[the hog]

So if we extend your above agreement to the comment you originally made, you are arguing that to play Acol in Poland or say SAYC in Australia is "bad for bridge", because you would expect to lose due to the level of unfamiliarity. Clearly this is silly. In a post on rgb one poster comments on how he had to alert an Acol 1C opening and 2C over 1C when playing that system in Poland, due to the unfamiliarity of local players with these methods.

Any half way serious pair has meta agreements to cope with the unexpected. When we played against T-Rex our system discussion was: "The usual?" "Ok!"

Are you suggesting that unfamiliar methods are "bad for bridge?" Where is the evidence for this? There is a body of evidence to suggets the opposite is correct. Let me quote from Lukasz Slawinski:

"THE ADVANTAGES OF WEAK OPENING SYSTEMS

As recently as 10 years ago, almost everyone used the same basic bidding methods; only a handful of players used Weak Opening Systems.

There were many traditional systems, of course, but in relative terms these differed only slightly, and this is still true today.

However, Weak Opening Systems are something completely different: they destroy the foundations on which the traditional systems are built and erect new ones in their place.

Are Weak Opening Systems good or bad for bridge?

Let us examine the matter.

The main characteristic of Weak Opening Systems are:

1) A high frequency of opening bids (80% of hands)
2) Opening the bidding with weak hands
3) Unusual methods of describing distribution.

These characteristics make bridge a much more interesting game so that:

YOU DON'T GET BORED!

You enter the bidding on nearly every hand – even with a yarborough.

OPPONENTS' BIDDING BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT!

And this is merely because you have opened the bidding (it is well known that defensive bidding is difficult, even for experts).

YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY STIMULATED!

The unusual and original nature of Weak Opening Systems makes them an interesting intellectual pastime, providing you with freshness and novelty.

Hence, it is obvious that:

Weak Opening Systems make bridge a more interesting game

The attraction of Weak Opening Systems has resulted in a constant growth in their popularity, to such an extent that in Poland at present they are seriously challenging orthodox systems.

Weak Opening Systems are rarely mentioned in the bridge press, no experts use them at the highest levels of the game, and yet in Warsaw alone there are over 200 players who use them!

And the majority of those became interested in bridge only after they had discovered Weak Opening Systems !

From this we can draw the conclusion that:

Weak Opening Systems help to recruit
new players for duplicate bridge

Should you doubt the added interest of Weak Opening Systems, remember the last time you found yourself in this situation:

It's one of those days when you seem to pick up the same 5 or 6 point count on every hand; you continually pass with ever–increasing despondency. Not only you are bored to tears, but worse, you have no control over your results, and are reduced to hope that opponents have a bidding accident or pull the wrong card out.

It's different with Weak Opening Systems !

More than ever, the result of a tournament becomes independent of how good your hands are.

This is because:

1) You open the bidding very frequently (always if you get a chance)

2) The meaning of opening bids is often unusual, though easy to comprehend.

In effect, the opponents are reduced to defensive bidding, which is difficult even for experts.

Thus, Weak Opening Systems deprive seasoned players of the advantage they would normally enjoy due to their experience.

They have to play as well as they can, with great care. They cannot sit back and relax, counting on beating their inexperienced opponents without too much effort."

Unfortunately I believe that the Poles have now also imposed restrictions. It will be interesting to see if the numbers playing bridge drop! Look at the grossly over-regulated environment in the US and then look at the decreasing numbers playing bridge. Compare this to Australia and NZ where regulations are far more liberal and then notice that numbers are actually increasing. What is NOT good for bridge is the stifling of innovation, especially when done for reasons as intimated by Misho in his post.

[MarceldB]

The_Hog, on May 7 2004, 08:34 PM, said:

What is NOT good for bridge is the stifling of innovation, especially when done for reasons as intimated by Misho in his post.

Regarding innovation I saw in r.g.b a very good hit, which I would like to quote here:

"Unless you play a totally natural system, at least one of your bids (most likely more than one) is a conventional call. If it is conventional, it must have been at some stage invented and developed, if it has been invented, it has at some stage been an innovation.
If you have decided to adopt this convention (or system) you must see some merit in it. So innovation is good for bridge - from your point of view at least with the respect to the conventions you have decided to use.
And now that you are happy with your system and conventions you have chosen, you want to restrict the right of other people to chose their own innovations, conventions and systems. How very nice of you.
EOT from me."

[bearmum]

Free, on May 8 2004, 12:33 AM, said:

If you play poker, you're allowed to pass with every hand, and you're allowed to call/raise with every hand as well - no rules.  If you call it a bluff, whatever, but it's allowed!  Why can't people leave all these silly rules out of the greatest cardgame, and let everybody have his fun in system design?  Give the beginners something to think off, and they'll become better players.

