[foo]

hrothgar, on May 31 2007, 02:42 PM, said:

foo, on May 31 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

Drury is not even close to Dominant.  Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term.

The comment about all systems being equally dominant seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the term.

I think that you misunderstand my point: I am not claiming that Drury is "dominant". I am, however, claiming that the very notion of a dominant system is meaningless and that the existing of Drury is evidence of that fact.

"Dominant" when used in a Bridge context is a technical term with a precise meaning.

It specifically refers to systems or methods where the only way to restore equity to the opposing side is to force the opposing side to use the same methods as a countermeasure.

FP systems are Dominant. Drury is not even close.

[awm]

I don't see how a "dominant" system could exist. For example:

RHO opens with a forcing pass. Why would I ever want to play forcing pass now in 2nd seat? I know that LHO is going to bid (RHO's pass is forcing). How does it even matter whether my pass is "forcing" on partner?

Certainly it makes sense that if RHO opens with a pass showing 14+ points or whatever, it would be silly for my second seat openings to mean the same thing they would mean if RHO's pass showed 11 points or less. But that doesn't mean I want to play the same methods as RHO. In fact, it seems like my best defense would involve bidding frequently with distributional hands regardless of their overall values (trying to get into what's more likely to be a competitive auction) and passing with balanced hands (even if strong) planning to try to defend doubled later. This is very different from the typical "forcing pass" method where good hands pass and weaker hands bid.

Anyways, I also don't see how this discussion of "dominant systems" has much to do with alerting policy.

[foo]

awm, on May 31 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

I don't see how a "dominant" system could exist. For example:

RHO opens with a forcing pass. Why would I ever want to play forcing pass now in 2nd seat? I know that LHO is going to bid (RHO's pass is forcing). How does it even matter whether my pass is "forcing" on partner?

Certainly it makes sense that if RHO opens with a pass showing 14+ points or whatever, it would be silly for my second seat openings to mean the same thing they would mean if RHO's pass showed 11 points or less. But that doesn't mean I want to play the same methods as RHO. In fact, it seems like my best defense would involve bidding frequently with distributional hands regardless of their overall values (trying to get into what's more likely to be a competitive auction) and passing with balanced hands (even if strong) planning to try to defend doubled later. This is very different from the typical "forcing pass" method where good hands pass and weaker hands bid.

Anyways, I also don't see how this discussion of "dominant systems" has much to do with alerting policy.

Let me try to clarify things and reduce some confusion.
A Forcing Pass shows any hand with 12-13+ HCP that other systems would Open.

The necessary corollary of FPs is "fertilizer bids" or "ferts". Colorfully named to describe the fact that you are bidding on what most other systems would consider garbage AKA fertilizer.

Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show anything else about the hand.

Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.

Now here's why this system is called "Dominant".
The whole point of the FP is to reserve the maximum amount of space for constructive bidding. The point of the ferts is to rob Us of the 1 level when They don't have the values to open.

Guess what the best defense is to a FP? Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

Guess what the best defense is to a fert? A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

Gosh, our defense looks like Their system. We are forced to play Their system in order to restore equity. We can't play our system or some variation of our systems. Our system has been "pwned" by Theirs. Hence the term "Dominant".

[cherdano]

foo, on May 31 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

Guess what the best defense is to a FP? Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

Guess what the best defense is to a fert? A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

ROTFL. You know this how, exactly?

[foo]

cherdano, on Jun 1 2007, 12:31 AM, said:

foo, on May 31 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

Guess what the best defense is to a FP?  Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

Guess what the best defense is to a fert?  A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

ROTFL. You know this how, exactly?

1= I know expert level players who have actually played FP systems enough to "grok" them.

2= I know experts who compete at the Interzonal level or higher that have had to create successful defenses vs FP systems.

...and I listened respectfully and asked lot's of respectful questions.

I've also tried playing the d@mn things a few times in clubs where the owner was free thinking enough to allow it. However, I do not consider myself experienced enough with FP systems on a personal level to claim any serious level of personal competence with them. Let alone "groking" them.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 1 2007, 09:11 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 1 2007, 12:31 AM, said:

foo, on May 31 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

Guess what the best defense is to a FP?  Yep, you guessed it; a fert or ferts for all hands that would usually pass and 2+ level openings for the appropriate hands.

