[Cascade]

Rebound, on Jul 28 2004, 05:27 AM, said:

However, I am sure that many of you will agree that, whether for good or ill, destructive bidding in general tends to be frowned upon.

I do not agree with this.

If a method is good for my side then it is a good method whether it is "destructive" or "constructive".

Our opponents recently pre-empted 5♣ destructively on our grand slam hand. Their partner then raised to 7♣ destructively. We were unable to diagnose the extent of our double fit. Should we cry foul. Obviously not! This is what makes this game so much fun.

Why should this be different for any innovative methods.

Allowing innovation is a win-win situation.

If the innovators discover good methods we can all play them and improve our enjoyment. If the discover bad methods then we beat them while they are playing around.

Quote

Falsecards, I have no problem with since they are far less open to abuse. As opposed to psyches, if your partner regularly falsecards, then falsecards his falsecards, etc, unless you are actually cheating by forming a partnership agreement, you are never going to know what his signals mean and will lose more than you gain (I think.)

The same thing will happen with psychic bids. If partner psyches too much I won't know what she has got and I would expect that we will lose more than we win.

Quote

Cascade, to a degree, I agree that bad-mouthing a legal aspect of the game may unfairly bias people. However, isn't that what this thread - and the other asking people to post their least favorite conventions - is promoting (pot calling the kettle balck and all that)?

Saying that Gerber is my least favourite convention is quite a different beast than saying that using Gerber is against the spirt of the game.

Saying psyching is against the spirit of the game is more comparable to saying that following suit is against the spirit of the game. Well this is an exaggeration. What is something that is allowed but not compulsory - asking questions about the opponents' bidding is against the spirit of the game. I mean timely questions not coffee housing. No one would question my right to ask about the opponents bidding in a timely manner why would they question my right to make a psychic bid. Both are enshrined in the laws of the game.

[the hog]

Hi Rebound,

"However, I am sure that many of you will agree that, whether for good or ill, destructive bidding in general tends to be frowned upon. "

Like Wayne, I also disagree strongly with this. Pre empts are destructive, weak 2 bids are destructive, lobs are destructive, weak jump overcalls are destructives, yet all of these are perfectly acceptable and accepted, (with the possible exception of lobs).

The same philosophy should hold true for "funny" two bids and for psyches. It is unfortunate that some governing authorities legislate against them.

Imagine how boring Bridge would be if everyone was forced to use the same methods - a good deal of the intellectual stimulation would be removed from the game.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2004, 01:27 PM, said:

Imagine how boring Bridge would be if everyone was forced to use the same methods - a good deal of the intellectual stimulation would be removed from the game.

Exactly!

You like your style. I like my style. I like you liking your style - it adds variety to my game.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2004, 03:27 AM, said:

Imagine how boring Bridge would be if everyone was forced to use the same methods - a good deal of the intellectual stimulation would be removed from the game.

Yes and no. If "intellectual stimualtion" means the need to learn generic defense against non-BSC funny 2-openings, or, at a more advanced level, against BSCs, then I agree, provided we are talking about a sufficiently advanced field.

But if it means the need to develop specific defenses against specific methods, I have misgivings. I see a bridge tournament more as a struggle between bridge players than between system designers. If you like to struggle against other system designers, play a team match against them. I would certainly like to kibitz such a match, I would even like to participate if I could find time to prepare for it and find a partner who could, too. Which is not the case.

I've offered to give bidding lessons for players at my own club. We're talking about people who never asked themselves if freebids are forcing and who can't respond to a t/o double. The topic that always comes up top on the wish list "defence against multi". There's something wrong with the priorities here.

There are many ways to provide the opps with intellectual stimulation if you are afraid they get borred. Fill in your CC in Tibetanian, for example. For many players, the most appropriate intellectual stimualtion would arise in an environment where everybody was forced to play vanila sayc, so you could concentrate entirrely on the basics, not having to worrie about alert rules and all that nonsense.

That being said, total anarchy, as on BBO, has many advantages, too, not the least that you don't have to study the BSC and HUM regulations. In the perfect world, I think, players at intermediate (+/-) level should be given the choice: everything allowed (team matches) or nothing allowed (pairs).

[the hog]

Disagree Helene.
Everything allowed in open tournaments, but restricted events if you wany/prefer to compete in these. Interestingly this has been trialled and found unsuccesful. Not enough people enter the restricted events.

