Frelling 2 bids

[hrothgar]

Hi All

 

Looks like I'll get the ball rolling.

Submitted for your approval:  Frelling 2 bids.

 

Frelling 2 bids are a preemptie opening structure that I came up with a couple years ago.  I beleive that the structure opening structure represents a pretty devasating extension of the Ekren's assumed fit preemptive style.

 

I've been using Frelling Two's with great success in the world of online bridge.  Sadly, the ACBL has ruled them inherently destructive and banned them within the US [not that I'm bitter, no, not me]

 

Basic summary

 

2D = 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major

2H = 4+ Hearts and (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs)

2S = 6 spades or (4+ Spades and 5+ clubs)

 

I've taken the liberty of posting a complete description on my web site.

 

http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/Frelling%2...0Two%20Bids.doc

[keylime]

Frankly some of the things ACBL considers destructive is so commonplace in the world that is scares me - when the ACBL starts allowing treatments such as Multi, Muiderburg, and others as GCC compliants, then possible we might be able to attract a larger audience (along with other changes).

[eyhung]

Frankly some of the things ACBL considers destructive is so commonplace in the world that is scares me - when the ACBL starts allowing treatments such as Multi, Muiderburg, and others as GCC compliants, then possible we might be able to attract a larger audience (along with other changes).

 

Although I personally prefer a less convention-restrictive game at higher levels, I disagree with your statement.  I understand that you tempered your assertion with "possibly other changes", but if there's anything that needs fixing to attract people, it's hardly the restrictive convention environment.

 

Bridge is not going to attract many more people just because it allows fancy two-bids in tournaments.  Enough people have trouble understanding how to handle standard weak two-bids: see all the strong vs. weak two clarifications necessary on non-duplicate online bridge servers.  

 

No, bridge is only going to attract people if they feel they are having more fun playing it than other pursuits.  While you and I may have fun experimenting with fancy two-bids, from my experiences it is safe to say the vast majority of people do not.  Indeed, many of these people feel "cheated" when you wheel out a fancy convention/system that they do not understand how to defend against.  ("The book says you need 16-18 points to open 1NT!  How can he do so with 12-14?")

 

Implying that loosening convention restrictions will attract more people is misleading.  Yes, it will attract a few scientists who refuse to play tournaments as they currently stand, but for every scientist that would not have played, you probably drive away at least three simpler souls because "it's too complicated", "it's unfamiliar", or "they're cheating".  The ACBL has a difficult task, trying to satisfy the die-hards like us while retaining the near-kitchen-bridge player that finds transfers confusing.   I don't envy them this problem.

 

Bottom line: I support an environment closer to "anything goes" at the highest levels, but I do not believe fixes to high-level bridge should be confused with fixing the problem of bridge's popularity.  Whenever one speaks of increasing popular appeal, one must pander to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.  Indeed, one could make a better case that restricting even more conventions would make the game more popular, because then it is simpler for the average person to understand!  (Note that the most popular sport in the world is soccer/football, primarily of its simplicity.)

 

Eugene Hung

[fred]

 

Although I personally prefer a less convention-restrictive game at higher levels, I disagree with your statement.  I understand that you tempered your assertion with "possibly other changes", but if there's anything that needs fixing to attract people, it's hardly the restrictive convention environment.

 

Bridge is not going to attract many more people just because it allows fancy two-bids in tournaments.  Enough people have trouble understanding how to handle standard weak two-bids: see all the strong vs. weak two clarifications necessary on non-duplicate online bridge servers.  

 

No, bridge is only going to attract people if they feel they are having more fun playing it than other pursuits.  While you and I may have fun experimenting with fancy two-bids, from my experiences it is safe to say the vast majority of people do not.  Indeed, many of these people feel "cheated" when you wheel out a fancy convention/system that they do not understand how to defend against.  ("The book says you need 16-18 points to open 1NT!  How can he do so with 12-14?")

