Forcing Pass Systems Should they be allowed?
#261
Posted 2008-December-08, 20:55
Sean
#262
Posted 2008-December-08, 22:39
- Australia came 3rd in the 1971 and 1979 Bermuda Bowls
- Australia came 4th in the 1989 Bowl, Marston Burgess were playing a system where 2C was 0-6, any.
- M-B came 3rd in the 1986 World open Pairs. I can ask PM but I doubt they were playing a strong pass system.
- Fiona Brown came 4th in the World Mixed Pairs in 2006.
As far as I am aware these are the only signifcant results by Australia in World Championships, plus a couple of Youth medals at the world level.
nickf
sydney
#264
Posted 2008-December-09, 03:17
Did I understood it correctly that the reason for forbidding the Mosquito and FP systems is to protect the majority from these new systems?
Why does the majority need protection? I got the impression that they would need too much time to develop defences against HUM and that this is no fun. Is this correct?
If it is too complicate to defend against strong pass systems, why is it allowed to play such very complicated systems like Meckwell? I would guess that FP are even simpler to defend then their stuff. Maybe not when you talk about opening bids but surely in the later rounds and surely in competetive bidding they have a much more detailed understanding then any other pair.
If it is true that Bridge will win more supporters when the audience can follow and understand the bidding, why does the ACBL not ban anything but sayc? This is easy to be understood and simple to follow.
If these are not the reasons why they ban FP and other systems, what are the reasons?
When it is a law that the C&C committee must state their ideas in minutes, why don't they make them? When the volunteer members of the committee do not have the time to put their descissions in written words, why does the ACBL not offer a secretary service?
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#265
Posted 2008-December-09, 03:25
Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 03:17 AM, said:
Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?
There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.
#266
Posted 2008-December-09, 04:13
cherdano, on Dec 9 2008, 11:25 AM, said:
Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 03:17 AM, said:
Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?
There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.
Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?
By me it is 3 pages
There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements
Due to regulations, and therefore the need to disable core parts of the system, you are right.
Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.
And then what? A topic for anybody but the lazy ones? They are all offered a written suggestion for defense on a silverplate.
#267
Posted 2008-December-09, 04:21
The_Hog, on Dec 9 2008, 04:42 AM, said:
The original WOR system used by Marston and Burgess had a 1S bid showing any 0-4 and a 1H opening showing any 5-7.
Could be so of course but not according to the file I some years ago received from you as the original version of Moscito.
1♥ for 0-7 is still a poor construction but it is the logic of Moscito.
'1♠ bid showing any 0-4' is foolish and waste of important space and options only. You are increasing your own risks for suiside highering the threshold for opps. to take over. You are bypassing the important goals you try to achieve, the MAJORs. A clear misconstruction
#268
Posted 2008-December-09, 05:13
By the way Claus, the contrsuct is not foolish, because you are forgetting P = 13+, 1C = 8-12 with HEARTS and 1D = 8-12 with SPADES, iow the Majors.
#269
Posted 2008-December-09, 06:35
This simply points out an egalitarian view.
I cannot say "what diffs ? bridge is bridge". If I say so then I must accept lightweight vs heavyweight boxing matches are fair.
Still waiting authorities will classify contests in "bidding systems." For now their classification are men-women-mix-seniors-juniors-schools-imps-mps-teams-ind.
To me whoever gives up the idea of a continuing fault before it's too late is a profit. Tho I ve a favorite color like many others I also like to see different colors. On th other hand I have to care th colors of my dresses would be eye-catching.
I think the matter is to group in an order. Otherwise incompatibility in all fields of life is inevitable.
#270
Posted 2008-December-09, 06:48
The_Hog, on Dec 9 2008, 01:13 PM, said:
By the way Claus, the contrsuct is not foolish, because you are forgetting P = 13+, 1C = 8-12 with HEARTS and 1D = 8-12 with SPADES, iow the Majors.
OK - I think I still disagree. I also think this is the reason why Moscito in fact hasn't suffered from the transition away from a pass system. To differentiate between various dead hands without entries are for lunatics only. It is an invite for a bloodbath!
I tried to Google WOR but gets no hits except construction of steel bridges. You have something about WOR?
#271
Posted 2008-December-09, 07:10
Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 04:17 AM, said:
You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".
