[H_KARLUK]

I want to be sure about one thing.

Logical and equitable criticism is welcomed. But who are the people that mercilessly allege ACBL doing wrong since many years about HUM ? All of them are ACBL members or not? What are their numerical adjective ?

If all of them are not ACBL members then what is the problem ? Did they visit USA and their gadgets disallowed ? Or are they advocates of poor(!) silent crowd ? Are they really sure that they have capacity to rescue whole bridge world with fast and magic prescriptions? It may be everything free or restrictions in their official own league at any or all levels. So the rest of world are supposed to follow them blindly?

Meanwhile real profesionals of international field remain silent or at least do not comment while their schedule are mostly busy. So far so good, world class category members there with growing competition.

Oh interesting, let's wait and see how many months more forum people here will be busy about this sitcom.

In my culture there is a proverb :
The hare was angry with the mountain, but the mountain was never aware of it.

Have fun !

[fred]

hrothgar, on Dec 23 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

However, I think using the word "Necessity" is going a bit far.

Agree.

I meant what you said, but was not careful with my choice of words (or word).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 23 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

I want to be sure about one thing.

Logical and equitable criticism is welcomed. But who are the people that mercilessly allege ACBL doing wrong since many years about HUM ? All of them are ACBL members or not? What are their numerical adjective ?

If all of them are not ACBL members then what is the problem ? Did they visit USA and their gadgets disallowed ? Or are they advocates of poor(!) silent crowd ? Are they really sure that they have capacity to rescue whole bridge world with fast and magic prescriptions? It may be everything free or restrictions in their official own league at any or all levels. So the rest of world are supposed to follow them blindly?

Meanwhile real profesionals of international field remain silent or at least do not comment while their schedule are mostly busy. So far so good, world class category members there with growing competition.

Oh interesting, let's wait and see how many months more forum people here will be busy about this sitcom.

In my culture there is a proverb :
The hare was angry with the mountain, but the mountain was never aware of it.

Have fun !

It all sounds a lot like "we won't listen to you if you're not one of us". Sounds like kindergarten to me, but then again, I'm not one of you so you won't even feel offended.

No, not everyone bitching on acbl is an acbl member. And from what I've heard about it, I'm happy I live in Europe. But that doesn't mean I can't have good suggestions, or that the critique I give is unjustified...

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 23 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

BTW, I used to track the definition of the 2♦ openings used in the Bermuda Bowl, Olympiad, and the like... As I recall, there were four main reasons that folks we're playing a multi 2♦

1. The pair was using 2M as a two suited opening
2. The pair was using an assumed fit 2H and a two suited 2♠
3. The pair wanted to distinquish between good and bad major suit preempts
4. The pair wanted some way to show a strong balanced hand or a strong Roman hand

I'm not sure you can call all these "reasons folks were playing a multi 2D".

Take #1, for instance. Perhaps they were playing 2M as a two suited opening because they were able to play 2D as multi to handle the weak-two type bids. For #3, maybe the pair liked sound weak two-bids in the majors and were left with 2D undefined, they picked weak multi as the best option from amongst the leftovers.

Anyway, it seems like something of a chicken and egg situation.

[awm]

Perhaps the point people are making is...

Suppose you had two options. You could either:

(1) Play 2M as a natural weak two, and be barred from opening 2♦ ever.
(2) Play 2♦ as multi (weak only) and be barred from opening 2M ever.

I suspect that almost all good players would agree that option (1) is superior against decent opposition, even those players who routinely put multi on their card.

However, in real systems we are allowed to open both 2M and 2♦. How we assign meanings to these bids depends on many different factors. If there is some other very useful meaning for 2M then it may be worthwhile to play 2♦ as multi (accepting slightly worse results on the hands where we are weak with a long major) in order to obtain the good results from the alternative 2M openings.

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 23 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival.

As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Everyone cares about that, Claus
No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

Where are all the Vugraph-commentators? Some are very well-qualified. Do they care? If they do why are they not here?

