considered just playing Spades?

 

Its much closer to the game that you want to be playing

[inquiry]

Arclight: In all seriousness, have you considered just playing Spades?

 

Its much closer to the game that you want to be playing

This is much too harsh....

 

The vast majority of bridge players in the world feel, more or less, as Arc Light has described. A lot of people play bridge for enjoyment, not as a vocation (or work at it like it was one). The general bridge playing public will never want to fact transfer opening bids, relay system, forcing pass systems, encrypted carding, control pyche's or any psychss for that matter.

 

The ACBL and other governing bodies, out of their own self-interest, regulate what can be played in the vast majority of events. IT is self-preservation. How many Board-a-match events does the ACBL run? And even when they do, they run a swiss or a pairs opposite it.The reason being, too few members care to play in BAM. I think BAM is the very best form of competition, but it is hard, and the best teams always win.. the others do poorly. Same with conventions I think. The public doesn't want BAM, and tehy don't want tons of artificial stuff either.

 

The only problems with the suggest of two flighted things, an open where anytjhing goes and a limited are these. 1) Even experts don't want to deal with all the variety that will be sprung on them for two boards in anything goes. 2) The filed for the open (if it was anything goes), would be so smalll, that it would be ahrd to run the events (think the nearly extinct BAM). 3) The people playing in the limited will feel themselves second class citizens in a way, it is never nice to make your customers feel this way. This is why stratified pairs work so well. Everyone plays in the same event, under the same rules.

 

Ben

[ArcLight]

>Arclight: In all seriousness, have you considered just playing Spades?

 

>Its much closer to the game that you want to be playing

 

Not at all. Spades is far less of a deductive reasoning game because:

 

1) there is only one round of bidding

 

2) the trump suit is always Spades

 

3) and there is no exposed hand

 

Spades is far more luck than Bridge, and a player who can track all the cards will do excedingly well, without having to draw inferences. He/she can avoid bags or go for the set if its doable.

 

 

 

> 3) The people playing in the limited will feel themselves second class citizens in a way, it is never nice to make your customers feel this way. This is why stratified pairs work so well. Everyone plays in the same event, under the same rules.

 

You raise a good point. People wouldn't want to feel that they are playing in the baby league. But with some good marketing (spin) perhaps that could be mitigated. Call the open field the Experimental league/field. Call the restricted the Standard field/league.

 

Another thing to consider is its hard to attract new players if they are faced with the prospect of having to invest hunderds of hours of study. Better to have a Standard league where they can play. If they want to learn the other conventions and systems, they are free to do when they are ready.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>Yes, it helps indeed. Yesterday a friend didn't notice we were playing transfer openings, they ended up in 4♠*-5 after a 1♥ opening (promissing 4+♠s) from Richard followed by a 1♠ bid used as take-out Dbl. Afterwards he told us that he was confused and forgot the transfer stuff. So clearly we won bigtime on that hand because of our system, even though our opps were both good prepared players!

 

That was a complete waste of everyones time IMHO. The people who lost (because of their confusion) and you, who didnt win anything, except the right to make a hollow claim that you defeated someone who was confused. I want to win because I played well, not because of some screw up the opponents made. To win something through confusion is dissatisfying to me, and a wste of my time.

 

 

 

>So who decides what systems become standard?

 

The current bridge organizations in each country of course. (Whicdh is how they do things now)

 

>The same people who want to restrict things that are weird in their view.

 

You are missing the point. Their members dont want to be forced to spend hundreds of hours learning lots of new systems all the time. Precision is accepted in the ACBL. It took a while. So perhaps it will take a while for some of the other newer systesm to get admitted.

 

 

 

>Also the treatment you suggest is rubish (sorry to say):

 

Your opinion certainly matters a lot to me. ;)

 

 

>you want 2 venues, one with restrictions all over the place, and one where everything goes. When a certain system proves to be better it would be possible to replace other systems. But how can you compare 2 systems? Should it be plain simple, or should it get you to better results? Or a mix between those 2? And how much percent of this mix does it have to be about simplicity exactly? How much efficiency? Who will decide this?

