[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Dec 11 2008, 11:02 PM, said:

With respect to jdonn, I'm not against pre-alerts.  So, while I take your point about the partnership aspect being different I think that pre-alerts gives them a chance to devise something reasonable on the spot.  You don't have to pre-prepare for every possible meaning.  Time constraints are something else appended onto the laws in practice as a matter of public preference.  There are two separate issues here.  #1 Should unrestricted bidding be allowed?  #2 Is it even feasible for unrestricted bidding to be allowed at all levels?

I disagree with much of that.
- Who says pre-alerts give people a chance to devise something reasonable on the spot? Most of my bidding ideas have proven to be bad, but there would be no way for me to realize that immediately without first trying them out.
- Who even knows what reasonable is? Is it ok as long as they can come up with something that won't reach a terrible contract on easy hands? What about the next round of the auction, it's very likely to come up but the possibilities to discuss are quite numerous.
- Who says the opponents shouldn't get to pre-prepare for every possible meaning? That looks a lot like you 'appending something onto the laws in practice as a matter of preference'. Which nothing is wrong with doing, but it's just an opinion and I don't agree.

Quote

With respect to #1, I am not lobbying here for unrestricted bidding to be allowed.  Sure, that would be my preference but I didn't start this thread.  I've said time and again that the public opinion rules here and that the public doesn't want it.  So, I really resent Fred saying some statement was self-serving when I'm not trying to change it or even complaining about the current state of affairs!

You freely admit you believe in unrestricted bidding. In the midst of a discussion on the topic, you put forth an analogy that supports the idea of unrestricted bidding, by demonstrating a potential and supposedly analagous situation in another game where the idea of a restriction looks silly.

Do you know what self-serving means?

Quote

With respect to #2, what I am starting to hear in this thread is that it is not even possible to ever accommodate unrestricted bidding.  While I agree that given current rules, regulations, and time constraints that it isn't possible, if every bridge player woke up tomorrow and started demanding unrestricted bidding then my assertion is that it would be possible to re-configure bridge events to satisfy public demand...flexible movements that accommodate slow or fast tables based on system complexity, different timing regimes, defense workbooks with prepared defenses to various things that people could reference, etc.  Just because I argue that this is possible does not mean that I believe it should be done.

I don't see anyone saying it couldn't possibly be done. Who made that claim? Obviously bridge could be played however people want.

That being said, it looks to me like you are attempting to dance on a pinhead. You are trying very hard to convince that although you believe system restrictions should be removed, you are not actually arguing system restrictions should be removed, merely that they could be removed. I'm certainly willing to accept your intentions for whatever you say they are, and it's not like someone would be in the wrong to make either argument anyway, but I think you are kidding yourself and have clearly argued for both. Why would you make an analogy clearly designed to make system restrictions look like a dumb idea unless you were arguing they should be removed?

Quote

There is no shame in preferring a more restrictive and therefore simpler game to maximize your enjoyment or the number of people playing but at least have the balls to say that this is purely a matter of preference rather than trying to pile on specious arguments about how its not even feasible.

1. Would something like this suffice?

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

In the end, it all simply comes down to what someone thinks bridge 'should' be, and since I have a hard time claiming anyone is wrong then the only thing I can believe is that the preference of the majority should rule the day.

I seem to recall making similar statements several times throughout the thread.
2. I never argued it's not feasible. I argued that it's MUCH less feasible in bridge than it is in chess, and therefore the chess analogy is inaccurate.
3. The argument that you erroneously credit me with would only be specious if your statement that (paraphrasing) 'the way bridge is run could adapt to a potential desire of the bridge playing public to eliminate system restrictions' were a fact. It seems to me you obviously presented that as an opinion, which it is.

[H_KARLUK]

Rulz of Surgery dear Doc. Even they are informal rules of surgery passed down orally in medical school and residency. I bet you know better than me

In general "Never mess with the pancreas" please.

There's a World Bridge Federation and I do not see any logical reason to question or complaint abt their applications.

