[david_c]

I love this topic ...

It's all a matter of personal preference. The laws allow for regulation of conventions, but don't specify what the regulations should be. So there's no right answer. We have to resolve these things democratically.

So here's my opinion: in a perfect world I would like to achieve two things:

(i) Players should be allowed to play any methods they like.
(ii) Players should be able to prepare for their opponents' methods in advance, and have enough time to develop and practise good defences.

For major teams competitions both of these things should be achievable. The situation described in the original post seems excellent: players are receiving details of their opponents' systems well in advance, and so they have enough time to prepare. If they complain that it's too difficult then, well, tough - if you're playing in the top league you have no right to expect an easy time.

For other competitions - less serious events, or pairs events - there is not so much time to prepare (or it may just be unreasonable to expect players to bother), so there is a conflict between (i) and (ii). You could choose to keep (i), and require players to come up with generic defences so that they can cope with anything their opponents do. But personally I think (ii) should take precedence, which means introducing system regulations.

So, it should be recognised that the purpose of system regulations is to exclude things which are too difficult to prepare for in whatever time there is available. Certain things follow from this:

- Conventions should not be banned for any reason other than being too hard to defend against. (The ACBL ban on relay methods fails here.)

- If a convention is trivial to defend against it should be allowed in all competitions, regardless of how complicated it may appear to be. (Any ban on methods which apply after opponents have both passed fails here.)

- If you choose to allow a particular convention, then a similar convention should be allowed if it makes no difference to how the opponents defend against it. (The EBU ban on mini-multi fails here.)

- For pairs events, the list of permitted conventions should consist of precisely those things which opponents can be expected to defend against with no preparation. (And, while I may disagree with certain apects of, say, our EBU level 3, I do think that it is pitched at about the right level.)

Anyway, I've drifted off topic. The situation described in the original post seems perfect; it would be a shame if restrictions were introduced at that level. We don't have anything similar in England, which is a pity.

[Free]

If everyone should play the same system, who will decide what to play? Poles would like their Polish Club (which version?), the French want standard French system, lots would say Precision (which version again), 2/1 (version?), sayc, ACOL (style?),... You can choose ONLY ONE! You can say 'democracy will decide', but that doesn't satisfy everyone, and with more than 2 systems it doesn't even satisfy half the people (maybe 20% maximum)! If we talk about politics, people will say 'ok', but when it comes to fun they won't. They'll just split off, and play at home, or wherever they find a full table of players. Next step will be new clubs who allow all methods,... So what do you achieve then? Nothing, just a split up for no good reason.

I'm tired of these endless discussions on regulations. The only thing I've noticed is that some leagues threat their players unfair by banning specific conventions, or allowing conventions only when they pass a commité which takes months. Some try to brainwash their members, hold their hands, or put some horseglasses on so they won't walk another way. It's plain sad, but the herd doesn't realize it...
Suppose you want to play 2♦ as weak and 4-4♥-♦. At the current moment several leagues would ban it, but they allow a weak-2 in ♦. Why? Weak-2 only shows (5)6 cards, the proposed opening shows 8 cards! What is the problem? Too much accuracy, too frequent, what? Or is it just because the top players don't use it that it's forbidden?
I'd prefer everywhere in the world to use the color cathegories. It's easy, clear and not discriminating. If you're allowed red systems, then you can play almost anything you want. If you don't want to pass with weak hands, just play Lorenzo two's and pass with 8-10HCP. Play it Vulnerable or not, whatever! If we get slaughtered, at least we'll know not to play this anymore.

In Belgium, this is exactly what they do. Almost everywhere you're allowed to play green, blue and red systems. HUM is forbidden almost everywhere, and brown sticker conventions are rarely allowed. However, at high competition everything is allowed. At low-level competition, only green and blue systems are allowed, and there's a list available of conventions which are played a lot, and these are allowed as well. It's a good balance, as long as they allow red systems so people can experiment and finetune their systems to their needs.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Would Bridge be fun to play if everyone used the same bidding system, with some pairs using a few more conventions than another?

I think it would be fun.

If you all need to play the same conventions, it's not fun since I would be annoyed to the point of glowing purple of the terrible things I would have to play.

If not everyone plays the same convention, where do you put the boundary please?

[EricK]

The problem of what methods to allow is a vexed one, and I do see both sides of the argument.

Whatever is decided though I do think that certain types of bid should be allowed at every level (unless perhaps a country institutes a novices level in which they wish to restrict players to the country's "standard" methods).

Those types are:

1. Any bid which shows a minimum number of cards in one or more specified suits.
2. Any bid which shows a minimum and/or maximum number of points.
3. Any bid which shows a minimum and or maximum number of controls in a specific suit or hand as a whole.
4. Any bid which asks a specific question of partner.
5. Bids which show a "balanced" hand.
6. Bids which show a combination (AND not OR) of the above types.