 

What will happen is a system will over several years become more widely adopted by experts and then will probably be more likely to be admitted to the Restricted league (i.e. ACBL)

 

 

>Bridge is not a game of pure bidding, it's also about carding, defending,... 2 good players with a poor system will still win over 2 poor players with a super system.

They have table feeling, good handevaluation,... So how can you ever compare 2 systems if you don't play both, and if you can't play against yourself?

 

The new systems will be tried in the open venue (and no one is stopping anyone from trying them out). When they become very popular there, there will be a tendency to allow them in the restricted venues (in general, but not all new systems will make it). A pair will wonder what all the hoopla is about the new system, read about it, and perhaps try it out in the open venue.

 

 

>Well, if you suddenly start to play bridge with 48 cards, is it still called bridge? Switching the knight and the bishop creates a new game, but it isn't chess, and it would have absolutely nothing to do with chess anyway.

 

I strongly disagree. It would still be chess. All the analysis skills would still be required. But those who have invested hundreds of hours memorizing openings, rather than using their analytical skills would lose a big advantage they have. The point is it would favor the chess players, rather than those who want to memorize.

(until the new openings were discovered, but then you could change the board again!)

 

 

 

>Imo you just can't get at the top if you don't put time in it.

 

Spend the time playing and learning yes, not memorizing.

 

> Either you play the entire day, or you read some books now and then, or you do both.

 

An entire day? I don't think so. A few hours yes, but not an entire day. (For those of us with a life outside bridge.)

 

 

> As I pointed out, the major flaw in your suggested structure is the fact that you can't compare systems with eachother the way you would have to. But perhaps there's a sollution for that somewhere

 

Of course you can, in the open venue. The 2/1 advocates could play the Moscito and Polish Club advocates, etc. The experts would get a sense of what system is better. Why would you expect each person to try all the systems and decide ehats best? Let others experiment, report back on the one with the most success. and then take a look. I have no interest in trying out every convention in Amalya Kearses 1100 page book. I insted use the few conventions that those I respect recommend. [Mike Lawrence has a nice CD on Conventions, highly worthwhile, as are all his books/CDs

 

 

>I think I can clearly state that NOBODY PLAYS THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM. Change 1 convention and you're doing something else. Uh-ooh, a new convention and I don't know how to defend against it - help!

 

 

No so. There is an approved list, you dont have to use them all. If you alter one of the conventions [bergen raises that were flipped] then alert the opponents, and expect some delays. But its still an allowable system.

 

 

>Bidding is PURE objective!

 

No its not. Some hands are clear, many are not. Why do you think when they had the Master Solvers Bidding Quizzes all the experts made different bids. Bidding is subjective, though there are hands that are clear and experts are likely to agree on.

 

 

>The examples you bring on are for declarer play or defense perhaps, but not for bidding. If you have a 6 card ♠ and your partner opens 1NT, you'll bid according to your system a transfer or natural. What do you have to think about? Nothing, your system tells you what to do...

 

Thats one of the few hands thats easy.

 

 

>I don't think you can make bridge a game where you don't have to memorize stuff, and where you can think about everything.

 

Come now Free, I never said no memorization was required. Just that most players dont want to be forced to invest hundreds of hours memorizing arcane systems, they might encounter once a year.

[paulhar]

Arclight:  In all seriousness, have you considered just playing Spades?

 

Its much closer to the game that you want to be playing

This is much too harsh....

Actually, if taken correctly, I don't think it's too harsh at all. While I was reading this thread, I had formulated a reply that isn't much different that hrothgar's and I'm on ArcLight's side of this argument!

 

I also enjoy the game for deductive reasoning, and because I play seldom enough that I have to pick up most of my partners, I am totally helpless against an unfamiliar convention, having to hope to guess that my made-up defense (on the fly) to the convention is that same as my partner's.

 

However, here at BBO, it seems like the opposing opinion is prevailing.

 

I enjoy bridge very much but there are games that I enjoy more because they require deduction but don't put the infrequent player at a disadvantage (at least not for any reason except lack of practice.)

 

I haven't played a lot of spades, but I think there is a lot of deductive reasoning required to play the game well, and this shouldn't be taken as an insult.

