[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Feb 19 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

If I want to put my energy in designing a great system, that's fine. But if I never play against my own methods, why should I have to put energy in designing a good defense against it??? If my opponents don't want to do their homework, that's their problem imo, not mine... And if time is a problem, bad luck.

Hi,

if you really put your energy in designing a great system,
you should channel some of your efforts in the task of
finding out, what are the weaknesses of your system.

Because only then, will you have a chance to build a great
system.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

P_Marlowe, on Feb 20 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

if you really put your energy in designing a great system,
you should channel some of your efforts in the task of
finding out, what are the weaknesses of your system.

Because only then, will you have a chance to build a great
system.

Funny that... As I see it things, its the players using "standard" methods who are constantly resorting to legal manuevers to protect their own systems from any thing that might challenge their hegemony. You don't see players using REGRES or Suspensor screaming that Acol needs to be banned.

I agree with Free that a system based on having players develop defenses to their own methods is badly flawed. The incentives are all wrong: If I am playing a multi 2D, why would I want to give the provide the opponents with an effective counter measure. I'm not saying any particular player would necessarily submit defenses which are flawed, but the incentive is there.

Equally significant, people often have blind spots about their own creations. I'm much better at a proofreading other people's prose than my own creations. Extending this analogy to bridge, players who design a system that they believe is great probably don't have the right perspective to be developing effective counter measures.

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Feb 20 2006, 12:24 PM, said:

Equally significant, people often have blind spots about their own creations.  I'm much better at a proofreading other people's prose than my own creations.

True, but you should at least try, to find out,
what maybe is flawed, e.g. ask someone else
to have a look at it.

Marlowe

[awm]

The point I'm trying to make is this:

1. If we had absolutely no limits on methods, and no requirement to provide any defense, it would create a situation where playing weird methods is a huge inherent advantage. Perhaps this situation would be okay if matches were always lined up several days in advance with detailed system notes available for study, but that's not how most of us play most of our matches. Especially in the context of a pairs event, legalizing "everything" would create an arms race of people trying to devise methods so weird that no one has prepared generic defenses that can handle them. This is not really what bridge is about.

2. Now that we've decided some limits on methods are needed (except in the aforementioned long KO matches with advanced notice), what should we do? It seems like there are three options available for any convention or treatment: we can rule that it's "just bridge" and people are expected to be able to deal with it, we can rule that it's "disallowed" and prevent people from playing it, or we can rule that "it's okay, but some previously vetted defense should be provided." The first category applies to standard stuff, like bids that show four-plus (or five-plus) cards in the suit bid and a reasonable hand. It has also been applied to some "nonstandard" methods that are extremely popular, such as precision 1♣, or the multi 2♦ opening in Europe. Now, we could eliminate the third category altogether, putting some of it into each of the first two classes. But there's a constant push from players of "weird methods" to allow more stuff, while at the same time players of more standard methods don't want to allow things like transfer openings into the first category (because they're more interested in card play, say, and don't want to spend their time devising defenses to everything under the sun and worrying about whether those defenses are good). The third category provides a nice compromise choice.

3. In the BBO main club, a lot of pairs are pickup partnerships. People often don't have convention cards posted to "pre-disclose" their methods (although most people playing weird methods do a good job alerting as the bidding proceeds). Some of the methods in use (i.e. forcing pass) actually fall into category two (disallowed) for most regions. While strictly speaking no regulations are in place in the main room (so "anything goes") it seems reasonable to provide suggested defenses to anything that isn't obviously in the first category ("just bridge") or else to allow opponents to devise their own defense when the bid comes up.

