[Cascade]

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening.

The only forcing pass system I have ever played employed a 1♠ FERT. We only played this FERT when we were not vulnerable.

The higher the FERT the more disruptive it is for your side and for the other side - unless you can some how reduce the hands that you put in the FERT.

[H_KARLUK]

Kinda "Traffic Regulations" discussion.

There must be a main pattern to follow. Right, left, mid not diffs. Otherwise impossible to avoid clash.

Opposition comes face to face.
Guy1 "Hey, this is my right to drive here."
Stranger "Oh nay, get out of my way. See the place i come and live. We patronize and rule everywhere"

[TimG]

qwery_hi, on Dec 8 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

1 of a suit = 0-5 , 4+ cards in the suit.

It has been my experience that methods which may have a tendency to pick off the opponents' suit are more likely to be considered destructive.

If your 1H opening shows 4+ hearts and 0-5 points, the opponents will want to play in hearts some non-negligible percentage of the time. This means that defenses are harder to devise.

I believe this was one of the significant objections to 2D = weak with 4+-4+ in the majors. No cue-bids because the opponents have to cater to playing in one of the majors is a killer for getting a defense approved (in ACBL). Or, was, the method is simply banned now.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 9 2008, 04:21 AM, said:

Meanwhile if memory serves me correctly, I don't think either Australia or New Zealand has come particularly close to winning a single World Championship medal in this period of time. Apologies in advance if I am wrong.

Australia were fourth in the Bowl in 1989 which included (New Zealanders) Marston and Burgess I believe playing a Forcing Pass system.

Quote

While it is true that Australia and New Zealand have much smaller populations than the USA, some countries with small populations (Norway, The Netherlands, and Canada come to mind) have done just fine. It is also true that the USA has an advantage in Bermuda Bowl years - they get to enter 2 teams. But meanwhile Norway and the The Netherlands (for example) have to perform well in a very tough European Championships just to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl while Australia and New Zealand can basically mail in their entries every year.

As you state the US has a huge advantage by being able to enter two teams.

The Netherlands have relatively a very large bridge playing population for the size of their population. Norway have some very strong players not least of which is Geir Helgemo.

The fact that European teams have to play a strong international competition to qualify is to my mind an advantage not a disadvantage. Personally I would prefer that New Zealand (and Australia) had to qualify in a bigger competition perhaps by merging with Zone Six. There is in fact I believe a step towards this with the Zone Seven Championships to be held concurrently with the Zone Six Championships but with separate qualifying groups. Both New Zealand and Australia both usually perform creditably in the Zone Six Championships.

New Zealanders in general are inexperienced in international competition. This is because it is usually a long way and relatively expensive for us to travel to major international competitions. There are many major events in Europe and North America. I am sure that this confers an advantage to teams and players from those regions.

There is also virtually no professional play or sponsorship in New Zealand. There is some professional play in Australia which attracts many top New Zealand players across the 'ditch' to the West Island. This means that virtually every New Zealand bridge player is at most a parttime player.

Quote

It also happens to be the case that both Australia and New Zealand have produced several excellent individual players during the past couple of decades.

Peter Newell and Martin Reid's 3rd (or 2nd) in the butler datum at Estoril needs to be seen in the above context. These guys play about two or three tournaments per year and as far as I am aware club bridge one session per week.

Quote

So to me, a more interesting side question would be: has the permissive attitude toward systems in Australia and New Zealand been partly responsible for the consistently poor performance by these countries in international competition over the years?

The system restrictions in New Zealand are not particularly permissive - the only things that is regularly allowed and played in New Zealand that would be more restricted in North America are multi-2D, transfer openings at the one-level and relay systems. There are also some aggressive two-suited pre-empts and some pairs playing light openings. If anything over the time I have been playing and the time immediately before that the systems have become more restricted. As far as I can tell that hasn't had an improving affect our performances.

[csdenmark]

Cascade, on Dec 8 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening.

The only forcing pass system I have ever played employed a 1♠ FERT. We only played this FERT when we were not vulnerable.

The higher the FERT the more disruptive it is for your side and for the other side - unless you can some how reduce the hands that you put in the FERT.

Sorry Wayne I dont understand you. I am a bit handicapped because i dont understand the word 'fert'. My english/danish-dictionary is not very helpful informing of something with fruit. I cannot translate that into bridge.

I have understood you that way that you have played Suspensor. What you here say has nothing to do with Suspensor or Bez Nazwy.

