[ASkolnick]

I do see one major problem with a Forcing Pass system. However, in a 2 board segment without advance notice may be difficult. It seems clear to me is that it would be very difficult to play your system against it.

However, that being said, I would actually love to play against it because I would like to learn how to defend against it. I think in a pairs event, it really would be very difficult to discuss every situation since you only have two boards to think about it, but in a long match, I would be OK.

Sure I would probably be abused by the system the first few times it was played against me. The same way the 46 defense worked in football, the spread offense worked in football, the Tampa cover 2 worked in football, but eventually teams figured out how to defend against it.


There are probably ways to handle it somewhat simply though.

I don't think over the Forcing Pass is that hard. Sure you don't have double, but you do have room.

Treat like a 1-level preempt. You can probably play assume "X" for partner and bid accordingly depending on the fert, but I haven't worked out any details and I am unfortunately never going to have to because I live in the USA and will never play in that level of competition.

I love playing against the Polish/2-way club because we have found a decent defense against it. I don't think the defense is very innovative at all or great, but I think that at least at the level of people playing the Polish Club we play, they haven't thought of a way to defend the defense yet.

[fred]

jikl, on Dec 9 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

Thanks for the clarification Nick, I wasn't that far off

Sean

Thanks Nick. I was pretty close too.

Sean, it is hard for me to imagine that you can in any way equate Australia's results in bridge World Championships over the past 20 years with your country's remarkable achievements in the Olympics. The difference is like night and day.

Quote

That was my question, not an attack on the US.

I was not suggesting that you were "attacking the USA" and I was not "attacking Australia and New Zealand" either. I was pointing out an unusual trend (the lack of success in bridge that these countries have experienced) and offering an unusual (but very credible IMO) theory as to why this might be the case.

Whatever the actual cause for this trend, I certainly hope that Australia and New Zealand find a way to reverse it. Without a doubt it is good for our game when teams from new countries earn the right to stand on the podium at the World Championships. I can assure you that I have nothing personal against either of these countries. In fact, they rank #1 and #2 as places I would most like to visit.

But if this trend is to be reversed, it would likely help if:

1) People recognize that it exists. Your suggestion to the contrary suggests that at least some of you are in a state of denial.

2) People at least be willing to consider explanations other than geography, lack of professional opportunities, etc. This is all a load of crap in my view, especially considering Australia was recently blessed with a $1 million donation to fund the development of that country's international teams.

Stop trying to find excuses and take a long, hard, and honest look in the mirror. Perhaps you won't find anything wrong, but if you refuse to look and if there is something wrong, then there is no hope at all.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Cascade, on Dec 9 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

It occurred to me that this is very likely to be the conclusion that one would come up with if you play most of your bridge in an environment in which system innovation is discouraged meaning that most play fairly standard methods.

That is one way to look at it, Wayne, and you could easily be right that most American players would agree with me as a result of their personal history of where and how they have played their bridge.

But if you are willing to look a little deeper you will realize that the particular American player who made this suggestion is not an "average American bridge player". He has had a lot of experience and success both in the USA and in international competition, both as a player and as a coach, and both in junior bridge and in open bridge. He has won and lost many important matches in many important tournaments against all of the best players in the world (unfortunately more losses than wins - he is not that good!). Furthermore, this particular American player has significant experience as a bridge journalist, a vugraph commentator, and as a serious student of the game.

Maybe he knows actually knows something...

And if you don't believe him, try asking some other very experienced and successful players if they think his theory is credible. I am almost certain that a substantial majority of such players would agree with him.

Maybe they know something too...

I have personally found it very valuable to at least be willing to consider the advice and ideas of bridge players who know more and/or who have seen more than I have, regardless of the country they happen to come from.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 9 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

In my culture there's a proverb : Do not add apples to pears when you count.

This simply points out an egalitarian view.

To me, it says that it is illogical to compare different things as if they were the same. I don't know how that's "an egalitarian view".

