[paulg]

Cascade, on Dec 2 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

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?

Because they pay for that right? The are the basic funders of bridge.

Sport is different, it is not funded by the lesser players of the game. It is funded by the physically lazy who pay for the NFL, Premiership and David Beckham through TV rights.

p

[awm]

Cascade -- all these sports have rules though.

The rules of football (soccer) seem to be designed to help people with weak throwing arms. By disallowing me to pick up the ball with my hands and throw it into the opponents goal, they make it much more difficult for me to score. And they are helping all these people who are good kickers and bad throwers.

Many bridge players do not view "ability to design and memorize and defend against weird methods" as one of the core skills required for an elite player, just as being able to throw hard and accurately is not one of the core skills for a footballer. It is true that the rules of the game disadvantage people who are very good at this skill and not so good at other skills... but this is simply how the game is.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Dec 2 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

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

Claus, I'm not sure you understand how these forums work:

I don't think that anyone is going to jump through a bunch of hoops creating new threads so that you will deign to describe the wonders of Suspensor...

There are a lot of threads discussing any number of topics related to bidding and/or card play. Is it too much to hope that you might some day post a relevant on topic comment?

[Cascade]

cardsharp, on Dec 3 2008, 08:31 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 2 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

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?

Because they pay for that right? The are the basic funders of bridge.

Sport is different, it is not funded by the lesser players of the game. It is funded by the physically lazy who pay for the NFL, Premiership and David Beckham through TV rights.

p

I am pretty sure that is not the reason.

Rugby has been professional for less than 20 years. When I played rugby as an amateur in an amateur competition the rules were excepting some minor tweaks essentially the same as what is now played.

[hotShot]

Cascade, on Dec 2 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

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?

When people play soccer in private, they use false balls and wrong sized goals, they build teams that don't have 11 players, they substitute players as often as they want and usually they don't have proper markings on the ground. In short they adapt the rules as they like. Since they know that they don't perform at world class level they accept knowingly that they ignore rules to fit the game to their needs.

The difference is that many bridge player don't even know the rules, and are unaware that they bend them.

Even at soccer pros don't know all the rules ....
This weekend a pro in Greece learned that he did not know the rules good enough.
He tackled a streaker to help the security people to clear the field and was rewarded with a red card and had to leave the field. Player are not allowed to tackle on the field, not even people that are not part of the game.....

[Cascade]

hotShot, on Dec 3 2008, 09:04 AM, said:

When people play soccer in private, they use false balls and wrong sized goals, they build teams that don't have 11 players, they substitute players as often as they want and usually they don't have proper markings on the ground. In short they adapt the rules as they like. Since they know that they don't perform at world class level they accept knowingly that they ignore rules to fit the game to their needs.

They do that in the world championships in bridge.

[fred]

The soccer analogy is completely inappropriate IMO.

One of the problems with high-level bridge these days is, even with the current restrictions that are in place, the vast majority of the world's bridge players don't have a clue as to what the most of the bids mean. To these people bridge at the highest levels is already a completely different game than the game they know and love. The players are speaking a completely different language than they speak and the game makes no sense to them.

Most of these people have no interest in watching. As a result, most corporations have no interest in sponsoring major tournaments and high-level bridge is a largely ineffective mechanism for promoting the wonders of our game to new players.

This is a bad thing.

If the rules of bridge were changed so that "anything goes" the "vast majority" I refer to above would become "almost everyone".

That would be a worse thing.

In soccer, regardless of whether the size of the field and ball are exactly the same when average people play and when the World Cup is going on, everyone understands the game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gerry]

fred, on Dec 2 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

In soccer, regardless of whether the size of the field and ball are exactly the same when average people play and when the World Cup is going on, everyone understands the game.

Yes, but people understand football skills. Average players do not understand the thought processes behind decisions at high level bridge and never will. Dumbing down bidding doesn't help; no matter how simple you make it high level bridge is a different game. People don't watch chess in their millions either for the same reason. Bridge will never be a spectator sport.

BTW I played forcing pass the other week at the club and nobody gave a rats arse. Rather the opposite actually.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 3 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

The soccer analogy is completely inappropriate IMO.
...
In soccer, regardless of whether the size of the field and ball are exactly the same when average people play and when the World Cup is going on, [b]everyone understands the game

I disagree.

