[fred]

awm, on Dec 10 2008, 03:06 AM, said:

I suspect the best way to improve at bridge is to play as many hands as possible versus the best opposition possible.

Agree.

Other good ways to spend your time include:

- studying the moves of very good players (kibitz, watch vugraph, read World Championship books)
- talk bridge with people who are better than you and listen to what they have to say
- read the best bridge magazines (especially The Bridge World) and the books of the best bridge authors (Kelsey, Reese, Lawrence, etc.)
- hire a pro (yes I know this can be expensive)

Quote

I'd be curious as to at what points in their bridge careers some of our successful top-level "mad scientists" (I mean people like Ekeblad-Rubin, or Meckstroth-Rodwell, or the Viking Club guys) started tinkering with non-mainstream methods. I suspect it's earlier in their development as players than Fred seems to be suggesting.

If my belief is even true, it is entirely possible that some/all of these people may constitute exceptions to my belief.

But I think it is misguided to use Meckstroth and Rodwell as examples for several reasons:

1) They are both extraordinarily talented. Very few of the rest of us (certainly including me) have their natural gifts.

2) They found each other at a relatively early point in their bridge careers and made a serious committment to stick together and become the best. Very few of the rest of us (certainly including me) are fortunate enough to find their bridge soulmates so early on.

3) They have both been full time professional players forever. Very few of the rest of us (certainly including me) are able to devote as much time and energy to bridge as these two have.

Also, in case you don't know this, they are not both "mad scientists". Perhaps it would be fair to characterize Rodwell in this way (I personally would not call him that), but I believe Meckstroth is mostly "along for the ride" as far as all the science goes. Yes of course Jeff has made some contributions to their system and yes of course he values Eric's genius in this area, but I am guessing that he would be happy playing a much simpler flavor of what they actually play.

I can't speak for the Viking Club guys, but I do know that Ekeblad-Rubin are similar to Meckwell in this respect. Russ is the "mad scientist" and Ronnie is mostly "along for the ride". Mind you, it doesn't make much sense to even compare Ekeblad-Rubin or the Viking Club guys with Meckwell. As strong as the other two pairs are, IMO they are not even close to being in the Meckwell class (not an insult to them - nobody is in the Meckwell class IMO and only a handful of pairs are even close).

I believe there are very few of these "mad scientist" types among the world's most successful players. There doesn't need to be since the best of them tend to get a lot of mileage. For example, a lot of the best youngish players in North America are now playing a greatly simplified version of the basic methods that Meckwell play.

Please also note that Meckwell have played the same basic approach forever. The vast majority of the changes they have made over the years have been in the details. I believe the same is true of the system that Ekeblad and his various partners have played over the years.

The main point I have been trying to make is that most of those who delight in "mad science" early on, never make it to the top and that some of these probably would have had they been willing to put the science on the shelf for a while.

What is a while?

I am guessing that if you learn to play bridge at age 17 and decide you want to be good enough to have a chance to win the Bermuda Bowl one day, you should stick with a relatively simple and relatively popular bidding system until you are in your late 20s. If you have not become sufficiently good at the basics by this point in life to compete at the highest levels then you probably never will (I am using history as a guide in making this claim).

A while is roughly 10 years.

"Relatively simple" does not mean SAYC. 2/1, Polish Club, Precision, French Standard, etc. are all fine choices. It would be helpful if some of the leading experts in your area played the same thing (though this is getting less important thanks to the Internet).

By all means play some fancy conventions if you want, but I would suggest that you don't get too involved in things like:

- trying a whole bunch of different notrump ranges
- experimenting with a whole bunch of different 2-bids
- inventing your own strong club or relay systems
- experimenting with completely bizarre systems

If you have Eric Rodwell's talent, you might be able to get away with this, but (no offense) you almost certainly don't (and neither do I).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

fred, on Dec 10 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

- talk bridge with people who are better than you and listen to what they have to say

Good advice (as is most of the advice you give on improving), but....

One has to be careful which "better than you" player you pick. For example, there's a player here who believes he's better than me because he has 2000 masterpoints and I don't. He might be right that he's better than me (although the bidding example he gave to me didn't show it, imo), but it ain't because he has more masterpoints. The fact that he thinks masterpoints matter makes me wonder.

