[Impact]

[quote name='JanM' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:55 AM'] [quote name='jdonn' date='Dec 15 2008, 01:21 AM']It would be very easy for such a pair to do either of the following:



[QUOTE]BTW, on the topic of creating defenses. Of course I can understand the need for things like defining what your doubles are in each likely situation, and balancing actions, and most other things. However, there have been a number of mentions of the difficulty of knowing what is a cuebid. I don't understand why people feel entitled to a cuebid. You don't have one when you overcall over a 1NT opening, or over a precision 1[cl]. Sure, if there is one it will help you, but it is not a right for there to always be one. I don't have much sympathy if you were trying to always make sure there was some 'cuebid' available and it caused problems in creating a defense. I equate that to claiming your opponents should not be able to overcall your major suit openings with 4NT on any weak hands since it takes away your blackwood.[/QUOTE]
It isn't the problem of not having a cue bid, it's the problem of not knowing what contracts you're investigating and which suits you want stopped for NT. Of course, those issues are related to whether there's a cuebid, but not the same. After 1NT or 1[cl], we know that we might want to play in any suit and we probably don't care about stoppers for NT, because the opponents haven't shown a long suit they might run against us. After a multi 2[he] we need to explore both possible suits to play in and stoppers - that's tough. [/quote]
Jan,

You are creating a straw tiger: the very fact that you cannot find a defence with which you are happy is a basis for outlawing the initial move!

If anything, that tends to suggest that the particular initial move has MORE merit.

I agree that 2H opening showing either Major is much harder to defend against than a 2D opening of the same sort. However the "initial double for takeout/strength, 2nd double for takeout and third and subsequent doubles for penalties " is remarkably effective notwithstanding its lack of sophistication.

Frankly, bridge bidding always involves compromises (both in constructive and in competitive auctions) and that is part of the charm.

Were a single system "perfect" everyone would adopt it but different people view different compromises as more readily acceptable. Even if one offered a small technical advantage but the other gave better results on a different set of parameters (eg a less likely set of hands) there would be a case for seeking to utilise the technically infereior on the grounds of "variance".

With due respect, established players have an edge in cardplay - and their understanding of the most common and familiar bidding. Hte y seek to preserve that, and will tend to be reluctant to permit anything that impinges on that edge.

The charm of the game is in the (almost) infinite variation - not restricted merely to play and defence possibilities.

In almost every jurisdiction, the problem of adequate disclosure is a constant one- and all the more from the experienced partnerships who descibe a sequence as "natural" or "bridge".
Now, consider the auction 1m - 1H
1NT

as to whether opener denies 4S, or shows a balanced hand etc.

When I first learnt bridge, the auction denied 4S; since that time a more common view is that it "shows the character of the hand opposite the response" - and hence does NOT deny 4S. Either is quite conceivable but a regular partnership will have an understanding and should express it as a matter of course prior to the opening lead. Instead it is frequently like drawing teeth.

Contrast this with a "complex" system in which not only the specific positive features should be disclosed but also the negative inferences which are given as a matter of course.

regards

[JanM]

Rob F, on Dec 15 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

2♣♦ 3+ 1-7 (open your shortest 3+ minor, best of equals by suit quality)
2♥♠ 4+ 1-7 (open your shortest 4+ major if you have no 3 card minor, best of equals)

Here with all 0-7 hands, we'll be opening "ferts" at the 2 level regularly on 3 card suits.  These are natural, legal under GCC, and will come up often.  These are much higher than a mere 1♥ fert, and while they give a small amount of suit information, having a 3 card minor isn't a whole lot more information than nothing when 2♣ will be bid on 3343 or 6043 or 5503 or 3316.

Obviously, your entire post was designed to point out that someone who wants to be diabolical can play ridiculous methods in GCC events. I've chosen just this particular one because in this case I think you're wrong. The statement that a 3 card suit is "natural" was intended to apply only to bids at the 1-level. If anyone actually tried to play 2 bids with 3 card suits, the rule would either be interpreted not to apply or it would be re-written.

