[DrTodd13]

Cascade is right on all counts. Like The_Hog says, the problem is totally one of unfamiliarity. I think FP has done well enough in its rare appearances in international competition to merit its inclusion with other system styles as constructive/competitive systems. The winners and losers in this category of systems should be determined at the table and not by the C&C or the BoD.

Jan. For five years I've played a forcing pass system with a 1♥ FERT on BBO. We give the opps a very simple defense that is largely natural. When both opps read the defense and agree to it and apply it with basic bridge sense they do fine and no one has ever complained that the defense was woefully inadequate or too complicated. Thus, I have to disagree strongly with you that a naturalistic defense to a FERT is laughable. On the contrary, it is wholly adequate for most levels of bridge play. Not adequate for international competition but I didn't think that is what we were discussing here.

Finally, I wonder historically when the authority for SO's to regulate conventions was added to the laws of bridge? Barring that authority, the laws would seem to value effective systems in whatever variety they may come. With that authority however, the decision goes to the SO's who are not making the decision based on some notion of bridge purity but on other factors like keeping the bulk of the players happy. Player happiness is based on, among other things, the complexity of the game. We can't tell people they should prefer a very very complicated game instead of just a regular complicated game or vice versa. Therefore, all this arguing seems pretty pointless. We all have our preferences and trying to change other people's innate preferences is probably futile.

[csdenmark]

JanM, on Dec 8 2008, 08:36 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 7 2008, 05:16 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 7 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.

I assume you mean 02/6+. The good defense is simple and natural - you see it from your own holdings.

No, actually what is meant is something like a 2♥ opening bid that shows either length in hearts or length in spades. Or a 2♦ opening bid that shows either a weak 2♥ bid or a weak hand with 5 spades and a 5 card minor (so might have diamond length).

That kind of feature I have never seen in a pass system. Pass systems are normally better constructed than that.

Pass systems are focussing on what bridge is about: A game about MAJORs - whether you hold them or not. No other kind of systems really bother about the core parts of the game. I therefore think a bid like the above mentioned has been extracted from a fairly standard system.

It is used for Auken-von Arnim 2004 but taken off for 2007. Probably the restrictions introduced for 2005 Bermuda was the reason.

[csdenmark]

JanM, on Dec 8 2008, 08:36 AM, said:

Quote

Pass-systems are very simple to defend against but they are annoying because you are prevented from playing your own offensive system.

Against 0-7 opening - Lambda is a very effective defense. Lambda can also be used over 1♣ opening - else the same defense as used versus weak balanced(Polish Club) is good. Especially against Regres some strategy can be needed. It is not always wise to interfere in 1st round.

For the rest no specific defense is needed. Natural methods will do very well

To suggest that "natural methods will do very well" over a bid like 1♠ showing 0-7 and any shape is laughable.

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening. The polish ones uses 1♦ and Moscito uses 1♥.

Natural methods will not work well over 0-7 opening. I dont understand why you have misinterpretated that. Over unknown more substance is needed. Thats why conventions like CRASH and Truscott have been invented. They will work both - even better than over the standard opening of 2♣ and in a similar way to what they were created for 1♣.

Please note Jan - I recommended a full range defense over 0-7 opening. Lambda is so - and a fairly simple one too.

I also mentioned Lambda is good over 1♣ - here I meant Regres because the feature is 'any hand with shortness'.

The real difference between the 2 kind of approaches is:

- Pass systems focusses on MAJORs
- Pass systems discloses limit strength in 1st round and suit-holding in 2nd round

- Standard like systems has no specific suit focus
- Standard like system discloses suit-holdings in 1st round and strength in 2nd round

--------------------

Some months ago I tried to tell some that strategy really matters. It was about the scoring table and how to bid game score via DBL/RDBL. The most profitable in bridge is DBL/RDBL of low level contracts. Nobody understood a word of fundamentals in bridge.

We have a long way to go!

[qwery_hi]

One thing worth saying is that if HUM are not allowed, Bridge is going to advance painfully slowly. If I had a wish from the Bridge Genie, it'd be to see CC of the top pairs in 2100.

I think it is worth remembering that Bridge bidding theory is still very young. I would say that 2008 bidding theory is about the level of 1900 Chess openings theory. Excellent work by many chess masters has advanced opening theory to the point that there are generic defenses which follow fundamental principles to any opening by the opponent. This was only possible because there were no arbitrary restrictions on chess openings.