[JanM]

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 05:55 AM, said:

So for me, a good compromise might be to allow any opening or overcall that promises at least (say) 11 points, and any follow-up to those. But at the same time put restrictions, or otherwise discourage, artificial obstructive methods. I am not really suggesting this since probably most people either can't live without artificial preempts and/or won't like opps to play unusual constructive methods. Also it may be impractical to legally distinguish between constructive and obstructive methods.

Ummmm - something like:

"All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:
a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values,
b. conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or over-calls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES AND RE-BIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP - and c. conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may be four cards (see #7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart). THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.)
4. Defenses to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.
5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid. "

That's from the ACBL Midchart, and these bids are allowed without the requirement for an approved defense.

[fred]

TimG, on Dec 10 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

fred, on Dec 10 2008, 09:55 AM, said:

I have admitted at least once in this thread that my opinions may be biased due to my own personal bidding preferences. I have tried to remain objective, but it is impossible for me to know how much my bias gets in the way.

Fred,

I seem to recall that early in your bridge life you spent a year playing virtually no conventions with Joey Silver and that this was a significant step in your development as a bridge player. (I hope my recollection is not that far off.) I wonder if you might briefly share with us how that experience influenced both your bridge learning and your thinking about unusual methods.

Tim

Your recollection is not that far off. I will tell my story. Not surprisingly, it has had a serious impact on what I have come to believe and on what I have expressed in this thread.

When and where I learned to play bridge was in the early 1980s in Canada. At that time and place it was natural for me to gravitate toward Eric Kokish as a role model (because he had enjoyed a great deal of success, because he was very approachable, and because he was obviously brilliant).

If I had to do Eric the disservice of summarizing his basic approach to bridge bidding in one phrase I would say something like: natural with weak notrumps and 5-card majors, but highly scientific with every bid in every auction having a well-defined (and frequently artificial) meaning.

So I spent the first 5 years or so in my development as a serious player trying to mold my game to Eric's approach.

This turned out to be a colossal mistake. Fortunately those years were not totally wasted since I also spent a lot of time studying the technical aspects of bridge. Even in terms of bidding I learned some things during this time that would prove useful later in life.

But the bottom line was that I was not much of a bridge player. My bidding system had far too many crutches for me to effectively develop good judgment. Also, when I got a bad result, it was natural for me to try to tinker with the system (as opposed to considering that I had made a mistake). Also, I spent far too much time and energy focusing on things that I have ultimately come to believe are not especially important (like developing and memorizing the best possible structure of followups to a sequence that will arise maybe once per year). Finally, I made far too many stupid mistakes for a player with the degree of technical skill I had, almost certainly because my mind was clouded with fancy bidding that I was not ready to play.

I have little doubt that I never would have amounted to anything as a bridge player had it not been for Joey Silver.

Joey would be the first to admit that he is not is the same league as a player as my hero Eric. But Joey had the virtue of being a highly practical player (as well as the virtue of caring deeply about winning).

He immediately slashed and burned the entire system that I had worked so hard to develop and memorize (which had been based heavily on Eric's way of thinking). In all seriousness, SAYC was considerably more sophisticated than the system that Joey forced me to play. I was terrified and deeply skeptical - I could not believe that it was possible to achieve good results playing "the Joey way".

It turned out that not only was I completely wrong about this (we achieved some great results together, including a Gold Medal at the IOC Grand Prix in Salt Lake City that many probably count as one of the great bridge miracles of modern times), but I became a much much better player as a result of this experience. Joey's way forced me to learn to think and judge for myself instead of relying on the system to do all the hard work.

Thanks Joey ♥

Please note that I am not trying to blame my friend Eric for the rut that I managed to get myself into before Joey came along. He was nothing more than my role model and occasional mentor during this time. Had I bothered to ask him at the time, he probably would have recommended against such a young player getting so involved in *any* system (even his system).

Later on Eric came to be one of my closest friends, a frequent teammate, and an occasional partner. I still believe he is brilliant and I now believe I would be ready to play "his way" if I wanted to. In some sense I do want to - my regular partnership with Brad Moss has been certainly been influenced by Eric's way of thinking and I count this as one of our strengths.

But probably it is more accurate to say that we reside somewhere in the middle of the "Eric way" and the "Joey way". That is the approach I took my first serious partner after Joey - George Mittelman with whom I was also very successful and from whom I also learned a lot.

