Compliments to Hrothgar

[Chamaco]

Compliments to Richard (Hrothgar) !

 

Quoting the following article:

 

"Signs of life in ACBL ?

 

Richard Willey, a bright young bridge player, has just announced he will battle for the next ACBL presidentship.

Richard has long been known for his fights against any form of bidding limitations, as well as his involvement in the enforcement of ethical principles.

Willey has declared: "It is time to shake a bridge world where the power is concentrated in a few hands. Our aim is to popularize a new concept of the game, where the methods allowed and rejected will not be a private issue decided by a few folks, but rather a decision based on the participation of all the members!".

 

The news of Willey's project has quickly spread through the bridge world.

Some comments:

 

Ben Riddles:"That's great: finally I will be able to play in ACBL-land my meta-preempts: 3 clubs as an odd number of cards in spades (1-3-5-7-9-11-13), and 3 diamond as an even number of spades (0-2-4-6-8-10-12). Misho likes this, although the ZAR evaluation varies quite a lot. I will run some simulations and post a 13 KB thread on this"

 

Ron Lel:"Having 2 bottles of 1943 Dom Perignon opened for you Richard. Too bad you prefer beer, I'll have to get drunk alone."

 

Frederick Staelens: "I am happy for the US bridge players and for myself. He will have less time to torture me with all those relays: I never understand whether he has 6=3=3=1 or 7=5=1=0"

 

Roland Wald:"I am pretty sure he will win: anyone for a 2-Coke bet ?"

 

Phil Clayton:"The best news in bridge after the election of Schwarzenegger"

 

Slothy: "The second best news in bridge. The very best would have been the election of a pretty woman, but so goes life"

 

 

 

Quoted from the:

Bridgeguy's site

[Free]

Frederick Staelens: "I am happy for the US bridge players and for myself. He will have less time to torture me with all those relays: I never understand whether he heas 6=3=3=1 or 7=5=1=0"

HAHA, I never said that, I just knew you were joking B) Nice try!! :D

 

Seems like you know a lot of the posters here quite well :rolleyes:

[Gerben42]

Great post Mauro!

 

 

Happy April Fools day!

 

[joker_gib]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

 

Well done !!

 

Alain

[MickyB]

Oh for this to be true :rolleyes: giving you any ideas Richard? B)

[hotShot]

Isn't is sad, that all those good news today, will be forgotten tomorrow?

 

Nice try Mauro

[Fluffy]

Nice one, would be nice to see some more like this.

[hrothgar]

What makes this truly amusing is that I have, on occasion considered applying for the position of CEO of the ACBL. (The "Presidency" is a largely cerimonial and highly political position).

 

From my perspective, the major "task" facing the ACBL CEO is positioning the organization for the inevitable hard landing when the membership crashes in a few years. I think that major costing measures and organizational changes are necessary.

 

I'd also very much like to see more efforts by the ACBL to encourage the development of electronic bridge. I genuinely believe that the ACBL's decision to sponsor "Learn to Play Bridge" was one of the best decisions that they have made in recent decades. I would VERY much like to see the organization making efforts to use computerized playing environments for the organization's major events. (The Vanderbilt, the Reisinger, that sort of thing)

 

With this said and done, I don't think that any bureocracy has ever presided over its own demise. I have little doubt that that any such application would be met with amusement or perhaps pity.

[ArcLight]

> fights against any form of bidding limitations, as well as his involvement in the enforcement of ethical principles.

Willey has declared: "It is time to shake a bridge world where the power is concentrated in a few hands. Our aim is to popularize a new concept of the game, where the methods allowed and rejected will not be a private issue decided by a few folks, but rather a decision based on the participation of all the members!".

 

I think this would be a shame. I enjoy the deductive reasoning aspect of the game of Bridge, not the new emphasis on language (which I admit is quite interesting). I also dislike destructive bidding and very frequent psyching. I would much rather play in a setting with a restricted set of bidding systems/conventions. I don't want to spend a great deal of time learning many systems and conventions and their defenses. I want to play and have fun, not to "win a game" at all costs.