[DrTodd13]

Quote

- Who says pre-alerts give people a chance to devise something reasonable on the spot? Most of my bidding ideas have proven to be bad, but there would be no way for me to realize that immediately without first trying them out.
- Who even knows what reasonable is? Is it ok as long as they can come up with something that won't reach a terrible contract on easy hands? What about the next round of the auction, it's very likely to come up but the possibilities to discuss are quite numerous.
- Who says the opponents shouldn't get to pre-prepare for every possible meaning? That looks a lot like you 'appending something onto the laws in practice as a matter of preference'. Which nothing is wrong with doing, but it's just an opinion and I don't agree.

If you want to prepare against every possible meaning then knock yourself out. Nothing I've suggested would prevent that. I'm just saying it is possible to play forcing pass in a club game. I've done it for goodness sake and the club didn't sucked into a vortex of madness. Look, you can say my observations don't mean anything but I'm speaking from personal experience. With over 5 years of playing a forcing pass system on BBO nearly every day, my experience is that even the shortest of discussions allows people to avoid ridiculous things like playing trump contracts with less than 7 trumps or way over or under bidding. The absence of the ridiculous on an average hand I would call reasonable. Sometimes people reach ridiculous contracts even with "normal" systems so the occasional crazy result against a FP system should be treated as a learning experience and not as evidence it should be banned. If subjecting average people to FP would lead to hand after hand of ridiculous results it wouldn't be any fun to play it and my average would be a lot higher than 0.65 imps/board.

Quote

You freely admit you believe in unrestricted bidding. In the midst of a discussion on the topic, you put forth an analogy that supports the idea of unrestricted bidding, by demonstrating a potential and supposedly analagous situation in another game where the idea of a restriction looks silly.

Do you know what self-serving means?

People were mentioning chess and I thought the situation was somewhat analogous.
I'm not a big sports fan but I think something else analogous is the whole concept of an illegal defense or formation in football or basketball. The game would seem to be more interesting with more variety and those rules seem arbitrary. As such, I find it interesting that different games have handled the situation differently. After the rules are as they are for sometime people tend to think it could not help but be that way. The only thing I'd like people to realize is there's nothing magical about how the rules were formed and that unusual systems are banned simply to keep people happy and not because they are inferior, destructive, or malicious. Sometimes people can just be making conversation and don't have to have an agenda.

Quote

That being said, it looks to me like you are attempting to dance on a pinhead. You are trying very hard to convince that although you believe system restrictions should be removed, you are not actually arguing system restrictions should be removed, merely that they could be removed. I'm certainly willing to accept your intentions for whatever you say they are, and it's not like someone would be in the wrong to make either argument anyway, but I think you are kidding yourself and have clearly argued for both. Why would you make an analogy clearly designed to make system restrictions look like a dumb idea unless you were arguing they should be removed?

If I believed that they should be removed then I would argue that they should be removed. I would prefer that they be removed but I believe that the majority should decide what happens and so my preference doesn't matter. Like I said, I think chess players and bridge players have adopted different mentalities. I was pointing out that others facing similar problems have made different decisions.

Quote

2. I never argued it's not feasible. I argued that it's MUCH less feasible in bridge than it is in chess, and therefore the chess analogy is inaccurate.
3. The argument that you erroneously credit me with would only be specious if your statement that (paraphrasing) 'the way bridge is run could adapt to a potential desire of the bridge playing public to eliminate system restrictions' were a fact. It seems to me you obviously presented that as an opinion, which it is.

I was responding to multiple people and posts, not just you. I didn't to imply that you argued it wasn't feasible.

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Dec 11 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

I think the chess anology is both ridiculous (Jdonn is doing a good job of explaing why) and obviously self-serving.

Some of us are interested in seeing advances in bidding theory. In this regard, the analogy to chess opening theory makes perfect sense. If only 1.e4 was allowed, chess opening theory would be languishing at the 1700 levels. In exactly the same manner, if only standard bidding were allowed, bridge bidding theory would be languishing in the 1920 level. (Not sure about the year, I'm not a bridge history buff).

The introduction of newer systems has contributed immensely to both bridge bidding and chess opening theory. It is difficult to see why the introduction of FP systems would not do the same.

