[mrdct]

Chamaco, on Aug 30 2005, 03:19 AM, said:

If HUMs were not allowed in the top World event, HUMs would not exist at all ! 

Not true. In many countries HUM systems are played at national championships, at state championships and even at major club competitions. HUM systems live-on despite the WBF's efforts to stiffle them.

To a large extent, HUM systems are not allowed in "top World events" anyway. They aren't allowed in the World Youth Teams and are only allowed in the Bermuda Bowl in the knockout stages.

[joker_gib]

mrdct, on Sep 1 2005, 07:43 AM, said:

... and are only allowed in the Bermuda Bowl in the knockout stages.

Does this mean that you have to play another system in the round robin ?

Seems ridiculous !!

Alain

[Walddk]

joker_gib, on Sep 1 2005, 12:38 PM, said:

mrdct, on Sep 1 2005, 07:43 AM, said:

... and are only allowed in the Bermuda Bowl in the knockout stages.

Does this mean that you have to play another system in the round robin ?

Seems ridiculous !!

Alain

You got it right. Read here:

During the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup
° If the matches are 16 boards or fewer, HUM systems and Brown Sticker Conventions will be prohibited.

° If the matches are longer (17-20 boards)
• HUM systems are still prohibited
Brown Sticker Conventions will be permitted, with a maximum of three per pair

During the Knockout stage of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup
HUM systems or Brown Sticker Conventions will be authorized for use in the knockout stage in both the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup provided additional, separate convention cards, including proposed defences are submitted in full accordance with the systems regulations published in the Supplemental Conditions of Contest.

• Special seating restrictions will be in force for pairs using Brown Sticker Conventions or HUM Systems at any stage.

....

Roland

[the hog]

I don't know what others think, but to me this logic is absurd. The BB is one of the premier events of Bridge. I would expect that anyone playing in this should have the nous and the application to develop defences to Hums and Brown sticker conventions. After all we can play Hums here in teams events of 14+ board matches and even the lols seem to cope.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Sep 1 2005, 07:47 PM, said:

I don't know what others think, but to me this logic is absurd. The BB is one of the premier events of Bridge. I would expect that anyone playing in this should have the nous and the application to develop defences to Hums and Brown sticker conventions. After all we can play Hums here in teams events of 14+ board matches and even the lols seem to cope.

BUT THEY DO NOT.

I assume if the top 100 ranked world class players bitched they could change this.
Based on my reading of usa, UK and Aust bridge magazines..I see no major complaints. Minor yes, Major NO.

If you have a petition signed by the top 75 out of top 200 WBF ranked players...broadcast it. Otherwise I can only assume this is a nonissue.

Out of the dues paying members this is really a nonissue.

[the hog]

mike777, on Sep 2 2005, 12:16 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 1 2005, 07:47 PM, said:

I don't know what others think, but to me this logic is absurd. The BB is one of the premier events of Bridge. I would expect that anyone playing in this should have the nous and the application to develop defences to Hums and Brown sticker conventions. After all we can play Hums here in teams events of 14+ board matches and even the lols seem to cope.

BUT THEY DO NOT.

I assume if the top 100 ranked world class players bitched they could change this.
Based on my reading of usa, UK and Aust bridge magazines..I see no major complaints. Minor yes, Major NO.

If you have a petiion signed by the top 75 out of top 200 WBF ranked players...broadcast it. Otherwise I can only assume this is a nonissue.

Out of the dues paying members this is really a nonissue.

Are you saying that they don't have the nous, Mike? That is a bit of an indictment on the players in the BB. Perhaps some don't; I would suspect that the vast majority do.

Many of the top 100 players don't want to change the status quo. Haven't you taken notice of the many posts made by Richard, (Hrothgar), where he commented on the active resistance to change shown by some of the top pros - primarily, but not solely American. Any why does this resistance exit? Purely and simply to protect clients and sponsors in major events. Also while the likes of Damiani et al are around there is a good deal of inertia to change. You won't hear any complaints in Oz precisely BECAUSE WE CAN play Hums in team matches of 14 boards +, even in many club events.