Quote

I cannot say "what diffs ? bridge is bridge". If I say so then I must accept lightweight vs heavyweight boxing matches are fair.

A bit out of context for this thread perhaps, but "fair" needs, to me, to be taken in the context of the situation. It is certainly unfair for a boxing organization or promoter to say to a lightweight "you must fight this heavyweight". OTOH, I don't see how a fight can be unfair if the lightweight says "I want to fight this heavyweight" on his own initiative. Stupid, maybe, but not unfair.

I suppose the bridge application is "provide a venue where I can play forcing pass. If no one shows up to play against me, then I guess it's not a desirable system". The problem is that we have RAs who have already banned the system, and players who (I think) believe the ban was not based on clear evidence that "nobody" wants to play against it.

If bridge were the method we use instead of war to decide conflicts between countries, then "anything goes" as far as system is fine with me. But we're playing a game here, so we have to consider both the desires of (all) the players, and the capabilities of the system to handle those desires. A balance between the two must be found. That said, I wish there were a place I could play forcing pass (and play against it), and a willing partner and willing opponents. Just to see what it's like. The argument that Marston et. al. have already gone through that and the conclusion was that "it's too hard to defend against" is nice, but it does deny me the opportunity to find out for myself. I don't like that much.

[H_KARLUK]

blackshoe, on Dec 9 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

A balance between the two must be found. That said, I wish there were a place I could play forcing pass (and play against it), and a willing partner and willing opponents. Just to see what it's like.

Agreed with some parts of your views that i tried to pick and post above. I wonder, why you did not say "I am OK to compete in HUM category".

I suggest there can be three main category :

1- Natural systems competitions
2- Unusual systems competitions
3- Highly unusual systems competitions

"IF" there is a widely accepted demand who is/are best of bests then easy to create a fourth under any name.

Just a joke, I think otherwise it will remind me a funny maybe thoughtful lesson photo. A seal (big fish like a bear with big teeth. I hope described well. Sorry my 2nd language) kiss or bite a shark from neck while wrapped with arms whose its mouth wide open and helpless. I do not think Shark hunted and carrying booty to home on shoulder or received an ask from a tired one who cannot swim.

Under photo such interesting words :

LET'S BE FRIENDS

[DrTodd13]

As I've said before, I don't think that running parallel events based on system complexity will work. Inevitably, the most complex event will be viewed as "real bridge" and the others for relative bridge weaklings. People will feel pressure to play in the most complex possible to maintain their ego but simultaneously they won't like it. Something like this has already been tried in the ACBL. They ran SAYC sections which still allowed a little variation I believe, just much more restrictive. IIRC, these sections were abandoned due to lack of demand.

[H_KARLUK]

DrTodd13 Posted on Dec 9 2008, 07:27 PM
" They ran SAYC sections which still allowed a little variation I believe, just much more restrictive."

“Progress imposes not only new possibilities for the future but new restrictions.”
Norbert Wiener
http://en.wikipedia..../Norbert_Wiener

ps. The Wiener crater on the far side of the Moon was named for him. (November 26, 1894, Columbia, Missouri – March 18, 1964, Stockholm, Sweden) Well, if my memory is still firm it was Apollo 11 of USA; 06, 16,1969 started and 06,20 landed with Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Michael Collins was also command module pilot. That proves Mr Norbert Wiener died five years ago before that date. I respect people who lived beyond their times. Sleep gently. Amen.

[helene_t]

DrTodd13, on Dec 9 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

As I've said before, I don't think that running parallel events based on system complexity will work.  Inevitably, the most complex event will be viewed as "real bridge" and the others for relative bridge weaklings.

Probably true. But also, people want big tournaments, so any kind of segregation needs good justification. I think people would rather have twice as many venues, or twice as many time slots, to chose from, than restrictive/permissive. Because most don't care.