Bridge is one game in which current professionals get to make the rules. It is like a judge hearing a case in which he has a financial interest. Remember the incident about Scalia hearing a case in which some felt he should have excused himself? As a further analogy, imagine Federer and Safin deciding the speed of the courts at Wimbledon.

To me, it is quite fair to question the motives of the current professionals who get to make the rules when the rules seem to favor the systems they play. jdonn and fred and jeff meckstroth, etc etc may take offense at this, but to me there is a clear conflict of interest. Requiring a judge to excuse himself from a case in which he could be biased is not an accusation of his integrity, similarly, questioning Meckstroth and Martels' reasons for not allowing FP systems is not an attack on their integrity.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 12 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

I think the chess anology is both ridiculous (Jdonn is doing a good job of explaing why) and obviously self-serving.

So I think I will make my own ridiculous and self-serving anology that argues the other side:

A partnership at a bridge club are taking lessons is Swahili. Like everyone else in the club, they can speak English, but they think bridge is more interesting and challenging if, when asked what their bids means, they can answer in Swahili. The club manager, who cares deeply for the rights of the minority, decides to allow this.

That means that all the other players have a choice. They can either learn Swahili so that they can understand the explanations they have been given, or they can continue to play without understanding what the opponents' bids mean. Not surprisingly, most players do not like either of these choices - it ruins their favorite game for them.

So they come up with a third choice: they go to another club.

They are dismayed to learn that their new club has a pro-Swahili-explanations policy as well.

They decide to stop playing bridge.

How unlucky for the Swahili-speakers - they have nobody left to play against!

Despite my analogy being admittedly ridiculous and self-selfing, I happen to think (perhaps self-servingly) that it comes closer to the mark than the chess analogy

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The problem with this analogy is that it is pure speculation.

When i have played unusual methods I cannot recall anyone suggesting the were going to give up bridge because of our methods.

On the other hand I can recall several LOL-types being intrigued by our methods.

[H_KARLUK]

qwery_hi, on Dec 12 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

If only 1.e4 was allowed, chess opening theory would be languishing at the 1700 levels. In exactly the same manner, if only standard bidding were allowed, bridge bidding theory would be languishing in the 1920 level. (Not sure about the year, I'm not a bridge history buff).

Forum: General Bridge Discussion · Post Preview: #327023
H_KARLUK Posted on: Dec 10 2008, 04:18 AM

Replies: 365
Views: 8648 QUOTE (blackshoe @ Dec 10 2008, 03:25 AM)
What differentiates these three classes of systems? Who decides?


http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp

http://en.wikipedia..../Bidding_system
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Strong_pass
http://homepage.mac....ingSystems.html

I do hope it helps your questions. Anything else please, is that all?


In a Chess board all pieces are equal and visible. The rest depends players repertoire to analyse and judge "hidden traps".
If one skilled enough can close his/her eyes and plays against i.e. 10 opponents simultaneously. Only needs to hear which piece moved where. Board and elements are standard.
It's not same in game of bridge. There are not single King and Queen. Four suits and a NT. Hands unseen. One should make accurate decisions on auction and trick taking.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 12 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 11 2008, 07:43 PM, said:

It isn't a technical equivalence I'm talking about but an equivalent theme of preparedness.  In unrestricted bridge you have to be prepared for any system or convention that may come up.  Likewise, in chess you have to be prepared for any opening or defense. There are some rare openings that have fallen out of favor but my understanding is that occasionally someone will spring one on someone who may have not prepared against it because it is so rare. Chess players have decided as a whole that they like this situation and they would dislike artificially limiting the game by banning certain positions in the early game. Bridge players have come to the opposite conclusion and have chosen to place artificial restrictions on the game that aren't present in the laws (the authority to do so is there I grant you). The opinion of the bridge mob will rule as in the rest of life and the bridge public does not seem to care a lot about the purity of the game but instead favor ease.

Sorry, still not buying the comparison.

