[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 02:59 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

It isn't the problem of not having a cue bid, it's the problem of not knowing what contracts you're investigating and which suits you want stopped for NT.

Pretty much the same problems you have over a 1♣ that could be as short as two.

That's not true - so far as I know everyone who plays that 1♣ can be as short as 2 but is not a strong club, opens 1♣ with 2 clubs only on a balanced hand. Just like everyone else opens 1♣ with 3 only on a balanced hand. The 1♣ bidder won't have 6 hearts. That means that the opponents don't have to worry about stoppers in suits other than clubs. You can defend against 1♣ that might be 2 exactly as against a standard club except perhaps you'll want a natural club bid (which is also true against 1♣ that might be 3). On the other hand, when someone opens 2♥ that might have 6 spades, you need a way to explore both hearts and spades as places to play AND suits in which you might want stoppers.

Granted the problem is perhaps more severe over a multi-2♥ but they seem to be of the same generic type that we encounter every day over a short club. Short clubs or long clubs seems to be a similar type of issue to long hearts or long spades. In both cases there are four suits that we might want to play in. In the second case there is the additional problem of determining stoppers in two suits. However this second problem is no different than the same problem over a multi 2-♦ showing either major.

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 16 2008, 02:17 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

1) Most of the players prefer that certain classes of methods are banned (yes it is hard to know where to draw the line)

...

If such data suggested that a substantial majority of people wanted to playing "anything goes" I would accept that. Can you say the same if it turns out that such data went against what you personally wanted?

Fred your language changes here from a simple majority - "most" - for disllowing non-standard methods to a "substantial majority" for allowing the same methods. Is this deliberate?

Yes - my thinking at the time was that, if it was close, then it would make sense to stick with the status quo because the cost of changing from the status quo would be high. In addition, I would be concerned that, if a vote was held and the result was a small win for "change", that shortly after the actual change took place it would not be unlikely that sufficient numbers of voters-for-change would think "mistake" and that those in favor of the change would no longer be in the majority.

(Not because I personally think it would be a mistake, but because I think people tend to change the minds on close issues).

I am not sure if I agree with the above or not - I could certainly accept a majority of 1 as the standard.

I don't think it makes any sense to let any size of minority decide.

I am trying to be objective and fair and I like to think that my opinion would be the same if (my perception of) current popular opinion was different than my own.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

If 51% are threatening to leave if X is not allowed and 49% are threatening to leave is X is allowed then simple majority seems the way to go. However, people tend to be more rabid about not wanting stuff than wanting it so something more realistic may be 49% threatening to leave if X is allowed, 2% threatening to leave if X is not allowed and another 49% who think it should be allowed but won't quit even if it isn't. In this case, allowing it wouldn't make much business sense.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 16 2008, 07:26 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

Thanks.

Whatever it means, most of what I said still applies, but:

1) I can't claim that I have personally played this convention and given it up because I think it sucks

2) I have no idea which pairs tournaments (or team tournaments for that matter) in ACBL or elsewhere permit players to use this convention

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I am not sure either except that it appears to be GCC illegal. The BBO ACBL tournaments usually have an announcement "no Wilkosz".

It is not 100% clear to me whether this is disallowed in the WBF (BSC excepted). The WBF BSC definition says:

"a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that:
i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below
average strength) AND
ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.
EXCEPTION: ... <an irrelevant exception snipped>
EXCEPTION: A two level opening bid in a minor showing a
weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of
strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions
Booklet. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in
6 below."

To me it seems moot whether showing five hearts or spades and another five-card suit in a weak hand can be described as "a weak two in either major".

Krzysztof Jassem in WJ05 A modern version of Polish Club (translated by Daniel Neill) believes that it banned:

"For years, the 2♦ opening was reserved for the Wilkosz convention. However, Wilkosz is not allowed outside Poland and as a result all Polish pairs playing outside of Poland or on the INternet have retired this convention."