There is tremendous scope for unearthing fundamental principles of bidding theory in Bridge. For example, having merely played Bridge for 3 years, I can identify only a few generic defenses -

when an opponent makes a 2 suited overcall, a cue bid in their lower suit shows a good bid in our lower suit, etc... direct bids being weaker. I think this is called Unusual vs Unusual - and I think is one of the good achievements of bidding theory

Lebensohl auctions, where a relay is used to distinguish strength. Another fundamental principle which can be applied irrespective of the specifics of opponents bidding.

Lead directing doubles, and the defences to lead directing doubles - redbl showing 1st round control, etc etc...

My opinion is that the ACBL is interested in $$ over advancing the theory of bridge, hence these restrictions. This is not a critisicm of the ACBL, one can argue that having more people play bridge is more important. However, it would be wrong to say that the ACBL and the current champions are interested in advancing the theory of bidding in bridge.

One day, maybe a 100 years from now, this discussion will be moot. AI would give us the best bidding systems, and we'ed all follow them I think.

[Cascade]

qwery_hi, on Dec 8 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

My opinion is that the ACBL is interested in $$ over advancing the theory of bridge, hence these restrictions. This is not a critisicm of the ACBL, one can argue that having more people play bridge is more important. However, it would be wrong to say that the ACBL and the current champions are interested in advancing the theory of bidding in bridge.

It is far from clear that the ACBL have come close to optimizing their dollars.

I believe bridge internationally is declining in numbers. Maybe different rules and restrictions would have a positive impact on playing numbers.

[nige1]

qwery_hi, on Dec 8 2008, 05:12 AM, said:

One thing worth saying is that if HUM are not allowed, Bridge is going to advance painfully slowly. If I had a wish from the Bridge Genie, it'd be to see CC of the top pairs in 2100.
I think it is worth remembering that Bridge bidding theory is still very young. I would say that 2008 bidding theory is about the level of 1900 Chess openings theory. Excellent work by many chess masters has advanced opening theory to the point that there are generic defenses which follow fundamental principles to any opening by the opponent. This was only possible because there were no arbitrary restrictions on chess openings.  There is tremendous scope for unearthing fundamental principles of bidding theory in Bridge. For example, having merely played Bridge for 3 years, I can identify only a few generic defenses - when an opponent makes a 2 suited overcall, a cue bid in their lower suit shows a good bid in our lower suit, etc... direct bids being weaker. I think this is called Unusual vs Unusual - and I think is one of the good achievements of bidding theory Lebensohl auctions, where a relay is used to distinguish strength. Another fundamental principle which can be applied irrespective of the specifics of opponents bidding. Lead directing doubles, and the defences to lead directing doubles - redbl showing 1st round control, etc etc...
My opinion is that the ACBL is interested in $$ over advancing the theory of bridge, hence these restrictions. This is not a critisicm of the ACBL, one can argue that having more people play bridge is more important. However, it would be wrong to say that the ACBL and the current champions are interested in advancing the theory of bidding in bridge. One day, maybe a 100 years from now, this discussion will be moot. AI would give us the best bidding systems, and we'ed all follow them I think.

I agree that complex and unnecessary laws and regulations stultify Bridge. I hope Face-to-Face Bridge (and I) survive to see simpler clearer less subjective rules that release the game from stagnation.

On-line, Fred and BBO have made great strides in this direction, with non-restrictive system regulations, simple disclosure rules, elimination of mechanical errors, and an improved claim protocol.

Incidentally it was Eric Crowhurst, who invented Unusual over Unusual and wrote about it in Acol in Competition (1980). The original is a significant improvement on the currently popular version. Eric invented other excellent conventions like Checkback and Multi-Landy.

[Fluffy]

I would love to see more weird systems allowed, but they should always be played on special events.

The main advantage of the weird system is the lack of experience your opponent have under those circumstances (I get problems playing against weak NT because 99.7% of my hands are played against strong NT, I can barelly imagine what I would do agaisnt strong pass).

It looks stupid to ban them, what you need to do is create certain events for them, where they can fight each other and have some laughs.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Dec 8 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

I can barelly imagine what I would do agaisnt strong pass

What about:
1♣: whatever a double of opponents strong club opening would mean
Other: same as against strong club.

[Fluffy]

Not very good helene, my experience against strong club is also very limited. Of course I can get some feedback from more experienced players who would teach me a chart of bids, but the tools are not enough, you need to know how (and when) to use them.

I would myself rather ignore the opening pass and place myself on a comfortable field, the main problem however, is what to do against the weak openings probably.

[TimG]

awm, on Dec 8 2008, 02:10 AM, said:

The thing is, usually the goal in designing defenses is to get more or less back to where you "would have been" if opponents opened something normal.

I think you are right and that this is one of the flaws in the creation of "adequate" defenses.