As for the 2♦ opening, perhaps more disclosure would be: "any hand with 0-6 hcp (this acts as the "fert" in a forcing pass system) or a hand with 7-9 hcp including four good diamonds or five mediocre diamonds." Clearly this makes it easier to defend against? It's a bit suicidal at vulnerable, and I think it is "unsound" at nonvulnerable too, but it's potentially very difficult to avoid being robbed blind and simultaneously avoid going for numbers. It seems like bids like this more or less make the game into "poker:" while the opening side could easily go for a number opposite nothing, the other side is also under a huge amount of pressure (passing could easily miss a game, whereas bidding fairly aggressively could get you too high and possibly doubled by opener's partner). Of course, maybe someone out there has a good defense to this nonsense? I agree that this is banned in most places (although a recent editorial in the bridge bulletin would seem to suggest that it should not only be allowed universally but should be treated as a natural bid because it suggests playing 2♦ and doesn't provide any information about any other suit). My point was that some restrictions on methods make bridge a better game than it would be with no restrictions. Of course we can argue about which bids should fall into which categories.

[hrothgar]

>1. If we had absolutely no limits on methods, and no requirement to provide
>any defense, it would create a situation where playing weird methods is a huge
>inherent advantage. Perhaps this situation would be okay if matches were always
>lined up several days in advance with detailed system notes available for study,
>but that's not how most of us play most of our matches. Especially in the context
>of a pairs event, legalizing "everything" would create an arms race of people trying
>to devise methods so weird that no one has prepared generic defenses that can
>handle them. This is not really what bridge is about.

>2. Now that we've decided some limits on methods are needed (except in the
>aforementioned long KO matches with advanced notice), what should we do?

We haven't decided any such thing.

I agree that creating an "anything goes" playing environment would change the game for many players. More specifically, successful players would require a good meta agreements and the ability to think and apply these successfully during play. Players whose skill set was limited to a rule book specifying what do do in situation XYZ would be at a disadvantage. Where we disagree is whether or not this constitutes "bridge". I think it does (As do a bunch of Australians and a lot of people elsewhere in the world)

>It seems like there are three options available for any convention or treatment:
>we can rule that it's "just bridge" and people are expected to be able to deal
>with it, we can rule that it's "disallowed" and prevent people from playing it,
>or we can rule that "it's okay, but some previously vetted defense should be
>provided."

Sadly, you are ignoring the actual system which is used in the ACBL: Methods are sanctioned based on the financial interests of governing officials: Players like Meckwell and Hamman are permitted to play methods that are far removed from the mainstream. After all they write the rules...(There is somethign almost comical watching Hamman and Wolff playing their canape based strong club systems while bitching about the strange methods other people employ). Players who donate large amounts of money to the ACBL also get unique loopsholes in the rules for their pet methods... Its no coincidence that CC. Wei was the one to get Precision legalized within the US. The number of exceptions to the rules for George Rosenkrantz's pet methods are equally understandable. But god forbid that anyone without the necessary greenbacks want to play something out of the ordinary.

>My point was that some restrictions on methods make bridge a better game
>than it would be with no restrictions. Of course we can argue about which bids
>should fall into which categories.

I disagree. There is no reasonable objective mechanism to determine where this limit should be. The absence of such a limit turns the whole convention regulation process into a farce. Personally, I'd prefer to abolish convention regulations althogether. I recognize that this battle has been lost in North American, but I'll be damned before i see the same mindless policies that destroyed the game in North America bleed onto the Internet....

Bridge in North America is a walking corpse. The patient doesn't realize that its dead and rotting. The face to face game will be dead in a few more years. With luck, something better will rise from the ashes...

[pbleighton]

"My point was that some restrictions on methods make bridge a better game than it would be with no restrictions. Of course we can argue about which bids should fall into which categories."

Of course we can argue about your point, which is totally unpersuasive, and not backed up by facts or logic.

And "which bids should fall into which categories" - is this a popularity test? What basis would you use? If it is a popularity test, which countries' players get what share of the "vote"?

Let me give you some examples:

I have played weak/mini NT for about 3 years now, in the ACBL and online, which are both strong NT territory. I can tell you from experience that most LM/Bronze LM players (300-999 masterpoints) and quite a few who are very experienced defend VERY poorly against it. No one I know would suggest it is anything but "just bridge", but it is MUCH harder to defend against than strong club systems, no matter how many symmetrical or asymmetrical relays they have. Artificial openings are more vulnerable to intervention, and most reasonable duplicate players know this. They may play very simple methods, but they get by. Contrast this to weak/mini NT, or very aggressive preempting.

