[foo]

david_c, on Jun 29 2007, 06:23 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 28 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

Petty politics and personal influence peddling have to be rejected in favor of a completely logical apporach based on deductive extension of a few well stated and easy to understand axioms.

It would be nice to eliminate the petty politics and personal influence. But I don't like your alternative either. System regulation is difficult - you shouldn't expect it to be possible to have an axiomatic approach.

"It is not that Democracy is demonstratively bad. Of course Democracy is demonstratively bad. The issue is that every other form of government is demonstratively worse."- Winston Churchill

"Let me be a free man - - free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk and think and act for myself - - and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty."- Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce Native American tribe.


IOW, doing things based on logic and axioms that we do everything we can to make fair is the best system I can think of and demonstratively much better than the current situation.

Got a better idea, I'd be happy to hear it.

[foo]

Folks, I submit that a good default definition of "natural" is that it would make intuitive sense to an utter Bridge novice.

Thus when you bid a suit, you are offering to play in that suit. And when you say that you are going to take "n" tricks over Book without a trump suit (" 'n' with No Trumps"), then you have a hand that is best designed for NT rather than suit play.

It is never going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand containing a stiff or void, for which We teach novices to add 3 or 5 Dummy Points respectively for ruffing value, is a hand best played w/o a trump suit!

Nor is it ever going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand shape that We teach novices to open 2suit based on Assumed Fit principles is a "natural" for a NT opening.

...and thus, "natural" shapes for a NT opening become
4333, 4432, 5332, 5422


Let me be clear. I do not necessarily think that "unnatural" or "conventional" NT openings are somehow "bad"; any more than I think Stayman, Gerber, Blackwood, Transfers, puppets, relays, etc are "bad" because they are not natural. I simply think that we should not call them "natural".
The debate / discussion as to whether any specific "not natural" treatment is "bad" or how it is best regulated for the good of the game is a =different= matter that has nothing to do with whether or not a treatment is "natural" or not.
"Natural" does not inherently mean either "good" or "bad".

It does, however, strongly imply "simpler". Simpler to understand; simpler to use; simpler to defend against; and thus simpler to teach.
As the Shakers said- "Tis a gift to be simple."

[SoTired]

These numbers are my estimates.

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

4.5% of players want to experiment with strange systems. They will get some competitive advantage just from opps unfamilarity with their system.

0.5% of players need to experiment in order to compete successfully in international events.

Not counting the Pros that need to win with clients. I have no idea what rules suit them best.

Remember that the first group pays the bills.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

Nor is it ever going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand shape that We teach novices to open 2suit based on Assumed Fit principles is a "natural" for a NT opening.

...and thus, "natural" shapes for a NT opening become
4333, 4432, 5332, 5422

1. Who in their right mind teaches novices about assumed fit preempts?

2. Almost anyone using using assumed fit methods will open a 5-4-2-2 hand. Most assumed fit structures permit preempts with 4-4-3-2 shapes.

[foo]

Not only is there the practical matter that the majority "pays the bills", there is also a matter of ethics involved.

If the sole or even main reason you are using method "x" is because you think you will get better results due to the opponents unfamiliarity with it or due to the randomizing effect of it, then at the least you are not being very sportsmanlike. At the worst you are being unethical.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2007, 07:40 AM, said:

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

Nor is it ever going to be intuitive to a novice that a hand shape that We teach novices to open 2suit based on Assumed Fit principles is a "natural" for a NT opening.

...and thus, "natural" shapes for a NT opening become
4333, 4432, 5332, 5422

1. Who in their right mind teaches novices about assumed fit preempts?

2. Almost anyone using using assumed fit methods will open a 5-4-2-2 hand. Most assumed fit structures permit preempts with 4-4-3-2 shapes.

I said "Assumed Fit principles" not "Assumed Fit Preempts".

The reason we teach that a two level preempt requires 6 cards and a 3 level preempt requires 7 cards and a "n" level preempt requires "n+4" cards is that the most likely degree of fit in your trump suit can be mathematically proven to be equal to the number of tricks you are offering to take. (Schenken also said the shapely component was important to keep the maximum loser count down. This is why 7222's are usually opened at the 2 level and not the 3 level.)
=That= is real "assumed fit".