 

Personally, I was going to suggest Acquire. Fortunately, I haven't found Acquire online or I would never get any work done. I'm sure that there are many other excellent games that require good deductive skills where you don't need to memorize anything except the rules. If bridge becomes a game of 'le'ts see how you handle my new conventions', maybe more people will flock to these other games.

[ArcLight]

>I was really amused by the profound stupidity of the idea that one must provide

defense against one's own method. This absurdness is inconceivable in any other

intellegenent game, but sadly it's the reality of bridge!

 

It does seem strange, but again, with out it you change the game from one of deductive reasoning, to one of language and memorization. Lets take your idea a step further, why have a convention card at all. Don't reveal any convention nor carding systems. Use 4th best on hand one, then 3rd/5th on the next few, standard on one hand, then upside down for the next 2. Moscito on one hand, then Acol on the next.

 

 

Spades does require some deductive reasoning, but it has far more luck than Bridge, and far less deductive reasoning. (becaus eyou have so much less information). Spades does have the element of bluffing, with bluff nils, and tactical over/under bids. In Spades Nils are over valued at 100 points, and the blind nil should be removed.

 

For a great webiste check out www.masterspades.com. The owner has written 2 spades books (Master Spades and Spades for Winners), and is a Bridge life master. How Not to Lose at Spades is also worth reading for the bidding, but some of the card play techniques are not correct.

[EricK]

ArcLight,

 

Just out of interest, what system(s) do you like to play?

 

Eric

[hrothgar]

It does seem strange, but again, with out it you change the game from one of deductive reasoning, to one of language and memorization. Lets take your idea a step further, why have a convention card at all. Don't reveal any convention nor carding systems. Use 4th best on hand one, then 3rd/5th on the next few, standard on one hand, then upside down for the next 2. Moscito on one hand, then Acol on the next.

Are you actually this ignorant or just trying to provoke an argument???

 

There is a world of difference between an environment with no disclosure and one of complete disclosure. A system of complete disclosure allows any pair willing to invest a modicum of effort developing good generic defense to complete effectively against virtually any bidding system that they encounter.

 

I find the fact that you are unwilling to do so rather telling. I find the example of your father, who apparantly possessed the talent to be a great chess player, but was unwilling to invest the time to do so even more so.

[DrTodd13]

Deductive reasoning will always be the primary part of bridge. Even with fancy systems, deduction is still in play at every moment of the game. Some people seem to think that that is all that the game should be about. There is no right or wrong here, only preferences. This debate rages because some want the game to evolve to include systems creation as an important skill and others resent having to learn anything new to enjoy their game. Personally, the big turn off of chess to me is that to be good you have to memorize the opening book. I don't want bridge to turn into a memory contest and so even in no-holds-barred bridge, I would allow defense to consult notes for anything that isn't common. Having to create and maintain such defensive notes would not bother me although most people would hate it.

 

Fortunately, we have a great site like BBO where these two groups can coexist. The systems experimenters can play there and enjoy. If they get the desire to play f2f bridge with their toys then right or wrong I think they'll have to found a new bridge league that promotes their viewpoints. Us systems people are in the minority and I don't think complaining will help us. The incumbents are there to maximize profit which means maximizing people which means that the majority get to do whatever they want. The minority really only has the choice to acquiesce or found a new bridge league. We're so spread out though it is hard to get critical mass of these people.

[helene_t]

Last year we played against another Amsterdam team that happened to play a relay system with artificial minor suit openings and two-way 2-openings. We were half an hour early so we had time to discuss defence against there methods, and they against our gadgets. That was great fun. It's sad that this has happened only once in four years. Usually, people refuse to study our CC, they just say that they will ask whenever we alert something. Sometimes I find myself failing to use a gadget because I know that the opponents have no defense against it.

 

Not that this really bothers me, playing vanilla sayc, vanilla acol or vanilla precision is great fun, too. (As long as nobody forces me to play Biedermeijer ;) )

[ArcLight]

>Are you actually this ignorant or just trying to provoke an argument???

 

I think its you who are ignorant and rude and trolling for arguments. ;)

 

 

>There is a world of difference between an environment with no disclosure and one of complete disclosure. A system of complete disclosure allows any pair willing to invest a modicum of effort developing good generic defense to complete effectively against virtually any bidding system that they encounter.

