[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

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

In America we call this bad debating.

[ArtK78]

Full disclosure is not the only issue.

Even with full disclosure, your opponents must have a reasonable opportunity to come up with an agreement as to how to defend against your methods. In most games, this will cause an undue delay in the proceedings (certainly in pair events). In some circumstances, it will be a practical impossibility to devise a reasonable defense in a short period of time. And many players will not have the experience or the expertise to come up with a defense on short notice. Thus, the use of some unusual methods creates a situation in which it is fundamentally unfair to use them against unprepared opponents.

Some have turned this argument on its head - "the opponents were at fault for not having prepared properly." Why should they have to prepare for a method that they have never heard of or rarely see? At least with unusual allowed methods the ACBL requires that there be an approved defense provided to the opponents. This is a solution to the problem (I didn't say it was THE solution to the problem).

There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods. Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. This is accepted at some levels (if the opponents do not know how to deal with a Flannery 2♦ opening, that is their problem). I play 10-12 1NT openings with my usual partner. Is a 10-12 1NT opening superior to a 12-14 1NT opening or a 13-15 1NT opening or any other range? Arguments can be made. But there is no doubt that opening 1NT on a 10-12 point hand causes problems for the opponents. Part of that is due to unfamiliarity. This is accepted by the ACBL and other bridge organizations.

But using unusual methods is not accepted at other levels (you cannot spring a transfer 1♥ opening on your opponents). A line has to be drawn, and all bridge organizations decide where to draw the line.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Dec 13 2008, 08:23 AM, 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.

You argument is flawed.

Sure if you pick out the most difficult bid to defend against in my method then it will likely be more difficult than the same bid (different meaning) in your method.

But

Pass 13+ I suspect is easier to defend against than if a suit was opened. You certainly have more bidding space. Although I concede you lack a takeout double.

1♣ 4+ hearts ...

You have more space than if I opened 1♥

1♦ 4+ spades ...

Again you have more space than a 1♠ opening

1♥

You have lost space compared with a 1♣ or 1♦ opening but gained space over a Precision 2♣/♦ opening that I might otherwise play.

1♠

you have lost space over a pass but nevertheless the bid is easy to understand and you are free to devise a defense of your choice

...

All in all it is far from clear that this entire scheme is more difficult to defend against than any other more standard system simple with the care of doing some basic preparation.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

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

In America we call this bad debating.

And you call throwing insults, as you have done, good form?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

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

In America we call this bad debating.

and this is example of good debating

"Now you are just being beyond ridiculous" ?

[jdonn]

MUCH better form than making my insults more snide and underhanded so I can pretend I'm not making them and take the imaginary high ground. Like if I said something along the lines of

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

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

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

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

In America we call this bad debating.

and this is example of good debating

"Now you are just being beyond ridiculous" ?

I backed up my statement, something you seem to not have even attempted to do.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on Dec 13 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

Full disclosure is not the only issue.

Even with full disclosure, your opponents must have a reasonable opportunity to come up with an agreement as to how to defend against your methods. In most games, this will cause an undue delay in the proceedings (certainly in pair events). In some circumstances, it will be a practical impossibility to devise a reasonable defense in a short period of time. And many players will not have the experience or the expertise to come up with a defense on short notice. Thus, the use of some unusual methods creates a situation in which it is fundamentally unfair to use them against unprepared opponents.

Some have turned this argument on its head - "the opponents were at fault for not having prepared properly." Why should they have to prepare for a method that they have never heard of or rarely see? At least with unusual allowed methods the ACBL requires that there be an approved defense provided to the opponents. This is a solution to the problem (I didn't say it was THE solution to the problem).

There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods. Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. This is accepted at some levels (if the opponents do not know how to deal with a Flannery 2♦ opening, that is their problem). I play 10-12 1NT openings with my usual partner. Is a 10-12 1NT opening superior to a 12-14 1NT opening or a 13-15 1NT opening or any other range? Arguments can be made. But there is no doubt that opening 1NT on a 10-12 point hand causes problems for the opponents. Part of that is due to unfamiliarity. This is accepted by the ACBL and other bridge organizations.

But using unusual methods is not accepted at other levels (you cannot spring a transfer 1♥ opening on your opponents). A line has to be drawn, and all bridge organizations decide where to draw the line.

You don't prepare for methods when they come up at the table. You discuss them in advance.