Side Note: Not all AFP's that I've seen proposed are as well thought out as to degree of fit and low enough number of expected losers as traditional single suited preempts. The "assumption" for those AFP's is at best considerably less strong and at worst downright speculative compared to their more traditional single suited brethren.

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

Not only is there the practical matter that the majority "pays the bills", there is also a matter of ethics involved.

I don't think anybody plays opening 1NT with 5431/4441 (which are about as notrumpy as 5422 and 6322) because it's difficult to defend against, nor because it confuses people.


Neither are systems like playing Drury over 1 diamond. These are all logical extensions that fit nicely in SAYC.

Meanwhile, systems like Bergen raises and Forcing NT were allowed not because they didn't confuse the hell out of the populace when they first became GCC, but because some experts wanted to play it with their clients. The idea that American (but not English, Dutch, Austrailian, or most other countries) need to be 'protected' from stuff that's easy to play and understand is what causes the problem in the first place.

And nobody plays anything in order to randomize anything. Sorry.

[jillybean]

SoTired, on Jun 29 2007, 05:33 AM, said:

These numbers are my estimates.

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

Do you think a 1nt opening w/ a singleton falls into this category of a completely unknown complex system?

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 05:44 AM, said:

If the sole or even main reason you are using method "x" is because you think you will get better results due to the opponents unfamiliarity with it or due to the randomizing effect of it, then at the least you are not being very sportsmanlike.  At the worst you are being unethical.

I think others have made it clear that the reason for opening 1nt w/stiff is to best describe the hand, eliminate rebid problems and they think it is the best method to find the right contract. Suggesting the reason is because of the opps unfamiliarity is very unpalatable, I hope I have misunderstood your reply.

[SoTired]

jillybean2, on Jun 29 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Do you think a 1nt opening w/ a singleton falls into this category of a completely unknown complex system?

Yes - If the opps routinely open 1N with a singleton, then almost all hands in their 1N range may be opened with 1N. The opps will use unknown methods for determining which are eligible and which are not. This affects not only the 1N hands, but also the negative implications from the non-1N hands. This affects competitive bidding. It also affects the defense when attempting to reconstruct declarer's hand.

[pbleighton]

Quote

If the sole or even main reason you are using method "x" is because you think you will get better results due to the opponents unfamiliarity with it or due to the randomizing effect of it, then at the least you are not being very sportsmanlike. At the worst you are being unethical.

Do you know anyone who fits this description?

This sounds like a malicious slur to me.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

Would this apply to those deviants who play a 4 card major, weak NT in a 5 card major, strong NT field?

And vice versa, of course.

Oh, the EVIL of intellectual challenge. But of course, we need to be cognizant of the rights of the majority of dues paying Go Fish players...

Peter

[SoTired]

pbleighton, on Jun 29 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

Quote

95% of players want to play an enjoyable game with competitive challenge. It is not competitively fair to those players to have to understand a complex system that is completely unknown to them when they sit at a table for 2 hands of bridge for 15 minutes. These players want severe restrictions on the bidding systems that they encounter during those 15 minutes.

Would this apply to those deviants who play a 4 card major, weak NT in a 5 card major, strong NT field?

And vice versa, of course.

Oh, the EVIL of intellectual challenge. But of course, we need to be cognizant of the rights of the majority of dues paying Go Fish players...

Peter

What an ignorant, unthinking, arrogant, insulting and condescending comment.

Besides the obvious and direct insults, it is wrong on so many levels, I hesitate to even respond. First, it makes the conclusion that players that want system restrictions are poor players. Second, it makes the conclusion that players that play unusual conventions are good players. Neither of which are necessarily true.

[jtfanclub]

SoTired, on Jun 29 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

What an arrogant, insulting and condescending comment.

Besides the obvious and direct insults, it is wrong on so many levels, I hesitate to even respond. First, it makes the conclusion that players that want system restrictions are poor players. Second, it makes the conclusion that players that play unusual conventions are good players. Neither of which are necessarily true.

How curious. I don't believe PB had any mention of playing ability for either group.

[SoTired]

jtfanclub, on Jun 29 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

How curious. I don't believe PB had any mention of playing ability for either group.

Quote

<snip>majority of dues paying Go Fish players...<snip>

Looks like a mention of playing ability to me.

[david_c]

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

IOW, doing things based on logic and axioms that we do everything we can to make fair is the best system I can think of and demonstratively much better than the current situation.

Got a better idea, I'd be happy to hear it.

