[Brandal]

Walddk, on Sep 1 2005, 06:25 AM, said:

° 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

I'm not trying to be a "smartass" here,I genuinly want someone's
opinion as to why:

Those who say prohibiting psyches is some other game similar
to bridge,why is prohibiting another part of bridge,like HUM/
Brown Sticker etc still considered bridge and not some similar
game?

ty in advance

Frode

[the hog]

Thats not being a smart arse. I think that is a perfectly legitimate question. One thing though, psyches are explicitely allowed in the rules; then again are Brown Stickers explicitely prohibited????

[Brandal]

fred, on Sep 3 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

Bridge is a game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

You say it so well Fred

Yes,a game,and all games have a set of rules,
and most games have the same set of rules worldwide
and is understandable to those who take interest in the game.

With bridge I feel that a minority wants "anarchy",anything
goes and if you don't have a defense who cares?

This makes bridge less about skill and more about fooling
eachother in my opinion,that kid in the Simpsons yelling
"haaa haaa" comes to mind

I'm neither a top nor a bottom player,but I only play for
fun these days,with a dash of competition thrown in,and
it's neither fun nor competition to be railroaded by some
clever pair who knows something I don't.

I have always looked at bridge as communication,who knows,
maybe that's why it's called bridge.....where I first and foremost
listen to my side,while picking up som intelligence reports from
the "enemy" and based on all information,take action.

What a rant.....my bottomline is the more weird systems,
it's not about fun for all 4 at the table anymore,only for 2.

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Sep 3 2005, 06:17 PM, said:

Thats not being a smart arse. I think that is a perfectly legitimate question. One thing though, psyches are explicitely allowed in the rules; then again are Brown Stickers explicitely prohibited????

I enjoy a good psyche against me

I just don't like psyching


maybe HUM/BS are implicitly prohibited?

[1eyedjack]

My 2 euros' worth:

The rules are optimised when the reward for the deployment of skill is proportionate to the skill deployed.

Skill can be applied in several areas of the game, two of which are of particular relevance to this discussion:

1) Skill can be applied in system design, whether it be offensive, pre-emptive or in defence.

2) Skill can be applied in the exercise of judgement and analytical techniques within the constraints of restrictions set out by the sponsoring organisation.

At one extreme, there is plenty of scope for the exercise of skill in the exercise of judgement in a regime with a highly restrictive structure of permitted systems.

At the other extreme, there is plenty of scope for the exercise of skill in the development of systems.

You only get the best of both worlds if you can successfully argue that each extreme can be satisfied without compromising the pursuit of the other.

If you played rubber bridge in the Portland Club in England you would be permitted almost no conventional agreements. It is not the game for me, but I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a clear hierarchy of competence amongst those who play in that environment, and who doubtless enjoy the experience. A brilliant player would surely gravitate to the top of that hierarchy, but any lesser display of skill within the constraints applied would carry no such guarantee. It is not the game for me because it grants no recognition whatsoever of the skill in system design, in which field I feel that I have some competence and would welcome the opportunity to test my mettle.

If you played in an environment in which anything goes, the effectiveness of the methods that you employ are largely dependent on the effectiveness of the defensive methods pre-prepared by your opponents against those methods. The effectiveness of your methods against the theoretical optimal defence is of academic interest. Indeed in a world in which the game evolved to such a degree that an "optimal" system (against optimum defensive methods) arrived at a consensus of agreement, you would be well advised (regulations permitting) to adopt some other method that is theoretically sub-optimal but in practice likely to encounter opponents less well prepared. That practical advantage will outweigh any theoretical advantage, and the opportunities for engineering that possibility are pretty much guaranteed by the vast number of available methods which, although sub-optimal, at least have some theoretical merit not too far removed from the optimum.

It has been suggested by others in separate threads within these forums and elsewhere that it is possible to develop "default" defensive methods for use against unprepared situations. Clearly a serious pair should develop that avenue. However the default defensive methods are by definition unlikely to be optimal, and it remains of dubious merit to permit (in the interests of evolution) the proliferation of methods that are effective against default methods and against the ill prepared but ineffective against optimal defence.

There is, therefore, a case for regulation, ie to permit the exercise of skill in both fields without (excessively) stifling the exercise of skill in either field. Any such regulation will inevitably require a compromise between the rewards for skill in those two fields set out at the beginning of this message.

The placement of that compromise depends upon the population subjected to the regulation, and it may well be that there need be no conflict between the popular wishes of the players and the interests of the game. At club level in an event containing 2-board rounds a restrictive regime may (1) be popular and (2) be a regime with the most suitable compromise that rewards appropriate skill. At international level in an event comprising long matches, with advance notice of systems and an opportunity to prepare, a more relaxed regime may be popular and a more suitable compromise.