- In chess, it's out in the open. Even if you haven't seen your opponent's move made before, you were welcome before you moved to see that it would be possible, and you can see (to the extent your abilities allow) anything in the future your opponent can possibly do. In bridge you have no practical way of knowing what other options your opponents might have had on a slightly different hand, what future options they will have in the auction, etc.
- In chess, you are on your own. No matter what move the opponent makes, I can at my turn decide what I think is best and then do it. In bridge you have a partner. If my opopnent starts with 1♥ showing 0-7 or whatever then I can't just decide what I think is best to play here because I don't know if my partner will agree that it's best, and I don't know if my partner will think that it's what I am doing.
- In chess, you are on your own time. Either you have a clock and are fully welcome to take as much of that time as you want to figure out how to react, or you have no clock and can literally take as much time as you want. In bridge you can't take a day, or an hour, or frankly even two minutes to figure out how to react. There are times constraints much more severe than in chess, and ethical obligations due to the partnership aspect that don't appear in chess.

Anyway I do agree with your conclusion, as I have all along, which is that like it or not, it just ends up coming down to what the most people want bridge to be. (Or what the people in charge think the most people want bridge to be. Or what the people in charge want me to believe the most people want bridge to be. Or...) But you can't really make accurate analogies like you are trying to do. There is no game like bridge.

What you describe doesn't sound at all like bridge as I know it.

In bridge you know the other options because the opponent (deception aside - psyches) must tell you in advance what their methods are.

In bridge I don't decide at my turn to bid what my defense is to the opponents contraption whatever it is. I make arrangements with my partner in advance. Currently if my opponents methods are ruled too unusual I even have the advantage of writing down my defense to give my side an advantage.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Replies: 365
Views: 8648 QUOTE (blackshoe @ Dec 10 2008, 03:25 AM)
What differentiates these three classes of systems? Who decides?


http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp

According to the WBF definition, only EHAA is a natural system, and SAYC / Benji Acol etc. are not. That cannot be what's really meant.

[qwery_hi]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 12 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

If only 1.e4 was allowed, chess opening theory would be languishing at the 1700 levels. In exactly the same manner, if only standard bidding were allowed, bridge bidding theory would be languishing in the 1920 level. (Not sure about the year, I'm not a bridge history buff).

Forum: General Bridge Discussion · Post Preview: #327023
H_KARLUK Posted on: Dec 10 2008, 04:18 AM

Replies: 365
Views: 8648 QUOTE (blackshoe @ Dec 10 2008, 03:25 AM)
What differentiates these three classes of systems? Who decides?


http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp

http://en.wikipedia..../Bidding_system
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Strong_pass
http://homepage.mac....ingSystems.html

I do hope it helps your questions. Anything else please, is that all?


In a Chess board all pieces are equal and visible. The rest depends players repertoire to analyse and judge "hidden traps".
If one skilled enough can close his/her eyes and plays against i.e. 10 opponents simultaneously. Only needs to hear which piece moved where. Board and elements are standard.
It's not same in game of bridge. There are not single King and Queen. Four suits and a NT. Hands unseen. One should make accurate decisions on auction and trick taking.

Thank you. The links and your description of chess and bridge opened my eyes to what they are all about. But I don't think you read what I had written, else you chose to ignore it.

Let me try again.

Chess opening theory developed since there were no restrictions on what openings could be played. Bridge bidding theory can benefit enormously by lifting arbitrary restrictions on what can be played.

[H_KARLUK]

I thank you too tho in my view we disagreed.
"Chess opening theory developed since there were no restrictions on what openings could be played. Bridge bidding theory can benefit enormously by lifting arbitrary restrictions on what can be played."
I am sorry, there is also a restriction. Perhaps you skipped. Movement of the pieces aren't restricted?
Such as :
The rook moves any number of vacant squares along rows or columns (forward, backward, left or right). It also is involved when castling.
The bishop moves any number of vacant squares diagonally. Consequently a bishop stays on squares of the same color throughout a game.
The queen moves any number of vacant squares in any direction along a row, column, or diagonal.
The king moves only one vacant square in any direction. It can also castle in conjunction with a rook.
The knight moves to a vacant square in an "L"-shape (two spaces forward, backward, left, or right and one space perpendicular to it). The knight can jump over other pieces when moving.
The pawn can only move forward one space, or optionally two spaces when on its starting square, in a straight line away from the player. When there is an enemy piece one square diagonally from the pawn (either left or right), then the pawn may capture that piece. A pawn can perform a special type of capture of an enemy pawn called en passant.