 

Not really. To deal with all the conventions takes some time. To deal with all the systems takes time. Who wants to deal with bluff/psych systems? Not I. If you want to dedicate your life to Bridge, thats your choice. I'd like to play an interesting deductive reasoning game. Furtunately I can, in the ACBL venue. You can play in the open venue, and be happy when you defeat someone who was confused by your system. Just like Free was saying when she played a pair that blew a hande because they were confused.

 

 

>I find the fact that you are unwilling to do so rather telling.

 

Meaning that I should neglect my family (I also have a full time job) so I can play more bridge? I think not. Bridge is my hobby, not my life. Seems like some people lack one.

 

 

>I find the example of your father, who apparantly possessed the talent to be a great chess player, but was unwilling to invest the time to do so even more so.

 

Its amusing for you to judge my father. He once played a series of speed chess games with Bobby Fisher (when Fisher was 16) at a club. My father won perhaps 3 out of 16 games (Fisher was a lot better). He visited to see his brother Colombia (this ws many years ago) and trounced the Columbian Grand Master at their club. But he told me that the people that play Chess were generally anti-social, and as he was married he had othe commitments.

 

"Invest the time" = get a life outside of Bridge Hrothgar. :unsure:

[EricK]

I don't know what you mean by bluff/psyche bids or systems.

 

Psyching is far less popular now than it was in, say, the 1950s.

 

The major changes of bidding in recent times have been:

 

1) An effort to make bidding systems more accurate (this is the direct antithesis of bluffing/psyching)

 

2) A more aggressive approach to pre-empting. This has become necessary as the opponents' systems have become more accurate (due to the above point).

 

What this has meant is that the balance during the auction between the side with the cards and the side without has stayed the same, but the overall standard of bidding has improved.

 

If you look at hand records from "the old days" you will see a lot of bad contracts which no pair of club standard playing today would reach. And they bid to them without the amount of interference they would have got today!

 

A similar thing happens in almost all sports. The overall standards improve, but the balance remains (or in a lot of cases the games become more balanced).

 

Most lowly chess grandmasters of today would beat all but the top players of 50 or 60 years ago (and maybe even them). And it's not due to their memorisation of openings. The number of mistakes made nowadays is lower. The understanding of attack and defense is higher. But the games are no less interesting for all that.

 

Getting back to bridge. If I understand your proposals correctly, bridge would become a much more boring game, especially at the higher levels. The side with the majority of cards would bid to their best game, and when they had bad cards they would leave their opponent's alone in the auction.

 

Where's the fun in that?

 

Eric

[ArcLight]

> Getting back to bridge. If I understand your proposals correctly, bridge would become a much more boring game, especially at the higher levels. The side with the majority of cards would bid to their best game, and when they had bad cards they would leave their opponent's alone in the auction.

 

I can see your point. There are many who would not like that. But I don't think it would be that radical. Eventually superior systems would probably be allowed in. And those that dont (the preempts with 5 low cards, psych bids, bluff bids, etc) well, I would find the game more interesting without them.

The easy solution is 2 venues.

 

Also, just because you have better cards doesnt mean the opps couldnt pre-empt. They still could. The opps could still interfere with your strong NT bids.

 

I consider Meckwells 1NT opening iwth 9 HCP destructive and would not like to see that allwoed in the restricted forum.

 

If you are dealt low cards, I don't think it makes the game more interesting if you can make bluff bids.

 

 

Here is an example of what interests me: On Richard Pavliceks website he has a section Root for the Home Team in rememberance of Bill Root. Its got some good defensive problems. All are reasonable (not that I got them) and to make them is what I find Bridge to be about. Drawing inferences.