 

Implying that loosening convention restrictions will attract more people is misleading.  Yes, it will attract a few scientists who refuse to play tournaments as they currently stand, but for every scientist that would not have played, you probably drive away at least three simpler souls because "it's too complicated", "it's unfamiliar", or "they're cheating".  The ACBL has a difficult task, trying to satisfy the die-hards like us while retaining the near-kitchen-bridge player that finds transfers confusing.   I don't envy them this problem.

 

Bottom line: I support an environment closer to "anything goes" at the highest levels, but I do not believe fixes to high-level bridge should be confused with fixing the problem of bridge's popularity.  Whenever one speaks of increasing popular appeal, one must pander to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.  Indeed, one could make a better case that restricting even more conventions would make the game more popular, because then it is simpler for the average person to understand!  (Note that the most popular sport in the world is soccer/football, primarily of its simplicity.)

 

Eugene Hung

 

I read a lot of bridge-related posts to public newsgroups and forums, but I must say that this is one of the best posts I have ever read!

 

In my view you are right on, Eugene :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest]

Sorry Fred, I disagree with this. We have some of the most liberal system regulations in the world here in Australia, and this does not seem to put people of at all. It is quite rare to find someone not playing multis and 2 suited openings, and the fact that there is exposure to these methods means that no one feels "cheated" or on unfamiliar territory.

 

What you will find happening is that young players will not be attracted to a game where they feel they are being stultified or overly restricted from playing experimental methods.

 

Interestingly enough we experimented with "no fear" events a few years ago and they were neve popular with anyone.

 

Note that I am not advocating a "free for all" at MPs or in club congresses, but surely in 14 board+ Imp events virtually everything should be allowed.

 

Cheers

Ron Lel

[hrothgar]

...

If there's anything that needs fixing to attract people, it's hardly the restrictive convention environment.

 

Bridge is not going to attract many more people just because it allows fancy two-bids in tournaments.  Enough people have trouble understanding how to handle standard weak two-bids: see all the strong vs. weak two clarifications necessary on non-duplicate online bridge servers.  

 

...

 

many of these people feel "cheated" when you wheel out a fancy convention/system that they do not understand how to defend against.  ("The book says you need 16-18 points to open 1NT!  How can he do so with 12-14?")

 

...

 

Whenever one speaks of increasing popular appeal, one must pander to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.  Indeed, one could make a better case that restricting even more conventions would make the game more popular, because then it is simpler for the average person to understand!  

Eugene Hung

 

In this case, as you yourself point out, the lowest common denominator finds weak 2 bids and 12-14 NT openings too complicated to handle.

 

I know that its unpopular to say this, but currently bridge enjoys an extremely artificial popularity.  The vast majority of bridge players in North America learned the game 40+ years ago, before cheap television, before VCRs, before the Internet, and before inexpensive travel.  Today, its much more difficult to bring in the masses.  Indeed, I think that it would be a major mistake to do so.

 

Bridge is transitioning to a niche activity.  There is a subset of the general population who appreciate the game for its complexity.   The future of the game is ensuring that those players retain interest, because the rest of the population is going to be off playing X-Box and watching Joe Millionaire.  You can dumb down the game all you want, but you're not going to get them back.

 

The ACBL has spent the last 20 years chasing a vanishing demographic base with terrifying effects on its membership.  The bridge organizations that are having the greatest success growing their membership base have recognized the need to refocus their recruiting efforts.