Consider the bridge world before there were weak two-bids. I suspect that you will agree that the defense often has trouble getting back to where they "would have been" had the opponents passed rather than opened a weak two-bid. The standard, natural, single-suited, preempts are accepted, not because the opponents can brush them aside as if nothing had happened, but because they are familiar.

If the ability to brush aside the method were the primary consideration, transfer openings would be allowed, and allowed in events with short segments. While defending against a transfer opening is not identical to defending against a natural opening, it can be very close and, if anything, the transfer opening provides the defense with extra space so the defender's should have a theoretical advantage vs a natural opening if they choose to make use of the extra space.

I cannot see how restricting a transfer opening to 12+ board segments is a reflection of the opponents' inability to get back to where they would have been had we opened something normal. Can you see what the rationale is?

[fred]

jikl, on Dec 8 2008, 03:55 AM, said:

The side question which is interesting, is all this molly-coddling of the masses hurting the US in international competition?

While it is true that the 2008 World Championships in Shanghai was not a great tournament for USA teams (only 2 medals - one Silver and one Bronze), if you look back over the past 20 years or so I am guessing you will find that USA has won at least twice as many medals at the World Championship level as any other country. I could be wrong - I am only guessing.

Meanwhile if memory serves me correctly, I don't think either Australia or New Zealand has come particularly close to winning a single World Championship medal in this period of time. Apologies in advance if I am wrong.

While it is true that Australia and New Zealand have much smaller populations than the USA, some countries with small populations (Norway, The Netherlands, and Canada come to mind) have done just fine. It is also true that the USA has an advantage in Bermuda Bowl years - they get to enter 2 teams. But meanwhile Norway and the The Netherlands (for example) have to perform well in a very tough European Championships just to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl while Australia and New Zealand can basically mail in their entries every year.

It also happens to be the case that both Australia and New Zealand have produced several excellent individual players during the past couple of decades.

So to me, a more interesting side question would be: has the permissive attitude toward systems in Australia and New Zealand been partly responsible for the consistently poor performance by these countries in international competition over the years?

By the way, I believe that one of the reasons why the answer to your side question is "no" is that USA teams tend to appoint outstanding coaches (Jan and Chip Martel being among the best of them) who work very hard to prepare their teams to play against the systems and conventions they will face in the World Championships.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Dec 8 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

While it is true that Australia and New Zealand have much smaller populations than the USA, some countries with small populations (Norway, The Netherlands, and Canada come to mind) have done just fine. It is also true that the USA has an advantage in Bermuda Bowl years - they get to enter 2 teams. But meanwhile Norway and the The Netherlands (for example) have to perform well in a very tough European Championships just to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl while Australia and New Zealand can basically mail in their entries every year.

Couple points:

First, as I recall, the Conditions of Contest for WBF Championships are designed such that two teams from the US can't meet in the finals.

It would be interesting to understand how this format change impacts

1. The percentage chance that one team from the US will make it to the finals.
2. The percentage chance that a US team will win the event

Gerben, is there any chance that you could modify the code from the simulation studies a couple years back to address this issue?

Next: I think that you draw completely the wrong conclusions regarding being able to "mail in" entries to WBF championships. As you note, the Europeans are forced to compete in some very grueling trials to enter events like the Bermuda Bowl. Yes, this might decrease the chance that the Dutch Team gains a spot in any given year. At the same time, I would guess that all this competition stands the Dutch in good stead during those years that they are able to qualify (which, as I recall, happens fairly often)

[csdenmark]

Fred I think you ought to pay attention to the fact that USA in general have lined their teams up according to the Dallas Aces tradition. Three pairs - Canape'/Precision/Natural. Your former team - Team Ekeblad - had same profile.

Time is running out for Dallas Aces persons - I think that was the reason for USA performing less well this time. Poland sended a B-team.

Italy, Poland and Sweden have most of the time also had teams employing systems using interesting/strong methods. I think one of the reasons for Norways success this time was the improvements made to Viking Precision.

I think the only reason you see no pass-systems in action is REGULATION.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Dec 8 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

It also happens to be the case that both Australia and New Zealand have produced several excellent individual players during the past couple of decades.

So to me, a more interesting side question would be: has the permissive attitude toward systems in Australia and New Zealand been partly responsible for the consistently poor performance by these countries in international competition over the years?

As it happens, I had the chance to talk to a number of Aussies on this very subject when I was in Sydney a few years back... (One of the bodies over there had just conducted a study trying to figure out why Australia didn't do better in International Competition)

The study pointed at two main issues:

Issue 1: Limited opportunities for Australian teams to compete against top international talent

Issue 2: Limited opportunties for professional players in the Antipodes.

