[foo]

david_c, on Jun 29 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

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.

Any system based primarily on the opinions of private individuals is more susceptible to abuse than a system based on publicly posted axioms and logic that is subject to member review.

The present unfortunate situation with regards to convention regulation in the ACBL is evidently proof of this.

If the system is provably subject to being "gamed", IMHO the proper course is to improve the overall system so it is less so, rather than just cleaning up the symptoms in one SO and then counting on every other SO to be of greater virtue for all eternity such that they never have the same problem.

Let's clean up the symptoms +and+ make it less easy for the same problems to occur in the future.

[foo]

Banning Drury in all seats was indeed a =very= good idea.

If I can play Drury in all seats, I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of the time We sit before your strong hand, you will not be able to open.

Give me a 4cM, in a hand of any strength, and I can open 1M w/o fear in many situations because Drury allows Us to differentiate sub-minimums and psyches from real openings.

Under such circumstances, the opposing side's constructive auction is often going to have to start at the 2 level and often a round later. Good luck to their bidding accuracy.

(For =real= "fun" We'll combine Drury in All Seats with 1N=10-13. Bye bye the vast majority of constructive auctions by the opponents unless they Deal.)

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

Banning Drury in all seats was indeed a =very= good idea.

If I can play Drury in all seats, I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of the time We sit before your strong hand, you will not be able to open.

Give me a 4cM, in a hand of any strength, and I can open 1M w/o fear in many situations because Drury allows Us to differentiate sub-minimums and psyches from real openings.

Under such circumstances, the opposing side's constructive auction is often going to have to start at the 2 level and often a round later. Good luck to their bidding accuracy.

(For =real= "fun" We'll combine Drury in All Seats with 1N=10-13. Bye bye the vast majority of constructive auctions by the opponents unless they Deal.)

Drury only appears to have been banned -- it really has not. I have actually "played" drury in all seats. It is easy to see how.

Suppose, for instance, that Opener must rebid his suit with a minumum. So, after 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♠, Opener has shown a minimum. Is Responder forced to bid? Of course not.

What is the minimum for a GCC opening? 8 HCP.

What is the minimum length for a 2/1? Natural means three. You can tactically lie.

So, if you have an agreement like this, can you not bid 2♣ with a tweener hand, checking to see if Opener is light (he will rebid his suit), passing if he does? Can't you even do that with "problem" big constructives with a fit?

Of course. The only difference is that Drury says nothing about the club suit. So, you use 2♣ and 2♦ as "Drury," in effect, and thereby have that tool available. Simple.

This, of course, illustrates the nonsense of the GCC rule.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

Banning Drury in all seats was indeed a =very= good idea.

If I can play Drury in all seats, I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of the time We sit before your strong hand, you will not be able to open.

Give me a 4cM, in a hand of any strength, and I can open 1M w/o fear in many situations because Drury allows Us to differentiate sub-minimums and psyches from real openings.

Under such circumstances, the opposing side's constructive auction is often going to have to start at the 2 level and often a round later. Good luck to their bidding accuracy.

(For =real= "fun" We'll combine Drury in All Seats with 1N=10-13. Bye bye the vast majority of constructive auctions by the opponents unless they Deal.)

I love the way that both this thread and the one on Light Opening and 2/1 GF force have degenerated in Foo whining that his methods are unsound and therefore deserve protection against all those bad people who open light....

This was particularly amusing in the case of the 2/1 thread where Foo started out lecturing us all on the virtues of sound of opening bids and making claims that opening light was technically flawed. By the end of the thread, he had completely reversed his position and started explaining how light openings needed to be crippled so he could enjoy the full benefits of his superior methods.

What a load of *****...

[foo]

Quote

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.

..and w/o a pre-published defense that restores equity, Bergen Raises should not be allowed IMHO. OTOH, defending against something where I know exactly how many cards in a suit to assume between the two hands and what the values are around the table is a darn sight easier than most of the other stuff that has regulating authorities concerned.