[keylime]

Here here to my Aussie friends for their attempts to help open the game up...I firmly believe that the ACBL's restrictive practices with regards to the GCC is partly due to the age of the membership. If memory serves, the average age of a member in the ACBL is near 70. This is an alarming trend - you have your 50 percentile playing bridge with Goren/SAYC methods (serious ones with 2/1 of course). I can't remember in all of my travels when outside of the U.S., Goren or SAYC was even used --

 

The game in Europe is growing due to the efforts of some countries to integrate bridge in their schools, and the well written and enforced regulations (Orange Book is a great example) ensure an exact and nearly level playing field. Here, we're losing members daily, either by natural causes, or with a growing many, disillusionment over the rising costs of administration, having too little/much system treatments allowed/disallowed, and directors that do not know the basics to properly direct any game (have had three different directors, two tournament grade, tell me that a weak 2 diamond bid showing an unspecified major is allowed under the GCC --- WRONG [allowed in Mid-Chart and up only]).

 

The ACBL must therefore pursue I feel two courses. First, the talk about relaxed rules bridge should be shaped into a forum (a survey perhaps) to see the merits and applications to help protect those players that enjoy the game for the fun of it (and purists as well). And, they must vigorously cater to the youth and the ABA -- inclusion and diversity are strengths. However, the membership too has a responsibility --- to mentor, nurture, and grow the I/N at their respected clubs, even if it's ONE person.

 

Case in point: Lawton, OK. Lawton is a small town, with Fort Sill it's major cash generator. It's nearest neighbors are Wichita Falls, TX (another military town) about 45 minutes south, and Oklahoma City, OK, about 90 minutes NNE. Thusly its people within the city limits are its population to draw bridge players from. What is amazing about this town is the number of non life masters that they are growing into that club - last time I was there, 3 and a half tables full of C players! Why was this the case -- because the membership took an active approach to recruit, teach, and grow those players into better players. Their yearly sectional is always a diamond to be discovered. I have many fond memories of that club.

 

However, on the flip side: Oklahoma City, OK. This is the state capital, a sizeable metro area, a diverse economy. The club not only did not attempt to offer mentoring, but did not even strat hardly any of the games with a C flight unless it was required to. Also, the club was very static and rigid in their views and beliefs - I was frowned upon because I played Precision and because I was successful at it. The 2 sectionals and 1 regional are overpriced, undersupported by the membership, and chaotic at best.

 

Which club will survive? Easy - Lawton will because they realized that we as members must reach out to others to show the numerous merits and joys this game has. Part of that evolution is allowing some, not all, but some treatments that many take as "run of the mill" and allowing them to be used in regular play. Do I want to see relay systems allowed in the GCC? No. Do I want to see desturctive treatments like the Wilkosz 2D opening? No. Would I like to see transfer preempts put back unto the GCC? Yes.

 

Now that I've launched into a sort of diatribe, I'll get some oxygen now... :)

[eyhung]

Perhaps I was misunderstood.  I am not saying the only way to increase the game's popularity is to dumb it down.  I am saying that given general human nature, increasing complexity usually leads to a decrease in popularity.  Thus, "complicating" bridge is unlikely to fix the problem of popularizing bridge at lower-levels (which was the argument I was criticizing).  Note that the examples Dwayne cited do not really focus on the freedom of convention use -- I doubt any of those I/Ns care about being able to play transfer preempts -- but on the genial and friendly atmosphere.

 

In fact, I agree that the <i>best</i> way to "grow" membership is to focus on schools (I myself am still in school), and I/N programs.   Here one can foster a good attitude: where "challenge" equates to "fun", because, ultimately, people play games for "fun" (be it the fun of learning, competition, or winning).  But in a league composed mostly of members who place a higher premium on masterpoints than skill, and where stratified events are the norm rather than the exception, any argument that reducing convention restrictions will lead to increased member growth seems far-fetched.  

 

The majority of ACBL members, even those beyond the "kitchen-bridge" stage, would rather win masterpoints in a sandbox environment than lose in an open one.  To paraphrase Mencken, the members of the ACBL know what they want, and they're getting it, good and hard.  This is an attitude problem, not a convention-based problem, and it can only be fixed through education and social pressure, not by ramming more conventions down people's throats.

