[the hog]

With all due respects, there is another argument here that is often ignored I know I will probably get howled down, but I genuinely this this to be true:
The last time I looked, Bridge consisted of bidding to a contract and then playing the cards to the best of one's ability as declarer or as a pair of defenders. Bidding, then playing. This means that bidding is an integral part of the game. There is nothing in the rules to allocate geater importance to the three key components, bidding, card play and defence.

This means that if I am interested in bidding and say, (for the sake of argument, though this is in fact not the case), bored by card play and/or defence, I cannot see why I should be penalised for devoting hours of my time to the former. I am not penalised for learning Winkles and other exotic squeezes etc by reading books and studying end positions for hours and hours, yet these affect the outcome of the game as do bidding systems and arcane conventions.

Let me also say at this point that I totally agree with disclosing methods - within reason. I go along with providing a simple and effective defence to my methods even though I do not agree with having to do so. The following scenario is frequently ignored. Lets say that i recognise a complex end play. My lho is on lead and defeat my end play by leading something. If you believe in full disclosure and in providing defences, should I not be obliged to say, "Look you can beat this by leading....?" Yes, I agree, this scenario is absurd, however is it any more absurd than having to provide a defence to methods I like?

Fred and others have argued that we who like complex systems are a small minority who often spoil the game for the vast majority. Well, I don't enjoy someone say double squeezing me when I could have broken up that squeeze a few tricks ago, but didn't recognise the situation.

You know these things work both ways.

Ron

[Aberlour10]

shevek, on Dec 13 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

Okay, here we go ....

No doubt, this topic develops fast to the forums most scientifc discussion has ever taken place here

Robert

[the hog]

With regard to passing the 2H bid, NV I have played this 2H = weak 2 in H or S.
we pased when we held a good 5 card H suit and no S tolerance because the odds were that pd held S. We also passed sometimes, no agreement - when we were weak, the opps were vul and we had equal tolerance for both Ms - dont mind going 5 or 6 down undoubled against the opps game.

If you play the same bid vul as well, you are much more likely to bid 2S over 2H, hence if you hold H you will have 6 very good ones maybe even 7. This was never written in stone in our system notes, but really anyone who thinks about this for a couple of minutes will arrive at this hand set.
Looking at world champ books, I notice the Swedes played it the same way. With all due respects, it is not rocket science to work this out, its common sense and I find it surprising to read that professional players seem so threatened by this.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Dec 13 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred. Certainly a disclosure method which included specific hands for specific bids would help, but when the purpose of a bid is to cause confusion (such as the multi 2♥) it's not at all surprising that the proponents actually haven't given a lot of thought to what hands will be opened - they're going to throw the ball up and see what happens. With a bid like 2♣ showing 0-7 any, but not in the context of a strong pass system, so it's optional, there are lots and lots of things (not least the temperament of the bidder and his or her view of how well the opponents will deal with this sort of bid) that will affect the decision of whether to make the bid on a specific hand. I don't think that the proponents of that particular bid are deliberately trying to be misleading when they can't provide much information about what hands they will open, I just think that it is inherently more difficult to describe such a bid than to describe most bids.

By the way, the fact that a bid is difficult to describe is very unlikely to be anywhere near the top of the list of reasons a bid might be barred. Much more important reasons include the difficulty of preparing an adequate defense and the frequency of the bid. Obviously, the less likely it is that you will get a good description of the hands opened, the harder to prepare a defense, but it is the difficulty of preparing a defense that causes the bid to be barred, not the failure to describe it adequately. If I said something that sounded like "classes of bids should be banned when they often aren't adequately described," I didn't intend to.

[DrTodd13]

JanM, on Dec 13 2008, 11:15 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 13 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred.

This is an extraordinary claim and I'd love to see the proof. I am shocked that somebody in your position is making this claim. Have you ever played against a strong pass system? Was their disclosure inadequate? There is just such variety even amongst strong pass systems that I find it impossible to make such a blanket statement. Furthermore, one can take precision and switch 1♣ and pass and get a strong pass system. You can use the same precision responses over the new strong pass and ignore the 1♣ step. So, it seems to me that for your statement to be true that you have to be arguing that something in the responses to the FERT have to be intrinsically difficult to disclose.

In general, I find that the more complex the system is the more precise it tries to be and, imho, precision is intrinsically easier to adequately disclose than vagueness.

[mike777]

edit

As a nonexpert, yes I have played, over the decades, against FP and EHAA,home made strong club, super strong club and etc.
As a nonexpert many WC do not explain.This includes playing against ACBL board. This includes players who have won open WC.


Btw those who explained well are close friends. OTOH I have seen numerous American WC players go out of the way to explain, "basic" bids.


btw2 I should add I have seen a few non usa players do the same. Helgamo(sp) and those, you know who, from Italy, stick in my mind but I am sure there have been others.