I know you care Fred but your loyalty to those who dont care will not pay off. They are not ready to 'go to Canozza'.

Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival.
I am not a proponent of anything goes, anytime and anywhere. I am in favour that persons who want to act in a aggregated system must do their still harder homework the higher they want to compete in the pyramid. When we have reached country level - then I am all in favour of 'anything goes' with no limits.

As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival.
I know that. The answer to that is not handicap those 'ready, willing and able' but to help those who need help to catch up.

I have said before and like to repeat, your flash version and 'Full Disclosure' are very important here. Unfortunately it is so that information technology is lightyears away from how the persons in bridge organizations think life has to be.

[foo]

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

Fred said:

Everyone cares about that, Claus

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

That's an unfair attitude and incorrect statement, Claus

JanM isn't exactly "chopped liver", and she has participated heavily in this (very long) thread.

There are others besides Jan. Some of them may be posting anonymously, some are not, but there definitely are "heavy hitters" from multiple niches within the bridge world posting to this thread.

I'll bet there are even more lurking.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Dec 24 2008, 01:27 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

Fred said:

Everyone cares about that, Claus

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

That's an unfair attitude and incorrect statement, Claus

JanM isn't exactly "chopped liver", and she has participated heavily in this (very long) thread.

There are others besides Jan. Some of them may be posting anonymously, some are not, but there definitely are "heavy hitters" from multiple niches within the bridge world posting to this thread.

I'll bet there are even more lurking.

So Foo,

These "heavy hitters", who are lurking and listening to our words...

Do they speak to you? Privately, when no one else can hear?
Do they ever take the form of your neighbor's dog?
Do they tell you to do things? (Maybe even kill people)

Do you ever think that a tinfoil helmet might stop them from "lurking"?

[fred]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

Fred said:

Everyone cares about that, Claus

No Fred - if it was so Tim and Frances would not be the only responsible persons from bridge organizations discussing here. Those elected dont care.

That's an unfair attitude and incorrect statement, Claus

Actually it is a statement that doesn't make any sense assuming I understand how the conversation has gone....

Claus: only those who believe in "anything goes" care about the survival of the game

Fred: No - all bridge players care about the survival of the game

Claus: No - if they cared they would be involved in this forums thread

That doesn't make any sense, no doubt because Claus understands the conversation differently.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[foo]

Fred,

I think Claus' negative PoV was based on "you and Frances are the only responsible persons from bridge organizations" participating in this thread.

Since JanM is in her own right one of those "responsible persons from a bridge organization", and in addition is married to one who has actually served on the ACBL commitee in question, WHO JAN HAS EXPLICITLY SAID SHE"S CONSULTED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THIS THREAD, it seems more than a bit illogical to make the claim Claus did.

Poring through the thread I noticed the logins of other folks who most would consider "responsible persons" in the bridge world as well.

...and it is axiomatic that the vast majority of the time there are more people reading a thread than participating in it.

All,

Just because someone does not agree with your PoV does not mean that they care any less than you about what is best for Bridge.

[csdenmark]

Sorry it was a mistake by me to forget Jan. It would be right to include her.

In this thread we have discussed two kind of topics. A very detailled part about regulation of specific bids and a broader about system regulation with emphazis on pass systems. As I remember all three(Tim, Jan and Frances) has only participated in the specific bid part and not in anything broader about principles what will be able to bring some kind of hope. Thats the way I remember this very long thread.

What I think of who are missing are for example Roland Wald, David Burn, Jens Auken, Ulven(sorry dont remember his name but he is part of swedish Bermuda Team and I have seen he has read the thread but silent). Where are all the young commentators, OK we have one today 'Mich-B' from Israel as I remember but we need many more to have a broader perspective.

We are also in need of statements from some players who have seen themselves handicapped due to regulation. Or perhaps they dont find themselves handicapped but instead thankful that the regulators have directed them into what they are and do today. Who knows? We 5-10 persons out of 6000 BBF members are a small but excellent selection.