OK my 2¢ worth

I believe that IF players want to use highly unusual systems they SHOULD be allowed to do so ------- UNLESS it makes playing against them almost impossible, which IMHO means in game on BBO with a pick -up partner OR against beginners --- after all the rules DO state that the opps are entitled to know what the bids mean and IF you had to explain EVERY one it would take a HECK of a long time to bid a hand BTW THAT's why I play bridge NOT Poker

Having said that if you TOP players want to get a game going where ANYTHING goes - good luck to you

However I feel that the ACBL in the USA is TOO restrictive in high level tournaments where the partnerships are normally well established, and prealert sheets could be made available so enebling a systematic defence to be agreed.

I'm of the mind that maybe Australia's rules sre getting to the balance between TOP players and beginners (and I guess The Hog will correct me if I have got it wrong?) in that types of systems are rated "green, blue, red and yellow" and the 'yellow' (into which I think a forcing pass system would fit) cannot be used if playing in a local tournament against the basic green and blue ---- which once again I believe Acol SAYC and Basic Precision fit

[csdenmark]

Please tell me why you are paying so much attention to regulators outside the WEB. They don't read the postings here on WEB.

On WEB we don't have regulations.

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on May 7 2004, 02:44 AM, said:

As for limited constructive, but non forcing pass openings - these have been tried and found wanting. Thy are far too vulnerable to pre emption, more than a straight SP believe it or not!

Can you expand on this? Am willing to believe it but I find it surprising. It is, I thought, a generally held view that a more narrowly defined call is less vulnerable to preemption than a call having a wider definition. Why should this be an exception?

That some limited pass systems have been tried and found wanting does not necessarily conclude the matter. Perhaps the best limited non-forcing pass method has yet to be invented.

I can appreciate that it may place stress on the rest of the system, and that may outweigh the positive aspects.

[bearmum]

csdenmark, on May 8 2004, 11:37 PM, said:

Please tell me why you are paying so much attention to regulators outside the WEB. They don't read the postings here on WEB.

On WEB we don't have regulations.

WOW - AM I not allowed to express an opinion

PART of my answer WAS about playing on BBO------------- or didn't you read it??

I notice you express your opinions and I don't object to that so why are you SO rude to me

and LOTS of the answers on this string alluded to what is played in different countries - as was mine

[csdenmark]

bearmum, on May 8 2004, 02:31 PM, said:

WOW - AM I not allowed to express an opinion 

PART of my answer WAS about playing on BBO------------- or didn't you read it??

I notice you express your opinions and I don't object to that so why are you SO rude to me

and LOTS of the answers on this string alluded to what is played in different countries - as was mine

I try to avoid to be rude and you are of course like anybody else welcome to express your views. But I see no point in making a lot of comments to obsolete persons in this thread and others too. I am not affected of regulators - not at all. Nobody else here on WEB is.

My statement was not especially for you Bearmum - and offence of course not intended. Regulations in Australia I dont know and they dont affect me. Regulations by ACBL I dont know and they dont affect me. Regulations by Danmarks Bridge Forbund I know a little of, probably like anywhere else - and they dont affect me either.

What people do outside WEB regarding bridge or anything else - fine with that. But regulations are acc. to my views not relevant to discuss here. We can do nothing about it except to ignore. Disobedience is allowed here - and I think much more fun to do what you like to do instead of discussing what you cannot do - elsewhere.

[the hog]

"Please tell me why you are paying so much attention to regulators outside the WEB."

Because we CAN!
Easy solution Claus - don't read the posts!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite correct Bearmum re different convention cards. Also all local tournaments allow up to red only. In Nationals you can play "Yellow", anything goes after the first couple of rounds and if you are in the top 75% of the field.

Re limited pass systems:

There have been a few; the most notable one played in world class competition was TRS. I have the system book written by Tony Forrester. There have been a few others- the Icemen played one and I think the Danes also. There were also a few odd ones floating about in Oz and NZ.

The Poms did not have a great deal of success with TRS and from a theoretical point it is not difficult to see why. The most common opening range is 8-12. TRS used a 10-14 opening base. If you pass with this point count , it is VERY difficult to get in over pre emption. eg let me offer a concrete example.

1C - 8-12 with H - (2S)
Third hand knows the existence of a H suit and a limited opener

P - 10 to 14 any - (2S) Gulp!
Third hand knows nothing about suits, where do you begin to sort this out at the 3 level!

