Bermuda Bowl

[the hog]

I don't know what others think, but to me this logic is absurd. The BB is one of the premier events of Bridge. I would expect that anyone playing in this should have the nous and the application to develop defences to Hums and Brown sticker conventions. After all we can play Hums here in teams events of 14+ board matches and even the lols seem to cope.

BUT THEY DO NOT.

 

I assume if the top 100 ranked world class players bitched they could change this.

Based on my reading of usa, UK and Aust bridge magazines..I see no major complaints. Minor yes, Major NO.

 

If you have a petiion signed by the top 75 out of top 200 WBF ranked players...broadcast it. Otherwise I can only assume this is a nonissue.

 

Out of the dues paying members this is really a nonissue.

Are you saying that they don't have the nous, Mike? That is a bit of an indictment on the players in the BB. Perhaps some don't; I would suspect that the vast majority do.

 

Many of the top 100 players don't want to change the status quo. Haven't you taken notice of the many posts made by Richard, (Hrothgar), where he commented on the active resistance to change shown by some of the top pros - primarily, but not solely American. Any why does this resistance exit? Purely and simply to protect clients and sponsors in major events. Also while the likes of Damiani et al are around there is a good deal of inertia to change. You won't hear any complaints in Oz precisely BECAUSE WE CAN play Hums in team matches of 14 boards +, even in many club events.

 

Quote

"Out of the dues paying members this is really a nonissue (sic)."

I have no idea what on earth this statement means. If it means that for the ordinary paying member this is a non issue, then "yes" I agree, so what? Apart from a few weak sponsors I have yet to see an ordinary member playing in the BB, so what is your point?

[Walddk]

My personal opinion is that even if HUM systems were allowed in the round-robin, you would not see many pairs using them, which perhaps would be an argument for not prohibit HUM.

 

If the deadline for submitting HUM systems is say 2 months, there is no reason why you should not have time to make a proper defence, a defence you are even allowed to bring to the table in writing. You don't have to remember anything by heart.

 

The only thing you need to make sure of is that all participating teams are known 2 months prior to the event. Anyway, my guess is that it would be a minor problem, because very few pairs play HUM systems, and I doubt that many more would even if those systems were allowed in the preliminary rounds.

 

Roland

[the hog]

My personal opinion is that even if HUM systems were allowed in the round-robin, you would not see many pairs using them, which perhaps would be an argument for not prohibit HUM.

 

If the deadline for submitting HUM systems is say 2 months, there is no reason why you should not have time to make a proper defence, a defence you are even allowed to bring to the table in writing. You don't have to remember anything by heart.

 

The only thing you need to make sure of is that all participating teams are known 2 months prior to the event. Anyway, my guess is that it would be a minor problem, because very few pairs play HUM systems, and I doubt that many more would even if those systems were allowed in the preliminary rounds.

 

Roland

Hmm, (pun intended), this is the second successive post of yours with which I have agreed. A few Polish, Aussie, Swedish, NZ pairs might use hums and that would be about it. You probably don't even need different defences to different Hum systems eg the Swedes developed a nice structure called "Anti Nonsens" which works well and is generic. Two months is more than enough preparation time, though no doubt some would still complain.

 

I well remember complaints on rgb some years ago by Larry Cohen where he stated that Polish Club of all things was too difficult to prepare a defence against. For Heaven's sake!!

[Walddk]

From a spectator perspective it is no doubt a good thing that people don't play anything too fancy, especially if the commentators are too "lazy" to go through the systems in advance, or even look them up while play is in progress. No offence intended, because ....

 

You can only ask that much from unpaid volunteers who spend hundreds of hours week after week in order to make vugraph broadcasts a little more colourful. It's a completely different matter if you were an on site commentator where fees are involved.

 

Our 138 volunteer commentators do a great job as it is, some more often than others. They also have a living to attend to, but this is probably a topic for another forum here.

 

Roland

[DrTodd13]

Those who like to play weird systems like to watch weird systems. Those who don't like to play weird systems don't like to watch them. So, speak for yourself. I would be more likely to watch if somebody was using a HUM. Admittedly, it would be better to have somebody that knew what the bids meant and could tell us but if the scope of commentator were expanded to any of the number of systems fanatics around then you'd always have somebody available to help with commentary.

[Elianna]

Those who don't like to play weird systems don't like to watch them.

That's not necessarily accurate. I do not like playing weird systems, but I actually like watching them, provided that the vugraph operator has access to the players' notes (the ones that they write when alerting bids) so that we get an explanation.

 

It's nice if the commentators know the system, but not necessary to me.