It has been suggested elsewhere that those responsible for setting the regulations have a conflict of interests. The argument goes that they are appointed officials but ultimately responsible to a democratic electorate. Ultimately they have a vested interest in maximising the population of their electorate, which will largely comprise club players who perhaps are unable to see the bigger picture, which is: the benefits to the game and likely influx of new blood arising from high profile success and vivacity at the top of the game, whose players operate to different priorities.

I am not sure where all this is leading. There is a case for regulation. The optimum regulation depends on the target audience but could be separately customised for each target level. The wishes of the target audience will vary according to their level. Their level may not be reflected in their influence on the regulators, but separating regulations according to the targeted audiences should overcome that problem except for one minor defect: opportunities for preparing for an event in one target sphere may be limited to events in a lesser target sphere in which more restrictive regulations apply.

[the hog]

So Brandal and Jack, using the marathon analogy postulated earlier, I assume both of you would be happy with, (in Richard's words), forcing people to skip in the marathon rather than allowing them to run.

If you want regulation to protect the Ma and Pa Kettles in their club duplicate, then fine, I have no problem with that at all. But for heaven's sake, we are talking about the top echelon here.

Going back to Fred's 95% figure, which he admits he pulled out of a hat, I wonder what percentage of particpants would have no objection to any BSCs or Hums being allowed. I suspect it would be a pretty high percnetage. The major problem is that there is a real inertia at the top levels of administration against any change.

[1eyedjack]

The_Hog, on Sep 4 2005, 01:08 AM, said:

So .... Jack, using the marathon analogy postulated earlier, I assume .... you would be happy with, (in Richard's words), forcing people to skip in the marathon rather than allowing them to run.

Not particularly, and that was certainly not the gist of my post, although if there were an event in which skipping 26 miles in the shortest time qualified you for a gold medal then I would be happy to grant respect to someone who gained first place in that event.

[the hog]

Actually there is a farily easy compromise solution. Why not have 2 events at the BB?

1). A restricted event where everyone has to play exactly the same system - lets say Buller, where you bid what you think you can make. We would ban opening 1m on a 2 or 3 card suit as that is too dificult to cope with. Stayman also gets banned of course, as you need not have Cs to make that bid.

2). An open event where anything goes.

Countries can field teams in either or both events. Hmm, it would be interesting to see in which one Meckwell chose to play.

[akhare]

fred, on Sep 2 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

Suppose that:

- A marathon runner invents a special new pair of shoes designed primarily to make the other runners get cramps in their legs.

Hi Fred,

In my experience, cramps in a marathon can only be self inflicted:). Besides, causing cramps in the opps. legs is par for the course in bridge -- indeed, there is a reason why a plethora of preempts exist.

As Free noted, competition at the highest echelons of any game can hardly be expected to be for pure "fun". Banning conventions that rattle one’s cage is like participating in a marathon where’s there is cap on participants whose VO2 max exceeds one’s own. A win in such an event would only be a pyrrhic one.

While I do see the need for some regulation, I don't think that arbitrarily banning conventions that run against the grain of one's aesthitics is healthy for bridge in the long run.

Atul

[Flame]

I love special systems, i like to play them and like to watch them, i believe its a huge problem if good systems are blocked but i totally agree with fred that the contest must not be decided by who's coatches did better job at prepering defences structures. I think more work should be done with defence generalization, I guess it wont be done because new systems are blocked and therefore not need defence so we have a egg and chiken situation...

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Sep 3 2005, 07:08 PM, said:

So Brandal and Jack, using the marathon analogy postulated earlier, I assume both of you would be happy with, (in Richard's words), forcing people to skip in the marathon rather than allowing them to run.

If you want regulation to protect the Ma and Pa Kettles in their club duplicate, then fine, I have no problem with that at all. But for heaven's sake, we are talking about the top echelon here.

Going back to Fred's 95% figure, which he admits he pulled out of a hat, I wonder what percentage of particpants would have no objection to any BSCs or Hums being allowed. I suspect it would be a pretty high percnetage. The major problem is that there is a real inertia at the top levels of administration against any change.

I don't know any other way to make bridge a fair game Hog?

Either everyone skips or everyone runs is what I would be
happy with.

As long as there are different bridgefederations with extremely
different rules as to what goes,I don't see this happening.

I wish there was ONE set of rules worldwide that was used
whether it was national or international events?

I don't think the game is fair anymore when a pair comes to
the BB and has changed or modified or added to their already
highly unusual system....do you?

So no Hog,I wouldn't be happy forcing anyone to skip,or one
who likes skipping to run.....

What I want is fair game,enjoyment for 4 people at the table
not just 2.

Let me throw a Q back at you,why is it so important to you
to have unusual systems when "half the world" doesn't have
a proper defense and doesn't know or have the resources
or time or "interest" to cope with them?
Fred points out even at the top level this is very demanding
and cost a lot of time and money so I guess it's even harder
for the average player?