Guess what the best defense is to a fert?  A FP with a Opening+ bid hand w/o clear direction and 2+ level bids for appropriate hands.

ROTFL. You know this how, exactly?

1= I know expert level players who have actually played FP systems enough to "grok" them.

2= I know experts who compete at the Interzonal level or higher that have had to create successful defenses vs FP systems.

...and I listened respectfully and asked lot's of respectful questions.

Pray tell, who were these internationalists? (If you don't think that they would want their names associated with this clap trap, I understand)

The recommended defense against the forcing pass opening sounds reasonable. Lots of people prefer to play a "random" 1♠ overcall versus a strong club opening. Describing this as a "fert" is more nomenclature than anything else.

The suggested defense against the a forcing pass "fert" is ridiculous. The primary purpose of the fert is to enable the strong pass, however, its also a powerful preemptive tool. By definition, a well designed forcing pass system pushes the "fert" bid to the limits. For example, back when Marston was playing a forcing pass system, he used a 2♣ fert NV and a 1♠ fert when vulnerable. (I suspect that Paul might have gone a bit overboard, but still, this is a useful illustration regarding the amount of bidding space consumed by a fert.)

Lets suppose that you want to defend against a 2♣ fert with your own forcing pass. In turn, this requires that you adopt your own version of the fert. (If your pass is promising values, then you need some bid to handle all the weak hands). Here's the problem... The opening side has already used up a lot of bidding space. You're own fert is going to leave you very exposed. Moreover, the opening side has already had the chance to exchange lots of information. Opener's has already limited his hand enormously via the initial fert, so the preemptive value of your bid is sharply diminished.

Simply put:

1. The cost of your fert is higher than their's
2. The benefits from your fert are lower than their's

If you're fert is theoretically sound, then their fert wasn't opened at a high enough level. Equally significant, if they are playing a well designed system, you (probably) don't want to use a fert over theirs...

[MarceldB]

Foo wrote:
>Let me try to clarify things and reduce some confusion.
>A Forcing Pass shows any hand with 12-13+ HCP that other systems would Open.

>The necessary corollary of FPs is "fertilizer bids" or "ferts". Colorfully named to >describe the fact that you are bidding on what most other systems would consider >garbage AKA fertilizer.

>Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show >anything else about the hand.

>Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 >HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.


Sorry to say but you do not have any (historical) background regarding a WOS (weak opening system; FP is a wrong name) with Pass=13+

The Pass with 13+ was not the purpose of such a system. The 8-12 (45% of the hands) is the cornerstone. With priority to describe/handle those hands in a very good way. Reason why all the bids from the 1-level and upwards are used for that purpose.
The logical step was to use the cheapest bid(s) 1♣/1♦ for the 13+ and Pass for the 0-7

But by not creating a paradox between 8-12 with less chance for game+ (20/20 diviation) but good handling possibilities and the 13+ with more chance for game+, but less bidding space for and optimal handling, the Pass=13+ with the most amount of bidding space possible was born, put up the disadvantage that the Pass-bid is vulnerable for interference because no shape/suit/pointrange is known.
The 0-7 then as a Fert and originally the 1♦ bid, which creates the best possible way to design a symmetrical treatment enabling you to handle the same sets of openings in both hands regardless the pointrange.
Lateron higher level Ferts were used, but the zone's 0-7, 8-12, 13+ normally maintained or slightly altered.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show anything else about the hand.

Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.

This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12.

No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on Jun 1 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are.

I play Precision

Not having had the pleasure to play against these systems, I would adopt...

Over Pass, 1♣ is the precision club, 1D/1H/1S/2C extend to 8-15 from 11-15, 1NT stays 12-15, 2D and higher keep their current meaning.

Over a 1♠ fert, for example...let's see, 1NT is natural, 2♣ retains its meaning as a club suit, 2♥ and 2♠ now have the meaning of 1♥ and 1♠. I can overcall 1NT with 4-4-1-4, so I think I can have 2♦ actually show diamonds, and throw the 2♦ openings in with 2 of a major and 1NT. That leaves the X for 1 club openers. If I was really clever, though, I'd use 1NT for 16+ any distribution and X for 12-15 balanced.