One system I came across some years ago played by youth players, (who else!), was P = 9-13 with S. Forgot what the other openings were. But again, this is stuffs up the rest of your opening structure.

[MarceldB]

The_Hog, on May 8 2004, 07:46 PM, said:

One system I came across some years ago played by youth players, (who else!), was P = 9-13 with S. Forgot what the other openings were. But again, this is stuffs up the rest of your opening structure.

Do you mean?

Lilla Lojliga Saffle Spader
(or Little Saffle Spade) - with following features:
- pass = 8+, at least four spades, unlimited and forcing
- 1C = 8+, at least four hearts, 0-3 spades, unlimited and forcing
- 1D = 0-7 any
- 1H = 8+, forcing, no four card majors
- 1S/1NT = NT-openings without four card majors
- conventional two level openings

[the hog]

No Marcel, this was some homebrew system.

[csdenmark]

Quote

Because we CAN!
Easy solution Claus - don't read the posts!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats not the point Ron. The point is all that discussing what you cannot do in organizations not relevant here are blocking the discussion of what and how to do something here to promote.

[Shrike]

csdenmark, on May 9 2004, 03:08 AM, said:

Thats not the point Ron. The point is all that discussing what you cannot do in organizations not relevant here are blocking the discussion of what and how to do something here to promote.

What's legal in f2f bridge is highly relevant to most posters on this board. It is far less practical to go to the considerable effort to learn (much less design) a system if that system will be unusable in some or all of the offline competition that the player faces. You say this doesn't matter to you; good for you. But most people who post on here seem to be concerned with offline bridge as well; it seems that most play at least some offline bridge in events that limit conventions. The discussion of those regulations does not block discussion of systems per se, it enhances it by rendering it more practically applicable.

Oh, and next time you "try to avoid being rude," (your words) maybe you shouldn't follow someone else's perfectly acceptable and pertinent question with what appears to be a curt dismissal, in boldfaced type.

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on May 8 2004, 07:46 PM, said:

let me offer a concrete example.

1C - 8-12 with H - (2S)
Third hand knows the existence of a H suit and a limited opener

P - 10 to 14 any - (2S) Gulp!
Third hand knows nothing about suits, where do you begin to sort this out at the 3 level!

I agree that the 2S (Gulp!) overcall is a spanner in the works. Question is, is it any more of a spanner in the works than:

P (13+ any) - (2S)

It seems to me that the 10-14 limit on the Pass reduces somewhat the problems of 3rd seat. Of course it does not eliminate it.

Furthermore the 2S overcaller may find that he has to be more disciplined, as the hand is more likely to be their way, and possibly at the game level.

Reducing the minimum values of an unlimited forcing Pass to 13 (just an example that I picked up from one of the existing systems around) helps, as it requires constructive opposition methods when a pass that shows precision 1C style strength is asking for trouble. On the other hand a Pass that shows 13+ is more frequent as a result, and if the advocates expect a net loss on those hands ...

Not that I am claiming that any of these methods is best. I haven't given it enough thought. Perhaps a Pass that shows some distributional constraints as well as a limit on values would be better.

[csdenmark]

Shrike, on May 9 2004, 06:05 PM, said:

What's legal in f2f bridge is highly relevant to most posters on this board.
-------------------------------
Oh, and next time you "try to avoid being rude," (your words) maybe you shouldn't follow someone else's perfectly acceptable and pertinent question with what appears to be a curt dismissal, in boldfaced type.

Please note it is the responsibility for all posters here to try to post in correct sections. Failing to do so posts are likely to be subject for removal acc. to the rules as I right now remember Ben has informed. The section for OFF LINE bridge is this:

Offline Bridge
Tournaments, etiquette, and general discussion about playing live bridge.
Forum Led by: inquiry

This is second time you express you feel embarrased of my postings. From that I assume you are still reading them!

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2004-May-07, 00:35, said:

The membership of most clubs is made up of players who are not interested in playing SP systems and less interested in defending against them. Even those who want to play them would have their motivation quashed by the realisation that they could not go on to take advantage of that practice in a wider event.

At the YC you can play FP so long as you submit a summary of your system in advance. But for the reasons above, when FP is played, it is not a fully-realised system; rather it is a one-off, just for fun. The last time a FP system was trotted out, the pair using it won comfortably.

[awm]

I have a lot of doubts about the technical merits of forcing pass methods.

Suppose we compare forcing pass against a fairly vanilla strong club. We can divide the hands into point ranges:

0-7 points: Strong club passes, forcing pass bids the fert.
8-10 points: Strong club passes, forcing pass opens.
11-12 points: Both systems open showing a suit.
13-15 points: Forcing pass, strong club opens showing a suit.
16+ points: Strong club opens 1♣, forcing pass passes.

