[joshs]

jdonn, on May 2 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

joshs, on May 1 2006, 11:37 PM, said:

Well I disagree with how you use the terminology. I don't think a bid that is showing a or b or c constitutes showing something.  And the definition of a relay is "a bid that does not show anything about the bidders hand, but instead asks partner to show something." A relay is often, but not always the cheapist bid.

Stayman "shows" either
a. both majors any strength OR
b. an invite in NT
OR
C an INV or better hand with a major
OR
D. A game force with just a minor
OR
E. A weak 3 suiter short in clubs
OR
F. Maybe some other hands.

30 years ago, stayman and then 3 of a minor was the way to drop dead in a minor.

In any case these hand types have nothing in common in strength or in distribution and as a result you are not showing anything with the 2C bid alone.

You weren't disagreeing with me. I was saying Stayman is a relay, just not the start of a sequence of relays, and that's why it is legal.

Actually a sequence of relays is allowed over a 1N or higher opening bid even in the GCC (so after bidding stayman you can continue with more relays), just not over 1 of a suit, except everything is legal over a forcing club or forcing diamond. Its a complete mishmash....

[jdonn]

joshs, on May 2 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

Actually a sequence of relays is allowed over a 1N or higher opening bid even in the GCC (so after bidding stayman you can continue with more relays), just not over 1 of a suit, except everything is legal over a forcing club or forcing diamond. Its a complete mishmash...

Of course it is There are a couple favorite annoying examples I have.

I have been told by all national directors I have asked that P P 1♠ P, it is illegal to play 'longer minor drury' where you simply bid drury in your longer minor, since it's a psychic control because partner can easily psych 1♠ then pass it. But it's perfectly legal to play fit showing jumps there. So P P 1♠ P 2♣ showing clubs and spades, illegal, P P 1♠ P 3♣ showing clubs and spades, legal.

Is it really THAT much harder for old ladies to bid over 1NT 2♦ showing a major than 1NT 2♣ showing a major?

It's still a tough job. No one can deny that any convention chart (just like any alert procedure) will make a lot of people unhappy no matter what.

[akhare]

joshs, on May 2 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

Actually a sequence of relays is allowed over a 1N or higher opening bid even in the GCC (so after bidding stayman you can continue with more relays), just not over 1 of a suit, except everything is legal over a forcing club or forcing diamond. Its a complete mishmash....

BTW, can the ACBL Ayatollahs or their defenders provide a coherent explanation as to why relay systems should be banned at any level?

I can understand provisions to penalize pairs that bid too slowly (Ultimate Club relayers for instance?). I can even understand minimum strength requirements to initiate relays. However, banning *all* relay systems hardly seems to be the solution....

Atul

[joshs]

There are even things banned on the GCC for no real reason other than the rules were targeting a particular pair.

(Someone can correct me if my interpretiation of the following ban is wrong).

1N forcing over 1M is allowed, but may not guarantee INV or better values.

1. 1N promising INV or better values was played by Katz and Cohen as part of the breakthrough system
2. Katz and Cohen were considered cheaters
therefore
3. Make a key part of their system illegal

Now no one ever accussed them of cheating in the 1M-1N auctions I don't think, it was there 1M-non forcing new suit auctions that raised eyebrows.

Now maybe there is some other reason for this ban, but I can't see why playing 1N as showing a good hand as being at all odious or requiring any special defenses. If you want to ban possible adjuncts (like 1M-2C as weak with no fit) thats another matter.

[uday]

Quote

can the ACBL Ayatollahs or their defenders provide a coherent explanation

I doubt anyone will bother. Rephrasing the Q (hint: think flies, sugar and vinegar) might work wonders.

Or you could ask the ACBL -- http://www.acbl.org/

[hrothgar]

fred, on May 2 2006, 04:51 PM, said:

You could ask "why does the ACBL find it necessary to protect their players from ice-free water at their tournaments when ice-free water is standard elsewhere?".

The obvious answer is "it is not a matter of necessity - most Americans prefer to have ice in their water and the ACBL is trying to do what its members want".

Same goes with systems regulations. ACBL thinks that most of its players would prefer to play in events with conservative (compared with other parts of the world) systems regulations.

Once again, I think that there is a lot of discussion going on at cross purposes.

From my perspective, the critical issue being discussed here has less to do with the "ends", but rather the "means". I'm not especially upset that the ACBL is serving ice in its water. I prefer water without ice, but I can live with it. What concerns me enormously is the manner in which North America was made safe for "ice".

