[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Feb 9 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

3. People who should not be playing up play up so that they can get enough masterpoints, so long as they have a safety net to make sure that, when they get creamed, they get enough compensatory masterpoints.

My experience is completely the opposite. The people who play up are the ones who don't care at all about masterpoints and do it for the competition. The people who want masterpoints are the ones who don't want to play up, because they feel they will get more if they have a good chance to win.

[mike777]

"This would be OK in long matches where you exchange system notes ahead of time"

I would think in the USA the number of matches most of us do this in is close to zero lifetime.

Of course clarity in the rules is a fine objective and the never ending debate over open systems in a few events is fun. I guess it just comes down to priorities for the ACBL.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Feb 9 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 9 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

3. People who should not be playing up play up so that they can get enough masterpoints, so long as they have a safety net to make sure that, when they get creamed, they get enough compensatory masterpoints.

My experience is completely the opposite. The people who play up are the ones who don't care at all about masterpoints and do it for the competition. The people who want masterpoints are the ones who don't want to play up, because they feel they will get more if they have a good chance to win.

I think I failed to make my point clear.

When you play up in a way that costs you, true. But, a stratified game is a way to "play up" while still playing where you belong. That's the source of many problems.

[benlessard]

I think that whatever the authorities choose they should try their very best to say clearly what is allowed and what isnt allowed there is just too much grey area right now.

My very basic view on this is to be very permissive in the open highest bracket KO and to be very selective in the others brackets, some complex systems just shouldnt be played in the sunday swiss or in the non-top brackets. Remember the majority are there for the fun of it (that doesnt make them weaker players or less competive in any way)

To be liberal when it comes to home-made written defense (less bureaucracy for written defense) but with a possible Imps penalty if the defense may prove innapropriate on a board. So that the directors job is simply to wait for a director call and check if the suggested defense make any sense.

I don't mind playing a non-optimum written defense facing a completly wild convention or system as long as i have some protection if the defense may prove to be inneficient.

And the bridge federations should have a registry on there website for home-made convention & defenses against these convention, a kind of wiki for bridge conventions. If some day we want to play/play against multi or more destructive stuff then there should at least be official defense on the bridge federation website.

[mike777]

As I said full disclosure even by WC players seem to be an issue.

I just played a TM where two self rated WC players alerted 50% of their relay system,...or whatever it was. They had no CC.

I read articles where this is common in f2f, even at top levels, let alone self rated levels.

I guess if I only played games where I got system notes weeks in advance, I paid for a coach, and plenty of time....this would be no problem.

[matmat]

mike777, on Feb 10 2008, 05:37 AM, said:

I just played a TM where two self rated WC players alerted 50% of their relay system,...or whatever it was. They had no CC.

that's because the other half were relays, and he sort of assumed you knew what that is

[mike777]

matmat, on Feb 10 2008, 05:51 AM, said:

mike777, on Feb 10 2008, 05:37 AM, said:

I just played a TM where two self rated WC players alerted 50% of their relay system,...or whatever it was. They had no CC.

that's because the other half were relays, and he sort of assumed you knew what that is

relay to what? and what does the relay hand promise?

No I did not...but i guess i could guess and hope i was right
As i said no cc

[gwnn]

mike.......

[csdenmark]

This is not the first time, not the second time and not the last time that a tiny and atomized minority try to persuade an overwhelming majority to pay attention to them.

The majority and their elected representatives are fully legitimized to impose rules pleasing the majority and really nobody else. It is for a minority to try to join forces to be able to put pressure.

All organizations, even bridge organizations, have special sections to be able to serve all best possible.

Unfortunately it is so that those interested in re-vitalization of bridge are unable to find 2 persons to agree on anything. They are united in a rejection front but unable to come up with something constructive themselves.

