[helene_t]

Just had a chat about this thread with a beginner (she is a good whist player but has only played some 100 boards of bridge in total. She has learned a lot from watching vugraph and BIL sessions though).

There is a long thread on bbf about system restrictions, for example that you can't play an opening pass showing 14+ points. Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I rather think the game is made unpopular by the number of restrictions.

Would you enjoy playing in a tourney where everything is allowed, for example a 2♣ opening that shows 0-7 points, any shape?

I don't pay attention to opps bidding because I don't understand it anyway so that isn't really an issue.

Is it fun to watch the auctions or do you come for watching the play, mainly?

The auctions are great fun to watch if they get explained, such as on vugraph.

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Dec 5 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

Just had a chat about this thread with a beginner (she is a good whist player but has only played some 100 boards of bridge in total. She has learned a lot from watching vugraph and BIL sessions though).

There is a long thread on bbf about system restrictions, for example that you can't play an opening pass showing 14+ points. Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I rather think the game is made unpopular by the number of restrictions.

Would you enjoy playing in a tourney where everything is allowed, for example a 2♣ opening that shows 0-7 points, any shape?

I don't pay attention to opps bidding because I don't understand it anyway so that isn't really an issue.

Is it fun to watch the auctions or do you come for watching the play, mainly?

The auctions are great fun to watch if they get explained, such as on vugraph.

Helene your player is not relevant for this kind of bridge discussed. Those relevant are something like those with solid knowledge of standard. This means it is the persons competing from regional/sectional up to world elite.

Those below that level ought not to be bothered with pass-systems and canape'-systems. Both of those are based on quite different philosophies. Especially for pass-systems, where you in fact has no real option to play your own system, you need very good skills.

Club-systems are different and will be OK because it is good the acquire some experience with limit-bidding features. Rest is fairly natural.

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Dec 5 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway.

I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key.

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway.

Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences.

[jdonn]

csdenmark, on Dec 5 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 5 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway.

I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key.

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway.

Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences.

You sure love to complain. What are you doing to actually improve the world?

[csdenmark]

jdonn, on Dec 5 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

What are you doing to actually improve the world?

My options are of course very limited but I have tried to do what I think I am able to for encouraging persons interested. http://www.bridgefiles.net

More can be done of course - and I know that Fred knows that I, and presumably others too, will be ready for cooperation if such can be helpful.

[FrancesHinden]

csdenmark, on Dec 5 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx.

I think there's a slight English-as-second-language problem. What does this sentence actually mean?

(the only meaning for 'fx' that I know is foreign exchange, but I don't think that's what you intend)

[helene_t]

fx means for example.

[Echognome]

Of course I would think that fx means "effects" as in "special effects" in movies. At least that is how I've seen it used.

fx as for example is weird, when we already have the abbreviation "e.g."

[gwnn]

I think it means forcing X (doubles).

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on Dec 5 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

fx means for example.

if it means "for example" the sentence still makes no sense at all.

cue JLOL...

[nige1]

helene_t, on Dec 5 2008, 06:07 AM, said:

Just had a chat about this thread with a beginner (she is a good whist player but has only played some 100 boards of bridge in total. She has learned a lot from watching vugraph and BIL sessions though).

There is a long thread on bbf about system restrictions, for example that you can't play an opening pass showing 14+ points. Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I rather think the game is made unpopular by the number of restrictions.

Would you enjoy playing in a tourney where everything is allowed, for example a 2♣ opening that shows 0-7 points, any shape?

I don't pay attention to opps bidding because I don't understand it anyway so that isn't really an issue.

Is it fun to watch the auctions or do you come for watching the play, mainly?

The auctions are great fun to watch if they get explained, such as on vugraph.

I've taught Bridge for many years and conversed with other teachers. We share Helene's experience. Most students are desperate to learn new systems and conventions, even before they have any real clue about the play.

Ex-pupils who have given up bridge after trying out proper club-tournaments, complain not about their opponents methods but about their rudeness.

When asked to elucidate, it almost always turns out that they've been involved in an acrimonious dispute with more experienced opponents over an adverse ruling based on sophisticated subjective laws and regulations that they find incomprehensible.

I gather that such players would appreciate fewer simpler clearer rules that they had some chance of understanding; and would be harder for secretary-birds to exploit. And that preference probably also extends to system regulations.

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 5 2008, 08:50 PM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 5 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

fx means for example.

if it means "for example" the sentence still makes no sense at all.

cue JLOL...

If you still have problems to understand - but interested to do so please mail me and I will try to explain using other words. csdenmark@gmail.com

[shevek]

csdenmark, on Dec 5 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 5 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

Fred says that complex systems make the game impopular because kibitzers don't understand the auctions.

I have never seen a statement from Fred which can be interpretated that way - but could be so anyway.

