[csdenmark]

cardsharp, on Nov 30 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

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

This sounds more reasonable Paul.

I think you will be well adviced to switch your position helping your countryfellows by advocating their rights to be able to get solid practice against all kind of features.

Until then you may tell them they can have all the practice they need on WEB. Here we have no restrictions. I am ready and I am very sure Shevek will be pleased too.

[nige1]

In my middle age, I used to play Vienna, Forcing pass, Nottingham, Roman, Neapolitan, Kaplan-Scheinwold, Bulldog, Precision, Hybrid club, and other systems -- whenever permitted - but that wasn't often. So I reverted to Culbertson (or simple strong club)

It may be different for top players and for some countries; but for most players in most countries, I reckon that it is not worth experimenting with (probably) superior methods that you cannot practice day-to-day. You spend as much time studying labile system-regulations as the systems themselves.

I wish there were only two tiers of competition -

• Either Standard system.
  
• Or Anything goes.

Unfortunately, there is little prospect of regulators relinquishing their fun, in the forseeable future.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

I wish there were only two tiers of competition -

• Either Standard system.
  
• Or Anything goes.

As long as you get the tier you want to play in, why would you want to deny anyone else who wants a tier that is not one of those two?

[helene_t]

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

Unfortunately, there is little prospect of regulators relinquishing their fun, in the forseeable future.

I doubt that regulators have much fun. We all want our pet methods to be allowed and the evil enemies' pet methods to be banned so whatever they decide, lots of people will complain.

Good luck enforcing a "standard system only" rule for pairs and teams events, btw. Makes more sense for indys but who play that?

[Cascade]

csdenmark, on Dec 1 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

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.

My information about Balicki Zmudzinski is second hand. It comes from somewhere on the web - no one tells any lies there do they? It was something I hand in my memory. I did a google search to get the details. I apologize if it is not 100% accurate.

I have never talked with Paul Marston about why he moved to MOSCITO from forcing pass systems.

Curiously 1991 was the year that i first played the Interprovincial Championships in New Zealand. In that event we played a Forcing Pass system. We actually played a mixed system - Strong Club, submarine symmetric style vulnerable and Forcing Pass with two under transfers with symmetric relays and a 1♠ Fert not vulnerble.

I cannot actually remember if we ever experimented with a Forcing Pass system at all vulnerabilities. I think we probably did.

We only played Forcing Pass over a 6-9 month period. Forcing Pass and other HUMs were then as now only allowed in Open level teams style events where 8 or more boards were played in segments against the same pair. This meant that we had to maintain two systems. In a way this wasn't two problematic for us as stated above we were playing a mixed system - we just reverted to our vulnerable system when not playing Forcing Pass. However since most events in New Zealand are Matchpoint Pairs we were unable to play the Forcing Pass system often.

Even our own club after we played an interclub event against a team from another city in which we played Forcing Pass made a rule that HUM systems would not be played in interclub events.

We gave up the Forcing Pass system shortly after the 1991 Interprovincial Championships. We continued playing Submarine Symmetric for a few years after that.

[akhare]

Cascade, on Nov 30 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

I have never talked with Paul Marston about why he moved to MOSCITO from forcing pass systems.

Curiously 1991 was the year that i first played the Interprovincial Championships in New Zealand.  In that event we played a Forcing Pass system.  We actually played a mixed system - Strong Club, submarine symmetric style vulnerable and Forcing Pass with two under transfers with symmetric relays and a 1♠ Fert not vulnerble.

I distinctly remember reading somewhere that Martson switched a 1♣ Moscito coz of regulations against FP (and that he would rather play the other version any given day).

Your system sounds very similar to the one that Todd and I play on BBO. We aren't that brave and use a 1♥ fert. Also, we started off playing FP at all vul. but switched over a mixed system because it seemed too risky for team games.

