[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 27 2008, 08:24 AM, said:

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

Basically you are accepting that players that play some methods (more or less standard) have a right to have an advantage over those that play other methods.

This seems inherently unfair to me.

[Cascade]

RichMor, on Dec 27 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

The opps are good players and they have experience with auctions after they open 1♠. The opps have played their methods for several years. Pard and I do our best to compete using whatever detailed or basic agreements we have made. What happens will happen.

Pard and I are no longer trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgement. We are instead trying to remember and readjust our agreements depending on all the meanings of all the bids of all three opposing pairs. (There's that darn 'all' again)

This seems like a game that is fundamentally different that bridge.

The opponents also have to defend against whatever meaning you give to 1♠. You are likely to have had more experience than them playing that method. You also had free choice in choosing your method.

It seems completely fair to me that they should be allowed to choose their methods.

And to me this is fundamentally what bridge is at least in the auction stage of the game.

Fundamental to the game is that sometimes the opponents get to call first. Everytime that happens you have to adapt to whatever they choose to do.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 26 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 27 2008, 08:24 AM, said:

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

Basically you are accepting that players that play some methods (more or less standard) have a right to have an advantage over those that play other methods.

This seems inherently unfair to me.

I'm probably better off not getting into another debate with you. Suffice to say I do not consider it inherently unfair that players who want to play a method that is disallowed are disadvantaged compared to players who want to play a method that is allowed. I won't waste any energy trying to convince you to agree with me.

[Cascade]

ASkolnick, on Dec 27 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

There are a couple of problems with Forcing Pass in general:

1) Short rounds

How am I going to say 5 minutes before a pair comes (let's say 12 pairs), let's look at the suggested defense, maybe I like it, maybe I don't.  I certainly won't have time to do it.

2) It does not allow you to play your system.  Even over aggressive style openings, you can play your system, forcing pass does not.  I am not quite sure why transfer openings are that big a deal though since you can play transfers in almost any other seat for any other reason.

If you wait until five minutes before a pair arrives that is your problem. The reality is far different. If Forcing Pass was allowed you would have however much time before an event that you wanted to devote to writing and agreeing a forcing pass defense.

Of course you can play your system. If your system is badly designed and does not cater to the opponent in first seat acting before you then that is entirely your problem.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 27 2008, 10:41 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 26 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 27 2008, 08:24 AM, said:

Going back to your original gripe for convenience, since it's the basis of the current debate:

TimG, on Dec 26 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

But, it contains a netherland of methods which are neither allowed nor disallowed, leaving those who would like to design new methods in this gray area guessing at what might be approved.  The current, non-transparent, process by which methods are approved or rejected also leaves us guessing as to the motives of the committee.

So to summarize, I agree with you on your second point that the process should be more transparent. But as I said earlier, I couldn't care less about your first point, that system designers are left to guess what might or might not be approved. I don't believe they have some sort of right to convenience in that way.

Basically you are accepting that players that play some methods (more or less standard) have a right to have an advantage over those that play other methods.

This seems inherently unfair to me.

I'm probably better off not getting into another debate with you. Suffice to say I do not consider it inherently unfair that players who want to play a method that is disallowed are disadvantaged compared to players who want to play a method that is allowed. I won't waste any energy trying to convince you to agree with me.

It is unfair that some players get to play their methods without any interaction with some committee or other whilst other players have to battle with the committee to seek approval of their preferred methods.

[jdonn]

Perhaps some people consider it unfair that there is an avenue specifically designed to allow people who aren't on any committee to recommend rule changes.

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

[DrTodd13]

ASkolnick, on Dec 26 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

2) It does not allow you to play your system. Even over aggressive style openings, you can play your system, forcing pass does not. I am not quite sure why transfer openings are that big a deal though since you can play transfers in almost any other seat for any other reason.


So, I will disagree with Dr. Todd saying it is reasonable to play against.

How about a system where pass is 0-3 and other 1 level bids are hyper-aggresive. Still not a forcing pass system but it sure would dominate your system. Look, this is a continuum. If opps regularly open 12 counts and then start opening 10 counts, they have to some degree stopped you from using your most constructive opening methods. The 12 to 10 reduction may represent a 5% reduction in your ability to open the bidding. Assuming that you use a defensive system to defend a forcing pass bid rather than your normal openings then forcing pass systems reduce your ability to open by 50%. So, please tell me exactly what your magic number is between 5% and 50% that represents too much for you. Getting the opps out of their constructive system should be one of your goals (what do you think preempts are?). In short, in bridge, there is no such thing as a right to get to use your own constructive system just because the opponents hands aren't very good.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

[fred]

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 11:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

Unless of course he believed in Y. Then his standard move would be to attack the integrity of X.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

I anxiously await your recommendation, which I assume will either be to implement a system where 100% of bridge players get to vote on what is allowed, or where people serving on any committee are banned from playing bridge.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

I anxiously await your recommendation, which I assume will either be to implement a system where 100% of bridge players get to vote on what is allowed, or where people serving on any committee are banned from playing bridge.