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 09:07 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 15 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

Still, I don't think this proves very much. My original point that you took issue with (I think) is my belief that few players in most countries seem interested in experimenting with systems that I would call unusual. Perhaps Poland is not "most countries" or perhaps what I consider "unusual" is usual there.

For that statement Fred I think you ought to include Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.

OK Claus. Because you asked so nicely, I will admit it:

Perhaps Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Poland are not most countries.

While you are at it, why don't you try to provide a list of all the other countries where bridge is played? If you do that for me I will be happy to admit that the 100+ countries in that list do, in fact, constitute "most countries".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I am quite sure Fred there are countries, even big ones, who will be right to count for your position. Germany, France, Spain and Portugal, Great Britain and Ireland. I assume you can count on Turkey too.

For Eastern Europe I dont know, but I assume the Slawes also in such kind of life will have a position leaning to each other - that will be the polish way.

Next time you talk with Roland I am quite sure he will be able to provide valid information for this.

It is not bad will Fred but in fact I am quite relaxed of all this regulation thing. I am not affected of anything. I live in remote area and only plays online.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 15 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D)

I'm pretty sure that a Wilkosz 2D is a weak opening showing 4+-4+ in the majors.

I think it's a 2♦ opening that shows any 5-5. Its ambiguity makes it hard for both sides, but since it's a weak bid, the opponents will more often be hurt by the ambiguity.

Sounds like a sound method to play then.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 06:47 AM, said:

You probably know that the drafters of the GCC (who admittedly didn't do a very good job, but there was a lot of ground to cover) could have limited the "3 card minors are natural" definition to "at the one level." You probably even know that that would be the appropriate thing to do. So you're just deliberately setting up a straw man. I don't know why, but I don't find it productive.

In general I think it is a very bad thing to assume that the regulations mean something different than what is written.

As a player I have no way of knowing what the regulators intended I only know what they wrote. So I have to make my decisions on what I will play based on what is written.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 02:41 PM, said:

JanM, on Dec 16 2008, 06:47 AM, said:

You probably know that the drafters of the GCC (who admittedly didn't do a very good job, but there was a lot of ground to cover) could have limited the "3 card minors are natural" definition to "at the one level." You probably even know that that would be the appropriate thing to do. So you're just deliberately setting up a straw man. I don't know why, but I don't find it productive.

In general I think it is a very bad thing to assume that the regulations mean something different than what is written.

As a player I have no way of knowing what the regulators intended I only know what they wrote. So I have to make my decisions on what I will play based on what is written.

For what it is worth, I have used the "3-card minor is natural" rule over a wide range 1NT opening bid, using 2C and 2D responses to 1N to basically show the same shapes as standard American 1C and 1D openings. The director who allowed us to play this method was more concerned that the fact these calls were forcing might make them conventional than the with the suit length.

[jikl]

I remember people playing FP as a defence to FP but they got to have system notes at the table since it was a defence. Then came the question of when the people playing FP were allowed to look at the defence notes

Sean

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 15 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

It is not bad will Fred but in fact I am quite relaxed of all this regulation thing.

I am actually quite relaxed about it too. I am content with the rules being the way they are now. If the rules change and if I am still interested in playing serious bridge, then I supose I will have to adapt, just like everyone else (and just like I already do when I the opponents are playing something that is new to me).

Quote

I am not affected of anything. I live in remote area and only plays online.

Given your isolated (bridge) life, it seems strange to me that you can be confident that the majority of players from all those countries you listed would be in favor of very liberal systems regulations.

But I will take your word for it - Merry Christmas, Claus!

Wait a minute - you're not really Santa Claus are you?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

Wait a minute - you're not really Santa Claus are you?

Thank you very much Fred - you are close to - LOL.

You know Santa lives in Greenland - and I live far north too - but not that far.

[Aberlour10]

csdenmark, on Dec 15 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

You know Santa lives in Greenland - and I live far north too - but not that far.