 

Eugene Hung

[keylime]

Another facet to consider to - the stratification plan is constantly brought into question by the "old-timers" that remember the days when .02 and .03 masterpoint awards were the norm. Is the stratification devaluing the masterpoints required to make LM? NO.

 

Making Life Master these days, unless you have significant assets is not easy at all. First of all, not every bridge club have I/N programs, and the ones that do, some do not have it regularly. I was fortunate to be close to a club that has a vibrant I/N program that continues to pursue the growth of players to help stabilize and assure the club's future.

 

Secondly, and this can not be understated, each player grows at his or her pace, and this can cause problems for mentoring programs that are in place. A great case in point is myself. I've played three years, but have advanced so far is such a short period of time that I've outgrown the I/N program, and I cause a problem when it comes to mentoring - how do you have one when you've learned numerous systems, conventions, treatments AND have practiced numerous amounts of hand to solidify your declaring and defensive skills? I find myself in a misfitting situation, and I can not hide the sadness I have knowing that my home club doesn't quite know what to do with me just yet. I fear that I might have to go it alone, and I do not at all want to do that --- the experience of my elders is sought strongly by me.

 

Thirdly, and really the limiting factor, cost. It cost A LOT of money to make Life Master. You have your membership and card fees, then your sizeable travel costs (hotels, food, parking, airfare, rental, etc. et al), and then those books and private lessons. That's thousands upon thousands of dollars, and in this economy not many of us have that kind of money. The lack of financial means will prevent many from acheiving or improving their LM/BLM status.

 

Leave the strating the way it is. It does work, it protects the majority of the players, and yes, flight A/X players do win, and do it regularly because of their enhanced skills.

[eyhung]

Dwayne --

 

First you say we need to introduce conventions such as Multi and Muiderberg to the GCC to attract players, and then you say we need to protect the I/N players with stratified events.   Make up your mind.  Either more challenge is good for the game's popularity, or more challenge is bad.  With the current environment, I believe people think more challenge is bad.  

 

Now, I personally would love to have a bidding free-for-all at all levels, but I don't think it would be very popular.  From a similar point of view, I would love to reduce the awards for stratified events, but I know that would be unpopular.  The ACBL is composed of people of many creeds and religions, but most share a common worship of the masterpoint and the rank of Life Master.  If you disagree, take a look at the demographics of ACBL masterpoint holdings (http://www.acbl.org/misc/mbmp.htm).  One of the largest clumps is from 300-400.  Gee, I wonder why?  They're not playing for the challenge.  They're playing for the prestige of "Life Master"!

 

You say that old-timers question stratification.  I am hardly an old-timer -- I am the same age as you -- and yet I detest the overgenerous compensation given in stratified events (and bracketed KOs).  Why?  Because it is theoretically possible to become a LM without ever playing well against one!  To support my views, around once a year, the ACBL Bulletin publishes a letter to the editor complaining about how bracketing is screwed up because they got a team of Life Masters in their bracket, or something similar.  It's as if they expect masterpoints to be handed out on a plate.  That attitude is not shared by everyone, but I believe it is shared by a large portion of the ACBL membership.  I myself do not believe that everyone deserves to be a LM with minimal expense/effort/skill.  But I recognize I am in the minority.  

 

By the way, you argue that the masterpoint/LM rank  has not been cheapened from stratification.  From that same demographic listing, of the 166000 ACBL members, including the large segment with less than a masterpoint (the people who try and decide they don't like duplicate bridge), 73000 are life masters.  That's 44%, nearly half.  I don't know what the ratio was in the "old days", but I'm pretty sure it was not near half.  What has been the big change in bridge events since the Fifties?  Stratified events and bigger masterpoint awards.  So yes, I do believe stratification is a leading cause of the cheapened masterpoint.