I have no idea where this idea has come from that you would expect to do well against anyone if you make up your defense on the fly when it occurs at the table.

This approach will be bad whether you are defending against a FERT or a natural 1♠ opening.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

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

In America we call this bad debating.

and this is example of good debating

"Now you are just being beyond ridiculous" ?

I backed up my statement, something you seem to not have even attempted to do.

Which statement are you talking about?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

MUCH better form than making my insults more snide and underhanded so I can pretend I'm not making them and take the imaginary high ground. Like if I said something along the lines of

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

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

You insult someone then you expect a courteous reply?

[ArtK78]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 13 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

Full disclosure is not the only issue.

Even with full disclosure, your opponents must have a reasonable opportunity to come up with an agreement as to how to defend against your methods.  In most games, this will cause an undue delay in the proceedings (certainly in pair events).  In some circumstances, it will be a practical impossibility to devise a reasonable defense in a short period of time.  And many players will not have the experience or the expertise to come up with a defense on short notice.  Thus, the use of some unusual methods creates a situation in which it is fundamentally unfair to use them against unprepared opponents.

Some have turned this argument on its head - "the opponents were at fault for not having prepared properly."  Why should they have to prepare for a method that they have never heard of or rarely see?  At least with unusual allowed methods the ACBL requires that there be an approved defense provided to the opponents.  This is a solution to the problem (I didn't say it was THE solution to the problem).

There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods.  Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods.  This is accepted at some levels (if the opponents do not know how to deal with a Flannery 2♦ opening, that is their problem).  I play 10-12 1NT openings with my usual partner.  Is a 10-12 1NT opening superior to a 12-14 1NT opening or a 13-15 1NT opening or any other range?  Arguments can be made.  But there is no doubt that opening 1NT on a 10-12 point hand causes problems for the opponents.  Part of that is due to unfamiliarity.  This is accepted by the ACBL and other bridge organizations.

But using unusual methods is not accepted at other levels (you cannot spring a transfer 1♥ opening on your opponents).  A line has to be drawn, and all bridge organizations decide where to draw the line.

You don't prepare for methods when they come up at the table. You discuss them in advance.

I have no idea where this idea has come from that you would expect to do well against anyone if you make up your defense on the fly when it occurs at the table.

This approach will be bad whether you are defending against a FERT or a natural 1♠ opening.

Exactly.

But all bridge players have learned how do deal with a natural 1♠ opening. I would venture a bet that less than 1% of all bridge players even know what a FERT is.

You are just supporting my argument.

[jdonn]

Who cares if it's courteous? At least stand behind what you say. If you want to insult me then stand up and shout it, don't whisper it then pretend you never said anything and you are the angel to my devil.

You acted completely ridiculous (I am being kind when I use that word by the way.) I told you so, which by definition is an insult despite being true. I then explained why, in order to make my comments relevant to the discussion instead of pointless name calling. Your reaction was to complain you were insulted, insult me back with a statement that is not only impossible to back up but untrue, and then pretend you didn't make an insult. Then when pointed out you did so, fall back on "he started it". So is this what I have to resort to from now on to show "good form"? Act stupid, then blame the first person who points it out to me? Sorry I'll stick to the way I do it now thanks.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

Who cares if it's courteous? At least stand behind what you say. If you want to insult me then stand up and shout it, don't whisper it then pretend you never said anything and you are the angel to my devil.

You acted completely ridiculous (I am being kind when I use that word by the way.) I told you so, which by definition is an insult despite being true. I then explained why, in order to make my comments relevant to the discussion instead of pointless name calling. Your reaction was to complain you were insulted, insult me back with a statement that is not only impossible to back up but untrue, and then pretend you didn't make an insult. Then when pointed out you did so, fall back on "he started it". So is this what I have to resort to from now on to show "good form"? Act stupid, then blame the first person who points it out to me? Sorry I'll stick to the way I do it now thanks.

Where is the reasoning here?

Quote

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.

This is utter nonsense. You prealert so the opponents "don't have to prepare for those methods".

I doubt that you can find anything close to backing up that statement.

Even if it comes close to the intention I certainly wouldn't want to play being deliberately unprepared for what the opponents will throw at me.

