[csdenmark]

Fred it is a misinterpretation of me assuming complexity/artificiality/strangeness I see them as more effective than natural systems. I often use the word 'strong systems' but as I remember I have never referred 'natural systems' as weak. Right now I am investigating Rosenberg/Mahmood. It is basically a natural system - and I have rated it at the same level of complexity as fx. Roman Club and Nightmare.

In discussions where I think I can afford a balanced view I use the word 'interesting' - I think it is more precise for club/diamond systems. Effectiveness is better used only for pass-systems which pushes opponents into the more difficult terrain of defensive bidding.

[cherdano]

fred, on Dec 2 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

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.

Heh. Finally something nice to read in this thread.

[Aberlour10]

hotShot, on Dec 2 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

The future of bridge depends a lot on our ability to make it viewable. Media presence is essential to promote bridge.

I disagree.

No doubt, bridge is the game with completely lack of the visual
incentives for the newcomers. There are 100 & 1 barriers for them by starting to watch f.ex. world class events, no matter how good the broadcasting would be medial prepared. I think only very few would say "WOW, THAT'S IT". Surely there are talented people which learn all of it very very fast, but I think the mass of average player go the long "hard"way, to be a beat better step by step, year by year etc...
I predict the main "entries" for the bridge newcomers remain anywhere the same: the family, social milieu and school/collage/ university.

Robert

[Codo]

fred, on Dec 3 2008, 05:39 AM, said:

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

Rarely I disagree with your view, but I disagree with this one.

I enjoy watching basketball despite the fact that I do not know what a small forward is.

I enjoy watching American football but have no idea what the difference between a 4-3 and a 3-4 defence is. And what the heck is a nickelback?

I enjoy watching chess, despite my failure to understand the current openings used in the world cup and world championships. (And I had played quite good myself some years ago.)

I do not think that it is harder to explain mosquito, or a forcing pass system as it is to explain fantunes, wj2005 or precision to a SAYC-Player.

Here in Germany in our highest league, a pair plays a system where the simply switched the 1 Spade and pass bid. This is HUM. But it is not difficult to explain.

I have no idea whether or not sponsors will promote the game more or less when uinfamiliar systems are allowed. I belive that this fact has no influence in their descission, but you have much more experience in this area, so maybe I err.

[the hog]

fred, on Dec 3 2008, 04:27 AM, 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

We seem to have this discussion about one time a year on these forums. What I still can't understand Fred, and what no one has been able to explain to me adequately, is why we don't have 2 tiers - one where anything goes, and say a restricted where everyone plays the same system. Wouldn't this make both sides happy? (Maybe it would make both sides unhappy )

By the way, I have no idea about baseball and gridiron is totally incomprehensible, but I still enjoy watching those sports.

[nige1]

hotShot, on Dec 2 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

The future of bridge depends a lot on our ability to make it viewable. Media presence is essential to promote bridge.

I agree with HotShot. IMO 2-tier system regulation would help.

• In other sports, mass-media spectators show most interest in world-championships. There could be international competitions (individuals, pairs, and teams), with all the players employing the Standard System. Commentators would need less expertise to help spectators understand and appreciate the game.
  
• There could also be world-championships for system-buffs. Anything goes (HUMs and BSCs welcome). This might be of more interest to Bridge-addicts like me. But would probably attract less public interest.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Dec 3 2008, 01:55 PM, said:

We seem to have this discussion about one time a year on these forums. What I still can't understand Fred, and what no one has been able to explain to me adequately, is why we don't have 2 tiers - one where anything goes, and say a restricted where everyone plays the same system. Wouldn't this make both sides happy? (Maybe it would make both sides unhappy  )

I dont think it is so difficult to see. If you have 2 classes the world championship will be the one with hardest competition. That is of course where 'everything goes'.

Most of those who today see themselves in the exclusive classe will move 1 step down. As they are the majority - it will never happen.

Unfortunately this is the likely future:

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

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.

There is no light at the end of the tunnel for bridge.

[NickRW]

nige1, on Dec 2 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

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

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.

I agree with David to the extent that the current Orange Book is a lot better than the old one and, indeed, despite my noisy comments sometimes to the contrary, the EBU is to be applauded for that. However, I agree with Nigel - the current situation is a long way from perfect still.

Nick

[awm]

The_Hog, on Dec 3 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

We seem to have this discussion about one time a year on these forums. What I still can't understand Fred, and what no one has been able to explain to me adequately, is why we don't have 2 tiers - one where anything goes, and say a restricted where everyone plays the same system. Wouldn't this make both sides happy? (Maybe it would make both sides unhappy )

By the way, I have no idea about baseball and gridiron is totally incomprehensible, but I still enjoy watching those sports.