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Dec 9 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Dec 9 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

As I've said before, I don't think that running parallel events based on system complexity will work.  Inevitably, the most complex event will be viewed as "real bridge" and the others for relative bridge weaklings.

Probably true. But also, people want big tournaments, so any kind of segregation needs good justification. I think people would rather have twice as many venues, or twice as many time slots, to chose from, than restrictive/premisive. Because most don't care.

people want big tournaments
If people want big events - then they have that each evening on BBO. Nothing in the bridgeworld is near to be able to compete with BBO-attendance.

It is here we hold the power - ACBL and the bridge organizations are rightful afraid for a break-away. Until now there is nobody who has been able to collect a group of persons to start a movement of some kind.

The bridge organizations counts that this also will be the future.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 10 2008, 02:10 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.

This is exactly the same for every system.

The fact that others playing different systems choose to pass on certain hands that another system opens should be irrelevant.

The nature of the game gives the first person to call the right to choose that call. That some players or systems require pre-empts or initial action with a different set of hands is neither here nor there. They will live or die in the auction and play of the hand based on that choice.

[mycroft]

SAYC/Classic Bridge/... events:

The ACBL keeps hearing "we want a game where we understand everything, we don't need those stupid Alerts, or announcing NT ranges, or systems from Mars (i.e. Precision)" - whenever they actually institute something where that can work, they find out that what the people actually mean is "we want to play *our* conventions, we just don't want to have to play against *everything else*."

However, for an Individual, restricted card makes sense. Funny how individuals are seriously low demand. I'm guessing that the above is at least part of the reason...

[hrothgar]

mycroft, on Dec 9 2008, 09:54 PM, said:

Funny how individuals are seriously low demand.  I'm guessing that the above is at least part of the reason...

I'm guessing that it has more to do with conversations like the following:

"You do play Stolen Bid Doubles don't you dearie?"

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 9 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 10 2008, 02:10 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.

This is exactly the same for ever system.

The fact that others playing different systems choose to pass on certain hands that another system opens should be irrelevant.

The quote of mine which you cite in your post was in reference to Codo's question (and followup conversation) regarding why FP systems (disallowed, at least in ACBL events) are viewed differently than the possibly more complex RM Precision (mostly allowed in ACBL events -- at least in the mid-chart+ events that Meckwell play in).

My response was (and is) that those charged with determining which events "unusual" methods should be allowed in do not look primarily at the complexity of the method but rather the ease with which the average opponent will be able to adequately cope with it. While the RM methods may be more complex than FP methods, the "exotic" RM methods will occur far less frequently and they will occur in later rounds of the auction. The "exotic" FP methods occur on almost every hand, surely every time the practitioners are in first seat. And, those methods will occur in early round of the auction when it is more likely to matter to the opponents.

That's my opinion about why RM Precision is differently than FP methods.

It is not "exactly the same" for every system because each system has a different degree of familiarity to bridge players in general. If systems had evolved such that FP systems were the norm, it would be weak pass system that were considered "exotic" and be met with strong resistance.

I'm not expressing the opinion that all is right with system regulation. But, it does seem to me that what is common and accepted should be relevant to system regulation. How relevant at which levels is what should be up for discussion, not that it should be irrelevant.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Dec 10 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

But, it does seem to me that what is common and accepted should be relevant to system regulation.

What is common is a function of the regulation.

It is impossible for something that is prohibited from all but the most elite events becoming common.

In addition those restricted methods are not even likely to be played at the levels where they are allowed since they cannot be played anywhere else.

That is the WBF system's policy statement

"3. Systems allowed at WBF Championships
In relation to the aspect of Systems to be allowed at WBF Championships, the events
will be divided into three categories:
Category 1: Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup
For such events all classifications of systems will be permitted, subject
to adequate disclosure,..."

is ineffective in allowing those methods if they are not allowed in lower events in which players can establish an effective partnership.