There is no logic in 0-7 higher than 1♥. You will have less focus for MAJORs in your system. Besides the frequent solid openings(8-12) the focus is what matters for pass systems.

If you think a certain pass-system is unsuitable for any vulnerability I think it tends to be misconstructed.

[qwery_hi]

TimG, on Dec 8 2008, 01:55 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 8 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

1 of a suit = 0-5 , 4+ cards in the suit.

It has been my experience that methods which may have a tendency to pick off the opponents' suit are more likely to be considered destructive.

If your 1H opening shows 4+ hearts and 0-5 points, the opponents will want to play in hearts some non-negligible percentage of the time. This means that defenses are harder to devise.

I believe this was one of the significant objections to 2D = weak with 4+-4+ in the majors. No cue-bids because the opponents' have cater to playing in one of the majors is a killer for getting a defense approved (in ACBL). Or, was, the method is simply banned now.

Yes. It would be interesting to compare this, percentage wise, to the number of times the opponents would like to play in diamonds after a precision 1D.

[hotShot]

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Sorry Wayne I dont understand you. I am a bit handicapped because i dont understand the word 'fert'. My english/danish-dictionary is not very helpful informing of something with fruit. I cannot translate that into bridge.

From:

http://www.bridgehands.com/F/

Fert - To open with a weak opening hand (7 points or less) at the one-level. Fert calls are normally associated with partners who play a Strong Pass system. The term Fert is actually a colloquial term, derived from the term "fertilizer".

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

There is no logic in 0-7 higher than 1♥. You will have less focus for MAJORs in your system. Besides the frequent solid openings(8-12) the focus is what matters for pass systems.

I think that you are confusing two very different issues:

1. The level at which one choses to open your FERT
2. The definition that you assign to non FERT bids

In my experience, the level of the FERT is (primarily) a function of the relative vulnerability which impacts the risk - reward profile. For example Marston and Burgess sometimes used a 2♣ FERT NV and a 1♥ FERT vulnerable.

"Majors First", "Transfer Openings", "Symmetric Relay" and other such design criteria can be imposed on most any set of opening bids.

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 8 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

Norway have some very strong players not least of which is Geir Helgemo.

Geir Helgemo is, without a doubt, an exceptional talent. Norway is indeed fortunate that Geir (not to mention others) was born in that country.

However, maybe it is not just a matter of fortune...

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 8 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

Norway have some very strong players not least of which is Geir Helgemo.

Geir Helgemo is, without a doubt, an exceptional talent. Norway is indeed fortunate that Geir (not to mention others) was born in that country.

However, maybe it is not just a matter of fortune...

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

There are many examples of North Americans who tinker with systems even but not solely in a natural context. I am thinking about players with hundreds of pages of system notes. I doubt that the preparation involved in agreeing such detailed methods is insignificant in their success.

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 8 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 8 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

Norway have some very strong players not least of which is Geir Helgemo.

Geir Helgemo is, without a doubt, an exceptional talent. Norway is indeed fortunate that Geir (not to mention others) was born in that country.

However, maybe it is not just a matter of fortune...

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

There are many examples of North Americans who tinker with systems even but not solely in a natural context. I am thinking about players with hundreds of pages of system notes. I doubt that the preparation involved in agreeing such detailed methods is insignificant in their success.

Agree. Having a solid partnership in which the players know what each other's bids mean is critical to success.

But the exact system such a partnership chooses to play is not important (IMO) and so (IMO) smart young players are more likely to become great not-so-young players if they don't spend a lot of time during their "learning years" experimenting with such things (IMO).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Bsae Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

hotShot, on Dec 8 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Sorry Wayne I dont understand you. I am a bit handicapped because i dont understand the word 'fert'. My english/danish-dictionary is not very helpful informing of something with fruit. I cannot translate that into bridge.

From:

http://www.bridgehands.com/F/

Fert - To open with a weak opening hand (7 points or less) at the one-level. Fert calls are normally associated with partners who play a Strong Pass system. The term Fert is actually a colloquial term, derived from the term "fertilizer".

Thank you very much for your kind help. I now understand the word - but I need some more time to figure out the exact meaning in bridge.

Fert = 0-7HcP, any distribution?
Fert = 0-7HcP + info about holding?

English is a very strange language for a dane.

[DrTodd13]

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 8 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Sorry Wayne I dont understand you. I am a bit handicapped because i dont understand the word 'fert'. My english/danish-dictionary is not very helpful informing of something with fruit. I cannot translate that into bridge.