Let's talk about aggressive preempting - say 5 card weak twos (legal everywhere) versus Muiderberg (not GCC legal, and thus effectively illegal, in the ACBL). Is Muiderberg more difficult to defend than straight 5 card weak twos? I would argue the opposite - the more defined a bid is, the easier it is to defend.

Another example - transfer openings (1H = 4+ spades, etc.). These are Mid Chart in the ACBL, but because the required defenses have been withdrawn from the defensive database, they are effectively totally illegal. They should be GCC legal, as they are easier to defend against than "natural" bids (you have double and one level cue available, rather than just double. Double is stolen bid, cue is takeout - pretty tough, eh?).

Another example - relay systems (not GCC legal). Why should any decent player be worried about bidding against them, as long as they are properly alerted? They are a license for less risky preemptive overcalls and lead directing doubles.

Adam, please think about this. Your posts are usually quite good. The fact is, most unusual methods are easy to deal with. Weak/mini NT and aggressive preempting is tough for players without good bidding judgment in competition (which is most players, including me), but you can't legislate bidding judgment. And any bridge legislation which is based on protecting players without good bidding judgment is bad legislation, IMO.

Peter

[awm]

I do not agree with the specific regulations that ACBL enforces. My preference would be for rules which are simpler and easier to understand, with fewer arbitrary exceptions. I also agree that what ACBL allows often is not well-correlated with what's hard to defend.

However, my point stands that an environment with no restrictions is not really the way to go. I listed four conventional treatments initially. No one has suggested a "generic defense" which they use that handles these methods. In a totally unregulated environment, I still maintain that people who play strange methods have a huge advantage. Sure, people will start devising defenses. Everyone will have a defense to transfer openings or multi 2♦ for example. But this will just encourage people to come up with even weirder methods (like the aforementioned 2♦ "fert" or multi-way one-level openings or multi-way 2NT responses to split-range openings). This creates an "arms race" where people are constantly trying to devise defenses to weirder and weirder stuff, whereas other people are trying to "stay ahead of the curve" by playing stuff that's so weird that none of the generic defenses people know can apply to it. It's fairly easy to argue that this is "not bridge." Many auctions will degenerate into poker matches, where one side opens with a bizarre conventional preempt, and the other side has to guess what to do. In limbo this might just randomize results, but since the preempting side understands their weird conventional methods better than the other side, and the opponents may have an "accident" due to lack of a prepared defense, the advantage remains with opener.

Here's a simple set of rules one could use which passes this test:

Allowed: Any bid which guarantees four (or more) cards in a specific known suit. Any bid which is absolutely forcing ("psyching" a pass of a forcing bid is not allowed, unless the forcing bid would also be legal by one of the other restrictions). Any bid which guarantees constructive values (this is defined as either 10+ hcp, or guaranteeing a total of 20+ hcp for the side; occasional violations by a point or two should be permitted for very distributional hands, but this must be rare).

Disallowed: Any bid which does not guarantee four (or more) cards in any specific suit, does not guarantee constructive values, and can be passed.

Defense required: Any bid which is not always strong (i.e. does not guarantee 15+ hcp or equivalent distributional values, and does not commit the bidding side to game) and does not promise four or more cards in the suit bid normally requires a suggested defense. An exception is made for one-of-a-minor openings which are constructive (guaranteeing 10+ hcp) because short club/diamond, polish club, and convenient minor openings are very popular.

Note that this is not particularly similar to the ACBL rules. I also take issue with ACBL's policy of making certain things "allowed but an approved suggested defense is needed" and then refusing to approve any defense in a timely manner.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Feb 21 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

Defense required: Any bid which is not always strong (i.e. does not guarantee 15+ hcp or equivalent distributional values, and does not commit the bidding side to game) and does not promise four or more cards in the suit bid normally requires a suggested defense.

Quick clarification: Would this same policy apply to overcalls over my strong club or strong pass openings?