I have no idea of the intricacies of a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-2 or 5-3-2 formations. I didn't even know all (or any) of these existed until I did a google search. I was just aware that different formations were in use.

When "my" team gets a goal because my favourite player is left unmarked I care little whether this is because of a player's defensive error or that my team have exploited a weakness in the particular formation employed by the opposing team. Similarly if my team is the defending team in this situation I have no idea whether it is a player out of position or poor instructions from the manager.

I see the goal and I jump for joy or scream at the TV despite my ignorance of what really caused the problem.

This seems to me to be completely analogous to bridge where I don't understand the intricacies of the auction that got to or missed a key slam. I can still appreciate or mourn the +/- 13 IMPs that my team scored or gave away.

Incidentally these intricacies that I do not understand are present whether the players open a suspensor 1♠ showing 0-2 or 6+ spades followed by a relay auction or a Standard American 1S followed by Jacoby 2NT some modified responses, a frivolous 3NT slam try, some modified RKCB response and then a specialized Grand Slam try.

[fred]

gerry, on Dec 2 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

Average players do not understand the thought processes behind decisions at high level bridge and never will.

Disagree.

IMO Most people understand logic and enjoy solving problems that involve logical deduction.

But IMO most people do not enjoy learning completely foreign languages, especially when they can barely speak the one language that they already know.

You are evidently a member of the 1% or so (no I can't prove that number) who would like to be able to play highly unusual methods regardless of the cost to the other 99%. Aside from the "good of the game" argument, frankly I find it incredible that anyone in such a small minority thinks it is right or fair that the rest of the world should be catering to them.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

gerry, on Dec 2 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

BTW I played forcing pass the other week at the club and nobody gave a rats arse. Rather the opposite actually.

This of course depends where you live. I get dirty looks at the clubs I've been to most if I try to play basic precision.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

gerry, on Dec 2 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

BTW I played forcing pass the other week at the club and nobody gave a rats arse.    Rather the opposite actually.

This of course depends where you live. I get dirty looks at the clubs I've been to most if I try to play basic precision.

My understanding is that in Australia where Brown Sticker Conventions are regularly allowed in pairs is that not only do average players not complain about playing against such systems but that they jump in an have a go with these methods themselves.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 2 2008, 04:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

gerry, on Dec 2 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

BTW I played forcing pass the other week at the club and nobody gave a rats arse.    Rather the opposite actually.

This of course depends where you live. I get dirty looks at the clubs I've been to most if I try to play basic precision.

My understanding is that in Australia where Brown Sticker Conventions are regularly allowed in pairs is that not only do average players not complain about playing against such systems but that they jump in an have a go with these methods themselves.

Hey it's my least favorite thing about playing at local bridge clubs. Then again I don't think they should change the rules that most of their players currently enjoy because it would be more fun for me...

[mycroft]

I know I love watching pairs much better than I wielding a system I understand and showing me why they are much better than I.

I know I love watching pairs much better than I wielding a system that I've never seen before, and showing me the reasons why they play it; the advantages and disadvantages it has over the "standard" systems.

I know I just hate watching pairs much better than I wielding any system, standard or otherwise, that I can't follow the basics of, because there's no card for me to look at. 1S-1NT(forcing); 2C on what looks nothing like a 2C call to me? What is it? Any why can't I look at the card and find out? Obviously, the weirdies have more of those sequences, but they happen in every partnership (witness, if nothing else, the 11 pages of interference to 1NT openers, each of which *somebody* plays).

Should I have to play against it in a random 2-board MP pairs? Don't think so. Should it, provided it's described correctly and completely, and maybe with defences, be playable (without any of this two-system nonsense) *somewhere*? I think so.

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 2 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

gerry, on Dec 2 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

Average players do not understand the thought processes behind decisions at high level bridge and never will.

Disagree.

IMO Most people understand logic and enjoy solving problems that involve logical deduction.

But IMO most people do not enjoy learning completely foreign languages, especially when they can barely speak the one language that they already know.

You are evidently a member of the 1% or so (no I can't prove that number) who would like to be able to play highly unusual methods regardless of the cost to the other 99%. Aside from the "good of the game" argument, frankly I find it incredible that anyone in such a small minority thinks it is right or fair that the rest of the world should be catering to them.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

If it really was 1%/99% I would agree Fred - and there would be no problem at all. There would be nothing called bridge either - but that is maybe for another discussion.

