[42]

Chamaco, on Jan 18 2006, 03:55 PM, said:

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.

As I pointed already out before: this is no objective argument. The confounded players, pro or not, feel anger because they are forced to spend more time for preparation, forced to be more alert besides the "normal" and known, feel pressure to think faster because there is no additional time and so on. The (unproven) background is that the HUM players perhaps count with an advantage because they are a step ahead with unusual methods and they know it and it is the reason why they play it because they perhaps could not stand the competition without that. People feel cheated in a way and therefore raise their voice.
Another example: in Germany it is forbidden to alert DBL and PASS at the table (I am not sure at the moment if that changes behind screens). I know a pair which built up a kind of system using right that, they covered these bids with special meanings which are different from the common meanings. So you have to ask what PASS or DBL shows and perhaps you risk "illicit information". People who never ask will never know what they play, I also found out by chance. Is this fair? This is a pure question, no statement, no complaint!

Chamaco, on Jan 18 2006, 03:55 PM, said:

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.

Can chess really always be compared with bridge?? Isn't it easier to be a single combatant than to play in a partnership? The decisions to study or to play in a special way is only relevant for a single person who gets his personal result and title, in bridge you are responsable for the whole partnership or team, you take good and bad results of your partner / teammates as they take yours. You could have been playing like a machine but your partner was in heat no. 3 and the final result does not mirror your personal skill. Preparation is also easier alone, or? No need for compromises, no need to convince another one.
What would happen if a chess opponent says before the match that you are white but have to play the black chessmen, the Q is the K in this match, tower moves like runner?

Don't mix it up, please: all my points in this thread here are just thoughts that I like to discuss, no complaints, no statements. My personal opinion is: it is bothering to prepare and play against HUMs, the game is already tough enough, but if I must I would do (and --> joke <-- beat them ). Developement and the many different aspects of the game, especially the communication within the partnership, are why I love to play it, it is never boring, therefore I am not for restrictions to the technical point. What I hate is cheating and unfair behaviour.
Caren

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

The confounded players, pro or not, feel anger because they are forced to spend more time for preparation, forced to be more alert besides the "normal" and known, feel pressure to think faster because there is no additional time and so on.

That's only because they've been sheltered. When you are kept in a protective coccoon by your bridge organization your defenses naturally become weak. By reports I have seen about bridge in Australia, where regulations are much more lax, people just adapt. The pros don't seem to complain about the extra preparation, they just develop good generic defenses to various classes of bids and go and fight. Even the proverbial LOLs don't get bent out of shape because they are used to seeing weird bids, they just muddle through the best they can, and many themselves adopt some of the exotic two level preempts.

To me the best example of why there shouldn't be system restrictions in non-novice tournaments is the multi-2d. In Europe it is commonplace, everyone knows how to cope with it, at almost all levels of play. In America it is restricted, people get really bothered when it is used in the few events it is allowed in, even many supposedly good players. It is just a matter of allowing exposure. Yes there is disadvantage to opps when you first allow it when they are unfamiliar with the concept. But once exposed, people will learn how to deal with it! If ferts became allowed & common, then articles will be written about how to bid over them. If Ekrens is allowed, defenses will appear.

What would bridge be like if things like stayman, transfers, negative doubles were banned because of unfamiliarity? Why should how to bid be frozen in 1970 or whatever?

[DrTodd13]

As a FP player, I'll tell you I play it for several reasons. It isn't boring. Playing the same system over and over may entertain some people but for me part of the enjoyment is playing different systems. Another reason is that I like the ability to
quickly reach a good part score but also have accuracy in slam bidding. Sure, we have less accuracy in some situations but normal systems have less accuracy in many other situations so on balance I think it is a win. I certainly do not play FP because I think people will not know how to bid against it and get crappy scores. If that were my goal then I'd be playing any number of odd systems that are legal but still unfamiliar with opponents. Why are some systems banned and other not? There really is no rationale to it other than politics and constituencies. Many people just want to improve to a point where they can enjoy the game and then they stagnate and never try to get better. They just want to play and enjoy themselves and forcing them to learn how to defend against something different than what they are used to makes them not enjoy the game. If I were running any for-profit bridge league, I would be making the same decisions the ACBL is. If they allow FP then old people won't enjoy it any more and many might leave. They don't lose hardly any revenue by banning FP.

