[helene_t]

fwiw I think the majority of club players don't care, if only because very few would play hums even if allowed (and some get away with it even if not allowed).

In countries where only BSCs and HUMs are banned, there is plenty of scope for making weird agreements without violating the rules, and players don't even make use of those possibilities.

I can imagine it is different in North America (where the rules are much stricter) and at higher levels (where pairs will have elaborate agreements against Multi, Polish Club and blue-sticker systems but not against arbitrary BSCs and HUMs.

But where I play it isn't an issue. Nobody would notice if the rules changed to complete anarchy tomorrow.

[hotShot]

We believe that it's a benefit if opps can't exchange information, so we preempt with NT openings that get weaker and weaker. People playing a forcing pass system leave the 1 level to LHO so (s)he can inform his/her partner about his/her hand.
So preempting is overrated or forcing pass openings are not as superior as some think.

We don't open below opening strength without shape, in forcing pass systems you are forced to open such hands.
So opening strength is overrated or forcing pass systems are not as superior as some think.


But playing against forcing pass systems my agreed system won't work. Our openings in 2nd seat won't happen, because the HCP requirement is to high behind the strength of the opening forcing pass. If opps open, we don't have a penalty dbl, because we agreed that dbl is t/o up to 2♠.
As a result we might miss some of our partscores/games and we won't punish opps weak openings.
This does not prove that a FP-system is good, it just proves that we are unprepared.

[csdenmark]

There are in fact 3 topics of interest in this discussion.

- Pass-systems forcing opponents to use defensive bidding in 85% of the deals
- 4+♥ + 4+♠ openings, primarily weak ones
- Hammers

But else I completely agree with Roland(Codo) - the problem is lazy bridge players. That kind of lazyness has now in fact removed the intellectual part from the game. What is left is the competition in mechanical skills.

[david_c]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 01:39 AM, said:

Most players are in-between. They occasionally tinker with their conventional weapons but tend to feel safer with legal protection from the unfamiliar. Few of them will be satisfied with any given regulatory compromise.

I don't think this is true. Maybe I have not been talking to the right people, but it seems to me that the English system regulations have progressed to a point where people are largely satisfied. Looking back a few years, there used to be widespread dissatisfaction with a number of issues, for example:
- not being allowed to play a non-penalty double of 1NT;
- not being allowed to open light systemically in third seat;
- not being allowed to make a strong opening on less than 16 HCP, regardless of how good the playing strength was.
These have now been dealt with, and I don't see anything else taking their place as major issues.

[nige1]

hotShot, on Dec 2 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

We don't open below opening strength without shape, in forcing pass systems you are forced to open such hands.
So opening strength is overrated or forcing pass systems are not as superior as some think.

The former: Most hands are in the 7-12 HCP range, so you open more hands, when you adopt a forcing-pass system. A relatively safe low-level exchange of useful information helps the partnership whether you end up declaring or defending. Also, you consume opponents' bidding space, winning more partscore battles.

[nige1]

david_c, on Dec 2 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 01:39 AM, said:

Most players are in-between. They occasionally tinker with their conventional weapons but tend to feel safer with legal protection from the unfamiliar. Few of them will be satisfied with any given regulatory compromise.

I don't think this is true. Maybe I have not been talking to the right people, but it seems to me that the English system regulations have progressed to a point where people are largely satisfied. Looking back a few years, there used to be widespread dissatisfaction with a number of issues, for example:
- not being allowed to play a non-penalty double of 1NT;
- not being allowed to open light systemically in third seat;
- not being allowed to make a strong opening on less than 16 HCP, regardless of how good the playing strength was.
These have now been dealt with, and I don't see anything else taking their place as major issues.

Of the EBU players I meet, few have read the Orange book. Of those that have done so, many are unhappy.

Most players either haven't read or don't understand systems regulations. Hence some fail to comply with them. Infractions are rarely detected, hardly ever reported, and almost never penalised. Hence, players who comply with the regulations suffer a relative handicap that is occasionally decisive. Take 2 of David_C's EBU examples ...

• Light 1-opener restrictions are little understood and widely ignored. For instance, you may not agree to open rule of 17 (or weaker) hands in 3rd (or any other) seat.
  
• Some popular systems are effectively banned. Thus, you may not open a Moscito 1♣ with 15 HCP (unless you have 8 certain playing tricks or your hand is rule of 25 or better).

This kind of thing may also be a problem at International level. IMO the solution is to simplify the rules, drastically.

[hotShot]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 2 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

We don't open below opening strength without shape, in forcing pass systems you are forced to open such hands.
So opening strength is overrated or forcing pass systems are not as superior as some think.

The former: Most hands are in the 7-12 HCP range, so you open more hands, when you adopt a forcing-pass system. A relatively safe low-level exchange of useful information helps the the partnership whether you end up declaring or defending. Also, you consume opponents' bidding space, winning more partscore battles.