[awm]

To clarify:

Suggested defense required: Another exception should be made for bids which are defenses to calls which require suggested defense.

So these sorts of bids over strong 1♣ would still require suggested defense. However, if the opening bid itself required suggested defense (for example 1♣ showing either 0-6 or 17+ hcp, any shape) then no "defense to the defense" would be required.

Of course, to make this really complete there would need to be some regulation of passes, doubles, redoubles, and notrump bids (none of which are really mentioned here). It's not clear where a forcing pass opening falls into these regulations.

[kenberg]

It sorta depends. I find that when pairs bring in unusual methods it is often like pulling teeth to get a good grasp on what is really going on. Generally with bids there is a lot that can be worked out that isn't stated. For example, if I open 1H everyone expects me to have more hearts than spades. The explanation "shows hearts" or even "shows five hearts" does not convey this, rather it comes from a general knowledge of standard bidding. Unusual methods folks are often stingy in their description of what the bid shows, and rarely say anything at all about the further inferences that are available to them but not available to the person unfamiliar with the entire structure. With time, patience, and good will all around, this can be dealt with but each of these things may be in short supply.

I imagine that a pair who really wants to develop a superior method can find a way to describe it so that it will succeed through its merits rather than through sly obfuscation, but I think it is fair to say that sometimes that is not the way it is done.

If someone tells me they are trying to develop a new system based on its merits, I think that unless they are very experienced players this isn't likely to work, but I accept their word for it until I come to see otherwise.

Ken

[mikestar]

hrothgar, on Feb 20 2006, 02:55 PM, said:

awm, on Feb 20 2006, 10:51 AM, said:

. . . 1♠ opening showing either 4+♠ with 5-8 hcp or 5+♠ with 16+ hcp, ...

.. The 1♠ opening promises 4+ cards in the suit opened. (I'll note in passing that this bid is natural and could be trotted out in a GCC event) ...

Actually, this is not legal on the GCC. The ACBL specifically bans natural opening one bids on less than 8 HCP under the authority given in the Laws. I most assuredly am not arguing that they should, but stating that they do.

[hrothgar]

I stand corrected...

[Impact]

Coming from the land of almost anything goes (except of course encrypted signals which are perfectly logical and rely on knowledge from your own hand but which the regulators bizarrely banned), we have learnt to adapt to almost anything fairly quickly.

Part of bridge for manyof us is actually problems -solving in the bidding and constructing logic/language systems to do the job.

In itself that is a significant fascination of the game.

The issue of non-disclosure is at least as much a problem dealing with so-called "standard" players where inferences and partnership style will rarely be disclosed (and answers to questions are like drawing teeth) whereas most who favour exotic systems will or shouldfeel a desire to espouse the wonders (and inferences) of their toys.

The subsidiary issue of time is relevant: even in selection events in Oz, matchopints or imps with only a few boards against given opponents it simply does not make sense to play HUMs as the delay in the movement (and the automatic time penalties incurred when opponents spend an age each round discussing/inventing defences) militates against it. Such a view may be reconciled with a purist view in terms of the tme limitations.

By contrast in any 14+ Board match (and it is permitted in most 8+ Board matches) HUMs of all sorts are legal, although again we incline to only play them in 14+ Board matches (eg n/v 2C=0-4HCP any shape! and strong Pass which may alternatively be 0-4 HCP!!!)

However bear in mind that every form of multi two you can conceive of is regarded as semi normal from Myxamatosis, Twerb, Tartan, Muiderberg, 2C majors (at least 43 at favourable!!) and requiring minimal discussion by anyone!!

That is not to say that most have optimised their defences to such, just that they are comfortable.


As to defences I agree that the inventors are least likely to wish to perfect a defence against their own pet toys- but if you play relays you may want to optimise a defence to a fert which maximises your relay options (and incidentally allows penalties) but such a defence is not relevant to someone unfamiliar with relays...these sorts of dilemmas are familiar to us.