#272
Posted 2008-December-09, 07:14
H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 03:35 PM, said:
Interesting... In English the equivalent would be "Comparing apples and oranges"
#273
Posted 2008-December-09, 07:30
hrothgar, on Dec 9 2008, 03:14 PM, said:
H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 03:35 PM, said:
Interesting... In English the equivalent would be "Comparing apples and oranges"
Yes, the idea all are fruits but in different forms. Then there is not equality. So no one may claim what diffs they all are fruits.
#274
Posted 2008-December-09, 07:35
#275
Posted 2008-December-09, 07:38
TimG, on Dec 9 2008, 03:10 PM, said:
Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 04:17 AM, said:
You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".
Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction
Wrong Tim - now you are talking against better knowledge - at least I hope. In this thread you have had the option to be enlightened.
The complications are in 1st round - and only there. They are over 0-7 opening and might be 1 and two more. The complications are to defend over unknown. For that you have several simple and american conventions. The best knowns are CRASH and Truscott. Rest is pure natural just like SAYC or any other natural system.
You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction.
Wrong Tim - each time your side has no opening for 1st seat you will be pushed into defensive - thats approx. 85%. In fact you have no option to play your own offensive system against pass systems. Thats the triviality of this - but there is no complications about it.
-----------
Please Tim - admit the regulations against pass systems are nothing but lack of knowledge and scareness of independent thinking human beings.
#276
Posted 2008-December-09, 07:42
helene_t, on Dec 9 2008, 03:35 PM, said:
Trick question when i was in elementary school of 4th year (total was 5 years).
Which one is heavy? A kilograms of Cotton or a kilograms of Iron.
If you compare in weight they are equal. But th matter is not so simple. Because comparing different forms with only weights is not completely fair. Their functions are not same
#277
Posted 2008-December-09, 08:21
csdenmark, on Dec 9 2008, 08:38 AM, said:
TimG, on Dec 9 2008, 03:10 PM, said:
Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 04:17 AM, said:
You have to defend against FP stuff every time their practitioners are in first seat and very often when you want to be in the auction. RM Precision is different in that the initial actions are (based upon my limited knowledge) are like any other Precision. Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction. There's a reason the mid-chart used to allow something like "any calls starting with opener's rebid".
Their complications come in later rounds or in situations where the opponents have already been given a chance to enter a "normal" auction
Wrong Tim - now you are talking against better knowledge - at least I hope. In this thread you have had the option to be enlightened.
Condescension is not going to help your case.
Quote
I think you are confused. The "their" is Meckstroth-Rodwell, who I don't believe use any ferts (0-7 openings)
Quote
Wrong Tim - each time your side has no opening for 1st seat you will be pushed into defensive - thats approx. 85%. In fact you have no option to play your own offensive system against pass systems. Thats the triviality of this - but there is no complications about it.
Quote
#278
Posted 2008-December-09, 08:31
H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 02:42 PM, said:
If "a kg" refers to mass while "heavy" refers to weight, then the iron is heavier because the upwards drift from the air is lower.
#279
Posted 2008-December-09, 08:49
helene_t, on Dec 9 2008, 04:31 PM, said:
H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 02:42 PM, said:
If "a kg" refers to mass while "heavy" refers to weight, then the iron is heavier because the upwards drift from the air is lower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
#280
Posted 2008-December-09, 09:00
cherdano, on Dec 9 2008, 06:25 PM, said:
Codo, on Dec 9 2008, 03:17 AM, said:
Codo....after 18 pages of discussions you bring up arguments as blatantly wrong as this?
There is no difference in bidding against Meckwell or bidding against any other precision pair playing the same opening bids, you don't need any special agreements. Playing against a fert, this is absolutely not true.
Arend, I let you in a secret:
There is a sign: "?" Whenever someone uses this sign, he asked something that is called a "question". If you do understand this, please answer the questions.
If you don't- go on with making silly remarks.
I wanted to know why they took the line where they did. They allowed some quite difficult systems and forbid others. They surely have reasons to do so.
And the complete different development of the bidding (no undisturbed opening in 2. or a later seat f.e) is obviously a big reason why they handled the case as they did. But again, why did they took the line here? Was this the only reason? If yes, it was obviously sufficent for them.
But why did they ban Mosquito and multi then? The reason should be different. What was it?
So I would still like to get some answers, but I think I won't get them.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...