[42]

Hello again
I find it interesting whether it is allowed to play Forcing Pass systems in your country. The story: a team plays Forcing Pass in the highest league. They have to send their oponents the whole system for preparation 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, and it is tiring to play against them. Many players complain, more and more demand that this system should not be allowed any more; in their opinion the Forcing Passers want only to confuse their opps, bridge skills don't play a role. I cannot say any word to the playing strength of this team, I played only once against them some years ago (that time they confused themselves more than us...). What is your opinion?
Caren

[hrothgar]

North America is dominated by the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons.

Forget forcing pass; the ACBL has successfully crushed

1. Transfer openings (inherently destructively and banned)
2. Assumed fit preempts (inherently destructive and banned)
3. Multi 2D openings (limited to midchart only events and when was the last time you saw one of those?)

You name it... If the methods would harm the ACBL's ability to extract revenue from crotchety 70 years, its banned.

From my own perspect, there is a LOT of merit to forcing pass methods. Arguments that forcing pass players "only" want to confuse their opponents are a red flag that the players who are complaining are too ignorant to be taken seriously...

Admittedly, your advancing another argument as well... Its tiring to play against forcing pass methods / you need to spend time preparing to play against this other team:

Guess what? The team playing forcing pass also has to learn two systems. They need to learn their own methods and they need to learn the radically different stuff that you (they're opponents) are playing. In short, this argument collapses down to "I don't want to spend as much time preparing to play bridge as my opponents, but I still want to win." This line of reasoning doesn't impress me much.

[Al_U_Card]

Ideally (I have pointlessly suggested this to the ACBL on several occasions) you would have 2 contests at every game. The closed and the open. Obviously the closed would be the typical "old dogs with no new tricks please" and the open would be "if you can think of it, you can play it here". Size does matter and the number of participants would dictate how these methods might become mainstream or not. I like playing against good players, their methods notwithstanding. Bring it on, I hope not to be a bridge "fuddy-duddy" too......

[ArcLight]

>North America is dominated by the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons.
>Forget forcing pass; the ACBL has successfully crushed

>1. Transfer openings (inherently destructively and banned)
>2. Assumed fit preempts (inherently destructive and banned)
>3. Multi 2D openings (limited to midchart only events and when was the last time you saw one of those?)

>You name it... If the methods would harm the ACBL's ability to extract revenue from crotchety 70 years, its banned.

Good.
Bridge is a deductive reasoning game, not a bluffing game.
Its also a game that most of us play for fun.
Its a game, not a way of life, unless you are at the topmost levels.
I don't care about World Class Bridge or what systems Meckwell or the Poles use.
Most of us dont want to have to spend many many hours studying all sorts of different systems and conventions. That doesn't mean we don't like the game, but its tedious to study all these systems.

How many players who are into systems and conventions are really that good card players anyway? Or are they wasting their time? Fred gave an example where he faced 2 smart players with their home made complex system. He said their system screw ups cost them a little, and their card play cost them a lot.

All the systems/methods you list may very well be effective and optimal, but does it add to the fun of the game?

Bridge as played in the Terence Reese books form 20-30 years ago is a lot of fun. Even with bad cards you have to pay attention. Say you hold nothing but one Jack. That card may be vital for preventing pard from being end played.

[Echognome]

I'm sure there is a long and involved debate around forcing pass systems and other "HUM" systems. I only have to say that I personally like that some events allow for unusual systems. I think the variety in bidding systems makes bridge more interesting. I do not believe forcing pass systems are designed to be destructive. Imagine a simple version where you are playing precision and have shuffled the Pass, 1♣ and 1♦ bids around. There is certainly a lot of theoretical merit as over the pass you can play 1♣ as negatives and simple transfer positives. Over the nebulous 1♣ you can play transfer responses, etc. These transfer responses save a LOT of room and help in CONSTRUCTIVE bidding immensely.

I feel like the shame in the states is not that they have different levels of conventions, but rather that there are not that many competitions which use the varying levels. It is perfectly fine to have a restricted convention event. In fact, the world individuals where everyone has to play the same system seems really interesting! It is just nice to be able to play in different types of competitions.

