[Cascade]

HeavyDluxe, on Dec 13 2008, 03:43 AM, said:

4) In 90% of bridge settings or more, the main advantage of HUMs simply lies in their obscurity. The leave virgin opponents flummoxed and frustrated.

How many times have you played against a HUM?

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 13 2008, 05:08 AM, said:

HeavyDluxe, on Dec 12 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

Also, most chess games still start 1. e4 because time has shown that most of the classical principles of the game (control the center, knights in closed positions, etc) are sound.  I'd wager that the same is true of 'natural' bidding methods in bridge.

Natural bidding methods may well be sound, but other methods (such as Precision, which is less natural) have also proven to be sound.

But, the existence of a single sound approach should not preclude experimentation with other approaches.

What is the measure that makes Precision less natural?

To me Precision is simply Standard American with the Strong 2♣ shifted to 1♣ and vice verca and the balanced hands from 1♣ shifted into 1♦. There is a sound shift in the ranges since the lower level artificial force allows for a wider range of hands (good general principle of bidding theory - the lower a bid the higher the frequency). This lower artificial force allows those hands more room and thus more room to make subsequent natural bids.

Of course you can play artificial versions or modifications to Precision.

[awm]

I've seen some amazing disasters by good players against even mildly unfamiliar methods.

For example, at one point my opponents had the auction 1♥ (natural) - Pass - 1♠, and the 1♠ was alerted as showing either spades, or the start of game forcing relays. This method is allowed in most levels of competition, but partner and I had never faced it before and opponents had neglected to pre-alert it.

I doubled, intended as takeout for the minors, and partner decided that my double showed spades (because 1♠ was "an artificial bid"). Lousy results ensued.

How much easier for this to happen if the opponents were playing really unusual methods? Sure you can say we should look at their card and discover this (although actually it wasn't marked on their card, stupid ACBL cards) or maybe they should've pre-alerted us. But at some point the time constraints, size of the convention card, etc. just start to get in the way.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 05:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 04:07 AM, said:

What you describe doesn't sound at all like bridge as I know it.

In bridge you know the other options because the opponent (deception aside - psyches) must tell you in advance what their methods are.

In bridge I don't decide at my turn to bid what my defense is to the opponents contraption whatever it is.  I make arrangements with my partner in advance.  Currently if my opponents methods are ruled too unusual I even have the advantage of writing down my defense to give my side an advantage.

Unless I know your system as well as you do, I don't know your 'other options'. Sure by law you can't hide stuff from me, but we don't have a month to explain the whole thing either. So you tell me the most common aspects, or the parts most in need of me devising a defense, and against everything else good luck me.

I tell you all of the opening bids and overcalls as a sub-minimum.

Typically these are the things that are problematic with the regulations.

It has already been said that there is not a problem with the complexity of for example Meckstroth and Rodwell.

Pass 13+ any
1♣ 8-12 4+ hearts may have 4+ spades could have any longer suit
1♦ 8-12 4+ spades denies 4+ hearts could have any longer suit
1♥ One or both minors denies a 4-card major
1♠ 0-7 any unsuitable for another bid (pre-empt)
1NT - 10-12 (or whatever range) denies a 4+ major balanced or semi-balanced

What is fundamentally more difficult to understand than

Pass 0-11 any
1♣ 11-20 2+ clubs
1♦ 11-20 4+ diamonds
1♥ 11-20 5+ hearts
1♠ 11-20 5+ spades
1NT 15-17 balanced

To me these are typical disclosures of a FP (maybe not the best one) and Standard American.

Note that I am actually better placed after the FP explanation since that explanation offers a better description of each call.

If anyone is hiding it is the Standard American players with their vague descriptions.

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 06:02 AM, said:

So the status quo is basically that methods which "need to be disclosed when the bid comes up" are allowed, methods which "need to be disclosed before the start of the auction" are occasionally banned in pairs events (depending on how "common" the methods are viewed to be) and methods which "need to be disclosed seriously in advance" are frequently banned except in long KO matches. Honestly this approach seems about right to me, although there is certainly some debate about which methods fall into which categories.

I seriously do not see why a fairly normal forcing pass system with transfer openings is considered by anyone to be fundamentally more difficult to understand and thus defend against than a Standard American system like SAYC or 2/1.

All of the bids are easy to understand. In both cases you have time before the event to prepare a defense to these easy to understand methods.

[Free]

awm, on Dec 12 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I've seen some amazing disasters by good players against even mildly unfamiliar methods.

