[han]

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

[DrTodd13]

Also, don't forget that people may play 2♥ not because in and of itself it gives good results but it frees up an extra bid that you could use to mean something else to try to get better results. So, to be fair, when doing a performance comparison, you'd have to compare 2♥ and 2♠ as both weak 2's versus 2♥ (weak 2 in either major) and 2♠ (whatever else you dream up here).

EDIT: I guess Adam basically wrote the same thing while I was doing a bunch of other stuff and typing this response.

[jdonn]

awm, on Dec 16 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

One could play 2♥ as a weak two in either major because this frees up 2♠ for some constructive use that helps our side reach the best contract (say intermediate two). This leaves us with the choice of passing with a weak two in spades or playing 2♥ as weak two in either major. It seems easy to argue that opening 2♥ as weak two in either major helps us find our 4♠ contracts more than passing with weak two in spades hands.

Obviously you can make the exact same argument about a fert, but I was making the argument as it pertains to each individual bid, not to the system as a whole. I really felt that was evident, but apparently I should have clarified (especially as I now see Todd made the same point.)

Quote

Similarly, a precision 1♦ is probably worse for constructive purposes than a natural 1♦. But people aren't playing precision 1♦ "purely to destroy opponents methods" -- they're playing it because allowing more shapes in the 1♦ opening helps their constructive methods on other hand types.

I don't recall saying you must choose the most constructive meaning possible for each bid. Just that each bid should have an element of constructiveness, which a precision 1♦ certainly has.

[Cascade]

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

[fred]

qwery_hi, on Dec 16 2008, 03:54 AM, said:

I will accept the majority view.

Good. I am glad to hear that. Apparently we have found some common ground

Quote

We can do this either democratically or scientifically. Any other way is fair to be called as "arbitrary whims".

I see. I don't think it is fair but you declare it fair. Nothing arbitrary about that.

Quote

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

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

Regarding (3), bridge bidding can be made most simple by allowing only stayman and blackwood. Perhaps we should do this then?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe this is a sarcastic question that you do not expect me to answer and what you are really saying is "drawing the line at Stayman and Blackwood is extreme to the point of absurd."

If so, consider the rules at the other extreme: "anything goes"

I am not sure if you said so explictly, but I get the strong impression that you would like to draw the line near the anything-goes extreme.

That would make you somewhat of an extremist too, just like those you mock who draw their lines at the only-Stayman-and-Blackwood extreme.

The place I would like to draw the line is somewhere between the 2 extremes.

Quote

It seemed to me that you were defending the current regulators by advancing an argument of the majority view.

I am defending where the regulators have placed the line because I believe that the majority (including me) thinks that the line is in a reasonable place right now and that's about the best that we can realistically hope for given the challenges of the regulators' (impossible?) task.

Sure there are many people who would move the line a little to the left or a little to the right, but I believe that the number of extremists who want move the line all the way to one of the extremes make up a relatively small minority.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe I lost you when you started talking about football. Never having been to Australia, I wasn't sure which sport you meant.

Maybe I lost your logic earlier than that.

[jikl]

Wayne is from NZ, they play rugby there (rugby union to be specific).

Sean

[han]

OK, clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

The impression I get is that anyone who decides to be insulted by this

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

But it is far more frequent that the opponents who do this shoot themselves in the foot.

In New Zealand we call this bad judgement.

jdonn, on Dec 12 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

It seems that for you "reasonable" and "objective" are synonymous with agreeing with your point of view.

In America we call this bad debating.

And then would say this

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Is not a person worth debating any further.

[qwery_hi]

fred, on Dec 16 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

I see. I don't think it is fair but you declare it fair. Nothing arbitrary about that.

Quote

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

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

Regarding (3), bridge bidding can be made most simple by allowing only stayman and blackwood. Perhaps we should do this then?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe this is a sarcastic question that you do not expect me to answer and what you are really saying is "drawing the line at Stayman and Blackwood is extreme to the point of absurd."

Quote

It seemed to me that you were defending the current regulators by advancing an argument of the majority view.

I am defending where the regulators have placed the line because I believe that the majority (including me) thinks that the line is in a reasonable place right now and that's about the best that we can realistically hope for given the challenges of the regulators' (impossible?) task.