I am grateful, for example, that my local club is a level 4 club (equivalent of say midchart+). There are other clubs around that are level 3 (roughly GCC) and even level 2 (quite restricted). The fact that we have a choice as a consumer of bridge I believe benefits us all.

I would be happy if I were in your shoes Caren. You get to play against some interesting systems and good opponents.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Jan 17 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

>North America is dominated by the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons.
>Forget forcing pass; the ACBL has successfully crushed

>1. Transfer openings (inherently destructively and banned)
>2. Assumed fit preempts (inherently destructive and banned)
>3. Multi 2D openings (limited to midchart only events and when was the last time you saw one of those?)

>You name it... If the methods would harm the ACBL's ability to extract revenue from crotchety 70 years, its banned.

Good.
Bridge is a deductive reasoning game, not a bluffing game.
Its also a game that most of us play for fun. 
Its a game, not a way of life, unless you are at the topmost levels.
I don't care about World Class Bridge or what systems Meckwell or the Poles use. 
Most of us dont want to have to spend many many hours studying all sorts of different systems and conventions.  That doesn't mean we don't like the game, but its tedious to study all these systems.

How many players who are into systems and conventions are really that good card players anyway?  Or are they wasting their time?  Fred gave an example where he faced 2 smart players with their home made complex system.  He said their system screw ups cost them a little, and their card play cost them a lot.

All the systems/methods you list may very well be effective and optimal, but does it add to the fun of the game?

Bridge as played in the Terence Reese books form 20-30 years ago is a lot of fun.  Even with bad cards you have to pay attention.   Say you hold nothing but one Jack.  That card may be vital for preventing pard from being end played.

It is just too bad that some systems/conventions are restricted (sad to say, in Italy too).

Who are we to decide whether bridge is only a game or a mind's sport, with the intellectual pleasure to experiment and investigate (including bidding) ?
And who are we to tell whether card play is the most valuable part ?

I mean, it can be for some, but not for all.

Banning systems is wrong IMO, and coming from the world of chess it sounds strange: in Chess, too, you can try to trick your opps by adopting weird openings if opps do not know them, and sometimes it works: but if the openings are not sound, sooner or later you get busted.

All the opps have to do is do their homeworks to counter these unusual weapons: and I cannot see why the should not, if they don't they lose, that's natural selection.

And inded, I have to say, the growth and decline of many offbeat systems in chess (e.g. the "Hypermodern systems" from the 30s and so forth) have enriched the game, not the contrary, provided one wants to put the effort to learn from them.

I cannot imagine what modern chess would look like, if at the time, people would have been barred from opening a fianchetto LOL

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

Having said that, I would like to emphasize one thing that always stroke me since the beginning: it makes no sense to me to allow a system at pro level and ban it in club events.
Why ?

Sports and competitions are based on the "spirit of emulation": e.g. I watch a World Champion use his favourite weapon, and I wanna try it too, even if i am the worst patzer.

I want to be allowed to TRY the same things as World Class players.
Show a kid what the champions do, and he will want to try it: that the trick to gain enthusiasm and audience.

It is so frustrating to read books and chronicles featuring fancy methods and know that if you try them you'll be punished.

And, I am not talking of efficiency in learning: I know learning goes through card play, card combos, deduction and counting.

yet, you should allow lesser players to dream, trying fancy methods even if that makes no good.

That happens all the time in chess: newcomers wanna try right away the wildest defences that need close preparation, and sooner or later they get busted, but guess what ?
They have fun, and their love for the game grows in the meantime.

==========

Bottomline: if you wanna ban a system, ban it for JUST ABOUT EVERYONE, newcomers or at least intermediates should be allowed to play the same stuff pros do.

[Free]

Quote

Bridge is a deductive reasoning game, not a bluffing game.

I agree partially. Is a 3rd seat babypsych a bluff, or just deductive reasoning that opps might have game and you want to make it hard for them? What about a psych in 1st or 2nd seat?