We do have a "workable defence" typed and available (2 copies) for opponents, but htat does not mean that it is the specific appraoch we would choose ourselves - given the proclivities of our style and system.

As an aside the whole basis of alerting has been rendered bizarre in any game other than with screens (or disclosure to oppponents to which partner is not privy) by the strange laws foisted on differing "local/national" bodies eg the rule that doubles, cue bids of shown suits and redoubles are "self-alerting", when in many seqquences we use transfer doubles etc

In that sense, although I do not play on line (various firewalls) I would have thought that on-line explanations that exclude partner are ideal.

[Echognome]

This sounds quite sensible Impact.

I agree that for short matches some restrictions should apply. As to what restrictions, I guess that should depend on the culture of the bridge players in that region.

I basically wish there was more variety out there for the "average player". For example, I'd quite enjoy playing in an indy or pairs competition where everyone was required to use the same basic system. I just wouldn't want to do it every week.

I actually think England is quite sensible when it comes to regulations. Shrug.

[joshs]

awm, on Feb 20 2006, 04:04 PM, said:

I do not agree with the specific regulations that ACBL enforces. My preference would be for rules which are simpler and easier to understand, with fewer arbitrary exceptions. I also agree that what ACBL allows often is not well-correlated with what's hard to defend.

However, my point stands that an environment with no restrictions is not really the way to go. I listed four conventional treatments initially. No one has suggested a "generic defense" which they use that handles these methods. In a totally unregulated environment, I still maintain that people who play strange methods have a huge advantage. Sure, people will start devising defenses. Everyone will have a defense to transfer openings or multi 2♦ for example. But this will just encourage people to come up with even weirder methods (like the aforementioned 2♦ "fert" or multi-way one-level openings or multi-way 2NT responses to split-range openings). This creates an "arms race" where people are constantly trying to devise defenses to weirder and weirder stuff, whereas other people are trying to "stay ahead of the curve" by playing stuff that's so weird that none of the generic defenses people know can apply to it. It's fairly easy to argue that this is "not bridge." Many auctions will degenerate into poker matches, where one side opens with a bizarre conventional preempt, and the other side has to guess what to do. In limbo this might just randomize results, but since the preempting side understands their weird conventional methods better than the other side, and the opponents may have an "accident" due to lack of a prepared defense, the advantage remains with opener.

Here's a simple set of rules one could use which passes this test:

Allowed: Any bid which guarantees four (or more) cards in a specific known suit. Any bid which is absolutely forcing ("psyching" a pass of a forcing bid is not allowed, unless the forcing bid would also be legal by one of the other restrictions). Any bid which guarantees constructive values (this is defined as either 10+ hcp, or guaranteeing a total of 20+ hcp for the side; occasional violations by a point or two should be permitted for very distributional hands, but this must be rare).

Disallowed: Any bid which does not guarantee four (or more) cards in any specific suit, does not guarantee constructive values, and can be passed.

Defense required: Any bid which is not always strong (i.e. does not guarantee 15+ hcp or equivalent distributional values, and does not commit the bidding side to game) and does not promise four or more cards in the suit bid normally requires a suggested defense. An exception is made for one-of-a-minor openings which are constructive (guaranteeing 10+ hcp) because short club/diamond, polish club, and convenient minor openings are very popular.

Note that this is not particularly similar to the ACBL rules. I also take issue with ACBL's policy of making certain things "allowed but an approved suggested defense is needed" and then refusing to approve any defense in a timely manner.

I am with Adam. I think that much of what Adam has said was the intention of ACBL's midchart, until it became hijacked recently with committees that approve or disappriove conventions which are allowed under the mid-chart regulations (although perhaps, many of them should be allowed always).

I find it outragous that constructive 1 level opening bids (or responses) showing a known suit can be banned while destructive x-fer pre-empts are allowed (with a published defense that is totally inadequite as it doesn't say whether bids in the second round of the auction are forcing or not...). Its totally arbitrary that they let you play x-fer responses to 1C if 1C was Forcing, but not if its natural. Many of the rules are completely arbitrary and rediculous.

