[Winstonm]

This question so much depends on how one views the meaning of the game of bridge. No doubt it is an excersise in logic and language or card play and language if you prefer. Which is more important seems somewhat like asking about the chicken or the egg. The beauty of the game is in the balance between these two concepts, and the game attracts both those who like to deal with language more so than card play as well as card players who emphasize that element over the language.

However, when you radically alter the balance between these two elements you have changed the nature of the game itself. I for one would have no interest in playing a game that emphasized trying to devise a defensive bidding system against a radically artificial system every time I faced a new opponet - but I'm sure there are those who would enjoy this kind of challenge. At the same time, I would find it more interesting (not that I would want do it) to play in some type of game where the contract and the opening leads were fixed and you played from there so that deduction and card play were king.

What makes the game so wonderful is that it is a middle ground that can attract both types of peoples.

As Aristotle pointed out to his partner after he had cue bid for the third time: Everything in moderation; nothing to excess.

Winston

[Brandal]

akhare, on Sep 4 2005, 12:27 PM, said:

If you consider that the only objective of bidding is to find your side's best contract, I would really love to play against you. It will be really nice to find all those 26 point grand slams unobstructed and believe me, as far as "tools" go, our system will get us there most of the time.

Bidding is as much a part of the game as card play and like it or not, there are systems inherently superior to say SAYC and 2/1. I consider a bidding system as much of an advantage as superior card skills.

There is no reason to assume you will bid
unobstructed just because I'm no fan of highly
unusual methods

There is also no need for comments like
"I would really love to play against you"

You disagree with me,fine,leave it at that

[david_c]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2005, 06:18 PM, said:

... I think that all long matches where its practical to have pre-disclosure should have no systemic restrictions.

Completely agree. To me, this is real bridge. It does rely on the players having enough time to prepare properly, but for major events with long matches that should not be a problem. Convention restrictions are just a fudge which allows some sort of bridge to be played when there's not enough time for people to prepare for opponents' methods (or when you don't even know who your opponents will be).

[akhare]

Brandal, on Sep 4 2005, 12:52 PM, said:

akhare, on Sep 4 2005, 12:27 PM, said:

If you consider that the only objective of bidding is to find your side's best contract, I would really love to play against you. It will be really nice to find all those 26 point grand slams unobstructed and believe me, as far as "tools" go, our system will get us there most of the time.

Bidding is as much a part of the game as card play and like it or not, there are systems inherently superior to say SAYC and 2/1. I consider a bidding system as much of an advantage as superior card skills.

There is no reason to assume you will bid
unobstructed just because I'm no fan of highly
unusual methods

There is also no need for comments like
"I would really love to play against you"

You disagree with me,fine,leave it at that

Sorry if my remark came across as being pejorative -- it certainly wasn't intended to be that. I wanted to underscore the point that it's equally important to try and prevent the opps from reaching their best contract (w/o reducing the bidding to complete anarchy of course).

Atul

[fred]

david_c, on Sep 4 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Completely agree. To me, this is real bridge. It does rely on the players having enough time to prepare properly, but for major events with long matches that should not be a problem.

Why shouldn't this be a problem?

It is a problem already.

If the rules were "anything goes" then the problem would be unmanagably serious and would ruin the game for a lot of the people who currently enjoy it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2005, 12:18 PM, said:

Maybe its my Libertarian leanings, but I think that all long matches where its practical to have pre-disclosure should have no systemic restrictions. Arguably, anything short of absolute systemic freedom deviates from this objective. And whenever systems / conventions are banned the list can always be argued to be arbitrary.

Should the players have any say in what is allowed? I suppose, but doesn't it feel fundamentally wrong for the participants to determine what the C of C are?

The best comparison I can think of is golf (well maybe its because I got my 1st ace yesterday )
Imagine if a US Open golf course was set up the way the players want. Do you thing you'd see 20 yd wide fairways, 4" rough and greens like concrete? The US Open is a great test of golf that focuses on all aspects of a players game. Similarly, I think the mark of a good bridge player is how he/she handles all the aspects of the game, and not just the card play.
An important test of a partnership's arsenal is how they deal with delicate competitive situations, whether its handling a Meckwell 1D opener, or featherlight overcalls, or their Gardner 1N overcall.