To answer your specific questions, if I had to decide "on the fly" w/o further opportunity for thought, I'd be thinking along these lines:
1= This sequence shows a 9 card fit and a Limit Raise by Responder.
Therefore any bidding by Us is most likely to sacrifice or direct the defense, not constructive.

2= Therefore, (1M)-pa-(3♣)-?? is a very dangeroous auction to dive into.
X here should suggest a lead and a suit that would not mind taking the sac if pd has a suitable hand.

...now I =do= have the advantage of "knowing the right answers", but I still think any advanced+ player could figure the above out faster than it could be typed.
Even if not optimal (The above isn't. On purpose. I wanted to demonstrate figuring out a defense on the fly.), this is a reasonable defense to this Bergen sequence.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

I love the way that both this thread and the one on Light Opening and 2/1 GF force have degenerated in Foo whining that his methods are unsound and therefore deserve protection against all those bad people who open light....

This was particularly amusing in the case of the 2/1 thread where Foo started out lecturing us all on the virtues of sound of opening bids and making claims that opening light was technically flawed.  By the end of the thread, he had completely reversed his position and started explaining how light openings needed to be crippled so he could enjoy the full benefits of his superior methods.

What a load of *****...

What =are= you talking about? And why do you feel it necessary to curse while doing it?

Within the context of 2/1 GF, one's opening bids have to be reasonably limited or bidding accuracy suffers. That was the POV I gave and that you agreed with.

Since the GF 2/1 has a minimum "floor", that puts a minimum reasonable "floor" on 1bids within 2/1 GF unless you want serious bidding problems.

I never changed my position, and I =certainly= never claimed I needed some sort of special protection against a 2/1 GF pair opening 1 with very wide ranging hands.
Their punishment is in their methods.

I have no idea where you drew the conclusions quoted above. They certainly are not representative of any statements I made in that thread.

[kenrexford]

This "pre-published defense" stuff that keeps coming up is complete nonesense to me. I understand that I must explain my methods to the opponents. I also understand that perhaps my methods must be known well in advance for some purposes or in some events. However, I do not understand why I must give to the opponents the benefit of my own ability to understand theory just because they are lazy.

Take, for instance, the ACBL concerns about Mid-Chart stuff. You must create a pre-approved defense that is published. Why? If the bid and meaning is published, then anyone interested in actually learning a defense to the bid can sit down and figure one out. Why are they entitled to my thoughts on this?

Furthermore, it seems silly anyway. If I want to play the Bizarro Convention, I must have a suggested defense. So, I figure out the least effective defense that will sneak past the reviewers. Which brings up another point. If my opponent plays the Bizarro Convention, I get to sit back and have the defense he creates (gain from his theory skills), plus I get a panel to review his thoughts and approve or disapprove them.

Why not do that with carding? I like that idea. We allow Jim and Bob to use encrypted signals. At trick four, an encrypted signal is used by Bob. So, we ask Jim for a suggestion as to how I play the hand now that I have this information. Jim suggests that I go for the diamond-club squeeze. So, I conslut three directors. They look over the hand and consider the recommendation of a diamond-club squeeze. If that line looks good, I go for it. If the three-drector panel has some doubts about this squeeze working, they refer it back to Jim. Jim now ponders some more and suggests the heart-club squeeze instead. The panel agrees. So, I try that line. It works! I was definitely protected from that encrypted signal.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

Drury only appears to have been banned -- it really has not. I have actually "played" drury in all seats. It is easy to see how.

Suppose, for instance, that Opener must rebid his suit with a minumum. So, after 1♠-P-2♣-P-2♠, Opener has shown a minimum. Is Responder forced to bid? Of course not.

What is the minimum for a GCC opening? 8 HCP.

What is the minimum length for a 2/1? Natural means three. You can tactically lie.

So, if you have an agreement like this, can you not bid 2♣ with a tweener hand, checking to see if Opener is light (he will rebid his suit), passing if he does? Can't you even do that with "problem" big constructives with a fit?