[Walddk]

Those who like to play weird systems like to watch weird systems. Those who don't like to play weird systems don't like to watch them. So, speak for yourself. I would be more likely to watch if somebody was using a HUM. Admittedly, it would be better to have somebody that knew what the bids meant and could tell us but if the scope of commentator were expanded to any of the number of systems fanatics around then you'd always have somebody available to help with commentary.

I do indeed speak for myself, but I also believe that you belong to the tiny minority, Todd. We haven't made a survey, but rest assured that very few among our spectators would welcome HUM systems.

 

We even have very capable commentators who refuse to be there if the systems "get out of hand", as they put it. Anyway, let's move further down the front page if we are to discuss this topic. It belongs under Vugraph Issues, and it's entirely my fault for bringing it up here.

 

Roland

[vang]

the Swedes developed a nice structure called "Anti Nonsens" which works well and is generic.

 

can you give us some details about that (maybe in a separate thread)?

tya

[mike777]

Quote

"Out of the dues paying members this is really a nonissue (sic)."

I have no idea what on earth this statement means. If it means that for the ordinary paying member this is a non issue, then "yes" I agree, so what? Apart from a few weak sponsors I have yet to see an ordinary member playing in the BB, so what is your point?

 

The points are:

1) they pay for the World championships

2) They support the World championships through voluntary efforts that would make the game impossible to hold otherwise.

3) They are the vast majority of people who watch it, care about it, buy the books, etc.

 

If this is a huge bridge issue for them, they have not expressed it.

 

Of course none of this means that LEADERSHIP cannot be ahead of the masses sometimes.

[the hog]

"3) They are the vast majority of people who watch it, care about it, buy the books, etc."

 

You have got to be kidding matey, the WC books make a loss every year. And watch it?? Thats even more of a joke.

 

Anyway, I still don't understand the point. Why would what you posted inhibit any system being used at top level bridge apart from protecting the Brachmans and Melzers of this world?

[Guest Jlall]

Because some systems can take, say, 10 hours to prepare a defense against. If there was a pair on every team using a complicated system like this in the round robin, think how much time and memory work it would take just to prepare to defend against it all. Similarly, in a pair game it would be ridiculous for some systems to be played, it's just not practical. I like the WBF rule, once you're going to play a long important match against something let anything go.

[fred]

I will be playing in this year's Bermuda Bowl and our team's Captain and Coach are in the middle of the mammoth task of studying the convention cards of all of the pairs on all of the teams we will face, coming up with defenses to unusual systems that me and my teammates may not be familiar with, discussing these defenses with the team members, and writing them up.

 

Fortunately our team has the financial resources to hire professionals to do this for us. Fortunately also only 1 of our 6 players has a "normal" full time job so it should be possible for most of us to learn this material in time. I would guess that there are only a few other teams in the Bermuda Bowl (out of 22 I think) who will have the resources to be properly prepared for what they rate to face in Estoril.

 

I must say that I am most unimpressed with the convention cards and suggested defenses provided by some of the pairs playing unusual methods. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if some of these pairs decide to change their methods between now and the tournament (or even in the middle of the tournament). I am not sure if this is officially allowed or not, but it happens all the time. I personally resent this very much as I believe it is not fair that we should be forced to spend a lot of time and money to prepare to play against methods that will not be used.

 

If the "scientists" think they gain an advantage for their systems that is one thing, but they should not try to gain an advantage through not properly disclosing their methods or by changing them at the last minute.

 

In my opinion it would be absurd to be more liberal with systems restrictions for Swiss Teams events and (especially) in pairs games.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

Hum.. I kinda like that job of browsing through 100 convention cards and dig up defenses to their gadgets!

 

Are they hiring right now, Fred? :D

[Al_U_Card]

If the "scientists" think they gain an advantage for their systems that is one thing, but they should not try to gain an advantage through not properly disclosing their methods or by changing them at the last minute.

Surely sanctions exist (and hopefully have been applied) for such instances? btw you have all our best wishes and support in the upcoming contest.

[fred]

If the "scientists" think they gain an advantage for their systems that is one thing, but they should not try to gain an advantage through not properly disclosing their methods or by changing them at the last minute.

Surely sanctions exist (and hopefully have been applied) for such instances? btw you have all our best wishes and support in the upcoming contest.

Sanctions exist, but in my experience they are rarely (if ever) enforced.

 

Here is a nice example of the sort of thing that tends to happen. One of the partnerships from one of the better teams is using 2D, 2H, and 2S opening bids as various "Brown Sticker" conventions. According to the current rules, each pair is allowed to play 3 such conventions.

 

You would think that the pair in question would realize that they have already reached this limit, but they also want to play the same conventions when the opps open 1C and they overcall 2D, 2H, or 2S. They claim that the (hopeless and inadequate) defense that the rules say they must provide for their 2-level openings, apply equally well to their 2-level jump overcall.

 

What a load of crap.

