[fred]

Jlall, on Jan 12 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

Yeah I play that 1C-1H stuff too, it's pretty sweet. Actually I think when I played against Fred we were using almost identical systems both based off of the dumbed down meckwell stuff.

Unfortunately we were the ones who were dealt all the slam hands

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

"Most of the leading USA pairs are unwilling to give out copies of their system notes."

Any idea why this is the case Fred? I suspet that a number of pairs eg M-R could make some tidy money from publishing a book on their system, (even though most players would not be able to use it).

[fred]

The_Hog, on Jan 12 2007, 09:05 PM, said:

"Most of the leading USA pairs are unwilling to give out copies of their system notes."

Any idea why this is the case Fred? I suspet that a number of pairs eg M-R could make some tidy money from publishing a book on their system, (even though most players would not be able to use it).

I suspect most figure that the many hours of thinking and work that went into the creation of their system and system notes give them a competitive advantage over their opponents (which will lead to better results, which will lead to a higher market value in terms of a contract to play professionally). The system and notes thus have real value to them and they do not want to give this away for free.

It would be nice if one could make enough money from writing a bridge book to compensate for this, but that is not the case.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

fred, on Jan 12 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

I suspect most figure that the many hours of thinking and work that went into the creation of their system and system notes give them a competitive advantage over their opponents (which will lead to better results, which will lead to a higher market value in terms of a contract to play professionally).

Very delighted to see this statement Fred.

Oh - I know, I know - I am just twisting salt in the wound - couldn't resist, a devil tempted me

[SteelWheel]

Quote

I suspet that a number of pairs eg M-R could make some tidy money from publishing a book on their system, (even though most players would not be able to use it).

I'm fairly certain I know the reason. Meckwell makes far more money from having an exclusive franchise on their system, than they could ever hope to gain from publishing and disseminating it to the masses. I'm sure that their services as bridge pros at the major NABCs and international competition compensate them very well. If we assume that their excellent results over several decades are at least partially attributable to their highly-refined bidding system, why give up some of their edge to their potential competitors? (I use the term "competitor" here in two senses, both the obvious sense, and in the sense that some of these competitors are themselves bridge professionals looking to sell their services to the highest bidder)

An analogous situation exists in the gambling world. When people with skill as "card-counters" in blackjack first started coming onto the scene, they were in no hurry to write books about their skills--they could (and did) make a far greater amount of money applying those skills against the casinos. Most of the early classic books about blackjack were not written until those players had been barred from most casinos; at that point, with no other revenue stream available to them via playing the game itself, they turned to writing their books--partially to make money, in some cases also as a bit of a vengeful "parting shot" against the management and ownership of the casinos.

If Meckwell ever retire from active play, I'm sure that they will be all-too-willing to publish their system. Yes, such a book will sell less well at this hypothetical point in the future, than a similar book might sell today (by that time, popular interest among bidding systems may have moved on to Fantunes, say, or something else we haven't even yet seen). But their primary concern is in "making hay while the sun shines", and at present that means tremendous reluctance to publish their system in its entirety.

[fred]

csdenmark, on Jan 12 2007, 09:33 PM, said:

fred, on Jan 12 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

I suspect most figure that the many hours of thinking and work that went into the creation of their system and system notes give them a competitive advantage over their opponents (which will lead to better results, which will lead to a higher market value in terms of a contract to play professionally).

Very delighted to see this statement Fred.

Oh - I know, I know - I am just twisting salt in the wound - couldn't resist, a devil tempted me

But I am not wounded!

I don't think I ever disagreed with you about this, Claus.

As far as I can tell, the main area in which we do not see eye-to-eye involves your apparent belief that "natural" systems necessarily produce inferior results to those produced by "artificial" systems. My experience suggests that you are probably wrong, but I am also able to admit that I (not to mention everyone else) does not know nearly enough about bridge to make such assertions with any kind of confidence.

I personally prefer to use a "natural system" that is based on a system that you and other hardcore system types like to make fun of: 2/1 Game Force.

