[mike777]

What are the 3 things you wish to happen to bridge?
1) Prize Money Tour of individual events,
2) A truly legitimate timing mechanism which would force all bids and defensive plays to be made with an even tempo.
3) A limited number of allowable conventions including the elimination of any system or convention which requires prepared defenses.
4) And let the directors call the game with the complete elimination of appea

[sfi]

5) None of the above

People aren't robots, and tempo is an important part of the game. Conventions and systems are an integral part of the game - I would prefer more freedom rather than less. And the appeals process is a positive thing.

As for a prize money tour, meh.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 01:35, said:

3) A limited number of allowable conventions including the elimination of any system or convention which requires prepared defenses.

And who chooses which conventions are allowed and what constitutes a "prepared defense"? After all, I have to prepare a defence (takeout doubles) to natural one level bids. Since I grew up in AcolLand I still do not see 3 card minors as "natural", let alone 2 card minors. So we can immediately ban all strong club/diamond systems, Polish Club, etc plus those based on short (2+) club openings. But what about a strong 2♣ opening? That's artificial so clearly needs a prepared defense. Throw out the rest of the natural systems. What are we left with? Pretty much Culbertson and Fantunes - but Fantunes has NT openings with singletons - can't have that. Let's all go back to the 1930s! After all, bridge was more popular then so it has to be an improvement, right?

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 02:01, said:

And who chooses which conventions are allowed and what constitutes a "prepared defense"? After all, I have to prepare a defence (takeout doubles) to natural one level bids. Since I grew up in AcolLand I still do not see 3 card minors as "natural", let alone 2 card minors. So we can immediately ban all strong club/diamond systems, Polish Club, etc plus those based on short (2+) club openings. But what about a strong 2♣ opening? That's artificial so clearly needs a prepared defense. Throw out the rest of the natural systems. What are we left with? Pretty much Culbertson and Fantunes - but Fantunes has NT openings with singletons - can't have that. Let's all go back to the 1930s! After all, bridge was more popular then so it has to be an improvement, right?

who?


AGAIN WHO DOES? YOU DONT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

Bob Hamman puts it forward

[Zelandakh]

It is a rhetorical question. The answer is presumably someone who would allow what I want to play and disallow what I don't want to play against. This is an argument that has been going on since (at least) the 50s. Reese's Little Major system was even (reputedly) made as a protest against allowing artificial systems suggesting what the regulations would be allowing. Typically established, older (and American) players seem to want more regulation while younger, up-and-coming (and European) players want less. For me, (even) tighter system regulation would be like banning wrist spin bowlers in cricket or knuckle-ballers in baseball. The current regulations already feel like they took away the curve ball sometimes.

[ahydra]

As much respect as I have for Hamman, I have to disagree with his suggestions.

1) Bridge is a partnership game. I guess there are already many high-level pairs/teams-of-four events around with good prize money. If he wants to make a more formalized circuit out of those / add more, great. But I suspect individual tournaments don't have as much appeal for most experts - they like to be able to play their favourite system with their long-term partner, and enjoy success with their long-term team-mates.

2) This isn't a bad idea but is it really practical? As a mind sport people should be allowed to think. One could introduce a *minimum* time for each bid (in competition) so that UI passed from quick calls is reduced, I guess.

3) Don't like this because people should be encouraged to invent new systems. I find it's one of the most enjoyable bits of the game. If Hamman is concerned about lack of full disclosure / inadequacy of prepared defenses, then that's what needs to be addressed, rather than putting some arbitrary limit on how artificial a system can be.

4) Not a bad idea, but TDs are only human and sometimes they make errors... Plus, every other sport has appeals of some sort (think FA, FIDE, etc). Having read the White Book recently, maybe appeals committees need to be stricter about retaining deposits for frivolous appeals.

ahydra

[dkham]

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 01:35, said:

3) A limited number of allowable conventions including the elimination of any system or convention which requires prepared defenses.

Agre this is basically unenforcable, what counts as a single convention? I'd like to alter it to promote a global standard for all new players. I'd still allow other bidding systems though, just talking about a simple system that all beginners would start with.

My choice for the global standard would be SAYC, even though I don't like much makes sense as much of the world already plays it (a bit like English becoming the de facto global language, it's too late for Esperanto).

[Zelandakh]

dkham, on 2012-May-15, 05:58, said:

(a bit like English becoming the de facto global language, it's too late for Esperanto).

But not too late for Mandarin Chinese or Spanish, both of which have more native speakers than English. English has more speakers than Mandarin only when you include those speaking it at the EFL level.

[jmcw]

1) I have long thought this a good idea. I would love to see a televised league playing for real money.
I think it would do wonders to promote the game.

2) Sounds great on paper, but is it doable....