I think the vast majority of people don't have any philosophical opinion about how much weight should be given to various parts of bridge. Is card play more important than bidding? I don't think they care. They just want to have fun and FP isn't fun for them because it takes them out of their comfort zone. People at the world class level may have an opinion on this matter and they may favor card play and inference rather than bidding because it makes their life easier if bidding complexity is minimized. Still others may enjoy bidding theory most of all. Who is right? There really is no right or wrong, just preferences. In the end, those with the power derived from the majority will dictate what happens. The laws of duplicate bridge may remain agnostic but the conditions of contest will continue down their present path of emphasizing card play instead of bidding. What will the people who like bidding theory do? They'll form enclaves in real life or online and play their weird systems. They may still play in their local bridge organization but just not as much as they would otherwise. They will maintain the opinion that what most people play is "not really bridge" because of the artificial restrictions on system. This is true for almost all the major worldwide bridge events as well. Other people will continue to claim that HUMs are not bridge and should rightly be banned. It is just a matter of opinion and in the end the majority will win.

[Chamaco]

42, on Jan 18 2006, 07:16 PM, said:

Don't mix it up, please: all my points in this thread here are just thoughts that I like to discuss, no complaints, no statements.

Same for me, my point was not directed towards you personally, I am sorry if it sounded so: I addressed the point, because the issue you raised (Defending HUMs takes time and energies and we are not pros) is a common complaint between many other players.

Can I say I disagree with the argument of some players that say "I don't want to be forced to study as much as my opps?"

If bridge is a competition, I think it's fair that (guaranteeing full disclosure and the conditions to do so) people who study more have an advantage.
It might be sad but not unfair IMO.
So if bridge is sen as a competition, my view is that time to devote to the game is a poor argument: in any copetiotion, if someone has more time to spend to prepare he will gain an advantage, even if less skilled (and I make no difference here in bridge in time devoted to practice card play and time needed to learn and digest a HUM system)

If bridge is a GAME and not a competition, I can understand the opposite point.

[Gerben42]

Quote

If bridge is a GAME and not a competition, I can understand the opposite point.

For me Bridge is a game, but as for any game I play, maximum enjoyment is reached when opponent try their best to win. A game needs to be a competition also. I know that for others this is not necessarily true but that's how I tick.

Quote

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

Right, I won't go there then

[mycroft]

david_c, on Jan 17 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

I love this topic ...

So do I...

Quote

[I]t 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.)

I disagree (and I'm a relay player). There's more to defence than the auction, and a well-built relay system will make the ("totally" unknown) relayer declarer. It is *much* harder to defend against an unknown (usually stronger) hand than in a full-duplex auction; and learning the inferences needed to get the most out of that unknown hand isn't trivial.

Also, the "stop-on-a-dime" relay systems that are currently SuperChart only - those that are not game-forcing - don't even have the "simple in the auction" part; see even how difficult Lebensohl 2NT is to defend against, given that it is frequently a bailout, but often enough has the axe behind it.

Having said that, the ACBL relay regulations are cryptic, arbitrary, but much less exclusionary than most people think. After all, they can't afford to ban Stayman and Blackwood.

Quote

- 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.)

Same applies here - "defend against" doesn't just mean the auction.

BTW, are you assuming that pass is weak in all cases here?

Having said that, in the ACBL, any methods are allowed starting with opener's second call. That isn't quite the same thing, but it's really quite close.

Quote

- 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.)

Hm, I guess that I have no bridge judgement then - in Mid-Chart events, I play mini-multi simply because it's so much harder to defend against than the Real Multi. And I don't play transfers after weak NTs, for the same reason. And my preferred runout system is designed to have everything droppable except when I want them to save. And the worst trouble that anyone had opening 1NT against me was when it went 1NT-2D(hearts)-p-p(my diamonds are better than his hearts)...

Any transfer-type bid is theoretically easier to defend against than the non-transfer equivalent, because you automatically get a third option besides pass and bid - "pass, then act next round". Frequently the advantage gained is worth it, so people play them anyway.

EBU L3 Multi requires "a strong bid of a reasonable frequency", and that responder must look with a hand that would make game opposite that strong hand. The *whole* point behind this is that many simple and effective Multi defences rely on second hand getting a second call. 2D (weak with either major, frequently a *bad* suit) - p - p is a *killer*, and even if it happens rarely, the defence has to deal with it *every time* - unless that requirement is eased by regulation.

