[mycroft]

Gerry might have meant 1NT-2D overcall as a transfer, which is (of course) just as legal in the ACBL as it is in NZ; I know I got a TD call or two on that one when I played it (it's actually a decent system, in direct seat, but yeah, I've never had to play against it myself).

[mikestar]

mycroft, on Dec 9 2008, 02:36 AM, said:

Gerry might have meant 1NT-2D overcall as a transfer, which is (of course) just as legal in the ACBL as it is in NZ; I know I got a TD call or two on that one when I played it (it's actually a decent system, in direct seat, but yeah, I've never had to play against it myself).

I hadn't thought of that. However, "exotic" NT defenses have been General Convention Chart legal in the ACBL ever since there has been a GCC, provided that calls higher than 2♣ promise a known suit. In some areas (notably Southern California), it is routine for tournament organizers to amend the conditions of contest to "General Convention Chart plus any No Trump defense". So while not routine like Jacoby, a decent US pair should not be shocked by a transfer overcall.

Of course if the US pair were beginners to duplicate, they might have been honestly surprised, though their accusation of unethical behavior was in itself unethical.

[qwikjanz]

I play a highly artificial system for the benefits it gives me, but the great players in the world can play any system and win. BSC and HUMS are an excuse to avoid pairs you don't like. I strongly disagree with loss of seating rights at a national level and higher. I also strongly agree that within a county's event, that weaker players be protected. If an event is cross grades then provide protection, but at the major national and international events-- we are grown up - we can cope - stop whinging:)

[helene_t]

With one p I used to play a bunch of homegrown conventions. Occasionally we would have to skip them and revert to "stayman and negative doubles". Either because other players complained or because we forgot to bring our CC. I noticed a trend that we performed better when playing the simplified version. Haven't done any formal statistical analysis, though.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Dec 12 2008, 01:54 AM, said:

With one p I used to play a bunch of homegrown conventions. Occasionally we would have to skip them and revert to "stayman and negative doubles". Either because other players complained or because we forgot to bring our CC. I noticed a trend that we performed better when playing the simplified version. Haven't done any formal statistical analysis, though.

You might need to have played in the order of 10000 hands like that for any statistical analysis to be significant.

[DrTodd13]

And not 10000 of one and then 10000 of the other. That is too prone to your other skills improving or degrading. You'd have to play one session of one then one session of the other and repeat until you had a large sample of both.

[helene_t]

Yes, and forget the cc completely at random to avoid confounding.

It is more difficult to set up a blinded experiment, in which the guinea pig (me) is unaware which system she is playing.

[han]

Yes, if you want to make a scientific publication where you correlate your results with the system that you play then you will need a lot of data.

But if you play two sessions withuot a complicated system and you notice you feel more comfortable and you have more energy to think about cardplay, then I think that it would be foolish to wait until you have played 10,000 hands before you draw any conclusions.

[DrTodd13]

You can't just take a new system you haven't played much and start this test. You'd have to get "equally" comfortable with both systems to in any way have a fair test. I don't know how one would measure equally comfortable though or even the specifics of what it means. I would say that "comfort" is largely a function of familiarity. Sure, when you first start playing a new system and have to think about everything you'll get exhausted fast but play it for a while and most of the system will become automatic.

[qwikjanz]

Stats suggest that whilst learning relay systems and highly compex bidding systems play goes out the window. From personal experience and watching other players, I would suggest that this is true. However, once learnt, the benefits are interesting. I play relay for the other features of the system, but I bet,(without reading stats on hand shapes) my defence has also improved substantially. Systems designed to confound opponents disappear rather quickly. Systems designed to facilitate optimum contracts and also optimum defence persist. Please allow experimentation, whilst protecting cross grade events. Any *good* player should be able to cope. Let bridge progress from being a "protected" baby to being an aggressive teenager, or if we are that aged, a responsible adult. At top level events, we should all be able to defend any system. Allow BSC without written defences. Grow up

[the hog]

qwikjanz, on Dec 13 2008, 02:37 PM, said:

Stats suggest that whilst learning relay systems and highly compex bidding systems play goes out the window.