I'm sure this isn't the best system, but it seems workable to me.

It is a "dominant" system in that I'd have to change my system to mesh, but I don't know that I can't simply use something very close to my natural system to defend against it.

[foo]

MarceldB, on Jun 1 2007, 08:45 AM, said:

Sorry to say but you do not have any (historical) background regarding a WOS (weak opening system; FP is a wrong name) with Pass= 13+

<excellent summary of HUMs and how HUMs can be converted into Forcing minor systems snipped>

Later on higher level Ferts were used, but the zone's 0-7, 8-12, 13+ normally maintained or slightly altered.

Most players I know call the these Forcing Pass systems. Presumably for the same reasons that we call Forcing Club systems by that name.

In the 1980's for a brief time I would occasionally hear the term "Strong Pass" when referring to these systems, but it died out as nomenclature.

Of course, one can also call them by their WBF legal term: HUMs; but that is considerably less precise as well as possibly being a pejorative term in the eyes of FP system advocates.

From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold.
1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands.
Obviously pass preserves the most space.

As you rightly note, the FP has the same weaknesses, only more so, as the Forcing 1C. While it is theoretically true that you've got lot's of room for game and slam exploration, competent opponents are going to do everything they can to destroy it.

2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, particularly the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones.


Some good articles on 1S being used as a fert and other treatments often found in FP systems, one can read stuff by Jeff Rubens in the April, May, and June 1986 _Bridge World_.

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jun 1 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

Quote

Other than the fact that a fert shows 11- or 12- HCP, it doesn't necessarily show anything else about the hand.

Thus a simple FP system would pass with 13+ and open with say 1S with all 0-12 HCP hands not appropriate for 2+ level openings.

This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12.

No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems actually are.

Peter

My bad for using an oversimplified example by not explicitly discussing the 8-12 hand types. I ignored them because they aren't the problem. They are both descriptive and limited. The problem is the FP and the fert.

I should have been more precise. My apologies.


My main point was and is that the best defense vs a FP is a fert and the best defense to a fert is a FP. Once you've gone that far, adopting the 8-12 bids yourself is a minor extension.

...and I !don't! think FP systems are easy to defend against. OTC, it's the fact that they are hard to defend against and that the best defenses require one to adopt The Enemy's methods to do so that make them something that requires the most stringent regulation.

[hrothgar]

Peter wrote

>>This is totally wrong. The fert shows 0-7 hcp, pass shows 13(12)+, and
>>all other bids at the one and two level show ~8-12.

>>No wonder you think FP is easy to defend, you don't have a clue what the systems >>actually are.

And Foo replied

>Peter
>My bad for using an oversimplified example by not explicitly discussing the 8-12 >hand types. I ignored them because they aren't the problem. They are both >descriptive and limited. The problem is the FP and the fert.
>
>I should have been more precise. My apologies.


>My main point was and is that the best defense vs a FP is a fert
>and the best defense to a fert is a FP. Once you've gone that far,
>adopting the 8-12 bids yourself is a minor extension.

>...and I !don't! think FP systems are easy to defend against. OTC, it's the fact
>that they are hard to defend against and that the best defenses require one to
>adopt The Enemy's methods to do so that make them something that requires the
>most stringent regulation. [/QUOTE]

Actually, I think that its very interesting that you frame your position in this way...

I don't know a single credible source who believes that a Strong Pass opening is difficult to defend against.

I've seen some people claim that its difficult to develop adequate defenses against high level ferts. Personally, I don't agree, but that neither here nor there.

Nearly everyone agrees that the problem in countering Weak Opening Systems is devising effective defensive to the constructive 8 - 12 HCP systemic opening. These difficulties were compounded by the fact that different families of WoS used radically different opening structures. For example,

Playing Regres 1♥ = 8 - 12 HCP, 3-4 Hearts, at most 5 cards in a minor, no shortness

Playing No Name 1♥ = 8 - 12 HCP, either (0-2) or 6+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades

Playing Delta, 1♥ = 8 - 12 HCP Heart shortness of Club shortness with (long hearts or long Spades)

You (obviously) have some strong opinions. Its a pity you don't have any real experience with the subject matter.