Oh, and any time you want to play suction against my 1NT opening, please feel free! It's one of those things I would happily pay my opponents to play because it always seems to cause them much more trouble than it does me.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

It isn't the problem of not having a cue bid, it's the problem of not knowing what contracts you're investigating and which suits you want stopped for NT.

Pretty much the same problems you have over a 1♣ that could be as short as two.

[rbforster]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

Obviously, your entire post was designed to point out that someone who wants to be diabolical can play ridiculous methods in GCC events.

I'm bad at reading tone online, but did you intend "ridiculous" and "diabolical" like you think they ought to be illegal, or like you think they're bad methods for those who play them (or both)? Because they clearly are legal under the GCC, regardless of whether or not this might make some people unhappy. If you don't want to prepare for a 12-14 NT or a precision 1♣, don't get unhappy if it comes up and you don't have a special defenses. This is the exact same issue, only the bids I cited don't come up much since almost no one chooses to play those methods. How do you feel about this one -

(1♣ 16+) - 2♥(multi) - (?)

or maybe

(1♣ 16+) - 1♠(0-8 any shape) - (?)    (See bridge bulletin 12/08 pg 15, the Poles in Bejiing played this vs Meckwell)

Any defense is allowed to a conventional club (including a "diabolical" 2♥ multi overcall or the 1♠ "fert"), but maybe you think precision players just get what they deserve when people interfere over their strong club on crap, especially crap with very poor disclosure about tendencies and alternatives? Perhaps we should ban conventional interference there because it's routinely abused and used by players with very bad (almost unethical) disclosure much of the time. I mean I don't want to impugn the Polish team (since their actual disclosure maybe have been better than related in the Bulletin), but do they really never overcall a strong club with any other call besides 1♠ when holding 0-8 points? As an often strong clubber myself, I'd selfishly benefit from having all such crazy defenses to my strong club banned - it'd be less for me to prepare for, but is it's still the wrong approach and I admit it.

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

The statement that a 3 card suit is "natural" was intended to apply only to bids at the 1-level.

You tell me why a natural weak 2M is legal with a 6 card suit and I'll tell you why my 3+ 2m bid is legal. How do you know what was intended by the definitions of natural? If they were "clearly" meant to apply only to 1-level bids, you think maybe they might have actually said that?

I'm not the expert on international bridge law and the ZAs, but I thought it was beyond the scope of the ACBL to regulate natural bidding if one read the laws carefully. Since the GCC specifically says 3+ minors are natural, with no reference to 1 level or 2 level etc, I think the only reasonable interpretation is that all natural bids are allowed. After all, otherwise there's no explicit rule allowing one to open a natural SAYC 1♥ or a standard weak 2♥ for example unless it's because they are natural under the given definitions.

Perhaps next time I run into someone questioning my 2♣ bids on 3 cards, I'll ask them to prove why their SAYC 1M and 2M bids are legal and hassle them since "disallow unless specifically allowed" is the rule, right?

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

If anyone actually tried to play 2 bids with 3 card suits, the rule would either be interpreted not to apply or it would be re-written.

This is a pretty telling response - basically it's legal but if you play it the "establishment" will ban it (just like those Midchart weak twos on 4/4 two-suiters, right?). Not that I'm disagreeing with you - we've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence about the way the C&C committee operates in practice and what their biases are. Someone on the committee must like opening 5 card weak twos in 3rd position, or frankly I'm surprised they haven't banned those yet either.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Dec 13 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

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

WBF defines "Forcing Pass" (or whatever you want to call it) as a HUM, yellow sticker, system. It is allowed only in Category 1 events (i.e., the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup), and banned in all others.
ACBL prohibits it at all levels.
EBU prohibits it at all levels.

You can play HUMs in
- the English Premier League
- The semi-finals & finals of the Gold Cup (admittedly not an EBU event, but a British event English people play in)

There are also, as previously mentioned, various club events that allow them.

Obviously it's a bit odd being allowed to play something in the last two rounds that you can't play in the first seven...

[Gerben42]

Quote

My experience is that all bridge players, every single one, would very much like to be become better.