[TimG]

jikl, on Dec 7 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

The side question which is interesting, is all this molly-coddling of the masses hurting the US in international competition?

I doubt the "molly-coddling" has much of an effect at the top levels. As Fred points out, the US teams have people who work 100s of hours on preparing counter methods and the players are likely skilled enough to be able to easily adopt them for the most part, especially given that they can decide which pairs face which HUMs.

If you were talking about throwing average ACBL up and comers and average Australian up and comers into an event with liberal system/convention allowances, I would expect the ACBL players to have a bit of a handicap. But, I don't think the handicap would last that long.

Whether the ACBL rank and file would be able to adjust quickly and how much loss of entries would result in a more permissive atmosphere is unknown. This unknown seems to be something ACBL is (somewhat understandably) reluctant to test.

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

I think one of the reasons for Norways success this time was the improvements made to Viking Precision.

I think the reason Norway (and Italy and USA and Poland and...) tend to do so well is because they have the best players and the strongest partnerships.

IMO the specific systems these partnerships choose to play amounts to approximately 0% of their success. The same players could play *any* reasonable system and the results would be the same.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[qwery_hi]

Cascade, on Dec 7 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 8 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.

Do we really?

Consider the following system NV vs V:

1 of a suit = 0-5 , 4+ cards in the suit.

1nt = 12-14 balanced

2 of a suit, 12+, 5+ cards in the suit.

etc.,

The 1 bids are not destructive, since following the law of probability and the LoTT,

1. The opponents probably have game, since they will have on average 25+ points
2. We will have a 7 card fit on average.

Hence,
3. We have a good sacrifice.

Isn't this the principle behind preempts?

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 8 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

I think one of the reasons for Norways success this time was the improvements made to Viking Precision.

I think the reason Norway (and Italy and USA and Poland and...) tend to do so well is because they have the best players and the strongest partnerships.

IMO the specific systems these partnerships choose to play amounts to approximately 0% of their success. The same players could play *any* reasonable system and the results would be the same.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Thank you Fred - you have said something similar before.

Nevertheless it is so in most sports that the equipment used by the top-persons are sold for high prices. Horses, skies, bicycles and shoes are the most significant. Here rates the market value that equipment is of great importance for the overall performance.

In bridge we dont have opportunities for a rating. I think what comes nearest is something about attendance to Vugraph. I think we agree that systems I call strong/interesting are the runners for Vugraph.

The human factor is important of course - but it is not the only important factor.

[awm]

fred, on Dec 8 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

I think the reason Norway (and Italy and USA and Poland and...) tend to do so well is because they have the best players and the strongest partnerships.

IMO the specific systems these partnerships choose to play amounts to approximately 0% of their success. The same players could play *any* reasonable system and the results would be the same.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'm not quite convinced of this.

In the United States, where strong club methods are definitely not the norm and where we have pretty conservative system restrictions in many of our local events... we frequently send teams to the Bermuda Bowl where two of the three pairs are using complicated strong club systems.

This includes your recent team (Greco-Hampson playing big club, Ekeblad-Rubin playing very complicated big club). It includes the very successful Nickell team (Meckstroth-Rodwell famously complicated big club, Hamman-Soloway big club).

We have also seen a number of "surprise" teams winning in the finals, and often these teams include one or more pairs using a very complex strong club method (i.e. the "Ultimate Club" team a number of years back, or the Viking Club pair on the recent Norwegian team).

Certainly there are pairs who have success at the very highest levels using "natural methods" too (for example Gitelman-Moss, Nickell-Freeman), but I suspect that the percentage of pairs using an "artificial system" in the Bermuda Bowl is higher than it would be in the Life Master Pairs (for example) which is in turn higher than it would be in a typical regional field, which is in turn higher than it would be in a typical club game...

I believe that there is a high correlation between complex systems (and strong club in particular) and successful bridge partnerships, and that this correlation exists at virtually all levels of the game. Again, this is not to say that all strong club pairs are good (there are plenty of bad strong club pairs) or that all good players employ a strong club. But I think a fairly straightforward analysis of results and methods could confirm this observation.

Playing better methods can win an average of a board or two a session. This can easily be the difference between winning and losing. Obviously bad declarer play could easily lose five or six boards in a session (and bad defense likely twice as many), but system still provides an edge that could easily be the margin of victory.

[Free]

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 10:42 AM, said:

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening. The polish ones uses 1♦ and Moscito uses 1♥.

A few years back there was a team that played 1♠ fert on Vugraph (I think in the BB), but I don't remember which country...