[H_KARLUK]

vang, on Dec 16 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

# It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

(not directed to anyone, just found it interesting ;-)

Big words. Anyway he also quoted this one :
All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire.
Aristotle
(384 BC - 322 BC)
Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 15 2008, 11:54 PM, said:

Destructive ---> Banned

When the point being made is actually this

Destructive ---> Most don't want to play against it ---> Banned

I'm much more comfortable with the first. The second is vulnerable to the arbitrary evaluation of regulators and can lead to inconsistencies in convention charts. (Both of which I consider bad.)

[jdonn]

Codo, on Dec 16 2008, 06:26 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

but it's also relevant that there is no similarity in the comparison between quarterbacks and bridge players. Or the rules of a sport and the rules of a card game. Why in the world would you expect the same rules to apply between two things that have nothing to do with each other?

You repeat this, so you seem to belive it.

Actually it is a strength of a thinking being to compare similar situations and learn from the analogies.

Fantastic. Find me a similar situation instead of all these un-similar ones, and I'm sure we will get a good analogy.

[ArtK78]

I found the football analogy interesting.

But it was misapplied.

A quarterback sack is not destructive. It accomplishes one of the main goals of the defense - preventing the offense from advancing the ball. In that sense, it is highly constructive. And it is entirely within the rules to tackle any player who is holding the football.

A better analogy would be a personal foul - such as tackling the quarterback well after he has passed the ball to a receiver. In a sense, tackling the quarterback in this situation will accomplish a goal of the defense - winning the game - in that the tackle may cause the quarterback to be injured as he is not expecting to be attacked after the play is over (at least the play is over as far as he is concerned). Injuring the quarterback will likely result in his being replaced by someone with less ability. But hitting the quarterback when he does not have the ball and is not otherwise involved in the play is considered to be destructive, as it does not improve the outcome of the particular play for the defense and it causes harm to the quarterback. So it is against the rules and is subject to a penalty.

This is analogous to the use of a fert. A fert has no true constructive meaning - it is really defined by what it is not - it is not 8 or more HCP and it is not a hand which can be described by another bid (a higher preemptive call) which is used for other hands of less than 8 HCP. Whether it actually promises some length in a particular suit may be coincidental. The use of the fert is dictated by the fact that all other calls have some constructive meaning (unless the partnership is using more than one fert). But defining a call negatively - it isn't this and it isn't that, etc. - makes it extremely difficult to defend. In and of itself, a fert is a destructive call - it serves no constructive purpose. In the overall context of a bidding system, it does serve a useful purpose - it fills a hole, "describing" a hand that fits the meaning of no other call. But that does not solve the problems for the opponents created by using the fert.

In the sense of filling a hole that is not covered by any other call, it is similar to the Precision 1♦ opening as some play it - 11-15 HCP but not promising any diamonds. That bid is also defined by what it is not - it is not a 1NT opening, it is not a 1♣ opening, etc. But the fact that it does show opening values and usually shows diamonds makes it recognizable and defensible - and, more importantly, constructive.

I hope this adds something to the discussion.

[Cascade]

Codo, on Dec 17 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

And yes Bridge is unique. The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year.
Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't been there to protect the frightend majority.)

This is certainly possible.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on Dec 17 2008, 06:20 AM, said:

I found the football analogy interesting.

But it was misapplied.

A quarterback sack is not destructive. It accomplishes one of the main goals of the defense - preventing the offense from advancing the ball. In that sense, it is highly constructive. And it is entirely within the rules to tackle any player who is holding the football.

Similarly bidding before the opponents with a weak hand is a well established tactic of disrupting the opponent's offense from bidding accurately to their best contract.

Quote

A better analogy would be a personal foul - such as tackling the quarterback well after he has passed the ball to a receiver.  In a sense, tackling the quarterback in this situation will accomplish a goal of the defense - winning the game - in that the tackle may cause the quarterback to be injured as he is not expecting to be attacked after the play is over (at least the play is over as far as he is concerned).  Injuring the quarterback will likely result in his being replaced by someone with less ability.  But hitting the quarterback when he does not have the ball and is not otherwise involved in the play is considered to be destructive, as it does not improve the outcome of the particular play for the defense and it causes harm to the quarterback.  So it is against the rules and is subject to a penalty.

We are not discussing deliberately (or otherwise) breaking the rules we are discussing changing the rules. I agree that breaking the rules - turning up to play forcing pass in an game where this is not allowed is bad. I don't agree though that not allowing forcing pass is a sensible rule.