[Free]

ArcLight, now you've done what I was waiting for a loooooong time! :lol: You say controversal things:

- if you have the good cards, it doesn't mean opps can't preempt anymore

- I don't want to allow destructive bidding

So if opps have a nice slam which they can easily bid if we don't intervene, we just have to let them do that, but we can preempt IF our cards are good enough - which they are not in our virtual example! So if opps have the cards, we can bid, but we can't :lol:

 

About the bluff bids: you should just try it, just ONCE! Really, take this challenge and bid something you don't have, without violating rules like 'you can't psych artificial bids'. Do this at a table in your local club (because online it doesn't work so well), and you'll feel the adrenaline run through your veigns when your partner is thinking about bidding! It's a wonderful feeling, and it makes the game really exciting on that moment :D

Then you'll know what the other side of the story is, and you might change your onesided opinion. I'm sure lots of people judge psyching, but they never psyched once themselves. They only know half the story, so they can hardly have a full-informed opinion...

 

And again, how do you measure which systems are superior? Take a look at that mini-NT. On an average NV hand, it will score better than when not playing mini. On an average V hand, I'm not sure, and it might depend on the scoring. So would this be allowed because it's superior (scores better), or would it be banned because of it's destructive character? You just can't make an objective choice when you mix 2 things up which might be a result from one another.

[arrows]

Getting back to bridge. If I understand your proposals correctly, bridge would become a much more boring game, especially at the higher levels. The side with the majority of cards would bid to their best game, and when they had bad cards they would leave their opponent's alone in the auction.

 

Where's the fun in that?

 

Yes, absolutely. I think it's no fun at all.

 

But the truth is in ACBL, the first item in the "disallowed" table is

 

"Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy

the opponents’ methods."

 

Isn't preventing opponents from bidding the best contract as important as bidding best contract of your own?

 

and another item explicitly disallows you to bid without cards. here we go:

 

"Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer

than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" is disallowed.

 

Also, I would like to try forcing pass system, but of course, it's disallowed.

 

So, ACBL is trying hard to make this game boring, isn't it?

 

I propose we don't play with these crapy politics, modify the penalty table

and what those people don't like will disappear automatically. Then at least

we wouldn't bother to come up with this ridiculous idea of providing defense to one's own method, at least we can call ourselves "sane"

 

I wish ANY method is allowed, but it definitely won't happen in this insane world.

 

it's so obvious, this is not about what is "good" for bridge, or even what is "destrutive" method at all, this is all about what they think can maximize

their profit.

[EricK]

Getting back to bridge. If I understand your proposals correctly, bridge would become a much more boring game, especially at the higher levels. The side with the majority of cards would bid to their best game, and when they had bad cards they would leave their opponent's alone in the auction.

 

Where's the fun in that?

 

Yes, absolutely. I think it's no fun at all.

 

But the truth is in ACBL, the first item in the "disallowed" table is

 

"Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy

the opponents’ methods."

 

Isn't preventing opponents from bidding the best contract as important as bidding best contract of your own?

 

and another item explicitly disallows you to bid without cards. here we go:

 

"Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer

than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" is disallowed.

 

Also, I would like to try forcing pass system, but of course, it's disallowed.

 

So, ACBL is trying hard to make this game boring, isn't it?

 

I propose we don't play with these crapy politics, modify the penalty table

and what those people don't like will disappear automatically. Then at least

we wouldn't bother to come up with this ridiculous idea of providing defense to one's own method, at least we can call ourselves "sane"

 

I wish ANY method is allowed, but it definitely won't happen in this insane world.

 

it's so obvious, this is not about what is "good" for bridge, or even what is "destrutive" method at all, this is all about what they think can maximize

their profit.

I think you are under a misapprehension about e.g. Strong pass systems.

 

They reason they work has little to do with the how big the penalties they might suffer are.

 

When the bid is anything other than the Fert, they are more accurate and so less likely to suffer a penalty. And when one opens 1♦ showing 0-7, one often gets into some sort of playable contract at the 1 level.

 

However, if one adjusted the scoring table so that doubling 1 level contracts was quite often more beneficial than scoring your own game, it would simply ruin defensive bidding. It would become dangerous to overcall on much less than an opening bid, and would lead to unopposed auctions for the side with cards.

 

Also, I don't think the ACBL equate "making it difficult for opponenets to bid their contract" with desttroying opponent's methods". I am not sure exactly what they do mean, but they have no intention of outlawing your opening 3♠ on ♠KQJTxx x xxxx x, if you want.

 

Eric

[arrows]

When the bid is anything other than the Fert, they are more accurate and so less likely to suffer a penalty. And when one opens 1♦ showing 0-7, one often gets into some sort of playable contract at the 1 level.