 

There are people who love the language aspect of modern bridge and or the destructive bidding systems. They too should be able to play as they like and not be limited.

 

To force one venue upon both is wrong. The obvious solution is electronic bridge with two venues, a restricted and an open.

 

(But I get the impression (based on your insulting posts) that some of you "Open Venue" advocates would be more than happy to ruin the enjoyment of those preferring the closed venue. I would rather not deal with you at all, and certainly not encounter you socially).

 

 

3 other points

 

1) Not all new players would like an open venue. I think most would prefer the restricted venue. After they have played for a while they might choose to try out the chaos of the open venue. I've seen some claim that new bright players are discouraged by the restricted venues. I seriously doubt that.

 

2) It seems to me that some are fascinated with the language aspect (which admittedly is interesting) and tweaking their systems, when in reality it probably gives them only a very minor benefit at a great cost in time and memory effort. Are you able to count effectively and draw inferences? Are you strong declarers? Can you smell a squeeze on pard coming up? Or pard being end played?

 

I am relatively new to Bridge but I find the card game play far more appealing than the language aspect. If I were forced to constantly play against people using uncommon systems, it would take the fun out of it, and it would slow the game down, as I'd ask for detailed descriptions (at key points so as not to help them remember) of not just what the bid meant but what UI information they were given.

Ex: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ vs. 1♣ - 1♦ - DBL

The negative double shows 4 Spades, the 1♠ shows at least 5.

I'm sure that few would volunteer that information. Same for people using Bergen raises. How many are going to alert their opps that a 3♠ response to a 1♠ is not a limit raise, but instead shows 4 trumps and a weak hand?

That information should be available to all, not just the opponents. If they are using Precision an opponent may be misled as to the shape implied by certain bids.

 

In short, the users of the uncommon systems would have a large advantage, not because they are better players, but because their stronger opponents wouldn't be able to draw inferences. And if many pairs each spent time creating their intricate systems, wouldn't that imply that their opponents would need some time to analyze each of these systems they will play against?

I think its unfair, and its certainly un interesting to me.

 

3) Why not psych once every 5 hands? Or use a lot of destructive bidding? To liven the game?

Again, I think that would ruin the deductive aspect of the game.

 

Let each person choose their venue, just don't try and force your open venue on those who prefer a restricted venue.

If you like an unrestricted venue then play in the main room on BBO. Or use a rated open venue where your "skill" will show and you can work your way up and play against Zia.

[Free]

> fights against any form of bidding limitations, as well as his involvement in the enforcement of ethical principles.

Willey has declared: "It is time to shake a bridge world where the power is concentrated in a few hands. Our aim is to popularize a new concept of the game, where the methods allowed and rejected will not be a private issue decided by a few folks, but rather a decision based on the participation of all the members!".

 

I think this would be a shame. I enjoy the deductive reasoning aspect of the game of Bridge, not the new emphasis on language (which I admit is quite interesting). I also dislike destructive bidding and very frequent psyching. I would much rather play in a setting with a restricted set of bidding systems/conventions. I don't want to spend a great deal of time learning many systems and conventions and their defenses. I want to play and have fun, not to "win a game" at all costs.

 

There are people who love the language aspect of modern bridge and or the destructive bidding systems. They too should be able to play as they like and not be limited.

 

To force one venue upon both is wrong. The obvious solution is electronic bridge with two venues, a restricted and an open.

 

(But I get the impression (based on your insulting posts) that some of you "Open Venue" advocates would be more than happy to ruin the enjoyment of those preferring the closed venue. I would rather not deal with you at all, and certainly not encounter you socially).

 

 

3 other points

 

1) Not all new players would like an open venue. I think most would prefer the restricted venue. After they have played for a while they might choose to try out the chaos of the open venue. I've seen some claim that new bright players are discouraged by the restricted venues. I seriously doubt that.