Quote

This is analogous to the use of a fert.  A fert has no true constructive meaning - it is really defined by what it is not - it is not 8 or more HCP and it is not a hand which can be described by another bid (a higher preemptive call) which is used for other hands of less than 8 HCP.  Whether it actually promises some length in a particular suit may be coincidental.  The use of the fert is dictated by the fact that all other calls have some constructive meaning (unless the partnership is using more than one fert).  But defining a call negatively - it isn't this and it isn't that, etc. - makes it extremely difficult to defend.  In and of itself, a fert is a destructive call - it serves no constructive purpose.  In the overall context of a bidding system, it does serve a useful purpose - it fills a hole, "describing" a hand that fits the meaning of no other call.  But that does not solve the problems for the opponents created by using the fert.

Pretty much the same as a PASS in a standard bidding system it too is defined by what it is not. We all happily defend against a "standard" PASS. There are some advantages and some disadvantages that come from defending against a FERT rather than a PASS. An advantage is that the FERT is better defined than a PASS. A disadvantage is that over most FERTs you have to start your defense at a higher level than over a "standard" PASS.

Quote

In the sense of filling a hole that is not covered by any other call, it is similar to the Precision 1♦ opening as some play it - 11-15 HCP but not promising any diamonds.  That bid is also defined by what it is not - it is not a 1NT opening, it is not a 1♣ opening, etc.  But the fact that it does show opening values and usually shows diamonds makes it recognizable and defensible - and, more importantly, constructive.

A FERT is defensible and it is recognizable (at worst you will recognize it the second time you see it).

To suggest it is not is just fear-mongering.

The entire argument against unrestricted system regulations seems to me to be based on fear-mongering.

These methods are:

"destructive" - without even defining the term;

"difficult" - when mostly they are not, they are just different;

"unpopular" - without hard evidence or any experience of those they claim will think these methods are unpopular actually playing against these methods;

"poorly disclosed" - when this is hardly the sole domain of players playing unusual methods.

[csdenmark]

Codo, on Dec 16 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year. 
Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't  been there to protect the frightend majority.)

I am very sure you are fairly right about age and loss of players. But to blame regulations for that is unfair and you know that Roland.

They are not frightened of anything. They have never heard the words and have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

The age of players is fairly much due to nature of the game. The problem is nobody seems to care to come up with ideas on how to attract new segments.

In that respect this thread is empty loop only.

[Cascade]

csdenmark, on Dec 17 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

Codo, on Dec 16 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year. 
Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't  been there to protect the frightend majority.)

I am very sure you are fairly right about age and loss of players. But to blame regulations for that is unfair and you know that Roland.

They are not frightened of anything. They have never heard the words and have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

The age of players is fairly much due to nature of the game. The problem is nobody seems care to come up with ideas on how to attract new segments.

In that respect this thread is empty loop only.

Maybe the regulations do not scare anybody off but the lack of freedom may discourage some new players coming to the game.

[qwery_hi]

ArtK78, on Dec 16 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

This is analogous to the use of a fert. A fert has no true constructive meaning - it is really defined by what it is not - it is not 8 or more HCP and it is not a hand which can be described by another bid (a higher preemptive call) which is used for other hands of less than 8 HCP. Whether it actually promises some length in a particular suit may be coincidental.

What do you mean by constructive? It it supposed to be a bid that helps us reach a contract we can make? Then I suggest we ban sacrifices. Is it supposed to be a bid that helps us get the best possible score on a hand? Then I suggest we allow any bidding system that can mathematically be shown to accomplish this.

[han]

Wayne, I should clarify that I don't disagree with many of your points. For myself I enjoy playing against pairs who play less common methods and I like to play some methods myself that are not legal at the local level in the US. I also like to tinker a little with methods although not as much as some others here. I often find the convention chards incomprehensible in some respects and I can't help thinking that it should be possible to make them more consistent and easier to understand. Unfortunately I have never played at the international level so as you said, I don't know what I'm talking about there.

What I disagree with most strongly is that bridge should be bridge in its purest form, without any convention regulartions, and anything else is not bridge. The rules of most games and sports have evolved over time and bridge is as it is, nothing less and nothing more. You can state that you'd enjoy bridge more if the rules were different, or that it would attract more people if the rules were different, or that it would be a great benefit to the game if there were less regulations because they would be easier to understand. You could even try to argue that most North Americans would enjoy the game better if they got accustomed to the freedom of regulations that you are familiar with. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that the current WBF bridge rules as they are now are intrinsically wrong.