Sure there are many people who would move the line a little to the left or a little to the right, but I believe that the number of extremists who want move the line all the way to one of the extremes make up a relatively small minority.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I was not sarcastic. In fact, I think I'd enjoy playing bridge with only with only stayman and blackwood allowed. Or without those two being allowed also

Furthermore, calling the current regulations "arbitrary" is being generous. Especially when methods currently played by the regulators are not banned, even though

1. Many players might not like defending against them

2. There are as artificial as a 1H fert.

[H_KARLUK]

Oh c'mon good guys. There were enough villains in the last story I read.
Sort of a built-in defense system: anything that questions an idea, no matter how logical the argument is.
Interesting defense mechanism. It's like sit in a field, and just go.
Truce please, boom boom boom ?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

I think the problem here is that you are arguing against this point

Destructive ---> Banned

When the point being made is actually this

Destructive ---> Most don't want to play against it ---> Banned

Those two chains of reasoning are simply not the same thing.

I think the latter is exactly what I was arguing against in my football analogy.

Sacking Quarterbacks is destructive -> A "HUGE majority" of Quarterbacks don't like getting sacked -> This is therefore a good reason to ban manhandling Quarterbacks.

I was going to reply separately to the other points in your earlier post but I will do it here.

It is irrelevant that you think the play in football is not similar to the bidding in bridge. I am simply arguing against the train of reasoning from "destructive" to "unpopular" to "banning".

Football and bridge have many rules no one is arguing against that. And if you play the game then you have to play by the rules. It was noted in this discussion that some Polish players have changed their methods to comply with system regulations. And many Forcing Pass players have given up the methods because of the regulations. This discussion is all about whether it is reasonable to ban Forcing Pass methods. Around 85% of the respondents to the poll think they should be allowed at some level.

Quote

You can make the following arguments if you want:

1. These methods are not destructive.
2. It is not the case that most people don't want to play against them.
3. These methods being destructive is not the reason most don't want to play against them.
4. Most people not wanting to play against something is not a good reason to ban it.

But if you keep trying to argue:
- A method being destructive is not a reason to ban the method.
Then you are missing the point entirely as far as I'm concerned. That is because it is not inherent that these methods are banned because they are destructive, it is inherent that they are banned because people don't want to play against them, and the reason for that happens to be that they are destructive.

As for the above four arguments, I would counter them as follows:
1. These methods are destructive (as I would define that word), because they contain little in the way of constructive elements (as I would define that word.) To state it differently, no one would play 2♥ as a weak two bid in either major because they think it will help their own side find the best contract. (I would note that preempts and weak notrumps, though obviously aimed at stealing room from the opposition, have great constructive elements as well.)

I think we have a stalemate here since "destructive" is not well defined there is no way of definitively resolving whether or not a method is destructive.

Quote

2. We can never really know, especially since it varies so much geographically. So I feel the best we can do is let the regulators decide. In fact I can't even think of another way to make such a determination that is at all feasible.

In other sports rules are used on a trial basis. Sometimes the trials are successful and then implemented on a more permanent basis. Sometimes they are not and they are discarded.

Trying out allowing these methods and seeing if there are real problems would seem to me to be a hole lot better than just speculating on whether or not allowing these methods will cause problems. Especially when the admittedly limited hard evidence from where these methods are played is that in practice they cause few problems and some, perhaps many, average players are willing to embrace HUMs and Brown Sticker Conventions.

Quote

3. If the regulators have determined 2 to be false (meaning most do not want to play against these methods), then 3 is essentially irrelevant.

Quote

4. I would simply have to agree to disagree with anyone who believes such a thing.

So would you ban 4-card majors if most did not want to play against them?

Would you ban weak 1NT if most did not want to play against it?

Would you ban Blackwood if most did not want to play against it?

...

Maybe I am wrong but I am seriously doubt that you really hold the view that if the majority don't want something then it should be banned. There are many things that are allowed on the ACBL GCC for example it is possible that a majority would not want to play against e.g. mini-NT, canape openings ... It even seems that some sort of non-forcing pass that could contain a strong hand would be allowed: Maybe something like Pass 0-4 or 15-20 but Not Forcing; 1-level suit bids 8-14 Natural; 1NT Forcing; 2-level suit bids 5-7 Natural; 2NT something else (Is anyone interested in playing this crazy system?). Maybe I have missed something but this seems to be GCC legal to me. If not I am sure I could exercise some creativity and relatively easily find something legal that would not be popular.