Did you find that the fert sometimes caused your side as much nuisance as it did the opps? It's easy to deal with it as the responder if your hand is especially strong or weak, but the 13-16 range can cause headaches...

[Cascade]

Indeed I don't think anyone who plays ferts thinks that the fert is a big winner. But if you want the efficiency of a forcing pass you have to put those hands somewhere.

[nige1]

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

I wish there were only two tiers of competition -

• Either Standard system.
  
• Or Anything goes.

jdonn, on Nov 30 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

As long as you get the tier you want to play in, why would you want to deny anyone else who wants a tier that is not one of those two?

• Many different levels of tournament fragment the game. One of the wonderful aspects of Bridge is that an ordinary player can still play against a top international.
  
• In practice, because there are so many levels of tournament, ordinary players rarely get to use or play against HUMs & BSCs.
  
• Although there are more opportunities, on-line than face-to-face.

[csdenmark]

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Many different levels of tournament fragment the game. One of the wonderful aspects of Bridge is that an ordinary player can still play against a top international.

Wrong Nigel - most of them see themselves as a part of an exclusive classe. They simply prefer to break an arm instead of having a game with deadly persons. And that is though they are only champions in simple bridge.

The only exception I know of is the swede Peter Berthau, but he is also one of the persons playing a solid system. Berthau-Nystrøm was one of the pairs who were forced to strip their system last time - 2005 - the regulator lobby excessed their discressions.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

I wish there were only two tiers of competition -

• Either Standard system.
  
  
• Or Anything goes.

jdonn, on Nov 30 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

As long as you get the tier you want to play in, why would you want to deny anyone else who wants a tier that is not one of those two?

• Many different levels of tournament fragment the game. One of the wonderful aspects of Bridge is that an ordinary player can still play against a top international.
  
• In practice, because there are so many levels of tournament, ordinary players rarely get to use or play against HUMs & BSCs.
  
• Although there are more opportunities, on-line than face-to-face.

Got it. Only set up the rules the way you like them, because if you also allowed other people to play by the rules they like then there would be too many options and the game you like would be too small.

Uh, isn't this EXACTLY the current system, except that you are part of the other group?

[nige1]

jdonn, on Nov 30 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

Got it. Only set up the rules the way you like them, because if you also allowed other people to play by the rules they like then there would be too many options and the game you like would be too small. Uh, isn't this EXACTLY the current system, except that you are part of the other group?

Roughly. But not exactly. Again: whatever the levels, the fewer there are ...

• The less fragmented the game; and
  
• The less the hassle of keeping up-to-date with system regulations.

[jdonn]

Right, why bother with the hassle of offering people the game they want instead of forcing a different game upon them.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Nov 30 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Right, why bother with the hassle of offering people the game they want instead of forcing a different game upon them.

It is lucky for JDonn that the ACBL has established the levels of game that players want. AFIK, in the UK, there have been no polls of players to find out what levels of system-regulation we want. Although, I fear that, if each group got their way, the game would become even more fragmented.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 30 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Right, why bother with the hassle of offering people the game they want instead of forcing a different game upon them.

It is lucky for JDonn that the ACBL has established the levels of game that players want. AFIK, in the UK, there have been no polls of players to find out what levels of system-regulation we want. Although, I fear that, if each group got their way, the game would become even more fragmented.

Oh I am by no means arguing for the current system. Just against your comment that there should be two "tiers" that you see fit but no others.

[blackshoe]

There should be "enough" tiers that folks can find a game suited to their tastes. The problem (in both the ACBL and the EBU, I think) is that in spite of the several tiers (four in the ACBL and five, I think, in the EBU) it is difficult to find games at the higher levels of permissiveness - and, in the ACBL at least, at the lowest level. At least, that''s been my experience here (Rochester, NY) although people tell me that Mid-Chart games (for example) are easy to find elsewhere.