For example, at one point my opponents had the auction 1♥ (natural) - Pass - 1♠, and the 1♠ was alerted as showing either spades, or the start of game forcing relays. This method is allowed in most levels of competition, but partner and I had never faced it before and opponents had neglected to pre-alert it.

I doubled, intended as takeout for the minors, and partner decided that my double showed spades (because 1♠ was "an artificial bid"). Lousy results ensued.

How much easier for this to happen if the opponents were playing really unusual methods? Sure you can say we should look at their card and discover this (although actually it wasn't marked on their card, stupid ACBL cards) or maybe they should've pre-alerted us. But at some point the time constraints, size of the convention card, etc. just start to get in the way.

Maybe you should've been able to play a lot more against similar methods and have a meta defense ready in case someone makes a 2-way bid. A simple rule for example: "if the choice is between a strong relay and a natural suit, defend like they bid naturally". Thanks to YOUR meta defense you would've survived this gismo. Though I must admit that it doesn't mean you'd have the perfect defense at that moment.
(Note that this simple rule can be used for transfer preempts, multi's,...)

Your opps clearly weren't completely correct by not prealerting, but you see you don't always have blame someone else first...

This is exactly why it's so hard discussing these matters. In some regions the regulations are so restricting that anything "strange" causes disasters. If you'd get these gismos every week, you'd be prepared and wouldn't have a problem anymore. The thing is that the people in charge have decided that restriction will propably attract more people. And everything "new" that causes one disaster is immediately banned as well. It's a vicious circle which one can only break by changing the approach, but many people don't want that so nothing really happens.

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

I've seen some amazing disasters by good players against even mildly unfamiliar methods.

For example, at one point my opponents had the auction 1♥ (natural) - Pass - 1♠, and the 1♠ was alerted as showing either spades, or the start of game forcing relays. This method is allowed in most levels of competition, but partner and I had never faced it before and opponents had neglected to pre-alert it.

I doubled, intended as takeout for the minors, and partner decided that my double showed spades (because 1♠ was "an artificial bid"). Lousy results ensued.

How much easier for this to happen if the opponents were playing really unusual methods? Sure you can say we should look at their card and discover this (although actually it wasn't marked on their card, stupid ACBL cards) or maybe they should've pre-alerted us. But at some point the time constraints, size of the convention card, etc. just start to get in the way.

It seems to me that while there was a problem with your opponents disclosure that there was an even bigger problem with your own preparation.

Basically you were not prepared for a method that was allowed.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

If anyone is hiding it is the Standard American players with their vague descriptions.

My point wasn't that anyone is hiding anything. It's that (no matter what system you play) it's impossible in practice for the opponents to have all the information they would need for their best defense. I said that as a way to point out a problem with someone else's chess analogy (in that in chess the information is 100% available to you at all times.) So if you are going to reply you could at least avoid trying to change the purpose of my argument.

[awm]

The problem is that there is a huge number of possible gizmos.

I am sure that no matter what "meta-defenses" you might have, I could come up with a gizmo where your meta-defenses would be woefully inadequate. Obviously if you were told about my gizmo a day in advance (or perhaps even ten minutes in advance) you could come up with a reasonable defense. But if I get to spring my gizmo on you at the table with no warning you and partner will be playing a guessing game. I will get lots of good results essentially due to a lack of disclosure. Requiring "full disclosure of methods" doesn't just mean "when I make a bid, you can ask for an explanation and get one" -- it means a lot more than that.

As to why "standard bidding" is easier to defend than "forcing pass" there is no fundamental difference. The difference is that serious bridge players have years of experience defending against standard bidding. There are books written about how to compete over standard bidding. There is no comparable base of experience against your forcing pass system; thus your forcing pass system requires advance disclosure (so opponents can discuss and come up with a defense) whereas standard bidding does not.

Yes, you can argue that "if forcing pass were more common, this would not be the case." But the issue is that there are a virtually infinite number of possible systems. It can never be the case that they are all common. Note that even in Australia where forcing pass is generally allowed it is not common! And it makes a lot of sense to say that while in principle you may be able to play whatever methods you want, all methods require disclosure and methods that are unusual and likely to be highly unfamiliar require more advance disclosure than methods which most serious bridge players see on a day-to-day basis.

[Free]

jdonn, on Dec 12 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

If anyone is hiding it is the Standard American players with their vague descriptions.

My point wasn't that anyone is hiding anything. It's that (no matter what system you play) it's impossible in practice for the opponents to have all the information they would need for their best defense. I said that as a way to point out a problem with someone else's chess analogy (in that in chess the information is 100% available to you at all times.) So if you are going to reply you could at least avoid trying to change the purpose of my argument.