Note I have not put this into legal terminology so please don't try looking for loopholes! The idea is that "nebulous" bids i.e. bids which show A or B are not automatically allowed.
1. allows transfer openings and things like 2NT = both minors. It would not allow eg 2♥ = ♥ and an unspecified minor.
2. allows eg Precision ♣ and 1♦ negative. It also allows forcing pass and fert bids. It would not allow eg 1♣ = 17+ or weak NT
3. Allows cue bids. It does not allow the 0 or 3 RKCB response
4. Allows Blackwood etc. It also allows relay methods.

I am not saying that other types of bids shouldn't be allowed as well, it is just that it is only "nebulous" bids which need special preparation to defend against.

Eric

[42]

Some additional points that I would like to mention:

• There aren't many players in our leagues who live from bridge or have the time to occupy themselves only with bridge. Most have a fulltime job, not to speak about duties or interests besides bridge. Their bridgeskills may be excellent, they might feel that the HUM is only played to destroy the normal performance (who can say it is not?), and this is more a psychological aspect. The argument may be that there is no competition of bridge skills but nerves. Ok, people who play high level bridge must deal with this all, other players are not responsable for opps feelings
  
• HUM players force the opps to spend a lot of time before the competition. I don't know anybody who gladly accepts a foreign determination. It is again an emotional matter of fact. A few players have fun and feel an advantage using unusual methods, the majority has to deal with that. Unjust?
  
• Time is restricted. There is much more pressure because decisions take a longer time (you have to "translate" the meaning of the bids, remember the defence, etc.)

I personally think it is ok that everybody plays whatever he likes and feels comfortable with his partner, I also find it interesting to learn as many aspects of the game as possible. But I must also admit that I was a bit sour to get 120 pages (might have been a bit less... *hehe*) that I had to go through instead of a 2 pages CC. It is much easier to create a defence against something "natural" or known. But there is no developement without unusual or unknown methods...
Caren

[Free]

Erick, with these rules you can play anything (I like that ):
- 2♥ = ♥ and an unspecified minor: rule 1 allows this since I show a minimum number of cards in ♥.
- 1♣ = 17+ or weak NT would be allowed, since it's a combination (rule 6) of rules 2 and 5.
- Relays don't ask a specific question to partner, it asks a general question to describe the distribution. 'Specific' is imo more like 'how many ♥ do you have', but then you can say relays ask 'what is your second suit?' with a bid to show 'no side suit => singlesuited'
- it allows blackwood, but not the responses? Hmmm We can bend the rules here: 0/3 keycards shows a minimum and a maximum number of controls in the hand as a whole It's also a combination (rule 6) of rule 3 with itself: min and max 0 keycards AND min and max 3 keycards
- You would also allow brown stickers apparently, since they're a combination of rule 1: 6+♦ (rule 1) or 6+♥ (rule 1) or 6+♠ (rule 1).

I can't find a convention which you wouldn't allow with these rules. I'd love to play in such league!

[Free]

42, on Jan 18 2006, 10:06 AM, said:

[*]HUM players force the opps to spend a lot of time before the competition. I don't know anybody who gladly accepts a foreign determination. It is again an emotional matter of fact. A few players have fun and feel an advantage using unusual methods, the majority has to deal with that. Unjust?

Caren

Perhaps a simple question: Why are there only a few players playing unusual methods? Easy response: because the systems are banned. Ofcourse HUMs don't get through because you can't play them enough.

If these systems would be allowed, then more players would start with HUM and people wouldn't have to spend lots of time to prepare because they're already used to it. But some systems are crazier than others. Against Tresboof or Dejeuner or something like that, it's quite easy to defend imo since there are suits known. These are more like a normal artificial system, except for the pass and the fert. Against a 1♠ opening showing 0-2♠ or 6+♠ it's a lot harder.

It's a visius circle

(nice avatar by the way - mmmmmmmmmmm)

[MarceldB]

Free, on Jan 18 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

If these systems would be allowed, then more players would start with HUM and people wouldn't have to spend lots of time to prepare because they're already used to it. 

To illustrate Free's remark:

"In the communist, restrictive Poland of that day, bridge players
were allowed freedom of expression (at least when it came to their
choice of bidding systems).
In the freedom-loving, democratic West, their choices are severely
restricted.. Isn't that ironic?
WOS (Weak Opening Systems) were played at all levels, in pair
tournaments and team matches. There were no problems with that,
it just seemed like a natural evolution of the game. That is until
those systems were played at the international level and some players
started to complain - well, you know the rest."

