[jikl]

Wow, Fred, you jumped down the throat of Australian and New Zealand bridge. Marston and Burgess won either a silver or bronze in Perth World Champs Pairs playing FP about 20 years ago, probably the start of this controversy really. (They are both actually from NZ by the way but moved to Aus for greater oppurtunities bridgewise) From memory we also had an Australian as part of a partnership in the World Mixed Pairs championship. Sure these are not the medals that anyone wants, but in some ways we are still overperforming on a per capita basis as we do at the Olympics every 4 years. Our bridge problem is as Richard said, we are too far away from both North America and Europe; hopefully we will leave Zone 7 and join Zone 6 to have more regular competition; much as our soccer team has done. If we miss out on a few world champs because of this it will induce the match practice we need. What I meant by my molly-coddling question was that Europe sees far more diverse systems than America will ever allow. Now this counts for their juniors also who are theoretically the next players on the open team; if they have never played against something allowed in the Worlds when they get there, are they at a disadvantage? That was my question, not an attack on the US.

Sean

[nickf]

To set the record straight here:
- Australia came 3rd in the 1971 and 1979 Bermuda Bowls
- Australia came 4th in the 1989 Bowl, Marston Burgess were playing a system where 2C was 0-6, any.
- M-B came 3rd in the 1986 World open Pairs. I can ask PM but I doubt they were playing a strong pass system.
- Fiona Brown came 4th in the World Mixed Pairs in 2006.

As far as I am aware these are the only signifcant results by Australia in World Championships, plus a couple of Youth medals at the world level.

nickf
sydney

[jikl]

Thanks for the clarification Nick, I wasn't that far off

Sean

[Codo]

May someone clarify for me some details:

Did I understood it correctly that the reason for forbidding the Mosquito and FP systems is to protect the majority from these new systems?

Why does the majority need protection? I got the impression that they would need too much time to develop defences against HUM and that this is no fun. Is this correct?

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.

If it is true that Bridge will win more supporters when the audience can follow and understand the bidding, why does the ACBL not ban anything but sayc? This is easy to be understood and simple to follow.

If these are not the reasons why they ban FP and other systems, what are the reasons?

When it is a law that the C&C committee must state their ideas in minutes, why don't they make them? When the volunteer members of the committee do not have the time to put their descissions in written words, why does the ACBL not offer a secretary service?

[cherdano]

Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?

There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.

[csdenmark]

cherdano, on Dec 9 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?

There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?
By me it is 3 pages

There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements
Due to regulations, and therefore the need to disable core parts of the system, you are right.

Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.
And then what? A topic for anybody but the lazy ones? They are all offered a written suggestion for defense on a silverplate.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Dec 9 2008, 04:42 AM, said:

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.

Could be so of course but not according to the file I some years ago received from you as the original version of Moscito.

1♥ for 0-7 is still a poor construction but it is the logic of Moscito.

'1♠ bid showing any 0-4' is foolish and waste of important space and options only. You are increasing your own risks for suiside highering the threshold for opps. to take over. You are bypassing the important goals you try to achieve, the MAJORs. A clear misconstruction

[the hog]

Claus, Moscito came AFTER WOR. The ferts in order of time sequence were 1H and 1S, 1H, 2C and 1H again. Moscito is a development of WOR because WOR wasn't allowed to be played any more.
By the way Claus, the contrsuct is not foolish, because you are forgetting P = 13+, 1C = 8-12 with HEARTS and 1D = 8-12 with SPADES, iow the Majors.

[H_KARLUK]

In my culture there's a proverb : Do not add apples to pears when you count.

This simply points out an egalitarian view.

I cannot say "what diffs ? bridge is bridge". If I say so then I must accept lightweight vs heavyweight boxing matches are fair.

Still waiting authorities will classify contests in "bidding systems." For now their classification are men-women-mix-seniors-juniors-schools-imps-mps-teams-ind.

To me whoever gives up the idea of a continuing fault before it's too late is a profit. Tho I ve a favorite color like many others I also like to see different colors. On th other hand I have to care th colors of my dresses would be eye-catching.

I think the matter is to group in an order. Otherwise incompatibility in all fields of life is inevitable.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Dec 9 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

Claus, Moscito came AFTER WOR. The ferts in order of time sequence were 1H and 1S, 1H, 2C and 1H again. Moscito is a development of WOR because WOR wasn't allowed to be played any more.
By the way Claus, the contrsuct is not foolish, because you are forgetting P = 13+, 1C = 8-12 with HEARTS and 1D = 8-12 with SPADES, iow the Majors.

OK - I think I still disagree. I also think this is the reason why Moscito in fact hasn't suffered from the transition away from a pass system. To differentiate between various dead hands without entries are for lunatics only. It is an invite for a bloodbath!

I tried to Google WOR but gets no hits except construction of steel bridges. You have something about WOR?