Your comparison with golf is way off imo. Don't you think that the people who play at the US open would want a course that focuses on all aspects of the players game (well almost all aspects, I expect that there is no hole that's completely covered in mud.. the players wouldn't like that). Do you think that they'd want an course that is easy, where the weaker players can't be distinguished from the real stars? Where there is no opportunity for phenomenal strikes (if that is the correct word)?

I know nothing about golf except from boring Kevin Kostner movies, but I doubt that Phil.

I cannot think of any other argument for making the rules of bridge besides "what the players like best". Any maker of rules who uses other reasons should get their priorities straightened.

The only problem is that no group of people will ever completely agree on what they like best, hence this discussion.

[cherdano]

Free, on Sep 3 2005, 10:58 PM, said:

Topsport = competition
Topsport != enjoyment

I really disagree with this. One of the appeals of bridge is that, even at the very top level, it still seems to be a game. (Which I wouldn't say about chess or go.)

Bridge top competitors are in a way (I hope this doesn't sound disrespectful, I just think it is true) much less professional competitors than top competitors at other sports or games. In chess, I think it would be unheard of a world championship candidate to have enough time to program a chess online site. You don't have to spend years in a bridge school starting at the age of 10 or 12 the latest to have any chance to become a top bridge players (it's like that in go, the best 12year olds at these schools can crush any amateur). There are still non-pros taking part in world championships. Even the Meckwells of this world spend quite a lot of their time entering tournaments with clients, playing against mediocre competition, so in a way, there are bridge professionals, but only part-time "top level bridge competition-professionals".

There seems more fun involved in top bridge. It would be unheard of a go pro saying "there should be less games in a tournament per week, because part of the fun of tournaments is that you can discuss the games with your friends" (quote from Larry Cohen). I couldn't imagine friendly chatting of the opponents at the table at a world championship other than bridge.

Bridge players have to accept the fact that even with the best preparation, and when they play a tad better than their opponents, they might lose because they go down in three 65% slams in a row. I think it's just fair that as an exchange, they can continue to play the game in a way that is fun for them in practice (instead of in a way that is most aesthetically appealing in theory).

Arend

[mike777]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2005, 12:18 PM, said:

Maybe its my Libertarian leanings, but I think that all long matches where its practical to have pre-disclosure should have no systemic restrictions. Arguably, anything short of absolute systemic freedom deviates from this objective. And whenever systems / conventions are banned the list can always be argued to be arbitrary.

Should the players have any say in what is allowed? I suppose, but doesn't it feel fundamentally wrong for the participants to determine what the C of C are?

The best comparison I can think of is golf (well maybe its because I got my 1st ace yesterday )
Imagine if a US Open golf course was set up the way the players want. Do you thing you'd see 20 yd wide fairways, 4" rough and greens like concrete? The US Open is a great test of golf that focuses on all aspects of a players game. Similarly, I think the mark of a good bridge player is how he/she handles all the aspects of the game, and not just the card play.
An important test of a partnership's arsenal is how they deal with delicate competitive situations, whether its handling a Meckwell 1D opener, or featherlight overcalls, or their Gardner 1N overcall.

I note in passing that the number of "rounds" of Golf played by the public is declining. In other words Golf is in decline though this fact seems to be glossed over by tv and newspaper commentators. It seems Tiger Mania covers many sins.

Congrats on your Ace and will leave to you Acers the reasons for this decline.

[david_c]

fred, on Sep 4 2005, 07:10 PM, said:

david_c, on Sep 4 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Completely agree. To me, this is real bridge. It does rely on the players having enough time to prepare properly, but for major events with long matches that should not be a problem.

Why shouldn't this be a problem?

It is a problem already.

But is it really lack of time which is the problem? Certainly, there are problems with poor disclosure, problems with pairs changing their methods, etc., which should be dealt with much better, but that is all a slightly different issue. Given two months (as Roland suggested earlier), wouldn't that be long enough to prepare for everything?

[Brandal]

akhare, on Sep 4 2005, 01:03 PM, said:

Sorry if my remark came across as being pejorative -- it certainly wasn't intended to be that. I wanted to underscore the point that it's equally important to try and prevent the opps from reaching their best contract (w/o reducing the bidding to complete anarchy of course).