Quote

Other than the part where I still feel you are missing the point by arguing against the wrong connection (the first diagram), your main point seems to essentially be 4., that if something has merit toward improving your score in any way then you should be allowed to play it (in other words, people not wanting to play against it would be an inadequate reason for a ban.) As I said above, I simply don't agree, so I suppose I would have to accept this is an impass where there isn't much more for anyone to say.

I hope I have dispelled your theory that I have missed that point.

If the aim of system regulations was to allow the popular and disallow the unpopular then why is this not stated explicitly and polls held regularly so that the regulations really reflect the majority.

I happen to think this would be particularly silly since what is popular will be strongly influenced by what is allowed especially when the starting point is a very restrictive environment.

[Cascade]

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe I lost you when you started talking about football. Never having been to Australia, I wasn't sure which sport you meant.

Maybe I lost your logic earlier than that.

I was talking about American Football.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

The impression I get is that anyone who decides to be insulted by this

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 13 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

But it is far more frequent that the opponents who do this shoot themselves in the foot.

In New Zealand we call this bad judgement.

jdonn, on Dec 12 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

It seems that for you "reasonable" and "objective" are synonymous with agreeing with your point of view.

In America we call this bad debating.

And then would say this

Cascade, on Dec 16 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

han, on Dec 16 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

The impression I get is that Wayne thinks the rules of bridge should be as he think they should be, even if the great majority of bridge players would not like those rules. I think that is incorrect.

The impression I get is that Han has no idea what he is talking about.

Is not a person worth debating any further.

excuse me for taking offense at your's and Han's insults.

[jdonn]

Calling what han said an insult takes some truly amazing creativity, but you have shown a knack for that throughout this thread (and I mean that as a compliment!)

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 09:41 PM, said:

Calling what han said an insult takes some truly amazing creativity, but you have shown a knack for that throughout this thread (and I mean that as a compliment!)

Maybe I misinterpreted what Han intended.

[jdonn]

I have no idea why I'm about to bother, but

[quote name='Cascade' date='Dec 16 2008, 01:52 AM']It is irrelevant that you think the play in football is not similar to the bidding in bridge.  I am simply arguing against the train of reasoning from "destructive" to "unpopular" to "banning".[/quote]
Not only is it completely relevant (even if you declare it's not), but it's also relevant that there is no similarity in the comparison between quarterbacks and bridge players. Or the rules of a sport and the rules of a card game. Why in the world would you expect the same rules to apply between two things that have nothing to do with each other? Because they are both games? Candy is edible and bananas are edible, so since candy is unhealthy so are bananas.

[quote]This discussion is all about whether it is reasonable to ban Forcing Pass methods.  Around 85% of the respondents to the poll think they should be allowed at some level.[/quote]
That is seriously your argument? You would make a great pollster for Fox News, I'm pretty sure they had McCain with 90% of the vote!

[quote]I think we have a stalemate here since "destructive" is not well defined there is no way of definitively resolving whether or not a method is destructive.[/quote]
I feel like I have said this a thousand times. It's not the word 'destructive' itself that matters. It's how it is defined by the people who have chosen to ban certain methods, if that is part of their reasoning.

[quote]In other sports rules are used on a trial basis.  Sometimes the trials are successful and then implemented on a more permanent basis.  Sometimes they are not and they are discarded.

Trying out allowing these methods and seeing if there are real problems would seem to me to be a hole lot better than just speculating on whether or not allowing these methods will cause problems.  Especially when the admittedly limited hard evidence from where these methods are played is that in practice they cause few problems and some, perhaps many, average players are willing to embrace HUMs and Brown Sticker Conventions.[/quote]
Obviously this would never work. Can you imagine the beginner who, even if he would like complicated methods if he tried them, doesn't know that and thinks he doesn't like them? Tell him he has to play against them for 2 months but it's ok since you think he will end up liking them later, and see how often he shows up at your bridge game for the next 2 months.

[quote]So would you ban 4-card majors if most did not want to play against them?

Would you ban weak 1NT if most did not want to play against it?

Would you ban Blackwood if most did not want to play against it?[/quote]
YES! The only reason it's hard to believe is because most players do not want those things banned. What in the world do you think using unrealistic examples demonstrates?

[quote]Maybe I am wrong but I am seriously doubt that you really hold the view that if the majority don't want something then it should be banned.[/quote]
Come on, I'm not the only liar in that case. Don't forget Todd. And Fred.