[hotShot]

Let's look at a simple example.

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.
Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.
Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

1♣ - 1♦


It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

[mike777]

hotShot, on Dec 14 2008, 05:28 AM, said:

Let's look at a simple example.

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.
Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.
Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

1♣ - 1♦


It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

btw Walsh is not an alert in ACBL.
So I strongly disagree....1d does not imply a 4 card major.


"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

[csdenmark]

Aberlour10, on Dec 14 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

shevek, on Dec 13 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

Okay, here we go ....

No doubt, this topic develops fast to the forums most scientifc discussion has ever taken place here

Robert

Certainly - but it produces nothing. Those who are in favour of hard regulations - have a big majority behind them whose comfort they rightfully can refer to. Those who are against regulations prefer to ignore the majority worries. Democracy seems to be of no importance to anybody.

The decicive matter is: Are we any nearer to a break-away now than before this discussion came up. I certainly hope so but I am very pessimistic if it is so. Too many years have been wasted with nothing serious.

[hotShot]

mike777, on Dec 14 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 14 2008, 05:28 AM, said:

Let's look at a simple example.

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.
Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.
Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

1♣ - 1♦


It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

btw Walsh is not an alert in ACBL.
So I strongly disagree....1d does not imply a 4 card major.


"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

Mike what i wrote has nothing to do with Walsh.

[hotShot]

deleted double post

[mike777]

hotShot, on Dec 14 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

mike777, on Dec 14 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 14 2008, 05:28 AM, said:

Let's look at a simple example.

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.
Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.
Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

1♣ - 1♦


It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

btw Walsh is not an alert in ACBL.
So I strongly disagree....1d does not imply a 4 card major.


"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

Mike what i wrote has nothing to do with Walsh.

?

Where did you alert and announce that? Again I am a nonexpert, you seem to make expert comments that you assume nonexperts know.

"It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once."

[Free]

The_Hog, on Dec 14 2008, 07:34 AM, said:

With all due respects, there is another argument here that is often ignored I know I will probably get howled down, but I genuinely this this to be true:
The last time I looked, Bridge consisted of bidding to a contract and then playing the cards to the best of one's ability as declarer or as a pair of defenders. Bidding, then playing. This means that bidding is an integral part of the game. There is nothing in the rules to allocate geater importance to the three key components, bidding, card play and defence.

This means that if I am interested in bidding and say, (for the sake of argument, though this is in fact not the case), bored by card play and/or defence, I cannot see why I should be penalised for devoting hours of my time to the former. I am not penalised for learning Winkles and other exotic squeezes etc by reading books and studying end positions for hours and hours, yet these affect the outcome of the game as do bidding systems and arcane conventions.

Let me also say at this point that I totally agree with disclosing methods - within reason. I go along with providing a simple and effective defence to my methods even though I do not agree with having to do so. The following scenario is frequently ignored. Lets say that i recognise a complex end play. My lho is on lead and defeat my end play by leading something. If you believe in full disclosure and in providing defences, should I not be obliged to say, "Look you can beat this by leading....?" Yes, I agree, this scenario is absurd, however is it any more absurd than having to provide a defence to methods I like?

Fred and others have argued that we who like complex systems are a small minority who often spoil the game for the vast majority. Well, I don't enjoy someone say double squeezing me when I could have broken up that squeeze a few tricks ago, but didn't recognise the situation.

You know these things work both ways.

Ron

The biggest difference imo is that declarer play and defensive methods don't result in extra "work" for your opponents, while complex systems do.

That being said, I agree that one should be able to choose to specialize in any part of the game they want. This is similar to triathletes: all have their best discipline, but the winner will have to be able to do all 3 very well.

In bridge it's like swimming is less important than the other disciplines.

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on Dec 14 2008, 06:28 AM, said:

Let's look at a simple example.

It is quite common to prefer majors and no trump contracts to playing in a minor.
Imagine playing a 5cM natural system with this style.
Now think for a moment what this means for the following bidding sequence (opps silent):

1♣ - 1♦


It is no rocket science, that 1♦ is implying that you have a 4 card major.
Don't tell me you didn't get that at once.

Obviously opener has no 5 card major, so if responder does not have a 4 card major, he will reply 1NT (2NT or 3NT) even with ♣ fit and a 4+ length in ♦.

Bidding 1♦ only makes sense if you are looking for a 4-4 major fit. The other possibility a very unbalanced hands with very long ♦ and without a 4card major and ♣ fit is rare and can be shown using other methods.

So disclosing the full meaning of a bid, requires a lot of awareness even in natural bidding.