[RichMor]

ArtK78 wrote
<<
There are many practical problems in dealing with unusual methods. Anyone with any experience at all knows that unusual methods often create favorable results to the side using the unusual methods not because of the technical superiority of the methods but rather solely on account of the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods.
>>

Well put. I think this is the center of the issue.

If innovators are not allowed to play new and unusual methods then the methods will never become old and familiar. Progress stops and we all revert to Culbertson.

On the other hand, if players of unusual methods get favorable results from the opponents' unfamiliarity then we will see an unending stream of 'new for the sake of new' systems. Sort of like pop music. ("I miss that old time rock and roll").

Wish I had a sensible opinion about whether the FPs or other HUMs should be allowed or restricted, but I dont.

I do have this opinion: preparing a defense for the system-of-the-week is not a good way to spend my limited mental energy.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

This is utter nonsense.  You prealert so the opponents "don't have to prepare for those methods".

I doubt that you can find anything close to backing up that statement.

From the ACBL website:

# Pre-Alerts (Alerts before hands are removed from the first board of a round or match segment):

* Two-system methods (e.g., strong club when equal or favorable vulnerability; a natural two-over-one when not).
* Systems based on very light openings or other highly aggressive methods or preempts.
* Systems which may be unfamiliar to opponents, such as canapé. SuperChart and Mid-Chart methods.
* Leading low from a doubleton

Look at the third point. Do you have a suggestion on how I prepare for methods "which may be unfamiliar to" me?

By the way, is there a difference between calling what I say "utter nonsense" because you assume I can't back it up (even when I can) and calling what you say "ridiculous"?

[awm]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

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.

Actually we did call the director as soon as the bid was made and alerted. He instructed us to "play on" and he would adjudicate later. We "played on" and got a ridiculous result because of the disagreement over the meaning of double.

The director adjusted the result to a (somewhat arbitrary) 3 IMPs for our side.

One of the opponents then became very upset and spent the next 40 minutes of our 60 minute swiss team match arguing with the director. This probably should have lead to a further penalty (wasting a huge amount of time) but didn't.

[DrTodd13]

Personally, I think that being courteous and kind to one another is admirable. Both sides in this debate have been guilty of disrespecting the other side to some degree. The use of the term "ridiculous" instead of "incorrect" in my opinion serves only as a means to backhandedly insult the person who made the argument. There is a way to forcefully assert one's position without insulting the other side.

I'm disappointed, and now think less of those people who, for example, called the chess analogy ridiculous. Several other people then agreed that the analogy had some illustrative value. I just don't think this style of arguing helps draw us to any conclusion...it only serves to stir up people's passions and mask any true dialogue.

[Free]

awm, on Dec 12 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

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.

Actually we did call the director as soon as the bid was made and alerted. He instructed us to "play on" and he would adjudicate later. We "played on" and got a ridiculous result because of the disagreement over the meaning of double.

The director adjusted the result to a (somewhat arbitrary) 3 IMPs for our side.

One of the opponents then became very upset and spent the next 40 minutes of our 60 minute swiss team match arguing with the director. This probably should have lead to a further penalty (wasting a huge amount of time) but didn't.

So what is the problem then??? You didn't get a poor score and you know you should discuss this gismo for the future (+ who cares what mental state our opps are?).

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

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.

Actually we did call the director as soon as the bid was made and alerted. He instructed us to "play on" and he would adjudicate later. We "played on" and got a ridiculous result because of the disagreement over the meaning of double.

The director adjusted the result to a (somewhat arbitrary) 3 IMPs for our side.

One of the opponents then became very upset and spent the next 40 minutes of our 60 minute swiss team match arguing with the director. This probably should have lead to a further penalty (wasting a huge amount of time) but didn't.

Basically though the unusual method did not cause the "Lousy results".

[fred]

DrTodd13, on Dec 12 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

I'm disappointed, and now think less of those people who, for example, called the chess analogy ridiculous.  Several other people then agreed that the analogy had some illustrative value.  I just don't think this style of arguing helps draw us to any conclusion...it only serves to stir up people's passions and mask any true dialogue.

I think you are right. As one of the people who referred to the chess analogy as "ridiculous", I apologize.

I disagree with Dr. Todd in the value of that analogy (and I don't think much of the other analogies to other sports mentioned in this thread), but I certainly could have been more polite about the way I expressed this.

It has been a good discussion. I hope Dr. Todd's post will result in cooler heads (including mine) prevailing should the discussion continue.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com