Your assumption is based by all bridge players. That is irrelevant. All those meeting once a week playing social bridge in their local club - 20 hands + coffee and cake - take those away. They are social meetings - they now meets because of bridge but they could easily well have had their weekly get-together based on anything else.

Then your 1% of all bridge players are around 10% of the relevant selection. That is something different.

Look into Sheveks story. She meant nobody any longer remember and nobody but herself any longer played. The features are ruled out and due to that players have given up.

Try to have a small conversation with some of the elder persons on BBO. You fairly quickly know most of them played interesting systems long ago but no longer. Just like me - who still persist - they cannot find partners anymore. The game has been ruled out.

Ask your former team mates Greco/Hampson why they slashed their brown sticker features in 2005. Ask them if they think their system is better now or it is just conform to the present regulation.

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 2 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

Ask your former team mates Greco/Hampson why they slashed their brown sticker features in 2005. Ask them if they think their system is better now or it is just conform to the present regulation.

I asked Hampson.

He assumed you were referring to their former use of a 2S opening to show a bad preempt in either minor.

He said they stop playing it (and multi 2D) because they think their system (weak 2s in the majors and Precision 2D) is better now. He felt quite strongly about this.

Apparently Hampson does not equate complexity/artificiality/strangeness with good and natural with bad the way you do.

By the way, I am happy to report that Hampson-Greco are scheduled to be my teammates again for at least the next 18 months or so.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Congratulation Fred. Greco/Hampson are great. Hope Ekeblad/Rubin will join too.

[hotShot]

I don't know much about poker, but I would have thought that poker would be boring to watch, but with computed percentages a good expert explaining the possible continuations it's interesting to watch.

I have seen great tv shows on chess, where Experts explained possible continuations or threats.

It's my impression that thanks to BBO, watching Bridge has become more popular than it was 10 years ago.
The fun watching vugraph depends a lot on the commentators. If they are familiar with the system and can explain what kind of problem the player is trying to solve.
Comments like "according to GIB 3NT makes" and no disclosure about bids can reduce the fun a lot.
The future of bridge depends a lot on our ability to make it viewable. Media presence is essential to promote bridge. There it depends on the commentators to explain the different systems and discuss their advantages and disadvantages while nothing spectacular is going on.

[Rossoneri]

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

fred, on Dec 3 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

The soccer analogy is completely inappropriate IMO.
...
In soccer, regardless of whether the size of the field and ball are exactly the same when average people play and when the World Cup is going on, [b]everyone understands the game

I disagree.

I have no idea of the intricacies of a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 or 4-3-1-2 or 5-3-2 formations. I didn't even know all (or any) of these existed until I did a google search. I was just aware that different formations were in use.

When "my" team gets a goal because my favourite player is left unmarked I care little whether this is because of a player's defensive error or that my team have exploited a weakness in the particular formation employed by the opposing team. Similarly if my team is the defending team in this situation I have no idea whether it is a player out of position or poor instructions from the manager.

I see the goal and I jump for joy or scream at the TV despite my ignorance of what really caused the problem.

This seems to me to be completely analogous to bridge where I don't understand the intricacies of the auction that got to or missed a key slam. I can still appreciate or mourn the +/- 13 IMPs that my team scored or gave away.

Incidentally these intricacies that I do not understand are present whether the players open a suspensor 1♠ showing 0-2 or 6+ spades followed by a relay auction or a Standard American 1S followed by Jacoby 2NT some modified responses, a frivolous 3NT slam try, some modified RKCB response and then a specialized Grand Slam try.

Does the spectator even know what IMPs are? We have to concede that the scoring of bridge is a significant barrier for uninformed spectators.

[hotShot]

Rossoneri, on Dec 3 2008, 12:37 AM, said:

Does the spectator even know what IMPs are? We have to concede that the scoring of bridge is a significant barrier for uninformed spectators.

Thats what commentators are for.

I don't know American Football, but for guys like me the commentators explain, why a team suddenly goes for the field goal and no longer try for a touchdown.

If you watch cycling it's their job to explain the team tactics.

There are several sports with some strange form of scoring, explaining what's going on that is what the commentators have to do.