Of course. The only difference is that Drury says nothing about the club suit. So, you use 2♣ and 2♦ as "Drury," in effect, and thereby have that tool available. Simple.

This, of course, illustrates the nonsense of the GCC rule.

As usual, this is quite clever Ken

However,
1= Any 2/1 by an unpassed hand that does not promise a rebid is non-standard enough that I think you are going to come under official scrutiny.

2= The 8 HCP GCC floor is rather higher than one would like if one wants to freely psyche tactically.

3= While this comes close to offering the benefits of Drury, you still have make a bid that says something about the minor bid. Which means you give up such useful things as being able to clarify the degree of support you have. Which means either You gamble more often or this sequence comes up less often.
Either way, it's less effective than actually playing 2way Reverse Drury.

I'm not sure you've made a convincing presentation of your case counselor.

[jtfanclub]

mycroft, on Jun 29 2007, 10:59 AM, said:

...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").

1♠=13 cards isn't random at all. It's based on the Scramble premise- that with 17 or fewer HCP, anything (even without a fit) at the 1 level undoubled is a good result.

Scramble doesn't give you random results, it gives you very good ones. It simply starts with a 'random' bid, the same way a 2 club opener is a 'random strong' bid.

*MY* problem with the 1 spade bid is that it almost never actually promises only 13 cards. The other calls, such as pass and 1 diamond, actually have a use. If 1 spade was accurately described (usually 0-11 and balanced or 3 suited), I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 07:54 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

I love the way that both this thread and the one on Light Opening and 2/1 GF force have degenerated in Foo whining that his methods are unsound and therefore deserve protection against all those bad people who open light....

This was particularly amusing in the case of the 2/1 thread where Foo started out lecturing us all on the virtues of sound of opening bids and making claims that opening light was technically flawed.  By the end of the thread, he had completely reversed his position and started explaining how light openings needed to be crippled so he could enjoy the full benefits of his superior methods.

What a load of *****...

What =are= you talking about? And why do you feel it necessary to curse while doing it?

Within the context of 2/1 GF, one's opening bids have to be reasonably limited or bidding accuracy suffers. That was the POV I gave and that you agreed with.

Since the GF 2/1 has a minimum "floor", that puts a minimum reasonable "floor" on 1bids within 2/1 GF unless you want serious bidding problems.

I never changed my position, and I =certainly= never claimed I needed some sort of special protection against a 2/1 GF pair opening 1 with very wide ranging hands.
Their punishment is in their methods.

I have no idea where you drew the conclusions quoted above. They certainly are not representative of any statements I made in that thread.

Comment 1: Cursing is a mechanism to emphasize strong feelings. It normally means that you are acting more stupid than usual.

Comment 2: I agree with you that Light / Wide ranging openings are difficult to handle. I feel that many of the problems associated with this style are acerbated by using a response structure based on 2/1 game forcing responses.

Comment 3: You have made a number statements that suggest that you disapprove of light openings in general. For example, we have the following quotes:

Quote

4= Sometimes Our best chance for a good score is to *gasp!* Defend! What a shock! If We are disciplined, We give Them as little information as possible and occasionally We even get to *shock!* =X= Them.

Quote

Lot's of reasons:

1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them.

2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot.

3= 5m needs more tricks. Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N.

4= When We don't play the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD.

Quote

If We open real trash, We =will= get X'd more frequently and more successfully. Or help Declarer. Or end in the wrong level. Or end up taking more phantom saves. etc.

These are all critiques of a light opening style, NOT light openings in the context of the 2/1 game force system.

However, by the end of the thread you are stating the following:

Quote

I'm firmly with Arclight on this. IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.

Just in case anyone has forgotten, Arclight's central thesis was the following

Quote

>Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that
>are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range.

Good.

I don't enjoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play.

Simply put, at one point in the thread you are claiming that your sound opening style is technically superior. Later in the thread, you are claiming that your sound opening needs to be protected against light opening methods.

There seems to be a contradiction.