It is the "middle way" that I prefer to this day - detailed but mostly natural agreements, some complexity in auctions that arise a lot, but a system/style in which you are not completely handcuffed by every bid being well-defined. In other words, I believe in playing a system that gives you the ability to "bid what you think you can make" without that bid carrying any meaning in addition to "I think I can make this".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 10 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 05:55 AM, said:

So for me, a good compromise might be to allow any opening or overcall that promises at least (say) 11 points, and any follow-up to those. But at the same time put restrictions, or otherwise discourage, artificial obstructive methods. I am not really suggesting this since probably most people either can't live without artificial preempts and/or won't like opps to play unusual constructive methods. Also it may be impractical to legally distinguish between constructive and obstructive methods.

Ummmm - something like:

"All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:
a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values,
b. conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or over-calls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES AND RE-BIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP - and c. conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may be four cards (see #7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart). THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.)
4. Defenses to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.
5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid. "

That's from the ACBL Midchart, and these bids are allowed without the requirement for an approved defense.

No, the portion of the mid-chart that you cite is for responses and rebid, not for openings (and overcalls) as helene suggested.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 11 2008, 05:40 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 05:55 AM, said:

So for me, a good compromise might be to allow any opening or overcall that promises at least (say) 11 points, and any follow-up to those. But at the same time put restrictions, or otherwise discourage, artificial obstructive methods. I am not really suggesting this since probably most people either can't live without artificial preempts and/or won't like opps to play unusual constructive methods. Also it may be impractical to legally distinguish between constructive and obstructive methods.

Ummmm - something like:

"All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted - except for:
a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values,
b. conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or over-calls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES AND RE-BIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP - and c. conventional calls after a weak two-bid with an agreed range of more than 7 HCP or an agreement where the suit length may be four cards (see #7 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart). THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PAIRS.)
4. Defenses to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls.
5. Any strong (15+ HCP) opening bid. "

That's from the ACBL Midchart, and these bids are allowed without the requirement for an approved defense.

I think unlike Helene's suggestion this does not allow transfer openings.

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play. In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening.

This makes no sense at all to me.

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

The Shanghai decision was an oops. Normally a 2+ minor suit opening is not protected. Whether a 3+ minor suit opening should be is debatable but since everyone treat it as natural (i.e. a direct cuebid is Michaels, not natural) it makes some sense.

A 1NT opening is much more difficult to defend than any minor suit opening regardless of meaning.

I am not arguing that the BSC definitions are great but there are so many conflicting criteria at play that we shouldn't expect anything much better I'm afraid.

[awm]

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play. In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening.

This makes no sense at all to me.

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

Actually, on the General Convention Chart it states:

Allowed
....
Defense to conventional calls

(it's under Competitive 7a).

So even local ACBL tourneys allow an artificial defense to a conventional opening bid like the 1♣ showing 2+.

Amusing that the national team tried (and for a while succeeded) to get a defense disallowed in a world championship when the same defense can be played at my local sectional in the USA!

[hrothgar]

awm, on Dec 10 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play.  In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening. 

This makes no sense at all to me. 

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

Actually, on the General Convention Chart it states:

Allowed
....
Defense to conventional calls

(it's under Competitive 7a).

So even local ACBL tourneys allow an artificial defense to a conventional opening bid like the 1♣ showing 2+.

Amusing that the national team tried (and for a while succeeded) to get a defense disallowed in a world championship when the same defense can be played at my local sectional in the USA!

For what its worth, when I run into folks playing a short club I often like to use a 2♥ overcall as a weak two in either hearts or spades.

Half the appeal is the fact that this is GCC legal...

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Dec 11 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

The Shanghai decision was an oops. ...

Has it been overturned?

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 11 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Also as an aside while reading this it occurred to me that it is odd that any defense to a 1NT opening is allowed but if you throw a bunch of balanced hands into 1♣ so that 1♣ is natural or balanced (some ranges(s)) as many prefer to describe it which is a more complex definition than the 1NT opening then you are restricted in the defenses that you can play.  In particular in Shanghai the WBF ruled that the 1♣ opening was "natural" (which it patently is not) so as to disallow Brown Sticker Conventions against this opening. 

This makes no sense at all to me. 