[Chamaco]

The_Hog, on Jul 28 2004, 09:35 AM, said:

Disagree Helene.
Everything allowed in open tournaments, but restricted events if you wany/prefer to compete in these. Interestingly this has been trialled and found unsuccesful. Not enough people enter the restricted events.

I'd like to say something about psyches here.

In Italy most psyches are outright banned at low-midflight tourneys, and allowe only in toplevele play.

One argument often brought as a reason for this is that the average low-level club player is virtually defenseless vs pysche.

Well let me tell you one thing.
I am one of those low-level club players.

yet I wish psyches (and any method) would be allowed everywhere (provided no concealed agreement).

As it is, so far I have been able to develop ways to cope vs preempts, vs light openings, and several bidding methods (strong club/diamond, canapè systems, weak/strong NT), but not vs psyches.

One learns to defend vs a weapon only by facing it several time and finally "digesting" it.

Now let's see what such rulings are doing: they are just delaying the time when I will learn how to defend vs psyches.

I expect/hope to become one day a decent player, reach some good tourneys and then, guess what ? I will be a beginner about psyches.

Moreover, most beginners do not have a clue even about how to defend vs a preempt or a miniNT, should these also be banned because destructive ?

I am from a seaside town, and we know the best way for kids to learn how to swim is to throw them in the water and let them drink some saltwater a few times;
so the best way for a beginner to learn how to defend vs a destructuive method is the "hard way", getting the bitter end of it a few times;
a few bad boards due to a psyche won't do that harm to a beginner (and this applies also to myself).

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Jul 28 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

yet I wish psyches (and any method) would be allowed everywhere (provided no concealed agreement).

As it is, so far I have been able to develop ways to cope vs preempts, vs light openings, and several bidding methods (strong club/diamond, canapè systems, weak/strong NT), but not vs psyches.

One learns to defend vs a weapon only by facing it several time and finally "digesting" it.

Come play against me more often in the Main Bridge Room. I promise you I will trhow a few psyches your way, as well as bluff bids that not quite psyches on the normal sense.

Ben

[Rebound]

Hmm, looks like I mis-spoke. Instead of "desructive bidding in general", I really should have said destructive bidding systems. They are generally restricted in their use, I think with good reason. And to clarify, when I stated they are frowned upon, "whether for good or ill," my intent was that I am not alone in having a dislike for these methods whether or not that view is "correct".

The argument that they should be allowed at all levels so that opponents will get used to defending against them is specious. It makes the assumption that everyone agrees that they should be used in the first place; see above. It does not follow that because you can, you should.

Incidentally, back to the spirit of the game remark, I accept it was presumptuous, and perhaps displayed a lack of understanding of the psychic bid itself. My personal dislike for them led me into la-la land. My apologies. I hope I haven't gotten too far off on the wrong foot with anyone.

I appreciate the lively discussion. I have learned a lot from it. Thank you.

[the hog]

One man's meat....

I love destructive systems and destructive bids. If I can play systems or use bids which interfere with my opponent's abilities to bid unimpeded to the correct contract, then I will certainly do so. I certainly think this is fair and reasonable. (Who says that just because Brigidda has dealt you a great hand I should roll over and die and let you quietly bid to your optimum contract?) For this reason I played a strong pass system including a 1H Fert for many years. I still would except that you can only play it in 14+ board matches these days. When we started we were even allowed to play strong pass in pairs events.

I accept fully the fact that some, (many?), do not like to play against unusual or destructive methods. Quite a few do though. Reasons for restrictions are that many do not want their comfort zones disturbed. I still can't see why 2 tiered competitions are not adopted - anything goes in the open field. Yet these, as I intimated in a previous post, are remarkably unpopular and attract very few entries. I believe the problem lies in the fact that many of those who want systems restricted also want to play against the best players, but the best players would prefer to play in the unrestricted event. It seems to me that one group is attempting to impose its will on others, and this is rather selfish.

Many strong players use methods designed to obstruct the bidding. Look at the current methods used by Klinger-Neill, arguably Australia's strongest partnership:
2C = 6+C 10-14 OR weak, (possibly very weak), with 4-4 Ms
2D = weak 6 card M or 5/5 ms
2H/S weak 2 bids with 5 card suits, (sometimes 4).

Perhaps, Rebound and Helene. you might like to comment on this point. Would you prefer to play in restricted systems events if these were on offer?