Sorry Fred, but in my local club we are playing in two groups. The groups do not mix very well, in fact they are like oil and water, so people can choose what group they want to play in (rather than the winners of the bottom group play in the top group next time and the losers in the top group play in the bottom group next time). Here's why:

The top group are people who like to play Bridge as we, tournament players, know it. This has nothing to do with age: Although on average this top group is younger, we have two players who have played bridge for over 60 years. The bottom group does NOT want to improve their bridge, in fact they want to be left alone.

In the few encounters between the groups (when one group is too small, they play together), it seems like players in this bottom group also discuss the hands. You hear things like "gee, perhaps I should have done that". Now at the beginning, I made the mistake of helping them out and explaining things.

BIG MISTAKE!

If you try to help them improve by interfering in this social talk about the hand, you will be told off at best and yelled at on average.

So now I just try to say nothing when they discuss hands and exchange bad advice to eachother.

[fred]

Gerben42, on Dec 15 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

If you try to help them improve by interfering in this social talk about the hand, you will be told off at best and yelled at on average.

That doesn't mean that they would not like to play a better game of bridge.

It just means they don't want your help when they are in the middle of playing.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

qwery_hi, on Dec 15 2008, 03:05 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 14 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

1) Most of the players prefer that certain classes of methods are banned (yes it is hard to know where to draw the line)

3) The stranger the bidding, the less accessable the game becomes to the masses

Do you have references to back up these statements? How do we know that most of the players don't want precision to be banned, perhaps in the GNT flight C, for example?

If I did have references to back up my opinion that 1) is true, would you then agree that this would be a valid reason to ban unusual methods?

It turns out I do not have references. I do not know if such references exist or not and I agree with you, in principle, that it would be commendable for any tournament sponsoring organization to try to get such data and to use it to help decide such things.

If such data suggested that a substantial majority of people wanted to playing "anything goes" I would accept that. Can you say the same if it turns out that such data went against what you personally wanted?

But in the case of Canada and the USA at least, I don't think I need data like this in order to be confident about my assertion as to what most players want.

My experience living in Toronto for 37 years taught me that if you took a survey of all people living in Toronto and asked them "do you prefer February or June?", the vast majority would answer "June". I do not have to actually take a survey in order to know this.

Similarly, when you (or whoever else it was) posted that there were legions of club players in Australia or New Zealand who relish the opportunity to play against unusual methods or even play unusual methods themselves, I did not see fit to ask the person who made this point if they had done a scientific survey. I was willing to accept that whoever made this claim had enough knowledge and experience of his/her local customs to be in a position to know this is true. I did not even see fit to comment that perhaps his/her obvious bias toward such methods might be coloring his/her impressions.

So if you don't believe me (or any other North American player you ask) about how things are in Canada or the USA and if you will only accept the results of a scientific survey, then I am afraid I can't help you.

I have nowhere near the same level of experience with players from any other countries, but the experience I do have suggests:

- Most of the players from most countries seem to play relatively simple and natural bidding systems.
- Even at the highest levels you see a relatively small % of pairs pushing the envelope and playing whatever BS and HUM methods happen to be allowed at the time.
- As far as I call tell there are a not a lot of people out there lobbying the WBF to liberalize what is allowed.

About why I think my point 3) is the case, I would not have thought it necessary to answer this question. To me it is obvious that the simpler something is, the easier it will be for the public to access that something. Bridge, by its very nature, is already quite complicated compared to most games and I believe (no I have not taken a survey) that many people are already not inclined to learn to play bridge because of this widely held (and true) perception.

Making bridge more complicated will only make things worse.

If you want to debate whether or not this is a good reason to ban unusual methods that is one thing, but IMO debating whether or not my 3) is true is not a subject that is worthy of debate.

Quote

Unless there are concrete references behind these statements, the regulations seem to be determined  by the arbitrary whims of the regulators.

In the absense of any hard data (and as I said, I agree it would be commendable for sponsoring organizations to try to collect such data) the regulators have only their judgment and experience to go on. At least in the case of the ACBL, the people with the best judgment and the most experience are involved in making these decisions.

If you think that the judgment and experience of these people amount to nothing better than "arbitrary whims" then all I can say is that I disagree with you.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[benlessard]

I agree with all Fred points from page 1 to 37.