[H_KARLUK]

Free, on Dec 23 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

No, not everyone bitching on acbl is an acbl member.  And from what I've heard about it, I'm happy I live in Europe.  But that doesn't mean I can't have good suggestions, or that the critique I give is unjustified...

When in Rome, do as Romans do. The right to criticize comes from working. In other words those who haven't done it shouldn't criticize it. Things seem easier to the one who isn't involved. People commonly notice and criticize other people's decisions, but it is less common for someone to point out his/her own faults. Time is money. Try to join wonderful ACBL or WBF caravans if you can. He who does not wish for little things does not deserve big things. Okay? Play or be a working TD there in top events, and then enlighten the others if really needed. You know what they say! No pain no gain!
http://www.worldbrid...asp?qryid=15115 Rick BEYE U.S.A. WBF Code: USA&500801
I'm quite certain he has earned respect. ♥ Go go go Rick, good work ♥

[csdenmark]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 24 2008, 07:55 AM, said:

Free, on Dec 23 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

No, not everyone bitching on acbl is an acbl member.  And from what I've heard about it, I'm happy I live in Europe.  But that doesn't mean I can't have good suggestions, or that the critique I give is unjustified...

When in Rome, do as Romans do. The right to criticize comes from working. In other words those who haven't done it shouldn't criticize it. Things seem easier to the one who isn't involved. People commonly notice and criticize other people's decisions, but it is less common for someone to point out his/her own faults. Time is money. Try to join wonderful ACBL or WBF caravans if you can. He who does not wish for little things does not deserve big things. Okay? Play or be a working TD there in top events, and then enlighten the others if really needed. You know what they say! No pain no gain!
http://www.worldbrid...asp?qryid=15115 Rick BEYE U.S.A. WBF Code: USA&500801
I'm quite certain he has earned respect. ♥ Go go go Rick, good work ♥

Hamid I would be ready to buy your argument if we talked about Danish or Turkey bridge organizations. But we do not. We are talking about an american organization with great importance to what happens elsewhere. So it is for USA in politics so it is for USA in bridge. A world power has special responsibilities to be a good example for all.

Those responsible from all the other nations are not here - thats the real proof they don't care about the survival of the game. Jens Auken is an example of that. He plays online and he is vice-chairman of the European Bridge Organization. But to stand up for what he is doing there - he is not interested of.

[FrancesHinden]

csdenmark, on Dec 24 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

Those responsible from all the other nations are not here - thats the real proof they don't care about the survival of the game.

As others have said, that is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

Why on earth should not participating in a 47-page BBO forum discussion thread be seen as 'proof' that someone doesn't care about the survival of the game?

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 24 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 24 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

Those responsible from all the other nations are not here - thats the real proof they don't care about the survival of the game.

As others have said, that is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

Why on earth should not participating in a 47-page BBO forum discussion thread be seen as 'proof' that someone doesn't care about the survival of the game?

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

fred, on Dec 23 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

This is the statement I refer to blaming they are not here. I dont blame specific persons(even I name some of the few I know names of). I blame there are so many which ought to be here and none of them is here.

If they care of something - what do they care about and where?

[Free]

Has anyone informed them about this topic and that people want their opinions?

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Dec 23 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

Perhaps what you meant to say was: those who think that "anything goes" will improve bridge's prospects for survival.

As you probably know, there are also those of us who believe that "anything goes" will hurt bridge's prospects for survival.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I agree wholeheartedly with Fred about this. Allowing "anything goes" at the club level will hurt beginners who, in my opinion, can more easily appreciate the beauty of card play rather than the beauty of unnatural bidding systems. The goal would be to get them hooked on bridge - I can still remember the elation when I first pulled off a throw-in.

However, this does not mean that I would want my world champions not to be able to deal with any bidding system out there. The WBF policy of protecting world champions by labeling some systems HUM is flawed at best. These policies reek of those in power enabling their pet systems, at least in ACBL land. The reasons given by the authorities of allowing/disallowing systems fall short of any logical coherence - as some in this thread and other threads have pointed out.