 

Various people have complained about this and it is not unlikely that the "systems committee" will come to their senses and realize that this is not right (though I wouldn't bet on it - especially consider that their convention card has already been approved once). Meanwhile, there are players and coaches who are wasting their time preparing proper defenses (since those provided by the players themselves were so awful) for convention that they may (and should) never have to face.

 

Is the pair in question simply ignorant of the rules, are they intentionally trying to get away with breaking the rules, or are they just trying to waste the time and energy of the other people who have to play in the event?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

I see what you mean but the problem is not with the players, who are from a country where these methods are allowed, but with the committee who

 

a) Approved a convention card that was not to be approved.

b) Making rules that when BSC are allowed, to actually count them without considering HOW to count them.

c) Force people to write down "suggested defence" which might not be up to the standards of those who are going to use it.

 

I would give the pair you are talking about the benefit of the doubt and say they are ignorant of the rules, IIRC they have not played in the Bermuda Bowl before.

 

Anyway, I still think that in the nr.1 team tournament should allow all systems. If you take part in a World Championship, you will have to come prepared. In fact it is better that in the RR all is allowed, because then you are SURE you are going to meet these systems. It is sort of odd having to prepare specially for the KO phase.

 

Just so that you know what I'm talking about: At the junior European championships we played against Finland. They had some pretty weird stuff on their CC and it was my job to get a defence and talk the team through it. I think this is part of it.

 

What CAN be done is that top players share their experiences defending against BSC and put good defences online. One can for example find the British defense to Wilkosz on the Weak Two Archive site. Except for the 2♠ opening / overcall, these methods are not new or unknown (BTW I agree that their suggested defences are junk).

[hrothgar]

I will be playing in this year's Bermuda Bowl and our team's Captain and Coach are in the middle of the mammoth task of studying the convention cards of all of the pairs on all of the teams we will face, coming up with defenses to unusual systems that me and my teammates may not be familiar with, discussing these defenses with the team members, and writing them up.

 

Fortunately our team has the financial resources to hire professionals to do this for us. Fortunately also only 1 of our 6 players has a "normal" full time job so it should be possible for most of us to learn this material in time. I would guess that there are only a few other teams in the Bermuda Bowl (out of 22 I think) who will have the resources to be properly prepared for what they rate to face in Estoril.

This is an area where Fred and I (obviously) disagree strongly...

 

We're talking about a world championship. It seems strange to contemplate that competing in such an event wouldn't require extensive preparation.

 

Equally significant, I think that there is a reason why so many of the complaints come from North America.

 

1. The ACBL has shielded the participants from getting practical experience with methods in common use throughout the rest of the world

2. There seems to be very fundamental differences in expectations regarding the game. North Americans want a low variance game where they can focus on declarer play and defense. Other regions seem to be willing to tolerate a bit "rub of the green".

 

My last comment has to do with Fred's complaints regarding the standards of disclosure of other participants. I agree completely that partnerships should be expected to provide complete disclosure regarding their methods and look forward to the day where (for example) Meckwell post their complete systems notes for us to see. Equally significant, Chip Martel has commmented several times that Polish Club is badly flawed and that he has devised/employed a defense against this insidious method. He also refused to publically disclose said defense...

 

As I've noted many times in the past, it seems assinine to design a set of system regulations in which players are expected to provide "optimal" defenses to their own methods. I'm a simple boy, but there seems to be a conflict of interest here. The North Americans have decided to "cope" with this problem by hiring private coaches to develop proprietary defensive methods. Many locales in Europe use a more socialist approach. For example, the Swedish Bridge Federation employs profesionals to create a defensive database that they then make freely available to the membership as a whole.

 

For what its worth, there is an interesting relationship between the last two points that I raised. Many North Americans (including, for example, Wolffe) claim that unusual methods harm the field because players can't guaruntee that third parties are adequately prepared to defend against system XYZ. Assume for the moment that the North American teams have devised an optimal structure against the Estonian Forcing Pass. Even if they employed their wonderful defense, they'd still be disadvantaged in the Round Robin as the Estonians racked up big victories versus less well prepared teams. Never had much sympathy with this argument. If you're unwilling to publish the defense, you don't get to complain that other teams aren't defending well...

[the hog]

Its no surprise that I totally agree with the above comments. Also in my experience of playing against and with such systems I have found that the practitioners generally go out of their way to give full disclosure, more so than many who play natural methods. There are exceptions to this of course, but some people will always try to bend the rules.

 

T Fred: if you were taking part in the say Marathon in the Olympic games, then no doubt this would involve a huge amount pf preparation and training. I see no difference at all with this and preparing for the BB. An athlete who has more support from his Association or other resources will be able to be better prepared than one who hasn't.

