The following edited debate occurred on the Usenet group rec.games.bridge in December 2003. It explores the various aspects of brown sticker conventions rather nicely and I thought it was well worthy of a place in the archive. You can read the debate in Usenet format on google.com groups
From: New Orleans ACBL Board of Directors Report posted by Jonathan Steinberg
The continued use of extremely complex, difficult to defend against Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC) was extensively discussed. By a close vote, they were allowed to continue being used. Eric Kokish brought this matter to my attention in New Orleans.
Apparently, the majority of Canadian and US Bermuda Bowl players are opposed to BSC. There were six ACBL teams in Monaco that could easily have been consulted before the vote was taken. Either they were not consulted or they were not listened to. Inexplicably, only Joan Gerard voted to discontinue their use while George Retek, Jim Kirkham, and Alan LeBendig voted to keep them. Dan Morse was playing in the Bermuda Bowl and gave his proxy to George Retek who abstained on his behalf.
At the Board of Governors meeting in New Orleans, this issue was brought up. It was the unanimous opinion that the ACBL's representatives to the WBF need to be more responsive to the wishes of its members. I might add that I believe the ACBL's WBF representatives need to be better informed and must work together so that the ACBL speaks as one strong voice.
I would like to echo comments regarding Brown Sticker Conventions. Over the past month or so, I have noticed what looks to be a well-orchestrated effort by the ACBL to ban Brown Sticker Conventions in international competition. I certainly don't think it a coincidence that I am simultaneously seeing discussions of about banning Brown Sticker Conventions in the ACBL Bulletin, the Board of Director's minutes, the Bridge laws Mailing list, and several other locations.
It's no surprise that ACBL teams feel that they are at a disadvantage playing against Brown Sticker Conventions. Our precious governing body has gone so far overboard in regulating the North American game that players almost never see the wide variety of preemptive methods in common use almost anywhere else in the world. This attitude was barely tolerable when the "only" impact was blocking North American players from experimenting with new methods. Unfortunately, the ACBL powers that be are now working to lower the rest of the world to their own standards. The sheer hypocrisy of this lobbying effort is mind blowing.
I wish that the WBF would tell the ACBL to take a long walk off a short pier. I see no reason why the WBF should want to repeat the ACBL's stellar success in growing its membership over the past 30 years. richard willey
I would like to know if the prefix "extremely complex" serves as a general charaterisation of BS or if in this case the prefix serves to construct a subclass of BS, namely those who are "extremely complex". Daniel Auby
I have followed the thread. Remember that I, like most ACBL players, have never encountered BSC as we do not qualify to play in the Bermuda Bowl. So I can only report what I am told.
The vote to ban BSC in Monaco failed as a result of a 5-5 tie! It was the ACBL's reps who saved BSC from being eliminated -- this surprised many as most ACBL players at the Bermuda Bowl opposed their use. So first of all, this is not an isue of the ACBL or USA VS innovations throughout the world. Not at all.
One issue important to me (as a bridge player and member of the ACBL Board of Directors) is accountability of ACBL's representatives to the WBF. They should respect their players wishes and keep the ACBL Board in the loop. How they vote should be a matter of record.
Pertaining to BSC, Eric Kokish (arguably the worlds premier bridge coach and for the last few years coach of the Nickell team) is opposed to allowing their use. He informed me that BSC are extremely difficult to defend against. Eric is well known for his love of conventions and many esoteric treatments. So when he tells me that BSC are bad for the game, I believe him.
BSC do not lend themselves to promoting bridge and Vugraph presentations. Please do not downplay the importance of keeping bridge alive and in the news for positive reasons. If the ever expanding Vugraph audiences around the world are unable to follow what is going on at the bridge table, the popularity and spectator aspect of our game will rapidly decline.
It would be best to hear from players who actually play or defend against BSC for their viewpoint. Jonathan Steinberg
I have played against BSCs many times. I see these conventions as being akin to germ warfare and I strongly believe that they should be barred. Some reasons:
1) Nowadays it is all but impossible for a team to properly prepare themselves to play in a tournament in which they rate to encounter BSCs. This is Eric Kokish's main complaint about BSCs.
2) The "stranger" the bidding gets, the harder it becomes to interest "average players" in watching high-level bridge.
3) In my experience a significant % of BSC partnerships do not do a proper job of disclosing everything they know about how they use a particular BSC. I am not claiming that this is done intentionally - it is more a function of "the nature of the beast" (the beast being BSCs, not the people who use them).
4) The game of bridge has more than enough beauty to be appealling without BSCs being allowed. In my view these conventions add nothing to the fascination of the game.
5) In my opinion most BSCs randomize the results, but the players that use them have an edge (especially when they play against weak teams) due to their opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods (and due also to points 1 and 3 above). This just doesn't seem fair to me.
Only my opinions - I am sure plenty of r.g.b regulars do not agree. Fred Gitelman
Fred: It is more than possible I do not understand the WBF HUM definitions. Yes, this is HUMs, not Brown Sticker. If I do, it seems that such harmless things as transfer openings are forbidden. If this is true, I am bothered by it. No, it is not that I want to play one of them, but they are easy to defend against and, to me more importantly, are purely constructive. If someone wants to open 1D to show 11+ hcp and 4+H because he thinks the advantages of the extra step outweigh the disadvantages, I see no reason to prevent him from doing so.
I understand the arguments against Forcing Pass systems. Except for your Reason 3 above, which I agree is a major problem, I would allow them but I have sympathy for banning these. Similarly, I understand and can easily accept the argument banning strange and wondrous preemptive bids. I might not agree with the banning, but the problems or allowing them are apparent and real. I can not accept banning CONSTRUCTIVE bids and systems. For example, a strong Diamond version of Delta (in which 1M=11-16 hcp with either 0-2 or 5+ of the suit opened). Strange and wondrous to be sure, but it is a constructive approach. And, no, I am not interested in playing Delta :)) merely in ALLOWING its use.
Of course, (to return to my favorite hobbyhorse) if the Bermuda Bowl was run a series of long K.O. matches with the draw set early, system policy could easily be liberalized. Paul Friedman
I'm not an expert, but I don't buy this. I have some theoretical interest in bidding systems, and I think I can devise a fully adequate defense against any kind of BSC if I am (as is currently the case) allowed to have a few hours ahead of play to prepare it and keep notes during the game.
I like reading the ACBL World Championship books. One of them had Poland in the final, and after about 20 or 30 hands, Suspensor had become quite a natural and easy to understand system. The Swedish mini-major was a lot harder, but the documentation for that was unclearer, too.
"stranger" the bidding gets, the harder it becomes to interest "average players"
True. Even though I can understand the weird system, I like to see bidding where I can think "how would I have bid here?"
BSC partnerships do not do a proper job of disclosing
I meet the "Lorenzo system" at a fairly low level here (it is a natural system, except all 2 openings are "natural" with 0-7 HCP and at least a 4-card suit. Pass is 8-11 balanced. The latter is what makes this system hard to defend.)
The game of bridge has more than enough beauty to be appealling without BSCs being allowed.
Not to system freaks, but I see what you mean.
the players that BSCs them have an edge (especially when they play against weak teams) due to their opponents' unfamiliarity
I still think the difficulty of BSCs is exaggerated. The former top Dutch pair Leufkens-Westra once said they preferred Balicki-Zmudzinski to play Suspensor rather than Polish Club, since they had ample experience against Suspensor. (A few years ago, Larry Cohen complained on this group that it was just too hard for him to defend the Polish club. I found and find that unbelievable.) Frans Buijsen
I think I can devise a fully adequate defense against any kind of BSC
I have experience in this area both as a player and as a coach. Even if you can devise a good and complete defense in a couple of hours, there are often dozens of these conventions you have to deal with. Furthermore, devising a defense is not good enough. All 3 pairs on your team need to practice playing against whatever they might face and they need to become comfortable with whatever defenses you have devised. To do this properly you need to contruct hands and try to simulate playing against the conventions in question.
All of this represents a lot of time and effort (especially if members of your team work for a living).
You don't have to believe me (or Eric) about this if you don't want to, but we have both (unfortunately) been there and done that many times before. Fred Gitelman
But these dozens of conventions will collapse into general hand types, balanced/one/two/three suiters, showing/not showing particular suits, including/not including suit bid, various strength ranges & levels, etc. Surely one can come up with a set of general principles to defend against basically anything without having to reinvent the wheel for every minor variation. It wouldn't be super-optimal but it should be adequate.
Furthermore, if these gadgets were allowed in more events, one would gain experience & build up an immunity to them. I feel the reason people get bent out of shape encountering something new is just because they are sheltered. It's pretty ridiculous that a player like Larry Cohen complains about defending vs. Polish Club when the LOLs in Poland probably don't have much problem with it.
Being able to cope with unfamiliar bidding systems is a skill just like superior card play is a skill. The people skilled in the former but not the latter are still forced to learn to play the cards well in order to compete. Why shouldn't those naturally skilled in card play be forced to learn how to defend in the bidding?
All of this represents a lot of time and effort
So what? Becoming world champion in just about anything requires a lot of time and effort. That's part of what makes it an achievement. If you need to work at something else cutting your available practice time that's an obstacle, but that's true of almost every sport/game. Stephen Tu
So what is that in the real world this is only possible for a small minority of players. The rest of us have jobs, families, etc. and can only spend so much time preparing for and playing in major tournaments.
Besides that it is not affordable. Despite all of the geniuses in this newsgroup who claim to be able to construct effective defenses against BSCs with very little effort, I would much rather use the defenses created by an experienced bridge coach like Eric Kokish or Chip Martel. There are not very many countries that can afford to pay the big bucks to get a coach of this calibre (who, by the way, need to spend more than "a few hours" coming up with the defenses that they do).
If I could see any benefit to allowing BSCs (other than satisfying a small minority of players) then I might be able to see your point. Fred Gitelman
That's just too bad then. Almost every other sport/game is set up such that if you wish to be the absolute best, you must pursue it full-time. Why must bridge be different?
There are not very many countries that can afford to pay a coach of this calibre
Again, no different from any other sport/game, where wealthy countries have access to better facilities, training, coaches. And even though you'd rather pay for a coach to devise your defenses, that doesn't mean other players aren't willing to just devise their own.
It's not so clear to me that only a small minority of players favors looser system restrictions.
In chess they don't ban openings or variations because of unfamiliarity; you can make any legal move at any time. Arbitrary restrictions on the meanings of bids for me detract from the richness of the game. You feel the game is rich enough already but a lot of us don't agree. Innovations in bidding should be continued to be allowed to develop, rather than freezing allowed methods in stone to make it easier for amateurs to win world titles. Stephen Tu
In sumo wrestling they don't ban body slams because of lack of preparedness; you can try to force your opponent out of the playing area at any time. What's your point, exactly? Steve Grant
What a bunch of absolute garbage. What makes you think freezing methods would allow amateurs to win world titles? Fred is beating around the real issue because he is a very nice guy, I'm not, so let me try.
The reason people want to develop complex methods and then they do not explain them adequately is to get an edge. They are trying to win at bridge when their playing skills would not allow them to be competitive. If you break the game down to a basic system everyone would have to play, USA I will now be just about unbeatable. THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS, that is why they win. John Blubaugh
Because unlike athletes in other sports, most bridge players do not have corporate sponsors and/or government money to keep them alive. Also in many sports there is significant prize money to be one by doing well in major tournaments. Not so in bridge.
I hope this will change one day, but for now the reality of the situation means that it is not possible for most top bridge players to work on the game anywhere near full time.
"Poor" countries (or rich countries with poor players and/or no sponsorship) are at a disadvantage. You seem to be saying, "so what?". I am saying it is best to avoid such things if possible (especially when there is no advantage to not avoiding them).
It's not so clear to me that only a small minority of players favors looser system restrictions.
I have talked to and/or received e-mails from dozens of bridge players of all levels and from all over the world every day for the past 13 years. It is clear to me.
I am not surprised that it is not clear to you as I doubt that you have had access to the large sample of bridge players that I communicate with. If our positions were reversed I would take your word for it.
You may be interested in knowing that I did not always feel this way about the issue. My experiences as a player, coach, and as someone who communicates with a lot of bridge players are the reasons for my views. Fred Gitelman
Surely one can come up with a set of general principles to defend against basically anything
I wonder if this is really true. It seems to me that this issue has been debated for quite a long time now; and if there really were an adequate "general principles" defense available, someone would have come up with it by now. (Yes, I know someone is going to say that there is a perfectly fine defense available and it's been suppressed by a conspiracy of ACBL board members and ex-KGB agents ....)
if these gadgets were allowed in more events, one would gain experience & build up an immunity to them.
You may be right - if the rate at which these gadgets are allowed is somewhat slow. If, say, the ACBL decided to allow all conventions in all regionals tomorrow, and some pairs started using a whole bunch of esoteric conventions to the point that either they started winning a lot because of the opponents' unpreparedness - or they started randomizing things too much. I think the reaction of a lot of players would be to quit playing in regionals, not to "build up an immunity". And I think that would be understandable. If the card play, defense, and bidding judgment skills that a player has developed over a lifetime suddenly become greatly reduced in relevance, that player is not going to have any fun any more - it will likely seem as though he's playing a different game. I do think it's a good idea to keep liberalizing and allowing new gadgets, but only at a pace that gives players a chance to learn how to deal with them, so that the game remains primarily about card-playing skills and not about the gadgets.
people get bent out of shape encountering something new i because they are sheltered.
No, there are a lot of good arguments on both sides of this issue. I don't object to those on either side of the debate making their points, but I do object to the insinuation that those on the other side are "sheltered" or "closed-minded" or "unable to handle new ideas" or whatever. That is unfair and a little insulting.
Ridiculous Larry Cohen complains about defending Polish Club when the LOLs in Poland don't have much problem with it.
I tend to agree that this particular complaint went too far.
Being able to cope with unfamiliar bidding systems is a skill just like superior card play is a skill.