As for "HUM" systems (not a term the ACBL uses, I think, at least not in regulations) such as Forcing Pass (are there others?) the concept seems interesting, and I'd like to see how they work. I kind of resent that TPTB have already decided for me that they are to be avoided.

[shevek]

csdenmark, on Nov 30 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

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.

When Paul Marston & Stephen Burgess entered the 1990 Cavendish, the sys regs said no yellow systems so they took the hint. They played Strong Pass in the 91 Bowl in Perth, featuring a 2C fert but that was it. The current WBF regs were drafted around then. They stopped playing tegether around 2000 but are playing together again now, 15+ clubs & transfer openings. They have to make changes when they play the US Nats.

[the hog]

helene_t, on Dec 1 2008, 12:33 AM, said:

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

Unfortunately, there is little prospect of regulators relinquishing their fun, in the forseeable future.

I doubt that regulators have much fun. We all want our pet methods to be allowed and the evil enemies' pet methods to be banned so whatever they decide, lots of people will complain.

Good luck enforcing a "standard system only" rule for pairs and teams events, btw. Makes more sense for indys but who play that?

Odd comment Helene. Why would you want the opponent's "evil" methods banned. I certainly don't. I am happy for anyone to play whatever they like.

Wayne I spoke to Pau about why he switched. Basically it was not worth the effort to continue playing it due to horrendous system restrictions. I think Nicolette, (Shevek), is right; she is probably the only one playing it now.

[the hog]

nige1, on Dec 1 2008, 04:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 30 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

Got it. Only set up the rules the way you like them, because if you also allowed other people to play by the rules they like then there would be too many options and the game you like would be too small. Uh, isn't this EXACTLY the current system, except that you are part of the other group?

Roughly. But not exactly. Again: whatever the levels, the fewer there are ...

• The less fragmented the game; and
  
• The less the hassle of keeping up-to-date with system regulations.

Ok Nigel, in tha case why not only have one tier - anything goes?

[shevek]

fred, on Nov 12 2008, 09:42 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 12 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

For example Fred thinks that its a mistake to permit high variance methods during the selection process because this increases the chance that a weaker team will pass through the filter.  Also, this increases the number of possible systems that contestents need to prepare to face which can create a burden for all those teams who compete  but don't win.

I can't say I disagree with myself here, but more generally I think it is a mistake to allow what you are calling "high variance methods" in *any* bridge tournament of consequence (including the World Championships of course).

I do admit that it is hard to define where the line should be drawn.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The degree of variance would depend on the homogeneity of the field. If I front up to an American Regional playing 1940s Acol with 4-card suits, 12-14 throughout, no neg doubles, Acol Twos etc, there will a decent number of results decided on system.

This offends some -- those who want bidding outcomes to be decided by their knowledge & judgement in 2-over-1 vs mine, plus their tweaks vs mine. I dare say these are the people who politely excuse themselves from our BBO table when we say we play Acol, saying "We don't have a defence to weak notrump."

Nick

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Dec 1 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 1 2008, 12:33 AM, said:

nige1, on Nov 30 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

Unfortunately, there is little prospect of regulators relinquishing their fun, in the forseeable future.

I doubt that regulators have much fun. We all want our pet methods to be allowed and the evil enemies' pet methods to be banned so whatever they decide, lots of people will complain.

Good luck enforcing a "standard system only" rule for pairs and teams events, btw. Makes more sense for indys but who play that?

Odd comment Helene. Why would you want the opponent's "evil" methods banned. I certainly don't. I am happy for anyone to play whatever they like.

I think she means that everyone wants 'some particular amount' of evil systems / conventions / treatments banned. For you obviously that amount is none, but the point is that it's a different amount for everyone, so the regulators will always make most people unhappy. She was merely pointing out that they have a thankless job and always will.

I absolutely believe that a system of having everything allowed should be least be in existence. What I don't understand is why people who prefer that "tier" seem to often believe that no other should be available for anyone else. Variety is a good thing, and anything with enough demand to support it will survive.