 

In conclusion, the ACBL can either foster an environment where people play the game for the challenge of it (Hrothgar's ideal, where the removal of convention restrictions and far lesser awards in stratified events makes sense), or foster an environment that maximizes masterpoint awards.  They have gone the second route, and since that route makes them the most short-term money, I don't blame them, and thus, I don't blame them for restricting the GCC to what it is now, or for handing out significant masterpoints for placing 1st out of 3 in flight C with a 41% game.  I would personally prefer they didn't, but it wouldn't be popular.

 

Eugene Hung

[keylime]

Eugene if you read my posting carefully I am articulating a slightly different tangent. Stratification has served to perserve the interest of the majority of players, and I disagree strongly that it has cheapened the achieving of LM for the reasons I've outlined above. I think that the masterpoint allotments for certain events are suspect (seems to be an onus on KO's but I might be incorrect), but the concept is sound.

 

We do need to protect the I/N from those "specialized" treatments because they have not yet matured as players to adequately defend against them. In an open game, that's different though - a relaxed approach is merited and welcomed here. However I do like the concept of "relaxed rules" bridge for that reason - it'll allow control of the game and a congenial atmosphere that will retain and hopefully grow the membership.

 

I do agree with you though that many players in the ACBL solely use the total of your masterpoints as the deciding factor of your bridge playing acumen. This is an outdated approach. I would love to see the ACBL migrate over to an index rating or discount masterpoints owned after a certain period of time has elapsed. This I feel would more accurately portrait the quality of people and might help in partnership making at regionals and nationals, which at times can be quite hair raising... :)

 

Furthermore, many it seems once they achieve LM either stop going to the tourneys or stop playing in general. The reasons are sane and rational - they've gained their "degree" in bridge and maybe the challenge is over for them. Also, though, as you must readily admit, many LM's are of age, so that certain percentile is changing constantly with the additions and deletions due to death.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a mentality that masterpoints are to be given on a plate, and I don't like the concept of earning points for a 41% game (which has occurred to me recently). I'd like to see the ACBL raise the minimum percentage to at least 45% to reduce the chances of getting perceived "charity" points.

 

Maybe the whole masterpoint plan itself is faulty and needs an evolution - that I don't know. All I can say is our up and coming players deserve protection, and for the most part, the NABC's I/N program is run solidly and soundly every national. However to regenerate interest in the game...that is a difficult task that lies before the ACBL. The game is growing, but only in pockets.

 

My last thought for now...I can see why partnership chairs have such a difficult time matching players up. I have an interesting story relating to that...

[eyhung]

Dwayne --

 

Maybe we do agree.  If you read what I was saying in my last post, I emphasized I disliked the abundance of masterpoints given in stratified events, not necessarily stratified pairs as an event in itself.  I think stratified events and even bracketed KOs are okay once in awhile, but they have proliferated to become the norm rather than the exception so that it is feasible to make LM without playing LMs.  Indeed, there are few open pairs options at my local regionals, and I have yet to see an open knockout besides the Vanderbilt.  

 

Why the complete disappearance of open events?  Because people don't think they can get as many masterpoints, and so turnout is low until they wait for their masterpoints at the stratified pairs till.  Open games clearly increase the challenge of obtaining masterpoints, and hence their value, but people have voted with their wallets that they do not want to see that.

 

Eugene

[keylime]

What I've failed to understand is why so many people gravitate to the knockouts, besides the reasoning of playing with one's peers. And if you think about it, often, unless you play in a middle and up bracket, the open pairs have more opportunity of gaining more points!

 

There is admittedly an emphasis on team-of-four competition - the Open Pairs are rarely given any thought while anything team oriented is given a lot of press.

[alanb]

There should be room for all.  There are lots of restricted play events at any tournament - 99er games, 199er games, 299er - it doesn't seem too much too ask that there be a few crumbs thrown to those of us who are at the other end of the spectrum of bidding experimentation.  

 

Defining an 'Open' side game as meaning Mid-Chart would not drive any players away from the game.  I would love the opportunity to wheel out my whole bidding system once in a while against like-minded folk.