Being able to physically block another player to prevent him from getting to the ball is a skill, too; but baseball has decided this is a skill they don't want tested as part of their game. All games (in which luck is not a dominant factor) are tests of some skills and not others, and the skills they do test are tested in some relative proportion to each other. The question isn't whether coping with unfamiliar bidding systems is a skill, the question is whether this is a skill that bridge should test, and to what degree.
Why shouldn't those naturally skilled in card play be forced to learn how to defend in the bidding?
Why should they? To reiterate, when the balance between different skills is changed sufficiently, the game becomes a different game; when you talking about "forcing" players to learn to defend in the bidding, then in the worst case, you're talking about forcing them to play a different game than they've been playing all their lives. What would the purpose of that be? Adam Beneschan
Larry Cohen complains about defending Polish Club
Can someone cite the reference for this? Danny
It was in the Bridge World, in his report of either the 2000 quarterfinals or semis. IIRC, what he complained about was playing Polish Club with only a few hours prep time. You can also google the long discussion (which Larry participated in) on this newsgroup. Scott Stearns
I think the coaches have some culpability here. My guess is that there isn't much sharing of defenses, IN ORDER TO GAIN AN EDGE. The edge thing is what this is all about, and it also applies to the "victims" of BSC.
You have been there "many times before" not only becuase there are new conventions to prepare for, but because each coach feels that his defense is better than the ones devised by the other captains. John Schuler
IMHO one should allow BSC in high-level bridge.
I have not played against that many times but I am not scared by the specifications of a certain convention. They are part of the game since they are just another example of a convention that uses bid X to show some hands Y. The difference is that a comittee has decided that this convention is A Bad Thing (TM). The fact that Multi is an exception shows the randomness of the decision where to put the limit.
Nowadays it is all but impossible for a team to properly prepare themselves to play in a tournament in which they rate to encounter BSCs.
Is it really? If you know a certain BSC (say convention X) is coming up because you were told well in advance (as is the rule nowadays), use deal generation software to deal out hands and let one pair (I'm sure you will find someone willing) bid the BSC hands and the pair to be trained can bid against them. Sometimes you will still have no solution. However, this is because preempts work. Bidding against for example 2D as weak two in diamonds might give you a terrible score after what seemed like a reasonable decision. If 2D is convention X, don't expect this to be any different.
In Europe any good tournament pair is already prepared to cope with a variety of non-BSC preempts, including Ekren, Multi, Transfer Preempts, etc. If you allow BSC throughout high-level competitions pairs will learn to cope with those as well.
The "stranger" the bidding gets, the harder it becomes to interest "average players" in watching high-level bridge.
Is this true? In the German trials, there was a lot of "strange" bidding. Two pairs played canape Precision, no one really knows what Wladow-Elinescu play, and there were more. But did people come back? Yes!
In my experience a significant % of BSC partnerships do not do a proper job of disclosing
Can you give examples of a situation where the nature of being BSC caused the unproper disclosure?
In my view these conventions add nothing to the fascination of the game.
Why exactly these conventions? What is fundamentally different between using disallowed convention X and many complicated conventions that ARE allowed? To have a committee deciding what is considered nice and what isn't strikes me as odd in the first place.
BSCs randomize the results, but the players that use them have an edge due to their opponents' unfamiliarity
Isn't the goal of the game to do well? Now you want to disallow conventions that have turned out to work well...
BSC's don't randomize the results any more than a natural preempt does. If 2D is a weak two you might have a lot of IMPs hanging on a decision to take action A or action B, whereas had RHO passed there would have been no problem. That is not a ground to forbid weak two bids.
The fact that the amount of randomization will stay the same is caused by the fact that you can have only one meaning for one bid. If 2D is convention X, it cannot be convention Y on a particular hand just because you happened to be dealt a hand suitable for convention Y instead of X.
Then the point about weak teams: Against weak teams the effect of using convention X will be much smaller than the effect of just being better at the game than the weak team. If it's not like that you must be opening on the 2-level so often that your own bidding will become uncontrolled. Gerben Dirksen
Can you give examples of a situation where the nature of being BSC caused the unproper disclosure?
Consider multi 2H as a weak 2-bid in either major. This is a typical BSC that has been used in recent Bermuda Bowls.
Any player that uses a convention like this for any reasonable period of time will have a good idea of the type of hands in which partner rates to pass 2H versus the type of hands in which partner rates to bid 2S (or something else).
The strategy that a pair uses with various hand types has an impact on what makes a given defense effective or not.
They know what they do here, but the rules say that they don't have to tell you or include example hands for various actions in the BSC writeup that they have to submit. All they have to tell you is "Pass is to play and 2S is pass/correct" (or whatever).
Sadly I have found that some pairs who use such conventions are also not particularly forthcoming at the table when asked such "style questions". Fred Gitelman
While I am sure what you say is true in many cases this is more in the minds of the players than in their conventions. In the last couple of years I have been playing at NABCs and I realise that I ask considerably more questions about the bidding than most players do.
Regrettably there is a sizeable minority who see no reason to answer questions, especially when the question is not about a convention. When I ask how far the sequence 1S - 2C is forcing most players say game, or 2NT, or whatever: but some seem to think you have asked whether their teenage daughter is available between sessions for a sex romp.
How and whether players answer questions I think depends a lot on what they are used to "back home". David Stevenson
David, if you ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer. John Blubaugh
The question how far 1S - 2C is forcing certainly is not a stupid question. And even if it were a stupid question, David would still be entitled to get a correct answer. Thomas Dehn
It is my experience that at the lower level the people who are least forthcoming with such information actually don't know the answer, and just can't admit it. Asya Kamsky
I do not tend to ask such questions of people who I do not think know the answer, though you are certainly correct. Occasionally I may misjudge the player and it is as you say, not awkwardness. David Stevenson
My personal opinion is that there is an inherent asymmetry here. No matter how skilled, from novice to World Champions, a pair will have had more practice playing their own system, then defending against another system, particularly an unusual one.
This clearly gives players employing an unusual system an inherent advantage, not per se due to the merits of the system. The question then becomes: is this advantage fair? Personally, I think not Dave Flower
I play:I play in the U.S. at the club level, where these methods are "highly unusual", but quite legal. Do you think that I am getting an unfair advantage? Should this system be banned in the U.S., because it is unpopular? Peter Leighton
Yes, I do think that you are getting an unfair advantage. That does not mean thet the system should be banned Dave Flower
The question then becomes: is this advantage fair?
Any pair that has spent time working on their agreements knows their system better than the opponents will. It may be less obvious if they're playing a "normal" system, but it's always there. (Case in point: Meckwell.)
Personally, I think not
But there's no solution. What can be done about it? Force everybody to play the same system? You have the problem of who chooses the system. You're also seriously reducing the importance of one part of the game. Julian Lighton
Consider multi 2H as a weak 2-bid in either major.
Thank you for this very good example. This is one of the two BSC I have encountered at the table (the other one is Wilkosz).
I think it is sad as well that when you ask "When exactly do you pass?" that you get no real answer. I would expect an answer along the lines: "We pass with 0 or 1 hearts and no game interest, and weak hands with 2 or 3 hearts that are too bad to play 3H."
The bottomline is: if you play complicated conventions, you should be able to give detailed answers. Gerben Dirksen
The extent of required disclosure is a function of how well a partnership knows the system they are playing (be it complex or simple). A partnership experimenting with a complex new system is less able to disclose detail than a well-rehearsed partnership playing a simple system. There should, of course, be no difference between ability to disclose and willingness to disclose although I am sure we can all recall cases where this has not been the case! Tim West-Meads
If they are experienced using the method, they probably do have a good idea of these tendency sorts of things. If system regulaton prohibits them from playing the method very often, they will have less experience and might be unable to accurately describe when partner might pass. It's sort of a chicken and egg situation. Tim Goodwin
In the German trials, there was a lot of "strange" bidding. ... no one really knows what Wladow-Elinescu play, and there were more.
This needs a correction: Only Wladow (and possibly Reps) knows what Wladow-Elinescu play. Thomas Dehn
Elinescu doesn't know? Ed Reppert
They are playing Wladow's homegrown system. Elinescu's expectations of what Wladow has quite frequently are not too close to what Wladow actually has. OTOH, if Elinescu does not have what Wladow thinks he showed, then Wladow will claim that Elinescu forgot their system. Thomas Dehn
(I have never played a Brown Sticker system.)
Fred Gitelman states a view that is very North American. Whilst it makes some sense, it's unfortunate that whilst this view holds, North America can never join the rest of the world and embrace the full gamut of the game.
The issue is familiarity. Once familiar with unconventional methods, they lose their "germ warfare" appearance.
As an anecdote, back in the late 80's I played the major Australian Championship which started with a 14 round Swiss (20 board matches). This was at the height of the Forcing Pass craze in Oz, and incredibly, my partnership faced FP in 7 of the matches. By the time we got to the last one, we didn't even bother to take our allowed defensive notes to the table, such was our level of comfort.
So I encourage you to allow Brown Sticker methods into your bridge society, under controlled conditions. They will eventually lose their unfair advantage of unfamiliarity, just as I think the simply Multi 2D has done. There are plenty of controls available, for example:
This will offset points (1) and (2). His point (3) is an important one which is the most difficult to deal with - directors and appeals committee have to be very strict here.
Point (4) is highly personal, and frankly carries little weight. Others, including myself, find the building of conventions one of the fascinations of the game. Your personal view should not necessarily carry the day.
Point (5) is interesting but not really relevant - if BSC's randomize results, then they are a legitimate tactic for inferior players. Once unfamiliarity wears off, you will discover that inferior players will generate the same inferior results, whatever their system. Bill Jacobs
It seems to me that there a number of different arguments converging here, but I don't buy them all:
I don't buy that BSCs should be banned from long knock-out championships, certainly not world championships. It's here, surely, that coaches and NPCs should come into their own, by performing research and watching opponents' styles in earlier tournaments and rounds; in the end, adequately preparing their teams for the coming onslaught. Perhaps easier said than done, but isn't this what happens in chess, for example? By the time players confront each other, they should have been prepared for idiosyncrasies / tendencies / preferences of their adversaries.
I buy a little more, but am not wholly convinced, that these systems would dissuade the public from watching. Certainly there is more of an onus on commentators to understand and explain systems, but if well presented these don't have to be turn-offs.
I find the argument that bridge is aesthetically appealing in its natural state fairly seductive, but dangerously close to saying that a naturalistic photograph is more attractive than a Picasso. Mere mortals are capable of appreciating both, without being able to reproduce either.
One area with which I thoroughly agree is that is senseless to allow infinite variety in events where only 2-3 boards are played per match / round. It is simply not possible to prepare adequately, and certainly some of the defences offered are often lacklustre at best. This especially applies to methods designed to be destructive; the intention after all, is to sow confusion, and the perpetrators are unlikely to have given as much thought to how opponents should build structure as they have to how they will recover structure themselves. Peter Clinch
players that use BSCs them have an edge due to their opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods This just doesn't seem fair to me
If using BSC is so advantagious, then why isn't everyone using BSC at the top level? Surely there must be some drawbacks, for I see quite a number of pairs playing what can be called standard (or at least not BSC) methods. Bert Beentjes
While I've posted a couple of times defending to the death people's right to play systems of their choosing, my chosen systems (natural one-bids, weak twos in diamonds, hearts and spades) are not under threat. "While I do not agree with what you play, I defend to the death your right to play it" Kieran Dyke )(Tiggrr)
Bert: I do not think the discussion question (as they said in my university days) is whether BSC system are better, worse, indifferent, or some mixture of the same. Rather it is whether they should be allowed. It does not seem to me to be officialdom's responsibility or authority to decide which system is "better." Paul Friedman
A lot of the discussion revolves around BSC giving someone an unfair advantage. While that may not mean theoretically better, it likely means practically better.
I think the question is a reasonable one: if BSC give such an advantage to the users of the methods, why aren't more people playing them? Tim Goodwin
if BSC give such an advantage to the users of the methods, why aren't more people playing them?
I can think of many reasons why one might not use such methods, some ethical (e.g. considering it unfair), some aesthetical (e.g. considering it an ugly way to gain), some theoretical (e.g. looking for the best method assuming best countermeasures, not the most effective in their absence), etc. Jürgen R
All potentially valid reasons, but not enough, in my opinion, to explain why more people aren't using BSC methods if they are so valuable. Tim Goodwin
The obvious reason is that if you can't play them often enough, you can't play them well. Another obvious reason is the unreasonable burden placed on the practioners, such as loss of seating rights and many other de facto and de jure discriminating actions by the NCBO. Post a follow-up to this message B Yang
I would imagine it also takes a lot of memory and concentration when everything is artificial. Plus if you can't play it regularly, or don't have regular partners who play it, then forgetting system may happen and will reduce the advantage gained as well as the pleasure of the game both to self and opponents, who in addition to defending against the system now will have to defend against "nobody knows- the wheels came off". Raija Davis
Certainly, a few Australian pairs, such as the Regres from the 1980s, switched to less unusual methods. While they could play their wacky FP systems in national events, it was just too hard to practice them between nationals. Kieran Dyke
Not an insurmountable problem. I recall that Tony Forrester had not been able to play TRS with Armstrong in a meaningful competition before the Bermuda Bowl. They still reached the finals of the Bermuda Bowl. Ron Johnson
This may have been a valid reason then, but it doesn't seem relevant any more with the availability of online bridge. The team could easily practice regardless of how far apart its members live.Adam
if BSC give such an advantage to the users of the methods, why aren't more people playing them?
OK, I'll buy that. Here's two possible reasons:
1) One can not play them in many events. Obviously, this varies by your location. If one can not use the bids on a regular basis, one is less likely to trot them out just for the most important events.