From:

http://www.bridgehands.com/F/

Fert - To open with a weak opening hand (7 points or less) at the one-level. Fert calls are normally associated with partners who play a Strong Pass system. The term Fert is actually a colloquial term, derived from the term "fertilizer".

Thank you very much for your kind help. I now understand the word - but I need some more time to figure out the exact meaning in bridge.

Fert = 0-7HcP, any distribution?
Fert = 0-7HcP + info about holding?

English is a very strange language for a dane.

Claus, generally, forcing pass players will preempt if they can. The point requirements vary but, for example, with a 6+ card suit and 5-7 points they would generally preempt rather than bid the fert. Some also play two-suited weak bids so you may get some preempts with the 5-4+ hands as well. So, the fert becomes something like:

0-4 absolutely any shape OR 5-7, bal or semi-bal.

[csdenmark]

DrTodd13, on Dec 9 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

Claus, generally, forcing pass players will preempt if they can.  The point requirements vary but, for example, with a 6+ card suit and 5-7 points they would generally preempt rather than bid the fert.  Some also play two-suited weak bids so you may get some preempts with the 5-4+ hands as well. So, the fert becomes something like:

0-4 absolutely any shape OR 5-7, bal or semi-bal.

Todd I am not quite sure what you intend to tell here. I am quite sure we are fairly at the same line here. Basic in pass systems is an improved construction regarding basics of bridge - MAJORs and frequency(8-12).

0-7 opening is high risk zone - you want to get out of the frying pann cheapest possible. The best way is to invite cheap overcalls from opponents. Therefore it is 1♦(Moscito/Tres Boof 1♥). If it is placed higher the risk is higher and you bypass some attrative options about majors. Therefore such tends to be misconstructions. Placing it as 1♠ is silly bypassing both of the most attractive options.

Certainly preempts are used, 5-7HcP, 6+cards is a bad and poor preempt in any system and therefore in pass systems too.

I doubt anybody will see 5-7HcP, balanced as an attractive bid. Even the well known Meckwell mini-NT(9-12) is fairly un-attractive depending a bit of the keycards to be held.

[DrTodd13]

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 9 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

Claus, generally, forcing pass players will preempt if they can.  The point requirements vary but, for example, with a 6+ card suit and 5-7 points they would generally preempt rather than bid the fert.  Some also play two-suited weak bids so you may get some preempts with the 5-4+ hands as well. So, the fert becomes something like:

0-4 absolutely any shape OR 5-7, bal or semi-bal.

Todd I am not quite sure what you intend to tell here. I am quite sure we are fairly at the same line here. Basic in pass systems is an improved construction regarding basics of bridge - MAJORs and frequency(8-12).

0-7 opening is high risk zone - you want to get out of the frying pann cheapest possible. The best way is to invite cheap overcalls from opponents. Therefore it is 1♦(Moscito/Tres Boof 1♥). If it is placed higher the risk is higher and you bypass some attrative options about majors. Therefore such tends to be misconstructions. Placing it as 1♠ is silly bypassing both of the most attractive options.

Certainly preempts are used, 5-7HcP, 6+cards is a bad and poor preempt in any system and therefore in pass systems too.

I doubt anybody will see 5-7HcP, balanced as an attractive bid. Even the well known Meckwell mini-NT(9-12) is fairly un-attractive depending a bit of the keycards to be held.

Claus, you can't tell us one minute you don't know what a FERT is and then the next minute claim to be some kind of expert in what is good in a forcing pass system. If the alternative is to open the FERT then a weak 2 with 5-7 points is generally a more appealing option.

[csdenmark]

Todd try look up fert up in your german or french dictionary. I am quite sure you will have some explanation you will find difficult to handle in a bridge context too.

For me 5-7HcP, balanced is a suicide bid - not for me.

[mycroft]

Gotta love weekends out of town...

I think we've got the Midchart move down, however, thanks to the Internet Archive, we have:
- Dec 28, 1996 (First available)
- May21,2001 (Last pulled before change)
- Mar 27, 2002 (First pulled after change)
- Pre Jan 3,2005 (pdf)
- Jan3, 2005 (pdf) (here's the "defence limited to match length" cutin)
- Today (pdf)

One can see how, no matter what the intentions of the committee, the theory that the whole point behind the defence database initiative was to gut the Mid-Chart is difficult to falsify.