[quote]There are many things that are allowed on the ACBL GCC for example it is possible that a majority would not want to play against e.g. mini-NT, canape openings ...  It even seems that some sort of non-forcing pass that could contain a strong hand would be allowed:  Maybe something like Pass 0-4 or 15-20 but Not Forcing; 1-level suit bids 8-14 Natural; 1NT Forcing; 2-level suit bids 5-7 Natural; 2NT something else (Is anyone interested in playing this crazy system?).  Maybe I have missed something but this seems to be GCC legal to me.  If not I am sure I could exercise some creativity and relatively easily find something legal that would not be popular.[/quote]
So what do you want me to admit, that the GCC is badly written? That a bridge player who wastes his time trying to come up with the most complicated method it would allow, no matter how absurd, can outsmart the GCC?

[quote]I hope I have dispelled your theory that I have missed that point.[/quote]
So many possible answers to this, but I will settle for an unsarcastic 'sorry to disappoint you'.

[quote]If the aim of system regulations was to allow the popular and disallow the unpopular then why is this not stated explicitly and polls held regularly so that the regulations really reflect the majority.[/quote]
Because you are not president of the WBF? What do you want me to tell you? Do you think this proves anything at all?

[quote]I happen to think this would be particularly silly since what is popular will be strongly influenced by what is allowed especially when the starting point is a very restrictive environment.[/quote]
So what? If people think they are happy then they are happy. The possibility they might be equally as happy or even happier in a different situation does not obligate them to try and find out.

By the way, wasn't the starting point "everything is allowed", with MORE restrictions added over time? I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot with your final argument.

[quote name='Cascade' date='Dec 16 2008, 03:50 AM'][quote name='jdonn' date='Dec 16 2008, 09:41 PM'] Calling what han said an insult takes some truly amazing creativity, but you have shown a knack for that throughout this thread (and I mean that as a compliment!) [/quote]
Maybe I misinterpreted what Han intended.[/quote]
I can honestly understand that. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said that I was rude in reply to, which even now looks more insulting to me than what han said to you. But probably you see that exactly the opposite way, so what can I say.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

Quote

I think we have a stalemate here since "destructive" is not well defined there is no way of definitively resolving whether or not a method is destructive.

I feel like I have said this a thousand times. It's not the word 'destructive' itself that matters. It's how it is defined by the people who have chosen to ban certain methods, if that is part of their reasoning.

I am arguing here about your specific point 1.

Quote

1. These methods are not destructive.

and your rebuttal of that point

Quote

As for the above four arguments, I would counter them as follows:
1. These methods are destructive (as I would define that word), because they contain little in the way of constructive elements (as I would define that word.) To state it differently, no one would play 2♥ as a weak two bid in either major because they think it will help their own side find the best contract. (I would note that preempts and weak notrumps, though obviously aimed at stealing room from the opposition, have great constructive elements as well.)

Maybe that wasn't clear.

But in the context of this point the word "destructive" is almost all that matters.

Perhaps the regulators have defined "destructive" but I have not seen their definition nor do I believe it is widely promulgated.

The only real experience I have had suggests that it is a widely misunderstood concept. I will look up who exactly made the comment later if I can but it was a director in an ACBL game on BBO one of the first times I ever played in one of those events who told me that my GCC 10-12 1NT was "destructive" and therefore I wasn't allowed to psyche it.

[vang]

# It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

(not directed to anyone, just found it interesting ;-)

[Codo]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

but it's also relevant that there is no similarity in the comparison between quarterbacks and bridge players. Or the rules of a sport and the rules of a card game. Why in the world would you expect the same rules to apply between two things that have nothing to do with each other?

You repeat this, so you seem to belive it.

Actually it is a strength of a thinking being to compare similar situations and learn from the analogies. You would be much worse in bridge, if you would not be able to think that way.

F.E. When you learned a finesse with the spade ace and queen, you are very quickly learning that it is surprisingly the same when you have these cards in diamonds. And when you think a little deeper, you will find out that the principle works with the King and Jack too. Even in hearts.

So please stop this silly remark that Bridge is unique and nothing is comparable.
It is unique, but you can still try to find some similarities to other parts of life.
And maybe we can learn from more successful federations what they do different.

And yes Bridge is unique. The average player is 65 and we are losing thousands of players each year.
Maybe just maybe there is a correlation between the regulations and this fact? (Maybe in the way, that we would lose even more players when the regulations hadn't been there to protect the frightend majority.)