Claus Sønderkøge

[DrTodd13]

As others have noted, I think there are two groups of people playing bridge. I don't think the division is between those playing for fun and those playing "seriously" because I think those playing "seriously" are also playing mostly for fun. I think the difference is about thinking. Most people learn enough to be able to play and despite having taken up an intellectual game they then don't want to learn much else. The other group is constantly trying to improve, exploring new conventions and systems and working on declarer play and defense. At first glance, a good situation would seem to have events for each type of person. Most would play in GCC events. The others could play in super-super-flight events (Forcing Pass baby!). This could be a good solution but I don't think it is stable and I think that the ACBL knows it. It is inevitable that the unrestricted events will have more prestige and be viewed as true bridge whereas the restricted events will be viewed as a shadow of real bridge. The force of pride is stronger than the unwillingness to think and so people who don't enjoy it will play in the unrestricted events because playing in the GCC event is a subtle admission of inferiority. Some will even quit given the choice between having to defend a multitude of systems or playing in events viewed as inferior.

[TimG]

csdenmark, on Feb 10 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

The majority and their elected representatives are fully legitimized to impose rules pleasing the majority and really nobody else. It is for a minority to try to join forces to be able to put pressure.

I'm sure a majority of golfers do things like adjust their fairway lies, take the occasional mulligan, and whatnot. If 1000s of these amateur golfers decided to enter the PGA's Greater Hartford Open, should the PGA change their rules to accommodate these amateur rules? (I know: the GHO isn't really "open".)

Bridge is unusual, perhaps unique, in that almost all the top events are truly open to anyone who wants to enter. So, either the rules for open competition must be "softer" to accommodate the masses, or the masses must play by the "big dog" rules. Organized bridge has taken the approach of softening the rules (in this case tight system regulation) in order to make the majority of players happy.

It seems to me that, where system regulation is concerned, the ACBL has been very conservative -- more conservative that most of the rest of the world. This conservative approach, which may have started out as a way to protect the amateurs, now effectively conditions most who come up through the ranks to favor the conservative approach because it was what they are familiar with.

[pclayton]

TimG, on Feb 10 2008, 10:29 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Feb 10 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

The majority and their elected representatives are fully legitimized to impose rules pleasing the majority and really nobody else. It is for a minority to try to join forces to be able to put pressure.

I'm sure a majority of golfers do things like adjust their fairway lies, take the occasional mulligan, and whatnot. If 1000s of these amateur golfers decided to enter the PGA's Greater Hartford Open, should the PGA change their rules to accommodate these amateur rules? (I know: the GHO isn't really "open".)

Bridge is unusual, perhaps unique, in that almost all the top events are truly open to anyone who wants to enter. So, either the rules for open competition must be "softer" to accommodate the masses, or the masses must play by the "big dog" rules. Organized bridge has taken the approach of softening the rules (in this case tight system regulation) in order to make the majority of players happy.

It seems to me that, where system regulation is concerned, the ACBL has been very conservative -- more conservative that most of the rest of the world. This conservative approach, which may have started out as a way to protect the amateurs, now effectively conditions most who come up through the ranks to favor the conservative approach because it was what they are familiar with.

There aren't two sets of golf rules, unless you mean the USGA versus the R and A. Even amateur competitions follow the USGA guidelines.

In friendly golf games, like a Saturday morning foursome, rules are sometimes waived, like mulligans, or 'winter rules', but rounds posted to determine one's handicap are supposed to be played in conformance with the rules of golf.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Feb 10 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

There aren't two sets of golf rules, unless you mean the USGA versus the R and A. Even amateur competitions follow the USGA guidelines.

In friendly golf games, like a Saturday morning foursome, rules are sometimes waived, like mulligans, or 'winter rules', but rounds posted to determine one's handicap are supposed to be played in conformance with the rules of golf.

That's sort of my point. When a golfer submits his score for handicapping or plays in the club championship, he understands that he must play to the real rules rather than his normal foursome's casual rules.

When a bridge player ventures away from the club into a regional event, they want to be able to play under the same casual club rules.

A regular club player might not want to face transfer advances of overcalls, or Multi, or any number of conventions they are unfamiliar with. The casual golfer seems to accept that "playing up" means a change in the rules, the casual bridge player does not accept the same.

Or, maybe the comparison should be to the courses on which big tournaments are held. You don't see the PGA tour on your 6100 yard municipal course, they are generally played on the best (toughest) courses around and are generally much longer. Every-so-often, there is grumbling about how long a course is, but you don't generally hear players complaining that because their home course is only 6100 yards, they shouldn't have to play a tournament on a 7200 yard course.