In some ways I see some very interesting parallels between this discussion and some of the debates surrounding the NSA wiretapping. Most of the critiques of the Bush administration's position don't focus on the wiretaps themselves, but rather whether the Executive branch was exercising appropriate authority. I'll note in passing that many of the most vocal critics of the Bush administration are from the far right. These individuals very much fear what might happen a Democratic President started claiming these same powers.

As I noted in another thread, I'm fond of Andrew Sullivan's Blog. (I don't agree with much that he has to say, but he does write reasonable well) I find it interesting to note that Sullivan chose to post the following excerpt from "A Man for All Seasons" in one of today's threads:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

[bid_em_up]

Having just read all of this, my head hurts.

Will add more later, for what little it will be worth....

(EDIT)Ok, its later now.

First, in the case of opening 2D to show 4 diamonds and 4 hearts, I believe that the terminology stating "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." applies to an opening bid at the 1 level (not the 2 level), but I could be mistaken. However, the additional phrasing on the midchart of

"4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that
weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits
must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits"

specifically precludes opening 2D on 4-4 hands even in midchart events. (And they are certainly prohibited in GCC only events).

Second, while I fully understand that BBO (and its forums) have a wide variety of participants from around the world who are used to being allowed to play whatever conventions/systems they see fit, many of these same participants attempt to make arguments that the ACBL should allow these conventions/systems in all events, or at least part of the GCC. I believe this is just absurd. My personal observation is that vast majority of ACBL players are non-serious players, who have never heard of transfer openings, multi 2D, Romex, or any of the other things listed in these discussions, nor do they ever care to. If they cant remember that they are playing transfers, or splinters or michaels, how can they possibly be expected to be able to deal with Multi? Transfer Advances? They cant. Nor do they want to. Its that simple. (Sad, but true). If you make the game less enjoyable for what is the majority of ACBL players, you will end up alienating your core base, who will then cease to participate in events they no longer enjoy, due to what they feel are the destructive methods being employed.

Additionally, in sectioned events, why would it be "fair" for one section have to compete with the one pair who happens to be employing any of these methods, when all of the other sections arent facing at least a modicum of the same?

At this moment, there are approximately 3000 members logged into BBO. Of these, only slightly over 700 are from the United States (and I imagine the percentages stay fairly consistent throughout the course of the day, but again, I could be mistaken). And yet the ACBL has over 150,000 members. (I would be interested in knowing the total numbers of BBO members from the US for this purpose or what percentage of BBO members are US based.). Where are the other 149000 members? At home, going about their daily lives, not caring about bridge on the internet, or going to play at their local club game for social purposes, or they are not computer literate. (Again, sad, but true).

It is my general observations that the majority of people playing bridge in the US are a) probably much older than the rest of the world (read over 60), B ) have no interest in having to deal with complex bidding sequences or conventions, and c) if forced to do so, they will find other ways of spending their time/money as they will no longer enjoy the pastime of playing bridge.

Many have argued that the ACBL should be promoting these methods as a means of attracting younger players or it will die out. I respectfully disagree. Over the next 25 years, the US population aged 60 or higher will increase by approximately 25% (78 million) according to current US census projections. In the meantime, the average life-span in the US is continually increasing (at least according to the statistics I have seen). It is the rising baby-boomers the ACBL really should be targeting to increase its membership, but again, that is just my own humble opinion. No offense to the younger crowd, but I started playing when I was 18. I received all kinds of strange looks from friends when I mentioned that I played bridge. "Bridge? Isn't that an old folks game?" was a common response, and it is reflected at every participation level, with the possible exception of the Nationals. Club games, Sectional and Regional tournaments are dominated in participation by people over 50, imo. Mind you, I started playing over 25 years ago (meaning I am now in my mid 40's), and I am still frequently one of the "younger" crowd at any club game or tournament. Granted, this could easily be different in other parts of the country, but I suspect that it is not.

Realistically, the younger US population usually will not have the time (due to job, family, etc.) or the money or the interest to participate frequently in bridge tournaments. They simply have too many competing interests to make bridge a normal part of their lives, and any attempt to attract larger portions of this demographic is doomed to failure in the US. However the rising baby-boomers over the next 25 years will begin to have, each year as they retire, more time on their hands in which they begin to seek new outlets to occupy this time, and usually more money to spend on discretionary activities than someone say, in college or just out of college, making attempts to reach this demographic more likely to be successful.

Finally, please dont infer that I agree with all of the current regulations. I do not. To some degree, I think that there should be ACBL events where you can play whatever you desire, but only as seperate events and advertised accordingly, so that you may choose whether or not to participate in such an event.