Fred, I do trust you. I'm not so sure I trust your web of trust, though; and I certainly don't trust their web of trust. Given that I have butted heads with some fairly major Names in American bridge over this issue (what should be allowed over what is; using restrictions to avoid dealing with poor disclosure; using the Mid-Chart in general as a "but we allow greater freedom, you just have to find a game" while making Mid-Chart games inconsistently available in such a way as to effectively neuter any interest in learning a Mid-Chart *system* (as opposed to playing bolt-on 2-bids or the like); it's not fair because it's unfamiliar; it's unfair because I need to carry around 100 pages of notes (which basically boiled down to "it's unfamiliar", as that person was happy with remembering 8-15 4+, 11-15 5+, 11-18 4+, 12-21 5+, or 13+ opening 1M defences, but not 2D mini-multi, 2D full multi, 2D weak in H or GF - I'm sure "ideal" defences to the former set are no less complicated, and at least two of the natural ranges are equally rare)) most of whom either said "it won't be allowed here" or "it shouldn't be allowed" somewhere in the conversation, the chance that one of that set is both someone you trust, and also someone who would use his power to get what he wanted should he have that power, whether it was the "right way" or not, is not negligible; and the chance that one of that set is in the two-degrees cloud is decent. Now, whether said person, should he exist, *has* the power, is another story altogether.

All of that is saying that, even for someone who tries to trust until disappointed, and usually succeeds, the visuals in this case are important; for the more suspicious, only more so. If the C&C committee isn't doing what the more suspicious believe they are, and if they want the suspicions to not be so plausible to a new viewer, then they've dug themselves a pretty big hole, and they need to make fixing the visuals a priority. And if that means finding someone willing to be and capable of being a scribe for minutes/agenda/reports; if it means finding someone willing to write and capable of discerning and transcribing guidelines for defence submissions and answers to "why was this [crazy] decision made" - if it's been asked to death, well, that's what FAQs are for; if it means putting some work into getting a new defence (any new defence, provided it's not totally hamstrung with "you can play this convention and these followups; if you do anything - at all - different, you'll need to submit your defence" - that's not approving defences, that's approving partnerships) approved, even actively assisting the appellants; if it means finding someone who can and will respond in a timely manner, even if it is "we'll discuss this at the next NABC, so don't expect to hear anything until March"; then that needs to be done. It can be - it may be very hard, I know, but it's not impossible - if the end is desired enough.

Apologies for the Kafkaesque sentence structures.

[mycroft]

A couple of quick minor points of various degrees of sincerity:

- Well, if you're not going to open 5-7 BAL with *something*, it's kind of hard to play FP.
- "Innovation" doesn't necessarily have a positive connotation if you work in the computer industry - or if you have enough experience with "new and improved" products.
- I'd feel a little uncomfortable playing my strong club defence against a 13+ FP; but then again, I'd feel a little uncomfortable playing my strong club defence against a 13+ any 1C call as well. My strong club defence is like my strong NT defence (which I don't play against 12-14 NTs, either, for the same reason), it explicitly gives up on what few games are available in favour of frequency of competition and safety. With 24 or 25 HCP available to me at max, that's pretty safe; with 27, not so much.
- I thought about getting my Mid-Chart convention approved (it's got my name on it as "translator", but you'd have to hit the Internet Archive for that, too) but never tried. I was pretty certain a 1D (almost, but not quite, 0+ Precision) - 1H showing most weak hands without 4 hearts (among others), and with the opener expected to pass with hearts and not spades, was not going to fly, no matter what defence I put in. Could I have been wrong? Quite likely. Doesn't matter now, the partners who would play it are miles away.

[the hog]

Cascade, on Dec 9 2008, 01:47 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 8 2008, 10:42 PM, said:

I know of no pass system using 1♠ for 0-7 opening.

The only forcing pass system I have ever played employed a 1♠ FERT. We only played this FERT when we were not vulnerable.

The higher the FERT the more disruptive it is for your side and for the other side - unless you can some how reduce the hands that you put in the FERT.

Claus,
The original WOR system used by Marston and Burgess had a 1S bid showing any 0-4 and a 1H opening showing any 5-7.

Fred,
There are a number of reasons why Oz teams don't do that well - lack of preofessional Bridge, smaller population, lack of popularity of bridge, lack of opportunities. Systems has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Despite this, Aust has had some pretty good players, but usually imports from other countries - Tim Seres, one of the all time greats, Jim and Norma Borin - one of the best mixed partnerships of all time, Marston - Burgess, but both from NZ. Dick Cummings was an Aussie and a fine player.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

It occurred to me that this is very likely to be the conclusion that one would come up with if you play most of your bridge in an environment in which system innovation is discouraged meaning that most play fairly standard methods.