Also there is no doubt that some regulations are silly and illogical to say the least. Look at the current discussion on rule 40A in rgb. The EBU rules on what is allowed after a Multi are, quite frankly, totally stupid.


Ron

[PriorKnowledge]

Let me dive into this with both left feet.....

Issue 1) "Destructive bidding systems."

These are not systems or conventions designed to achieve a good contract or snooker the opps out of theirs, but to specifically destroy certain conventions or systems. These are illegal in ACBL land. For example: A forced overcall of 1S showing 13 cards over opps Precision 1C opener. I am not going to argue this one for those that can't see that this is not bridge.

Issue 2) "Highly unusual or overly complex bidding systems or conventions"

At anything but the highest levels of play, this is cheating in my opinion. Some of these bids have no value over other methods. Their purpose is to confuse the opps. I am not talking about complex bids that solve a problem or hide a weakness like transfer advances or not-serious 3N. I am talking about bids whose sheer complexity make it impossible for the opps to understand the bid or know all its nuances. Any bid that can't be explained in 1 or 2 short sentences falls into this category.

Issue 3) "An enjoyable night out or why I dropped out of chess"

In the last chess tournament I attended, I lost a game to a much lower-rated player because he had read the latest "Chess Informant" that had a refutation for an opening that I favored. I realized that to play in tournaments, even casually, it would take hours and hours of studying every week to keep up with all the grand master games and analysis. That was work, not fun.

The same principle applies when playing against so many different and complex bidding systems and conventions in all their infinite variety. In some games, every bid at every table is different. How many conventions, systems, and methods do I have to understand if I want to be competitive? Bridge no longer is an intellectual challenge, but work, listening to long-winded, tedious, lawyerly explanations of every bid. "Ha... you should not have lead a heart... In paragraph 6, subsection C, I specifically told you that I had the AQx of hearts... Weren't you paying attention?"

[Free]

In response to PriorKnowledge:

First of all: I suggest we don't take ACBL land to compare with, since NOTHING is allowed over there! It's plain silly, but probably they have too many beginner who are whining about a simple convention that they are too lazy to try and understand. Btw, the USA is not the centre of the world anyway... And as Ron suggests: if you don't like the rulez in your country, migrate

Issue 1: destructive bidding systems

What is the result of destroying opps conventions by destructive bidding? Right, getting us in a contract which scores better than their optimal, and snookering opps out of their optimal contract at the same time.
Bidding over a strong 1♣ IS bridge. It seems you have a weird opinion about what is and what is not bridge. Bridge is a cardgame, where everyone can and may bid whatever he wants, and later on we have to play as good as possible. What is the weakness of a strong ♣ system? The 1♣ opening and the nebolous 1♦ most of the time. Take away the disadvantages of the 1♣ opener (interference), and all you do is making that system better than any other system around. If you don't intervene as much as possible after a strong 1♣, you're playing losing bridge. That's not what I want to be playing...

Issue 2: Highly unusual or overly complex bidding systems or conventions

If you find a solution to a problem and want to play it, why not? Even if it's complex, when your p and you want to play it you should! Because next time you get such a trouble hand and you can't use your solution, you'll be disappointed. If opps don't understand how it completely works, you have to explain. If it takes more than 1 line to explain it, what's the problem with that? If you listen or let opps write it down, you can try to understand. But there's the biggest problem of all: if the explanation gets long, people just don't listen anymore. A few weeks ago I played a big tourney, and my p opens 1♣. I alert, opps ask what it means, and I say "2+♣, forcing for 1 round". They started to ask numerous of questions which had NOTHING to do with the opening or our system. One opponent kept asking what the minimum HCP value was. I told him 8HCP, cause that's the absolute minimum we open with at 1-level, and he was looking weird in my direction. It's a stupid question to ask how many HCP he has anyway imo. I already told him 5 times the minimum strength was a NORMAL opening hand, but for some reason he THOUGHT we played a strong ♣ system, while I did my best to explain that it wasn't. If he would JUST LISTEN ONCE to what I SAY, he'd know what we play, but nooooooooo. And afterwards they can complain...