I think that the overwhelming majority of serious bridge players:

(1) Understand that tinkering with methods is, to some degree, part of the game.

(2) Are happy to play against relatively common methods like Polish Club, Strong Club, Acol, 2/1. In fact these methods are standard in various parts of the world and disallowing them in a serious competition would put competitors from those regions at a serious disadvantage.

(3) Are not particularly interested in playing against forcing pass methods, or some of the weirder chimera preempts. Typically they feel that coming up with defenses to a dozen "really weird" things before each tournament is a waste of time, that these methods may have little technical merit, and that they are mostly an attempt to take advantage of competitors who don't take the time to prepare.

Having "two tiers, one where anything goes and a restricted one where everyone plays the same system" would be totally contrary to the wishes of this overwhelming majority.

While it might be reasonable to have special events at a world championship (say one where everyone plays the same system and one where anything goes) neither of these approaches is ever really likely to become mainstream, simply because almost everyone prefers something in the middle.

[NickRW]

fred, on Dec 2 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

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

The soccer analogy may not work, but this argument hardly works either. A high proportion of club players would not be able to solve all the level 3 Bridge Master deals that you have on BBO. Are you suggesting that declarers should not be able to employ the techniques necessary to bring home level 3 deals just because many club players don't understand? I think you are probably not suggesting that. Why then should restrictions on bidding be any different?

Nick

[NickRW]

hotShot, on Dec 2 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

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.

I'd go along with that.

Fred is right to the extent that if you understand the systems being used at the table it is a big help - but a good commentator - or a decent system card you can download helps too.

Somewhat too often the commentators are, however, not familiar with the systems and merely speculate - which is no help and indeed I find it irritating - download the damn card and read it or don't commentate at all! Comments that GIB says 3N will make are completely useless - I can switch GIB on if I so choose myself - and long conversations between commentators about irrelevant stuff as sometimes happens is a total distraction.

Sounds like I am being critical of viewgraph commentators - that isn't my intent. Many do at least a reasonable job and some are very good. Point is I like the good commentators and have precisely zero expectation that the players use systems I understand. In fact, quite the reverse, sometimes when there are several tables to choose from and the cards are downloadable I will pick the table with the least familiar systems in use. But then I am more into bidding theory than most people - so perhaps I am not typical.

Nick

[awm]

So I posted a poll about forcing pass systems...

It's worth mentioning that the BBO forums crowd is probably:

(1) Younger than the bridge-playing population. Younger players are seemingly more likely to be interested in experimenting with weird methods.

(2) More obsessed with bridge than the bridge-playing population. Thus more likely to know a bit about forcing pass systems or find them interesting.

Given these things, I would expect this poll to be biased in favor of allowing forcing pass methods. However, it is not as extreme a bias as posting to the non-natural systems forum.

I think asking the opinion of players of a wide range of abilities is reasonable, because "making bridge watchable" has been repeatedly mentioned as a reason to ban forcing pass, and because today's "intermediate" players may well be tomorrow's "experts" (especially among the generally younger-than-average BBF crowd).

Anyway, the upshot seems to be that almost no one wants to ban forcing pass completely, but very few want it legalized for pairs events either. Most seem to feel that the system should be allowed only in team events, with the field slightly favoring allowing it in 8-board matches over restricting it to day-long KO matches. Note that "restricted to day-long KO matches" is essentially the status quo in the WBF as I understand it, and the (potentially biased in favor of forcing pass more than the general population) BBF poll only wants to reduce this restriction slightly (basically a 60-40 vote for allowing it in shorter matches).

This suggests that the regulators are doing more or less what the majority of people want in this respect. Of course, the numbers might change as more poll results come in.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Dec 3 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

We seem to have this discussion about one time a year on these forums. What I still can't understand Fred, and what no one has been able to explain to me adequately, is why we don't have 2 tiers - one where anything goes, and say a restricted where everyone plays the same system. Wouldn't this make both sides happy? (Maybe it would make both sides unhappy )

While I am all in favor of having more tiers or options if there is the demand to support them, has anyone at all requested one where everyone plays the same system? Maybe so, but I doubt it's many people.

[nige1]

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.

david_c, on Dec 2 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

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.

David_C's interpretation makes sense to me. Thank you for the elucidation! But. IMO (like most local regulations) the Orange Book could be

• Clearer. Here, for example, I was further confused because 9C1 claims to apply to Levels 2 3 and 4, although David_C implies that it is relevant only to level 2.
  
• Shorter. Some regulations should be part of the WBF Law-Book. Most of the rest could be dropped - they seem to add nothing to our enjoyment of the game.

[csdenmark]

Adam most persons have no or only a very vague knowledge of what it is about. They dont play it - and most dont know any who plays such systems.