Despite this my partner and I have still put in the countless hours I referred to in my previous post. We have spent this time discussing sequences to make sure we agree about the meanings of bids and what sort of hands are expected, trying to optimize certain sequences (in terms of maximizing info that will help us, minimizing info that will help the opps, minimizing the effort needed to remember, and various combinations of these), and reviewing hands from real play or practice in an attempt to reveal hands in which our methods worked poorly.

So we agree that spending time working on system is a good thing if you really care about your results.

Our (longstanding) disagreement is about choice of system, especially in terms of what type of system is "best" for players of various levels.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

SteelWheel, on Jan 13 2007, 07:38 AM, said:

Quote

I suspet that a number of pairs eg M-R could make some tidy money from publishing a book on their system, (even though most players would not be able to use it).

I'm fairly certain I know the reason. Meckwell makes far more money from having an exclusive franchise on their system, than they could ever hope to gain from publishing and disseminating it to the masses. I'm sure that their services as bridge pros at the major NABCs and international competition compensate them very well. If we assume that their excellent results over several decades are at least partially attributable to their highly-refined bidding system, why give up some of their edge to their potential competitors? (I use the term "competitor" here in two senses, both the obvious sense, and in the sense that some of these competitors are themselves bridge professionals looking to sell their services to the highest bidder)

An analogous situation exists in the gambling world. When people with skill as "card-counters" in blackjack first started coming onto the scene, they were in no hurry to write books about their skills--they could (and did) make a far greater amount of money applying those skills against the casinos. Most of the early classic books about blackjack were not written until those players had been barred from most casinos; at that point, with no other revenue stream available to them via playing the game itself, they turned to writing their books--partially to make money, in some cases also as a bit of a vengeful "parting shot" against the management and ownership of the casinos.

If Meckwell ever retire from active play, I'm sure that they will be all-too-willing to publish their system. Yes, such a book will sell less well at this hypothetical point in the future, than a similar book might sell today (by that time, popular interest among bidding systems may have moved on to Fantunes, say, or something else we haven't even yet seen). But their primary concern is in "making hay while the sun shines", and at present that means tremendous reluctance to publish their system in its entirety.

This is an interesting analogy regarding the gaming world. You may well be right. I wonder if anyone actually did/does make a decent living from writing bridge books. David Bird maybe? Ron Klinger?

[csdenmark]

fred, on Jan 13 2007, 12:01 AM, said:

I don't think I ever disagreed with you about this, Claus.

As far as I can tell, the main area in which we do not see eye-to-eye involves your apparent belief that "natural" systems necessarily produce inferior results to those produced by "artificial" systems. My experience suggests that you are probably wrong, but I am also able to admit that I (not to mention everyone else) does not know nearly enough about bridge to make such assertions with any kind of confidence.

I personally prefer to use a "natural system" that is based on a system that you and other hardcore system types like to make fun of: 2/1 Game Force.

Despite this my partner and I have still put in the countless hours I referred to in my previous post. We have spent this time discussing sequences to make sure we agree about the meanings of bids and what sort of hands are expected, trying to optimize certain sequences (in terms of maximizing info that will help us, minimizing info that will help the opps, minimizing the effort needed to remember, and various combinations of these), and reviewing hands from real play or practice in an attempt to reveal hands in which our methods worked poorly.

So we agree that spending time working on system is a good thing if you really care about your results.

Our (longstanding) disagreement is about choice of system, especially in terms of what type of system is "best" for players of various levels.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Very happy to agree with you Fred. Wonder why we have ever disagreed!

You may have noticed I often have hard disagreement with persons in this Forum advocating everyone can play anything - and nothing else than composing a few strange sequences are the requirements.

I don't play - and therefore have insufficient knowledge of - systems mainly relying on natural definitions. I have pushed a hard job in front of me - but after finishing Lukand Major(pass-system) I have decided to investigate your system. A few years ago I gave up 'Scientific Aces'. I expect your system in based on that.

[Rebound]

Claus, rahter than use the expletive that comes to mind in response to your arrogant assumtion you are authoratative enough to decide which system is better for me or any other player, I remind you of what Fred just said,

"Our (longstanding) disagreement is about choice of system, especially in terms of what type of system is "best" for players of various levels."