[foo]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

This "pre-published defense" stuff that keeps coming up is complete nonesense to me.  I understand that I must explain my methods to the opponents.  I also understand that perhaps my methods must be known well in advance for some purposes or in some events.  However, I do not understand why I must give to the opponents the benefit of my own ability to understand theory just because they are lazy.

Take, for instance, the ACBL concerns about Mid-Chart stuff.  You must create a pre-approved defense that is published.  Why?  If the bid and meaning is published, then anyone interested in actually learning a defense to the bid can sit down and figure one out.  Why are they entitled to my thoughts on this?

Furthermore, it seems silly anyway.  If I want to play the Bizarro Convention, I must have a suggested defense.  So, I figure out the least effective defense that will sneak past the reviewers.  Which brings up another point.  If my opponent plays the Bizarro Convention, I get to sit back and have the defense he creates (gain from his theory skills), plus I get a panel to review his thoughts and approve or disapprove them.

1= The vast majority of players do not have the time, money, or expertise like Eric Kokish on staff to figure out how to defend against various bidding treatments.
Without reviewed and published defenses, there would be =less= bidding innovation since the only way to prtotect the equity of the average player would be to out and out ban new and unusual bidding treatments.
(...or people would start quitting Organized Bridge in droves. Those that were left would be those that do not mind such a situation. What's that? 1% of the membership? 10%? Surely not enough to keep Organized Bridge alive.)

2= Presumably, the panel is there to make sure that any and all alllowed methods present challenges while still being equitable. Thus you are not supposed to get approval to play Bizarro w/o there being a known and adequate defense against it designed beforehand. ...and of course, the panel is responsible for seeing that you =do= provide an adequate defense vs Bizarro rather than "sneaking the least effective defense possible through".
However, as others have rightly noted, there is evidence that at least within the ACBL this process has broken; causing other problems.

[blackshoe]

SoTired, on Jun 29 2007, 09:19 AM, 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.

If you're talking about opening 1NT with any singleton, that's one thing. I thought we were talking about opening 1NT with a 4441, or maybe just possibly 5431. That's a different thing.

In my preferred methods, we might treat a 4441 with a stiff ace or king as balanced. If we do, our response and rebid structure also treats it as balanced. IOW, nothing after the 1NT is likely to be unfamiliar to duplicate players, except those to whom everything is unfamiliar. If you want to call that a completely unknown complex system, you go right ahead.

[foo]

Quote

Comment 1:  Cursing is a mechanism to emphasize strong feelings.  It normally means that you are acting more stupid than usual.

Implied apology accepted. Please just try to avoid "acting more stupid than usual" in this fashion a bit more in the future? As Fred says, this =is= a teaching site and Bridge doesn't come off looking very good when the most frequent posters and givers of advice resort to cursing...

Quote

Comment 3:  You have made a number statements that suggest that you disapprove of light openings in general.  For example, we have the following quotes:

<snip>

These are all critiques of a light opening style, NOT light openings in the context of the 2/1 game force system.

Since those quotes all occured within the context of a thread on light openings within a 2/1 GF system context, that's a generalization =you've= made.

TBF, I =do= believe that there are reasonable requirements for opening the bidding. I also have been quite explicit that they have little to do with "light" or "sound" in terms of HCP. Does that make me an advocate or an opponent of either style given that I'm saying the basic premise of the discussion (HCP) is flawed?

Quote

However, by the end of the thread you are stating the following:

Quote

IMHO Bridge should be as much as possible a game of skill and logic and as little as possible a game of luck and random circumstance. Some methods introduce such a large random component to the game that it is effectively no longer Bridge because bridge skills and logic are no longer the primary determining factor of who wins.

Just in case anyone has forgotten, Arclight's central thesis was the following

Quote

I don't enjoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play.

Simply put, at one point in the thread you are claiming that your sound opening style is technically superior. Later in the thread, you are claiming that your sound opening needs to be protected against light opening methods.

Ummm, no. I said that agreed with Arclight's stance vs =destructive= and random bidding methods. And I never claimed it was for =my= sake.