[Cascade]

EricK, on Feb 9 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

I am prepared to accept that the people on committees are motivated by what they believe the membership want. But there are two things which are generally true about people - they don't like change, but they cope with change much better than they think they will.

So the committees can tell themselves they are acting in the interest of the membership by protecting them from change - and the membership, for the most part, might very well agree with them. But if they did loosen up the rules (maybe only a bit at a time) the membership would, in very short order, get used to the new situation and actually enjoy it.

This is so true in my experience.

[Mbodell]

matmat, on Feb 9 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 9 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

My solution would never work.  Go back to flighted games and let systems in the big game be more complicated.  Let the big boys fend for themselves (no written defense nonsense).

This would be OK in long matches where you exchange system notes ahead of time (even in moderate length matches), but whipping out a random system in a pair game, without some semblance of how to deal with things seems excessive.

I think the point is it encourages players to have meta-agreements and slowly learn specific defenses if it becomes an issue. If convention abc is good only because it is unexpected and usual good meta-defenses don't work then either almost no one plays it (and it isn't much of an issue) or more people play it and as a result people learn defenses to the convention and now the convention isn't as good. The could be a natural ecosystem.

I'm very glad that my local ACBL club plays most games as Mid-chart and even has a weekly super-chart. (Ironically the partner I play the most standard systems with is the one with whom I play on super-chart night).

There are at least three separate issues though that are all mixed together here:

1. The ACBL chart system is, for whatever reason, very poorly specified in terms of understandability. I.e., lots of people get confused about what is or isn't allowed at the various levels.

2. The method of approving defenses combined with the slow and opaque processing of the defense approval committee make the higher charts even more restrictive than they appear to be and do it in a way that invites some to think that the defense approval committee members are pursuing an active obstructive strategy.

3. The ACBL is too conservative.

The third point is a matter of opinion (one which I share). The first two are problems that nearly everyone should be in agreement should be fixed and represent a failing of the ACBL.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on Feb 10 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

[I'm very glad that my local ACBL club plays most games as Mid-chart and even has a weekly super-chart.

I wish any of the local ACBL clubs around here would just tell me what their convention regulations are. The approach seems to be "you tell me what you want to play, and I'll tell you if I'll allow it". Although one club owner/director once told me "you can play anything you want". Later, naturally, that turned out not to be the case.

[glen]

matmat, on Feb 7 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

Pairs A and B live in the same area, play the same clubs, tournaments etc. Pair A plays one system, pair B plays another system.  Each has a well discussed partnership and know their own systems equally well.  There is nothing to differentiate the pairs in terms of ability when it comes to defence or declaring. Basically, they are equally good, with the only difference being system.   Now, suppose that the systems they play are fairly commonplace, with some special agreements for each to fine tune things.  What mean difference would you expect in their matchpoint scores over a statistically significant set of results?  How about, if one pair plays a highly artificial, very gadget filled, uber-discussed cuebidding set of methods? what sort of difference would you expect now?

I'm posting a reply here (after the ACBL kicking has finished), as there is a good quote of Benito Garozzo in another thread:

Benito Garozzo said:

In pairs competitions, you can effectively forget all about slam bidding. You need to concentrate on declarer play and defense - that is where most of the points are lost.

To answer the question in the starting post of this thread, I would expect that "gadget filled, uber-discussed cuebidding set of methods" would do significantly worse at pairs (matchpoints), for two primary reasons:
1) disclosing useful information to the opponents on the way to normal contracts
2) lack of focus "to concentrate on declarer play and defense" as many brain cells are dedicated to gadgets, cuebidding rules etc.

[awm]

A lot of people have claimed that playing complex methods somehow saps your energy and makes your declarer play/defense worse.

I'm not really convinced this is the case. When playing without a lot of agreements I find that a lot of times I get into very difficult auctions. I have to try to guess how partner will take some undiscussed bid, whether he will think it means what I want it to mean, whether what I "want it to mean" is really the logical meaning, etc. There is often some nervousness when I make a call that I really want to be forcing (but am not sure is) and partner goes into the tank... and there are ethical considerations when partner's tempo or explanation to the opponents imply that he doesn't think my calls meant what I thought they meant. All of these things sap a lot of energy!