2) Natural conservatism and familiarity. Why does "everyone" in Poland play WJ2000? Because it IS what everyone plays. Somewhat of a closed loop. Paul Friedman
Exactly the question I intended to pose. Thank you for refrasing it. Bert Beentjes
1. "Advantage" is awfully hard to prove. For example, people have been debating the merits of five-card vs. four-card major openings for at least fifty or sixty years, and while some (including some who post to r.g.b) think the matter is settled, others are not so sure. With recent advances in records-keeping and data processing, maybe we are close to being able to "prove" which methods are advantageous and which are not. Then again, maybe we aren't. In other words, the fact that not a lot of people are playing a particular method is not proof that the method is inferior to a method a lot of people are using.
2. "Personality" has a lot to do with what methods people prefer -- it is probably as important as the technical merits of the methods. Even if you could "prove" that it is winning bridge to open 2H on 4-4 in the majors and 0-6 HCP, you wouldn't get very many people to play that way, because it just doesn't fit most bridge personalities. Similarly, even if you had a mathematical proof that "four-card-majors" is a better method than "five-card-majors," it wouldn't persuade the average player in the United States to open 1S instead of 1D on AKQx - A10xx - 5xx - xx. Technical merit is far from the only thing that matters in selecting a method.
3. Regulations play an important role. For many of us, it just isn't worth the trouble to fight city hall, even to play methods we think have merit, and even if we believe the regulations are unlawful. "Civil disobedience" has an honored place in our history, but perhaps it ought to be reserved for things more important than the conventions you are allowed to play in a bridge game. If you think the best system is the Yellow Diamond, but the ACBL won't allow you to play it in the events you are likely to be playing in, then you might as well give up on the Yellow Diamond. And when Tim and Bert ask, "if Yellow Diamond is such a hot system, how come nobody plays it?" the answer might be that the system stinks -- but the answer might also be that nobody plays it because the authorities won't let them. TL Goodwin
1. "Advantage" is awfully hard to prove. I agree.
2. "Personality" has a lot to do with what methods people prefer. I agree.
3. Regulations play an important role. I agree.
But the proponents of banning BSC claim using BSC gives people an advantage. The current regulations allow the use of BSC in the events where the proponents of banning BSC want them banned.
But the proponents of banning don't want to use BSC, even though they claim it would give them an advantage and the regulations allow them to do so. So either the advantage of BSC is not as clear as stated in the original argument (and it plays a pivotal role there), or personality is more important than stated.
The argument would be stronger if BSC players would plead to ban BSC because they feel it gives them an unfair advantage. Bert Beentjes
The argument would be stronger if BSC players would plead to ban BSC because they feel it gives them an unfair advantage.
The proponents of banning BSC believe the advantage you get (or think you get) from using BSC is not fair, but unfair. Jeff Rubens said (in Bridge World articles about countering unusual methods like BSC), "Sometimes they are going to get you, so sometimes you have to get them back." Well, the BSC-banners don't think they should be allowed to "get you" with BSC: that is what they think is unfair. It has been reported to me that the current ACBL regulation on Ekrens (which says you have to have at least nine cards, not just eight, in your two suits for a weak two-suited two-bid) was enacted because the conventions-regulation people thought it was "impossible to defend" a 2H opening bid that might be 4-4 in the majors. I suspect that "impossible to defend" means pretty much the same thing as "sometimes they are going to get you," and that the regulators considered that be an "unfair" advantage.
Granovetter, in Bridge Additions 96, discussed a defense to Multi 2D. His point, like Rubens' point, was that sometimes the stars line up favorably for their 2D opening bid, so you have to be ready to pounce on them when they walk into a misfit. Granovetter's defense was designed in part to catch the Multi opener when LHO has the rest of opener's major suit. I don't know whether Granovetter had the "right" answer to Multi, but at least he was trying to "get them back," not just bemoaning the fact that some opponents were using weapons he might not choose to use himself.
Sure, BSC may confer an advantage because of opponents' unfamiliarity with them, and that may seem to be "unfair." But if the methods are unsound apart from that "unfair" advantage, countermeasures will catch up with them. Maybe the "wrong" people will win or lose an occasional event until the countermeasures get sorted out. Is that the end of the world? It isn't, at least for those of us for whom bridge is a card game, not life. TL Goodwin
I guess one should ban all preemptive bids, since sometimes they are going to get you. Example:
(3C) 3H (X) all pass, -500 with nothing on for our opponents.
Even though the 3H bid may have been perfectly reasonable in this situation, sometimes you will run into a very happy LHO who was just hoping he would be saved from the 7-0 fit in clubs and rather defend something doubled. Director! They got me!
This can not be the reason to ban a convention, else we would have to ban every opening bid that does not show for example at least 10 HCP on the 1-level, 13 HCP on the 2-level and 16 HCP on the 3-level... Back to the 1-2-3 system I guess! Gerben Dirksen
Now what's that all about?
I was just pointing out that the fact that a preempt works cannot be a ground to ban it, since using this criterium you either have to allow all of them or ban all of them. One would have to change the definition of a natural bid to something like "Willingness to play in the denomination named with a reasonable expectation to make at least the number of tricks announced".
Opening 3H on KQJxxxx and out does not fulfill that.
This reminds me from when I made the mistake to wander into a social room in the internet gaming zone. Opponents bid 1H pass 4H and now I bid 4S and they were very mad at me because they had bid game so nicely and I was being selfish to want to be declarer myself.
My guess is that these opponents would be very happy with the above rule, i.e. no saves that can not be expected to make and no preempts.
For me playing a game in a social environment means that you don't play under tension but just in a relaxed atmosphere, but still anything can be done that is allowed under the rules. For these people it obviously meant something else.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem. Everyone has a different vision what bridge should be like, for me that means "no convention restrictions", for others that means "even the GCC allows too much". You can't make everyone happy, but at least you can try to have more "anything goes" tournaments where people who don't want that can stay away, and have a maximum number of happy people. Gerben
Sure, BSC may confer an advantage because of opponents' unfamiliarity with them, and that may seem to be "unfair."
It is probably best to leave fairness out of the discussion. If the rules allow esoteric methods, then these become part of the game. In such a game "full disclosure" becomes meaningless and therefore should not be required. I think this is the aspect that opponents of system regulations often forget.
countermeasures will catch up with them.
For every unsound idea that is defeated by countermeasures system freaks are ready to introduce 3 others.
Maybe the "wrong" people will win or lose an occasional event until the countermeasures get sorted out. Is that the end of the world?
No, of course not; but it makes bridge less of a "sport" with well-defined and consistent rules of competition. Jürgen R
In such a game "full disclosure" becomes meaningless and therefore should not be required. Julian Lighton
This is a silly comment. In my experience players of esoteric methods go out of their way to provide full disclosure, even in many cases by providing the opposition with inferential information to which they would not normally be entitled. It is opposition who answer "Just a weak 2", when they play that they could have Jxxxx for the opening, who do not provide full disclosure imho. Ron Lel
This is my experience as well. Players of natural systems like Acol, Standard American or 2/1 do not answer questions so well, mainly because they assume everyone else knows their methods - but methods differ from one pair to the next. Players of esoteric systems realise that people do no understand their methods. David Stevenson
You are undoubtedly right that users of esoteric methods usually explain their bidding more meticulously than users of commonplace methods. It is the lack of familiarity with the former that makes the disclosure incomplete.
Just as an example. In most U.S. clubs Acol can be considered an esoteric system. In various versions of Acol the rules concerning which of several 4-card suits is bid first differ and are unfamiliar to most U.S. players. Even if explained accurately it is quite possible that simple inferences concerning shape are missed. Jürgen R
Quite possibly. But worse is the fact hat players who play Acol are not geared towards answering a simple question like What do you open with four spades and four diamonds. Similarly in North America basic questions as to system are often not answered - or even answered "It's bridge". David Stevenson
In my experience players of esoteric methods go out of their way to provide full disclosure
Is there such a thing as "inferential information to which they would not normally be entitled"? I think many of the posters here would suggest that full disclosure means that opponents _are_ entitled to such information.
At a high level, you may be right about providing full disclosure, but at club level, the system players often don't understand the system well enough to do do. Mike Vaughn
Absolutely. For example lets say you play a relay system. You relay out the hand, find that opener has say a 1435 shape and end in 3N. We always used to point out to opponents that there was a strong inference that relayer had decent S cards. Yes, that is "bridge", but at the club level, players might not understand this, and "yes" I also believe that this is information to which the opponents are not entitled even with full disclosure. Ron Lel
Similarly in North America basic questions as to system are often not answered - or even answered "It's bridge"
The p/c answer to a question that people usually answer like that is 'no special understanding'. If I sat down to play with many players, we would 'know' what each other would do, without prior discussion, and would properly use the above, IMO. Danny
One issue important to me (as a bridge player and member of the ACBL Board of Directors) is accountability of ACBL's representatives to the WBF. They should respect their players wishes and keep the ACBL Board in the loop. How they vote should be a matter of record.
It is not always right to vote the way the people you represent would wish you to vote. The masses aren't always right. And, I hope, the representatives that the ACBL sends to WBF meetings are more informed about the consequences of the votes they cast than the general bridge playing public. It is easy for us to voice our opinion one way or the other in this forum, but we haven't studied the subjects like the appointed representatives have. The representatives are chosen because they are knowledgeable in areas important to the WBF and the ACBL's relationship with the WBF. The President makes the appointments, and the President is picked by the Board Members. If the Board Members trust the President to make good selections and the President trusts the job to his appointed representatives, that should be good enough for all of us.
"Difficult to defend against" might not be the same thing as "bad for the game". Kokish seems like the kind of person that would be ideally suited to be an ACBL representative to the WBF. Do you know if he has ever been considered for one of the appointments? Actually, I suppose he has too much financial interest in the matters to be a good candidate.
If Vugraph audiences around the world are unable to follow what is going on at the bridge table, the popularity and spectator aspect of our game will rapidly decline.
Decline? If the level of interest in vugraph shows had declined over the level five years ago, there would be no interest at all. There has been a recent interest in online vugraph shows, highlighted by the 5000 or so spectators who watched the end of the Bermuda Bowl. In that match Meckwell was playing a version of Precision that they will not fully disclose to the public and the Italians were playing a rather complex system of their own. Grandma and Grandpa, even Ma and Pa and Sister and Brother, could not understand that bidding without explanation. Yet, relative to recent times, the online vugraph was wildly popular and well received. I'm not sure that your conclusions about the relationship between complex methods and viewer interest are at all valid.
It would be best to hear from players who actually play or defend against BSC for their viewpoint.
I'm not entirely sure that it should be the participants who make the decisions. Each particiapant (especially the professional players and coaches, who have financial interest) likely has a personal interest in seeing things done one way or the other that may well not be in the best interest of World Championship Bridge. Tim Goodwin
"The representatives are chosen " .. The President makes the appointments, and the President is picked by the Board Members. If the Board Members trust the President to make good selections and the President trusts the job to his appointed representatives, that should be good enough for all of us.
Are you really that misinformed? The ACBL representatives to the WBF are elected by the Board of Directors. The election is open to all ACBL members but in fact, the Board of Directors only votes this lavish perk on its own members. We have been served on the WBF counsel by members who only vote to continue the process. This is the same group that once refused to elect Edgar Kaplan as a WBF Counsel member because he was not a member of the Board of Directors at the time.
As a point of fact, the ACBL Board of Director members should be barred from serving as WBF representatives. This is a conflict of interest. These people vote on their own perks and they vote on ACBL spending regarding the WBF.
I used to say the same thing about the ACBL League Counsel and the WBF Counsel being the same person. That was a conflict of interests too. That has been changed, thank goodness (or badness for that matter).
You can only truly serve one master. You are either a member of the ACBL Board of Directors making decisions on spending that will benefit bridge and the ACBL members or you are a WBF representative looking our for world bridge matters. These can be completely opposed. An instance would be the WBF asking for an increase in dues from the ACBL to $1.00 per member from the $.10 per member that had been paid. I do not really care what the ultimate decision was but I do know that five WBF Counsel members voting in a block along with a couple of WBF Counsel member wannabes can rarely be overturned. There are plenty of good WBF Counsel candidates available from the folks who actually play the events. Perhaps they would even be willing to donate some of their time instead of sending our bigwigs to these tournaments. Jonathan was alluding to the problem, nobody is sure how our representatives are voting. He expects them to protect ACBL interests. Good luck. John Blubaugh
First comment: Personally, I only play one Brown Sticker Conventions. I like to use a 2NT opening that promises a bad three level preempt in either minor, since this allows me to use 3C/3D as constructive openings that promise 2 out of the top three honors. Personally, I believe that most BSCs are too easy to defend against, but that's another story. With this said and done, I am strongly in favor of providing players the latitude to choose the opening methods that they deem most effective. I have played against a wide variety of BSCs over the years. I don't get all that worked up about it. A generic "Meta-Defense" might not be optimal against any given BSC, however, it's enough to get by.
Second comment: I find the argument that BSC's should be banned in order to popularize VuGraph's specious at best. I had the opportunity to re-read "The Walk of the Oysters" over the Thanksgiving Holidays. This book documents a number of the best-publicized bridge matches of all time. What is truly remarkable about studying these matches was how completely alien the bidding is. The bidding systems used by these players were anarchic at best, occasionally verging onto the farcical. And yet, this lack of science, rhyme and reason did little to hinder the popularity of the broadcasts. My belief is that VuGraph audiences are far more forgiving than many people believe. Personally, I think that Culbertson did an excellent job demonstrating that systems matches designed to "prove" the superiority of one approach versus another are a significant draw.
Final comment: I strongly echo Tim Goodwin's comments that care must be taken to divorce personal financial interests from the regulatory process. I question whether professional players who derive their livelihood from competing at bridge are capable of making dispassionate judgments regarding innovation that might threaten their dominance. Richard Willey
Who said anything about professionals? I agree with your comment but there are plenty of good non-professionals available for that kind of task. John Blubaugh
Agree, but (no offense intended) I believe that the opinions of those who have never played in a Bermuda Bowl (let alone had to prepare to play in a Bermuda Bowl), should carry as much weight as the opinions of those who have. I prefer to believe that I live in a world where you can trust the integrity of great bridge thinkers like Kokish, even when they make their living from the game.