[csdenmark]

Free, on Dec 24 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

Has anyone informed them about this topic and that people want their opinions?

Your intensions to quote me right for this?
Unfortunately it is so that information technology is lightyears away from how the persons in bridge organizations think life has to be.

We are talking about a population of approx. 10.000 relevant persons. Present and former players, officials and board members incl. 200-300 Vugraph commentators.

I count something like 5 persons. Given this in my vocabulary the number is equivalent to 'No-one' and not 'everyone' as Fred states.

[TimG]

csdenmark, on Dec 24 2008, 05:33 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 23 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

There is no alternative to a break-way for those who care about survival of the game.

Everyone cares about that, Claus.

This is the statement I refer to blaming they are not here. I dont blame specific persons(even I name some of the few I know names of). I blame there are so many which ought to be here and none of them is here.

This seems to have gotten more than a little confused in translation?

Fred said: "Everyone cares about that." "That" referring to the "survival of the game".

That there are officials (past or present), vugraph commentators, top level players, bottom level players, BBO forum members, etc. that are NOT participating in this thread in no way means that they don't care about the game.

[dburn]

I am not quite sure why I have been cited as someone who does not care about the survival of bridge, but it is not true.

As to my views on forcing pass and other highly unusual systems, I believe that they should be permitted at national championship level and above, but not below that unless there is local demand.

My first assignment as coach to the national team was in the 1987 Bermuda Bowl in Ocho Rios, Jamaica. Great Britain had two pairs playing some form of strong pass system: Forrester and Armstrong used TRS, which had other unusual features; Flint and Sheehan used a kind of geriatric strong pass which involved opening 1♣ when you had a pass and pass when you had clubs.

New Zealand also had two strong pass pairs, one of whom used a system in which 1♠ was a fert at favourable, 1♥ at equal and 1♦ at unfavourable vulnerability. Brazil had a pair who, non-vulnerable, played a kind of "one under Precision" in which pass showed 16+ hcp, 1♣ was a catch-all, 1♦ showed hearts, 1♥ showed spades and 1♠ was a fert. Vulnerable, they played standard Precision.

Was this a problem? No, not really - there were no seating rights, so everybody just got on with it. Occasionally, the HUMs would gain an advantage simply because the auction "looked" different from what it was, and this led to concentration lapses. For example, Mike Lawrence and Hugh Ross had an accident when one of them bid 2♣ over a 1♦ opening that showed a pass; he thought he was opening an artificial game force, but his agreed defence was that 2♣ showed a club suit in a limited opening bid.

Lew Stansby bid 1♠ over a pass that showed an opening bid; Chip Martel raised him to 2♠ and he bid 2NT, which would have been an artificial force if he had opened the bidding, but was natural and non-forcing if he had overcalled (as in effect he had). Both of these mishaps led to ridiculous results that cost the USA several IMPs.

I felt then, as I feel now, that such occurrences are an undesirable effect of highly unusual systems. But the way to eliminate them is not to abolish these systems at the highest level - it is to ensure that your team has done enough preparation against them to negate as much as possible the aspect of unfamiliarity. Before the British team left for Jamaica, each of its pairs played more than a hundred boards against all manner of unusual methods (there was no shortage of volunteers prepared to give the team some practice) so that we were equipped to deal with Brazil, New Zealand, Sweden and the other countries we encountered who were using strange systems.

And we were not all professional players with vast amounts of time and energy to devote to such practice - Kirby, Armstrong and Brock all had full-time jobs. In these days, when most top players devote all or most of their time to bridge, I can see no real reason why such methods should be prohibited or greatly circumscribed. It irks me somewhat to read, for example, Larry Cohen describing some misfortune that befell a pair when a dastardly opponent responded 1♥ to 1♣ to show a spade suit. Surely, the world's leading players do not need molly-coddling to the extent that they never have to cope with anything other than the totally familiar.