Atul

No problemo

I should have mentioned I also do some competitive
bidding every now and then

[Brandal]

david_c, on Sep 4 2005, 02:01 PM, said:

fred, on Sep 4 2005, 07:10 PM, said:

david_c, on Sep 4 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Completely agree. To me, this is real bridge. It does rely on the players having enough time to prepare properly, but for major events with long matches that should not be a problem.

Why shouldn't this be a problem?

It is a problem already.

But is it really lack of time which is the problem? Certainly, there are problems with poor disclosure, problems with pairs changing their methods, etc., which should be dealt with much better, but that is all a slightly different issue. Given two months (as Roland suggested earlier), wouldn't that be long enough to prepare for everything?

One thing is to study and come up with various
defenses on paper.......

I would think 2 months is enough for that,but I
imagine they would need substantial time testing
those various defenses at a table?

They would need a pair that use these highly unusual
methods to train against?

Or?

[pclayton]

Hans:

I can guarantee you that Vijay, Tiger, Phil (not me ) would set up a championship course different than the USGA.

Further, different golfers would want to set up a course differently. Long hitters would want a 520 yd par 4's, good iron players would like microscopic greens, good putters would like tricky greens - all to exploit their relative advantages. The US Open sets up a course to test all these parts.

And therein lies the problem. You could not get pro golfers to have a consensus layout, why should we expect bridge players to act any different?

[Flame]

fred, on Sep 4 2005, 01:10 PM, said:

david_c, on Sep 4 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Completely agree. To me, this is real bridge. It does rely on the players having enough time to prepare properly, but for major events with long matches that should not be a problem.

Why shouldn't this be a problem?

It is a problem already.

If the rules were "anything goes" then the problem would be unmanagably serious and would ruin the game for a lot of the people who currently enjoy it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Don't you think this could open up a new part of the game, working out systems would work against other systems without a big change.
I believe this is possible and believe a quelity og a system could be determind not only by how many times we reach the right contract, and how many we prevent our opponents from reaching their, but also by how generalized it is, and how it works against different sytems.

[fred]

david_c, on Sep 4 2005, 07:01 PM, said:

fred, on Sep 4 2005, 07:10 PM, said:

david_c, on Sep 4 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Completely agree. To me, this is real bridge. It does rely on the players having enough time to prepare properly, but for major events with long matches that should not be a problem.

Why shouldn't this be a problem?

It is a problem already.

But is it really lack of time which is the problem? Certainly, there are problems with poor disclosure, problems with pairs changing their methods, etc., which should be dealt with much better, but that is all a slightly different issue. Given two months (as Roland suggested earlier), wouldn't that be long enough to prepare for everything?

2 months of full time work might be enough to be reasonably be prepared for the systems you might face in this year's Bermuda Bowl. That would not be the case if players were allowed to play whatever methods they wanted.

In those were the rules then each of the 60 or so pairs you might face in the Bermuda Bowl could create a system with 100s of unique and unusual sequences that would require thought, time, and practice to properly prepare against. If there exists a bridge player with the time, inclination, brains, and memory to come close to being able to deal with this, I have not met him (or her) yet.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

Brandal, you asked whether it is fair that players are allowed to change the systems they have already submitted. No, its certainly not fair of them to do this, I totally agree on this point.

With regard to the amount of time required to prepare against Hums and BSC:

Most Hums have common features. If one looks at the Polish "grab bag" of Regres, NoName and its late version of Suspensor, all of these are predicated on the fact that they have a strong pass, (13+), a fert, (usually 1D or 1H). It is perfectly possible to prepare a generic defence against these. I have already mentioned the Swedish Anti Nonsens, which the Swedish Open Team used against FP systems. I would argue that you need nowhere near 2 months to prepare.

With regard to BSC - many of them show some 2 suited hand, usually totally unanchored. Again it is relatively easy to have a generic defence.

If you look at the serious pairs in events such as the South West Pacific Teams for example, you will find that they all have such defences prepared. Why? Because after round 2 if you are in the top 25% of the field, you can play absolutely anything Hum or BSC you like against any opponents except protected pairs. (protected pairs are defined as being below a certain MP level and playing a simple system).

My argument is that because players are exposed to these methods, sometimes even in club events, they become familiar with them and they hold no fear. I have played FP methods and even lols say "That was fun" afterwards.

I believe that players who play in highly restrictive environments such as in the US and certain European countries are far more fearful due to a lack of exposure. It is a chicken and egg argument to some extent. Restrictions mean unfamiliarity; unfamiliarity means fear; fear means restrictions.