Summarizing the Natural bid of 1NT can be attacked with any convention but the Artificial 1♣ is protected.

Actually, on the General Convention Chart it states:

Allowed
....
Defense to conventional calls

(it's under Competitive 7a).

So even local ACBL tourneys allow an artificial defense to a conventional opening bid like the 1♣ showing 2+.

Amusing that the national team tried (and for a while succeeded) to get a defense disallowed in a world championship when the same defense can be played at my local sectional in the USA!

My point is that the artificial 1♣ was being treated as natural by the WBF.

[FrancesHinden]

Cascade, on Dec 10 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

My point is that the artificial 1♣ was being treated as natural by the WBF.

Yes. I'm sure we'll find someone on this thread who agrees with that decision, but currently I don't know anyone who thinks that was anything but obviously wrong.

I don't know that many country's own rules, but in those I do know, a 2+ club is treated as conventional.

It seems to be all the rage at the moment to open 1C on 5332 12-14 hands with a bad 5-card major, taking the concept of treating these hands as 'balanced' to its logical extreme. Maybe that'll be called natural in the next Bermuda Bowl..

[PeterGill]

A few points:

1. Australia's current juniors do not seem to be system-mad,
but I will try to keep an eye on any who take the wrong fork
in the road. The WBF's ban on HUMs at all World Youth events
means that very few youths in the last 15 years have played HUMs.

2. I think Fred Gitelman's contributions to this thread
are incredibly insightful and useful.

3. Somebody asked what WOR is. It stands for "Weak Opening Relay",
Paul Marston's Forcing Pass system before switching to Moscito about
20 years ago.

4. The Australian team which came 5th in the world (our best result
for 18 years) in the most recent Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai in 2007
had three pairs all playing natural 5 card major systems. Usually our
National Open Team has one or two pairs playing some sort of Relay
System. Many locals here did not think they would do that well, not
being regulars in the National Team. Oddly, one player in each partnership dabbled with playing Forcing Pass systems earlier in their careers,
but none of them were obsessed by systematitis very early in their careers.

5. In Australia there's kanga cricket for kids, seven a side rugby,
half court tennis and minigolf. I sometimes think that bridge
should experiment whether to promote several variants, perhaps
Bridge (the current form), Two Bid Bridge (each player allowed only
two bids), Three Bid Bridge and Free Bridge (all systems allowed).
Personally I would make the Bermuda Bowl be Free Bridge and
all other events Bridge (the current form), with all forms controlled
by the WBF. The simpler forms Twobb and Threebb (which need better
names) might become useful tools for teaching bridge, with (of necessity)
very simple natural bidding.

6. Despite a fairly unrestrictive environment, Forcing Pass systems
and HUMs are almost but not quite extinct in Australia, with just
Sebesfi - Curtis and sometimes Hughes - Giura left.

Peter Gill
Sydney

[csdenmark]

PeterGill, on Dec 11 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

A few points:

1. Australia's current juniors do not seem to be system-mad,
but I will try to keep an eye on any who take the wrong fork
in the road. The WBF's ban on HUMs at all World Youth events 
means that very few youths in the last 15 years have played HUMs.

2. I think Fred Gitelman's contributions to this thread
are incredibly insightful and useful.

3. Somebody asked what WOR is. It stands for "Weak Opening Relay",
Paul Marston's Forcing Pass system before switching to Moscito about
20 years ago. 

4. The Australian team which came 5th in the world (our best result
for 18 years) in the most recent Bermuda Bowl in Shanghai in 2007
had three pairs all playing natural 5 card major systems. Usually our
National Open Team has one or two pairs playing some sort of Relay
System. Many locals here did not think they would do that well, not
being regulars in the National Team. Oddly, one player in each partnership dabbled with playing Forcing Pass systems earlier in their careers,
but none of them were obsessed by systematitis very early in their careers. 

5. In Australia there's kanga cricket for kids, seven a side rugby,
half court tennis and minigolf. I sometimes think that bridge
should experiment whether to promote several variants, perhaps
Bridge (the current form), Two Bid Bridge (each player allowed only
two bids), Three Bid Bridge and Free Bridge (all systems allowed).
Personally I would make the Bermuda Bowl be Free Bridge and
all other events Bridge (the current form), with all forms controlled
by the WBF. The simpler forms Twobb and Threebb (which need better
names) might become useful tools for teaching bridge, with (of necessity)
very simple natural bidding. 

