[jjbrr]

Prove to me that it is fair, and I'll concede.

Edit: It seems to me that a simple request like "I don't want you to share this with too many people" is totally fair also. I have no idea whatsoever if any of them still feel this way, but if they do, I respectfully say you are completely wrong. It is not only totally unfair, but amazingly disrespectful for someone to post this with neither permission or even any reason whatsoever.

I'm very aware that many, many people play this system and that nothing here is a big secret. I don't know the originators of the system well enough to guess their intentions. Perhaps they're delighted that people are posting their ideas for everyone to read. Perhaps they have a book in process that they plan to make money from and OP just cost them lots of dough. All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, posting this wasn't without some damage to somebody somewhere.

Edit again: and why do people keep mentioning copyrights? wtf is going on? in no way did i imply anything about copyrights at all. it's the principle of the matter.

Edit a third time: Maybe they just don't want random people approaching them offering their theories about how to improve the system. A totally fair request, in my mind.

Am I totally out of line here? This is basic, kindergarten, golden rule stuff. If you told someone not to share something, and they did anyway, you would feel upset. Why do you think it's ok in this instance?

[mycroft]

Prove to me that it's not. If you're under an NDA, official or otherwise, fine. I'm not, nor are others; they see what happens in the real world, and start to combine it into what they think is the system. More experience with hands -> more complete. They won't get it 100% right; but "close enough for my partnership" is good enough, no?

In a world of software licensing, most licenses remove the right to reverse engineer as a condition of license. This is using copyright to limit what you can do with the software. It doesn't, however, apply to people who don't buy or license the product!

While a written version of a bridge *system* is copyrightable, and the system definitely can be a trade secret (to the extent that Law 40B6 allows), it is both legal and ethical to attempt to reverse engineer trade secrets, or duplicate the work in a different format (to not break copyright).

You, jjbrr, are under (an informal) NDA; I commend your adherence to what you agreed to. There's lots of information I am barred from sharing, formally and otherwise - and I don't. If what is above is leaked from such an NDA, then I have a problem with it (however, legally, it's no longer a trade secret, and I am allowed to make what use of it I wish). If, however, it's generated from watching the players play, and other publicly available information, well, then, what moral, ethical, or legal grounds require me to not look? or assist?

[jjbrr]

LOL@mentioning copyrights again. reading comprehension ftw.

[Vilgan]

LoL at this entire line of discussion.

There is a bunch of meckwell stuff floating around, including much more in depth ones. I doubt the main notes (which I'd assume are pretty extensive) will become public knowledge anytime soon and not due to copyright or NDA or any of that nonsense.. but the simple expedient of not sharing them outside the partnership.

[Apollo81]

jjbrr, on Dec 15 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Dec 15 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

This may already be clear from previous posts, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

Regarding continuations after 1♣-1♦, what are the differences between the OP in this thread, the version commonly played by american juniors, and the official meckwell lite version?

Thx

The version in OP, from a quick glance, is what I play and is what is in the notes I received from someone close to the source, though I don't recall 1♣ 1♦ 2♠ showing minors. I might have overlooked it, but im reasonably confident it was just GF with ♠

Thank you Jeremy.

[jjbrr]

Confirmed, Noble. I realized I had the notes in my e-mail.

"Strong hand with a Major: With a forcing hand containing a GOOD Major, jump to 2 of the Major. This would be a hand similar to a standard 2♣ opener and a rebid of a Major (2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠)

1♣ - 1♦
2♠ - - Strong, 5+ Major
3♣ = 2nd Negative, opener can rebid 3 of the Major, nf
new suit by opener would be forcing here"

Though 2♥ kokish is standard now.

Edit: Also, many are playing 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♠ as 5♠, 3♥

and 1♣ 1♦ 1M 2♣ 2M is sign off as well (don't know why that's not in OP; 2♦ is just scrambling).

Also inconsistent with OP:
"Minor GF: with a game forcing hand and 5+ (usually 6+) in a minor and with NO MAJOR, jump to 3 of minor. If the jump is 3♣, then 3♦ by responder is waiting, or a Major rebid = 5+.