Quote

Its also a game that most of us play for fun.
Its a game, not a way of life, unless you are at the topmost levels.
I don't care about World Class Bridge or what systems Meckwell or the Poles use.
Most of us dont want to have to spend many many hours studying all sorts of different systems and conventions. That doesn't mean we don't like the game, but its tedious to study all these systems.

So you're playing for fun??? Why don't you just play everything natural, ACOL with lowest suit first, 1NT with 4333, 2-level openings strong, 3-level openings even stronger,...? Why don't people teach this to beginners? This is VERY easy, you don't even have to learn transfers, stayman, blackwood, 4th suit forcing,... and you only need like 1 minute and a little paper to agree on the system. If you meet a system which you don't know, just ignore it and still bid natural. "1♥-2♥ is ♥, don't care what RHO has."
No way you're playing for fun! You want 'some' results, it doesn't have to be a win every time, but a good score helps you to like the game. Just admit that, and stop saying you're playing pure for fun, because otherwise you wouldn't be worried about other people playing other systems which suit THEM more than your own system...

Quote

All the systems/methods you list may very well be effective and optimal, but does it add to the fun of the game?

Yes, you should try it! There's nothing more fun than your own system working better than anyone elses. Haven't you ever turned a game completely upside down in your childhood, and enjoyed it just as much? I mean: pass with strong hands, bid with weak, that's a lot of turning around the usual stuff.
Just try things out: preempt NV vs V with a 5 card suit, psych, experiment and see what you enjoy, cut back if it's too much. If you never try something new, ofcourse you'll keep asking this same question over and over.
I know a very good player at our local club, he's very fond of natural systems, nothing fancy at all. But sometimes he still likes the little tweaks, especially when they work. I mean, in a competition match, the bidding went 1♠-2♥-2♠, 2♥ showing a very weak hand with 3♠, and he made his contract. At our table, it went 1♠-2♠-3X-3♠. They went -1, for 5 imps to our team. Suddenly he was very glad some non-natural methods were allowed. So where do you draw the line?

My opinion:
If you're playing at high level, you must be willing to put in time to get results. Otherwise just go play for 'fun'. So at the highest levels, I wouldn't mind allowing everything, BUT there should be full explanations and schemes available (and here's the problem).

[Gerben42]

I think the German regulations are okay regarding strong pass systems. If you want to practice against them, almost every week night around 21:00 DrTodd and his partner practice.

About the Essen HUM system, it takes 1 minute to realize they all play the same. However the regulations say each pair should send in the notes.

Playing against FP systems you don't HAVE to prepare. Only prepare if you want to win. If you just want to have a good time, bid naturally and take a bad result with dignity.

I'd like to quote one of the Dutch WC pairs (1993) here, Leufkens - Westra. They said they preferred Balicki - Zmudzinski to play their Suspensor Forcing Pass rather than Polish Club, since they already prepared for Suspensor so they know what to do now.

If you are serious about winning you have to prepare for a lot of different situations.

One question left: what's it all worth? If you play a system, regardless what it is, you need to know it blindly before it stops eating away your mental energy. This is what Fred mentioned. The pair he played against put so much effort and energy in their complex system and then messed up the card play. No good.

However let me say this: A HUM system does not have to be complicated! You don't have to play Suspensor, where 1♠ = 6+♠ or 0 - 2 ♠. Oh come on. Besides, the term "weak opening systems" is more suitable.

A simple Precision-based Weak Opening System can be found here:
http://www.geocities...e/precpass.html

PM me if you want a more complete description.

[Al_U_Card]

Purebreds have all kinds of genetic problems. Hybrids are healthier and generally enrich the genepool. Quebids used to be big hands. Frequency changed that to give them their modern meaning. Double a 2D transfer and what does it mean? Bid 2H over the 2D transfer bid and what does it mean? These are questions with no answers 50 years ago but now are quite "usual". People resist change because they are lazy not because change is not good.