It is the uncommon that need to be allowed in all but the most protected of environments so that they have a chance to be played in serious partnerships.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 9 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 10 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

But, it does seem to me that what is common and accepted should be relevant to system regulation.

What is common is a function of the regulation.

Out of curiosity, just how common do you feel FP would be if it were allowed at all levels of play?

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 9 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 10 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

But, it does seem to me that what is common and accepted should be relevant to system regulation.

What is common is a function of the regulation.

Maybe the regulations are a function of what was common at the time of their establishment.

Still, I doubt FP would suddenly (or ever) be the rage if it was permitted at all levels.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 10 2008, 04:39 AM, said:

jikl, on Dec 9 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

Thanks for the clarification Nick, I wasn't that far off

Sean

Thanks Nick. I was pretty close too.

Sean, it is hard for me to imagine that you can in any way equate Australia's results in bridge World Championships over the past 20 years with your country's remarkable achievements in the Olympics. The difference is like night and day.

Quote

That was my question, not an attack on the US.

I was not suggesting that you were "attacking the USA" and I was not "attacking Australia and New Zealand" either. I was pointing out an unusual trend (the lack of success in bridge that these countries have experienced) and offering an unusual (but very credible IMO) theory as to why this might be the case.

Whatever the actual cause for this trend, I certainly hope that Australia and New Zealand find a way to reverse it. Without a doubt it is good for our game when teams from new countries earn the right to stand on the podium at the World Championships. I can assure you that I have nothing personal against either of these countries. In fact, they rank #1 and #2 as places I would most like to visit.

But if this trend is to be reversed, it would likely help if:

1) People recognize that it exists. Your suggestion to the contrary suggests that at least some of you are in a state of denial.

2) People at least be willing to consider explanations other than geography, lack of professional opportunities, etc. This is all a load of crap in my view, especially considering Australia was recently blessed with a $1 million donation to fund the development of that country's international teams.

Stop trying to find excuses and take a long, hard, and honest look in the mirror. Perhaps you won't find anything wrong, but if you refuse to look and if there is something wrong, then there is no hope at all.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

The Australian Institute of Sport is the envy of many athletes around the world.

But this and the athletic performances that it induces come at a significant cost.

"Forking out close to $17 million in taxpayers money for every gold medal won by an Australian at the Beijing Olympics is value for money, federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says.

The Sunday Age reports the cost of each gold medal won by an Australian in Beijing has cost taxpayers $16.7 million.

This cost does not take into account state government funding and the cost of high-tech sporting infrastructure, the report says.

Dr Nelson said the nation was very proud of the athletes' performances." theage.com.au 24th August 2008

Even the one million gifted to Australian Bridge Players is relatively insignificant in comparison.

I can't speak for Australia (although it is likely to be similar to New Zealand) but I believe there are players and officials in New Zealand that are interested looking at and evaluating New Zealand's performances overseas.

Personally I think a significant issue is the lack of international competition although perhaps it is a consequence of this rather than this lack being the primary issue. In particular I think some of our better players not unreasonably play a style which is successful at home but not necessarily successful against the stronger players on the international stage. In most cases however this style is not based on HUMs or other unusual methods. One proven international player or New Zealand origin who I will not name said to me in a private conversation that he thought many of the successful players in local (up to national level) competition in New Zealand were little more than "bunny bashers". Without exposure to international competition I think it is easy to think erroneously that your style which is effective at home will be equally effective in tougher competition. Indeed over the last few years I have seen players and partnerships that win a lot of local tournaments not be able to hold their own in National Trials.

Yes this is similar to Fred's point. However the reality is that HUMs and other unusual methods like transfer openings are relatively uncommon amoung our better players. The only regular partnership that that obviously play these methods is Peter Newell and Martin Reid who play a strong club with transfer openings at the one-level. This pair have our best record recently in international competition but they rarely play in local tournaments.