[csdenmark]

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 17 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

Codo, on Dec 16 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year. 
Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't  been there to protect the frightend majority.)

I am very sure you are fairly right about age and loss of players. But to blame regulations for that is unfair and you know that Roland.

They are not frightened of anything. They have never heard the words and have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

The age of players is fairly much due to nature of the game. The problem is nobody seems care to come up with ideas on how to attract new segments.

In that respect this thread is empty loop only.

Maybe the regulations do not scare anybody off but the lack of freedom may discourage some new players coming to the game.

No Wayne - regulations is no topic until you are well established in the game.

Internet and information technology is the challenge.

Topics the persons responsible to run the bridge organizations has the similar lack of knowledge of such as they have about judicial matters.

[DrTodd13]

qwery_hi, on Dec 16 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 16 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

This is analogous to the use of a fert.  A fert has no true constructive meaning - it is really defined by what it is not - it is not 8 or more HCP and it is not a hand which can be described by another bid (a higher preemptive call) which is used for other hands of less than 8 HCP.  Whether it actually promises some length in a particular suit may be coincidental.

What do you mean by constructive? It it supposed to be a bid that helps us reach a contract we can make? Then I suggest we ban sacrifices. Is it supposed to be a bid that helps us get the best possible score on a hand? Then I suggest we allow any bidding system that can mathematically be shown to accomplish this.

I think people find that the more they try to define constructive and destructive the more illusive the definitions become. To me, the only thing I'm willing to call destructive is a bid that literally says nothing about the person's hand. However, I can't think of a single example of anyone ever trying to employ such a bid. The example many quote here is the 1♣ (precision) - mandatory 1♠ overcall auction but this "mandatory" was never really mandatory. There were definitions were 1♦, 1♥, 1N, etc. overcalls and so in essence they didn't use pass (or used it for something else) but instead made 1♠ the catchall. And catchalls do describe your hand by virtue of excluding all the other possible calls. If all bids besides 1♠ were undefined and never used and in effect all 1♠ meant was "I have 13 cards" then this is one thing I'd be willing to ban.

[FrancesHinden]

glen, on Dec 16 2008, 03:47 AM, said:

imo, the regulations need to be more open and more consistent.  In particular, for top level bridge:

- <snip>
- Since current regulations allow for transfer bids in many circumstances, allow them for all calls – any call that shows four or longer in a known suit is allowed.

These are simple, consistent, open regulations that top level bridge players can handle, albeit some will be grumpy for a while.

From the English regulations for level 4 events (most serious tournaments), the following are allowed:

- Any opening bid of one of suit is permitted that shows at least four cards in a specified suit, forcing or not.
- A 1NT opening may have any meaning as long as at promises at least four cards in a specified suit (there is other stuff about a natural 1NT, or a strong/forcing 1NT)

(there are also some restrictions about the strength of opening 1-bids)

....
- All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention (this is to any opening bid)
- From opener's rebid onwards, anything is allowed

Similarly transfer overcalls are allowed, and anything is allowed by 4th seat after partner has overcalled.

Come and play in England.

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 16 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

- Any opening bid of one of suit is permitted that shows at least four cards in a specified suit, forcing or not.

Are there anything like suggested defenses in England, or is each partnership responsible for preparing their own defenses to opponents' methods?

[FrancesHinden]

What's mildly interesting, however, is that while transfer openings have been legal since 1st August 2006, I only know of two pairs currently playing them in national tournaments. Obviously there may be many more who simply don't play in national events, e.g. at university bridge clubs.

Mind you, Polish club has been legal for the same length of time, and there are very few pairs who play that either (I can only think of one pair, one of whom is Polish)

[FrancesHinden]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

I know that I personally played Multi 2D for many years and stopped playing it, not because of systems restrictions, but because I came to believe that this convention sucks (mostly because my opponents learned how to defend against it).

The multi 2D is an interesting convention to discuss, not least because outside the ACBL it can generally be played very freely. I can't argue with your belief, but I had a quick look at some of the convention cards from the last Bermuda Bowl of some of the teams, and the following pairs all played a multi:

- Brink/Drijver (NL)
- Muller/DeWijs (NL)
- Helgemo/Helness (NO)
- Salsenminde/Brogeland (NO)
- Grotheim/Tundal (NO)
- Zia/Rosenberg (US)
- Jassem/Martens (vul only) (PL)
- Gawrys/Chmurski (PL)
- and the third Polish pair I can't spell
- All three of the Chinese pairs

I stopped after six countries, the other one was Italy none of whose pairs do.
England weren't in the last Bermuda Bowl but they won silver medal at the WMSG with two of their pairs playing a multi.