Well the information is also available, if the declarer is on the other side. This declarer is in a better informed than those in his seat at the other tables, that have no information on opps cards.

About 65% of the deals the dealer holds up to 12 HCP. If you are forced to open all of them, you will notice that about 1/3 of them is 0-6 HCP. 44% is 0-7 HCP.

So a little less than half of the time the FP-player opens, the average strength of our side 23,2 HCP (avg on the 0-7 HCP range). This is usually not enough to make game, but enough to benefit from your side going down with dbl.

The point is that too few people play FP-systems, so even fewer are optimizing defenses. So there are no well established defenses available that were tested by hundreds of pairs.

FP-systems like any other system have there upsides and downsides. Only if a system is played by a sufficient number of pairs an base of defenses will evolve and after some more time, we could see if there is a real benefit to the system.

Banning a system or convention just creates a myth of superiority.

[david_c]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

• Light 1-opener restrictions are little understood and widely ignored. For instance, you may not agree to open rule of 17 (or weaker) hands in 3rd (or any other) seat.

That is incorrect. I suppose it proves your point about the regulations being little understood.

Quote

• Some popular systems are effectively banned. Thus, you may not open a MOSCITO 1♣ with 15 HCP (unless you have 8 certain playing tricks or your hand is rule of 25 or better).

I would agree that this is poor - IMO it should be allowed at L4; but there isn't a mass of people asking for this to be changed, in the way that there was for various things three or four years ago. Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

[Rossoneri]

I must state that personally I am in favour of less restrictions on choice of bidding systems.

Wayne, I did not say that most players are now, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I am trying to say that blaming the regulators who have to serve the majority and protect the rights of the minority when the interests of these 2 groups are mutually exclusive can hardly be right.

Claus may have a very good point regarding the current state of restrictions, but launching personal attacks on Paul and then Frances and the regulators can hardly help other than earning 2 (so far) angry replies.

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

[helene_t]

Rossoneri said:

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

If many players are lazy then the regulators have an obligation to work for the interests of the lazy players.

[nige1]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

Light 1-opener restrictions are little understood and widely ignored. For instance, you may not agree to open rule of 17 (or weaker) hands in 3rd (or any other) seat.

david_c, on Dec 2 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

That is incorrect. I suppose it proves your point about the regulations being little understood. 

The regulations are prolix and complex so I'm afraid that David_C may be right about this. But please would he explain how. IMO these are all the Sections in the EBU Orange book that could possibly be relevant ...

Orange Book, on 11 C1, said:

One of a Suit Opening Bids
Allowed at Levels 2, 3 and 4
11 C 1  Minimum opening bid strength
The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 19.

Orange Book, on 11C 9, said:

Allowed at Levels 3 and 4
Minimum opening bid strength in first and second seat
The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 18.

Orange Book, on 11C 10, said:

Allowed at Levels 3 and 4
Minimum opening bid strength in third and fourth seat
The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP.

11 C10 relates to HCP. It does not explicitly relax any of the earlier rule-of-18/19 restrictions.

[nige1]

hotShot, on Dec 2 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

Well the information is also available, if the declarer is on the other side. This declarer is in a better informed than those in his seat at the other tables, that have no information on opps cards.

Victor Mollo wrote that if you offer a player the option of the whole table playing double-dummy, then a defender should accept but declarer should refuse.

He was talking about defensive signalling but, IMO, he is right. And his point also applies to bidding. In general, any such information is more useful to defenders than declarer,

[Cascade]

david_c, on Dec 3 2008, 05:21 AM, said:

Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

Might not you be misinterpreting apathy for satisfaction.

In my face to face interactions with players I have met a large number of players for whom the system restrictions make little difference to the way they play the game and consequently make little or no comment on them, a significant minority who complain about the severity of the system restrictions and virtually no one who strongly advocates that the current system restrictions are optimal for the game.

This notwithstanding that there are those online who advocate for the current severe restrictions on certain types of methods.

[FrancesHinden]

Cascade, on Dec 2 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

david_c, on Dec 3 2008, 05:21 AM, said:

Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

Might not you be misinterpreting apathy for satisfaction.

In my face to face interactions with players I have met a large number of players for whom the system restrictions make little difference to the way they play the game and consequently make little or no comment on them, a significant minority who complain about the severity of the system restrictions and virtually no one who strongly advocates that the current system restrictions are optimal for the game.

This notwithstanding that there are those online who advocate for the current severe restrictions on certain types of methods.

This is all quite likely true.

But as there is no agreement on what system restrictions would be optimal for the game, that doesn't help.

