[hrothgar]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library.  It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago".  Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is.  He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable. Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

Matula's book on Polish club was translated into English and Copyrighted in 1994. My understanding is that the Polish version is a few years older.

I put a post out on rec.games.bridge to double check the precise age.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

EDIT: Found Matula's _The Polish Club_ in my library.  It was written in 1994, not "30+ years ago".  Nor does Matula give any precise idea as to how old The Wilcosz 2♦ is.  He certainly does not use any terms like or akin to "old and hoary"!

The Wilkosz 2♦ seems to have had the traditional Weak Two range of ~7-11 or ~5-10 at Favorable. Matula spends an entire chapter on it.

Matula's book on Polish club was translated into English and Copyrighted in 1994. My understanding is that the Polish version is a few years older.

I put a post out on rec.games.bridge to double check the precise age.

Thank you.

[foo]

Back to the main point of this thread.

What is the feeling regarding using "statistical equivalence" to existing methods as a yard stick for accepting new methods?

So for instance we submit a new multi-suit 2level preempt that has provably the ~ same odds of Assumed Fit and of finding a makable contract as a traditional single suited Weak Two.

As I previously stated, this =is= a conservative stance. But it is one that would make it very hard to refuse acceptance of a new method since it is provably just as Constructive as an already accepted method.

[the hog]

I have a copy of a 1975 Australian Bridge which discusses Tartan Two Bids. Among various strong options, Tartan Twos also include 2 suited opening bids. They are a Hugh Kelsey invention and were in vogue well before 1975 in Scotland. This seems to back up Richard's argument.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Jul 4 2007, 12:07 AM, said:

I have a copy of a 1975 Australian Bridge which discusses Tartan Two Bids. Among various strong options, Tartan Twos also include 2 suited opening bids. They are a Hugh Kelsey invention and were in vogue well before 1975 in Scotland. This seems to back up Richard's argument.

I thought Tartan Twos were -not- preempts?

[the hog]

They have pre emptive as well as strong options.

[helene_t]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

What is the feeling regarding using "statistical equivalence" to existing methods as a yard stick for accepting new methods?

So for instance we submit a new multi-suit 2level preempt that has provably the ~ same odds of Assumed Fit and of finding a makable contract as a traditional single suited Weak Two.

As I previously stated, this =is= a conservative stance. But it is one that would make it very hard to refuse acceptance of a new method since it is provably just as Constructive as an already accepted method.

So 5-card preempts would not be allowed since they are less "constructive" than 6-card preempts. Would Fantunes 2-openings be allowed? I'm sure one could parametrize the criteria and the Fantunes system such that they would not be allowed in 1st seat but may or may not be allowed in second seat depending on opps' opening style. Or they may or may not be allowed depending on responders ability to judge which partscores has the best chances, or depending on the influence the opening exerts on opps' choice of opening lead.

I can't get excited about technical criteria for allowing methods unless the target is clear: we first need to discuss what we want to achieve.

After all, it's easy to make up some enforceable criteria. "The promised number of hearts plus the promised HCP must be a Fibinacci number" or some such. That's not very interesting. What is interesting is
- what consequences would a candidate criterion have? This is complex since it depends on a bunch
of local setting parameters, such as local TDs' interpretation of the criterion, and players' creativity in
terms of inventing workarounds.
- Are those criteria desirable? Depending on the projected consequences this can be anything from
obvious to a matter of taste.

[foo]

Helene,

What I think awm started this thread to achieve, and what I know I've wanted to see for some time, is an attempt to make an objective and fair system for deciding on what new methods to allow.

The present situation, evidently especially within the ACBL, seems fraught with subjective criteria and decisions that many feel were not based on Bridge merits but rather on less savory factors.

So the questions are "Can we do better?" and if so, "What does 'do better' look like?"

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Jul 4 2007, 12:13 AM, said:

I can't get excited about technical criteria for allowing methods unless the target is clear: we first need to discuss what we want to achieve.

I think one of Adam's goals is pretty clear and highly desirable: that the fact whether a method is allowed doesn't depend on the way you present it, allowing for some ugly lawyering as shown by one of the BBF lawyers (not mikeh): "We don't play Muiderberg, that would be disallowed, but we play 5-card weak twos, the bid shows an unbalanced hand, and of course we don't open 2M with four cards in the other major."

[rbforster]

Richard, in your 2005 Bermuda search, where did you put 2♥ multi? I thought I recall it being popular at Bermuda events, but it's not quite the same as a single suiter in the bid suit.

[DrTodd13]

Adam seems to want a consistent and logical system. The problem is that the people writing the rules don't care about consistency.

[Free]

pbleighton, on Jul 4 2007, 12:34 AM, said:

I happen to play a system which is very close to F-N. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

They will open 2S on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. THis IS *supremely undisciplined*. I understand why they do this, as I do the same thing: combine this with a weak/mini NT, and you get very sound one bids. The two bids work, though, as long as you have the stomach for lots of anti-field results.