I think Fred has noticed, like anybody else, each time the well known players, known for interesting features are on, masses jumps into Vugraph. If more are needed or wanted, I think Fred is the one who holds the key.

It is appaling to see that the commentators seems very restained about fx. Meckwell if Walter Johnston is not available. Meckwell Club is not really difficult but looks causing headache anyway.

Quality of commentators is a topic which needs to dealt with but also something about software and about the general content, not limited to bid sequences.

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

[csdenmark]

Quote

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

I am all in favour of some disciplinary fees for BBO services.

[paulg]

csdenmark, on Dec 5 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

Quote

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

Claus is right, doubling is not enough. I think we should triple the rate.

[jdonn]

cardsharp, on Dec 6 2008, 03:19 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 5 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

Quote

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

Claus is right, doubling is not enough. I think we should triple the rate.

That is outrageous during these difficult economic times. From now on when I commentate I will accept half my normal pay rate. I hope the other commentators will make a similar sacrifice for the good of bridge.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Dec 7 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Dec 6 2008, 03:19 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 5 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

Quote

A doubling - at the very least - of the pay rate for commentary would be a good start. Then we might do more research on methods.

Not exactly sure what you mean here. Everything in Vugraph is free og no fee paid for commentators. Ordinary mathematic makes that zero. You mean to double zero or?

Claus is right, doubling is not enough. I think we should triple the rate.

That is outrageous during these difficult economic times. From now on when I commentate I will accept half my normal pay rate. I hope the other commentators will make a similar sacrifice for the good of bridge.

I stopped doing commentary because I was having trouble making ends meet at the existing rate, and Roland turned down my very polite request for a cost-of-living increase of 2.2%... now you want us to take a cut in pay???

Next, you'll want us to stop making analytical errors! or bad jokes!

But, if you are going to insist on cutting your pay, maybe Roland can use the savings to pay me my back-pay.

[gerry]

fred, on Dec 2 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

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.

I learnt to play bridge when it was 'anything goes'. It is not surprising that, to me, that is what bridge is.

About six years ago at a provincial club in NZ we had a pair visiting from the USA. We bid 1nt-2D alerted and explained as a transfer. Our guests became very angry, we were informed that we only played this to "confuse the opponents", and the director was called. She was completely at a loss to understand the problem, being unaware that other parts of the world played bridge differently than we.

Anyway I guess my point is that this "cost" you mention to this mythical 99% is in a sense self inflicted. Also it highlights the obvious point that what is "highly unusual" is by definition relative.

Where I learnt many pairs experimented, we did not regard the laws/regulations of bridge as "catering" to us, they just were. The game has changed, that is not my fault, and it is not unreasonable that some of us should look back fondly to the good old days when pairs like those I described above had not been brainwashed into believing that their way of playing bridge was the only right one.

[mikestar]

gerry, on Dec 8 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

<snip>
About six years ago at a provincial club in NZ we had a pair visiting from the USA. We bid 1nt-2D alerted and explained as a transfer. Our guests became very angry, we were informed that we only played this to "confuse the opponents", and the director was called. She was completely at a loss to understand the problem, being unaware that other parts of the world played bridge differently than we.
</snip>

This US pair was running a scam. Six years ago (and for that matter at least 15-20 years ago) Jacoby transfers were standard practice among good club players all over North America and virtually everyone who didn't play them had encountered them frequently.

Just prior to the change in the ACBL alert procedure which initiated announcements of transfers and other items, a revision was seriously considered that would require an alert of 2♦ and 2♥ if they weren't transfers. (Ultimately defeated as it seemed too weird to many players to alert 2♦/2♥ natural.)

So don't be too hard on your director, America doesn't play differently than NZ on this point. Some Americans unfortunately validate the "ugly American" stereotype--I say this as natural born US citizen, lest any of my countrymen think they are being libeled by "some foreigner".

[H_KARLUK]

"A strong-pass partnership will always open the bidding when playing first position, or when second position after an opposing natural pass. Thus, partnerships playing against a strong pass system will be on defense much more often than normal, and must have highly developed defensive methods for handling situations where the partnership possesses game strength or more.
The strong pass is mostly limited to world team competitions, special invitation tournaments and friendly games."

I have no idea why there's not a championship "only strong/forcing pass sys allowed" or "unusual vs highly unusual systems allowed events championships".

As an old swimmer I think it can be categorized similar for Bridge game. My bro is an old wrestler, they also had categories and weights. Many forms of wrestling, but wld be unfair a challenge between light and heavyweight contestants.

We are all bridge players. Seems some of us prefer natural, others prefer unusual, others prefer highly unusual. So th best way to avoid clash is giving competitions in each category. Later on each category winners may compete with another category champions or not.

It all depends if it's necessary. Similar organisations already working. Open, Woman, Seniors, Juniors, Schools, IMP, MPs, Ind., Teams. Only bidding sys of contestants not divided in to events.