Now I am not sure where highly nebulous 1 minor bids fall into all of them. As far as I am concerned, those are much more ART than many of the things banned...

[pbleighton]

I could live with Adam's proposed deregulation (assuming that it would replace the GCC) - though I'd like to be able to play a forcing pass system at sectionals and regionals


Peter

[Sigi_BC84]

Impact, on Feb 21 2006, 04:42 AM, said:

Coming from the land of almost anything goes (except of course encrypted signals which are perfectly logical and rely on knowledge from your own hand but which the regulators bizarrely banned), we have learnt to adapt to almost anything fairly quickly.

That was a really nice pleading, Impact. It is good to hear from somebody that (almost) completely deregulating Bridge just works despite having "weak" players around. In a regulated environment it is really hard to make that argument because it's perceived to be hypothetical: people make you believe that it "would not work" because most people wouldn't want to bother with the unusual methods.

Strangely, really strangely, these working examples are not being acknowledged in other countries -- it reminds me of the legalization of certain substances in Holland, them still being illegal in the rest of Europe... Totally absurd and against any reason.

The situation is really bizarre. I have heard (third hand) of one German top player with a lot of experience that he does not want to play in Germany's honour division because there is one HUM team playing there (highly successfully BTW). He said that he doesn't want to read through "40 pages of system notes" in order to prepare himself. While I have not seen the system I believe that's complete BS -- I know that they use a strong pass and a 1♠ 0-10 HCP fert, but I simply cannot imagine that you have to go through their entire structure in order to properly prepare.

The regulations have seemingly created an atmosphere were even star players are driven away from high level bridge because they feel that it's impossible to defend against HUMs!

At least you can use BSCs in 12+ board matches here in Germany, but I'm completely with you that they should allow HUM as well, at least if time permits that you can disclose system and a reasonable defence to opps in time.

--Sigi

[Impact]

Compliments are gratefully accepted.

Part of the problem is that some (particularly older) "experts" have an edge that depends upon familiarity - rather than logic. They do not wish to have to think things through from unfamiliar premises.

By contrast many younger people for whom bridge offers an attraction, find the charm in original (or they think it is original) thought.

Oddly enough there is always a hardcore few who believe that there is a better way of doing things - if only it could be found.

To eliminate these thinkers is to detract from the charm of the game.

Funnily enough, it is not the really poor player who is flummoxed (as opposed to inconvenienced) by new methods: they lack the imagination to believe anything except the 13 cards they hold in their own hand (!), and rarely see more than one path be it in bidding or play; but the player with pretensions is most at risk as the "rules" he has absorbed and relies upon my not be available - and perhaps the true expert too, in the sense that he is more susceptible to a bluff than anyone.

For this reason - among others - I like 2 way systems which have strong and weak options in at least some bids: at a low level it means htat opponents no longer have the security of purely destructive methods or the "bluff pre-empt" which is really intermediate plus strength and catches partenr witha balanced (or slightly misfitting) minimum opener....so they miss game or slam because they were determined to obfuscate your auction!

I realise that in ACBL land psyches of strong openings are banned - and I truly believe that that is against the best interests of the game: the glorious mixture of chess-like skills, language/logic construction in bidding and poker strategies is exactly what makes the game endlessly fascinating.

[Al_U_Card]

Once again, solve the issue easily with 2 flights. Open and closed. Open allows any method. Closed has restrictions (Whatever the close-minded individuals are willing to put up with.).

Like Open and Invitational golf. All the best go to the Opens. The rest wait for an invitation to the party....

[Sigi_BC84]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 22 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

Once again, solve the issue easily with 2 flights. Open and closed. Open allows any method. Closed has restrictions (Whatever the close-minded individuals are willing to put up with.).

Well, in Germany we have several flights, it's only that the top flight (that includes everything) is not being played very often. Having a category/flight were anything goes is not enough. The organization also has to encourage using that category freely (e.g. in all 12+ board matches).

Not talking about the ACBL regulations here (they are beyond any reason).

--Sigi