 

As I understand, you are saying this method gets banned because

it has too much merits to be tolerated by those mediocres. This is self-proven

why bridge is a game for nuts. Not only you have to provide defense against

your own methods, but also effective methods are not allowed! Jesus.

 

And yet another example is wilkosz 2♦

[EricK]

When the bid is anything other than the Fert, they are more accurate and so less likely to suffer a penalty. And when one opens 1♦ showing 0-7, one often gets into some sort of playable contract at the 1 level.

 

As I understand, you are saying this method gets banned because

it has too much merits to be tolerated by those mediocres. This is self-proven

why bridge is a game for nuts. Not only you have to provide defense against

your own methods, but also effective methods are not allowed! Jesus.

 

And yet another example is wilkosz 2♦

Strong pass is entirely different to everything else.

 

What does a double of the opening pass show?! This example demonstrates that you can't simply take your defense to eg a strong club and move it over to the strong pass situation.

 

And in general, the situations which arise are entirely different to those that arise in other systems. I think the methods were banned not because thay were better but because they were simply too different.

 

Eric

[the hog]

"I think the methods were banned not because thay were better but because they were simply too different."

 

Actually no I don't think this is right, Eric. The methods were officially banned because Damiani and a few members of the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons decided that pairs playing FP were giving insufficient disclosure of their methods. I suspect this was a pretext, however. Marston - Burgess brought this matter to a head in one Bermuda Bowl, can't remember exactly which one, but I could look it up.

 

To Dugite - don't worry too much regarding Brown Sticker conventions. I discussed this with Laurie Kelso, (on the panel which framed the regulations), and he said he expected BS conventions to be allowed in most events, including club events. I suspect congresses may ban them. We'll see!

 

To ArcLight - I think your idea of 2 leagues is a great idea, one for sooks and one for those who take the game seriously and I know which one I'll be playing in. (if you were a resident in Australia, I suspect you would be alone in your league as even lols here play Brown stickers).

[luke warm]

ron, did i already say welcome back? hehe

[Free]

What does a double of the opening pass show?! This example demonstrates that you can't simply take your defense to eg a strong club and move it over to the strong pass situation.

 

And in general, the situations which arise are entirely different to those that arise in other systems. I think the methods were banned not because thay were better but because they were simply too different.

 

Eric

Seems like you never came up against transfer ideas... If your opps play strong pass, you can consider it as a transfer to 1♣. So bidding 1♣ will be your Dbl over 1♣ opening. Isn't it simple?

 

However, strong ♣ systems came out of strong pass systems, so actually all other crap comes from banned systems! Consider 2 opening systems:

 

pass = 14+

1♣ = 4+♥, 9-13

1♦ = 4+♠, 9-13

1♥ = 0-8 any

1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-13

1NT = (9)10-13 bal

2♣ = 6+♣, 9-13

 

and

 

pass = 0-8(10)

1♣ = 15+ any

1♦ = 4+♥, 9-14

1♥ = 4+♠, 9-14

1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-14

1NT = 11-14 bal

2♣ = 6+♣, 9-14

 

see the comparisson between pass-1♥?

[mikestar]

...

However, strong ♣ systems came out of strong pass systems, so actually all other crap comes from banned systems!  Consider 2 opening systems:

 

pass = 14+

1♣ = 4+♥, 9-13

1♦ = 4+♠, 9-13

1♥ = 0-8 any

1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-13

1NT = (9)10-13 bal

2♣ = 6+♣, 9-13

 

and

 

pass = 0-8(10)

1♣ = 15+ any

1♦ = 4+♥, 9-14

1♥ = 4+♠, 9-14

1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-14

1NT = 11-14 bal

2♣ = 6+♣, 9-14

 

see the comparisson between pass-1♥?

This is a correct description of MOSCITO, which was derived from a FP system. Strong Clubs in general date back to the Vanderbuilt System, invented concurrently with Contact Bridge, and had been experimented with in the days of Auction Bridge. Some authors mentioned a strong spade opening back in the earliest Auction days when spades were the low ranking suit!

 

Clearly at this time no one had even conceived of FP.