The biggest problem imo with the chess - bridge analogy is that in chess you're playing alone, while in bridge you need agreements to handle "full disclosure", and you can't discuss your agreements during the auction.

[cherdano]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 06:02 AM, said:

So the status quo is basically that methods which "need to be disclosed when the bid comes up" are allowed, methods which "need to be disclosed before the start of the auction" are occasionally banned in pairs events (depending on how "common" the methods are viewed to be) and methods which "need to be disclosed seriously in advance" are frequently banned except in long KO matches. Honestly this approach seems about right to me, although there is certainly some debate about which methods fall into which categories.

I seriously do not see why a fairly normal forcing pass system with transfer openings is considered by anyone to be fundamentally more difficult to understand and thus defend against than a Standard American system like SAYC or 2/1.

All of the bids are easy to understand. In both cases you have time before the event to prepare a defense to these easy to understand methods.

Wayne, I think you have boxed yourself into a corner where you can't even come close anymore to view these things objectively.

If you don't think a fert is more difficult to defend against than a standard American 1♠ opening, then you are out in your own world and shouldn't be suprised if the majority wants different regulations than you do.

[awm]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

It seems to me that while there was a problem with your opponents disclosure that there was an even bigger problem with your own preparation.

Basically you were not prepared for a method that was allowed.

Actually, because of the silly ACBL general chart, the method wasn't allowed in the event we were playing.

But even had the event been run under mid-chart rules, those rules allow essentially any response to a constructive opening. Is it reasonable to require that I must be "prepared in advance" for "all possible meanings of all possible bids" in response to an opening call? Heck, I can't even write down all possible meanings of all possible bids in my lifetime, much less define defenses to all of them.

The only hope of dealing with this huge multitude of possibilities is to find out about them at the table before they come up and discuss them. Sure, maybe partner and I could've talked about bids that are "natural or GF relay" in advance. But what if opponents were playing "1♠ is natural or a weak raise of hearts" or "1♠ shows either 4+♠ or 0-1♠" or "1♠ shows an even number of spades and an odd number of clubs."

[Free]

Just a general remark.

I've played MOSCITO for a few years in f2f competitions. Yes our opponents had disasters from time to time (mostly because they didn't listen to our explanations - they still miscounted after you told them declarer has a 4-6-2-1 distribution), but we had our fair share as well. When opps didn't know what to do, they messed up our auctions. They started to bid without a reason, because "there was an alert", and we got screwed while at other tables there was no alert and opps were quiet. So all of you who claim that playing unusual methods is an advantage because "opps don't know what to do", should really play one themselves and see how much of an advantage you really have.

[awm]

Free, on Dec 12 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

Just a general remark.

I've played MOSCITO for a few years in f2f competitions. Yes our opponents had disasters from time to time (mostly because they didn't listen to our explanations - they still miscounted after you told them declarer has a 4-6-2-1 distribution), but we had our fair share as well. When opps didn't know what to do, they messed up our auctions. They started to bid without a reason, because "there was an alert", and we got screwed while at other tables there was no alert and opps were quiet. So all of you who claim that playing unusual methods is an advantage because "opps don't know what to do", should really play one themselves and see how much of an advantage you really have.

I've played some unusual methods (maybe only unusual by ACBL standards) in all kinds of competition. Yes, occasionally opponents bid for weird reasons and occasionally we get screwed by this. But it is far more frequent that the opponents who do this shoot themselves in the foot.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

I've seen some amazing disasters by good players against even mildly unfamiliar methods.

For example, at one point my opponents had the auction 1♥ (natural) - Pass - 1♠, and the 1♠ was alerted as showing either spades, or the start of game forcing relays. This method is allowed in most levels of competition, but partner and I had never faced it before and opponents had neglected to pre-alert it.

I doubled, intended as takeout for the minors, and partner decided that my double showed spades (because 1♠ was "an artificial bid"). Lousy results ensued.

How much easier for this to happen if the opponents were playing really unusual methods? Sure you can say we should look at their card and discover this (although actually it wasn't marked on their card, stupid ACBL cards) or maybe they should've pre-alerted us. But at some point the time constraints, size of the convention card, etc. just start to get in the way.

It seems to me that while there was a problem with your opponents disclosure that there was an even bigger problem with your own preparation.

Basically you were not prepared for a method that was allowed.