1♣ - 1♦
3♣ - 3♦ = waiting bid by responder

1♣ - 1♦
3♣ - 3♠ = 5 spades by responder"

[PrecisionL]

Jeremy,

Thanks for the post. This is all very interesting. I have been working on 1♣ - 1♦ sequences for months now and will be trying this scheme in 2010:

1♣ - 1♦:

1M = 4+ cards and one round force (Berkowitz-Cohen / Matchpoint Precision). Also includes 20+ balanced hands with better major. (i have been playing this part for over 3 years now.)

1NT = 17-19

2m = 16-19 hcp and 1-suited (not forcing)

2M = 16+ hcp and 2-suited with 5+M and 4+ in a minor (not forcing, more than 4 1/2 losers)

2NT = 16+ and 5-5 in the minors or better (forcing one round).

3X = 19+ and semi-solid suit or better asking for A cue or NT = K, or raise with neither (forcing one round).

Larry

[Jlall]

jjbrr, on Dec 15 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

And just a btw... are we certain meckwell or whomever else is OK with OP posting this information in such a public place? I know it's not private info or anything, but some credit should be given to the source, in my opinion.

Quote

Meanwhile, I received an electronic copy of these notes from Jeff's son a couple years ago after I promised that I wouldn't distribute them without permission. My only point was that if they still feel that public dissemination is inappropriate, perhaps that point should be made clear, and we should respect the wishes they had, albeit a couple years ago.

Why are you posting about the system now after posting this? If you agreed not to in order to get the notes, it seems like you are now going back on that agreement.

[Jlall]

Also note: I did not say jjbrr is not free to do as he pleases. However I know jjbrr, and I doubt he wants to go back on an agreement he's made, I'm pretty sure he's just trying to point out the the system OP has outlined is not exactly like the meckwell lite system, however by doing so he is going back on his agreement not to share parts of the notes, which I'm sure is unintentional.

IMO if one has made such an agreement and they want to stick to it, by far the best method is to avoid posting on threads like this at all.

[xcurt]

Generally, facts are not subject to copyright, so I don't see how R/M could claim any ownership over the methods themselves.

Even if they did have some mechanism to claim ownership I would imagine that trying to enforce it would probably run afoul of the conditions of contest of any bridge event -- and if not, the CoC would be amended as soon as the dubious rights were asserted.

There are probably enough R/M boards in the various vugraph files that, given the right computational tools, it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer their agreements. Since the vugraph files indicate that they upgrade liberally on certain hands and are very aggressive in 3rd seat, I could imagine this would be useful information to have.

[rbforster]

xcurt, on Dec 15 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

There are probably enough R/M boards in the various vugraph files that, given the right computational tools, it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer their agreements. Since the vugraph files indicate that they upgrade liberally on certain hands and are very aggressive in 3rd seat, I could imagine this would be useful information to have.

More than that, bridge is supposed to be a game of full disclosure. Whenever you play a convention in a tournament setting and it comes up, you have to explain it to your opponents and it becomes part of the public record (especially when you're someone famous and have lots of interested spectators). While this means it may take a little while to piece together the full system that a particular pair plays, it should be pretty straightforward now that Viewgraph makes these events more accessible to watch.

[kfay]

xcurt, on Dec 15 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Generally, facts are not subject to copyright, so I don't see how R/M could claim any ownership over the methods themselves.

Well I would hardly call a bidding system a fact. It's an interpretation.

[xcurt]

kfay, on Dec 16 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

xcurt, on Dec 15 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Generally, facts are not subject to copyright, so I don't see how R/M could claim any ownership over the methods themselves.

Well I would hardly call a bidding system a fact. It's an interpretation.

Meaning I could write a document saying

Meckwell play 1C as ...
Meckwell play 1C-1D as ...
etc

I don't see how they could assert copyrights to prevent me from distributing the document. One can also protect intellectual property using patent and trade secret rights, but I don't see how those apply to me, or any other third party.

[fred]

I completely disagree with those who claim that the lack of copyright on certain material is sufficient justification for doing whatever they want with that material.

Just because something is legal, does not mean that it is right.

Consider the case of a newspaper bridge columnist who carefully constructs a beautiful deal for his column. Like bidding systems, bridge deals are also not subject to copyright law, but how would you feel if you were the columnist in question and saw "your hand" appear in other authors' newspaper columns (perhaps with the suits switched around to make it look original)?