"In those were the rules then each of the 60 or so pairs you might face in the Bermuda Bowl could create a system with 100s of unique and unusual sequences that would require thought, time, and practice to properly prepare against."

This is n assertion I disagree with. Why do do you need to prepare a defence to 100s of unique sequences? I can't conceive of such a system being even remotely playable. I think you would find that these opponents have shot themselves in the foot before they start.

[fred]

The_Hog, on Sep 5 2005, 12:01 AM, said:

Most Hums have common features. If one looks at the Polish "grab bag" of Regres, NoName and its late version of Suspensor, all of these are predicated on the fact that they have a strong pass, (13+), a fert, (usually 1D or 1H). It is perfectly possible to prepare a generic defence against these. I have already mentioned the Swedish Anti Nonsens, which the Swedish Open Team used against FP systems. I would argue that you need nowhere near 2 months to prepare.

It may be possible to prepare generic defense against most weird bids, but if you want to win a World Championship you have to do better than that. The best "generic defense" will not be the "best defense" in many situations and if you include too many exceptions in your generic defense, it stops being generic.

Furthermore, you have to discuss the many possible followup sequences leading from the many possible weird bids you might face. When you factor in the number of possible competitive sequences that might arise in an auction containing at least 1 (and possibly several) weird bids, the numbers really get scary.

Ideally, in order to prepare properly, you would want to play a lot of practice hands against all of the weird bids you might face. Then you would want to discuss the hands with your partner/coach, make sure both players are on the same wavelength, possibly refine the defense, maybe play some more hands to see how that works... I have to admit that BBO Partnership Bidding has made this part of the process a lot easier than it used to be

The other 2 pairs on your team have to go through this too of course and your coach will be spending 2/3 of his time working with them. You could hire another coach or 2, but remember that many teams can't afford even one really good coach.

I actually have some real life experience in this area. Estoril will be my 3rd Bermuda Bowl as a player. I have also played in an Olympiad and I have been a coach/npc for both the Bermuda Bowl and Olympiad. I have been through this before. There are many players who are a lot more experienced than I am who would agree with me on this point (and no doubt there are some who would disagree).

So either I am either intentionally misleading you as to how much work is involved or I should be hiring you as a coach

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Sep 4 2005, 01:43 PM, said:

Free, on Sep 3 2005, 10:58 PM, said:

Topsport = competition
Topsport != enjoyment

I really disagree with this. One of the appeals of bridge is that, even at the very top level, it still seems to be a game. (Which I wouldn't say about chess or go.)

i can't speak about go, but i think you're absolutely right concerning chess... it's almost axiomatic to think of chess in the same terms as math or music - that some people are just born with a genius for those disciplines... you can be a good, even great, mathmatician or musician or chess player without the genius but you'll never be an einstein or a mozart or a capablanca

[Impact]

fred, on Sep 4 2005, 07:49 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 5 2005, 12:01 AM, said:

Most Hums have common features. If one looks at the Polish "grab bag" of Regres, NoName and its late version of Suspensor, all of these are predicated on the fact that they have a strong pass, (13+), a fert, (usually 1D or 1H). It is perfectly possible to prepare a generic defence against these. I have already mentioned the Swedish Anti Nonsens, which the Swedish Open Team used against FP systems. I would argue that you need nowhere near 2 months to prepare.

It may be possible to prepare generic defense against most weird bids, but if you want to win a World Championship you have to do better than that. The best "generic defense" will not be the "best defense" in many situations and if you include too many exceptions in your generic defense, it stops being generic.

Furthermore, you have to discuss the many possible followup sequences leading from the many possible weird bids you might face. When you factor in the number of possible competitive sequences that might arise in an auction containing at least 1 (and possibly several) weird bids, the numbers really get scary.

Ideally, in order to prepare properly, you would want to play a lot of practice hands against all of the weird bids you might face. Then you would want to discuss the hands with your partner/coach, make sure both players are on the same wavelength, possibly refine the defense, maybe play some more hands to see how that works... I have to admit that BBO Partnership Bidding has made this part of the process a lot easier than it used to be

The other 2 pairs on your team have to go through this too of course and your coach will be spending 2/3 of his time working with them. You could hire another coach or 2, but remember that many teams can't afford even one really good coach.