And I must say, that I find it encouraging that Fred, Jan, Josh, Richard, Tim, et. al, can discuss issues such as addressed in this thread and their subsequent responses with at least (what I have perceived to be) a reasonable sense of decorum. While I can certainly understand why Fred was, um, irritated? with Richards stance and his means of addressing it, I also get the impression that Jan was not quite as irritated as Fred was. (I could be wrong in that assessment, however. Maybe she was and her writing simply didnt reflect it). And I dont think it was Richards intent to insult Chip Martel or Jeff Meckstroth (at least I hope it wasn't), but simply an attempt to show that the means of getting adequate defenses approved is flawed, and his frustration/aggravation with the process.

Personally, since I have never attempted to accomplish any of this, I found this whole interaction fascinating, in terms of revealing the processes that actually occur "behind the scenes".

As always, jmoo.

[TimG]

fred, on May 1 2006, 12:11 PM, said:

Are you sure that a "best possible midchart" would have a significant positive impact on the best long term interests of the ACBL?

No.

[TimG]

joshs, on May 2 2006, 11:42 AM, said:

There are even things banned on the GCC for no real reason other than the rules were targeting a particular pair.

(Someone can correct me if my interpretiation of the following ban is wrong).

1N forcing over 1M is allowed, but may not guarantee INV or better values.

I believe you are right. It does seem strange to me: wouldn't it be easier to defend against the forcing 1NT if the opponents knew it was INV or better rather than possibly including some weak types?

BTW, the easy work around of the regulation is to include one weak hand-type in the 1NT response. When I play non-forcing new suits and 1NT forcing, I include a weak raise in the 1NT response. Now 1NT doesn't guarantee INV or better and is GCC legal. Makes me think the regulation is rather silly.

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on May 2 2006, 11:30 PM, said:

First, in the case of opening 2D to show 4 diamonds and 4 hearts, I believe that the terminology stating "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." applies to an opening bit at the 1 level (not the 2 level), but I could be mistaken. However, the additional phrasing on the midchart of

"4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits"

specifically precludes opening 2D on 4-4 hands even in midchart events. (And they are certainly prohibited in GCC only events).

The rule in question was not introduced until after I made my submission.

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on May 2 2006, 11:30 PM, said:

Many have argued that the ACBL should be promoting these methods as a means of attracting younger players or it will die out. I respectfully disagree. Over the next 25 years, the US population aged 60 or higher will increase by approximately 25% (78 million) according to current US census projections. In the meantime, the average life-span in the US is continually increasing (at least according to the statistics I have seen). It is the rising baby-boomers the ACBL really should be targeting to increase its membership, but again, that is just my own humble opinion. No offense to the younger crowd, but I started playing when I was 18.

Have you ever wondered why television shows are always chasing the coveted 18-34 year old demographic?

Advertisers have spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying consumers and modelling their willingness to adopt "new" products. I'm making a gross over simplification here, however, old folks are set in their ways. It takes enormous amounts of time/money/effort to get a 50 year old to change their behaviour or adopt something new.

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on May 3 2006, 07:25 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on May 2 2006, 11:30 PM, said:

First, in the case of opening 2D to show 4 diamonds and 4 hearts, I believe that the terminology stating "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit." applies to an opening bid at the 1 level (not the 2 level), but I could be mistaken. However, the additional phrasing on the midchart of

"4. Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two-level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5–4 distribution in the two suits"

specifically precludes opening 2D on 4-4 hands even in midchart events. (And they are certainly prohibited in GCC only events).

The rule in question was not introduced until after I made my submission.

It was my interpretation that one of the posts (not necessarily yours, I believe it was by awm) was making the argument that since the current GCC only requires 3 cards in a minor suit to be considered a natural opening.....

The rest was derived from that.

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on May 2 2006, 11:30 PM, said:

At this moment, there are approximately 3000 members logged into BBO. Of these, only slightly over 700 are from the United States (and I imagine the percentages stay fairly consistent throughout the course of the day, but again, I could be mistaken). And yet the ACBL has over 150,000 members.

For kicks and giggle, I'm going to post some membership statistics for different National Bridge organizations, along with the population for those countries. I'm not going to try to interprete the data other than to note that would be an incredibly complicated problem. You need to take a LOT of different variables into consideration - Population density, income... (Even then it gets hard to explain why the Dutch Bridge Federation has roughly 8 times the participation rate as the Belgian Bridge Federation. Either the Dutch are the top of their game in terms of membership recruitment or they define membership VERY differently). If you extend your model to include participation in Internet bridge you have a host of other complexities. Case in point: Historicially Internet connectivity was much cheaper in the US than in Europe (I remember when all the Brits on OKB were paying connection fees to their ISPs) More recently, that pattern reversed itself.