When playing a system with a lot of agreements, sure, you have to remember the agreements. But a lot of guesswork gets transformed into memory work. For example, say partner and I have a long auction to slam. If I'm the "describer" in a relay system I don't have to think at all! Just remember what my bids mean and I'm fine. And partner's thinking mostly involves visualizing how the play will go, which means if he's declarer he's already thought through his line of play! In comparison, if our long auction was in a more standard/cooperative style system we have often each had to make several tough judgement calls. We have spent a lot of energy on the auction without having a really precise picture of partner's hand. When dummy comes down, chances are it will not look precisely as declarer expected and he will need to think again...

[Mbodell]

officeglen, on Feb 19 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

1) disclosing useful information to the opponents on the way to normal contracts

Some gadgets are specifically designed to prevent this. I.e., better structures over 1NT, encrypted bidding sequences, etc.

And transfer oriented relay auctions often leave you completely nearly completely in the dark about declarer and with complete knowledge of the dummy as compared to standard where both hands disclose a fair amount.

[kenrexford]

awm, on Feb 19 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

A lot of people have claimed that playing complex methods somehow saps your energy and makes your declarer play/defense worse.

I'm not really convinced this is the case. When playing without a lot of agreements I find that a lot of times I get into very difficult auctions. I have to try to guess how partner will take some undiscussed bid, whether he will think it means what I want it to mean, whether what I "want it to mean" is really the logical meaning, etc. There is often some nervousness when I make a call that I really want to be forcing (but am not sure is) and partner goes into the tank... and there are ethical considerations when partner's tempo or explanation to the opponents imply that he doesn't think my calls meant what I thought they meant. All of these things sap a lot of energy!

When playing a system with a lot of agreements, sure, you have to remember the agreements. But a lot of guesswork gets transformed into memory work. For example, say partner and I have a long auction to slam. If I'm the "describer" in a relay system I don't have to think at all! Just remember what my bids mean and I'm fine. And partner's thinking mostly involves visualizing how the play will go, which means if he's declarer he's already thought through his line of play! In comparison, if our long auction was in a more standard/cooperative style system we have often each had to make several tough judgement calls. We have spent a lot of energy on the auction without having a really precise picture of partner's hand. When dummy comes down, chances are it will not look precisely as declarer expected and he will need to think again...

A very valid point, I'd agree.

As support for this, consider some of the forum posts we see from time to time. It seems that a lot of problems that are posted get a rapid response from a few people that the auction is simple with a gadget. A pet convention. Whatever.

The point is that a difficult auction problem for someone without those tools becomes an easy auction with those tools. The question, then, seems to be whether discussion of and agreement about tools, complex though they may be, is more difficult than assessing an unknown, especially in the context of knowing how partner thinks outside of an agreement.

I think of a recent example here where the auction was as follows:

1NT-P-2♣-P-
2♦-P-3♦-P-
3♥-P-3♠-P-
???

Opener held both major Aces, AKxx in diamonds, and three little clubs. Various theories and thoughts were provided. For me, this was an easy, obvious 5♣ call, an "empathetic splinter." Was that the ideal solution? It was vastly superior because it came out immediately and would be spotted immediately by partner, without thought.

Contrast that with a discussion I had with a regular partner as to the nuance of Opener bidding 1♣...1♠...Jump to 3♠ or 1♣...jump to 2♠...3♠. Each showed 5-6 in the blacks. Because of other system options, the range was essentially identical. However, we decided that the former stressed the spade quality and suggested poor club quality, whereas the later stressed the club quality and suggested poor spade quality. This initially seemed counter-intuitive to me, but further thought suggested that partner's logic was better. I'd much rather have the empathetic splinter at the table than this subtle nuance.

Furthermore, system is the easiest part of the game to work out away from the table. I could sit for hours with flash cards studying system notes if I wanted to. I could sit for hours discussing theory with my partner. However, I cannot easily sit for hours, with or without partner, deciding what judgment means in specific hypothetical sequences without a structure to that analysis. System provides the structure for thinking about issues, the language, if you will, of the game.

I'll agree that any thought about bidding burns up the energy needed for thinking about card play, whether defensive or declaring. But, I agree with awm that the solution to this energy drain is not necessarily simplification of agreements, at least for many of us.