I actually have some real life experience in this area. Estoril will be my 3rd Bermuda Bowl as a player. I have also played in an Olympiad and I have been a coach/npc for both the Bermuda Bowl and Olympiad. I have been through this before. There are many players who are a lot more experienced than I am who would agree with me on this point (and no doubt there are some who would disagree).

So either I am either intentionally misleading you as to how much work is involved or I should be hiring you as a coach

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

From fred to Fred:-

Yes you should hire ME as coach .....system consideration is part of the game and an important part for its charm both as a theoretical and practical matter:-

"There are a host of continuations against the varying types of "sub-minimum" openings. I have typically split methods between countering one level openings which routinely are based on 7/8 HCP and those which approximate as their general base light standard eg 10+HCP (without commenting on the accuracy of HCP evaluation but as a known base for comment).

When you open lower than the suit shown you gain in many instances in auctions without competition (both by virtue of the levels gained and often by the trasfer effect particularly in the case of interrogatory type auctions initiated by relayer as opposed to dialogue).

However like almost all matters there is a loss as well: it allows additional ease of competition by opponents (as the level of pre-emption is less) - and of course the lighter you open the more you disclose to opponents should you "lose" the auction and they become declarer.

Notwithstanding a plethora of material on maximising the usage of different opening bids for "efficiency", which is appropriate for unwinding a relay system, there is little consideration of the reverse view which pertains to competition. I think the codification of the relevant parameters (and disagreements likely to pertain) has militated against such analysis.

IMPACT operates as a forcing pass (but potentially 0-4HCP) 5-9 FERT or singlesuiter 10-15 6+C and 2C opening as frequently 0-4 any when n/v; but strong club vul.

It is fairly easy to demonstrate that different systems are more likely to be effective at different vulnerabilities (to the extent that at unfavourable vul there is a fair argument for a ROmex or Roman or Power NT while at favourable a mini-NT of 9/10-12 is superior for dealing with pre-emption/pre-emption). We also used different ferts at nil vul (1H) and favourable (1S) as the one step is often crucial in disrupting relay auctions of opponents who might seek to relay over the fert at this level.

Most good partners have enough trouble absorbing the intricacies of 1 system let alone many (even as the designer in the heat of battle the forces of alternative logic structures may be too strong).

Further, the administrators in Oz, in their wisdom, have determined that "Two systems" is the maximum that may be played - putting paid to true optimisation of methods based on vulnerability - albeit there appears a general acceptance that methods which do not include forcing pass entail sensible variations for 4th hand opener (eg if multi twos it would be obvious foolishness in 4th seat to open to show a truly weak hand of say 5-8 HCP without a Major etc).

Game theory has suggested for a long time that optimal theoretical solutions to multi openings of all sorts is multi defences; unfortunately the practical ramifications of sorting such out have proved harder than you might have thought and the effort has often been wasted by partner's non-computer like brain.

Try to remember when designing systems that the ideal paper solution in each conceivable auction ends up imposing an all but intolerable memory load as the ramifications of application of each layer of logic to each bid is immense (and time-consuming). Hence the operation of another of S J Simon's rules about the the best possible result as opposed to best result possible...

Accordingly, both for simplification and speed there is a tendency to create "rules" with general application, and only specifying the most crucial exceptions (of course the devil is in the details in determining where the dividing lines fall). To give just one example of my current natural responses over intereference to limited opening bids :-

1S (3D) ?
3H is initially a DAB based on USP - but need not be if one was content to reverse its meaning with the obvious sounding 3S raise.

You may be familiar with this type of paradox in the more familiar position of responding to 1NT/2NT opening where Fibonacci analysis specifies the number of bids available for relays below 3NT and accordingly allocation of various bids including pivots. If not used for natural/semi-natural purposes (eg S or S shortage or minors), the 3S bid could easily be used asa pivot to 3NT allowing a range of clarifications by responder. If that is done, the efficient corollary is the absence of a need for a direct 3NT as natural - so you may use it as a pivot to 4C with all sorts of clarifications available.

Unfortunately in an all to human world the latter such bids (3NT in all equivalent auctions as a puppet/pivot to 4C) which I favoured for system optimisation 25-30 years ago are just too prone to disaster in the real world - the theoretical merits being defeated by the human operators.