Am I wrong? But in bridge game there are "pass, hold-up, duck, pitch, underruff etc."

Do you have a chance to pass like in bridge game when your opp moved for the bishop and knight checkmate? Sorry, your only chance is to resign.

[H_KARLUK]

Gerben42, on Dec 12 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

Quote

Replies: 365
Views: 8648 QUOTE (blackshoe @ Dec 10 2008, 03:25 AM)
What differentiates these three classes of systems? Who decides?


http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp

According to the WBF definition, only EHAA is a natural system, and SAYC / Benji Acol etc. are not. That cannot be what's really meant.

For records :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EHAA

[Free]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

I thank you too tho in my view we disagreed.
"Chess opening theory developed since there were no restrictions on what openings could be played. Bridge bidding theory can benefit enormously by lifting arbitrary restrictions on what can be played."
I am sorry, there is also a restriction. Perhaps you skipped. Movement of the pieces aren't restricted?
Such as :
The rook moves any number of vacant squares along rows or columns (forward, backward, left or right). It also is involved when castling.
The bishop moves any number of vacant squares diagonally. Consequently a bishop stays on squares of the same color throughout a game.
The queen moves any number of vacant squares in any direction along a row, column, or diagonal.
The king moves only one vacant square in any direction. It can also castle in conjunction with a rook.
The knight moves to a vacant square in an "L"-shape (two spaces forward, backward, left, or right and one space perpendicular to it). The knight can jump over other pieces when moving.
The pawn can only move forward one space, or optionally two spaces when on its starting square, in a straight line away from the player. When there is an enemy piece one square diagonally from the pawn (either left or right), then the pawn may capture that piece. A pawn can perform a special type of capture of an enemy pawn called en passant.

Am I wrong? But in bridge game there are "pass, hold-up, duck, pitch, underruff etc."

Do you have a chance to pass like in bridge game when your opp moved for the bishop and knight checkmate? Sorry, your only chance is to resign.

This is complete rubish. Every game has definitions, that's not the same is restrictions. Without definitions you just don't have a game...

In chess you have the definition of the way your pieces move. But the way and the order you use to move your pieces is totally free.

In bridge you have the definition of your bids. There are only 35 ranked calls (+ doubles, redoubles and passes) and you always have to go higher. How you use these bids however IS restricted since you can't give any meaning you want to them.

[Codo]

It seems to be pretty senseless to discuss the chess anthology. Some people simply don`t want to understand it or are not able to understand it.
And it does not help when they show us the differences between chess and bridge. Yes there are differences. Nobody will claim that there aren`t. But there are many parts which are very similar. You need similar skills, you need preparation, tactics etc.

Forcing pass is like the latvian gambit. It may or may not be theoretically unsound but it needs quite a lot of preparation to defend against it. If you don`t prepare, you will sometimes lose despite being better in other parts of the game.

This is 100 % the same with a FP system: Maybe it has no merrits, but you need an awful lot of preparation to defend against it. So whoever claims that he does not want himself or the LOL to spend much time in preparation against this method has a fair point. It needs time.

The chess players live with this problem and have a more or less vague idee what they will do when this opening is played- or they even have a defence memorized.

The bridge players decided to ban the lativian gambit instead of working on a defence.

Freds analogy was right too: If you use the given "vocabulary" with a total different meaning, this is not understandable for the opponents.

But why is it allow to talk in Hollandish or Danish instead of German? (These are languages which are close to german, but you need to strech a lot to understand them and very often you don`t). If anybody should talk the same language, why not play just Sayc? Or just Precision ? Maybe the differences between Fantunes and Precision are smaller then between FP and 2/1. But they are big enough that you better have two good defences avaiable. It is like talking Danish or German. It is from the same language family but still pretty different.

The borderline is taken in a way that everything should be as it had been in the past. We allow different languages when they had been spoken before. We just forbid the new languages.

The best example is the use of Multi in Europe: Per definition it fits complete into the describtion of a Brown sticker convention. But it is still allowed. Why? Because "anybody" plays it. Wilkosz otoh was enormous popular in Poland but not elsewhere, so this is banned (in MP tourneys).