Issue 3: An enjoyable night out or why I dropped out of chess

What do you want? A thinking sport where you don't have to know stuff? It's unnecessary to learn your opps system, you just need to understand what they bid and don't bid. Example: many people seem to be scared of a multi-2♦ opening. I don't understand why, everyone plays it over here. Play against an American (some know how to handle it, ok) on BBO and they lose it completely. You alert, and by the time you've typed they already bid. And then they start asking what multi is, that they want an undo,... It's just pathetic, nothing else. They THINK we play the same system as them, but they'd better put their energy in listening to what we REALY play.
If I play against something I've never seen before, I'm interested in how it works, what the (dis)advantages are,... It's always beginners who start complaining if you play something funny against them. I also never had a complaint on a psychic or creative bid or falsecards on high levels, only by beginners who THINK I'm gonna show them exactly what I have.

Go ahead, go play in low-level tourneys where nobody may play anything creative. I'll just go to the higher-level tourneys and have fun with whatever my weapons are, and fight against whatever weapons my opps come up with. Bridge is war. Don't surrender, just fight back!
It's a bit annoying imo that the beginners have so much power that they can take away the fun of a game for better players. When is this going to change (if ever)?

[the hog]

Again no replies to the questions I raised....


"These are not systems or conventions designed to achieve a good contract or snooker the opps out of theirs, but to specifically destroy certain conventions or systems. These are illegal in ACBL land."

1) Yes they are designed to snooker the opponents out of their comfort zone. So they are illegal in ACBL land, so what? Is ACBL land the be all and end all of world bridge authority? I think not! Why is it that some always quote and defer to the ACBL as if this was the font of all the world's bridge knowledge and the ultimate authority?

2) "At anything but the highest levels of play, this is cheating in my opinion." This comment is totally ridiculous and offensive to those who use highly unusual or complex methods. Cheating is acting against the rules of the game. Using these methods is within the rules of the game.

You mention the random 1S overcall over a big C. This is perfectly acceptable bridge imo. Should I pass and allow you to have a wonderful uncontested auction to your par contract just because you have a good hand. How absurd! You have chosen to play a big C system and I am going to make it as hard for you as possible. Of course this is bridge.

Multi meaning 2 bids for example, are deliberately designed to make life tough for the opponents by making it dangerous for them to enter the auction, and to take away or render ineffective their usual method of defense. For example, we play canape overcalls. Why? Two reasons: I am suggesting 2 places to play and secondly YOU lose your negative double. Tough luck! There is NOTHING wrong with this at all. I have already asked, why not play in restricted events if you don't like complicated systems? - You gave no reply to this.

3) "Bridge no longer is an intellectual challenge, but work". Some of us find work an intellectual challenge. Your reason for dropping out of chess - you were taken out of your comfort zone - is indicative enough of where you stand regarding serious play. All power to the Chess player who beat you; he was prepared to put in the hard yards and you were not. By his diligence he has become a better player than you. That is due to your laziness and is your choice, so play at a lower level.

The above is reason enough for having events where all the participants want to do is click a button or place a card on the table without much thought. Play solitaire!

I just read Free's post; actually Frederick, I have found that it is not beginners who get irate, but rather the middle crop of players who have been playing for years and years and are so stagnant that they don't want to change. Most beginners are keen and willing to learn.

[jtfanclub]

If you find a solution to a problem and want to play it, why not?

If you design a system specifically to sow confusion in your opponents, I don't consider that bridge.

If I'm playing in a 26 board 13 round match where we get 15 minutes a round and some censored comes to our table and announces that they open their shortest suit instead of their longest, what are we supposed to do? Spend 5 minutes creating a defense? That gives them an average+ on the second board, and rewards them for playing that BS. Have a defense available for every mathematically possible system? I don't think so. Play our ordinary defense? If I know what defense you're using, I can make a system to specifically counter that defense. It may be an awful system if people have time to prepare, but if you get the surprise factor, hey, you can win a couple of tourneys before you have to dispose of it.

I don't believe for a minute that the forcing pass system with a 1H fert is as good a system as any of a dozen I might name. If people want to name long round tourneys that have been won with it (Bermuda Bowl etc.) please tell me and I'll stand corrected. Its sole purpose seems to be to surprise people who don't have a defense prepped for it.

I don't consider that bridge. Neither does the ACBL. Makes me happy to live here.

Sorry.

[epeeist]

For the USBC, and I assume other high-level tournaments, the players' bidding system summaries included a section "methods requiring advance preparation by opponents".

To me, these kinds of bids are the only "destructive" bids, e.g. forcing-pass ("fert"?) systems or some other weird, highly-artificial systems that are almost impossible for the typical bridge opponent to deal with. But for high-level play, with advance warning like this, they're not "destructive".