On a similar note (and again no offense intended), my job has given me the opportunity to discuss the issue of complex systems and enjoyment of vugraph with MANY "average bridge players". You may get the sense that most of the audience enjoys watching germ warfare in action, but I can assure you that my experience suggests that this is definitely not the case. Fred Gitelman
I prefer to believe that I live in a world where you can trust the integrity of great bridge thinkers like Kokish, even when they make their living from the game.
Okay, so EK is loud voice against. He has a vested interest. His team (Nickell) is allowed to play all their stuff, artificial though it often is, so it makes sense for EK to ban the rest. But that is the argument for EK, not for bridge. As I understand it, the arguments against BSC are:
1. Too hard to defend against Bids fall into 2 categories - constructive and destructive. What is the problem with artificial constructive bids? For example, I wasn't allowed to play 1D=H at the recent Reisinger. The committee said it was too hard for the opponents. If I am playing with you against this method I say let's pretend the opening is 1H and basically nothing is changed. Double is takeout of hearts and other bids are the same. We would play a bid of 1H, either as an overcall or a response to double as natural and NF. I don't think there is a problem.
Of course destructive bids are hard to defend against - that is their point. For example, if I open 1S to show 6-9 HCP any shape, this is hard to defend against. But I would suggest that no amount of preparation will make it easy. They have taken your bidding space. It is also hard for your side! Why should such risk-reward strategies not be part of the game?
2. Works against the promotion of the game. I don't get this argument. In the US there are no BSC but the game is dying. Surely the argument should be let's remove the regulations and see if that fixes the problem.
It is not hard to see why the draconian system regs in the US might be the problem. Why would you take up the game as a teenager when you are forced to use the old guys' methods, where you know they will come out on top? If I had a team of keen new players that was facing Nickell or the Italians (who, incidentally, couldn't care less what we play), we would have no chance if we had to fight them on the ground of their choosing. But we would have some chance if we forced them onto a new battle ground. I would suggest a system where we routinely take their bidding space without conceding too much information about our hand shapes. Br removing them from the comfort of their well-oiled systems we would at least have some chance. If new players were allowed to come out fighting like this, I think that many would take up the challenge and the public would love it. All the public need to participate in the fun is for someone to tell them what the bids mean. In fact, this is no different to now. You don't know the meaning of a bid just because it is natural. Is it forcing - does it show this - does it deny that? This is why we have the alert procedure.
3. Lack of full disclosure. This is an issue and it is made worse by the present system cards. For example, in MOSCITO we open aggressively in first and second position when we hold a major. As a consequence, we are conservative in 3/4. It is hard to convey this idea with the current system cards. Paul Marston
Okay, so EK is loud voice against. He has a vested interest.
As I said, I happen to believe the EK (and most other people, including PM, who make their living from bridge) would try to make the "right" decisions, even if those decisions were contrary to their own best interests.
I can understand the argument against allowing BSC in long knockout matches, but I really can't believe you think these creatures should be allowed to infect the 2 or 3-board rounds of an event like the Reisinger.
Defending against 1D=H may be easy for you, but do you really think it is fair to spring this on people when they have no time to discuss how to deal with it?
It is also hard for your side! Why should such risk-reward strategies not be part of the game?
Because (in my opinion) such strategies are against the desires and best interest of the vast majority of the world's bridge players.
Surely the argument should be let's remove the regulations and see if that fixes the problem.
It would have to be a long term experiment and the consequences could be disastrous if you are wrong. I think it would be better to try to do some real market research and some real marketing first.
Why would you take up the game as a teenager when you are forced to use the old guys' methods, where you know they will come out on top?
I took up bridge as a teenager because I thought it was a beautiful game. That was reason enough for me.
If I had a team of keen new players that was facing Nickell or the Italians (who, incidentally, couldn't care less what we play)
They may not seem to care, but they have no choice in the matter. For sure there are some players on the Nickell team who believe BSC should be barred (and it would not surprise me if all of the members of that team felt this way). I have no idea how the leading Italian players feel about this issue.
By removing them from the comfort of their well-oiled systems we would at least have some chance.
I really don't think that your average team of "keen new players" plays the game in order to give themselves a chance to beat Nickell or the Italians. Once they can beat the best local teams and then the "lesser national teams" they will have a chance to beat the very best without having to turn the contest into a pure exercise in randomness.
For the record, I am a friend of Paul and I admire him as a player, a theorist, and a person who has done a lot to promote bridge in Australia. I appreciate hearing the other side of the argument from someone with his knowledge and experience, but I believe that most players in his class would agree with me on this. Fred Gitelman
In Australia, most of these Brown Sticker conventions are legal in most events. HUMS are rarely permitted, but a lot of these conventions frequently described as germ warfare are played commonly at clubs around Australia by little old ladies - RCO twos and Myxo twos are good examples of this. With a little familiarity, they're not difficult to play against. Obviously, years of systemic hygiene in America has rendered American players very susceptible to unusual methods - they roll over and die while Australians don't even flinch. A few generalised defenses - XXX against two-bids and (X=t/o,1-level cue=natural, 2-level cue=michaels) against transfer openings make it unnecessary to even check the opponents methods in advance.
Complaining that it's hard to play against Polish Club is a complete joke. T-Rex, Suspensor or Regres require a little more effort, but you'd think alleged adults would be happy to put in a bit of effort. Kieran Dyke
Surely the argument should be let's remove the regulations and see if that fixes the problem.
Why is this so certain? Danny
There are certainly places with far more liberal system regulations that in ACBL-land, where the game is thriving. While correlation is not causality, it's certainly a pretty good counterargument for the claims that "BSC conventions will kill the game", which doesn't have much in the way evidence to back it, either.
(As for the question of whether they're good or bad for promoting the game: they're almost certainly neutral.) Julian Lighton
3. Lack of full disclosure
I'd change that to full and timely disclosure. For example in Albuquerque the card Balicki and Zmudzinski were using at the table was different from the one they had submitted in advance.
There were no complaints that they weren't properly alerting or explaining (well there was one complaint when they were defending. Their signals varied with "bridge logic" and that wasn't considered an adequate explanation by their opponents. Nor by the director after he was called) but when they (twice) used a convention that wasn't on the card they'd submitted in advance (and gained big swings both times), they got the most savage penalty I've ever seen.
The swings that they'd gained on those boards were wiped out, they were assessed a procedural penalty. *And* they were suspended until they could make their card match what they were in fact playing.
I'm far from confident that the ruling was legal, but it seems to me perfectly possible to write conditions of contest for major events that say in effect that there will be heavy penalties (including having to sit out sessions) for partnerships that don't practice full and timely disclosure.
I recall reading one of the r.g.b systems buffs say that since Albuquerque BZ have been a model of how disclosure should be done. Ron Johnson
[Richard Willey] I question whether professional players ... are capable of making dispassionate judgments regarding innovation that might threaten their dominance.
Spot on, Richard! Old bogeys hate new ideas but tyros love them. "Walk of the Oysters" records that the publicity from the Portland Club ban on Culbertson's "4-5 notrump" vastly increased his book-sales. Chauvinism is the main criterion used by the chaotic licensing industry. For example, for a long time, weak twos were banned in the UK and Drury is still banned for normal play. IMO there should be just two levels of competition ..
Not true - Drury is allowed at Level 2 or above. Gordon Rainsford
....
1. Standard, where everyone must play the same system (useful for individual events and "no fear" competitions)
2. Open where you can play anything at all, provided that opponents may consult notes on an approved defence (: no conferring :). Anyway, a person who makes a "tactical bid" must be taken outside and shot.
(: Well done! You noticed. The last sentence of the second paragraph does not belong. It was slipped in to make sure that you're following the argument :) Nigel Guthrie
Nigel, you are a hoot ;)) John Blubaugh
It would be best to hear from players who actually play or defend against BSC for their viewpoint.
I faced the Poles in a Knockout match, in Montreal. Fortunately one of our team members had access to an excellent suggested defense.
Even so, since we were allowed seating rights, we decided to let one pair do most of the 'dirty work' and they played all but one segment against that pair.
I did play one segment against the BSC pair and had printed defenses at the table. I still greatly disadvantaged, due to playing against a system I had never seen before. Two main reasons.
1. I didn't know, or understand all of the negative inferences that may have accrued to the opponents.
2. My partner and I had never played a single had against it, so we had no 'feeling' about what sorts of values were needed, as many situations offered pass then double or double then double or double then pass type of choices. Were we really supposed to work this all out, in the 16 hours we had between the previous match and the next one? Don't forget that includes time for sleep!
You and your most regular partner have a pretty good idea what your standards are for most actions, like what a 3 Club overcall of a 2 Spade preempt will look like. We had literally no idea where to draw the line on many various sequences.
As Fred has pointed out, this is an unfair advantage, and in no way proves who the better team is, or is it good for bridge. Danny
Watching the Italian team, the Nickel team, the Norwegian team live on BBO has been a fantastic experience. In my opinion the Italian team is maybe the best team that has ever existed, and their daring style, the expert technique and their table presence is beyond belief.
Each team has specialised methods, and it is often hard for a kibitzer to understand some of the sequences, but that does not make the watching less dramatic and wonderful. The expert commentators did a great job to help us!
When Groetheim and Aa use weird two-openings, the Italians complex transfer-and relay methods and Mecwell methods and thinking that only they fully understand it shows how fantastic bridge can be, they give contributions to the bridge world and they promote bridge! Per Tjelmeland
A question to the r.g.b group: I do not feel like a clown, and I do not appreciate being called that. I take the game seriousloy on a competitive level, I take the debate here seriously, and I take you seriously. How do you feel about comments like these John Blubaugh give?
As to the best team ever: The Nickel team won, they were the best in that event, and I never said anything else. They also have a record showing that they are of the best teams ever. But in my opinion the Italian team of today generally is better, they are better than the Blue Team ever was, even considering that we are in a tougher game today, and they are more fun to watch on VU-graph than any other team (With the exception of the Norwegian team of course! : )) It is exhilarating to watch them! Per Tjelmeland
But in my opinion the Italian team of today generally is better, they are better than the Blue Team ever was
Scant regard to the exploits and achievements of the Blue Team. Read Victor Mollo's "The Bridge Immortals" and a book written by "The Aces", no less, among others, and you may just get an appreciation of just how good they were. Or ask Omar Sharif. Sid Ismail
I have read them, and several others and yes, they are immortal and they were fantastically good. Per Tjelmeland
His comment was kind of stupid while your posts were intelligent and interesting ro read. John probably had a bad morning with head ache or something like this. Don't feel badly about it, feel sorry for him :-)
Which team is the best is of ocurse a very difficult one to answer, and when we start comparing teams from different time ages it is almost impossible.
I'd say the Italians and the best possible American teams (say two) are probably the best right now. I believe the Norwegians, the Poles and the French can field just about as strong teams. The reason why the Italians and the Norwegians are "always" at the top while the other three, incl the US, fails in this, i.e. are not as consistent, are because they use ineffective selection methods which some years results in less than top notch teams.
Incidentally the performance by the USA2-team this year was a surprise to me. It was much better than I expected. Teams from the US without a strong contingent of real top level players consistently do badly in world championship events. This team was an exception. Perhaps I underestimated their strength? Daniel Auby
Could someone explain to me why a simple transfer opener is too complex to deal with at the level of the Reisinger, but an overcall which shows *any* suit is OK at club level?
I believe the difference is that in one case, one player has had an opportunity to start describing his hand before the transfer occurs.
So, 1N-(2C) or 1C-(2D), the opening side has had the opportunity to initiate description. While as with 1H (transfer to spade) the side defneding against this method has not had the head start. Tim Goodwin
So (pass)-1H (transfer to spade) would be allowed? After all, the defending side has already described something about their hand by passing. Sjoerd Schreuder
To get a bit serious here, I think the reason Jacoby et al are allowed and transfer openings are not is simply familiarity. "Everyone" is familiar with Jacoby and Texas. "Everyone" is familiar with Capp/Hamilton/DONT.
Playing against transfer openings is quite simple. It takes 5 seconds or so to produce a reasonable defense (and gives lots of scope to the defenders if they CHOOSE to get fancy).
Slightly off the subject, I have given up playing in ACBL events because I am not allowed to play any of the systems I enjoy -- except in Super Chart events. None of these systems are at all destructive. One, in fact, is Roman Club -- how old-fashioned can one get? :)) Paul Friedman
How does something become familiar if it is not allowed? Wayne Burrows
Wayne, I was not defending, I was explaining. When the revolution comes and I am in charge, I plan on banning 5-card majors and stolen bid doubles -- everything else will welcome. Paul Friedman
That is the paradox. You have to find controlled ways to ease it into the bridge society. It can be done!
Transfer openings are not intrinsically difficult to defend - in fact, you have more space to work with. But without some opportunity to discuss your methods, you can get into trouble. For example, they open 1D (transfer to hearts, possible canape), and your partner bids 2H, meaning? Or your partner doubles 1D (meaning whatever you have agreed it to mean), next hand redoubles, and now you pass. Does that show diamonds? Bill Jacobs
So (pass)-1H (transfer to spade) would be allowed? After all, the defending side has already described something about their hand by passing.
Hmmm, maybe. Another issue is frequency. A transfer opening will come up far more frequently than a overcall of NT. In my correspondence with the ACBL committee repsonsible for sanctioning defenses, frequency has often been an issue. Tim Goodwin
In following all the arguments on this subject, it seems that a parallel can be drawn between bridge bidding "systems" and formal debates. In both, each side is trying to win and wants to communicate its points. The sponsors of a debate will establish the groundrules, one of which will be the human language to be used. In the English-speaking countries, the language of choice will be English. Anyone whose native language is something other than English will be at a disadvantage from the outset and will be hard-pressed to win. Connotation and nuance are very hard to translate to and from other languages even for those who may be fluent in a particular language-pair.
