Illegal NT opening

[blackshoe]

First you would have to define "complete disclosure". The laws define what it is pretty well, but then RAs come up with procedures that aren't complete disclosure (alerts, announcements), leaving "complete disclosure" for when somebody asks — and then players tend to be parsimonious. I would agree that the solution is to ensure that they aren't parsimonious, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

[mycroft]

That is a position. One that many have been putting forward, and it certainly has adherents. There's even a big BW thread on it right now.

 

But the alternative - "no further constraints" - also "favour some players" while "disfavor[ing] other players" - in this case, those that don't put in the time to, for instance, create and memorize defences to fert 1♦-2♣ for the one game a year they play against it. Which 99% of the top of the bridge world says "isn't bridge", and 99.999+% of bridge players will never do, even if needed.

 

Now again, "opening 1NT with a singleton spot card" - provided you are very careful in explaining it, which I bet wouldn't often happen - is nowhere near "forcing pass opening systems". But again, wherever you draw the line - even "nowhere" - is going to be wrong for somebody.

 

For me, bridge is a game of doing your best within the limits provided - including "by my RA". Whether I like the limits or not.

[axman]

That is a position. One that many have been putting forward, and it certainly has adherents. There's even a big BW thread on it right now.

 

But the alternative - "no further constraints" - also "favour some players" while "disfavor[ing] other players" - in this case, those that don't put in the time to, for instance, create and memorize defences to fert 1♦-2♣ for the one game a year they play against it. Which 99% of the top of the bridge world says "isn't bridge", and 99.999+% of bridge players will never do, even if needed.

 

Now again, "opening 1NT with a singleton spot card" - provided you are very careful in explaining it, which I bet wouldn't often happen - is nowhere near "forcing pass opening systems". But again, wherever you draw the line - even "nowhere" - is going to be wrong for somebody.

 

For me, bridge is a game of doing your best within the limits provided - including "by my RA". Whether I like the limits or not.

 

As David Burn opines, Bridge is not a very good game. In that vein a reason it is not a very good game, indeed a bad game is that its foundation does not rest on justice. For instance the rules reward greatly achievements that are pianola while punishing achievements that are difficult. As an example it is far easier to successfully arrive at a contract of 4S because there are more bidding stets to arrive safely and at 10 tricks it is easier to fulfill- than say 5C which needs more muscle (less likely to hold) and has comparatively fewer bidding steps available to arrive safely. And for this difference in difficulty the reward is punishment on the recap sheet.

 

If the hierarchy of denominations were corrected to NT being the lowest (for instance) the 3N game would become very difficult to find with so few bidding steps and might in fact in practice more often consume so many bidding steps to go past 3N to 4N. thus the player better earns his superior score. Certainly, players being practical will more often bash 3N giving defenders a better run for their money.

 

Combined with a correction of L77 scoring table by switching tricks scores of majors with the minors would better align scoring with justice. The easier to arrive at majors would be rewarded more in line with their lower difficulty and conversely the minors would be rewarded more in line with their higher difficulty. Again more often creating opportunities for defenders to set contracts.

 

A consequence of the justice principle is that self interest likely will funnel players to mostly natural bidding to save bidding steps. Artificial becomes too expensive and the immense variety that today is difficult to disclose correctly turns into something manageable that players more likely will satisfy even if there were no convention licensing. I think it is justice that such a free rein will prove bidding systems successes or failures so that the market will quickly kill off the junk further reducing brain drain. The point I am making is that the reason something is done ought to be a good reason (justice) rather than trying to make something work by twisting it into something it was not (licensing for instance) meant to be.

[mycroft]

Possibly. A better constructed scoring table would change the incentives and thus change the bidding systems and styles. And lead to other challenges, of course.

 

The issue I have with "no artificial restrictions"/"reconfigure the game to be just, and things will 'just' work the way we want" is that I can not see any way to rebuild the game such that "present the opponents with a challenge that, while inferior, requires so much time or effort to solve that 99% of players just won't, and win that way" does not become a viable strategy.

 

Not that I'm a fan of the homogeneous bidding environments - anybody regularly on the forums should know that - but push it too far and the "why do people not just play bridge, rather than bamboozling us" players do actually stop coming to games where "that pair" might show up; push it farther than that and the think-they're-experts who already say "you just play this to win by confusion, not because it's good" (intended inference: "it won't work against us, just 'those other players' I want you to think I care about"; actual inference "of course, *we* can deal with this, but you're randomizing the results in ways that minimize the effect of 'skill' - you know, what we're better at than you") start succeeding in their complaints and either flock to another game or just leave, rather than putting in the time to learn how to beat that inferior, artificial, non-standard, confusing system.

 

And if I'm wrong here, after everybody puts in the time to beat the system du jour, Sam Dinkin just creates another one that attacks a different axis. Much of your patient effort to learn to defend "system I" is now wasted, because now you have to beat "system J". (Obviously, meta-agreements help. Obviously, there's a way to do this. Obviously, the people will know their system better than you will know your defence.)

 

And it might be a better game. It probably would be a better game. But the problem with bridge isn't that it's not a good game. The problem is that players are leaving (or dying) faster than new players are coming in. I agree, we'd get more younger players with fewer restrictions, especially players that would be better than average. But every pair that we get would drive out tables of the "newer bridge players" that are retirees getting back into this thing they enjoyed back then. Is it really a better game if nobody plays it? Well, I (used to) play Advanced Squad Leader. What that means as an answer to the question I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.