Even on this forum, there is no agreement on what changes to restrictions would improve the game. Yes, I know that some posters are absolutely certain they know what such changes ought to be, but while they may be right, they have no proof that they are right and there is certainly no general agreement.

[david_c]

Cascade, on Dec 2 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

david_c, on Dec 3 2008, 05:21 AM, said:

Like I said, it seems people are generally satisfied with the rules now.

Might not you be misinterpreting apathy for satisfaction.

There may be many people who say they don't care, but in my view this is testament to the fact that there is nothing in the regulations which annoys them. If there were serious problems with the regulations then these people might not be so apathetic. So I think it is fair to count them as "satisfied customers".

[FrancesHinden]

csdenmark, on Dec 2 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

But else I completely agree with Roland(Codo) - the problem is lazy bridge players. That kind of lazyness has now in fact removed the intellectual part from the game. What is left is the competition in mechanical skills.

That is complete rubbish. But perhaps it's true for you, because certainly you never contribute to any of the play or defence threads on the forum.

Even basic bidding can be interesting. Take one of my "hearts" threads, where you can virtually write down partner's hand thanks to information from the auction. It's still a difficult exercise to work out what the best contract is.

In fact, take away the bidding completely. Play a version of minibridge, where the side with the most high cards get to declare. Declarer gets to see dummy before selecting the final contract. That would still be a very good game. Not as good as contract bridge, but still a good game.

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 2 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

Even on this forum, there is no agreement on what changes to restrictions would improve the game.  Yes, I know that some posters are absolutely certain they know what such changes ought to be, but while they may be right, they have no proof that they are right and there is certainly no general agreement.

Nobody has any kind of proof for anything. The mis-management started 40 years ago - and as you certainly know - failures have no fathers.

Today we know that the rules we have today are completely unqualified. Any fool can write rules favouring one single group, and history has shown awful examples of how they have clamped down opposition.

The difficult task is the balanced approach - writing rules for a balanced approach so that all has an opportunity to be enriched from others. For writing such rules you need experts.

The best experts we have are the lawyers - they have the special skills needed. Unfortunately we need to realize - they have failed.

[david_c]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

11 C10 relates to HCP. It does not explicitly relax any of the earlier rule-of-18/19 restrictions.

It is explicit enough for me. Maybe not for you, but I think you should be able to work it out anyway. What else could it mean? If the rule-of-18/19 restrictions still applied then there would be no difference between 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th seats; the fact that the regulation is split into two parts (11C9 and 11C10) clearly implies that there is a difference.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Dec 3 2008, 05:41 AM, said:

Rossoneri said:

If lazy players are the problem (and I tend to agree on that), then shouldn't that be the line of attack to solve this problem instead?

If many players are lazy then the regulators have an obligation to work for the interests of the lazy players.

Over the past ten days or so I have watched much more than my usual share of sport on television.

This included:

Two NFL games - On Sunday night Minnesota Vikings much to my satisfaction since I had money on them came from behind to defeat the New England Patriots including a 99 yard touchdown.

Two All Black games completing the Grand Slam in which they defeated all four home Unions (Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England).

The Rugby League World cup final in which the New Zealand Kiwis upset the hot favourite Australian Kangaroos.

The Australian Masters Golf tournament. On Saturday Robert Allenby holed his three wood second shot into the wind on the par five seventh hole from 223m (about 244 yards) for an albatross.

As I write this David Beckham is causing hysteria at Auckland airport as he and the LA Galaxy football team arrive for an exhibition match against an Oceania All Stars team this coming Saturday.

Strangely the administrators of these games do not see the need to cater to the majority who cannot kick the ball as hard as Beckham, run as fast as Bernard Berrianor pass as accurately as Gus Frerotte, be as strong as All Black Tony Woodcock or Kiwi Manu Vatuvei or have the precision and control of Robert Allenby. They do not make rules to give those without the physical attributes or too lazy to train as hard as these athletes a chance.

Why then in a mind sport like bridge do the administrators have an obligation to the intellectually lazy?

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 2 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 2 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

But else I completely agree with Roland(Codo) - the problem is lazy bridge players. That kind of lazyness has now in fact removed the intellectual part from the game. What is left is the competition in mechanical skills.

That is complete rubbish. But perhaps it's true for you, because certainly you never contribute to any of the play or defence threads on the forum.

Even basic bidding can be interesting. Take one of my "hearts" threads, where you can virtually write down partner's hand thanks to information from the auction. It's still a difficult exercise to work out what the best contract is.

In fact, take away the bidding completely. Play a version of minibridge, where the side with the most high cards get to declare. Declarer gets to see dummy before selecting the final contract. That would still be a very good game. Not as good as contract bridge, but still a good game.

I will gladly contribute - Please set up something where it makes sense to use fx. one of those:

• Suspensor
  
• Bocchi-Duboin Club 2001
  
• Nightmare Club