People seems to forget how complicated defending against HUM can be. Its not a surprise that top level players arent fighting for a massive liberalization of HUM.

2Nt wich show a crappy m preempt take at least half a page for a very basic defense on the acbl website.

http://web2.acbl.org...database/2d.htm

Imo defending against a multi 2D is at least 5 times more complicated. A 2H either M preempt is a lot tougher than a multi. Defending agaisnt a fert is much much tougher then over a 2H unknown M preempt.

Look at how many page you have after your 1Nt opening. Imagine that the bidding goes

(1S) fert----X----(P)-----???

How many page of system do you think its need to have a system as sharp and as detailed as what you are used to play over your 1Nt opening ?

[Codo]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

1) Most of the players prefer that certain classes of methods are banned (yes it is hard to know where to draw the line)

2) For some types of methods, it is not practical or not possible for the opponents to have an effective defense.

Whether or not 2) is "fair" might be an interesting discussion, but it is my contention (and probably Jan's) that most players do not want to play under these circumstances. Probably that is one of the reasons why 1) appears to be the case.

Another reason which I believe in (I have no idea if Jan does or not):

3) The stranger the bidding, the less accessable the game becomes to the masses

Finally, let me state a couple of things I have already said more than once, but which apparently I have not said clearly enough:

- I do not think that strange or unusual methods are inherantly inferior (or superior for that matter) to relatively simple or natural methods.

- While I do think that players, especially young players, who are serious about becoming really good at bridge would be better off not getting too involved in experimenting with bidding, I do not see this as a valid reason for banning unusual methods.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I think this is the best summary for the reasons why some want to ban HUMs. (There will be some more, but this is not the point.)

The guys who defend HUMS say:

1. It is unfair to take the line where it is taken. There are many systems/ conventions allowed which are difficult to defend too, while others are forbidden which seem to be much less complicated. There are no convincing reasons to ban f.e. mosquito, but to allow other really difficult systems. We belive that this had been done, because the well known systems had been established or played by the members of the committee.

2. To prepare a bidding system and and defensive bidding system is as much part of the game as it is to learn about finesses, endgames, squeezes and carding. Nobody whines if his opponent plays a double squeeze or an endgame. Even not when they could have counter this by a simple defensive play they failed to see.
But when they write a bad score cause they had no defence against multi or other bidding tools, they complain.

3. The game will develop quicker when anything is allowed. People will get used to the new stuff and the evolution will take care about the rest.

4. OF course the leading players want to defend their well known bidding systems, they have no need to allow something new which will muddy the water. The Hammanns, Gitelmans Hlgemos etc of this world will outplay us mortals even more when they will always reach the same contract then we do or when they can use their much better judgement on the firm ground of "normal" bidding systems.

5. That there is no defence against a concept is no reason to forbid the concept. If it is undefendable, anybody should play it, but there is nothing undefendable.


So there cannot be a consensus as both sides are talking about and repeating different points in a different tone.

The facts are:

1.Whoever is on duty to allow or forbid HUMS has no interesst to allow them in the near future. Maybe they have some personal reasons to decide the way they do, maybe they do it for the future of the game. (Fred is sure about the later and who won't belive him?)

2. A little bid oversimplified: The line for HUM is taken between "Normal" and "unknown".

3. Most bridge players want their stuff to be allowed, but not much more. So multi is common here, it is allowed. It is not common in the US, so it is forbidden. Maybe this should not be the way the game should be played, but it is the way it is.


I see just two ways for the HUM lovers to get their stuff allowed:
1. Vote yourself into the committes at the WBF. Create the majority in the legalization committees.
2. Profe that it will be good for the game to allow this stuff- actracting new players, young players etc.

I doubt that any of this solutions will be reached during my lifetime, so we should take the last resort:

Build up a threat at BBF.

[nige1]

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 12:33 AM, said:

We haven't polled all of the players about systems regulations, because the members of the Open, Women's & Senior International Team Trials Committees, who are mostly players in the Trials, had a strong opinion that we should use the ACBL rules about what to allow. At my suggestion, we did have an "anything that is allowed in the World Championships" policy in the Women's for a while (the Open committee rejected that suggestion), but no one actually played anything not allowed by the ACBL Superchart and life is easier for the Directors and Systems committees if we follow ACBL rules, so we changed.