 

2) It seems to me that some are fascinated with the language aspect (which admittedly is interesting) and tweaking their systems, when in reality it probably gives them only a very minor benefit at a great cost in time and memory effort. Are you able to count effectively and draw inferences? Are you strong declarers? Can you smell a squeeze on pard coming up? Or pard being end played?

 

I am relatively new to Bridge but I find the card game play far more appealing than the language aspect. If I were forced to constantly play against people using uncommon systems, it would take the fun out of it, and it would slow the game down, as I'd ask for detailed descriptions (at key points so as not to help them remember) of not just what the bid meant but what UI information they were given.

Ex: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ vs. 1♣ - 1♦ - DBL

The negative double shows 4 Spades, the 1♠ shows at least 5.

I'm sure that few would volunteer that information. Same for people using Bergen raises. How many are going to alert their opps that a 3♠ response to a 1♠ is not a limit raise, but instead shows 4 trumps and a weak hand?

That information should be available to all, not just the opponents. If they are using Precision an opponent may be misled as to the shape implied by certain bids.

 

In short, the users of the uncommon systems would have a large advantage, not because they are better players, but because their stronger opponents wouldn't be able to draw inferences. And if many pairs each spent time creating their intricate systems, wouldn't that imply that their opponents would need some time to analyze each of these systems they will play against?

I think its unfair, and its certainly un interesting to me.

 

3) Why not psych once every 5 hands? Or use a lot of destructive bidding? To liven the game?

Again, I think that would ruin the deductive aspect of the game.

 

Let each person choose their venue, just don't try and force your open venue on those who prefer a restricted venue.

If you like an unrestricted venue then play in the main room on BBO. Or use a rated open venue where your "skill" will show and you can work your way up and play against Zia.

Are you serious about this? ;)

[hrothgar]

I think this would be a shame.  I enjoy the deductive reasoning aspect of the game of Bridge, not the new emphasis on language (which I admit is quite interesting).  I also dislike destructive bidding and very frequent psyching.

I wish that I had your mighty deductive powers.

 

I might actually have a prayer of understanding whether or your contribution is the mother of all April Fool's posting.

 

I'm sure that your own profound reasoning skills allowed you to determine that Chamco's original posting was just such a jest...

[uday]

Just so there are no misunderstandings....

 

This thread was launched as an April 1st prank.

 

It is not to be assumed that Hrothgar is applying for any position at the ACBL.

[ArcLight]

>Just so there are no misunderstandings....

>This thread was launched as an April 1st prank.

> It is not to be assumed that Hrothgar is applying for any position at the ACBL

 

I realize that! I didn't fall just fall off the Turnip truck! :P

 

 

However, Hrothgar has in the past made similar posts, so I was indirectly responding to him (and others). I don't know where people presume to think that most players in the USA (ACBL) would welcome letting in all systems.

[pbleighton]

ArcLight writes:

"The negative double shows 4 Spades, the 1♠ shows at least 5.

I'm sure that few would volunteer that information. Same for people using Bergen raises. How many are going to alert their opps that a 3♠ response to a 1♠ is not a limit raise, but instead shows 4 trumps and a weak hand?

That information should be available to all, not just the opponents. If they are using Precision an opponent may be misled as to the shape implied by certain bids."

 

Using the ACBL as a frame of reference:

Negative doubles are not alertable by ACBL policy because they are very common, in fact almost all non-beginners play them as you describe.

The preemptive jump to 3 of a major (or minor for that matter) is alertable. People I know who play these (including me) alert these routinely.

Precision players (and I play some Precision) alert their 1D, 2C, and 2D bids routinely.

Where do you play bridge?

 

"There are people who love the language aspect of modern bridge and or the destructive bidding systems. They too should be able to play as they like and not be limited."

 

Where can I play non-limited tournament events in the ACBL?

 

Again, where do you play bridge?

 

You seem to know nothing of bridge in ACBL-land.

 

Peter

[ArcLight]

>Using the ACBL as a frame of reference:

Negative doubles are not alertable by ACBL policy because they are very common, in fact almost all non-beginners play them as you describe.