The same happens to FP systems. They are simply too new. IF there is a parralel universe, where anybody plays FP, they would surely ban the brandnew toy of 2/1 because the LOL are not able to cope with such a tool of the devil.

This is a real tricky issue and I belive that anybody who tries to paint black/white pictures will not be able to see the beauty of the rainbow.

[H_KARLUK]

Free, on Dec 12 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

This is complete rubish.  Every game has definitions, that's not the same is restrictions.  Without definitions you just don't have a game...

In chess you have the definition of the way your pieces move.  But the way and the order you use to move your pieces is totally free.

In bridge you have the definition of your bids.  There are only 35 ranked calls (+ doubles, redoubles and passes) and you always have to go higher.  How you use these bids however IS restricted since you can't give any meaning you want to them.

Uh oh,
I advice you to reread my previous post. You say "But the way and the order you use to move your pieces is totally free."
I said in my previous post so : "I am sorry, there is also a restriction. Perhaps you skipped. Movement of the pieces aren't restricted?" Then I listed and explained them. They are all restricted.
Have you any idea abt "vacant squares along rows or columns " and "diagonal" words? Or "stays on squares of the same color throughout a game." and "The knight can jump over other pieces when moving."

I still say "Nay, there are "restrictions" abt movements of pieces. Otherwise one easily beaten i.e. Scholars Mate !"

But you might mention those abt Bridge game.

Daffynitions
Bath Coup — getting to use the tub before your roommate.
Doubleton — 4,000 pounds.
Dummy — (see below).
Partner — (see above).
Free Bid — all of them, once you pay your entry fee.
Gerber Convention — a meeting of baby-food manufacturers.
Jack Denies — headlines about Marilyn Monroe’s relationship with J.F.K.
Key-Card Blackwood — an ingenious convention that allows you to get to a grand slam off the ace of trumps.
Law of Total Tricks — recent Las Vegas ordinance to reduce pr....tion.
Quick Tricks — frantic scurry by hookers to beat the ordinance.
Negative Double — the one that gets wrapped around your neck.
Reverse Bid — an opening like “Club One.”
Roman Discards — Caesar’s trash.
Short Club — a private organization for midgets.
Splinter Bid — the only known way to become declarer with a singleton trump in each hand.
Texas Transfer — relocation to a branch office in Dallas.
Trump Coup — triumph of Ivana’s attorneys in securing a huge alimony.
Trump Echo — a brand new casino in Atlantic City.
Vienna Coup — the mating sound of Austrian doves.
Wolff Sign-off — the ending of Little Red Riding Hood.

Special thanks to Richard Pavlicek.

Well, I am not surprised now why we are not in same wavelength with you Free@. You see restrictions as definitions. Pity. I cannot feel "free" myself to bid 7NT whenever i like.

[vang]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

...

For records :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EHAA

H_KARLUK, please note that most people on this forum know how to use google and wikipedia.

[qwery_hi]

Codo, on Dec 12 2008, 06:20 AM, said:

Freds analogy was right too: If you use the given "vocabulary" with a total different meaning, this is not understandable for the opponents.

But why is it allow to talk in Hollandish or Danish instead of German? (These are languages which are close to german, but you need to strech a lot to understand them and very often you don`t). If anybody should talk the same language, why not play just Sayc? Or just Precision ? Maybe the differences between Fantunes and Precision are smaller then between FP and 2/1. But they are big enough that you better have two good defences avaiable. I

What I took Fred's analogy to mean was that having FP would drive everyone away from the game and there would be no opponents for the FP'ers to play against.

" If you use the given "vocabulary" with a total different meaning, this is not understandable for the opponents" - If Fred instead meant this, then he is guilty of mis-intepreting the facts of the case. The opponents have full access to what the FP vocabulary means. They are just too lazy to learn or come up with a defense for it. Exactly analogous to a chess player being too lazy to learn a defense to the Latvian.

But then, the chess player doesn't need to, since there are broad fundamental principles of chess that he can use to play against the Latvian. These principles came about because chess openings are well understood. Bridge bidding theory is still not well understood. Else we would have broad fundamental principles to help us cope with any crazy bidding systems the opponents come up with.

