[the hog]

I don't normally agree with Claus, but he is spot on this time!

[NickRW]

csdenmark, on Nov 17 2008, 11:30 PM, said:

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

The masses plays WHIST.

I think that is a little over the top.

Sure there are quite a few who regularly lead out of turn and all sorts of other absent minded mistakes. There are those who are past their sell by date and there are those who were never any good in the first place even by club standards. But you make it sound like the average club is riddled with people who deserve no respect whatsoever at the table. Of the 100 or so different people who have played at my local club this year, 8 are on the EBU's gold point list, 5 of them appear regularly and 2 more who are semi frequent visitors - ok they might not be a Fred or a Zia - but they aren't giving you freebie overtricks every time you stumble into a dodgy contract. And there are about another dozen who aren't too bad.

Nick

[Echognome]

csdenmark, on Nov 17 2008, 03:30 PM, said:

Echognome, on Nov 17 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

Then you dont need to worry at all.

The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems.

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

The masses plays WHIST.

Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file.

It seems like your argument is "they wouldn't understand anyway, so who cares if we alienate them?"

My argument is as follows:

1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not.

2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions?

3. The "right" way to regulate is a tautology. It has come about through a long process of discussion and trial-and-error by a lot of smart people. So here you are saying you have a "better way". Who are you to say it's better? Don't you think a more lax system has been tried before? Why did they change it to the current system?

4. The rank and file should get enjoyment out of watching the world championships. Look at all the armchair sports fan that get enjoyment out of watching the same game that they play on the football pitch, the cricket pitch, the baseball field, etc.

[the hog]

"Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun?"

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

[matmat]

The_Hog, on Nov 17 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

I don't fully agree with the Darwinian approach here. It might actually make sense to allow anything under the sun in long-ish imp matches where system notes can be exchanged ahead of time (though there is a danger here too, as someone might throw 1000 pages of notes at you the night before) , but at 2 boards/round MP games, this is sort of ridiculous. This would have an incredibly randomizing effect on the field, likely driving players away from MP (which may or may not be a good idea, depending on your POV).

It is unreasonable for you to assume that even an established partnership has discussed every possible kitchen sink of a system that opps might throw at them. I think there is a boundary that needs to be (CLEARLY) drawn, and I think it should encompass a lot more in terms of systems than it currently has, but allowing a free-for-all is not the way to go.

[Echognome]

The_Hog, on Nov 17 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

"Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun?"

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

Well, my answer to that is that they tried it and discarded it. Once upon a time psychs were made a lot more often and forcing pass systems were allowed (e.g. Walpurgis Club). They decided that wasn't for the best. You think it is. Maybe that's because it's more enjoyable for you and is less enjoyable for others. Whoever gets to decide what's right, decided. So you are unhappy. Not much I can say to help you, other than try to consider that there are plenty of other people that play the game. Maybe you can take home the satisfaction that you are willing to play "all out bridge" and feel others are protected. Maybe other people actually care that some people should be able to follow the game at the highest levels.

Who knows?

[cherdano]

The_Hog, on Nov 17 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

"Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun?"

Absolutely! Do you want to play bridge or tiddleywinks? You are after all talking about serious competition here. Bad methods will weed themselves out in the long term.

Scandal! Some want to play American football instead of rugby!

[matmat]

cherdano, on Nov 17 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Scandal! Some want to play American football instead of rugby!

are you saying he should establish some other governing body, something like
American Contract Overpass League (ACOL) and allow all conventions in the games sanctioned by it?

[the hog]

Look Mat, I agree that at MPs it is a trifle unfair, but certainly in Team matches I think it should be anything goes.
Obviously throwing 1000 pages at someone the night before is crazy, but given reasonable time and warning. (what is reasonable?), I think you can come up with generic defences.

Gnome, I disagree that "that they tried it and discarded it. Once upon a time psychs were made a lot more often and forcing pass systems were allowed (e.g. Walpurgis Club). They decided that wasn't for the best." The reason these systems are played rarely now is that you don't have the opportunity to practice them anywhere. Paul Marston has stated he would much rather play a strong pass system than Moscito, but it has virtually been legislated out of existence. Further why on earth do you think people can't "follow the game at the highest levels" if HUMS are used? I don't get that logic at all. Personally I think it is a huge lot of fun to watch a HUM pair in action.

[csdenmark]

Echognome, on Nov 18 2008, 05:00 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 17 2008, 03:30 PM, said:

Echognome, on Nov 17 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

Then you dont need to worry at all.

The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems.

They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'.

The masses plays WHIST.

Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file.

It seems like your argument is "they wouldn't understand anyway, so who cares if we alienate them?"

My argument is as follows:

1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not.

2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions?

3. The "right" way to regulate is a tautology. It has come about through a long process of discussion and trial-and-error by a lot of smart people. So here you are saying you have a "better way". Who are you to say it's better? Don't you think a more lax system has been tried before? Why did they change it to the current system?

4. The rank and file should get enjoyment out of watching the world championships. Look at all the armchair sports fan that get enjoyment out of watching the same game that they play on the football pitch, the cricket pitch, the baseball field, etc.

Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file.
I think I havent said anything like that. To me repeated discussions in this Forum about different ACBL-tournament set-ups looks silly. Stop it and elect people with knowledge and interest in perspectives to the rule-setting bodies.

1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not.
For 98% - the masses - it will change nothing at all. Take a look into Vugraph and you will see each time a strong system is coming up the commentators awakes. Often they know they dont have the qualifications to commentate - but they certainly try to do their best. They are all handicapped by the crap allowed these days.