Perhaps regulators should poll ordinary players, especially younger players: because some are keen to try out fresh ideas; and among them are future world-champions.

Is it a more useful exercise for regulators to poll established players, who've spend decades honing legacy systems? and to ask turkeys what they feel about Christmas?

[TimG]

nige1, on Dec 15 2008, 10:41 AM, said:

Perhaps regulators should poll ordinary players, especially younger players

Make up your mind: ordinary players or younger players?

[hrothgar]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

I have nowhere near the same level of experience with players from any other countries, but the experience I do have suggests:

- Most of the players from most countries seem to play relatively simple and natural bidding systems.
- Even at the highest levels you see a relatively small % of pairs pushing the envelope and playing whatever BS and HUM methods happen to be allowed at the time.
- As far as I call tell there are a not a lot of people out there lobbying the WBF to liberalize what is allowed.

Hi Fred:

If you'd like, I can find a quotes dating back to the days when Forcing Pass, BSCs and the like were first being introduced; the general theme of which is something like the following:

Quote

Oh *****....  All sorts of pairs are shifting over to using these weird new systems.  We really better clamp down on things.

The statistics that you site in which relatively few players are using weak opening systems / Brown Sticker Conventions reflect a modern reality in which these methods have been rather ruthlessly suppressed. This is a case where the buggy whip manufacturers did a great job protecting their ecosystem.

In all seriousness, do you really believe that it was concidental that all the Poles suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D at the same time that this was banned in International pair events?

Its sort of like modern day North Americans saing "Native Americans? What Native Americans? I don't see any Native Americans around here"...

As to the purpose of this conversation: I'm not suffering under any kind of delusion that this thread is going to have any impact what so ever on face-to-face bridge. That boat set sail a long time ago.

What I take issue with is the attempt to whitewash the whole affair and reinterprete history....

[csdenmark]

Codo, on Dec 15 2008, 05:24 PM, said:

The guys who defend HUMS say:

1. It is unfair to take the line where it is taken. There are many systems/ conventions allowed which are difficult to defend too, while others are forbidden which seem to be much less complicated. There are no convincing reasons to ban f.e. mosquito, but to allow other really difficult systems. We belive that this had been done, because the well known systems had been established or played by the members of the committee.

2.  To prepare a bidding system and and defensive bidding system is as much part of the game as it is to learn about finesses, endgames, squeezes and carding. Nobody whines if his opponent plays a double squeeze or an endgame. Even not when they could have counter this by a simple defensive play they failed to see.
But when they write a bad score cause they had no defence against multi or other bidding tools, they complain.

3.  The game will develop quicker when anything is allowed. People will get used to the new stuff and the evolution will take care about the rest.

4. OF course the leading players want to defend their well known bidding systems, they have no need to allow something new which will muddy the water. The Hammanns, Gitelmans Hlgemos etc of  this world will outplay us mortals even more when they will always reach the same contract then we do or when they can use their much better judgement on the firm ground of "normal" bidding systems.

5. That there is no defence against a concept is no reason to forbid the concept. If it is undefendable, anybody should play it, but there is nothing undefendable.


So there cannot be a consensus as both sides are talking about and repeating different points in a different tone.

The facts are:

1.Whoever is on duty to allow or forbid HUMS has no interesst to allow them in the near future. Maybe they have some personal reasons to decide the way they do, maybe they do it for the future of the game. (Fred is sure about the later and who won't belive him?)

2. A little bid oversimplified: The line for HUM is taken between "Normal" and "unknown".

3. Most bridge players want their stuff to be allowed, but not much more. So multi is common here, it is allowed. It is not common in the US, so it is forbidden. Maybe this should not be the way the game should be played, but it is the way it is.


I see just two ways for the HUM lovers to get their stuff allowed:
1. Vote yourself into the committes at the WBF. Create the majority in the legalization committees.
2. Profe that it will be good for the game to allow this stuff- actracting new players, young players etc.

I doubt that any of this solutions will be reached during my lifetime, so we should take the last resort:

Build up a threat at BBF. 