[ArcLight]

>No way you're playing for fun! You want 'some' results, it doesn't have to be a win every time, but a good score helps you to like the game. Just admit that, and stop saying you're playing pure for fun, because otherwise you wouldn't be worried about other people playing other systems which suit THEM more than your own system...

Huh?!?!?
I play Bridge because I enjoy the game.
I certainly do want to win.
I want to win at games that I enjoy playing. I have no interest in playing games I am good at that I don't enjoy playing.
I used to play board wargames (the ones with hexagons imposed over paper maps) by SPI and Avalon Hill. They were horrible simulations and not all that good games so I lost interest.


Very few players I know are interested in spending a great deal of time studying a large number of systems and conventions. The systems/conventions are interesting, up to a point, but not something I (or anyone I know) enjoys spending a great deal of time with.

I don't like what destructive bidding or system complexity does to the game.


>There's nothing more fun than your own system working better than anyone elses.

Perhaps it works because it's new and the others are not familair with it. Hence the pair using it get a good score not because of their skill, but because of the novelty.

Innovation and experimentation are good, and there should be a venue for those pairs who want to use these systems to play.

I have no interest in learning all these systems, I want to play cards and spend my time figuring out the opponents distribution so I can work out an elimination / end play.

It's not a question of "shielding weaker players" like Mechstroth or Marston say, its just that it takes the fun away.

Whats needed is a sponsor who requires simpler systems.
ACOL like FREE describes may be good.


>People resist change because they are lazy not because change is not good.

One should have an open mind and look at new things.
At the same time people get used to something and after a long time it's not so easy to adapt to change. Since Bridge is a game, rather than a work place/life affecting force (like the development of PCs and the internet) there is less need to adapt.


>Bottomline: if you wanna ban a system, ban it for JUST ABOUT EVERYONE, newcomers or at least intermediates should be allowed to play the same stuff pros do.

It's doubtful it would benefit them. I can just imagine a beginner using Kokish relays and Lebensohl. For every success their would be a failure. Would it really benefit them overall?

[Chamaco]

Quote

I don't like what destructive bidding or system complexity does to the game.

That's fair enough.
But some people do like it, and not necessarily to trick oponents, but they might enjoy the bidding part.

So I understand that one does not like it, but from disliking some tactics to outright banning it there is a huge leap.

I don't like some neighbours but sometimes I have to be in the elevator with them

Quote

I have no interest in learning all these systems, I want to play cards and spend my time figuring out the opponents distribution so I can work out an elimination / end play.

Again, this is *your* legitimate perspective.
The game of bridge is multifaceted, why you or I should think that one part or the other is the "right" part of the game ?

Some players think that bidding is only a preliminary to card play, some others think that card play is only a justification of the bidding.

There's no right or wrong.

And in a way or another, destructive bidding is played by many "natural players"

Quote

Whats needed is a sponsor who requires simpler systems.
ACOL like FREE describes may be good.

In a previous post you mention "having fun", not looking for a sponsor; and some players indeed have fun with HUM systems.
Banning HUMs just limits the fun and enjoyment of some players.

Quote

>Bottomline: if you wanna ban a system, ban it for JUST ABOUT EVERYONE, newcomers or at least intermediates should be allowed to play the same stuff pros do.

It's doubtful it would benefit them. I can just imagine a beginner using Kokish relays and Lebensohl. For every success their would be a failure. Would it really benefit them overall? 
  

Of course the result would not be good, but let them try it: I have seen this happen in every sport, the lesser players must be free to TRY the weapons of the champs, they want to have a chance to emulate them.
They lose, they learn from the mistakes, but most of all, they are enthusiastic of being able to feel for one day like Garry Kasparov or Meckwell, or whoever u want !

It'snot important that they lose or that they don't learn, what matters is they feel happy to be allowed to try it.

[Al_U_Card]

Here's a suggestion that may be worth it's cost

Use these fabulous deal analyzers to make hands with par contracts. People who don't want to play against "inventive" opps just get the cards dealt with the lead to select and the hand to play. The contract is already determined. No muss no fuss.