It would not matter if you received attribution or not (you can bet you would not in the bridge column case) - this is not about ego.

Many top players and teachers try to be protective of the bidding systems that they create because they have invested a lot of time and effort in the development of such systems and because they believe that such systems give them a competitive advantage (which in some cases helps to ensure that they are able to make a living). Of course such people recognize that bridge is a game of full disclosure, but that has nothing to do with these people not approving of those who reverse engineer and then publicly distribute their creations without their approval.

My personal take on this is that, if you want to reverse engineer a bidding system and then use it in your own partnerships that is one thing, but to publicly distribute the notes of such a system without first seeking the approval of the original system author is profoundly disrespectful.

IMO what copyright law has to say about this doesn't matter - it is simply wrong.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

Just because something is legal, does not mean that it is right.

Full disclosure means full disclosure. I shouldn't have to reverse engineer their system (not that I have or would want to.) They should make it available to all, not just to their family and friends. (Reminds me of an Ontario-wide business game I played in high school (accounting class) where the previous year's winner gave his 'system' to his brother, luckily I came up with a better system.)

I want the Masters winner to be the guy who played best, not the guy with the best golf clubs.

I want the Wimbledon winner to be the guy who played best, not the guy with the best racquet.

I want the National League MVP to be the guy who played best, not the guy with the best chemist.

IMO what 'accepted practice' has to say about this doesn't matter - it is simply wrong.

[jjbrr]

Jlall, on Dec 15 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

however by doing so he is going back on his agreement not to share parts of the notes, which I'm sure is unintentional.

I don't think I've done this, and I don't think the agreement was to "not share parts of the notes". Semantics, though, and I see your point. I'll use PM from now on.

Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about this topic. I assure you I couldn't really care less what OP posts or doesn't post. If I were someone else, though, and I wanted to post the system as OP did, I would cite the source, or make some reference to where the information was received, or at least note that someone else did all the work thinking this stuff up and none of the information is his own.

Also, what is the "for students" business? It's clearly not "for students." It's for everyone. I don't think it's appropriate to say something is for a certain group when the intent is clearly just to educate the masses. As if saying "for students" makes it acceptable to plagiarize someone's work or something. That's merely my opinion, and I accept that not everyone will disagree.

[jonottawa]

jjbrr, on Dec 17 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

That's merely my opinion, and I accept that not everyone will disagree.

LOL

[jjbrr]

LOL. sorry. agree i meant.

fml

[bluecalm]

Quote

Many top players and teachers try to be protective of the bidding systems that they create because they have invested a lot of time and effort into development of such systems and because they believe that such systems give them a competitive advantage (which in some cases helps to ensure that they are able to make a living). Of course such people recognize that bridge is a game of full disclosure, but that has nothing to do with these people not approving of those who reverse engineer and then publicly distribute their creations without their approval.

There are countless videos on the net with analysis of Federer hitting and serving technique. In chess there are databases and public analysis of different players style and opening choices. Nobody sees nothing wrong with it and tennis and chess aren't games where you are OBLIGED to give full explanation of your methods.

Bidding systems are in different category than composing hands or puzzles. They are in the same category as technique in ski jumping or in tennis. Everybody can follow, analyze, modify and write about it and even more so it's positive side of those sports that it's the case. I wouldn't go as far as making every pair publish their system notes but once its part is used in any bridge event it's fair game to analyze, write about and follow it.

[fred]

bluecalm, on Dec 17 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

Bidding systems are in different category than composing hands or puzzles. They are in the same category as technique in ski jumping or in tennis. Everybody can follow, analyze, modify and write about it and even more so it's positive side of those sports that it's the case.

Even if I grant you this, there is still a big difference.

When you watch sports on TV you are able to properly analyze only what has happened - not what might have happened under different circumstances. If a ski jumper has his own secret technique that he will use only in rare weather conditions, nobody gets to see or analyze it unless the weather happens to cooperate.

Quote

I wouldn't go as far as making every pair publish their system notes

Agree - this would be a very bad idea. My point is that, as long as "publishing your own system notes" is not mandated by the rules, it is wrong for other people to publish your system notes without your blessing.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com