Meh. That's one style. It's a good style (I play it, pretty much). But beginners are taught "bid 4 card suits up the line". Beginners bid four card suits up the line. Beginners count their points, and if they don't have at least six, nothing else is relevant - they pass. If they have at least six, they look at their suit lengths. With 4 diamonds and no longer suit, they bid 1♦, regardless of the rest of their hand, unless they can in their system bid 2 or 3 NT. Even non-beginners do this.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Dec 14 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 13 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred. Certainly a disclosure method which included specific hands for specific bids would help, but when the purpose of a bid is to cause confusion (such as the multi 2♥) it's not at all surprising that the proponents actually haven't given a lot of thought to what hands will be opened - they're going to throw the ball up and see what happens.

Fine: You want to focus on methods that are difficult to disclose rather than pairs that practice poor disclosure.

So be it...

This doesn't change the crux of my argument. If the disclosure system is broken, fix the disclosure system, don't ban the methods.

I would love to see you introduce a constructive component to this discussion rather than just complaining about methods, pairs you've encountered, what have you.

You seem to like to focus on on this multi 2♥ opening. (You bring this same example and this same pair up almost every time this topic gets discussed)

Can you describe what you would consider adequate disclosure for this opening?

What do you need?

A WBF convention card?
A written description?
A representative sample of hands?
An algorithm written for dealer or some other program that generates hands?

If you can't describe what you want, there's very little hope that you're going to get it...

Then again, maybe that's the point

[fred]

Richard,

Thanks for clarifying re disclosure.

Quote

Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.

I did not think that Jan said or suggested that and I see now that she has tried to set the record straight about this point.

Quote

If you and Jan want to debate whether or not the current system is adequate, go right ahead.  (I don't have a dog in that fight) 

I am not much interested in this either. As I said, I don't think there is much wrong with the current system.

Quote

I am merely saying that if you truly believe that people aren't providing good disclosure you should either

1.  Penalize the pair for not living up to their responsibilities

or

2.  Improve the disclosure system

but not ban their methods

I agree.

As I said, unless I could be convinced that the disclosure system was broken, I would opt for method 1 - penalize the pair that is not living up to their responsibilities.

However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again.

In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system.

That makes sense to me.

But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer.

All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 04:37 PM, said:

Richard,

Quote

I am merely saying that if you truly believe that people aren't providing good disclosure you should either

1.  Penalize the pair for not living up to their responsibilities

or

2.  Improve the disclosure system

but not ban their methods

I agree.

As I said, unless I could be convinced that the disclosure system was broken, I would opt for method 1 - penalize the pair that is not living up to their responsibilities.

However, in some circumstances I could see it being a just penalty to prevent a particular irresponsible pair from playing their methods, at least for a limited period of time. For example, I think the ACBL rule that basically forces a pair to play SAYC (or similar) if they don't have a convention card makes a lot of sense. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is the case that once such a pair creates a new convention card, they can play their normal system again.

In other words, a pair who is not living up to their disclosure responsibilities is penalized by (temporarily) being prevented from playing their system.

That makes sense to me.

But their system is not "banned" and other players who use that system and who are disclosing properly are not made to suffer.

All presuming of course that the system in question is legal in the first place.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Would be wonderful to see this implemented on BBO. Many star players will be much surprised to be forced to be serious in bridge.

A few times I have rejected play of systems without convention card informing them I only accepted SAYC to be played without. A lot of ugly words to come and they left the table.

[H_KARLUK]

blackshoe, on Dec 13 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

Free, on Dec 13 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Dec 13 2008, 12:17 PM, said:

2008 soon ends. From start point nearly 28 years passed. Say ban started in 1990. So 18 years passed. May someone tells me the benefit of such a discussion? Do we really all have credit to WBF?

Are there anyone who can lift this topic to water cooler please?

First of all, they're not banned, but restricted heavily.

Second: what gives you the right to claim this topic should be moved to the water cooler? There are many people who are interested in this topic.

Third: people have been working centuries at laws and regulations in regular life, and they keep changing. Why would regulations never change in bridge? Just because some philosophy is currently accepted? Perhaps some people at the top suddenly get an open mind about this and decide to allow HUMs. You never know...

Agree with your second and third points, but as to the first:

Generally speaking, it seems that "banned" is accurate in most places, and "restricted heavily" in those few places where "banned" does not apply. On balance, "banned" is pretty damn close.

Second: what gives you the right to claim this topic should be moved to the water cooler? There are many people who are interested in this topic.

Simply "noone."

It is similar to question and/or discuss BBO decisions. It is similar to discuss The Great Bridge Scandal - Alan Truscott and A story of accusation - Terence Reese books.

In practice, long years passed and there's still an active running WBF code. I respect and wait from the others to declare they respect it.