[Free]

I said it before and I'll say it again: once there was a certain guy who played a 2♣ response after 1NT opening from his partner to ASK for a Major. Nobody knew this, he didn't show his hand, no! He ASKED about opener's hand. That must've been the purest evil that had ever existed! Look who's playing the method these days (now less and less, but you get the point right?)
Need another example? 4NT, once known to be natural, suddenly asked for Aces! Amaizing! The devil himself must have told someone this trick! Now everyone plays something which has this convention as origin.
Need another one? Transfers after 1NT. Come on, how is it possible you bid a short suit to show another one? Pure evil imo!

So why ban any system or convention, which might prove to be useful after some period of time? People will learn how to cope with them, and the 'novelty' will be gone, but they'll still work (or be improved)... At least nobody will play Gerber, flannery and cappeletti anymore.

Note: plz nobody shoot me for mentioning these 3 'death sentence'-words in 1 reply

[olegru]

William J. Huske, article was printed in 1955 if I am not mistaken. Or even early.
I can't say better.

Quote

...
Every once in a while some person says that bridge bidding has reached its ultimate; that no new theories can be found; and that bidding has become standardized. I most emphatically disagree. As one of the "ancients" of bridge I have seen change after change come in bidding methods, and I believe that changes will continue through the centuries.
If game ever became standardized in the manner that some people say it has, then, like whist it would became a dead game. It would be one that would appeal only to those arteries has already hardened, and youth would go looking for some other way to find intellectual recreation. It is because, while old in years and ancestry, it is ever young and ever changing, that there'll always be a bridge game, and a game that will cut across social barriers, youth, age, skill and its lack, to give to all an intellectual pasttime where all may meet on equal terms and where the expert may easily get a "bottom score" from a "dub".

Are you don't agree this him?
What is the average age of ACBL members?

[Free]

There is life outside the USA...

[awm]

While I enjoy playing some unusual methods, I think some restriction on systems is actually necessary. A pair shouldn't gain a substantial advantage just by playing something unusual and banking on the opponents not understanding the meaning or inferences from their bids, or not having a reasonable defense handy. I think most people agree with this -- those of us who enjoy playing unusual methods do so because we like to experiment, and because we think that these methods may be superior to the more mainstream systems.

If I'm going to play a long match against a pair and have their system notes available in advance, they can play whatever methods they want. But if I'm going to see them only for two boards in a pair game, it's unreasonable to expect me to be able to prepare defenses to their methods, or even really read their notes or understand what they're doing. If their methods bear little resemblence to anything I'm familiar with, these opponents have now gained a huge advantage just by playing "something weird" regardless of the merits of their approach.

By limiting systems, there is a relatively small number of defenses to prepare. We need to know how to bid over a strong 1NT, and a weak 1NT... but not over a 1NT opening that shows "either a weak hand with clubs, or a strong hand with diamonds, or weak with both majors, or a game forcing balanced hand." Obviously if we were to remove all flexibility bridge might become a more boring game, but with total flexibility it would become more a game of who can come up with the most bizarre system that's still marginally playable (to maximally confuse opponents) and this would also make for a less interesting game.

On the other hand, I take serious issue with how ACBL restricts conventions. The problems are:

(1) The restrictions are vague and are not understood by many people (including directors).
(2) The restrictions are not enforced in a fair and consistent way. For example, one of my friends got in trouble for a 2♦ opening that shows a three-suited hand short in diamonds, but can be 4-3-1-5. The directors said "this is not a three-suited hand." My friend named a few expert pairs who play the convention, and this somehow made it okay. For another example, one of my opponents play a 1NT response to 1M as "asking about opener's hand" followed by a 2NT rebid by responder as "asking for further description." When I complained to a director that this is a sequence of relays, the opponents responded "these bids are not relays." Since relays are never clearly defined, the director was okay with that.
(3) The restrictions disallow many simple and easy-to-defend methods, while allowing some bizzare methods. For example: drury over a 1st/2nd seat opening is disallowed. A 2♣ response to a major suit opening showing either an invitational raise or a game force with clubs is disallowed. Two-level intermediate canape openings with possibly-weak relay followups are allowed. 1NT overcalls showing an artificial three suited takeout with any strength are not even a pre-alert. The first two methods are primarily constructive, show good hands opposite a good hand, and are very similar to methods that are legal (and widely played) in 3rd/4th seat. The second two methods are often oriented towards disrupting the opponents' bidding, are unlike anything that is widely played, and are (in my opinion) much more difficult to defend without discussion.
(4) There is no actual penalty for playing illegal methods, beyond a possible adjustment to restore equity if the opponents are "obviously damaged" and being required to stop playing the method for the rest of the event. Combined with the fact that most players (and even directors) don't actually understand the restrictions, this creates a substantial advantage for players who simply ignore the regulations and figure not to get caught, over players who try to be ethical and obey the requirements.