It would seem reasonable (but very difficult to accomplish) for the sponsors of an international debate meet to restrict the languages allowed. It may be possible to disallow the use of Hungarian or Swahili but how does one disallow Chinese? All human languages are basically meanings attached to arbitrary combinations of sounds which human beings are capable of making and no language is superior to any other. Everett M Greene
How do you suggest you do defend when the bidding goes:
1H* P 1S** ?
*1H = opening bid with 4+ spades
1S** = any hand with 0-1 spade or any hand with
5+ spades or 13-15 balanced with 2-4 spades
You may be able to come up with a good answer, but I doubt that most people would consider your answer to be obvious or easy.
I am not suggesting that anyone who played the 1H=spades convention would use the 1S response like I describe above, but there are a lot of ways that you could define 1S in this auction. Constructing a reasonable defense must depend partly on the meaning of 1S (and on the meanings of subsequent calls the opponents might make if you pass or double).
I think Cappelletti is easier to deal with. Fred Gitelman
You're no worse off than you are with a four card major 1S opening on your right, in which case your LHO's hand is completely undefined. And scarcely worse off than you are after 1S:1NT (forcing) from the opponents, which has probably more hand types included.
A generic defense - double=takeout of spades (the only suit shown) is probably as good as anything, and could be arrived at without discussion by a pair accustomed to applying general principles. 1NT is natural, as long as their auction is not known to be strong. If 1S was always 11+, 1NT probably ought to be some two-suiter (perhaps specifically minors).
I play with lots of clients, and they're not particularly confounded by auctions like 1H (Transfer Moscito, 4+S 10-14)-pass-1S (GI+ relay). There's no particular difficulty as long as you can get past the mental block of "I haven't seen it before, so it must be impossible to defend against". The generic defense XXX (First double strength, second double takeout, third double blood) covers them perfectly well against every two-bid I've ever encountered, including the superfert 2C (0-4 any) played by one forcing pass pair, and the 6-9 any 2C opening from old-style Moscito. RCO twos, Myxos, Tartan twos are easily shrugged off. Opening bids like Ekrens are tougher because of the more ballistic preemption that they can achieve, but that's a consequence of their good definition, not the lack of definition.
Playing against Regres or Suspensor (with frequent opening bids showing poor hands with little reference to suits) or coping with the Fert in FP systems requires a little more work, so I can see a case for restricting them to events with 14+ board matches. But in nearly all cases, a few guiding principles should provide simple and effective (if not optimal) defenses to almost all situations that the opponents can produce. Kieran Dyke
Fred: I understand the point that you are making, however, I don't believe that this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Most regulatory structures including the ACBL's have moved away from licensing systems in favor of licensing individual bids. If we consider the example at hand, the determination to license a 1H opening promising 4+ Spades should not depend on the meaning of potential auction continuations. It is unreasonable to ban an entire class of methods based on hypothetical continuations. However, it is entirely conceivable that individual convention continuations might require their own separate license. The 1S continuation that you posit: "** 1S=any hand with 0-1 spade or any hand with 5+ spades or 13-15 balanced with 2-4 spades" is clearly conventional and would and should require separate license.
I did my graduate work in game theory. The licensing committee appears struggling towards a concept formally known as "equilibrium". The committees want to ensure that suggested defenses are optimal against all possible countermeasures. Unfortunately, in doing so they are imposing a burden of rigor that has never been met within the world of bridge. I have never seen a convincing rigorous proving that a given bidding structure is in any way optimal. It seems disingenuous to expect that this standard should suddenly be imposed for new methods. Richard Willey
How about a defence to:
1H* P 1NT**
* 1H = opening bid with 5+ hearts
** 1NT = any weak to medium hand with 0-2 hearts and 0-4 spades or any
weak balanced hand with 3 hearts or a very weak hand with 6+ spades or a
balanced 13-15 with 2-3 hearts or a 13+ hand with 5+ hearts and a void
God what a complicated convention! Whoops, sorry, it's Standard American. David Stevenson
David: I am surprised that someone with your supposed wisdom and experience missed the point I was trying to make (unless you missed it on purpose in which doesn't say much for your character).
My point was that even if the initial "unusual bid" seems easy to defend against, there is a lot more to it than that. Even if a reasonable defense can be constructed in a few minutes, doing this at the table when such a convention is sprung on a pair for the first time is problematic (and both members of even a strong partnership will not always be on the same wavelength). The argument of "next time they will know what to do" does not carry much weight when there are a vast number of situations in this class that could arise.
I spent approximately 3 seconds making up the meaning of the 1S convention above and I gave it almost no thought. This was supposed to be an EXAMPLE.
I freely admit that the 1H=spades opening is not that hard to defend against, but this was also an EXAMPLE (and I have no idea if this particular bid would be classified as a BSC by the WBF or not).
Perhaps these are bad examples. I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to think of better examples, but they certainly exist (starting with a multi-style opening bid as opposed to 1H=spades may be the way to go). Fred Gitelman
With the 1H (transfer to spades) the defence is simple. Just pretend opener actually opened 1S. Far easier to defend against than a Cappelletti 2C overcall.
I'm not giving my opinion on matters, but rather trying to relate the types of things I have heard from the ACBL committee who approves mid-chart defenses. As I said in another post, frequency is also an issue. Tim Goodwin
Could someone explain to me why a simple transfer opener is too complex to deal with at the level of the Reisinger, but an overcall which shows *any* suit is OK at club level?
There are 2 basic options:
1) Allow people to use whatever methods they want.
2) Draw a line somewhere.
If you are going to adopt 2) above then you have the obviously difficult problem of defining where the line should be drawn. There is also the problem of describing the position of the line in a comprehensible way. It would not be practical for people to have to sift through hundreds of pages of rules in order to find out if a given convention is legal or not.
However you define the position of the line, the location of some conventions on one side of it or the other will seem inconsistent or anomolous to some people.
The question you ask is an example of this. The legality of Cappelletti when 1D=Hearts is illegal doesn't make any sense to you. Presumably either this makes sense to the people responsible for drawing the ACBL's lines or they have made a mistake. If you really care about this then I suggest you e-mail the ACBL and ask them it. If they agree with you then maybe they will move the line.
I have nothing against people who enjoy creating systems and conventions. In fact, I happen to be one of those people. My point is that there has to be a line somewhere or the game will eventually descend into chaos. In my opinion, most of the conventions classified as BSCs should be placed on the "illegal" side of the line. Fred Gitelman
Most people in favour of drawing the line somewhere seem to draw the line on just the other side of what they and their friends play. Some of the officials responsible for drawing the line are older players who aren't nearly as successful as they feel they ought to be. They're delighted for opportunities to pin this lack of success on young upstarts and their "destructive" conventions.
Personally, I'm rather sceptical about the common definitions of "destructive" bidding methods. Isn't stopping the opponents from reaching their best contract as much a part of the game as reaching your own best contract. Just like football is as much about stopping the opponents from scoring as it is about scoring yourself. Critics of "destructive" styles and methods seem to regard them as a threat to physical health, for much the same reason that in cricket you don't bowl straight at the batsman's head.
If we're going to ban methods (and the reasons often given sound like a slightly reconstructed case for book-burning) a little objectiveness would be nice. The ACBL approach is appalling - methods are illegal unless the powers that be make them legal. Pretty similar to publishing a book in 1970s Russia. The ABF approach - methods are legal unless explicitly banned - is much fairer. But even the ABF lacks consistency. If you can open 2D as a European Multi, you're playing a blue system (legal anywhere above some novice games) but if your 2C opening shows exactly the same thing - a slightly simpler method to defend against (because it's one step lower) your methods are illegal in most pairs events.
If a method is acceptable to play against, methods of equal complexity should also be acceptable. I suppose in many places the 2D multi is acceptable, but lots of equally complex (or even considerably simpler) methods are banned or restricted. The argument presented is one about familiarity. If familiarity is the issue, it becomes apparent that the regulation was the problem all along - the culprit is the policy of shielding people from these allegedly virulent methods. The other possibility is that the regulators are making specific exemptions for the methods that they employ themselves. Their weapons are OK, but the weapons used by the other side are clearly evil.
To paraphrase Larry Flynt, the right to play artificial methods isn't about the freedom to play the systems you like, it's about the opponents right to play the systems you hate. An impartial observer would have trouble figuring out why your 2C opening (good hand with any suit) is inherently good, and my 2C opening (bad hand with any suit) is inherently evil. They wouldn't see why your 2C (Stayman relay opposite 1NT - Stayman is a relay) is good while my 2C relay response to 1S openings is bad. They wouldn't see why your 2D response to 1NT (showing hearts) is perfectly acceptable, but my 2D opening showing hearts is not. And they'd probably have difficulty comprehending why Flannery is virtuous and Ekrens is evil. And they probably wouldn't see why your 1C opening (at least three cards) is acceptable and my 1S opening (at least three cards) is wicked. It's all about familiarity and perception. Your 2C opening - an opening bid with no anchor suit - might well make it hard for us to find our 500 save against your vulnerable slam.
Good hands have enough going for them - aces and kings take more tricks than queens and jacks and considerably more then eights and sevens - but apparently having good cards isn't a big enough advantage - people with good hands need legislative protection as well. The goals of ordinary and bad hands are just as noble as the goals of good hands - they just want to achieve a good score within the laws of the game.
"Why are we forced to play inferior methods - methods which may already be out of date" - Roth
"Once takeout doubles were permitted, Forcing Pass systems were inevitable" - Kaplan (I think) Kieran Dyke (who hopes he got the quotes right)
Thanks for a very clearly expressed summary of why deregulation of systems is desirable. I can't really add much to that. Certainly any competition which is 'Open', different approaches should live or die by their merit rather than their familiarity. Ciaran Coyne
At least one person read it and liked it. It's nice to know that my effort wasn't wasted. Kieran Dyke
Well, I didn't post, because "me too" posts are usually a waste of bandwidth. But considering how much bandwidth you two just wasted quoting the whole thing, that argument is gone. Me too. Eddie Grove
Make that two. :) Sid Ismail
There are 2 basic options:
1) Allow people to use whatever methods they want.
2) Draw a line somewhere.
Strange. My preference is for neither of these. The principle is choice: have events for system buffs, and events for other players - but not based on better events are always the ones for system buffs.
While I love playing in NABCs I would enjoy them more if there was more choice in the type of event. David Stevenson
Several posts have already talked about the difficulty of drawing a line. I would like to raise a different problem: if you accept drawing a line, how do you set up a system that allows that line to evolve in beneficial ways?
In the U.S., bridge bidding today is very different from bridge bidding in the 50s and 60s. I remember a quote from the "Bridge World" that world class players from those eras would lose in the bidding to expert level players of today.
I feel that bridge is a better game as a result of that improved bidding accuracy. Fewer games are decided by guesses within wide ranges or ranges narrowed by "that old black magic." This accuracy, and the much more tense auctions and plays that result, make bridge a beautiful game.
I think it is probable that this evolution would never have occurred (or not have occurred in the time span that it did) if the current ACBL system regulators had been in place in the 50s and 60s. Several pieces of evidence support this.
First, since the early 1980s, no major system developments have occurred in the U.S. While tweaking of existing systems to produce today's predominant 2/1 structure have occurred, nothing else has taken hold or, courtesy the ACBL, been given the chance to take hold. In other countries, systems have evolved: MOSCITO in Australia, the Polish Club, the multi.
Secondly, if you hypothesize that the ACBL has a strong bias against any changes, then the admitted inconsistencies in the ACBL system regulations and the ACBL's failure to address them is comprehensible.
Third, personal experience suggests that requests for change are difficult and long. I know that my submission had zero impact. I feel certain that someone much more important than me (like George Rosenkranz) made the same request--but the ACBL allowed the Dynamic Notrump at the Super Chart level some 5+ years after I submitted the necessary forms. And this was for a purely constructive bidding convention!
Based on my model that the ACBL system regulations are preventing the healthy evolution of bidding, calls for banning BSC raises concerns. Are you not simply asking that the WBF use the same "death to changes" approach as the ACBL does? Or are you proposing something different? Does the difference include steps to make sure that good changes and evolution continue to occur?
I agree that not all change is progress. But I am also reasonably certain that change at the ACBL rate is bad policy and would not like to see it exported to the WBF. Chris Wiggins
the ACBL allowed the Dynamic Notrump at the Super Chart level some 5+ years after I submitted the necessary forms. And this was for a purely constructive bidding convention!
I assume this happened prior to its approval on the GCC (it's been there since I got back into duplicate in the US, but that was less than a decade ago)? Ed Reppert
AFAIK, it's always been legal since they instituted the convention chart system in 1987, except for a six-month period in the mid-90s when it was illegal. (And I played a SAF 1NT for most of the 90s.)
I have a strong suspicion that Rosenkranz was responsible for the board overriding the conventions committe to put it back. Julian Lighton
Good for him, then. :-) Ed Reppert
My submission was in ancient times: 1979, which was four years after Rosenkranz published "Win With Romex: Key to Accurate Bidding." Chris Wiggins
Even though most people who play bridge are in the upper intellectual crust of society, I don't see most of those people adopting BSC's just because they play bridge for fun and don't look at it from the perspective of an inventor. I've found most people very accomodating when encountering my HUM's even in a 1 or 2 board set. I don't think a few people playing BSC's would turn everyone else off. I'm not even sure that if everyone played BSC's or HUM's that everything would descend into chaos. So, my basic points are that I don't think enough people would adopt BSC's to make everything chaotic and I'm not sure that if everyone did adopt them that things would be chaotic.