I still agree with Thomas Jefferson's (3rd US President;1801-09. Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826) “All authority belongs to the people” words.

And the nations formed a legal organisation named WORLD BRIDGE FEDERATION. It is not same acronym World Books Fair.

*Try to Treat Others As You Would Have Them Treat You- By L. Ron Hubbard/L.A.
*THE UNDERLYING RULE FOR RIGHT AND WRONG BEHAVIOR "Treat Others As You *Would Like To Be Treated." Golden Rule
*Teaching Guide: Respecting Others for grades 5-9
*The golden rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation."

One may see WBF policy as "my way or highway". Fair. Really. Same applies "your home, then your rules".

[fred]

The_Hog, on Dec 14 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

With regard to passing the 2H bid, NV I have played this 2H = weak 2 in H or S.
we pased when we held a good 5 card H suit and no S tolerance because the odds were that pd held S. We also passed sometimes, no agreement - when we were weak, the opps were vul and we had equal tolerance for both Ms - dont mind going 5 or 6 down undoubled against the opps game.

If you play the same bid vul as well, you are much more likely to bid 2S over 2H, hence if you hold H you will have 6 very good ones maybe even 7. This was never written in stone in our system notes, but really anyone who thinks about this for a couple of minutes will arrive at this hand set.
Looking at world champ books, I notice the Swedes played it the same way. With all due respects, it is not rocket science to work this out, its common sense and I find it surprising to read that professional players seem so threatened by this.

I agree that it is not rocket science to figure this out. In fact, it sounds a lot like the strategy that I came up with (after very little thought) in my previous post.

But I think you are wrong to suggest that professional players feel "threatened" by this. The reason Jan and I were annoyed by the 2H opening is that we could not get the pair in question to tell us something like what you posted. Conventions and systems aren't threatening - they are challenging. But it is not fair for the other side to enter such a challenge unless they are told what they are up against.

Sure we could have guessed that this would be a sensible way to respond. Probably we did guess that. But it should not be up to us to guess what the opponents think is sensible. It should be up to them to tell us what they do. The degree of (perceived) rocket science does not come into play.

Anyways, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine the auction goes:

2H-P-P-DBL

Now the 2H opener has to decide when to Pass and when to bid 2S. Maybe this still doesn't qualify as rocket scicence, but to me there is no obvious answer as to which of the following strategies is best:

1) Always Pass with hearts, always bid 2S with spades
2) Always Pass
3) Hands with spades can exercise their judgment based on the qualify of their spade suit and their degree of fit in hearts

Whatever the answer is, I would be surprised if it did not change depending on whether or not you are vulnerable. Maybe there is even a case for using RDBL to mean something.

Whatever the answer is, it will have an impact on how the other side's defense should work from this point forward (and perhaps even from this point backwards).

Perhaps there is a clearly right answer and perhasp to you the clear answer does not qualify as rocket science, but IMO it is crazy to think that the opponents should be expected to figure this out at the table and that they both be on the same wavelength. If you really believe that they should be on their own here, then I am afraid we are playing 2 different games (and I have no interest in playing the game that you play).

This simple example also illustrates why these conventions can be a lot harder to defend against than many people (including you!) seem to think. There are a lot of ways the auction can continue and, in many of these variations, there are several possible sets of agreements that the opponents might have. For a defense to have any hope of being effective, it must take these variations into account.

Just saying "double is always takeout" might result in you landing on your feet more often than not at the local club, but when the goal is to win a World Championship the players (and the coaches responsible for preparing them) need to do better (much) than that.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

There are now over 100 poll-votes.

About 80% would allow FP in long matches and 25% would allow them in *all* top-level events but a disappointing 15% would ban them.

IMO...

BBO members represent the future of Bridge. On-line players are younger and more adventurous than face-to-face players. Thus, it is sad that so many would want to curb possible progress.

The most plausible argument against such BSCs is that their advantage lies in their unfamiliarity rather than their technical superiority. This may seem a valid point but there are ameliorating factors. For example

• An approved written defence, that opponents may consult at the table, creates a more level playing-fiield.
  
• Natural Selection. If a BSC is allowed and it works, then more players will adopt it and it will soon become familiar. If it doesn't work, it will die.

Among spurious arguments against BSCs are:

• Inadequate disclosure. This is as much a problem with popular methods as it is with unusual methods. The solution is to improve disclosure across the board. Not to ban BSCs
  
• High variance. High-risk, aggressive, randomising, disruptive, and destructive methods are always popular (Weak no-trumps, pre-empts, Weak twos, Bergen, Multi, and so on). Many pairs, like Meckwell, enjoy walking a dangerous tight-rope. For example, they shoot (and make) highly speculative games. They are as exciting to play against as they are to watch. They make Bridge more interesting, enjoyable, and attractive.