The current system sucks only because the ACBL refuses to keep up to date and to correct the ambiguities that have been pointed out to them. Other countries regulate conventions in a similar way to the ACBL, but for them it works much better because the authorities actually care about finding ways to improve the regulations.

[helene_t]

SoTired, on Jun 29 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 29 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Do you think a 1nt opening w/ a singleton falls into this category of a completely unknown complex system?

Yes - If the opps routinely open 1N with a singleton, then almost all hands in their 1N range may be opened with 1N. The opps will use unknown methods for determining which are eligible and which are not. This affects not only the 1N hands, but also the negative implications from the non-1N hands. This affects competitive bidding. It also affects the defense when attempting to reconstruct declarer's hand.

I read this as if it should be forbidden not only to play deviating systems but also to play deviating styles. My p fails to preempt in first seat. Nevertheless he makes an overcall in the 2nd round. I can now picture a hand that would bid like that in my partner's style. Opps don't know my p's style as well as I do, even if I do my best to disclose.

May I suggest either of these two solutions:
- Indys with anonymous partners as in the money bridge tourneys. I can have no prior knowledge about my p's style.
- The boards come pre-bid (by a computer, or a single bridge teacher) and the players only have to play them. Oh no this doesn't solve the problem at all, since we will still have discussions about what carding methods should be allowed. A pair playing plains standard carding yet having exotic ideas about when the honest card would be too expensive, should probably be banned.

Sarcasm mode off: I can sympatize with the desire to protect beginners against the need of learning generic BSC defense. I understand that there can be discussion about where to draw the line (Gladiator in response to mini-NT, anyone?). I doubt that it's feasible to regulate all this without creating more problems than are solved but I might be wrong.

What I cannot sympathize with is xenofobia. It is unacceptable that a method gets banned merely because it is non-standard.

[foo]

jtfanclub, on Jun 29 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

I don't think anybody plays opening 1NT with 5431/4441 (which are about as notrumpy as 5422 and 6322) because it's difficult to defend against, nor because it confuses people. 

Neither are systems like playing Drury over 1 diamond.  These are all logical extensions that fit nicely in SAYC. 

Meanwhile, systems like Bergen raises and Forcing NT were allowed not because they didn't confuse the hell out of the populace when they first became GCC, but because some experts wanted to play it with their clients.  The idea that American (but not English, Dutch, Austrailian, or most other countries) need to be 'protected' from stuff that's easy to play and understand is what causes the problem in the first place. 

And nobody plays anything in order to randomize anything.  Sorry.

1= I believe we have mathematical evidence that 5431's and 4441's are not "about as notrumpy as 5422's and 6322's":
Shape NT Suit Difference
4333 6.15 7.76 1.61
4432 6.10 8.07 1.97
5332 6.07 8.13 2.06
5422 6.01 8.40 2.39

6322 6.00 8.50 2.50
4441 6.09 8.61 2.52
5431 6.03 8.68 2.65
6331 6.03 8.77 2.74
5521 5.94 9.03 3.09

2= Opening 1N w/ most 5422's would be considered abberant (there are 3 that are semi-commonly: =2245, =2425, =2452 of the right texture.). Opening NT with the vast majority of 6322's would be considered highly abberant (6m322 w/o any honors in the 6 card suit is the unlikely hand type most likely to open in NT).
Unless playing the NT opening as a preempt rather than as a constructive game probe.

3= What is "Drury over 1 diamond"? I will tell you that Barry Crane tried to get Drury over 1 Major allowed in all seats and the regulating authorities turned him down flat because it was felt to offer too many opportunities to be used as a psychic control.

4= Bergen Raises were not invented by Marty Bergen. They or things very similar had been kicking around various local areas in NA for quite some time before Marty gave one specific version a serious publicity boost.
They involve Limit Bids in a Known Suit with a known degree of fit. In short, they are easy to understand and in theory easy to defend against.

5= The Forcing NT is a necessary component of any 2/1 GF system. 2/1 GF simplifies the average player's constructive bidding chores substantially. While I'm sure Al Roth, Edgar Kaplan, etc of the 2/1 GF crowd had some pull, the reality is that overall 2/1 GF makes it easier for most players to a greater degree than the Forcing NT complicates things.