6. Despite a fairly unrestrictive environment, Forcing Pass systems
and HUMs are almost but not quite extinct in Australia, with just
Sebesfi - Curtis and sometimes Hughes - Giura left.

Peter Gill
Sydney

1. Australia's current juniors do not seem to be system-mad,
but I will try to keep an eye on any who take the wrong fork
in the road. The WBF's ban on HUMs at all World Youth events
means that very few youths in the last 15 years have played HUMs.
But what to do abut that Peter? Something or nothing at all?

2. I think Fred Gitelman's contributions to this thread
are incredibly insightful and useful.
Agree - but unbalanced. Fred still needs to explain why man-machine counts anywhere else in society but is of no relevance in bridge.

3. Somebody asked what WOR is. It stands for "Weak Opening Relay",
Paul Marston's Forcing Pass system before switching to Moscito about
20 years ago.
Thank you for the name. In reality it was a request for notes. Not only about general curiousity but not least because features damned by me as 'misconstruction'.

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 11 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

Fred still needs to explain why man-machine counts anywhere else in society but is of no relevance in bridge.

I am sorry, Claus, but I do not understand what it is you are asking me to explain.

If you clarify your question and if I think I have any insights into the answer, I will try to express them.

I am guessing that, if I can provide a meaningful answer at all, my answer will be something along the lines of "apples are not oranges".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ndpost&p=326609

It is here below:

Quote

Nevertheless it is so in most sports that the equipment used by the top-persons are sold for high prices. Horses, skies, bicycles and shoes are the most significant. Here rates the market value that equipment is of great importance for the overall performance.

In bridge we dont have opportunities for a rating. I think what comes nearest is something about attendance to Vugraph. I think we agree that systems I call strong/interesting are the runners for Vugraph.

The human factor is important of course - but it is not the only important factor.

Fred in a discussion arguments go under - conclusions are what we remember. Even I will love very much to agree with you - and to some extend really do so - it is suspicious that your argument is based on super-natural qualifications of persons. You are of course in a much more comfortable position to make a qualified judgement of that.

Each time we discuss this topic we talk about beginners versus the very thin world-elite. We talk like everybody really want to be world champions. I doubt it is so. They want to be good and solid but they have a good job and want to a have a good and interesting hobby too. In fact it is so that the Bermuda winners are fairly unknown outside their own country - even inside bridge communities.

Last for now - I am very suspicious your arguments go under and your conclusion will be misused by the lazy ones. Even thats not your message - your conclusion is just what the lazy ones like to hear. I would therefore like to have your arguments related to a timeline. I am very sure we in that way will agree - at least to 90% - and for the rest I think I will agree with Peter Gill.

[Cascade]

PeterGill, on Dec 12 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

... and Free Bridge (all systems allowed).
Personally I would make the Bermuda Bowl be Free Bridge and
all other events Bridge (the current form), with all forms controlled
by the WBF.

This suggestion seems impractical to me from the point of view of allowing all systems.

If only the Bermuda Bowl allows all systems where do players get experience playing the unrestricted methods and perhaps more importantly against such methods.

If there is to be a more permissive system regulations then there needs to be a comprehensive structure of tournaments in which such systems can be played.

[csdenmark]

Cascade, on Dec 11 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

If only the Bermuda Bowl allows all systems where do players get experience playing the unrestricted methods and perhaps more importantly against such methods.

If there is to be a more permissive system regulations then there needs to be a comprehensive structure of tournaments in which such systems can be played.

Acol Players Club perhaps?

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 11 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ndpost&p=326609

It is here below:

Quote

Nevertheless it is so in most sports that the equipment used by the top-persons are sold for high prices. Horses, skies, bicycles and shoes are the most significant. Here rates the market value that equipment is of great importance for the overall performance.

In bridge we dont have opportunities for a rating. I think what comes nearest is something about attendance to Vugraph. I think we agree that systems I call strong/interesting are the runners for Vugraph.

The human factor is important of course - but it is not the only important factor.

Fred in a discussion arguments go under - conclusions are what we remember. Even I will love very much to agree with you - and to some extend really do so - it is suspicious that your argument is based on super-natural qualifications of persons. You are of course in a much more comfortable position to make a qualified judgement of that.