How much enjoyment will you be deprived if some of the most
unusual methods were prohibited?

As much as I appreciate your points and others too,and in
a perfect world everyone would have time and energy to learn
all the methods there are available,but this just isn't the case.

[pclayton]

Fred:I really appreciate what you do around here, but I agree with Richard and Ron on this one.

Bridge IS a game, but it is also a competition. On one hand you have those that want systemic freedom, but this can come at the price of a majority that is unprepared for unfamiliar methods, which reduces their enjoyment of the 'game'. These two objectives are mutually exclusive.

It is a logical progression on one hand to hold an I/N game that has maximum protection against the unusual stuff. OTOH, at the highest levels of 'competition', I would argue that there shouldn't be any protection against unfamiliar methods, except for pre-disclosure.

If HUM methods are effective, then adopt them yourself. If HUM methods aren't effective, then welcome their use. If they are purely destructive (hard to argue this on any level) then HUM users are trading 'equity' for 'variance' as well as capitalizing on their opponents relative unpreparedness.

[Brandal]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2005, 10:10 AM, said:

but this can come at the price of a majority that is unprepared for unfamiliar methods, which reduces their enjoyment of the 'game'.

I'd go as far as saying it also reduces the value of the competition.

Almost like allowing one hockey team to wear all their protective
gear and the other team no protection unless each player sits down
and makes his own gear

[EricK]

The simple fact is that "the majority" is unprepared for much of the stuff that is actually allowed. If they enjoy the game depsite not understanding the conventions which are currently allowed, why shouldn't they still enjoy it if more stuff is allowed?

[Brandal]

EricK, on Sep 4 2005, 11:09 AM, said:

The simple fact is that "the majority" is unprepared for much of the stuff that is actually allowed. If they enjoy the game depsite not understanding the conventions which are currently allowed, why shouldn't they still enjoy it if more stuff is allowed?

Not sure if you reply to my post,but my point is as
long as a method or system isn't allowed everywhere,
it will favor someone somewhere,and that is not
my idea of a fair-game-may-the-best-pair-win philosophy.

I'm not saying "they" can't still enjoy the game,
for me bidding is just a tool to try find our best contract,
how we get there is less important than playing there,
and declare/defend is what I find most interesting in bridge
and I guess that is why I'm rather "indifferent" to many
of the methods/gadgets/systems that are highly unusual.

[fred]

EricK, on Sep 4 2005, 04:09 PM, said:

The simple fact is that "the majority" is unprepared for much of the stuff that is actually allowed. If they enjoy the game depsite not understanding the conventions which are currently allowed, why shouldn't they still enjoy it if more stuff is allowed?

I think you are wrong.

The simple fact is that the majority believes that bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if *some* restrictions are put on bidding methods.

I can't answer you about why this is the case no more than I can tell you why I like my BBO color scheme and most other people don't. Taste is a subjective thing. In any case, I don't think it matters why people feel this way. It is the fact that they actually do feel this way matters.

The tricky part is deciding on the best possible definition for "some restrictions". Believe it or not, I actually think the WBF is not that far off the mark right now. A big part of the current problem is not the actual rules, it is that some of the pairs playing "unusual methods" are not following the rules (not necessarily intentionally) and that those rules are not being properly enforced.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

Bridge IS a game, but it is also a competition. On one hand you have those that want systemic freedom, but this can come at the price of a majority that is unprepared for unfamiliar methods, which reduces their enjoyment of the 'game'. These two objectives are mutually exclusive.

Agree. The tournament organizers therefore have to make a decision where best to draw the line. Regardless of where the line is drawn, some people will be unhappy.

In my view there is only one reasonable way to make this decision: find out where the players want the line to be and draw it there.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[akhare]

fred, on Sep 4 2005, 11:48 AM, said:

Agree. The tournament organizers therefore have to make a decision where best to draw the line. Regardless of where the line is drawn, some people will be unhappy.

In my view there is only one reasonable way to make this decision: find out where the players want the line to be and draw it there.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Agree too -- however, the process of drawing the line should be based on a transparent process and should not be based on the whims of a forceful lobby. On a slightly unrelated note, the systems regulation process of administrative bodies like the ACBL should have similar levels of transparency too. I would really love to hear why they make it all but impossible to play relay systems and transfer openings.

[pclayton]

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.

[akhare]

Brandal, on Sep 4 2005, 11:24 AM, said:

I'm not saying "they" can't still enjoy the game,
for me bidding is just a tool to try find our best contract,
how we get there is less important than playing there,
and declare/defend is what I find most interesting in bridge
and I guess that is why I'm rather "indifferent" to many
of the methods/gadgets/systems that are highly unusual.

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.