I agree though that either you allow everything or you have to draw a nebulous line. I think we need a plan to over time shift that line outward until all BSC's and HUM's are allowed. We can't do it all at once (like you can't eat a Thanksgiving dinner after starving for 40 days...it would kill you) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. From a bridge health perspective, would we be better off with X number of people who could handle any BSC (or HUM) thrown their way or would we be better off with 3X people who didn't want to experiment at all. We must differentiate between ACBL health, which I really don't care about, and USA bridge health. Is this to be measured purely in terms of number of players? Would X number of people playing now and bridge dying out in 50 years be better or worse than X/3 people playing and bridge dying out in 100 years? I know we're way into philosophy at this point but how long has any game or sport maintained popularity? Todd A Anderson
It seems to me that both sides of this arguement have presented their case well. It is also obvious that North America has isolated itself from the rest of the bridge world. The rest of the bridge world is thriving with a great many young people playing the game. Perhaps it is time we consider that and look to see what everyone else seems to be doing right. I don't buy the argument that we have too many recreational outlets as compared to other countries in the world.
Perhaps our restriction of new thinking is a big turnoff to young people taking up the game. The outlook for bridge in the USA 25 years from now is very bleak. A HUGE crash in the membership is coming. I could easily see the membership at 50,000 or below at that time. I am also sure we would still need a 25 member Board of Directors if that happens.
So, maybe these folks in the rest of the world know what they are talking about and it is time to take our heads out of sand, quit pampering our oldsters and go all out to get young people involved in the game by allowing them to be creative and inventive too. John Blubaugh
Or ACBL could try this: Draw the line where it was when bridge was at it's peak of popularlity in this part of the world.
Turns out that this was during a time when ACBL was MUCH more restrictive as to allowable systems and conventions.
I am not suggesting that ACBL *should* do this, but I think the argument for doing so is at least as strong as the one John presents for the action that he recommends.
Arguing about what might happen if a given policy were to be implemented is fine, but wouldn't it be smarter to ask a whole bunch of bridge players and potential bridge players what they think?
Market research might provide the answers (not that I know enough about this to have a real idea as to what would be involved). Fred Gitelman
I agree with Fred's point too. In Ely's day, it was much easier to learn to play the game. Now, it is a daunting task for people to jump in and try and understand what is going on. I certainly see both sides of this story. John Blubaugh
I'm not at all sure this is true. In general, one doesn't really start running into odd stuff while still a novice.
Also, while methods may be more complex than they were in Culbertson's day, (And I'm not sure if this is the case at low levels.) the tools available to the novices are better. Point count alone is a great help in bidding. Julian Lighton
Having fun playing bridge (as a novice) is not identical to understanding what is going on. Thomas Dehn
So start beginners off in events that have convention restrictions. However, you also need events that don't have such restrictions. I'd be happy if there was one or two sessions per day at regionals/NABCs that had no restrictions. Plus, at the local club, one or two sessions per week with no restrictions. The rules of bridge do not state restrictions on what bids can me so from my perspective, if you place restrictions on bid semantics then you aren't playing "bridge." You are playing a simplified version of it. That is ok if you want to have such events but clubs should have the flexibility to try to maximize their own profits by allowing or disallowing whatever they want. Finally, the world championships should be bridge with no restrictions or punishments for HUMs. No one said bridge has to be easy. Todd A Anderson
No one said bridge has to be easy.
I agree with you. And I'm, well, not a novice, but by no means an expert. However, I suppose one opposing view is exemplified by the many-masterpoints player who opined that my not-very-good partner and I should not be allowed to play the Dynamic Notrump (a GCC-legal convention) in a club game because "it's too hard to defend against". Not for her, of course, but for other players at the club. Personally, I think that's a crock. Ed Reppert
I don't think you would attract enough people to these games to stage an event here in the USA. John Blubaugh
From my perspective, it seems like Americans (both sexes) are fixed on physical competition and that way too much emphasis is given to them. My father has watched 15 games of some variety every Saturday and Sunday for 30 years. What parent pushes their children into chess? So many parents are pushing their children into sports...and often more than one.
It seems to me that Europe has a much more intellectual bent rather than a sports bent. Yes...so many of them are soccer fanatics but the overall level I think is less. Plus, kids in the USA are made fun of for being smart. Is this the case in Europe?
All of this adds up to an environment where it is less likely that young people in the USA will take up bridge. If bridge were on TV and if it were viewed as cool (as cool as football, etc.) then lots of kids would take up the game. In general I'm not in favor of the imposition of rules but as long as they are taking my money to fund public schools I think there should be a rule that the number of mental sports participants must be as high as the physical sports participants. This is much more in line with the tools that will actually make you succeed as an adult. Todd A Anderson
Well said! Thank you. Raija Davis
Great idea! Gerben Dirksen
Is this the case in Europe?
In my (limited) experience as a parent of two US public secondary education students, I have noticed an attempt to homogenize the classroom. Lots of attention is given to children who might be left behind, but little attention is given to children who are excelling. Lake Wobegone is the place where everyone is above average; the public education system strives to be the place where nobody is below average, or indeed strays far from average. Teachers and administrators are reluctant to treat advanced learners differently for fear of making them feel different. It's not good to be different.
It's not the same in sports. Those that excel are given lots of attention. Lots of kids will proudly display their high school letter jacket if they are playing varsity football. You don't see members of the honor society proudly wearing their pins.
It's not cool to be smart. Tim Goodwin
But it's smart to be cool.
It's a terrible strategy to try to put gifted kids back into the average group. In fact it's the most common mistake you can make... The right strategy is to give them more challenging exercises. If kids are good in running, let them run harder, if they are good in maths, give them harder maths.
The situation is the other way around in the Netherlands. Sport is something you do after school. This is true for elementary school, highschool and university. The other difference is that there are many professional sportsmen in the USA. In the Netherlands, the only sport that has a significant number of professional players here is soccer. And even there the pay is not much compared to American standards (except perhaps for the three biggest clubs). Gerben Dirksen
I think the coaches have some culpability here. My guess is that there isn't much sharing of defenses, IN ORDER TO GAIN AN EDGE. The edge thing is what this is all about, and it also applies to the "victims" of BSC.
You have been there "many times before" not only becuase there are new conventions to prepare for, but because each coach feels that his defense is better than the ones devised by the other captains. John Schuler
With all the discussion to allow or (continue to) ban Brown Sticker Conventions would it be outlandish to suggest that a test be made? Couldn't the ACBL schedule a two session MP event and a two session Swiss allowing BSC at a National (like the upcoming NYC) to see what interest there is? Would they? Arthur Hoffman
A single event, especially in the middle of a long tournament, would prove nothing. I'm sure the two events you suggest would tell much more about players' preferences for MP or IMPs. Tim Goodwin
"Swiss" does not mean IMPs, it means pairing according to current rank. Swiss pairing is used rarely in MP events because you can't rank the players unless everybody plays the same boards in the same round; so it requires shuffling machines. It is probably the best way to run a large MP pairs event. Jürgen
The ACBL need only make an entire Las Vegas national "anything goes except in the side games" to see how many people are likely to be affected.
[Explanation: there are plenty of things to do for those who feel like they have had enough, and air and hotel fares are not likely to be a serious problem for those who want to attend.] B Yang
I have a nagging doubt that Swiss Pairs being a good method for determining a winner.I suspect that there is more luck involved than for other methods.
My suspicion is based on having your score calculated based on the scores at many tables where the difference in ability between players is small as will ideally happen in the rounds of a Swiss. Wayne Burrows
<Chat on Swiss and individual events edited>
One event that was probably not well advertised in advance is not imo a fair test if that was what was intended. If The ACBL Bulletin had an article that laid out the issues and perhaps citing some of the very good points made in this thread to generate interest, well that's another story.
The way I see it as to whether to allow or continue to ban BSCs, do we really have a choice? With the bridge "community" expanding rapidly through online bridge, won't that segment demand it sooner or later. So, let's get on with it and test the interest here in the US, fairly. What have we got to lose? Adam Wildavsky
Are Brown Sticker Conventions better than non-BSCs? Some of them are, some of them are not. Is bridge with BSCs that are better that non-BSCs better game? I am absolutely sure it is and for this only reason BSCs should be allowed.
Could anyone have imagined forbidding new/better chess openings just because they had been difficult to defend against or unpopular?
If you are an expert, adopt or create your system in such a way to give you more chances to win not only against weaker players but also against another experts that didn't work hard enough to adopt or create their own BSCs. You are allow to surprise them and be prepared for their surprises. Are we talking about bridge, a high-level intelectual and competitive activity or a social game of lols. Andrzej Kolinski
Are we talking about a bidding system with full disclosure, or a system with secret agreements to be revealed only at the last minute? Mike Vaughn
I already responded earlier. Full disclosure, period, anything else is uncivilised! Andrzej Kolinski
Is bridge with BSCs that are better that non-BSCs a better game?
This debate was going on in 1958 (and probably before -- I just happened to run into a discussion from that time frame a while back) . Among the Brown Sticker conventions that passed the test of time and made it into mainstream practice are negative doubles and 1NT forcing.
Ron Johnson
I would think that a better example would be flannery and gambling 3nt. You don't need a different defense agains Negative doubles or forcing notrumps, although it couldn't hurt to define the redouble, special planning is not needed. It certainly pays to have a defense to Flannery and G3NT. Danny
Or 4th suit forcing (and totally artificial)
special planning is not needed. You may think so, and decades of experimentation may well back you up. I can tell you that in the mid 50s to late 60s it wasn't at all clear to most players. Everybody was writing articles on how you should adjust if the opposition was playing negative doubles.
And it's worth noting that most partnerships couldn't bounce competitively. e.g the auction 1C - 1S - X(neg) 3S The 3S call was forcing for 99.9% of all players.
It certainly pays to have a defense to Flannery and G3NT. And it's probably best to have a different one for different flavors. Ron Johnson
The chess analogy holds no water. You have no partner in chess. Everything is on the table. Bridge is a partnership game.
The point of a World Championship is to see who the best players are. Not the ones who invented the most abstruse system, that is difficult to defend against without experience. Take a look at Adam's list of BSC that were in use in the Bermuda Bowl. Not only does one need to spend time figuring ways to combat these systems, you still have to know your own stuff. Is this really a test of the best players in the world, or is it a test of who has the most time to prepare? DannyThis is a misunderstanding. During the <chess> opening (almost) everything is in the memory of the players. It is often practically impossible to determine analytically, at the table, what the best move in a complex opening position might be. Therefore, chess players prepare "opening repertoires", i.e. they play only certain variations, which ideally must deal with all sound replies. There is no limit to the amount of useful preparation, the depth to which opening lines are studied. Thus the opening in grand master games is a battle of memory not of analysis. - The combat the advantage gained by memorization Fischer proposed "Fischer Random" chess. In this game the position of the 8 pieces on the base line is determined at random (with some restrictions). Jürgen
The point of a World Championship is to see who the best players are.
Just like the World Series is to see who the best baseball players are? Bridge World Championships are about seeing who the best pairs or teams are. It's not about individuals. Tim Goodwin
A semantic quibble which I will agree with. The WC are about choosing the best team. That doesn't change my original premise. Danny
As you said in your post: bridge is a partnership game. And, part of the partnership is devising systemic agreements and becoming a partnership in their use. I believe it is a good thing if a system is hard to defend against. That means that system design is good. No one likes to make their opponents' lives easy.
You used "abstruse" in your post to describe some of the BS methods. Why shouldn't methods be difficult to defend against? Isn't that why you preempt: to make it difficult for the opponents? I've heard about social bridge games where preempting is seriously frowned upon. They do not believe it is polite to try to steal the hand from their opponents. Maybe the WBF should try that approach? Tim Goodwin
You can make the case that the ACBL not only seriously frowns upon preempting, it bans preempting. There is a regulation that bars "methods intended to destroy the opponents' system" (or words to that effect). I don't think I've ever seen the regulation enforced, although the last I knew it remained in effect. TL Godwin
Is this really a test of the best players in the world, or is it a test of who has the most time to prepare?
What do you suggest? Olympic Games for those who have limited training time? If you don't spend the time preparing are you really the world's best? Wayne Burrows
Are you really the best if your only claim to that is to have invented a system that was very difficult to defend against and gave you a significant advantage. It would be like giving the French a hockey blade that was longer and wider than anyone in the field. Nah, bad example, that wouldn't help the french. John Blubaugh
Nice humour .. but can you really claim to be the best if you cannot cope with everything the opponents can throw at you. Wayne Burrows
I don't think that is true, Wayne. If what you say is true then all one needs to do is develop a very complex system that allows very vague disclosures and has built in destructive bids. All of the nuances, of course, would only be known to the inventers and what you now have is one pair playing with a destructive system know only by themselves for the most part that allows explanations that only complicates the problems playing against a team with a system well known to most expert players with well defined explanations. If you win the gold with that crap, I hope it turns your skin green when you wear it. John Blubaugh
It would be like giving the French a hockey blade that was longer and wider than anyone in the field. <some soft racial abuse edited>
Wouldn't a lot depend upon whether the use of longer and wider blades violates the rules of the game? You may recall that some years ago there was an actual (not theoretical) controversy about the use of "curved" hockey blades, which seemed to give certain advantages over straight ones. The next time you watch a hockey game, take a look at the hockey sticks in use, and you will see how the governing bodies dealt with that particular "unfair advantage." As for the specific question you pose, Mr. Blubaugh: What, exactly, are you suggesting is wrong?
Is it "inventing a system that is very difficult to defend against"? What on earth is wrong with that? Are you seriously suggesting that a pair (or a team) is not "really the best" unless it wins with a system that is easy to defend against?
Or is it "playing a system that gives you a significant advantage"? Again, what on earth is wrong with that? Are you seriously suggesting that a pair (or a team) is not "really the best" unless it wins with a system that does not give it a significant advantage? T L Goodwin
Actually, I am saying exactly that. These teams come up with these destructive methods that they do not explain fully explain because they have NO chance against the best players without a little help (actually, a lot of help). And please don't call me mister. John Blubaugh
Who says that if you invent a better system or come up with "these destructive methods" you are at the same time assumed to not fully explain your bids? We are talking about experts in the whole meaning of this word. Andrzej Kolinski
Just for once, can you come up with an argument that doesn't imply that all non-Americans cheat? Giovanni Bobbio(Italy)
Are you really the best if your only claim to that is to have invented a system that was very difficult to defend against and gave you a significant advantage.