[Free]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

Free, on Dec 12 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

This is complete rubish.  Every game has definitions, that's not the same is restrictions.  Without definitions you just don't have a game...

In chess you have the definition of the way your pieces move.  But the way and the order you use to move your pieces is totally free.

In bridge you have the definition of your bids.  There are only 35 ranked calls (+ doubles, redoubles and passes) and you always have to go higher.  How you use these bids however IS restricted since you can't give any meaning you want to them.

Uh oh,
I advice you to reread my previous post. You say "But the way and the order you use to move your pieces is totally free."
I said in my previous post so : "I am sorry, there is also a restriction. Perhaps you skipped. Movement of the pieces aren't restricted?" Then I listed and explained them. They are all restricted.
I still say "Nay, there are "restrictions" abt movements of pieces. Otherwise one easily beaten i.e. Scholars Mate !"

But you might mention those abt Bridge game.
~snip - off topic~

Well, I am not surprised now why we are not in same wavelength with you Free@. You see restrictions as definitions. Pity. I cannot feel "free" myself to bid 7NT whenever i like.

In your philosophy every game or sport is restricted. In your philosophy, tennis is similar to bridge, it's just restricted a little bit different:
- tennis can be played with 2 or 4 players, while bridge is restricted to 4 players
- in tennis you may only use a ball and rackets, in bridge you can only use cards and a bidding box
- tennis is played on a field. Bridge is played at a table
- ...

Any description you give can be interpreted as a restriction. Laws are restrictions, definitions are restrictions,... Even telling someone to buy a hat is a restriction. Sorry but my vocabulary is a little bigger than that... Seems like your vocabulary is very restricted

Quote

Law 1: Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. The suits rank downward in the order spades (♠), hearts (♥), diamonds (♦), clubs (♣). The Cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.

Does this sound like restrictions? It's just explaining how the game is played.

[H_KARLUK]

Free Posted on Dec 12 2008, 02:44 PM

OK, I try to give an answer to Free@
“Progress imposes not only new possibilities for the future but new restrictions” Norbert Wiener. One may find what means that name. I have special regards bcos the Wiener crater on the far side of the Moon was named for him. Just see when he born and died, then when humanbeings landed there.

Back to discussion, I bought a new car. It has definitions, manuals etc etc. Can I drive it "f r e e" like a Jet? When parts of it are "restricted", am I not automaticaly restricted in usage?

Moreover, my car is a speedy one. But there's a highway patrol.

I am sure you will catch what i meant with similar to bridge and chess.

[benlessard]

Laws and rules of games are conventionnal. sometimes there is no logic behind these other than to make the game more agreable. Playing duplicate does vulnerability make sense ? What about 100,300,500,700,900, wich meant that you could go down 10 and make a profit. How about revoke that cost 2 tricks while some dont cost nothing.

Bridge is a hidden information game where players communicate information with bids that they defined themselves, yet all players are entitled to the same informations. So you have to rely that agreements and styles that was accumulated over the years can be explained in simple terms to the opponents.

Some players dont like preempting with 3 card in the other majors they ll rarely do it, yet some will find any excuse to make a weak 2. Yet if you ask for information to both of them they will likely say the same old *****... we are white so we can be pretty agressive tend to be 6 card but could be 5 with 5-10hcp. One partnership will preempt on Jxxxx,x,KJxxx,xx and the other will pass AQTxx,xxx,x,Qxxx . Did you get a correct information ? In a strict sense yes. Did you get all the information ? Surely not. Wheiter we like or not this happen all the time at all the level. We will never be able to give information clear enough to compensate specific knowledge that is accumulated through years of partnerships.

So in my view any system where partneship understanding and inference are much more complex than the information you ll give to the opps can be banned and i wont lose sleep at all.

[Codo]

benlessard, on Dec 12 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

So in my view any system where partneship understanding and inference are much more complex than the information you ll give to the opps can be banned and i wont lose sleep at all.

So you want to ban any system including Sayc 2/1 and precision?

Somewhere, around page 7 or so, Richard claimed, that no player wants to play a tournement with: No conventions please. They all want to play just their conventions and ban all other weird stuff.