It seems to me that strong club is ahead in the following situations: (1) With 16+ points. If opponents bid, partner is much better placed knowing I have 16+ rather than 13+. Even if opponents pass, the single step gained by the forcing pass is probably not enough to compensate for the lower minimum strength. (2) With 13-15 points. If opponents bid, partner is much better placed to know more about my shape. If opponents pass, we are behind on space but way ahead on description and should do at least as well as forcing pass on these hands. (3) With 11-12 points. Both systems open by showing a suit, but we tend to do better when opener is towards the minimum end than when opener has a max, because we avoid informative invitational auctions and we reduce the difficult "pass or compete" decisions in competitive sequences.

This leaves the 8-10 point hands and the 0-7. It's likely that the fert is a huge winner against unprepared opponents, but this seems less true against prepared opposition. There is the chance to go for a number (or just down a few in the wrong partial) and if partner has the strong hand we have lost a lot of space relative to a sequence like Pass-Pass-1♣ strong. Most people who play forcing pass don't seem to think the fert is a big winner against prepared opponents either.

This leaves the 8-10 point hands. These are certainly extremely common. However, it's not clear to me that opening them is necessarily a huge win. The weaker the hand, the more likely my opponents will end up declaring. In this situation, the opening has helped them locate shapes and high cards in our hands. Of course, there is also the chance of a competitive auction where opening could help us to preempt them or find a sacrifice; however a lot of the forcing pass systems I've seen open most of these with very cheap calls that don't carry much shape information (like 1♣ showing 4+ hearts). If we are playing IMP scoring, there's also the issue that our 13+ point hands are likely to swing a lot of imps (i.e. we need to find our game or slam, or determine the best contract) whereas the 8-10 point hands are often partscore battles that will swing only 4-5 imps.

[dake50]

Like so many other topics, the proof is in the pudding.
Give me the details. What hands are in PASS? Which not?
Why that choice?
How is a NT-ladder implemented?
For example, I like a strong spades hand capping my
weak/middling spade showing.
But I want my hearts generally well into any auction.
Minors I want preempting generously.
That's not a 13+ PASS rule.!

[Crunch3nt]

To clarify Australia/New Zealand actual regulations, this is what they are:

In matchpoint events HUM systems are banned in both countries, while brown sticker is banned altogether in NZ and in all but very top matchpoint events in Australia. This is much more annoying in NZ where 80% of tournament bridge is still matchpoints, while in Australia 90% of tournament bridge is imps.

In team events, with matches of 8 or more boards, HUM systems are allowed in both countries, but the entire team loses its seating rights for the whole of the swiss qualifying (including the matches when the HUM pair are not playing in a 6 person team). Also you are not allowed to play the HUM system for the first 3 rounds of the swiss qualifying event, and then if you drop out of the top 3rd of the field in terms of your placing, you are not allowed to play it until you regain top 3rd. Also you need to lodge your full system notes with the directors 2 weeks before the event and provide a bona-fide suggested defence.

One incorrect statement on here is that HUM systems are allowed in the Bermuda Bowl - they are not allowed in the qualifying round-robin at all, and only, in theory, can be used in the knockout stages. The reality is different. I play (and co-created) the dreaded T-rex mentioned by Hog, although we call it "Crunch!" now. In 2009 Crunch was submitted to the WBF by New Zealand to play in the Burmuda Bowl in the event we made the knockouts but the chairman of the WBF systems committee John Wignall (interestingly, a New Zealander) banned it from even the final stages! The Bermuda Bowl truly is a "no-fear" event.

[Crunch3nt]

In New Zealand in the 80's, medium pass (9-15) was played by 3/4 high quality pairs but it went by wayside quickly due to the preemption issues already mentioned.

AWM, Here Strong Pass means 15/16+, not 13+, with 8/9-14 openings and a 0-7/8 1H fert.

[nige1]

At Reading Bridge Club, except on beginner's nights, you can play any system you like, including forcing or strong pass, IMO, the law book should specify two-tier system regulation:

• No fear. Simple standard system-card. You may delete conventions but not add or modify them..
• Anything goes. Provided, as at Reading Bridge Club, you supply a written defence that opponents can consult during the auction. Opponents may use their own defence instead.

Clubs like Reading and the Young Chelsea provide a sputtering beacon of hope for Bridge. Top young guns used to be on-side, too. Unfortunately, the rise of sponsored teams means that, unless we get more sponsors of the calibre of CC Wei and George Rosenkranz, the future of face-to-face Bridge seems bleak