If you want to know something about persons and pass-systems I think you should take a look in this Forum in threads about such kind of systems. I haven't done so - but as I remember the threads are all very short and with only very few contributors and each time the same few ones.

[awm]

csdenmark, on Dec 3 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

Adam most persons have no or only a very vague knowledge of what it is about. They dont play it - and most dont know any who plays such systems.

If you want to know something about persons and pass-systems I think you should take a look in this Forum in threads about such kind of systems. I haven't done so - but as I remember the threads are all very short and with only very few contributors and each time the same few ones.

I'm not trying to "learn about forcing pass systems" -- that's not what the poll is about at all.

I'm also not that interested in whether people who have spent a lot of time developing and playing forcing pass systems think they should be legal in top-level competition. The answer to that question is fairly obviously "yes" but also fairly obviously not relevant since this set of people is a tiny minority (even once we restrict to "serious" bridge players).

The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority.

Since the goal is for bridge to be an enjoyable, competitive game for as many people as possible I think it is unreasonable to expect rules changes which cater to the wishes of a very small minority while going against the wishes of most players.

[RichMor]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 3 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

We seem to have this discussion about one time a year on these forums. What I still can't understand Fred, and what no one has been able to explain to me adequately, is why we don't have 2 tiers - one where anything goes, and say a restricted where everyone plays the same system. Wouldn't this make both sides happy? (Maybe it would make both sides unhappy  )

While I am all in favor of having more tiers or options if there is the demand to support them, has anyone at all requested one where everyone plays the same system? Maybe so, but I doubt it's many people.

I remember some kind of 'green card' games many years ago at a local club.
Everyone had to play the same general method, treatments, conventions.

Don't know if green card events still exist. Probably not.

[Free]

RichMor, on Dec 3 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

I remember some kind of 'green card' games many years ago at a local club.
Everyone had to play the same general method, treatments, conventions.

Don't know if green card events still exist. Probably not.

Sounds boring...

[csdenmark]

awm, on Dec 3 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 3 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

Adam most persons have no or only a very vague knowledge of what it is about. They dont play it - and most dont know any who plays such systems.

If you want to know something about persons and pass-systems I think you should take a look in this Forum in threads about such kind of systems. I haven't done so - but as I remember the threads are all very short and with only very few contributors and each time the same few ones.

I'm not trying to "learn about forcing pass systems" -- that's not what the poll is about at all.

I'm also not that interested in whether people who have spent a lot of time developing and playing forcing pass systems think they should be legal in top-level competition. The answer to that question is fairly obviously "yes" but also fairly obviously not relevant since this set of people is a tiny minority (even once we restrict to "serious" bridge players).

The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority.

Since the goal is for bridge to be an enjoyable, competitive game for as many people as possible I think it is unreasonable to expect rules changes which cater to the wishes of a very small minority while going against the wishes of most players.

The question I'm trying to answer is based on a discussion of whether the regulators are doing what most competitors want. Several opposing viewpoints were presented. I took a poll -- my conclusion is that the regulators are essentially reflecting the view of the majority.

Yes certainly but none have questioned that the present rules are according to the pleasure of the majority. The discussion is not about the majority but about the minority and how the minority has been reduced to what it is today. We will probably never have an answer about 'why'. The problem started 40 years ago - and the majority is very close to reach the end - 'Endlosung'.

If people knew that what is called world elite today is nothing else than 2nd garde - they would certainly have something to give a second thought.

Then it is very important to have in mind - it is not only pass-systems which have been stephmotherly treated - it is all non-standard features. Todays players have no knowledge of the past - it is too many years since the real damage began. Persons can only have a fairly qualified view about topics they have some fair knowledge about.

The blind ones will never be able to see how beautiful the world really is.

[Cascade]

awm, on Dec 4 2008, 06:00 AM, said:

This suggests that the regulators are doing more or less what the majority of people want in this respect. Of course, the numbers might change as more poll results come in.

This sort of poll is necessarily biased.

The numbers might also change if the status quo was different. For example if the current regulations were to allow Forcing Pass in pairs events then many more might be happy with that.

If these highly unusual bids were more usual then players might not see the need for change.

It is natural for players to not want others to do what they have not experienced.

My understanding is that Ferts and Forcing Pass were once allowed in pairs events in New Zealand - in fact I am told that a pair won the New Zealand Pairs playing Ferts.

I have never ever heard of any of anyone who played in that environment claiming that it was unfair or unreasonable.

Given how quickly the masses have adapted to brown sticker methods and the like in environments where they have been allowed in pairs events my feeling is that the spin that these methods are difficult to deal with would evaporate within a few months of them being allowed in practice.