Rumors say that he prefers to play Viking or Icelandic Precision

[csdenmark]

Aberlour10, on Dec 15 2008, 11:50 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 15 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

You know Santa lives in Greenland - and I live far north too - but not that far.

Rumors say that he prefers to play Viking or Icelandic Precision

Wise to walk the footsteps of the Bermuda Bowl winners I think

[jdonn]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 01:55 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

It would be very easy for such a pair to do either of the following:

- Agree to open the bid on exactly the hands they open either a normal weak 2 or multi, whichever they normally play.
- Take advantage of the BBO bidding practice rooms!

But it isn't playable if you open all the hands you would normally open a weak 2 on - you have to either have better hands for hearts (because with hearts you'll often have to play at the 3-level) or open more hands with hearts (so partner leans toward passing unless s/he has serious heart length or spade length).

Huh?? Of course it's playable, they don't "have to" do anything except accept that using this method they will sometimes end in a suit they don't have. What in the world makes it not playable? You seem to believe that if they can't figure out a way to play in a suit they actually have most of the time, then the method is not playable. They could easily open every hand that they would open a normal weak 2 bid, always pass if responder has equal length in the suits, and end in the wrong suit half the time in those cases. What is not playable about that?

Quote

Quote

BTW, on the topic of creating defenses. Of course I can understand the need for things like defining what your doubles are in each likely situation, and balancing actions, and most other things. However, there have been a number of mentions of the difficulty of knowing what is a cuebid. I don't understand why people feel entitled to a cuebid. You don't have one when you overcall over a 1NT opening, or over a precision 1♣. Sure, if there is one it will help you, but it is not a right for there to always be one. I don't have much sympathy if you were trying to always make sure there was some 'cuebid' available and it caused problems in creating a defense. I equate that to claiming your opponents should not be able to overcall your major suit openings with 4NT on any weak hands since it takes away your blackwood.

It isn't the problem of not having a cue bid, it's the problem of not knowing what contracts you're investigating and which suits you want stopped for NT. Of course, those issues are related to whether there's a cuebid, but not the same. After 1NT or 1♣, we know that we might want to play in any suit and we probably don't care about stoppers for NT, because the opponents haven't shown a long suit they might run against us. After a multi 2♥ we need to explore both possible suits to play in and stoppers - that's tough.

It looks like you took my point, restated it in a different way, then flipped it around. When I say players don't have some right to a "cuebid", I don't literally mean a bid in a suit of the opponents. I mean an artificial way to advance the auction which lets you show a good raise of partner's suit and ask for stoppers. If the opponents have been wily enough to prevent you from knowing which suit they actually hold and therefore you have trouble figuring out whether you have their suit stopped, good for them! Knowing you have every suit stopped is not a God-given right. How is that different from if you open 1NT and the opponents overcall 2♣ showing a single suited hand, and responder has a game force with which he doesn't feel comfortable doubling 2♣ in case that is overcaller's suit, but can't risk passing in case 4th hand is weak with clubs and also passes? You will know the opening leader to 3NT has a long suit but you won't know what it is and you won't have any cuebids available. But no one is clamorring for Cappelletti to be banned...

[blackshoe]

The fact that ACBL is good at running lower level tournaments, and the fact that ACBL has been doing so forever, do not, in my opinion, preclude that doing so is the proper function of an NBO, which the ACBL now is not.

Regarding your figure skating analogy, no. Local clubs are not (nor should they be) required to be associated with the NBO (the incentive for being so associated is the ability to hand out master points, but that's a separate issue).

I do not see how running lower level events and having control over the CoC of higher level events (within a national scope) are mutually exclusive. And if the USBF (an NBO) is controlling the CoC for Zonal championships, well, there's something wrong with that picture, too.

Re: many smaller countries. That's not a good argument. First, most countries are smaller than the US. Second, NBOs in other countries do those things because that's the job of the NBO, not because they're smaller than we are.