BTW, I'd be willing to be that some of your assertions about defending against Strong Pass systems is based on a simple misunderstanding. When people talk about using a Strong Pass as a "defense" against a Weak Opening System, they aren't talking about using a Fert over the Opponent's Fert. They are saying that you should adopt a Strong Pass system as your own Opening structure and thereby preempt the opponent's ability to use their own Weak Opening System (unless they are dealer)

[foo]

foo, on Jun 1 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

My main point was and is that the best defense vs a FP is a fert and the best defense to a fert is a FP. Once you've gone that far, adopting the 8-12 bids yourself is a minor extension.

For Richard, who seems not to realize what I've said.

As for the 8-12 HCP openings being tough to defend against, no more so than 1M openings in Precision.

The fact that they are effective has nothing to do with equity issues.

...and this thread is just about equity issues.

The FP and Ferts cause equity issues. Descriptive 8-12 HCP openings do not.

[MarceldB]

There are mixed systems too like
Pass= 0-7 or 17+ any shape
Forcing in your opinion Foo?, thus a FP system ?
well it is not, with f.e. a flat 13 pointer you can pass as well, (2,3% chance for a 17+).
opponent with their handling will help you too by the way.
Reason why - based on the 8-12 openings - such systems are generally called WOS.
And then a further precision of the Pass-bid.

>From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold.

>1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands.
>2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, particularly >the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones.

I have explained you how and why they came to the Pass=13+ (as a necessary evil with all the disadvantages, but in endeffect workable and it's own advantages regarding systemdesign - don't forget 13+= 25%).

When Slawinski, the founder of WOS (for the sake of good order in historical view: Frederick E. Ebeling's system from 1958 is the first one using weak openings on the 1-level, with a Pass as 13-17, but he can't be compared with Slawinski's real theoretical views) writes:

"The weak openings postulate calls for a change of the orthodox meaning of pass"

you can have your POV, but please stick to the history and the real facts.

[foo]

MarceldB, on Jun 1 2007, 11:35 AM, said:

There are mixed systems too like
Pass= 0-7 or 17+ any shape
Forcing in your opinion Foo?, thus a FP system ?
well it is not,  with f.e. a flat 13 pointer you can pass as well, (2,3% chance for a 17+).
opponent with their handling will help you too by the way.
Reason why - based on the 8-12 openings - such systems are generally called WOS.
And then a further precision of the Pass-bid.

>From my POV, the goal of FP systems was two fold.

>1= Preserve as much space as possible for our good hands.
>2= Open the bidding as often and as high as possible with all other hands, >particularly the important due to frequency 8-12 HCP range ones.

I have explained you how and why they came to the Pass=13+ (as a necessary evil with all the disadvantages, but in endeffect workable and it's own advantages regarding systemdesign - don't forget 13+= 25%).

When Slawinski, the founder of WOS (for the sake of good order in historical view: Frederick E. Ebeling's system from 1958 is the first one using weak openings on the 1-level, with a Pass as 13-17, but he can't be compared with Slawinski's real theoretical views) writes:

"The weak openings postulate calls for a change of the orthodox meaning of pass"

you can have your POV, but please stick to the history and the real facts.

Systems with "multi-way" passes are not FP systems since by definition pass is not forcing

These systems actually deserve the label "Weak Opening System".

The use of "Forcing Pass System" to describe actual FP systems seems to be common; and is certainly not my idea. I'm simply "part of the herd" and using what seems to be standard nomenclature in that regard.
How the transition in common usage from WOS to FPS came to be for FPS's is something I am not qualified to speak to.

...and I've never contradicted nor argued in opposition to the historical facts. In fact, I've complimented you on knowing them and presenting so well.

The bottom line is that using pass as a strong bid has the same advantages and disadvantages as using 1C as a strong bid; only more so.

...and if FP systems are hard to defend against, systems with more nebulous shape or value definitions for the calls are even more difficult to defend against. Such WOS definitely deserve the label "Dominant".