Completely correct Roland. As always you are sober nailing the point - therefore your arguments will be forgotten. They are not interested.

3. The game will develop quicker when anything is allowed. People will get used to the new stuff and the evolution will take care about the rest.
No - too many years have past. They need to admit their basic mistake appointing unqualified persons to handle this kind of matters. They have produced judicial catastrophes - and it all started 40 years ago.

They need to scratch their whole law complex and call for lawyers with knowledge of how to handle law-stuff.

They need to commit to try to excuse their mistakes actively promoting this kind of systems for at least 10 years.

They need to catch up with the world of information technology.

Build up a threat at BBF.
Several times I have asked if we have come any nearer to a break-away. Unfortunately it looks so that posting is interessant but to do something about it is something quite different. But I would love to see so!

[nige1]

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

If such data suggested that a substantial majority of people wanted to playing "anything goes" I would accept that. Can you say the same if it turns out that such data went against what you personally wanted?

I agree with Fred's implication. A regulation committee should poll all players' opinions. It should seriously analyse their views; but it need not treat any result as binding. Most players are apathetic. ignorant, and parochial about regulation. The purpose of the committee is to study the problem assiduously and to reach a well informed solution.

fred, on Dec 15 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

Making bridge more complicated will only make things worse.

IMO, in a mind-sport, the play should be complex and difficult; but the rules as simple and clear as possible.

Complex decisions in bidding, declarer-play and defence are the very nature of Bridge. They make Bridge challlenging and fun for players.

But Bridge has many over-sophisticated rules that really do make things worse for players. Many of these rules seem to be complication for the sake of complexity. They are not properly understood by players. Some seem to add no value to the game and could be dropped without affecting its nature. Arguably, most convention-prohibitions are among such rules.

[awm]

Perhaps the following should be clear-cut about regulation of methods:

(1) Which methods are allowed/disallowed should be stated in a clear way, with examples if possible. This information should be understandable to directors who need to rule on the matter, and to interested players who are considering playing non-standard methods.

(2) The legality of methods should not depend on the pair in question. It should not be the case that people on a particular committee can convince directors during an event that their own methods are legal (when similar methods would be banned for other pairs) or that their opponents methods are illegal (when similar methods would be allowed for other pairs).

(3) When determining which methods should be allowed, the primary criteria should be the difficulty of defending the method without substantial advance disclosure to prepare a defense. It should not be the case that numerous "easy to defend" methods are banned whereas many substantially "harder to defend" methods are permitted.

(4) If certain methods are only allowed provided there is a reasonably good "suggested defense" then the criteria for what is a reasonably good suggested defense should be approximately the same for all such methods. It should not be the case that some methods are approved with a very terse suggested defense which leaves most subsequent developments undefined, whereas other methods are declared illegal because substantially more comprehensive defenses are deemed "not comprehensive enough."

(5) If a particular event is sold as a national or international championship, then methods which are essentially standard in a substantial part of the bridge-playing world must be permitted.

Unfortunately, it seems clear-cut that ACBL has failed on all counts.

[TimG]

awm, on Dec 15 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

(3) When determining which methods should be allowed, the primary criteria should be the difficulty of defending the method without substantial advance disclosure to prepare a defense. It should not be the case that numerous "easy to defend" methods are banned whereas many substantially "harder to defend" methods are permitted.

I'm not sure I quite agree with this one. In some parts of the world Multi would not require advance notice in order for the opponents to prepare a defense, in other parts of the world (ABCL, perhaps) the method is much less familiar and would require advance notice for the opponents to prepare a defense. If Multi is a bad example, I'm sure you can think of a more appropriate example, perhaps Australians and ferts.

In short, "easy to defend" and "hard to defend" are often a consequence of familiarity with a method and that is often related to local regulations.

[JanM]

Cascade, on Dec 15 2008, 02:59 AM, said:

JanM, on Dec 15 2008, 07:55 PM, said:

It isn't the problem of not having a cue bid, it's the problem of not knowing what contracts you're investigating and which suits you want stopped for NT.

Pretty much the same problems you have over a 1♣ that could be as short as two.