I never claimed any need for "protection" against anything. My opponents can play whatever they want as long as they Fully Disclose and I have the opportunity to compete equitably. However, most players are not going to be as comfortable with as many situations as I am. The average player who makes up the bulk of the membership and the revenue is who I'm trying to protect.

OTOH, if you are saying that your definition of "light" is equivalent to the definition of Destructive or random...

Quote

There seems to be a contradiction.

Yes. You've drawn some specious conclusions based a fallacious reasoning on your part.

[pbleighton]

Quote

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.

I hesitate to even respond.

But I will

You obviously are incapable of recognizing sarcasm when you read it.

Too bad

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

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

So you can't back it up.

Peter

[foo]

pbleighton, on Jun 29 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

Quote

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

So you can't back it up.

Peter

Yes, I can back it up. I will not in a public forum. Nor will I do it simply to satisfy your curiousity. The parties in question were punished and that's supposed to be the end of it.

If you are an official that the likes of Rick Bye and David Stephenson will recognize as having a germane and/or professional reason for wanting details as to various Conduct & Ethics decisions, send a PM to me and I'll talk to them about how much in the way of further details would be appropriate to go into in =private= conversation with you.

Tossing people's names about in public and in a unflattering light, no matter how true, =would= be malicious. ("slur" would require said statements to be lies.)

Such public approbation is reserved within bridge for "capital" crimes on the order of being banned from play for systemic cheating. Less serious violations of ethics or law are considered best dealt with quietly. There are reasons for such restraint. IMHO they are fair and just reasons.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

OTOH, if you are saying that your definition of "light" is equivalent to the definition of Destructive or random...

As you are no doubt aware, I claim that expressions like "Destructive" and "Random" are useless. They are too imprecise to be used in drafting regulations.

They (essentially) mean "Whatever I don't like"

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2007, 01:46 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 29 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

OTOH, if you are saying that your definition of "light" is equivalent to the definition of Destructive or random...

As you are no doubt aware, I claim that expressions like "Destructive" and "Random" are useless. They are too imprecise to be used in drafting regulations.

They (essentially) mean "Whatever I don't like"

Actually, I was not aware of this POV on your part.

Interesting. My POV is that we do need precise language for dealing with legal and regulatory situations. If we do not yet have such "jargon", it should be developed post-haste.

OTOH, If we do have precise terms and they are being twisted or misused, that's a different issue.

I'd be curious to hear more about why you believe "Destructive" and "Random" as used in an official Bridge Laws and Regulations sense are ill-defined or too loosely defined. Again, I'd consider that to be an independent issue vs. those terms being misused or abused (or ignored).

[SoTired]

Deleted

This post has been edited by SoTired: 2007-June-29, 13:40

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2007, 01:46 PM, said:

As you are no doubt aware, I claim that expressions like "Destructive" and "Random" are useless.  They are too imprecise to be used in drafting regulations.

They (essentially) mean "Whatever I don't like"

Speaking of which, I was trying to think of what bid/system truly makes for the most random results.

I settled on Gambling 3NT. In an MPs game, it's almost never going to be flat with the rest of the field. Not only is it less revealing, and more likely to be in the wrong place, than the 1 of a minor openers, but it 'wrong-sides' the contract, playing it from the opposite side of where most people will be playing 3NT. The end result, compared to the slow bidders, seems to me to be completely random.

My definition of 'destructive' is a bid designed to interfere with the opponent's auction while revealing next to nothing about your hand, generally in the hopes of taking up bidding space rather than of taking the contract.

The opposite of destructive is constructive, a bid designed to reveal as much of your hand as possible in order to allow your side to take and place the contract.

So, for example, fert 1 spade over Precision 1 club is destructive. A 2NT overcall showning the minors is not destructive, because you expect to play the contract.

Oddly enough, I feel the 2♦ multi (EDIT: a better example is the 2♦ unknown 1 suiter) is destructive if partner is expected to pass without game interest across the weak possibilities, but constructive if there's a pass-or-correct. No solid line here, I'm afraid.