Source: Newsgroup: rec.games.bridge, 2004-06-07
Thread: Which bidding systems are genarally considered the best?
Author: Michael Rosa

note from my part:
In 1964 in Poland there where restrictions regarding an opening in 1st. or 2nd. position on the 1-level. Minimum 8 HCP namely.
But in 1965 there where no restrictions any more.

[MarceldB]

42, on Jan 18 2006, 11:06 AM, said:

they might feel that the HUM is only played to destroy the normal performance (who can say it is not?), and this is more a psychological aspect.

Finding your own good contract should not be the only aim of your partnership. At least as much important should be preventing your opponent from doing the same and to be ahead of them in the exchange of information. The more often it is achieved, the better it is.
Therefore one should open as frequently as possible to obstruct opponents bidding and to forestall them in the exchange of information.

I suppose you will agree that this is a rather common bridge axiom.

Reason why people f.e. preempt. And nowadays the values for a preempt are even downgraded.

A WOS/HUM-system combines those two aspects: finding your good contract ànd preventing opponents information exchange. With the difference compared with natural systems that the 1-level is taken into account too.

Your remark that they *might* feel that HUM is *only* played to destroy the normal performance , will be caused often by ignorance and as you said by a more psychological aspect. Because in a WOS the constructive part is as much important as the more preemptive one. And the preemptive one does not exclude at all a constructive treatment by the way.

I admit that when you scale it that the preemptive aspects opposite a Pass=13+ will be about 65/35. (Pass=13+ is relatively the most "weak" spot in a WOS system).

Regards,
Marcel

[hotShot]

I love to play against forcing pass systems!

We all design our systems to preempt opps. We want to keep them from exchanging information, and take away bidding space. Now there are opps, that volunteer to pass in first seat, if they have something to say. Now you know in second seat, that a preempt makes sence now and that you won't preempt your partner. This is very helpfull.

Playing a forcing pass system opps have to open, if they are not strong. So all you need now is a little construtive bidding and a well defined penalty double. Down two doubled is better than every part score you might have. All you need to find are games and slams. So just bid solid in 2nd and 4th seat.

The advantage of HUM's in usually that opps don't know what to do, and leave your bidding undisturbed. A lot of these methods are not as good, as people think, if they play against opps that are prepared.
Is there any world class pair playing a forcing pass system at championships?

[MarceldB]

hotShot, on Jan 18 2006, 02:22 PM, said:

Is there any world class pair playing a forcing pass system at championships?

What do you think?

When even in the Bermuda Bowl or Venice Cup in the Round Robin HUM's are prohibited.

[david_c]

EricK, on Jan 18 2006, 09:21 AM, said:

I am not saying that other types of bids shouldn't be allowed as well, it is just that it is only "nebulous" bids which need special preparation to defend against.

So a 1♥ fert doesn't need special preparation? I don't believe you.

[david_c]

Free, on Jan 18 2006, 01:07 AM, said:

Suppose you want to play 2♦ as weak and 4-4♥-♦.  At the current moment several leagues would ban it, but they allow a weak-2 in ♦.  Why?  Weak-2 only shows (5)6 cards, the proposed opening shows 8 cards!  What is the problem?  Too much accuracy, too frequent, what?

Like it or not, familiarity plays a part. People are used to defending against natural weak twos, so there is no problem with them being allowed. The same cannot be said for assumed fit pre-empts, so (on general principles) these should be allowed if and only if you believe it is reasonable to expect the opponents to know how to defend against them. This depends on the level of bridge being played, but you can easily imagine opponents having misunderstandings about what a double means, or whether it is possible to play in hearts. So it is not unreasonsable to ban this convention.

The EBU allows any 2-level pre-empt which shows 4+ cards in the bid suit, even at the lowest level. Personally I think this reg is bad. The underlying assumption seems to be that there is a generic defence which works against any bid of this type. But this is not correct, as while takeout doubles work against natural pre-empts, the same cannot be said of bids which tend to have precisely 4 cards in the suit. Thus I believe these things should be banned from average-level club duplicates (ie. EBU L3).

Admittedly there is a problem here - we're disallowing things because opponents are not familiar with them, but the only way that they can gain familiarity is if these conventions are allowed. Is this an argument in favour of having fewer restrictions? Not necessarily. It does mean that if a convention would be played by a large proportion of bridge players, then that is a point in its favour. But as for where (approximately) the line should be drawn, no, it has nothing to say on that subject whatsoever.

[Free]

On what principle is a weak-2 based? Right: assumed fit!

[Gerben42]

The 1♥ fert needs preparation. Simple as that. But so does a natural preemptive 2♠ opening bid.