2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions?
Taking my position we stop nowhere. Modern technology will help all interested to catch up. The BBO flash component is an important tool here.

[shevek]

655321, on Nov 12 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

I don't agree.

Though I guess if you did ban HUMs, in practice you would lose little or nothing because (IMO) these systems are not as effective as their adherents like to think. 

Nobody can remember how affective they were. The merits of HUMs were debated 20 years ago but now they are virtually extinct. So, who (else) has played a Forcing Pass or similar in a major national event recently?

[csdenmark]

shevek, on Nov 29 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

655321, on Nov 12 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

I don't agree.

Though I guess if you did ban HUMs, in practice you would lose little or nothing because (IMO) these systems are not as effective as their adherents like to think. 

Nobody can remember how affective they were. The merits of HUMs were debated 20 years ago but now they are virtually extinct. So, who (else) has played a Forcing Pass or similar in a major national event recently?

Wrong - some of them, at least the simpler ones, are fairy well known in as well Australia and Poland. In Poland pass-systems were allowed at national level until I think January 2007.

But this is not only about pass-systems. The latest move from the weak ones were tightening the rules for Bermuda Bowl 2005. By that time nearly all systems of the top-players were stripped according to that.

What is left of the gloriousness, is the name and nothing else.

Paul started this thread hoping to gather some sympathy for his weak players to be able to win something odd carrying a glorious name. In the annals you dont see the competion level is much lower today than 20-30-40 years ago.

[Rossoneri]

csdenmark, on Nov 29 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

Paul started this thread hoping to gather some sympathy for his weak players to be able to win something odd carrying a glorious name. In the annals you dont see the competion level is much lower today than 20-30-40 years ago.

That is just putting words into his mouth. I don't see this even being implied anywhere.

[paulg]

csdenmark, on Nov 29 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

Paul started this thread hoping to gather some sympathy for his weak players to be able to win something odd carrying a glorious name. In the annals you dont see the competion level is much lower today than 20-30-40 years ago.

What complete and utter rubbish.

The FIRST line of this thread was my real question: "Do you think the benefits of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) and Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC) are worth the cost of playing them?"

I see no mention of being from a weak country (although that is true) or any desire to change the HUM and BSC regulations in high-level competition.

I find your comments offensive and beneath contempt.

[Cascade]

Come on guys he means weak players like Cezary Balicki and Adam A Zmudzinski who could only win silver in the bowl playing Suspensor in 1991.

My dream is to be that weak too.

[csdenmark]

cardsharp, on Nov 12 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Do you think the benefits of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) and Brown Sticker Conventions (BSC) are worth the cost of playing them?

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?

Paul

HUM and BSC definitions

What was your intensions here Paul?

[gwnn]

Good Lord Claus. If you have a 200 words long text, and you select a random sample of 10-15 out of it, perhaps you shouldn't expect an explanation for it before reading the other 185-190.

[shevek]

csdenmark, on Nov 29 2008, 09:34 AM, said:

shevek, on Nov 29 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

655321, on Nov 12 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

I don't agree.

Though I guess if you did ban HUMs, in practice you would lose little or nothing because (IMO) these systems are not as effective as their adherents like to think. 

Nobody can remember how effective they were. The merits of HUMs were debated 20 years ago but now they are virtually extinct. So, who (else) has played a Forcing Pass or similar in a major national event recently?

Wrong - some of them, at least the simpler ones, are fairy well known in as well Australia and Poland. In Poland pass-systems were allowed at national level until I think January 2007.

But this is not only about pass-systems. The latest move from the weak ones were tightening the rules for Bermuda Bowl 2005. By that time nearly all systems of the top-players were stripped according to that.

What is left of the gloriousness, is the name and nothing else.

Paul started this thread hoping to gather some sympathy for his weak players to be able to win something odd carrying a glorious name. In the annals you dont see the competion level is much lower today than 20-30-40 years ago.

Curious to hear people mention Australia (& New Zealand). It seems that the rest of the world imagines a free-for-all over here.

While tournament regs do allow strong pass (HUMs) in most national teams championships, there are many obstacles, such as losing seating rights, requirement to pre-lodge including a defence, can't play them in early rounds. This means a strong pass pair must have a back-up system, which is okay.

I'm usually pleased to lose seating rights. Just sit and wait, no agonising over choice of opponents, no wistfully realising you chose the wrong pair. I like our opponents seeing the yellow dot, then devising a complex defence - they generally ignore our simple recommended one. The bring their photocopied hand-written defence and look pissed off, resenting the imposition. When they have system stuff ups, they blame our methods, rather than their ill thought out defence. Ours is the last table to finish. They complain to organisers who tighten the noose next year, etc.

It's little wonder that - as far as I know - mine are the ONLY partnerships in Australia playing strong pass at the moment.

[paulg]

Relatively speaking that does sound like a free-for-all

In the UK, I think there is only one tournament that permits HUMs and that is only from the quarter-finals on. So it is impractical for a pair to play a HUM as they'd never get any practice.

BSCs are more common and do not incur any penalty.

p

[csdenmark]

Cascade, on Nov 29 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

Come on guys he means weak players like Cezary Balicki and Adam A Zmudzinski who could only win silver in the bowl playing Suspensor in 1991.

My dream is to be that weak too.

Wayne you are normally known to be well informed - therefore I certainly trust you that Balicki-Zmudzinski played Suspensor in 1991. They reached 2nd position, it should be the year Icelandic Precision(symmetric relays) won 1st position.

Maybe you have some information Wayne about Paul Marston. As far as I am informed 1991 was the year for converting Moscito from a pass-system into a club system. I wonder the reason if pass-systems were generally allowed by that time.