[mike777]

I have found that the practitioners generally go out of their way to give full disclosure, more so than many who play natural methods. There are exceptions to this of course, but some people will always try to bend the rules.

Hamman and Martel among other world champs have echoed Fred's comments for years. Full disclosure is a major not minor problem at the very top levels of bridge. They say they have no good solution to this problem after years of dealing with it. Allowing even more use of HUM would make this issue worse in their opinion.

 

I would only repeat if 75 of the top 200 WBF ranked players want more HUM, then tell us.

[the hog]

Well Hamman would say that, wouldn't he? I can point you in the direction of just as many top players who argue that many players of so called natural systems are loth to divulge their full agreements.

 

You clearly have not read or perhaps not understood my post and Richard's post.

[fred]

T Fred: if you were taking part in the say Marathon in the Olympic games, then no doubt this would involve a huge amount pf preparation and training. I see no difference at all with this and preparing for the BB. An athlete who has more support from his Association or other resources will be able to be better prepared than one who hasn't.

Maybe you will see a difference if you go further with your analogy...

 

Suppose that:

 

- A marathon runner invents a special new pair of shoes designed primarily to make the other runners get cramps in their legs.

 

- The only way to properly counter the effects of these shoes is to hire a world class coach and to spend many hours of extra time preparing for each marathon.

 

- 95% of world class marthon runners (most of whom do not even have the resources to try) do not want to spend whatever "training time" they have in this way. Furthermore, most of these people would enjoy their sport more if the offending shoes were made illegal under the rules.

 

If the World Marathon Federation makes the questionable to decision to continue to allow such shoes, their goal should be try to minimizing the effect of the unfair advantage that these shoes provide. Having strict rules about the use of such shoes and forcing the runners who use them to follow these rules is not a lot to ask.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Maybe you will see a difference if you go further with your analogy...

Here's another possible interpretation:

 

Suppose that you are competing in a marathon. For whatever reason, you decide that running is aesthetically unpleasing. Instead of “running”, you prefer to “skip”. Moreover, since the runners have an advantage over you, you start petitioning the governing body to prevent other people from running...

 

I think that this analogy is much more apt that yours. It is certainly true that many bidding systems are designed to damage other players ability to exchange information. However, this is part and parcel of the game of bridge and its always been part of it.

 

You might not like this part of the game. However, ultimately this boils down to whether your external aesthetics should be imposed on other competitors...

[Free]

If everyone runs the marathon with the same shoes Fred mentions, then nobody has an advantage or disadvantage anymore. So why should the creative mind of this awesome inventer be punished?

 

If someone finds a wonderful method to use in a bidding system, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed, even if it's destructive. Ok, people will have some extra work to prepare themselves.

But look at another much more similar sport: chess. If you don't prepare, you don't stand a chance. You need to know all openings, and there are lots of books about these! If someone finds out a new opening, then his opponent will have to think hard at the table, and cope with it. Hopefully next time he'll have a good response to it. We play a sport where you have to think: at the table and away from the table. But in bridge, there's an advantage since you won't get new things, because you (should) get the opponent's methods way before you have to play them.

[fred]

If everyone runs the marathon with the same shoes Fred mentions, then nobody has an advantage or disadvantage anymore. So why should the creative mind of this awesome inventer be punished?

 

If someone finds a wonderful method to use in a bidding system, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed, even if it's destructive. Ok, people will have some extra work to prepare themselves.

But look at another much more similar sport: chess. If you don't prepare, you don't stand a chance. You need to know all openings, and there are lots of books about these! If someone finds out a new opening, then his opponent will have to think hard at the table, and cope with it. Hopefully next time he'll have a good response to it. We play a sport where you have to think: at the table and away from the table. But in bridge, there's an advantage since you won't get new things, because you (should) get the opponent's methods way before you have to play them.

If 5% of the players want the rules to be one way and the other 95% want them to be another way, why cater to the 5%?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

But look at another much more similar sport: chess. If you don't prepare, you don't stand a chance. You need to know all openings, and there are lots of books about these! If someone finds out a new opening, then his opponent will have to think hard at the table, and cope with it. Hopefully next time he'll have a good response to it. We play a sport where you have to think: at the table and away from the table. But in bridge, there's an advantage since you won't get new things, because you (should) get the opponent's methods way before you have to play them.

You are describing one of the biggest reasons why many people prefer go over chess.

 

I think your comparison is flawed anyway. In chess, if you are really great you don't need to prepare against your opponents preparation at all, you can find the refutation during the game. In bridge, you cannot devise the best defense at the table, since your partner needs to have devised the same.

 

I wouldn't mind playing against a brown sticker convention myself. But then, I am not playing at a level where one misunderstanding in a set would be considered a disaster.

 

Arend