I think that is enough top players that it is reasonable to say that many players believe it has substantial merit.

The multi is also interesting simply because it is allowed in so many places, that we can see how much it gets played. The multi 2H, for example, is allowed so rarely that no-one really knows if it's any good or not.

[FrancesHinden]

TimG, on Dec 16 2008, 08:58 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Dec 16 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

- Any opening bid of one of suit is permitted that shows at least four cards in a specified suit, forcing or not.

Are there anything like suggested defenses in England, or is each partnership responsible for preparing their own defenses to opponents' methods?

There is no such thing as 'suggested defences'. If it is legal, you are expected to be able to defend against it*.

We also don't exactly have 'pre-alerts' but you are obliged to exchange convention cards with your opponents, and the cards have to highlight any peculiarities that opponents should know about.

*In events where BSCs / HUMs are permitted you have to provide a written defence, much like everywhere else.

[Cascade]

han, on Dec 17 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

Wayne, I should clarify that I don't disagree with many of your points. For myself I enjoy playing against pairs who play less common methods and I like to play some methods myself that are not legal at the local level in the US. I also like to tinker a little with methods although not as much as some others here. I often find the convention chards incomprehensible in some respects and I can't help thinking that it should be possible to make them more consistent and easier to understand. Unfortunately I have never played at the international level so as you said, I don't know what I'm talking about there.

Thanks.

My comment that you didn't know what you were talking about was simply about your comment that "The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be...".

It was not intended in response to anything else you have written.

And quite possibly I misinterpreted your intention. If so I apologize.

Quote

What I disagree with most strongly is that bridge should be bridge in its purest form, without any convention regulartions, and anything else is not bridge. The rules of most games and sports have evolved over time and bridge is as it is, nothing less and nothing more. You can state that you'd enjoy bridge more if the rules were different, or that it would attract more people if the rules were different, or that it would be a great benefit to the game if there were less regulations because they would be easier to understand. You could even try to argue that most North Americans would enjoy the game better if they got accustomed to the freedom of regulations that you are familiar with. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that the current WBF bridge rules as they are now are intrinsically wrong.

I certainly would enjoy bridge more if the rules were different.

However I have a much bigger problem with how the rules are made and the quality of the rules that are in place. The reasons given for rules don't seem to have much substance to me and don't match with the rules that are actually in place e.g. even the ACBL GCC allows for many things that are "unpopular". Additional the rules seems to be broken or overlooked in the case of some methods e.g. An artificial 1♣ that could be short was ruled "natural" in Shanghai 2007 so as to not allow their opponents to play Brown Sticker Conventions.

I would prefer a much more open and transparent process.

[glen]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 16 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

From the English regulations for level 4 events (most serious tournaments), the following are allowed:

- Any opening bid of one of suit is permitted that shows at least four cards in a specified suit, forcing or not.
- A 1NT opening may have any meaning as long as at promises at least four cards in a specified suit (there is other stuff about a natural 1NT, or a strong/forcing 1NT)
...
- All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention (this is to any opening bid)
- From opener's rebid onwards, anything is allowed

Similarly transfer overcalls are allowed, and anything is allowed by 4th seat after partner has overcalled.

Come and play in England.

Wow, and England was not even on the Fred/Santa Claus list of "Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Poland". Has this sensible set of regulations resulted in a lack of talent development?

[H_KARLUK]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 16 2008, 10:53 PM, said:

From the English regulations for level 4 events (most serious tournaments), the following are allowed:

- Any opening bid of one of suit is permitted that shows at least four cards in a specified suit, forcing or not.
- A 1NT opening may have any meaning as long as at promises at least four cards in a specified suit (there is other stuff about a natural 1NT, or a strong/forcing 1NT)

(there are also some restrictions about the strength of opening 1-bids)

....
- All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention (this is to any opening bid)
- From opener's rebid onwards, anything is allowed

Similarly transfer overcalls are allowed, and anything is allowed by 4th seat after partner has overcalled.

Come and play in England.

Did EBU ban Tony Forrester, Raymond Brock, Steve Lodge (TRS) system or not ? If they banned in past now lifted?