I take exception to the idea that weaker players do not benefit from playing strong club systems, precision in particular. I found it easier to play than so-called Standard American. I was taught both at roughly the same time. I grant that the memory burden means it is not for everyone, but I have a greater aptitude for learning systems than I do for playing bridge, if ya wanna know the truth. Frankly, I agree with the contention that for very strong players, the oft derided requirement of - and additional room for - good judgement makes natural systems superior. I think it is weaker players who benefit from the structure, the precision, if you will, offered by strong club systems - assuming you can remember them, of course.

[SteelWheel]

I'm kind of with Rebound here. I turned to the Goren-Wei Precision book very early on in my bridge career, because it imposed a bit more structure onto somebody who was trying to learn "Standard" (as Standard was defined or practiced in the early '80s). It certainly made more effective bidders out of my early partners and me. I would recommend going the same route to almost any new player who finds himself struggling a bit in trying to learn Standard or 2/1 today. Very simple system, easier to learn than standard. I don't think it's complicated at all. You could teach somebody Goren/Wei Precision in the 10 minutes it takes to drive to a bridge club (back when people still went to bridge clubs...sigh...), and have a ball.

Now, so many years later, I still play Precision with a couple of my old partners. Playing with someone new though, I'm not nearly as interested in playing Precision. My ability to evaluate hands is improved enough that I no longer need fall back on the "he didn't open 1♣, therefore his hand is limited"--type of thinking, which was so helpful to me when I was starting out.

These days, my interests run a little more towards K/S approaches. Additionally, I think that Polish, Unassuming Club, and Millennium Club all have a lot of theoretical merit, and would love to develop a partnership based around one of those approaches. And of course, Fantunes seems like a wild drug.

[csdenmark]

Rebound, on Jan 14 2007, 12:55 AM, said:

Claus, rahter than use the expletive that comes to mind in response to your arrogant assumtion you are authoratative enough to decide which system is better for me or any other player, I remind you of what Fred just said,

"Our (longstanding) disagreement is about choice of system, especially in terms of what type of system is "best" for players of various levels."

I take exception to the idea that weaker players do not benefit from playing strong club systems, precision in particular. I found it easier to play than so-called Standard American. I was taught both at roughly the same time. I grant that the memory burden means it is not for everyone, but I have a greater aptitude for learning systems than I do for playing bridge, if ya wanna know the truth. Frankly, I agree with the contention that for very strong players, the oft derided requirement of - and additional room for - good judgement makes natural systems superior. I think it is weaker players who benefit from the structure, the precision, if you will, offered by strong club systems - assuming you can remember them, of course.

Right now I feel no need to involve in a renewed public discussion of that kind. I understand you know my position - else I will privately be ready for some clarificative exchange of views.

[jtfanclub]

SteelWheel, on Jan 13 2007, 06:18 PM, said:

I don't think it's complicated at all. You could teach somebody Goren/Wei Precision in the 10 minutes it takes to drive to a bridge club (back when people still went to bridge clubs...sigh...), and have a ball.

I agree...and I've tested it. Had an older but inexperienced bridge partner I met on Sunday, and handed him 2 pages of "Precision". We didn't speak again until Thursday, when we went to a club, played, and got 54%. Can you imagine teaching somebody 2/1 the same way?


What actually happened (not on the hand, but with respect to my following up on this both through the forums, and an email to the appropriate parties):

I've been advised that I was 100% right in my contention that 2♦ was alertable, and that had we not already received a good score on the board, redress would have been available. Furthermore, the issues raised by my inquiry have been deemed to be of such great interest that Gweny has been advised, and this entire matter is being brought to the attention of all BBO ACBL TDs, for future reference in similar situations.

My problem is not with the BBO ACBL TDs, but the face-to-face ones, of which I am one. I'll bet 75% of them atren't aware what meaning(s) of a 2♣ overcall over a Precision 1♣ are alertable. And people are shameless about doubleshotting their overcalls in ACBL world....

1♣-2♣ shows the majors.
1♣- "what does that mean" 2♣ shows clubs.

This isn't a problem on BBO, thank goodness.

P.S. Yes, I did write to the ACBL Bridge Bulletin about this. The reply was...illuminating. It comes down to, they're aware of it, and they don't plan to stop it.