In any case, the first number is total population (taken from the CIA World Factbook).
The second number is the size of the Bridge Federation.
The last is the membership as a percentage of the population

North America
436282591
155876
0.00035728

US
295734134
140272
0.00047432

Canada
33098932
15322
0.00046292

Mexico
107449525
282
0.00000262

European Union
456953258
387684
0.00084841

Netherlands
16491461
89888
0.00545058

Belgium
10379067
8275
0.00079728

France
60876136
100444
0.00164997

Germany
82422299
28724
0.00034850

UK
60609153
37089
0.00061194

England 26317
Scotland 7330
Wales 1962
Ireland 1480

Denmark
5450661
24740
0.00453890

Sweden
9016596
16530
0.00183329

Poland
38536869
6863
0.00017809

Turkey
70413958
2147
0.00003049

Italy
58133509
31594
0.00054347

Australia
20264082
32574
0.00160747

New Zealand
4076140
16238
0.00398367

Brazil
188078227
990
0.00000526

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on May 3 2006, 07:34 AM, said:

Have you ever wondered why television shows are always chasing the coveted 18-34 year old demographic?

Advertisers have spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying consumers and modelling their willingness to adopt "new" products. I'm making a gross over simplification here, however, old folks are set in their ways. It takes enormous amounts of time/money/effort to get a 50 year old to change their behaviour or adopt something new.

This is not the same thing. In your scenario, those marketers are targeting "hip" products to a "want it now" society, with slick advertising being one of the most effective ways to reach that core demographic. Bridge is not something you can go to your local dealership or store and buy to take home for immediate consumption. It is a lifestyle activity.

Try comparing the time/effort/money necessary to convince a new retiree (or older divorcee or widow/widower) to take a bridge class against someone who is 28, just married, working full-time, recently bought a house, a kid thats 2-3 and another one on the way. Which one is more likely to be seeking new activities to occupy their time? As one of the latter, I can tell you if it wasnt for the internet, I could not play bridge. I do not have time to go and spend 3-4 hours at a local club, nor can I afford to attend out of town tournaments.

I am fairly certain that it will not take near as much time/effort/money to motivate a sixty year old who has recently retired from work, kids are now grown and moved out of the house, and has more free time on their hands than they know what to do with as compared to the 18-34 year old in the above scenario. They, in many cases, are bored and/or lonely, and already actively seeking new activities to occupy the extra time that has been derived from their lifestyle changes. Especially ones that are social in nature, relatively inexpensive (at least at the club level), and easy to do.

I, myself, am a member of a local spades meetup group. Many of the people who belong to it say "I would like to learn to play bridge, but I dont have the time" or "I learned to play in college but I dont....."

District 7 publishes a newsletter about once per quarter (other districts may do this as well, I do not know). In it, they list recent life masters and usually give some general information regarding the person and who their favorite partners are. I cannot begin to tell you how many times the words "Learned to play bridge at a young age but was only able to pick up the game again after kids were grown ", "Learned to play bridge in college, but recently took up the game after retirement" or "just picked up the game 3 years ago after...." are included in these testimonials.

Mind you, I am not saying that no effort should be spent on marketing to the younger crowd. Anybody that learns the game of bridge in their earlier years is certainly a potential future ACBL member. If they learn the game as a teenager and stick with it, great!

However, it is my sincere belief that if the ACBL truly wishes to increase its membership base over the next 25 years that it should be concentrating its efforts more on the influx of the large amount of retirees due to the baby-boomers, people who will be seeking new activities as opposed to those in the 18-34 crowd whose plates are already full.

And the bottom line in regards to HUM systems in the ACBL is the older crowd will not want to participate in the "free-for-all, anything goes" environment that is continually suggested as a means of attracting new (younger) players to the ACBL.

As always, jmoo.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on May 3 2006, 03:24 PM, said:

(Even then it gets hard to explain why the Dutch Bridge Federation has roughly 8 times the participation rate as the Belgian Bridge Federation. Either the Dutch are the top of their game in terms of membership recruitment or they define membership VERY differently).

The Netherlands and Denmark are notorious for their "Association culture". In both countries, almost everybody is a member of several associations: charity associations, sports and leasure associations, lobbying associations. A lot of people who would, in other countries, play in some informal coffeehouse setting, join a bridge club which is a member of the BF.