I don't think the analogy is quite right. Restricting difficult to defend against methods that may somewhat randomize results would be more like banning the blitz in American football. Or, requiring all offenses use a two back set, or requiring all defenses to play a 43 instead of a 34. Or, banning the overshift in baseball. Tim Goodwin
Or banning zone defenses in basketball. Difficult, but it was done for 50 years in pro ball. Other restrictions on positioning also occur - offside rules in soccer, rugby and ice hockey, for example, or the American football rules that there must be at least seven offensive players on the line of scrimmage, and only the outermost two can receive forward passes. Mike Vaughn
Except that this argument doesn't hold water. It's impossible to beat me based solely on a confusing system. You still have to be able to play. Against actual bridge players, this is even more true. Any method that's difficult to defend against is also difficult to bid constructively with. There also a limit to how hard anything is to defend against. One can always use the "bid what you have as best as you can, and double if you think they're going down" defense. It'll be non-optimal, and may lose IMPs in the long run, but if all it needs to do is not lose lots and lots of IMPs, it's sufficient. Julian Lighton
What a joke argument this is. The premise was with potential world champions. They can all play the cards, they can all defend and they can get to the right contract. You are advocating letting complex systems with inadequate disclosure "attempt" to beat real play and defense. I think it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. John Blubaugh
Then it's hardly the case that the hypothetical players' only claim is to have invented a hypothetical system. They are also world-class players. For world-class players to win a WC is hardly an absurd result.
complex systems with inadequate disclosure to beat real play and defense. Actually, I'm advocating systems with adequate disclosure. And bidding, play, and defense should beat play and defense. Bridge is a many-faceted game. Being good at all facets is obviously better than being good at only some. Julian Lighton
<Aggressive side thread edited>
2NT = "a 6 six card minor, precisely a six card suit with two of the three tops, plus at least the T, no void, no four card major, and exactly one outside stopper."
Very hard to defend against that, as 2NT will frequently be passed, even doubled, but relatively easy to bid constructively. Or a more obvious example: 4S = "AKQxxxxx in spades and out".
Many methods are difficult to defend against simply because they take away a lot of bidding space. If they are well-defined, they will not cause many problems with constructive bidding. Thomas Dehn
can you really claim to be the best if you cannot cope with everything the opponents can throw at you.
Yes, you can. - How do I know this?
Easy. When you use a term like "the best" without saying "the best *what*", you open it up to anybody's idea of what should be measured to determine what "the best" is. Saying "the best bridge team" doesn't help---it's just as vague, because everyone has their own ideas of what makes a bridge player or team better than another team.
So *if* my idea [1] is that good play, good defense, and good constructive bidding judgment is what makes a bridge team good, and that ability to cope with opponents' bidding isn't a factor, then I can certainly say that a team can claim to be "the best" without being able to handle whatever the opponents throw at them. (And the logical conclusion would be that if certain bidding methods interfere with the ability to determine which is "the best" by my definition, there's nothing wrong with putting restrictions on them.)
So how can you argue that my definition of "best" is wrong? You can't. And I can't argue that yours is wrong. There's really nothing on which to base an argument like that---it all comes down to any one person's personal preference, and possibly nothing more than what one or the other person finds most interesting about the game. And I think possibly that the failure to recognize this is one of the reasons threads like this come up frequently and go on interminably. (The other reason being that r.g.b'ers just like to argue.)
Maybe we're asking the wrong question when we ask "Should BSC's be allowed". We probably first need to answer the questions: (1) What factors determine whether a bridge player or team is better than another? (2) Assuming we can't all agree on the answer to #1, how should we decide what factors to make important, and what factors will be less important or unimportant, in our tournaments? Who decides this, and by what process? (3) If we cannot all agree on what's important, is it feasible to develop two or more tracks so that those who feel that ability to cope with opponents' conventions is important can have their own tournament to decide who's the best, and those who feel that it isn't can have theirs?
[1] Please note well the word "if". I am not saying that this is actually my view of what's important. I'm somewhat in the middle: there's a place for bidding theory and convention innovations, but it needs to be kept from becoming too dominant. Adam Beneschan
Fred: what say you and I had the generic agreement that double was takeout of any shown suits (as it should be) and other bids were natural. On your auction, double is a simple takeout of spades and there would be zero confusion. In fact, I cannot conceive of an auction where we would have a problem so long as they have shown a suit. (I admit it can be more difficult when they haven't shown a suit.) Paul Marston
There's the rub. Without exception the BS conventions are ones which do not promise a specific suit. Here's a complete list from this year's Bermuda Bowl. Those wondering about the work involved in preparing to defend against such conventions should note that it takes a while just to put the list together!
| Opening Bids | |
| 2D H or S+minor | Weak in H or Weak 55+ S and a minor |
| 2D 1M + 1m | 5M + 4+m, can be 5- |
| 2D round or pointed | 55 in H+C or S+D (3-10) |
| 2H 2-suited | 5-5 with any Major plus any minor; 5-11 HCP |
| 2H Multi | Sound H weak 2 or bad S weak 2 |
| 2H Multi | Weak 2 in H or S 2-10 |
| 2H Multi | Good Weak 2 in H or S |
| 2H multi jump o'call | NV only (1m)-2H weak 2 in either major |
| 2H S or H+minor | 4-10 HCP, Weak in S or Weak 55+ H and a minor |
| 2H various | 1/2 NV vs. Vul only, 0-6, BAL or semiB 4S+4m or 4+/4+m or 6H(2-8 HCP) |
| 2N minor or Major | a) Pre-empt with 6/7 cards in any minor or b) 7+card in any Major 13-16 HCP |
| 2N 2 suiter | 55+(4) any 2 suits not including C |
| 2N S + m | 5-10, 55 S+m |
| 2S colorful | 55 in H+D or S+C (3-10) |
| 2S majors or minors | Weak both majors or both minors 55+ |
| 2S Multi | Bad prempt in H or S or 6-4 in minors 10-15 HCP |
| 2S Multi | Any 3D preempt or bad C preempt, 1/2 seat only |
| 2S various | 6-11, 55 majors or 6+ C or 6+ D (good preempt) |
| 2S wk H+m | Weak 2 with 55+ H + m |
| 3C multi | Preempt in C or D (not played V vs. NV) |
| 3D multi | Good preempt in H or S (not played V/nv) |
| 3H multi | Bad preempt in H or S (not played V/nv) |
| 3S solid minor | Solid minor |
| Overcalls | |
| 1N O'call Gardener | May be comic (long suit, weak hand) |
| 2D jump overcall | Weak in H or Weak 55+ S and a minor |
| 2H jump overcall | 2H overcall after 1C opening = Weak {S or 55+ H+minor} |
| 2S jump overcalls | 2S overcall after 1C opening = weak {55+ both majors or 1 minor} |
It's also worth noting that there are many other conventions that will be unfamiliar to most pairs but are not considered BS. Preparing against those involves additional effort since one must memorize one's defenses. Adam Wildavsky
Adam: Potentially the issue here is less about the number of Brown Sticker Conventions that have been adopted and more about the way in which you chose to defend against them.
My understanding is that most players from parts of the world where BSC's are in "common" use develop meta-defenses that can be applied against entire families of openings. While a given meta-defense might not be optimized against any one particular BSC the gains from working with a "familiar" defense are believed to outweigh the loss in efficiency.
You listed a total of 22 BSC opening bids [one of which - 2S Weak 2 with 55+ H + m isn't a BSC] Rather than considering each of these 22 bids as a separate and distinct opening, its probably better to break these down into common sets. It seems clear that all of these BSC's fall into one of three basic sets:
1. Two suited hands with no known anchors
2. Single suited hands with no known anchors
3. Hands that are either single suited
OR two suited with no known anchors
Some players would recommend a further decomposition to differentiate between preemptive openings in which the suit being opened could be held by the preemptor as opposed to preempts in which the suit being opened is completely artificial. If you decide to treat these preempts differently, this still leaves at most six basic types of BSC preempts. Other players would use a single defense against both "type 2" and "type 3" preempts.
| Two suited with no known anchor | ||
| 2D 1M + 1m | 5M + 4+m, can be 5-4 | |
| 2D round or pointed | 55 in H+C or S+D (3-10) | |
| 2H 2-suited | 5-5 with any Major plus any minor; 5-11 HCP | |
| 2S colorful | 55 in H+D or S+C (3-10) | |
| 2S majors or minors | Weak both majors or both minors 55+ | |
| 2N 2 suiter | 55+(4) any 2 suits not including C | |
| 2N S + m | 5-10, 55 S+m | |
| Single Suited with no known anchor | ||
| 2H Multi | Sound H weak 2 or bad S weak 2 | |
| 2H Multi | Weak 2 in H or S 2-10 | |
| 2H Multi | Good Weak 2 in H or S | |
| 2S Multi | Any 3D preempt or bad C preempt, 1/2 seat only | |
| 2N Minor or Major | a) Pre-empt with 6/7 cards in any minor or b) 7+card in any Major 13-16 HCP | |
| 3C multi | Preempt in C or D (not played V vs. NV) | |
| 3D multi | Good preempt in H or S | |
| 3H multi | Bad preempt in H or S | |
| 3S solid minor | Solid minor | |
| Single Suited or Two suited with no known anchor | ||
| 2D H or S+minor | Weak in H or Weak 55+ S and a minor | |
| 2H S or H+minor | 4-10 HCP, Weak in S or Weak 55+ H and a minor | |
| 2H various | 0-6, BAL or semiB 4S+4m or 4+/4+m or 6H(2-8 HCP) | |
| 2S Multi | Bad prempt in H or S or 6-4 in minors 10-15 HCP | |
| 2S various | 6-11, 55 majors or 6+ C or 6+ D (good preempt) | |
Most of these conventions are the same, especially 2H for hearts or spades is very frequent. Most Multi 2S bids are sort of silly and I wonder if they work well if the defence has their stuff together.
| Multi 2D variants | |
| 2D 1M + 1m | 5M + 4+m, can be 5-4 |
| 2D H or S+minor | Weak in H or Weak 55+ S and a minor |
| This suit or the next one | |
| 2D round or pointed | 55 in H+C or S+D (3-10) |
| 2H 2-suited | 5-5 with any Major plus any minor; 5-11 HCP |
| 2H Multi | Sound H weak 2 or bad S weak 2 |
| 2H Multi | Weak 2 in H or S 2-10 |
| 2H Multi | Good Weak 2 in H or S |
| 2H S or H+minor | 4-10 HCP, Weak in S or Weak 55+ H and a minor |
| 2S colorful | 55 in H+D or S+C (3-10) |
| 2S majors or minors | Weak both majors or both minors 55+ |
| 2S various | 6-11, 55 majors or 6+ C or 6+ D (good preempt) |
| 2S Multi | Bad prempt in H or S or 6-4 in minors 10-15 HCP |
| 3C multi | Preempt in C or D |
| 3H multi | Bad preempt in H or S |
| Higher Multi variants without the bid suit or NT | |
| 2N 2 suiter | 55+(4) any 2 suits not including C |
| 2N Minor or Major | Pre-empt with 6/7-card m / 13-16 7-card M |
| 3D multi | Good preempt in H or S |
| 3S solid minor | Solid minor |
| Hors categorie | |
| 2H various | 0-6, BAL or semiB 4S+4m or 4+/4+m or 6H(2-8 HCP) |
| Not a BS (Spades is anchor) | |
| 2N S + m | 5-10, 55 S+m |
Let see how hard I would have to prepare against Adam's list
Opening Bids
2D = H or S+minor; 1M + 1m; round or pointed
2H = Major plus any minor; Sound weak 2H or bad weak 2S
2H = Weak 2 in H or S ; Good Weak 2 in H or S
I play against all of these so frequently, I don't even have to recall my defense to memory.
2H = multi jump o'call NV only (1m)-2H weak 2 in either major
That one is unfrequent, and we would have to spend 10 seconds to make sure that we both remember our agreed defense.
2H = S or H+minor Weak in S or Weak 55+ H and a minor
That one is a standard preempt, again.
2H various That one is slightly unusual and needs 20 seconds of preparation.
2N = minor or Major; 2N = 2 suiter; 2N = S + m; 2S = colorful; 2S = Weak S/H or C/D
More standard stuff which half the world plays.
<other defences were given only 10-20 seconds each! CJR/editor>
Adam, there is nothing on that list where I would need preparation. Even playing with a non-regular partner, we should be able to agree on a good defense within a few minutes at the beginning of the round. The time would be spend upon agreeing about the defense; there are several well-known defenses to choose from.
1S = 0-7, any distribution would be something which needs preparation.
(I have a good defense against a 1D fert.) Thomas Dehn
Without exception the BS conventions are ones which do not promise a specific suit.
More precisely, a preempt where the weak meaning
do not all promise the same suit are BSC.
2C = "weak 2 diamonds or any GF is not BS.Thomas Dehn
Exception: In five-card major systems an opening of 1C/1D usually do not promise a specific suit. Wayne Burrows
They promise the bid suit OR a balanced hand of specific range/s. Gordon Rainsford
Such as *eg* the 1D opener in many strong club systems? Thomas
Exactly. Gordon
Such a having to open 1D on 2-2-1-8 distribution (not playing 2C as a one suiter in a canape strong club)? Or having to open 1D on 4-4-0-5 if playing that 2C always shows a six card suit? Thomas
Most of these can be defended against easily with a generic defense like XXX (first double strength, second double takeout, third double blood).