6= In NA, the most usual 2♦ opening is a Weak Two. Anything else is considered alertable. In GB and many parts of Europe, the most usual 2♦ opening is The Multi. ...and a "natural" Weak 2♦ is alertable in many places.
A 2N overcall that shows Invitational values in NT is "natural", yet it is not the "usual Unusual NT" and therefore has to be announced or alerted in most jurisdictions!
Bottom line: familiarity matters; and =all= SO's put some effort into protecting their paying customers from the alien.

7= Plenty of people play things to take advantage of unfamiliarity or to randomize things. Marty Bergen did it in the 1980's with his preempt style for instance. Caused quite the uproar in official circles.

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jun 29 2007, 09:29 AM, said:

Quote

If the sole or even main reason you are using method "x" is because you think you will get better results due to the opponents unfamiliarity with it or due to the randomizing effect of it, then at the least you are not being very sportsmanlike. At the worst you are being unethical.

Do you know anyone who fits this description?

This sounds like a malicious slur to me.
Peter

Yes.

In some cases, the situation was extreme enough that the players involved got jusitifiably in trouble with the officials.

That these players did these things and that they were deemed unacceptable behavior by the officials is a statement of fact, and therefore neither malicious nor a slur.

...and I shall avoid names to further avoid being malicious or making a slur

[mycroft]

...and why would anyone play 1S=13 cards in opposition to a Precision Club if not to randomize the results? I know none of *you* do, but the ACBL has had to ban it "explicitly" (i.e. it's the poster child for "purely destructive methods").

There are those who play unfamiliar methods because the unfamiliarity gains them an advantage. I've been accused of it a number of times (although most realize that I play the "weird system of the day" because I like playing weird systems, not because of a competitive advantage, especially at the club). I will admit, the unfamiliarity of EHAA in a 2-board round matchpoint pairs game will gain me something, but that's not why I play it - I play it because it's fun, it's very aggressive, and seriously improves my judgement when I bid "normally" (because I don't have all my systemic crutches). And also because I have the special, one-sided convention "Always pass as dealer"; playing EHAA means the times I pass 5 of 8 hands I deal is lessened (though not eliminated!)

As far as I am concerned, you can tell the difference by the weird pair's attitude toward full disclosure. If their 1D response to Precision 1C is "waiting", or their multi-meaning 1C is described as "12-21, doesn't promise any clubs", or the EHAA 2D opener is described as "weak", they're trying to take advantage (or they need a good education. If they do it after the education...)

But frankly, there's your fair share of standard and 2/1 players who believe that the proper response to questions is the minimum they can get away with, as well.

Michael.

[jtfanclub]

Um, did you look at it?

The difference between 4333 and 4432 is .36
The difference between 5422 and 5431 is .26, with 4441 and 6322 between these two.

Yeah, I'd say that's about the same. Unless you think that 4432 is too suit oriented to play in no-trump.

Quote

Unless playing the NT opening as a preempt rather than as a constructive game probe.

*sigh*

Quote

3= What is "Drury over 1 diamond"?

Just what it sounds like- 2 clubs over 1 diamond as 3+ diamonds, 10+ hcp. Partner rebids 2 diamonds (to play) with a subminimum opener (which will always include diamond length), bids something else if he had a full opener.

Quote

I will tell you that Barry Crane tried to get Drury over 1 Major allowed in all seats and the regulating authorities turned him down flat becuase it was felt to offer too many opportunities to be used as a psychic control.

There's good logic. Maybe we should ban help suit game tries.

Quote

They involve Limit Bids in a Known Suit with a known degree of fit.  In short, they are easy to understand and in theory easy to defend against.

So is opening 1NT with a possible singleton, so is Drury in all seats, so is everything else in this thread. If the restrictions were based on understanding and defense, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If you've never heard of Bergen raises, and the bidding goes (1♥)-P-(3♣) to you, it's impossible to defend against. What does X show? Clubs? General Takeout? Is it a full opener, or lead directing? You have to discuss your defense to it, in order to be able to defend well against it, and it was a Completely Unknown Complex System by SoTired's definition (it modifies all other responses). So it never should have been allowed, if you guys were consistent.

Quote

7= Plenty of people play things to take advantage of unfamiliarity or to randomize things.  Marty Bergen did it in the 1980's with his preempt style for instance.  Caused quite the uproar in official circles.

Unfamiliarity? Sure. Randomness?! You really think Marty Bergen, of all people added something in hopes of getting a random result? That's nonsense.