BTW the way to go is to prepare and then play well. This brought Iceland their Bermuda Bowl. They were more prepared against Balicki - Zmudzinski's Suspensor system than any other team in the Bowl and beat them in the final.

[Chamaco]

I disagree with the argument:

"HUM players force us to spend too much study to defend against them, and we are not pros"

So what ? They also have to spend more time to study.
Same thing happens in chess: many players choose offbeat systems which REQUIRE specific knowledge not to get busted, and even non-pro players have to do their homeworks, like it or not.

I do not find it outrageous if some players who are willing to devore more time (even in bidding alone) get some good boards just for that (as long as full disclosure is guaranteed of course).

If a chess player comes complaining about "my opp beat me just because he knew the opening better than me", he won't find many other players ready to accept this complaint.

Of course, this makes the game tougher, with more need to prepare, but that's life.

======================

However, I understand that from the practical viewpoint, full disclosure is almost impossible in rotating pairs events, so that could be a factor to limit HUMs there; but in team matches, when there is time to discole the system without hurrying from table to table, I think they should be allowed.

Moreover, in the long run, "unusual systems" become usual.

[MarceldB]

42, on Jan 17 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

a team plays Forcing Pass in the highest league. They have to send their oponents the whole system for preperation what to do against it and usually send 3 "packs" with slightly different notes (in the end they all play the same...). It takes a lot of time to prepare

I suppose that this team will loose their seating rights. You can stick to play against 1 pair only.
I do not know the regulations of your bridge organisation, but, apart of submitting a full copy of the HUM-system(s), I can imagine that following extra regulations could help:

-If 2 HUM's in a team, and if both systems are more or less the same;
separate outline of the differences only to be submitted too

-viable proposed defence obligatory + their defences
(can/must be even an approved proposed one by your organisation)

-proper separate outline of the system

Above regulations could save you preparation time.


Furthermore:
-if 1 HUM pair: must be 15 minutes before the scheduled beginning available
if 2 HUM pairs: 30 minutes, to answer your last questions
apart of the fact that they are obliged to answer your (e-mail) questions in the previous period.

Just a suggestion,

Regards,
Marcel

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Jan 17 2006, 07:51 PM, said:

Don't ban them, let them be played in the "Experimental/Open" venue.

I'd think the other way around.

Allow everything in most tourney, and create a special venue for the "No gadgets bridge"

I am sure you know of the Portland Club, where even the takeout double was considered artifical (non-penalty!!) and therefore banned

Would you be happy if you were forced to play without the takeout double just becuse some simple soul thinks it's "highly unusual" and hard to defend against?

Indeed, what is artificial or not depends only on how frequently we face it: if we would allow HUM= Highly Unusual Methods to be played frequently, they'd become HFM = Highly Frequent Methods , and therefore not looked at with suspicion

[Al_U_Card]

Kitchen bridge;Duplicate bridge;Championship bridge
Mostly guesses;some guesses;few guesses

What remains is judgement and technique. With fewer guesses, judgement becomes critical as those instances will determine the outcome. Technique is a constant but it's rigorous application depends on knowledge and discipline.

Since we are mainly concerned with duplicate here, I have no problem with a general restriction of methods that will streamline and moderate the game to accentuate technique and judgement at this level. No need to be overly restrictive as innovation does invigorate. Governing bodies are subject to pressure from their constituents so why not lobby (join) the various institutions to add to the desire to introduce new ideas?

[EricK]

Free, on Jan 18 2006, 09:13 AM, said:

Erick, with these rules you can play anything (I like that ):
- 2♥ = ♥ and an unspecified minor: rule 1 allows this since I show a minimum number of cards in ♥.
- 1♣ = 17+ or weak NT would be allowed, since it's a combination (rule 6) of rules 2 and 5.
- Relays don't ask a specific question to partner, it asks a general question to describe the distribution. 'Specific' is imo more like 'how many ♥ do you have', but then you can say relays ask 'what is your second suit?' with a bid to show 'no side suit => singlesuited'
- it allows blackwood, but not the responses? Hmmm We can bend the rules here: 0/3 keycards shows a minimum and a maximum number of controls in the hand as a whole It's also a combination (rule 6) of rule 3 with itself: min and max 0 keycards AND min and max 3 keycards
- You would also allow brown stickers apparently, since they're a combination of rule 1: 6+♦ (rule 1) or 6+♥ (rule 1) or 6+♠ (rule 1).

I can't find a convention which you wouldn't allow with these rules. I'd love to play in such league!

I said I hadn't put it in legal language and not to look for loopholes.

Point 1 does not allow 2♥ = ♥ and another becasue it shows length in an unspecified suit.
And point 6 says combinations are allowed if the combination is AND not OR.