Which stats are these? I have never seen stats that support this and i would argue strongly against this contention.

[nige1]

qwikjanz, on Dec 13 2008, 02:37 AM, said:

Stats suggest that whilst learning relay systems and highly compex bidding systems play goes out the window. From personal experience and watching other players, I would suggest that this is true. However, once learnt, the benefits are interesting. I play relay for the other features of the system, but I bet,(without reading stats on hand shapes) my defence has also improved substantially.

I agree with qwikjanz. You get poor results, in the course of learning an artificial method, because you often lose your way. Apart from costly bidding accidents, the memory strain affects the rest of your game. Once you are familiar with a comprehensive effective method, however, most auctions run on tram-lines. In the auction, you rarely need to fall back on judgement (aka guesswork). You save your adrenalin for when it matters. You approach play problems and difficult high-level competitive problems with a clearer fresher mind than those playing natural systems. The 13 years of of hands played by the Italian Blue Team could provide a useful database, for statistical analysis.

A natural method can also be effective but it requires more effort and memory work to develop. Over many years, the Sharples Brothers honed Acol into an accurate and effective tool; but they seemed to have to cope with a myriad of specific treatments and exceptions.

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2008, 06:30 AM, said:

Do you think the benefits of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) and Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC) are worth the cost of playing them? Within the UK and the ACBL (although regulations vary), conventions and/or systems are permitted or not without direct reference to HUM and BSC, and so there is no cost to playing such a method. But at international tournaments, a pair playing a HUM loses seating rights. And, at European Championships, a pair playing two or more BSCs also lose seating rights. As an NPC I I think seating rights are important (when you have the opportunity). When you play a HUM pair it means you can sit your most proficient pair against them, then reducing the advantage of the HUM to my mind. Playing teams with multiple HUM and/or BSCs means that your pairs can spread the preparation load by only working on one pair's methods. So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.
Would you agree?
HUM and BSC definitions

I disagree with Paul because

• If BSCs confer a technical advantage then forfeiting seating rights seems a small price to pay. Members of teams in which I've played showed little preference about whom they played against. When captain, I was concerned about seating-rights only to thwart opponents' preferences. Similarly Mollo's Hog chose the "lucky seats" not because he was superstitious himself but just in case his opponents were
  
• The selected team will meet BSCs in international competition. Hence
  • Team trials should provide trialists with relevant practice.
    
  • To be realistic, trials should also test the capability of trialists to cope with BSCs.
  
  
• The WBF rules that define BSCs are more complex and incomprehensible than any HUM. Attempting to decipher them is an onerous task to impose on selectors. Simpler and better is to leave that ridiculous chore to the perpetrators of the daft regulations.

[paulg]

nige1, on Dec 24 2008, 03:25 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2008, 06:30 AM, said:

Do you think the benefits of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) and Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC) are worth the cost of playing them? Within the UK and the ACBL (although regulations vary), conventions and/or systems are permitted or not without direct reference to HUM and BSC, and so there is no cost to playing such a method. But at international tournaments, a pair playing a HUM loses seating rights. And, at European Championships, a pair playing two or more BSCs also lose seating rights. As an NPC I I think seating rights are important (when you have the opportunity). When you play a HUM pair it means you can sit your most proficient pair against them, then reducing the advantage of the HUM to my mind. Playing teams with multiple HUM and/or BSCs means that your pairs can spread the preparation load by only working on one pair's methods. So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.
Would you agree?
HUM and BSC definitions

I disagree with Paul because

• If BSCs confer a technical advantage then forfeiting seating rights seems a small price to pay. Members of teams in which I've played showed little preference about whom they played against. When captain, I was concerned about seating-rights only to thwart opponents' preferences. Similarly Mollo's Hog chose the "lucky seats" not because he was superstitious himself but just in case his opponents were
  
  
• The selected team will meet BSCs in international competition. Hence
  • Team trials should provide trialists with relevant practice.
    