Most (but not all) other pairs in our trials over the last few years have played reasonably standard systems. There is even a trend toward strong no trump with five-card majors.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Dec 10 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 9 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 10 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

But, it does seem to me that what is common and accepted should be relevant to system regulation.

What is common is a function of the regulation.

Out of curiosity, just how common do you feel FP would be if it were allowed at all levels of play?

I don't really have any feel for that.

20-30 years ago in top competition there was a trend towards experimenting with these methods particularly in Australia, New Zealand and Poland. The Australians (really ex-pat Kiwis) and the Polish won or came very close to winning world championshios medals with these methods.

Beneath this level there were others who played these methods. By the time I had a brief attempt at playing these methods the regulations made it very difficult to establish a serious partnership playing Forcing Pass since the number of events that you could play your system in was severely restricted.

In this environment over the last 20 years I have played against a handful of pairs (maybe a few more) who have play a Forcing Pass (or intermediate Pass). They were more common 10-15 years ago than in the last 10 years.

I have no doubt that if the system regulations were more permissive that more pairs would play these methods.

I would expect that there would be pairs playing these methods in most tournaments in New Zealand if they were freely permitted. How many enough that they would be common enough to defend against. Or perhaps they would have died out as being ineffective but we will never know in the restricted system environment that we have.

[Cascade]

fred, on Dec 10 2008, 05:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 9 2008, 02:48 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

There are bound to be very talented young players born in every country that has a reasonable size bridge population. Perhaps those who spend their formative years focusing on developing their skills relating to card play and judgment (ie the things IMO that determine who wins) as opposed to spending a lot of their time and energy experimenting with unusual systems (ie fun perhaps but a waste of time in terms of winning IMO), are more likely to develop into Helgemo-types.

It occurred to me that this is very likely to be the conclusion that one would come up with if you play most of your bridge in an environment in which system innovation is discouraged meaning that most play fairly standard methods.

That is one way to look at it, Wayne, and you could easily be right that most American players would agree with me as a result of their personal history of where and how they have played their bridge.

But if you are willing to look a little deeper you will realize that the particular American player who made this suggestion is not an "average American bridge player". He has had a lot of experience and success both in the USA and in international competition, both as a player and as a coach, and both in junior bridge and in open bridge. He has won and lost many important matches in many important tournaments against all of the best players in the world (unfortunately more losses than wins - he is not that good!). Furthermore, this particular American player has significant experience as a bridge journalist, a vugraph commentator, and as a serious student of the game.

Maybe he knows actually knows something...

And if you don't believe him, try asking some other very experienced and successful players if they think his theory is credible. I am almost certain that a substantial majority of such players would agree with him.

Maybe they know something too...

I have personally found it very valuable to at least be willing to consider the advice and ideas of bridge players who know more and/or who have seen more than I have, regardless of the country they happen to come from.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, I am well aware of and in awe of your credentials and jealous of your skills.

Further I largely agree that card play and bidding judgement are extremely important in the development of a bridge player. To a lesser extent I have the proof of that in my own experience - winning and doing well in many local and regional tournaments playing a variety of systems - Acol, Precision with and without relays, Standard American, 2/1 and even a couple of times with relatively new students without very much system at all (Stayman and Blackwood in a weak or strong NT base).

Nevertheless the point about system restrictions diminishing the affect of system in the performance seems to me to be valid.

If in a parallel universe we had a bridge-like game but the auction was restricted to 1NT 3NT then card play would be paramount.

While if the play was restricted to mechanical rules like you have to play a higher card if you can, you must trump etc (there are games with rules of this type) then bidding judgement would be much more important.

Therefore it seems natural to me that if we put severe restrictions on systems that system design will necessarily be much less important than it would be with fewer or no system restrictions.

[Cascade]

Quote from the radio just now - I didn't hear but I think he must have been talking about this topic

"All wrongs emanate from the restrictions of individual freedoms."