Peter

A bit late in this discussion tnx to an entertaining discussion about 2-suited preempts. Fantunes do NOT open 2♠ on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. They open 1♠ when they have both Majors... However, the point is still valid for hands like Jxxxx-x-Kxxx-AKQ

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Jul 4 2007, 04:53 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 05:46 AM, said:

Actually, you've just supported my POV beautifully.

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.
That's all I said.

Also, I agree with your rememberance of history.

Read what you wrote idiot

You stated that multi suited openings are relatively new. In fact, they date back 50+ years. (BTW, as I recall, Little Major also used a 2M opening that showed a two suited pattern)

You stated that single suited preempts were the norm everywhere. They weren't. Two suited methods were in common use in Poland more than 30 years ago.

I started playing Multi around 1980, probably -81. The convention was in commom use in Norway around 1985. 2-suited preempts like Muiderberg (that name was unknown here) was also common at that time. In the early 90's I used some 2-way preempts too.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Jul 4 2007, 10:22 AM, said:

Richard, in your 2005 Bermuda search, where did you put 2♥ multi? I thought I recall it being popular at Bermuda events, but it's not quite the same as a single suiter in the bid suit.

2♥ multi was listed under artificial.

(I only saw one pair playing it though. I think it was one of the Swedish pairs)

[helene_t]

What about this one:
Everything is allowed but adopting a system for the main purpose of stealing candy from children who don't know what a double on a 3+ canape bid, or a pass-or-convert bid, means, is considered poor sportsmanship
The problem with that one is not so much that some won't care if they are considered good sportsmen or not, but more that players may have different ideas about who the "children" are, and what it means to "steal candy". (If Major Flash is just inherently difficult to defend, rather than requiring specific agreements for the defense, it may not count). Maybe the biggest problem is that if Todd and Atul choose to play Dejeuner for whatever (maybe entirely constructive) reason, they expose themselves to claims from others that they have "ulterior" motives.

Still I tend to see the above as the best we have. I might be wrong. It's possible that players are actually happyer in a restrictive jurisdiction than in a permissive one, or that they could be happier if only someone invented some rational and logical restrictions.

Case in point: The Jansma dbl. An occasional double on 4N (Blackwood or whatever) if you think you can beat it. Hoping that opps don't remember what RoPi-like answers they agreed on. Is it good sportmanship to use that kind of strategies against novices? I'm not sure where to draw the line but if a pair designed their entire system based on that kind of strategies and played it against novices they would not have my sympathy (unless of course confined to a setting where that kind of strategies are the norm, and the newbies accepted that when they joined the club).

But my point is that I don't really believe in formal rules to restrict such strategies.

[foo]

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now.

1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

[helene_t]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now.

1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

The answer is clear to me: we can't agree. At least I can't agree with myself, much less with anyone else. Also, I don't think you will ever agree with, say, The_hog.

Case closed. Over to question 2.

[foo]

DrTodd13, on Jul 4 2007, 02:28 AM, said:

Adam seems to want a consistent and logical system.  The problem is that the people writing the rules don't care about consistency.

Actually, I think that may be unfair to the vast majority of regulating officials.
IMHO, most of them try very hard to do the right thing as they see it for their membership. And they do it as unpaid volunteers.

The problem with any evolutionary system rather than a designed system is that there usually exist internal contradictions. Over time, in fields like Law we deal with them by having the courts decide which precedent holds more weight under certain circumstances.

Unfortunately, within Bridge we do not have a regulatory system with such a built-in ability to evolve or resolve conflicts.

Thus our only option is to live with the contradictions and/or poor process unless or until the pressure gets too great so that a new system gets put in place.

[foo]

helene_t, on Jul 4 2007, 07:05 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

I think that if we want to make any significant progess on this issue, we are endplayed into ignoring issues of "sportsmanship" for now.

1st let's see if we can agree on objective and objectively fair criteria for allowing or disallowing methods.

The answer is clear to me: we can't agree. At least I can't agree with myself, much less with anyone else. Also, I don't think you will ever agree with, say, The_hog.

Case closed. Over to question 2.

I'm not so pessimistic.

For the most part I don't think my POV and The_Hog's are that far apart.

The only people I'm not going to ever see eye-to-eye with are those that feel there should not be any regulations.

That doesn't work in any other game or sport. Therefore I see no reason to accept that Bridge can get away with no regulations.

Every sport or game has rules and regs about how one can play and what equipment one is allowed to use. For Bridge, IMHO bidding methods are a class of "equipment". We even commonly call them "tools".

[foo]

skaeran, on Jul 4 2007, 04:43 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 05:46 AM, said:

Bridge is ~80 years old.  Multi-suited preempts are considerably younger than that.
That's all I said.

I started playing Multi around 1980, probably -81. The convention was in commom use in Norway around 1985. 2-suited preempts like Muiderberg (that name was unknown here) was also common at that time. In the early 90's I used some 2-way preempts too.

yeah, that pretty much jibs with my memories as well.

As I quoted above, all I claimed was that multi-suited preempts are relatively new compared to the 80+ year history of bridge.

For some reason, that rather mild statement has or had hrothgar quite upset.
*shrug*

I'd think he of all people would be glad to see evidence that bidding methods are continuing to evolve.