3) Nah, we might still be playing Goren

4) My experience with TD's is mainly at the sectional and regional level....they IMO are not sufficiently qualified.

[billw55]

ahydra, on 2012-May-15, 05:54, said:

4) Not a bad idea, but TDs are only human and sometimes they make errors... Plus, every other sport has appeals of some sort (think FA, FIDE, etc). Having read the White Book recently, maybe appeals committees need to be stricter about retaining deposits for frivolous appeals.

I think most sports can appeal things like suspensions, drug test results, etc, but not on-field rulings. The next best thing is video replay challenges, but this still occurs in-game, before play continues.

I like the idea of cash prizes, if cheating can be reliably eliminated. Not sure about individual events, but ultimately the market will determine if they will work. We know Bob Hamman will be interested!

System regulation is baloney IMO. In fact, I think prepared defenses are baloney too, but that's another argument.

A timing system that eliminates UI from hesitation is a good goal in principle, but thinking up a working solution is much harder. Hard time limits on individual actions are not appropriate if we want to maintain the highest quality of play in premier events.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 01:35, said:

3) A limited number of allowable conventions including the elimination of any system or convention which requires prepared defenses.

Just as long as Hamman's canape based strong club system is allowed, of course

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 02:01, said:

And who chooses which conventions are allowed?

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 03:10, said:

who?
AGAIN WHO DOES? YOU DONT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

Not many of us answer our own rhetorical questions or expect them to be taken as actual questions.

[gnasher]

Can Hamman really not count up to three?

[Lanor Fow]

I would guess that you would get very few good directors agreeing with 4. This is just a guess as I haven't asked any.

[kevperk]

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 01:35, said:

What are the 3 things you wish to happen to bridge?
1) Prize Money Tour of individual events,
2) A truly legitimate timing mechanism which would force all bids and defensive plays to be made with an even tempo.
3) A limited number of allowable conventions including the elimination of any system or convention which requires prepared defenses.
4) And let the directors call the game with the complete elimination of appea

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 02:01, said:

And who chooses which conventions are allowed and what constitutes a "prepared defense"? After all, I have to prepare a defence (takeout doubles) to natural one level bids. Since I grew up in AcolLand I still do not see 3 card minors as "natural", let alone 2 card minors. So we can immediately ban all strong club/diamond systems, Polish Club, etc plus those based on short (2+) club openings. But what about a strong 2♣ opening? That's artificial so clearly needs a prepared defense. Throw out the rest of the natural systems. What are we left with? Pretty much Culbertson and Fantunes - but Fantunes has NT openings with singletons - can't have that. Let's all go back to the 1930s! After all, bridge was more popular then so it has to be an improvement, right?

A prepared defense is one which is required (in the ACBL) by players wishing to play certain conventions. So, basically he advocates no mid chart conventions which required a provided written defenses (which must be approved by the ACBL). It sounds like he wouldn't stop there.

[aguahombre]

IMO, the sentiment of some to eliminate AC's is a knee-jerk reaction to some bad AC decisions....analgous to many things e.g., on-line poker

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-15, 11:30, said:

IMO, the sentiment of some to eliminate AC's is a knee-jerk reaction to some bad AC decisions....analgous to many things e.g., on-line poker

Maybe some do it for that reason, but it seems unlikely that it's Hamman's reason. I guess he advocates it because of inherent problems in the process. For instance, TDs may sometimes issue expedient decisions, since they expect that no matter what they do one of the sides will appeal, so it's not so important they get it right. I think Bridge World has had editorials along these lines, and I doubt they're just peeved over bad decisions, either.

[hrothgar]

There is a thread on BridgeWinners which has some good discussion regarding appeals
http://bridgewinners...volous-appeals/

Coincidentally, the USBF also just posted the appeals from the recent team trials

http://usbf.org/inde...d=39&Itemid=427

[akhare]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 04:21, said:

For me, (even) tighter system regulation would be like banning wrist spin bowlers in cricket or knuckle-ballers in baseball. The current regulations already feel like they took away the curve ball sometimes.

Nice analogy -- another round of "boo, hiss" for the suggestion #3 (my respect for Hamman notwithstanding).

And yes, the (cricket) world would indeed to a lot poorer if not for the wristy magic of the Muralitharans and the Warnes...

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-May-15, 01:35, said:

What are the 3 things you wish to happen to bridge?
1) Prize Money Tour of individual events,
2) A truly legitimate timing mechanism which would force all bids and defensive plays to be made with an even tempo.
3) A limited number of allowable conventions including the elimination of any system or convention which requires prepared defenses.
4) And let the directors call the game with the complete elimination of appea

I'd be curious to know the providence of said quote and why you posted it at this point in time.