    
  • To be realistic, trials should also test the capability of trialists to cope with BSCs.
  
  
  
• The WBF rules that define BSCs are more complex and incomprehensible than any HUM. Attempting to decipher them is an onerous task to impose on selectors. Simpler and better is to leave that ridiculous chore to the perpetrators of the daft regulations.

Nigel's first point is his strongest in my opinion. If you are getting significant benefit from a BSC then it is something that you would not wish to give up lightly. Although current international regulations only concede seating rights when a pair plays 2 or more BSCs.

An example of a team doing something I thought was wrong were the Italian women in Pau. They were playing a multi 2♦ overcall over a 1♣/♦ opener - a BSC that is probably fairly standard in Italy and a reasonable treatment (in my view).

However they lost seating rights as they played an opening 2NT as a weak pre-empt in any suit. I understand this means that their opening pre-empts now guarantee a good suit (but that is the Italian style anyhow) and it is pretty easy to defend against, so it seemed a poor choice. Clearly they took the other view and, as one of the strongest teams, probably thought it did not matter.

Currently the onus on identifying HUM and BSCs resides with the pair (or team). In Scotland, EBL and WBF competitions the penalties for not advertising your BSCs are extreme. I agree it should not be the selectors. And it would help if the regulations were clearer, and that interpretations were published rather than remain hearsay.

But, much to Claus' disappointment I'm sure, I think my original question is largely moot. We have one pair in Scotland playing a BSC (that is legal in Scotland and England at all events anyhow) and the number of BSCs elsewhere are declining at a rapid rate.

Whether this is good for bridge is a different question!

[csdenmark]

But, much to Claus' disappointment I'm sure, I think my original question is largely moot.

Paul I am never disappointed to be informed of the real meaning of something. No matter I am proven right or wrong I am interested in a basic friendly and hard conversation hoping to touch the nerve of the arguments. My limited skills in your language may occasionally cause problems - but such kind of misunderstandings we just need to clear up and go ahead.

Below your words I am still unable to read in any other way than that your intensions was to ask for a ban of some difficult stuff without the need to give up aspirations to win well reputated tournaments.

So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.

[paulg]

csdenmark, on Dec 24 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

Below your words I am still unable to read in any other way than that your intensions was to ask for a ban of some difficult stuff without the need to give up aspirations to win well reputated tournaments.

So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.

I guess I don't really understand why this is a problem.

I am not proposing this for other countries, just for my country's team. Like everyone, I want my country to perform to the best of its ability at major championships and, in my opinion, for my team, keeping seating rights is more important.

Paul

[csdenmark]

cardsharp, on Dec 25 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 24 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

Below your words I am still unable to read in any other way than that your intensions was to ask for a ban of some difficult stuff without the need to give up aspirations to win well reputated tournaments.

So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.

I guess I don't really understand why this is a problem.

I am not proposing this for other countries, just for my country's team. Like everyone, I want my country to perform to the best of its ability at major championships and, in my opinion, for my team, keeping seating rights is more important.

Paul

I guess I don't really understand why this is a problem.
Really you dont understand Paul?

If you want the best perspectives for your national team it must be fit for international competition. It must get practice with international behavior and features.

As long as your teams only competes against each other on national level there is no problem about your proposal - but thats not what your proposal is about.

As long as your teams only competes against international teams consisting of casual partners, like Camrose, there is no problem about your proposal - but thats not what your proposal is about.

If they want to be fit for European and World Championships they must be able to master they challenge they will face. Nowadays the whole world of bridge is encrippled by regulations, but even that may be too much for your team used to compete behind protection walls.

The logic, and I think it is the only way your proposal can be understood, is that it will be step 1 for a concerted action for still more regulation. That process will not stop until we totally reach beginner level.

If you want to make a constructive contribution for your team I think you will have some ideas reading the insightful article posted by the swede Ulven yesterday about how features challenges your mental prepareness to compete. Ask your national organization to add some kind of mental training for your team. It is not only psychologists but also physical training and food plans.