The preemptive jump to 3 of a major (or minor for that matter) is alertable. People I know who play these (including me) alert these routinely.

 

I've encountered numerous people who don't. I used the Negative double as an example. We can all draw inferences from its use as opposed to a new suit bid. Now imagine playing against people who use a different set of conventions. You could ask what a bid means, but you would no longer have the inference of what the lack of another bid means. The opponents (who are familiar with their system) would.

 

>Precision players (and I play some Precision) alert their 1D, 2C, and 2D bids routinely.

 

Good. Not everyone does.

 

>Where do you play bridge?

 

Here in BBO! :D

 

I routinely ask what opponents bids mean, even when I'm pretty sure, because frequently they don't mean what I think they do! 1♠ - 3♠. What doe sthe 3♠ bid mean if not using Bergen raises? In one case it was a 3 trump limit raise.

 

 

"There are people who love the language aspect of modern bridge and or the destructive bidding systems. They too should be able to play as they like and not be limited."

 

>Where can I play non-limited tournament events in the ACBL?

 

If you would bother reading what I wrote rather than what you imagined, you will see that I said those who want to play in an Open venue should be able to. No where did I say the ACBL currently has low level open venue events. From a business point of view, I suspect those open events would not be popular. Why not play on a website with a ranking system, so you can use the Meckwell convention card and after you win all the time, Zia will want to play with you. ;)

 

You can play in the nationals, right? :P

 

 

>Again, where do you play bridge?

 

Again, on BBO. (I'd ask where you play, but I'm really not interested)

 

 

>You seem to know nothing of bridge in ACBL-land.

 

You seem unable to read, as I never wrote that the ACBL has an open venue. I was pointing out how I (and probably the majority of ACBL members) would prefer playing in a restricted venue. Had you bothered to read my post, you would see that I wrote that those who favor an open venue should also have a place to play. And I favor the idea of an electronic forum, so both parties are satisfied.

[Elianna]

Ex: 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ vs. 1♣ - 1♦ - DBL

The negative double shows 4 Spades, the 1♠ shows at least 5.

I'm sure that few would volunteer that information.

Actually, I think that standard is that (specifically over the sequence 1♣-(1♦)), 1♠ still shows just 4+ (over 1♣-(1♥) it would show 5+) because that way the negative double can show 4-4 (or better, of course) in BOTH majors.

 

What I see frequently unalerted is negative free bids, and those are usually done by people who don't know that they're alertable, rather than those trying to hide their agreements.

 

I find that people that play unusual systems are usually so proud of their systems, and what everything shows, that they will happily alert and explain (maybe some take a bit more nudging, though). I like playing against precision players that have bids that completely describe their shape, HCP, etc, it gives partner no excuse for not being able to picture declarer's hand! :P

[awm]

Since it seems to be a topic of discussion, I'd like to mention my own pet peeve with acbl. While I'd personally like a less restricted environment for systems/conventions, I can understand why some people would rather avoid this.

 

The issue that bothers me is, the rules about systems/methods are very vague, hard to understand, and erratically enforced. They also seem to permit some methods that are extremely nonstandard and hard to defend against, while disallowing some methods that are simple and easy to defend. Some examples:

 

ACBL rules state that "relay systems" are not allowed. However, I've played against pairs where the 2♣ response to one of a major was game forcing and started relays. Multiple (national-level) tournament directors have assured me that this is general chart.

 

ACBL rules state that a 1NT response to one of a major which "guarantees invitational or better values" is not allowed. However, I've played against a pair who used 1NT response to 1♠ showing "either invitational or better values, or a weak hand with hearts," stated that the invitational hand was more than 95% of the time, and proceeded to relay after opener's rebid (presumably after opener's rebid, 3♥ is weak with hearts, and the minimum bid started relays). Another pair played 1NT response "always 9+ points" and multiple tournament directors ruled that this was okay because "they play precision and could pass with 8 points."

 

The ACBL mid-chart doesn't allow "non-game-forcing" relay systems, however using the minimum response to an opening as "invitational+ relay" seems to be okay as long as there's no second relay bid unless the auction is forcing to game (i.e. opener's first step shows a minimum, then if responder relays again it's game forcing).