Let me help you with your anxiety then.

Who said anything about any committee? The committee which gets to decide what I'm allowed to play in a championship, however, is a different proposition.

Or we could go on pretending there are no conflicts of interest in the current system.

[qwery_hi]

[quote name='fred' date='Dec 26 2008, 06:20 PM'] If you still think things are unfair, I recommend [url="http://www.amazon.ca/Life-Unfair-Alain-Samson/dp/0973835583"]this book[/url] to you. [/QUOTE]
When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.[/QUOTE]
Unless of course he believed in Y. Then his standard move would be to attack the integrity of X.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com [/QUOTE]

Correct. Just like all the people who questioned the integrity of Justice Scalia when he didn't excuse himself from this case.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/scalia.recusal/"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/18/scalia.recusal/[/url]

One doesn't have to be on the side of Y to question X's integrity.

Federal laws dictate judges or justices should remove themselves from cases if questions arise about their fairness or impartiality. Some people might think this law is stupid, but I don't.

And since we are so enamoured with the integrity of the committee members, I suggest we allow them to sit on their own appeals committees in the tournaments.

[fred]

qwery_hi, on Dec 27 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

One doesn't have to be on the side of Y to question X's integrity.

I think you missed the point of my last post, but no matter...

I have asked several times (sometimes nicely sometimes not) that people refrain from attacking, through BBO Forums, the integrity of the people who serve on these committees.

But you just keep attacking so I will asking you explicitly:

Please either keep your integrity-attacks to yourself or post them on some other site.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

I anxiously await your recommendation, which I assume will either be to implement a system where 100% of bridge players get to vote on what is allowed, or where people serving on any committee are banned from playing bridge.

Let me help you with your anxiety then.

Who said anything about any committee? The committee which gets to decide what I'm allowed to play in a championship, however, is a different proposition.

Or we could go on pretending there are no conflicts of interest in the current system.

I don't understand your suggestion, but you missed the point anyway.

No one has pretended the current system is close to perfect, despite your implying so. So since you have such a big problem with it, suggest something that would alleviate the problem. Otherwise people might think you are just complaining because complaining is easy.

[nige1]

fred, on Dec 26 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

I have asked several times (sometimes nicely sometimes not) that people refrain from attacking, through BBO Forums, the integrity of the people who serve on these committees.

Fred rightly deplores ad hominem attacks
but, IMO, in a microcosm with freedom of speech, a committee as a whole, is fair game

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Dec 26 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 27 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

One doesn't have to be on the side of Y to question X's integrity.

I think you missed the point of my last post, but no matter...

I have asked several times (sometimes nicely sometimes not) that people refrain from attacking, through BBO Forums, the integrity of the people who serve on these committees.

But you just keep attacking so I will asking you explicitly:

Please either keep your integrity-attacks to yourself or post them on some other site.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, you were the one who first used "integrity". I was pointing out that there is a conflict of interest.

If pointing out that there is a conflict of interest in against the rules of this forum, then I would not like to be a part of them anyway.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 26 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

I believe it is fair that if we play in the same jurisdiction, the list of methods that I'm allowed to play is identical to the list of methods you are allowed to play. The unfair situation would be if I was allowed to play forcing pass and you weren't.

If you still think things are unfair, I recommend this book to you.

When it is X who get to decide what both X and Y are allowed to play, then if X goes on to win a national championship, I believe Rove would nod approvingly.

I anxiously await your recommendation, which I assume will either be to implement a system where 100% of bridge players get to vote on what is allowed, or where people serving on any committee are banned from playing bridge.

Let me help you with your anxiety then.

Who said anything about any committee? The committee which gets to decide what I'm allowed to play in a championship, however, is a different proposition.

Or we could go on pretending there are no conflicts of interest in the current system.

I don't understand your suggestion, but you missed the point anyway.

No one has pretended the current system is close to perfect, despite your implying so. So since you have such a big problem with it, suggest something that would alleviate the problem. Otherwise people might think you are just complaining because complaining is easy.

Doing nothing to resolve conflicts of interest is equal to pretending there is no conflict of interest.

a 100% vote or having a committee made up of non-playing members would not be perfect either, but in our imperfect world they are commonly used solution to problems where potential conflict of interests may occur

[rogerclee]

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

having a committee made up of non-playing members would not be perfect either, but in our imperfect world they are commonly used solution to problems where potential conflict of interests may occur

LOL

[jdonn]

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Doing nothing to resolve conflicts of interest is equal to pretending there is no conflict of interest.

Why, because you declare it so? Maybe it's simply equal to pretending there are no better solutions!

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Dec 27 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 26 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

Doing nothing to resolve conflicts of interest is equal to pretending there is no conflict of interest.

Why, because you declare it so? Maybe it's simply equal to pretending there are no better solutions!

Suggest a solution. That is a good way to use these forums - we can then disucss the merits of the solution