Of course such kind of programmes will be more difficult to introduce in bridge than for other sports because of the age of the competitors. But still it is the way ahead, for your team too I am sure.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Dec 25 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Dec 25 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 24 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

Below your words I am still unable to read in any other way than that your intensions was to ask for a ban of some difficult stuff without the need to give up aspirations to win well reputated tournaments.

So I am considering petitioning my selectors to bar HUM systems and multiple BSC from future trials, as I consider it advantageous to play against teams with these restrictions.

I guess I don't really understand why this is a problem.

I am not proposing this for other countries, just for my country's team. Like everyone, I want my country to perform to the best of its ability at major championships and, in my opinion, for my team, keeping seating rights is more important.

Paul

I guess I don't really understand why this is a problem.
Really you dont understand Paul?

If you want the best perspectives for your national team it must be fit for international competition. It must get practice with international behavior and features.

As long as your teams only competes against each other on national level there is no problem about your proposal - but thats not what your proposal is about.

As long as your teams only competes against international teams consisting of casual partners, like Camrose, there is no problem about your proposal - but thats not what your proposal is about.

If they want to be fit for European and World Championships they must be able to master they challenge they will face. Nowadays the whole world of bridge is encrippled by regulations, but even that may be too much for your team used to compete behind protection walls.

The logic, and I think it is the only way your proposal can be understood, is that it will be step 1 for a concerted action for still more regulation. That process will not stop until we totally reach beginner level.

If you want to make a constructive contribution for your team I think you will have some ideas reading the insightful article posted by the swede Ulven yesterday about how features challenges your mental prepareness to compete. Ask your national organization to add some kind of mental training for your team. It is not only psychologists but also physical training and food plans.

Of course such kind of programmes will be more difficult to introduce in bridge than for other sports because of the age of the competitors. But still it is the way ahead, for your team too I am sure.

Claus

Please review Cardsharp's postings

Cardsharp never said that the team that he is captaining should not play against Strong Pass sytems.

Cardsharp questioned whether HIS team should use strong pass systems. He assumed that the assumption that the loses that acrue from seating rights outweigh the technical merits of the system.

In all seriousness, do you speak English?
I keep seeing threads where yuo seem completely unable to comprehend very basic parts of the conversation.

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Dec 24 2008, 03:41 AM, said:

But, much to Claus' disappointment I'm sure, I think my original question is largely moot. We have one pair in Scotland playing a BSC (that is legal in Scotland and England at all events anyhow) and the number of BSCs elsewhere are declining at a rapid rate.

Paul helps to train the team, so they must know his theory about HUMs; in such circumstances, it should not come as a shock if aspiring partnerships tend to espouse orthodox methods.

What is more worrying for the Scottish team (and the game as a whole) are other effects of Paul's proposal:

• To abort current developments still in gestation.
  
• To sterilise those who might otherwise be capable of future innovation.

The point is that some Bridge experts possess an especial genius in a particular area. For example, bidding, play or defence.

• Devising effective new conventions and systems is the field of especial expertise for a gifted minority.
  
• Such inventors are also fascinated by the challenge of devising defences to other innovators' methods.

IMO, creative experts are an asset to any team. And to assure success, it helps them to be able to experiment at a high level.

Arguably, past international successes of Italians and Poles were partly due to enlightened national policies on system restriction. The encouragement of innovation stimulated players to hone pioneering ideas and to practice them until they became second nature.

[paulg]

nige1, on Dec 25 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Dec 24 2008, 03:41 AM, said:

But, much to Claus' disappointment I'm sure, I think my original question is largely moot. We have one pair in Scotland playing a BSC (that is legal in Scotland and England at all events anyhow) and the number of BSCs elsewhere are declining at a rapid rate.

Paul helps to train the team, so they must know his theory about HUMs; in such circumstances, it should not come as a shock if aspiring partnerships tend to espouse orthodox methods.

BSCs are declining everywhere. I believe because there is nowhere for most players to experiment except in the major international championships and, occasionally, in their national trials.