Jan, you're basically saying that things are the way they are because that's the way they are. What I'm saying is that IMO that's not the way they should be. I have little hope of changing the status quo, though. I suppose I should just let it go at that.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Dec 15 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

And if the USBF (an NBO) is controlling the CoC for Zonal championships, well, there's something wrong with that picture, too.

I think that's the result of a confusion over what "zonal championships" are - and admittedly it's confusing because different zones do it differently. Zonal championships are the events where teams are selected for the World Championships. In Zone 1 (Europe) the European Championships chooses which countries are allowed to send teams to the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup (and probably the Senior Cup too). Each country then gets to choose its team. But the European Championship is the Zonal Championship. In Zone 2 (North America), WBF has already decided which countries get to send teams - the US gets to send 2 teams to the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup & Senior Cup; Canada & Mexico get to compete for the right to send one team. So our Zone has two Zonal Championships in each division - the US Championship selects the US teams, what used to be called the Tri-Country Playoff and I guess is now the Bi-Country playoff selects the third team. Those events are Zonal Championships for purposes of awarding WBF masterpoints. But the US event is open only to US players and therefore is run by the US NBO - the USBF.

I would certainly not argue that the way the North American organizations are set up makes a lot of sense, but I also can't see arguing that we should all at once change the method of running lower level events that has worked well for so long. And I'm not sure why you would feel that only an NBO can run local events. NBO's are organizations that interact with the WBF. Running local events has nothing to do with the WBF so why should it matter what organization does it? And surely the fact that an organization is doing a good job at something is, in fact, an excellent reason to have them continue doing it.

[JanM]

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Huh?? Of course it's playable, they don't "have to" do anything except accept that using this method they will sometimes end in a suit they don't have. What in the world makes it not playable? You seem to believe that if they can't figure out a way to play in a suit they actually have most of the time, then the method is not playable. They could easily open every hand that they would open a normal weak 2 bid, always pass if responder has equal length in the suits, and end in the wrong suit half the time in those cases. What is not playable about that?

LOL. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "unplayable." I would be happy to revise my statement to say "unsound" instead of "unplayable"

[jdonn]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Huh?? Of course it's playable, they don't "have to" do anything except accept that using this method they will sometimes end in a suit they don't have. What in the world makes it not playable? You seem to believe that if they can't figure out a way to play in a suit they actually have most of the time, then the method is not playable. They could easily open every hand that they would open a normal weak 2 bid, always pass if responder has equal length in the suits, and end in the wrong suit half the time in those cases. What is not playable about that?

LOL. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "unplayable." I would be happy to revise my statement to say "unsound" instead of "unplayable"

Very good So when you say this method can not be described, and I say it can easily be described, your response is that the description I offered as an example means their method is unsound.

So why exactly does that lead to the conclusion that we should ban the method? And let's be honest here - anyone using that method is not using it because they think it will lead to "sound" auctions.

[DrTodd13]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Huh?? Of course it's playable, they don't "have to" do anything except accept that using this method they will sometimes end in a suit they don't have. What in the world makes it not playable? You seem to believe that if they can't figure out a way to play in a suit they actually have most of the time, then the method is not playable. They could easily open every hand that they would open a normal weak 2 bid, always pass if responder has equal length in the suits, and end in the wrong suit half the time in those cases. What is not playable about that?

LOL. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "unplayable." I would be happy to revise my statement to say "unsound" instead of "unplayable"

If I recall correctly, Helgemo at some point played this method. Are you suggesting he (or any other WC player that we can find who uses it) would play something he believed to be unsound or are suggesting that in his opinion it was sound but you know better and it isn't?

[the hog]

I played Bridge in Poland - one night only in a club in Warsaw. This was a local club nioght. At least 80% of the players used Wilkosz. Some players were very strong, others pretty weak. No one had any problems with the bid.