 

The ACBL mid-chart allows multi, but no one I've talked to can figure out whether Wilkosz 2♦ is allowed or not.

 

On the other hand, the acbl general chart does not allow kaplan inversion (switching the meanings of 1♠/1NT responses to 1♥) nor does it allow a 2♣ response to a major which shows either invitational+ raise or clubs (as played in Ambra, or by Inquiry).

 

The acbl general chart DOES allow the following opening scheme:

 

1♣ = 10+ points with clubs, or canape with 4 clubs and a longer major, or takeout double of clubs (support for all three other suits) or various strong hands

1♦ = 10+ points with diamonds, or canape with 4 diamonds and a longer major, or takeout double of diamonds (support for other three suits) or various strong hands

1♥ = 4 hearts and a longer minor with 8-17 points

1♠ = 4 spades and a longer minor with 8-17 points

1NT = balanced, 8-10 points OR 15-17 points

 

It seems hard to believe to me that the above highly artificial minor suit openings, combined with canape, two-way notrump, and very light openings, is deemed legal and "easy to defend against" for the masses, whereas something like Kaplan inversion or drury 2♣ opposite a first seat opener is deemed illegal.

[pclayton]

I recently wrote to Memphis about the legality of Namyats overcalls and was told they are mid-chart. Fair enough. I also spelled out the aspects of Overcall Structure, including 1N overcall for takeout, Power Doubles and Roman Jumps, and the reason why a Namyats Overcall would be helpful.

 

The person writing back (and this person shall remain nameless) told me that "once I (Phil) think about it"..."a double promising a balanced hand and 15+ HCP....is, .......totally unplayable (emphasis added)".

 

Huh? ;) :P

 

Ayotallah's Correct Bidding Lessons lives on.

[pbleighton]

ArcLight writes:

 

"Had you bothered to read my post, you would see that I wrote that those who favor an open venue should also have a place to play. And I favor the idea of an electronic forum, so both parties are satisfied."

 

I did read your post, which included:

"(But I get the impression (based on your insulting posts) that some of you "Open Venue" advocates would be more than happy to ruin the enjoyment of those preferring the closed venue. I would rather not deal with you at all, and certainly not encounter you socially)."

 

You gave the game away.

 

I agree with you on one thing, though. You play pretty much only online, as I suspected. Alerting standards online are dreadful (this is true of the main lobby, I haven't bothered with the tournaments). However, this is not a "closed venue" versus "open venue" issue. It's a result of cyberspace enabling laziness and unsportmanlike behavior. If you start playing ftf bridge, you will find alerting behavior much more to your liking. I agree with Elianna that those who play unusual systems are particularly attentive to alerting requirements.

 

As to national level events, I suspect our chances of winning one are equal:

 

Zero :P

 

Peter

[awm]

To continue along the lines of Phil's post, some funny experiences with acbl:

 

(1) At one point one of my opponents opened a strong (forcing) two bid in fourth seat. This was not alerted. There was no damage on the hand, but afterwards I asked a director the following question. "It seems like there are three possible meanings for a two bid in fourth seat: forcing, intermediate (but NF), and weak. Which, if any of these, would be alertable?" The director's response was that forcing is alertable, intermediate is not, and weak is "unplayable." I mentioned that I in fact play weak jumps in fourth seat in a number of partnerships, to which the director replied, "well call me back when it comes up."

 

(2) After someone opened strong 2♣ against me with very few points, I asked (via email) what qualified as a psych of a 2♣ opening. I was sent a reply from the acbl head director, with numerous examples, explaining what was a psych and what was not. About a month later, another 2♣ strong was opened against me, with EXACTLY one of the hands listed as a psych in my email (well okay, actually opener had diamonds instead of spades, but otherwise the hand was the same -- nine solid in a suit and nothing else). Not only did the director rule against me (it's not a psych) but when I appealed with the letter from acbl head director in hand, the committee gave me an appeal without merit penalty.