Quote
"Out of the dues paying members this is really a nonissue (sic)."
I have no idea what on earth this statement means. If it means that for the ordinary paying member this is a non issue, then "yes" I agree, so what? Apart from a few weak sponsors I have yet to see an ordinary member playing in the BB, so what is your point?

[Walddk]

My personal opinion is that even if HUM systems were allowed in the round-robin, you would not see many pairs using them, which perhaps would be an argument for not prohibit HUM.

If the deadline for submitting HUM systems is say 2 months, there is no reason why you should not have time to make a proper defence, a defence you are even allowed to bring to the table in writing. You don't have to remember anything by heart.

The only thing you need to make sure of is that all participating teams are known 2 months prior to the event. Anyway, my guess is that it would be a minor problem, because very few pairs play HUM systems, and I doubt that many more would even if those systems were allowed in the preliminary rounds.

Roland

[the hog]

Walddk, on Sep 2 2005, 01:26 PM, said:

My personal opinion is that even if HUM systems were allowed in the round-robin, you would not see many pairs using them, which perhaps would be an argument for not prohibit HUM.

If the deadline for submitting HUM systems is say 2 months, there is no reason why you should not have time to make a proper defence, a defence you are even allowed to bring to the table in writing. You don't have to remember anything by heart.

The only thing you need to make sure of is that all participating teams are known 2 months prior to the event. Anyway, my guess is that it would be a minor problem, because very few pairs play HUM systems, and I doubt that many more would even if those systems were allowed in the preliminary rounds.

Roland

Hmm, (pun intended), this is the second successive post of yours with which I have agreed. A few Polish, Aussie, Swedish, NZ pairs might use hums and that would be about it. You probably don't even need different defences to different Hum systems eg the Swedes developed a nice structure called "Anti Nonsens" which works well and is generic. Two months is more than enough preparation time, though no doubt some would still complain.

I well remember complaints on rgb some years ago by Larry Cohen where he stated that Polish Club of all things was too difficult to prepare a defence against. For Heaven's sake!!

[Walddk]

From a spectator perspective it is no doubt a good thing that people don't play anything too fancy, especially if the commentators are too "lazy" to go through the systems in advance, or even look them up while play is in progress. No offence intended, because ....

You can only ask that much from unpaid volunteers who spend hundreds of hours week after week in order to make vugraph broadcasts a little more colourful. It's a completely different matter if you were an on site commentator where fees are involved.

Our 138 volunteer commentators do a great job as it is, some more often than others. They also have a living to attend to, but this is probably a topic for another forum here.

Roland

[DrTodd13]

Those who like to play weird systems like to watch weird systems. Those who don't like to play weird systems don't like to watch them. So, speak for yourself. I would be more likely to watch if somebody was using a HUM. Admittedly, it would be better to have somebody that knew what the bids meant and could tell us but if the scope of commentator were expanded to any of the number of systems fanatics around then you'd always have somebody available to help with commentary.

[Elianna]

DrTodd13, on Sep 1 2005, 09:21 PM, said:

Those who don't like to play weird systems don't like to watch them.

That's not necessarily accurate. I do not like playing weird systems, but I actually like watching them, provided that the vugraph operator has access to the players' notes (the ones that they write when alerting bids) so that we get an explanation.

It's nice if the commentators know the system, but not necessary to me.

[Walddk]

DrTodd13, on Sep 2 2005, 06:21 AM, said:

Those who like to play weird systems like to watch weird systems. Those who don't like to play weird systems don't like to watch them. So, speak for yourself. I would be more likely to watch if somebody was using a HUM. Admittedly, it would be better to have somebody that knew what the bids meant and could tell us but if the scope of commentator were expanded to any of the number of systems fanatics around then you'd always have somebody available to help with commentary.

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.

We even have very capable commentators who refuse to be there if the systems "get out of hand", as they put it. Anyway, let's move further down the front page if we are to discuss this topic. It belongs under Vugraph Issues, and it's entirely my fault for bringing it up here.

Roland

[vang]

The_Hog, on Sep 2 2005, 05:34 AM, said:

the Swedes developed a nice structure called "Anti Nonsens" which works well and is generic.

can you give us some details about that (maybe in a separate thread)?
tya

[mike777]

Quote
"Out of the dues paying members this is really a nonissue (sic)."
I have no idea what on earth this statement means. If it means that for the ordinary paying member this is a non issue, then "yes" I agree, so what? Apart from a few weak sponsors I have yet to see an ordinary member playing in the BB, so what is your point?