Accordingly many of the "finer" system ideas (including a complete encrypted bidding system) have been relegated to the basement for occasional intellectual tinkering but no practical purpose. "

The tendency to think within the square has been a limiting factor on ACBL and North American teams - alleviated somewhat by permitting foreign entries and all systems to NABCs.

The best system analysts are not necessarily the best players but system construction and defence is fascinating to some of us.

Certainly familiarity counts for something but it is part of the game to use the code to best advantage (so long as full disclosure including negative inferences is made) and limiting such severly detracts from the game.

Good generic defences do not sacrifice much (albeit the same types of sacrifices as the constructive bidding sacrifices noted above) but still take thought about hand types to describe and use - and consideration as to the allocation of bids. A competent theoretician starts with a blank page - but few players are prepared to make that start, preferring to rely on the "natural sounding nature of bids" which not surprisingly produces problems.

In the mid to late seventies when playing with a relay club I noted that by changing the meanings of all bids following interference I actually obtained more (and better) information following opponent's one level intervention over my strong Club. AFAIK that was the initial source of semi-positives being shown in great detail artifically - which was then extended in Moscito to uninterrupted sequences.

One of the fascinating things in terms of system design - be it on basic system or defence- is allocation of priorities. It is truly amazing firstly the difference of opinion (and hence premises) that this occasions, so it is possible to formulate generic defences to systems starting from different bases.
eg against a fert most will opt to allocate one bid (typically double) to strong hands 15/16+ and effectively move to a strong Club base in response; the corollary is to have all other bids limited 9/10- 14/15 with enormous amounts of room dedicated to these mainstream minimum "openers" so you can show your distributional hands immediately by natural or semi-natural (eg aspro) or completely artificial means depending upon your bent. My inclination is the artificial because it can be the most precise but that is foreign to many (who would perhaps become better bidders if they embraced it). Stylistically as a group those who adoptthis style of structure take a penalty blatantly offered when the suit opened happens to coincide with advancer's suit or similar situations, but otherwise attempts to bid to their own best contract with the advance knowledge of distribution/HCP distribution of the opponents.

By contrast there is also a group which seeks to maximise the penalty (cf some Rubens articles) at the potential expense of their own constructive bidding- a group to which many "natural" bidder subscribe. Here the double starts as more omnibus- typically requiring a MINIMUM number of cards in the fert suit opened (and by contrast either the cue bid or 2C is allocated as an immediate force by overcaller).

In 25+ years of playing ferts (the last 17 with the same partner who keeps a record of every auction and result we have!) I have had an opportunity to observe the practical effects of both methods: including being set 1100 in a 5-4 fit at the onelevel with 17HCP between us - and NOTHING we could do about it.....

[EricK]

fred, on Sep 5 2005, 12:49 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 5 2005, 12:01 AM, said:

Most Hums have common features. If one looks at the Polish "grab bag" of Regres, NoName and its late version of Suspensor, all of these are predicated on the fact that they have a strong pass, (13+), a fert, (usually 1D or 1H). It is perfectly possible to prepare a generic defence against these. I have already mentioned the Swedish Anti Nonsens, which the Swedish Open Team used against FP systems. I would argue that you need nowhere near 2 months to prepare.

It may be possible to prepare generic defense against most weird bids, but if you want to win a World Championship you have to do better than that. The best "generic defense" will not be the "best defense" in many situations and if you include too many exceptions in your generic defense, it stops being generic.

When people bring up the question of which bidding system is best the reply is usually it doesn't matter what system you play as long as you and partner understand it; or they mention Hamman's comment about system being only 3% of the game (or something like that).

Yet when it comes to defending against HUM, you suddenly want to find an "optimal defense" and having a reasonable method which you and partner both understand is no longer sufficient.

Aren't these contradictory attitudes?

Eric

[mrdct]

Walddk, on Sep 1 2005, 11:34 PM, said:

I do indeed speak for myself, but I also believe that you belong to the tiny minority, Todd. We haven't made a survey, but rest assured that very few among our spectators would welcome HUM systems.

I did conduct a survey (of sorts) when broadcasting from two separate matches from the Australian National Championships last year at the same time. One match had a forcing-pass pair and the other match was all natural. The table with the HUM system had about 500 spectators and the table that was all natural had about 200 spectators.

I think it's a complete myth that vugraph spectators prefer natural systems. With HUM methods so heavily restricted in many parts of the world, vugraph is just about the only chance many people get to see such methods.