<Examples edited>
Obviously, it's really hard to learn one or two defenses and have rules about when to apply them. Playing against these methods with a client, I wouldn't feel any need to discuss specific defenses since our general defenses cover them already.Kieran Dyke
Most of these can be defended against easily with a generic defense like "XXX"(first double strength, second double takeout, third double blood)
If your whole agreement is what 2d seat does, then you are missing the problem. Things get much stickier when the followups come. Some examples, using the relatively known Multi:
2d-p-3h: Pass or correct. What is double here?
2d-2s(natural)-p-? What is your cuebid?
These are 2 big problems defending against BSC:
1) Figuring out what the cuebid is.
2) Handling 4th hands actions when the parnter makes a p/c response.
Danny
What is double here? Whatever we have agreed it is. I would normally play it as takeout of spades. BTW, you forgot to alert partner's pass ;-).
2d-2s(natural)-p-? What is your cuebid?
2NT is reverse Lebensohl, and 3H is a cuebid. 2NT is always reverse Lebensohl in these situations. (except for those few partners who prefer ordinary Lebensohl). Thomas
If you NEED a cue-bid, isn't it clever system design if the other side makes it difficult (or costly) for you to find one? Tim Goodwin
To take an example, Paul Marston tells us that he was unable to use an opening bid of 1D to show hearts in the recent Reisinger. ... Could someone explain to me why a simple transfer opener is too complex to deal with at the level of the Reisinger, but an overcall which shows *any* suit is OK at club level? There have been many other examples of this ... So, go ahead and ban Paul Marston's transfer openings. Just make sure you ban all other forms of transfers too ...
The problem with this is that what seems logical to you does not seem logical to a lot of people, and there is nothing to say that what you want should be followed.
Take the examples that you are talking about: Capp and a transfer 1D opening have one big difference: people in North America are used to Capp. It is not logical that *if* you allow Capp *then* you should allow a transfer 1D because there are criteria. You are assuming there should be one criterium - simplicity. Not many people agree with you.
Sure, you have some people who would allow anything. But of the people who agree with regulating at all - which I do - there are a set of criteria, and saying it should all be down to one is not good enough.
In England it is pretty easy to have your say on regulating conventions, and get listened to. We do not regulate on the basis of what better players like, or influential people, or anything else of that sort. But neither do we agree with what some individuals say, especially when they produce arguments that are not a mainstream view. Up to a point we have to consider what the majority wants, while trying to do our best for minorities. Some minorities produce their own logical arguments, like yours: we believe yours is not a popular one, and do not follow it.
For example, we are on record as saying that the Multi is a special case at Level 3 because it was popularised at a time when the current regulation method did not apply. If you don't like that, tough. But the stupidest thing is to make an application to play something at Level 3 and say "You have to allow this because it is no more complicated than the Multi and you allow that at Level 3". That's the fastest turnoff known: we have said the Multi is a special case: we have said why: we have repeated and confirmed support for our view from EBU Council over the years: people who wish to ignore this and produce non-mainstream arguments to support their case are just not going to get anywhere.
Similarly we do not allow a non-penalty double of 1NT at Level 3. Continuous whining about this will get nowhere. Sure, now I have goosed some people there will be some whining here, *especially* from people who do not play in England or Wales and know what is best for us. However, we have a majority view from the EBU Council, and this will not be changed until their view changes. Simple.
We do not believe that because you allow one defence therefore you should allow another over something different even if it is simpler. Again, there are more criteria. One of them we call "Live by the sword, die by the sword" and it concerns artificial bids. If you make an artificial bid in England the next player may use any defence he likes [except random bids]. When we proposed this we found this to be popular, and few people have disagreed with it. OK, Brian, so you disagree. It does not make you right.
However, while I am in favour of regulation, what I am not in favour of [and nor is my Committee] is stagnation. It is open to anyone to propose a convention to be allowed to play. In practice the success rate on proposals is over 75%. Furthermore, despite the fact that unfortunately three or four English counties do not "play the game", most people get a wide choice in whether to play Level 3 or Level 4. In a very small County like Merseyside & Cheshire, we have County events at both levels: we have club events at both levels: we have national events within thirty miles at both levels. This leads to choice. One of my main problems with the North American regulation is that there seem to me to be far too few MidChart events in North America.
There have been a few glitches. On r.g.b there has been continuous and continual moaning that we do not allow light third-in-hand openers. I have pointed out on several occasions that applications get a 75% success rate: we have an enlightened Committee: such an application would get my support. What happens? In the fifteen years that I have been on the Committee there has been no application whatever for light third-in-hand openers, including after a few months ago when I said exactly this.
In England you can play quite complex stuff, including BSC stuff, at Level 4, and it is easy to find level 4 games in most of England. You can also play under the protection of Level 3 fairly easily. Despite a bit of moaning we seem to have the support of a wide variety of players in this.
There is also one main Level 5 event each year, the Spring Foursomes. This is much freer, of course, and a 1D opening to show hearts was played in it by a pair this year. I do think the EBU should have a couple more level 5 events each year to allow really strange systems to be played.
To return to the 1D opening to show hearts, that is not permitted even at Level 4. Why not? Well, we have only had one application, which was for a full system of bids, one of which was especially disliked [1S to show a weak hand with either minor]. Would a simple application to play 1D to show hearts go through? Probably, though I could not guarantee it, of course. However, until someone can get off their duff and apply, we are not going to find out, are we?
My comments are not to be taken in general as being the views of my Committee, but my own personal views. David Stevenson
David! If any player is so kind as to play transfer openings you must immediately allow them to do that. Almost no other convention could be more beneficial for their opponents.
Well of course, these opponents must think (if they haven't done it before) and e.g. come up with the revolutionising idea that they should play D = I overcall 1D and 1H = I make a T/O D of H and the rest SYS ON vs a 1H opening ...
If we do not believe their opponents normally would be up to the task of finding this defense you could perhaps regulate that the users must provide a sensible suggestion of defense against the opening and present that to the opponents before the round. Daniel Auby
My comments are not to be taken in general as being the views of my Committee, but my own personal views.
That might have been my application for the revisions being conducted during this year, I'm not sure :) I'm sure I suggested 1S showing 5+ diamonds limited opening strength. (I think I suggested minors or diamonds as another option if that seemed OK. Either shows 4(5)+D and limited opening strength.).
This is certainly the nastiest feature of transfer strong C systems from the point of view of defending against them though: if 1D is 4+H and 1H 4+S (nearly any hands) then 1S has to show some sort of minor suited hand for the system to make (much ;)) sense. Which is more likely to confuse people than transfers to hearts/spades (which are quite familiar to people as a concept by now).
The only viable constructive alternative would be 1S as 44+ both majors limited opening strength which is a little pointless with the transfer openings.
Or you could use it destructively with 2C&2D for the minor suited limited openers, but that just seems silly & the license for that sort of thing isn't really there. Martin Carpenter
Wimbledon is a combination of L3 and L4 depending on day & time (sorry I can't remember which is which). Mainly L4 in the evenings.
I am sure there are lots of clubs that do not have a strict policy (L3 or L4). Come to play in Cambridge, nobody will mind if you use L4 conventions. You might get some raised eyebrows on HUMs, but there will be no director calls.
Oh, and University clubs - I'd be very surprised if any of them enforced regulations on any level (L3,4,5,6...) Victor Milman
Not much that I can remember :) Certainly some *very* strange stuff at the various student bridge festivals. I managed to put down a pair of convention cards for Moscito forcing pass down in a Portland Bowl match and just got a request for a little time to prepare ;) (Wasn't planning to play it though, and didn't.).
Warwick University at one stage instituted a draw a random system and play it night for a while. Which was certainly interesting especially as there were only outlines for the systems and working out playable continuations quickly wasn't always easy! martin carpenter
It is probably best to leave fairness out of the discussion.
I am aware of two levels of 'fair'. One level concerns following the rules. The other concerns the rules themselves. The first should, and ought to be a subsidiary concern of the second. Because without fair rules to begin with, the value of following the rules is shunted.
The formulation of rules consists of making hard choices. Fundamental to the process is an understanding of the nature of the game. Most believe that bridge is about disclosure- which surely is true when one looks at the rules. But in fact disclosure is not at all what bridge is about even though it is part of the game.
Bridge is about how players solve the problem of the hand. Depriving them of the ability to create their own solution is anathema to a game whose sole premise is finding a solution [with both hands tied behind their backs], and everyone has lost because of it. And the cause of that loss are unfair rules.
What the rule makers have so far failed to do is to make the correct hard choices- which is why this thread exists. Maybe you see, or maybe you don't but it is not conventions* that are fair or unfair- it is the behavior of those who use them that is fair or unfair.
* Not the Law definition of convention- since ALL communication is by convention. axman
Only my opinions - I am sure plenty of r.g.b regulars do not agree.
This irregular agrees strongly. Point 5 summarizes it very well, and it applies not only to BSCs, but other systems as well depending on context. Many systems work well because the players get an edge due to their opponents unfamiliarity with the system, and the players delude themselves into believing that their good results are due to the superiority of the system. [I personally would prefer to play a standard system and win due to my superior ability in choosing a good partner, but it is rarely that simple ;-)]
It would help to have a clear codification of what systems are allowed at what levels, so that partnerships know what they should be prepared to defend against. Mike Vaughn
Aggressive preempts increase the variance of results. Since the BSC that get the most flak are aggressive preemptive methods, this is true, but not that significant.
Having played unusual methods in competition that cannot possibly be called high-level, I didn't find it to be a major factor. (Nor did my results.) Yes, you get the occasional gift when the opponents get confused, but it's lost in the noise of all the other gifts you get. (And give away.) Julian Lighton
World Champions don't rely on gifts and they rarely give anything away. I think you are talking about very bad players trying to use toys they have no control over. John Blubaugh
Exactly. If bad players don't give a lot away when playing against weird and unusual systems, why should I expect that top players give more away?
I think you are talking about very bad players trying to use toys they have no control over No, I wasn't. Julian Lighton
Bidding systems have individual strengths and weaknesses; Strong Club systems are much better at describing hands with ~ 10 - 15HCP. Given modern competitive methods, strong club systems are typically at a competitive disadvantage on those hands that they open with a strong club. There are any number of other examples that could be brought up to demonstrate this point.
All players rely on "gifts". They hope that the bridge gods will smile and deal them sets of hands that are particularly well suited to their methods. Over the course of a long match, one expects that the element of luck will start to even out. More formally, the sample statistics (the set of boards dealt) should converge on the population statistics.
In part, this is why I find the ACBL's arguments that the BSC's "frequency" should influence the approval process so ludicrous. BSC methods that are infrequent inherently introduce much greater elements of luck into the game. If anything, the ACBL should welcome highly frequent BSC methods since such methods are much more likely to be theoretically "sound". Richard Willey
Any argument for having people face conventions that the majority don't play themselves is likely to be unpopular amongst the majority.
That is incredibly unfair. Whatever happens in other jurisdictions it is easy in England to be allowed to play conventions that are not mainstream. The EBU Council has strong views on *three* particular ideas, so we can basically do what we like so long as we leave those three alone. One of those is to say we should not permit methods with no bridge merit whatever, so we do not. But it needs very little bridge merit to be allowed under this rule.
All sorts of things are permitted that neither we nor the EBU Council would play. So I think that allowing the EBU Council ot have two special ideas is very reasonable.
<Some stuff cut>
If you really think it's fair to allow one pair to use transfers while their opponents can't, then you and I have different ideas of what "fair" means. No, I think it was because it is a very reasonable rule.
You could have banned strong club *outright* and it would have been popular with a large majority of the EBU membership at that time, if popularity was your main consideration. As regards few people disagreeing with it, I invite you to re-read your last three paragraphs. Produce anything "non-mainstream" and you're effectively wasting your time.
I do not know whether you are deliberately being obtuse and mis-reading what I say, but this last paragraph is just untrue. You have every chance of getting something permitted, so long as you do not [a] apply for it in a cretinously stupid way, by saying it has to be allowed because of something unconnected and special [b] apply for one specific thing that you will not get and should know it - *one* thing.
<more stuff cut>
I think that the presumption that we would allow a 1D and 1H openings as transfer but not a 1S opening is incredibly naïve. David Stevenson
It has been really enjoyable to read this thread and to see the issue being debated threadbare. I have the advantage of having got into the game late, so I read more than half the thread so far in one go rather than message by message. I prefer to look at this a little more philosophically, I prefer to look at system development akin to eternal human endevour to innovate and create. From the Sims Culbertson days to the new century, system development has been at the core of bridge innovation and progress. It has also reflected the "national character" in some ways, each prodigious bridge playing nation has a general character associated with the systems in play there. A Chinese genius gave us Precision, bridge world froze when Iceland melted opponents in their tracks, US and UK have been very structured, theoretical, scientfic in their approach, Italy has generally contributed some radical thinking with truly innovative multi meaning ids and mini-relays, other European nations the Polish club, Viking variety have stamped their original ideas on the game. Bridge would be a lot poorer had any of these contributions been taken away from it, no doubt about that.
There is no doubt that as Nations, we think differently when faced with a complex problem, but then we also think alike in a "meta" way wherein we zero in on workable solutions, of many different hues. For many complex problems, and I dont mean in only Bridge, there is no one answer, there is no solution which is always right. Well, there may be, but the only way to prove that such a solution is right is for other solutions to be thought of, experimented with, compared and then one or few "right" solutions to emerge out of the consensus reached. In Bridge too, this situation exists unless ofcourse, our computers become many orders faster than they are now and we can computationally work out the (percentage-wise) "best" system (by which I include constructive and destructive features) which produces "results" on most hands.
There is no doubt that such differences are the hallmark of the human race. WBF like any truly global body, cannot but be sensitive to these differences and I truly hope that they will keep this in mind when this issue is next debated in their forums. Manoj Nair
"" Style sheet control has failed.
Pages on this site should still be readable, but layout may be spoiled. Your
browser may be out of date, or style sheets disabled !!
|
www.chrisryall.net/bridge/debates/brown-sticker.htm © Chris Ryall 1987-2008
|