[ArcLight]

>If game ever became standardized in the manner that some people say it has, then, like whist it would became a dead game.

Why?

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.

There is a steep learning curve, and enough nuances in card play that even with a "generic bidding sysytem" the game would still be fun to play.

-You would still have bidding judgement. Bidding would still be interesting, maybe not quite as exciting as it is today, but it would still present challenges.

-The card play would still be there. All those techniques to learn.

-The deductive reasoning is still there.

It would still be fun.


I've said before about this topic (months ago) that those who want to "experiment" should have a forum to do so. They should have their fun. But those of us who don't want to deal with it should also have a place to play.


>So why ban any system or convention, which might prove to be useful after some period of time? People will learn how to cope with them, and the 'novelty' will be gone, but they'll still work (or be improved)... At least nobody will play Gerber, flannery and cappeletti anymore

Fine, let them be developed where I don't have to deal with their evolution. When after a period of time a system is well developed and becomes mainstream then allow it in. But to allow in all sorts of systems and conventions isn't fun for most of the rest of us.



>>But some people do like it, and not necessarily to trick oponents, but they might enjoy the bidding part.

>So I understand that one does not like it, but from disliking some tactics to outright banning it there is a huge leap.

Don't ban them, let them be played in the "Experimental/Open" venue.
We've had discussions like this on these forums for a year and a half.


>The game of bridge is multifaceted, why you or I should think that one part or the other is the "right" part of the game ?

I don't claim any "right" or "wrong" part of the game, just what I enjoy, and what I suspect most people playing enjoy.
Just because a vocal minority says something doesn't mean its right either.

[Al_U_Card]

The best players, in top flight competition, can come across HUM's used by their opps. What is the percentage of the best players that play HUM's? Probably a lot lower than those that play dead standard (whatever that is?) which is a lot lower than the majority that play HSM's (highly specific methods viz Meckwell etc.)

I once played regularly against a friend (F2F, no bid boxes) whose 2NT? was an invitation and 2NT! was forcing and plain old 2NT was unusual.... I guess that putting up with the peculiarities in bidding, carding, etc. is all part of the game.

[han]

I agree once again with Matt's viewpoint, it is nice to have different kinds of games available. Another reason why BBO is such a great place to play bridge.

Although I find systems fascinating, I more and more dislike playing unusual methods. Not only do I play the cards noticably worse, the losses created by forgetting conventions and undiscussed auctions as well as the gains created by opponents who have not discussed their defenses take away some of the pleasures of the game.

I have had regular partners who take these things for granted and really enjoy the infrequent hand where the methods lead to the top spot. To each his own.

[olegru]

ArcLight, on Jan 17 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

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.

Of couse it will be fun for you, for me, actualy for any of us, who already got addicted.
But I wouldn't so sure about people who just choising pasttime for themself.

Whan 17 years ago I started to play bridge I like this game because I can create my own bidding system and modify it as much as I want.
Sure my system was terrible. But by the time when I realise it I already found much more to enjoy in the game.
Whould I ever started to play bridge if someone told me I have to bid only way everyone does? I don't think so.

You don't have to prove me our game is greate I am sure it is.

But there is a fact: average age of the bridge players in ACBL land is much higher than it was when William J.Huske wrote article. (I can't say about other countries, just don't have information.)

I am afraid he was right.