That's not true - so far as I know everyone who plays that 1♣ can be as short as 2 but is not a strong club, opens 1♣ with 2 clubs only on a balanced hand. Just like everyone else opens 1♣ with 3 only on a balanced hand. The 1♣ bidder won't have 6 hearts. That means that the opponents don't have to worry about stoppers in suits other than clubs. You can defend against 1♣ that might be 2 exactly as against a standard club except perhaps you'll want a natural club bid (which is also true against 1♣ that might be 3). On the other hand, when someone opens 2♥ that might have 6 spades, you need a way to explore both hearts and spades as places to play AND suits in which you might want stoppers.

[TimG]

It seems to me that designing a system or method that is difficult for the opponents to defend against is a good thing from a design standpoint. I think this has, to a degree, been lost in the discussion (or maybe people do not agree).

A simple example is a Polish type club. A strong 1C is vulnerable to aggressive interference, opponents of a strong club believe a loss in some accuracy is more than made up for in the trouble they cause the big clubbers. But, when a weak hand type is added to the 1C opening, the opponents have to either give up their aggression against the strong club or give up their accuracy against the weak club; they can't have it both ways. (Probably someone will tell me they can have it both ways, but surely that takes much more advance preparation.)

To me it is good design that makes this two-way 1C difficult for the opponents to defend optimally. This is sort of like a method that shows unknown suits or a two-suited call where one of the suits could be 4 cards -- these methods cause the opponents to be unable to decide whether bids in (potential) enemy suits should be artificial or natural. Opponents can pick artificial and give up playing in that suit or natural and give up a cue-bid (or stopper showing bid). This sounds like good system design.

It sounds to me like some people are arguing against some unusual methods because even if they had a complete description and understanding of the method, a defense would be difficult to devise and use.

I realize that primarily destructive methods are banned by Law (or at least I seem to think that is the case). You might decide that a 2H opening showing a preempt in either major is primarily destructive. I think it would be a good idea to start by defining "primarily destructive" for regulation purposes.

We might find that a majority of people believe a weak opening that is based on an unknown single long suit is destructive if the long suit could be in the suit opened. We might disagree, but at least there would be a well defined framework in place upon which decisions could be based rather than what sometimes seems to be a "I know it when I see it" approach.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Dec 15 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

In all seriousness, do you really believe that it was concidental that all the Poles suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D at the same time that this was banned in International pair events?

I don't know if "all the Poles" (or any of the Poles for that matter) have suddenly stopped playing Wilkosz 2D (which I assume is the same thing as Multi 2D) or not.

I believe there are 10s (if not 100s) of 1000s of Poles who play bridge. I have no idea how many of them once played Multi or how many have recently stopped doing so. I also find it hard to believe that you know this.

I would guess that, at the most, 50 Poles come to play in the ACBL Nationals on a regular basis. These are the only Poles I encounter with any regularity and, to the best of my knowledge, the big ACBL pairs events are the only major international pairs tournaments in which Multi 2D is not allowed. I would guess that the majority of these 50 or so Poles come to ACBL tournaments, not because of the great pairs events, but because they want to (or are being paid to) play in events like the Spingold or Vanderbilt where I believe Multi 2D is allowed.

I am guessing that even if such Poles were not allowed to play Multi in ACBL pairs tournaments and if such Poles really thought Multi was a wonderful convention, that they would continue to play that convention in other tournaments.

I know that I personally played Multi 2D for many years and stopped playing it, not because of systems restrictions, but because I came to believe that this convention sucks (mostly because my opponents learned how to defend against it).

Maybe "all the Poles" have come the believe the same thing?

Maybe they decided to play "Polish 2-bids" instead? Wouldn't that be strange?

Quote

What I take issue with is the attempt to whitewash the whole affair and reinterprete history....

What I take issue with is your attitude that you KNOW exactly what motivates people to do things, exactly how history should be interpretted, and that you make statements about ALL Poles that I find hard to imagine you are in a position to make.

If you look carefully you will see that, throughout this thread (and many others to which I have contributed), I tend to frequently use terms like "I guess", "I believe" and "in my opinion".

You might find that people pay more attention to your guesses, beliefs, and opinions if you stop expressing them as if they were FACTS.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com