 

(3) During a team game, one of my opponents opened a five-five seven count against me in third seat. When questioned about this after the hand, it became clear that this opening was by agreement and not a psych or tactical bid -- they play "rule of twenty" and routinely add a king to their hands in third seat. When I asked the acbl whether this was allowed (acbl disallows openings with less than 8 hcp at the one level) I was told that "we all open this hand" and that a similar opening would not be allowed in first seat. When I asked what the rules were about third seat openings and how they differ from first/second seat (the convention charts make no mention of seat in this situation), I was told that the rules regarding legal openings in 1st and 3rd chairs are EXACTLY THE SAME. Huh?

 

Anyways, I just think it would be nice to see a clear and consistant policy that everyone can understand and directors can enforce. I certainly agree that really weird systems should probably be disallowed except in long KO matches -- it's unreasonable to have to come up with a defense to such things in the midst of a pairs game. And I can see that some people would want to draw the lines somewhat differently than I would.

[the hog]

Quote Arclight

 

"However, Hrothgar has in the past made similar posts, so I was indirectly responding to him (and others). I don't know where people presume to think that most players in the USA (ACBL) would welcome letting in all systems. "

 

Oh dear, someone else who thinks the USA is the centre of the universe.

Incidentally Arclight, even in Nationals systems are heavily restricted.

 

PS Great post Mauro. The 1943 Doms very superb!!

[ArcLight]

>Oh dear, someone else who thinks the USA is the centre of the universe.

 

Its not? Since when?

:lol:

 

 

The original topic was ACBL which last time I checked was NOT the Australian Contract Bridge League! :D

[ArcLight]

>. I also spelled out the aspects of Overcall Structure, including 1N overcall for takeout, Power Doubles and Roman Jumps, and the reason why a Namyats Overcall would be helpful.

 

What is a Power Double? Is it the same as a 1 NT overcall in this case?

Interchanging 1NT overcall with a Take out double?

 

What is the benefit?

 

 

 

PS Peter, I didn't give the game away, I don't want to play in the Open venue, and shouldn't be forced to. If you had your way, all venues would be completely open and those of us who don't like that wouldn't enjoy playing.

 

You don't have to play in US Nationals, you can play in European Nationals. :lol:

[pbleighton]

ArcLight writes:

 

"PS Peter, I didn't give the game away, I don't want to play in the Open venue, and shouldn't be forced to. If you had your way, all venues would be completely open and those of us who don't like that wouldn't enjoy playing."

 

You gave the game away again, when you state as a fact that I think that you should be forced to play in an Open venue. I have no objections to restricted events. I do think that all sectional and regional tournaments should have system-unrestricted (or at least Mid-Chart) events available, along with more restricted events. Let people choose.

 

At least where I play, the weekend events I am able to play in (Open Pairs and Swiss Teams) are always GCC (HIGHLY restrictive). You will find some regions allowing Mid Chart, but ONLY in Knockout Teams in regionals (and there usually only in the top bracket), which start during the week, and are therefore unavailable to a lot of players, including me.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Let each person choose their venue, just don't try and force your open venue on those who prefer a restricted venue. If you like an unrestricted venue then play in the main room on BBO.

Odd Comment.

 

I've always advocated that players should have the option to establish whatever type of playing environment that they want. I have absolutely no interest in forcing you to compete in an "open" playing environment. Feel free to establish your own little ghetto where you and your coherts can play whatever card you want...

 

With this said and done, judging from your post, it seems as if you would prefer a playing environment in which eveyone is playing the same bidding system. I've seen any number of attempts to establish restricted tournaments in which everyone was required to play a single, simple system. There was the original Standard American Yellow Card, Classic Bridge, all sorts of collosal flops...

 

These attempts failed for a very simple reason - Lot of people want to restrict the convention, but all of them want to ban the stuff that the other folks play...

 

But please, PLEASE, feel free to try again. I'll even wish you success: Because I have just as little interest in playing against you as you do against me...