-----

On the original point, I find Forcing Pass irrelevant. The killer is the fert. If people want to play a strong pass against me, fine. But if the fert causes me to throw out my entire system except when we're dealer *and open*, that's a whole other story. And the FP proponents know this - when I've (with tongue firmly in cheek) suggested that as long as the fert is 1C, there's no problem, the unanimous response is "but that would seriously reduce the effectiveness of the system"; well, yeah. You don't put the opponents on defence with a 1C fert, do you? That, I believe is "reducing the fun" and "too hard to defend against" for anything but long matches at high level; and is as a matter of course regulated.

If it's voluntary - as it is whenever DJN plays it - that's totally another story. I may even play against them sometime, when I have a partner who also wants to, and who is willing to put in the work.

OTOH, I love the Aussie stories about "when FP meets FP"...
Michael.

[david_c]

mycroft, on Jan 26 2006, 06:18 PM, said:

Quote

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.)

I disagree (and I'm a relay player). There's more to defence than the auction, and a well-built relay system will make the ("totally" unknown) relayer declarer.

Hmm, I was trying to make a distinction between

(i) Methods which are hard to defend against no matter how well-prepared you are;

(ii) Methods which are hard to defend against because you need time to prepare and discuss what your calls mean.

My opinion is that it is reasonable to ban methods because of (ii) but not because of (i). This is why I don't like the ban on relay systems. It looks like I didn't make this clear enough. Or maybe I did, in which case, well, you are entitled to disagree

Quote

EBU L3 Multi requires "a strong bid of a reasonable frequency", and that responder must look with a hand that would make game opposite that strong hand. The *whole* point behind this is that many simple and effective Multi defences rely on second hand getting a second call. 2D (weak with either major, frequently a *bad* suit) - p - p is a *killer*, and even if it happens rarely, the defence has to deal with it *every time* - unless that requirement is eased by regulation.

The problem is that that part of the regulation doesn't work. It depends what strong options you use, but there are some types where it is still attractive (and legal) to pass 2♦ a lot of the time.* So even under the current regulations, opponents have to be prepared for this.

[NB. Some people who play a mini-multi will pass it when non-vulnerable on weak hands even if they don't have long diamonds. But this is not allowed under EBU regulations (you may only pass 2♦ if you have reason to believe it is your best spot), so opponents would not have to worry about this possibility even if mini-multi was legalised.]

(*)The most extreme case is where your strong option is "Acol Two in diamonds with a suit of ♦AKQxxxx or better". It's debatable whether this is actually allowed, but you get the idea. (If you think this is illegal, then just move to the next best thing...)

[Free]

About the mini-multi with passing partner: what exactly is the best spot? Is it 2♦-3 or 2M*-2? These aren't objective rules, so quite useless imo. But then we get back to the thing I already mentioned: it would be best if ALL bridge leagues just used colour codes to restrict conventions, and allow some extra methods if necessary (like multi which should be brown sticker according to the rules).

[Al_U_Card]

Comes back to 2 sections, closed(minded) with only stayman, blackwood and neg. dbles etc. and open (anything you can think of)

[DrTodd13]

(ii) could have been used to ban almost every new convention ever invented. People can always say they are disadvantage by having it sprung on them and not having time to develop an optimized defense. The answer to (ii) is let people get some terrible scores when people invent something new. Those people will get sick of getting bad scores and will develop defenses and then we are back to the norm. I don't see anything wrong with a temporary advantage for someone who invents something new. Look at how precision kicked butt when it was first introduced before people knew how to cope with it.

[P_Marlowe]

42, on Jan 18 2006, 02:16 PM, said:

<snip>
Another example: in Germany it is forbidden to alert DBL and PASS at the table (I am not sure at the moment if that changes behind screens).
<snip>

It does.The players are required to selfalert
any unusual bid, ... and espesially dbl and
pass.

Marlowe

[csdenmark]

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

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?

You have it! - I hope some sunny day to have fun with you

[Gerben42]

Quote

Another example: in Germany it is forbidden to alert DBL and PASS at the table.

This is a terrible rule and leads to some interesting UI problems, especially with some methods I play like a support pass.

A what? A support pass!

1♣* P 1♥ 1♠
Pass**

* Polish
** 3-card support!

You're not allowed to alert this...