The points are:
1) they pay for the World championships
2) They support the World championships through voluntary efforts that would make the game impossible to hold otherwise.
3) They are the vast majority of people who watch it, care about it, buy the books, etc.

If this is a huge bridge issue for them, they have not expressed it.

Of course none of this means that LEADERSHIP cannot be ahead of the masses sometimes.

[the hog]

"3) They are the vast majority of people who watch it, care about it, buy the books, etc."

You have got to be kidding matey, the WC books make a loss every year. And watch it?? Thats even more of a joke.

Anyway, I still don't understand the point. Why would what you posted inhibit any system being used at top level bridge apart from protecting the Brachmans and Melzers of this world?

[fred]

I will be playing in this year's Bermuda Bowl and our team's Captain and Coach are in the middle of the mammoth task of studying the convention cards of all of the pairs on all of the teams we will face, coming up with defenses to unusual systems that me and my teammates may not be familiar with, discussing these defenses with the team members, and writing them up.

Fortunately our team has the financial resources to hire professionals to do this for us. Fortunately also only 1 of our 6 players has a "normal" full time job so it should be possible for most of us to learn this material in time. I would guess that there are only a few other teams in the Bermuda Bowl (out of 22 I think) who will have the resources to be properly prepared for what they rate to face in Estoril.

I must say that I am most unimpressed with the convention cards and suggested defenses provided by some of the pairs playing unusual methods. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if some of these pairs decide to change their methods between now and the tournament (or even in the middle of the tournament). I am not sure if this is officially allowed or not, but it happens all the time. I personally resent this very much as I believe it is not fair that we should be forced to spend a lot of time and money to prepare to play against methods that will not be used.

If the "scientists" think they gain an advantage for their systems that is one thing, but they should not try to gain an advantage through not properly disclosing their methods or by changing them at the last minute.

In my opinion it would be absurd to be more liberal with systems restrictions for Swiss Teams events and (especially) in pairs games.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

Hum.. I kinda like that job of browsing through 100 convention cards and dig up defenses to their gadgets!

Are they hiring right now, Fred?

[Al_U_Card]

fred, on Sep 2 2005, 09:37 AM, said:

If the "scientists" think they gain an advantage for their systems that is one thing, but they should not try to gain an advantage through not properly disclosing their methods or by changing them at the last minute.

Surely sanctions exist (and hopefully have been applied) for such instances? btw you have all our best wishes and support in the upcoming contest.

[fred]

Al_U_Card, on Sep 2 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

fred, on Sep 2 2005, 09:37 AM, said:

If the "scientists" think they gain an advantage for their systems that is one thing, but they should not try to gain an advantage through not properly disclosing their methods or by changing them at the last minute.

Surely sanctions exist (and hopefully have been applied) for such instances? btw you have all our best wishes and support in the upcoming contest.

Sanctions exist, but in my experience they are rarely (if ever) enforced.

Here is a nice example of the sort of thing that tends to happen. One of the partnerships from one of the better teams is using 2D, 2H, and 2S opening bids as various "Brown Sticker" conventions. According to the current rules, each pair is allowed to play 3 such conventions.

You would think that the pair in question would realize that they have already reached this limit, but they also want to play the same conventions when the opps open 1C and they overcall 2D, 2H, or 2S. They claim that the (hopeless and inadequate) defense that the rules say they must provide for their 2-level openings, apply equally well to their 2-level jump overcall.

What a load of crap.

Various people have complained about this and it is not unlikely that the "systems committee" will come to their senses and realize that this is not right (though I wouldn't bet on it - especially consider that their convention card has already been approved once). Meanwhile, there are players and coaches who are wasting their time preparing proper defenses (since those provided by the players themselves were so awful) for convention that they may (and should) never have to face.

Is the pair in question simply ignorant of the rules, are they intentionally trying to get away with breaking the rules, or are they just trying to waste the time and energy of the other people who have to play in the event?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com