It seems to me that a lot of the so-called "destructive" bids are those which people don't like? If opponents make a sacrifice that is better than what your score would have been, or if they "psyche" and get a good result, tough for you. You can do the same.

If someone is bidding, say, 7♣ and you have a makeable grand slam, then if the doubled penalty is less than the grand slam, they've made a good sacrifice. If worse, they've made a bad sacrifice. What's the problem?

[Cascade]

Chamaco, on Jul 29 2004, 05:45 AM, said:

Now let's see what such rulings are doing: they are just delaying the time when I will learn how to defend vs psyches.

... so the best way for a beginner to learn how to defend vs a destructuive method is the "hard way", getting the bitter end of it a few times;
a few bad boards due to a psyche won't do that harm to a beginner (and this applies also to myself).

Exactly.

In my face to face lessons I almost always teach about psyches. I think this is the best way so that players are exposed to this from the beginning.

I do not teach a formal lesson on psyches but I find that almost always in a course of lessons at some stage someone asks "What happens if you do not have your 12 points to open and you open with 8 or 3 points?" This is an ideal time to talk about the possibility to bluff the opponents and the harm that it might do to your partner.

[Cascade]

PriorKnowledge, on Jul 29 2004, 02:04 PM, said:

Issue 1) "Destructive bidding systems."

These are not systems or conventions designed to achieve a good contract or snooker the opps out of theirs, but to specifically destroy certain conventions or systems. These are illegal in ACBL land. For example: A forced overcall of 1S showing 13 cards over opps Precision 1C opener. I am not going to argue this one for those that can't see that this is not bridge.

If it works it is bridge.

If making a random overcall gets your side good scores why is that not bridge.

And if it does not then I don't see why anyone would complain when their opponents play those methods.

[Cascade]

PriorKnowledge, on Jul 29 2004, 02:04 PM, said:

Issue 2) "Highly unusual or overly complex bidding systems or conventions"

At anything but the highest levels of play, this is cheating in my opinion. Some of these bids have no value over other methods. Their purpose is to confuse the opps. I am not talking about complex bids that solve a problem or hide a weakness like transfer advances or not-serious 3N. I am talking about bids whose sheer complexity make it impossible for the opps to understand the bid or know all its nuances. Any bid that can't be explained in 1 or 2 short sentences falls into this category.

Do you have an example of what you mean here?

In my experience it is just as hard getting all of the nuances out of some "standard" players with their own idiosyncranies.

[Cascade]

PriorKnowledge, on Jul 29 2004, 02:04 PM, said:

Bridge no longer is an intellectual challenge, but work, listening to long-winded, tedious, lawyerly explanations of every bid.

I find playing against new methods refreshing and stimulating.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Jul 29 2004, 02:48 PM, said:

You mention the random 1S overcall over a big C. This is perfectly acceptable bridge imo. Should I pass and allow you to have a wonderful uncontested auction to your par contract just because you have a good hand. How absurd! You have chosen to play a big C system and I am going to make it as hard for you as possible. Of course this is bridge.

It just occurred to me that the technical merit of a random overcall is that it exploits a weakness in the strong club.

Someone who wants to ban a random overcall because it is destructive is effectively just saying "I want to play my flawed system but only on the condition that you do not expose its flaws".

Bridge is a game one (pair or team) against another (pair or team). The fun in playing as I see it is for me to devise strategies to out wit your team. If you choose a poor strategy I should be allowed to exploit its weakness. The weakness in your method should not be protected by an artificial regulation that does not allow me to exploit that weakness.

[the hog]

"If you design a system specifically to sow confusion in your opponents, I don't consider that bridge. "

If you and your system are not good enough to deal with that confusion, I certainly do regard it as bridge.

"what are we supposed to do? Spend 5 minutes creating a defense? "

If your meta agreements are not sufficiently developed to cope with the unusual, then that is your problem and your fault for lack of preparation. You can have agreements which have general principles so that you can deal with virtually everything that is thrown at you.

"I don't believe for a minute that the forcing pass system with a 1H fert is as good a system as any of a dozen I might name. "

I certainly do. Look at a recent rgb thread. Look at the results of Regres and Suspensor, and look at the results of Marston and Burgess before their system was legislated out of existence. However you have probably heard of none of these.

"I don't consider that bridge. Neither does the ACBL. Makes me happy to live here."

So again we appeal to the authority of the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons. (ACBL). Makes ME happy to live HERE.