Now you are just being beyond ridiculous, to the point it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. The reason for prealerts is so you don't have to prepare for those methods that are prealertable! What exactly did Adam do wrong? Assume his opponents would follow the rules designed to give him a chance to come up with a defense? Not consider every one of the infinite possible meanings for the 1♠ response in case his opponents would be playing it?

Cherdano is right from a few posts back. You have now reached the point where you are completely unable to be objective.

[Free]

cherdano, on Dec 12 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 06:02 AM, said:

So the status quo is basically that methods which "need to be disclosed when the bid comes up" are allowed, methods which "need to be disclosed before the start of the auction" are occasionally banned in pairs events (depending on how "common" the methods are viewed to be) and methods which "need to be disclosed seriously in advance" are frequently banned except in long KO matches. Honestly this approach seems about right to me, although there is certainly some debate about which methods fall into which categories.

I seriously do not see why a fairly normal forcing pass system with transfer openings is considered by anyone to be fundamentally more difficult to understand and thus defend against than a Standard American system like SAYC or 2/1.

All of the bids are easy to understand. In both cases you have time before the event to prepare a defense to these easy to understand methods.

Wayne, I think you have boxed yourself into a corner where you can't even come close anymore to view these things objectively.

If you don't think a fert is more difficult to defend against than a standard American 1♠ opening, then you are out in your own world and shouldn't be suprised if the majority wants different regulations than you do.

Consider an opening for "any hand with 0-5HCP" (= so called random openings):
2♣ or higher is Brown Sticker Convention
1♠, 1♥, 1♦ and 1♣ (and probably 1NT as well) are HUM

BSC's are allowed way more than HUM's. I find a "random 2♣" opening more difficult than a "random 1♣", yet you can play it way more. Where's the consistency in that?

[qwery_hi]

awm, on Dec 12 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

So the status quo is basically that methods which "need to be disclosed when the bid comes up" are allowed, methods which "need to be disclosed before the start of the auction" are occasionally banned in pairs events (depending on how "common" the methods are viewed to be) and methods which "need to be disclosed seriously in advance" are frequently banned except in long KO matches. Honestly this approach seems about right to me, although there is certainly some debate about which methods fall into which categories.

I agree with everything you said, but still think we are missing something. If full disclosure was the only issue, then I don't see why additional restrictions are placed on pairs playing unusual systems even when said systems are fully disclosed well in advance at the world championship level.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

I've seen some amazing disasters by good players against even mildly unfamiliar methods.

For example, at one point my opponents had the auction 1♥ (natural) - Pass - 1♠, and the 1♠ was alerted as showing either spades, or the start of game forcing relays. This method is allowed in most levels of competition, but partner and I had never faced it before and opponents had neglected to pre-alert it.

I doubled, intended as takeout for the minors, and partner decided that my double showed spades (because 1♠ was "an artificial bid"). Lousy results ensued.

How much easier for this to happen if the opponents were playing really unusual methods? Sure you can say we should look at their card and discover this (although actually it wasn't marked on their card, stupid ACBL cards) or maybe they should've pre-alerted us. But at some point the time constraints, size of the convention card, etc. just start to get in the way.

It seems to me that while there was a problem with your opponents disclosure that there was an even bigger problem with your own preparation.

Basically you were not prepared for a method that was allowed.

Now you are just being beyond ridiculous, to the point it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. The reason for prealerts is so you don't have to prepare for those methods that are prealertable! What exactly did Adam do wrong? Assume his opponents would follow the rules designed to give him a chance to come up with a defense? Not consider every one of the infinite possible meanings for the 1♠ response in case his opponents would be playing it?

Cherdano is right from a few posts back. You have now reached the point where you are completely unable to be objective.

It seems that for you "reasonable" and "objective" are synonymous with agreeing with your point of view.

Maybe I misunderstood but it seems to me that Adam had no defense prepared for this method. I imagine that if someone reasonably competent had a defense prepared then the alert would be sufficient to avoid this type of disaster.

Yes if the regulations require a prealert should have been made. I don't believe though that the prealert is a trigger for you to start devising a defense.

If you believe that the prealert is the trigger to come up with a defense then it is no wonder that some believe that these sort of methods will slow the game down. For me I prefer to have defenses prepared well in advance of the game.

[Cascade]

Oh and if the pre-alert was missing and that would have given you a chance to devise a defense then it is suboptimal to continue playing once the bid is made without calling the director.

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

But it is far more frequent that the opponents who do this shoot themselves in the foot.

In New Zealand we call this bad judgement.