[joshs]

helene_t, on May 3 2006, 09:23 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 3 2006, 03:24 PM, said:

(Even then it gets hard to explain why the Dutch Bridge Federation has roughly 8 times the participation rate as the Belgian Bridge Federation.  Either the Dutch are the top of their game in terms of membership recruitment or they define membership VERY differently).

The Netherlands and Denmark are notorious for their "Association culture". In both countries, almost everybody is a member of several associations: charity associations, sports and leasure associations, lobbying associations. A lot of people who would, in other countries, play in some informal coffeehouse setting, join a bridge club which is a member of the BF.

This raises an interesting question (although nothing to do with this thread). De Tocquville noticed 180 years ago that americans were obsessed with joining organizations. What happened to change this?
Maybe I should start a different thread in the WC....

[Sigi_BC84]

hrothgar, on May 3 2006, 02:24 PM, said:

For kicks and giggle, I'm going to post some membership statistics for different National Bridge organizations, along with the population for those countries.

Netherlands 
16491461
89888
0.00545058

That is huge. I'm interested in some commentary from the Dutch.

Quote

France 
60876136
100444
0.00164997

Not bad either, and they're all playing the same system (you have to alert 12-14 notrump!).

Quote

Germany 
82422299
28724
0.00034850

Ugh.

Quote

Poland 
38536869
6863
0.00017809

VERY surprising, I've been told there is a lot of Bridge in Poland, that there are lots of huge players and we all know that BBO is filled with Poles. I'm strongly suggesting something is wrong with these figures. Probably many people are not registered members or there are different organizations.

Quote

Turkey 
70413958
2147
0.00003049

Also very surprising. So many Turks on BBO (well, not all of them being huge players...), I can hardly believe there are only around 2000 members in their national organization (or it's a young organization and basically all of them play on BBO as well).

Quote

Australia 
20264082
32574
0.00160747

New Zealand 
4076140
16238
0.00398367

These clearly include those who emigrated from the US in order to play proper Bridge. At least it shows you can have healthy memberships while allowing many conventions and systems.

Very interesting figures after all Richard, thanks.

--Sigi

[Aberlour10]

Sigi_BC84, on May 3 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

Quote

Poland 
38536869
6863
0.00017809

VERY surprising, I've been told there is a lot of Bridge in Poland, that there are lots of huge players and we all know that BBO is filled with Poles. I'm strongly suggesting something is wrong with these figures. Probably many people are not registered members or there are different organizations.

There are about 7000 players registered in The Polish Bridge Union,
but it has nothing to say how popular this game in Poland really is.

For example, one of the most important polish newspapers started a big poll about
favorites sports in Poland. Over 60% of male population stated that
they play bridge or tried to play or would like to learn it.
Bridge took the first place in this poll.!

Robert

[Sigi_BC84]

Aberlour10, on May 4 2006, 01:07 AM, said:

There are about 7000 players registered in The Polish Bridge Union,
but it has nothing to say how popular this game in Poland really is.

For example, one of the most important polish newspapers started a big poll about favorites sports in Poland. Over 60% of male population stated that they play bridge or tried to play or would like to learn it. Bridge took the first place in this poll.!

Now for the most interesting question:

What system regulations are typically in place in Poland?

Edit: I'm also interested in the average age, and why it is so popular. How do new players get introduced into the game?

[Aberlour10]

Sigi_BC84, on May 3 2006, 08:07 PM, said:

Now for the most interesting question:

What system regulations are typically in place in Poland?

According to the oficial system policy of Polish Bridge Union
there are 3 categories of the competition:
http://www.polbridge...sys_projekt.htm

Category 1 (Polish Team Championships, polish trials for Bermuda Bowl,
European Championships etc, bridge matches with > 17 boards)

allowed are:

Green (natural systems, or systems like Polish Club or "Strefa")

Blue (Strong Club/Strong Diamond, where one club/one diamond is always strong
and all other systems that are not classified as Yellow or content
elements of Brown Sticker.) "EDITED"

Yellow (HUM)

Brown Sticker

Category 2 (Polish Championships -open, women, pairs, mixed, juniors, seniors or teams with < 17 boards/match)

allowed are: Green, Blue, Brown Sticker

Category 3 ( bridge tournaments, pairs, teams, ind. -local, regional, bridge meetings, congresses)

allowed are: Green, Blue, and it is possible to use Yellow & Brown Sticker if
the opponents are agreed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some special regulations are valid.

Robert