[TimG]

Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 04:17 AM, said:

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".

[hrothgar]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

In my culture there's a proverb : Do not add apples to pears when you count.

Interesting... In English the equivalent would be "Comparing apples and oranges"

[H_KARLUK]

hrothgar, on Dec 9 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

In my culture there's a proverb : Do not add apples to pears when you count.

Interesting... In English the equivalent would be "Comparing apples and oranges"

Yes, the idea all are fruits but in different forms. Then there is not equality. So no one may claim what diffs they all are fruits.

[helene_t]

In Dutch the say apples and pears also. I think it's a silly expression since for many purposes a kg of fruit is a kg of fruit. I like the Danish expression "the height of the round tower vs the height of thunder", where the Danish word for "height" can mean loudness as well.

[csdenmark]

TimG, on Dec 9 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 04:17 AM, said:

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".

Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction
Wrong Tim - now you are talking against better knowledge - at least I hope. In this thread you have had the option to be enlightened.

The complications are in 1st round - and only there. They are over 0-7 opening and might be 1 and two more. The complications are to defend over unknown. For that you have several simple and american conventions. The best knowns are CRASH and Truscott. Rest is pure natural just like SAYC or any other natural system.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction.
Wrong Tim - each time your side has no opening for 1st seat you will be pushed into defensive - thats approx. 85%. In fact you have no option to play your own offensive system against pass systems. Thats the triviality of this - but there is no complications about it.

-----------
Please Tim - admit the regulations against pass systems are nothing but lack of knowledge and scareness of independent thinking human beings.

[H_KARLUK]

helene_t, on Dec 9 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

In Dutch the say apples and pears also. I think it's a silly expression since for many purposes a kg of fruit is a kg of fruit. I like the Danish expression "the height of the round tower vs the height of thunder", where the Danish word for "height" can mean loudness as well.

Trick question when i was in elementary school of 4th year (total was 5 years).

Which one is heavy? A kilograms of Cotton or a kilograms of Iron.

If you compare in weight they are equal. But th matter is not so simple. Because comparing different forms with only weights is not completely fair. Their functions are not same

[TimG]

csdenmark, on Dec 9 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

TimG, on Dec 9 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 04:17 AM, said:

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff.

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".

Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction
Wrong Tim - now you are talking against better knowledge - at least I hope. In this thread you have had the option to be enlightened.

Condescension is not going to help your case.

Quote

The complications are in 1st round - and only there. They are over 0-7 opening and might be 1 and two more. The complications are to defend over unknown. For that you have several simple and american conventions. The best knowns are CRASH and Truscott. Rest is pure natural just like SAYC or any other natural system.

I think you are confused. The "their" is Meckstroth-Rodwell, who I don't believe use any ferts (0-7 openings)

Quote

You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction.
Wrong Tim - each time your side has no opening for 1st seat you will be pushed into defensive - thats approx. 85%. In fact you have no option to play your own offensive system against pass systems. Thats the triviality of this - but there is no complications about it.

Again, I think you are confused. If a member of the FP pair is in first seat, they will either be opening a non-standard (be it a fert or a light initial action bid of some sort) or passing with a 13+ hand. Either way you are in am "unnormal" situation.

Quote

Please Tim - admit the regulations against pass systems are nothing but lack of knowledge and scareness of independent thinking human beings.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to ban FP systems at some levels. I'm sure I could be convinced that the ban should extend to most or all levels. I really wasn't offering an opinion on whether FP should be banned, but trying to explain how the regulators see RM Precision as different from a FP system and thus treat them differently in the regulations. Look at the quote from Codo that I was referring to.

[helene_t]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

Which one is heavy? A kilograms of Cotton or a kilograms of Iron.

If "a kg" refers to mass while "heavy" refers to weight, then the iron is heavier because the upwards drift from the air is lower.

[H_KARLUK]

helene_t, on Dec 9 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

Which one is heavy? A kilograms of Cotton or a kilograms of Iron.

If "a kg" refers to mass while "heavy" refers to weight, then the iron is heavier because the upwards drift from the air is lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

[Codo]

cherdano, on Dec 9 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.

Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?

There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.

Arend, I let you in a secret:

There is a sign: "?" Whenever someone uses this sign, he asked something that is called a "question". If you do understand this, please answer the questions.

If you don't- go on with making silly remarks.

I wanted to know why they took the line where they did. They allowed some quite difficult systems and forbid others. They surely have reasons to do so.
And the complete different development of the bidding (no undisturbed opening in 2. or a later seat f.e) is obviously a big reason why they handled the case as they did. But again, why did they took the line here? Was this the only reason? If yes, it was obviously sufficent for them.

But why did they ban Mosquito and multi then? The reason should be different. What was it?

So I would still like to get some answers, but I think I won't get them.