Each time we discuss this topic we talk about beginners versus the very thin world-elite. We talk like everybody really want to be world champions. I doubt it is so. They want to be good and solid but they have a good job and want to a have a good and interesting hobby too. In fact it is so that the Bermuda winners are fairly unknown outside their own country - even inside bridge communities.

Last for now - I am very suspicious your arguments go under and your conclusion will be misused by the lazy ones. Even thats not your message - your conclusion is just what the lazy ones like to hear. I would therefore like to have your arguments related to a timeline. I am very sure we in that way will agree - at least to 90% - and for the rest I think I will agree with Peter Gill.

I am still not sure I understand what you are asking, Claus, but I will try to answer...

You refer to "equipment" used in other sports and, I believe, are making the claim that bidding systems in bridge are analogous.

If that is not what you are saying, then sorry, but that is the point I will try to address. I will use tennis as a comparison - a sport that I play, but not very well.

In tennis, technology has produced better and better raquets (equipment) over the years that make it easier and easier for a bad tennis player like me to play what appears to be a competent game of tennis. It is certainly in my short term interest as a tennis player to get one of these fancy raquets. I do not know if it is in my long term interest or not. Probably you would have to ask a tennis coach or at least a very good player if this was the case. Perhaps by relying on my fancy raquet to do so much work for me, I will never develop the skills I need to play the game really well. In this sense, it may sound like the comparison between the raquet in tennis and the bidding system in bridge makes sense, but I don't think that is the case (see below).

Technology has certainly impacted the equipment used in other sports as well. Two that I can think of off the top of my head are skiing (a sport I am good at) and golf (I sport I am really awful at).

But let's go back to tennis. I claim that the comparison between the tennis raquet and the bidding system in bridge is meaningless. A bridge bidding system is not a piece of equipment. The only equipment we have in bridge are things like comfortable clothess and chairs and good eye glasses. Having this sort of good bridge equipment, while probably not vital to success, can only be good for your game - by all means you should seek it out and use it when you play.

The aspects of tennis that are *maybe* analogous to a bidding system in bridge would be:

- do you use a 2-handed backhand or not?
- when do you come to the net?
- to what extent are you willing to risk a double fault in order to make a reasonably hard-to-return 2nd serve?

Sorry to any good tennis players out there if these examples are dumb

But dumb or not, I would consider these things "techniques" or "strategies" as opposed to "equipment". Bidding systems in bridge are similar in this regard.

If you can accept all of this, let me preempt you from posting:

1) Yes of course techniques and strategies in sports advance over time, just like equipment does

2) Yes of course in many/most sports (including probably tennis) it would not make much sense for the rules to prevent players from using the latest techniques and strategies

All I can say in response, is that IMO there is not much point in comparing pairs of sports (especially those that are completely different from each other in so many respects like bridge and tennis are) and trying to draw sensible conclusions. The same goes for apples and oranges which arguably have a lot more in common with each other than bridge and tennis do.

If you persist in considering bridge bidding systems to be "equipment" and insist on continuing to use (mostly meaningless IMO) comparisons with other sports, then I am afraid you are defeating your own argument: many sports do in fact make rules that put limits on the equipment that is allowed (the size of the raquet in tennis for example).

About your request for a "timeline", I think I provided what it is you are looking for in another post in this thread (when I suggested that talented young players would be better off if they spent the first 10 years or so of their bridge careers before they got heavily involved in developing/experimenting with systems).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Thank you very much Fred. After this we may even land at near the same spot. I will wait until tomorrow for an answer. I need a little more time to think about your answer which I appreciate very much - because it is what I have missed in many of your other postings about this theme.

But I am glad to see that you have at east understood the basic of what I mean - in that respect i have had some success this time.

Please consider - I am not talking about different equipment for different objectives. I think of different ways using the relevant equipment for the same objectives.

If I want to transport persons - I need a bus.
If I want to transport more persons - I need 2 busses or a faster bus or maybe a shorter route.

If my objective instead will be to transport my persons more comfortable I need to choose a road without holes or maybe feathering the bus better. Maybe serving tea during the trip could be an option for that purpose.

Many ways may lead to the same goal. What I decide to choose and why - I need to think over - at least until tomorrow.

Have a nice day Fred - and thank you for going my way - at least about considerings.