[Trpltrbl]

The_Hog, on Jul 29 2004, 02:05 AM, said:

"If you design a system specifically to sow confusion in your opponents, I don't consider that bridge. "

If it confuses you it does the same to the opps, since they have no more info then you. At least they shouldn't.

Mike

[Trpltrbl]

luke warm, on Jul 27 2004, 05:01 AM, said:

get ready to duck, helene ... we flannery players have been known to take abuse heheh

I'll be nice Jimmy

Mike

[the hog]

" I observed several pairs' deliberate use of intimidation tactics against us to obtain better results because they knew they would work against inexperienced players. Do you really think this is good for bridge?"

Rebound, of course I agree with this. However I would argue that it is a player's manner and behaviour and not what they are playing, (as in system), that is usually the problem.

It is the constant director calls and the interrogation regarding bids that puts people off. It is worse in Australia, as we have no compulsory hesitation rule after jump bids. You would not believe the number of director calls re hesitations and the manner in which they are made. (Well maybe you would!)

Last week I was playing with a beginner and held AQJx void AKQTxxx xx
1D (3H) pass after a good 6-7 secs hesitation (4H)

Naturally I bid 4S - "Director!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I can take care of myself, and the director of course ruled I had my bid, but pd got really intimidated and blamed himself. THIS is what causes problems.

Incidentally, pd had Kxxx Qxx xx KJxx

Otoh you play against 2 lols and say you play Moscito - no problems! They are just as likely to be playing Lorenzo 2 bids, or Leptosplirosis 2s or Myxomatosis 2s - (both of these are diseases that kill rabbits). lol.

Ron

[mikestar]

Ron,

Australia must be doing something right if the LOL's are trying their hand at modern conventions. A fairly typical American LOL in a game I was directing: Her LHO asked her partner if her 2H opener was weak or strong. Her partner misrembers their agreement and said "weak". When the mistake was discovered, I was called and the opener said "I've never bid a weak two in my LIFE!!!" with a tone of voice and facial expression that might have been more appropriate for a statement that she had never committed treason, murder, or incest.

[1eyedjack]

mikestar, on Jul 31 2004, 12:31 AM, said:

Ron,

Australia must be doing something right if the LOL's are trying their hand at modern conventions. A fairly typical American LOL in a game I was directing: Her LHO asked her partner if her 2H opener was weak or strong. Her partner misrembers their agreement and said "weak". When the mistake was discovered, I was called and the opener said "I've never bid a weak two in my LIFE!!!" with a tone of voice and facial expression that might have been more appropriate for a statement that she had never committed treason, murder, or incest.

Echos of Sontag's story in Power Precision (I think) of encountering a Yorkshireman who said

"If I have an opening hand I bid 1 cloob. If I have a strong hand I bid 2 cloobs. If I have a VERY strong hand I bid 3 cloobs. ONCE (pause for dramatic effect) I bid 4 cloobs."

[bearmum]

DrTodd13, on Jul 31 2004, 06:03 AM, said:

Essentially, fert bids are preempts that tell you nothing about that
person's hand, steal room from the opponents, and make them use
defensive methods rather than their regular methods.  Well, BOO-HOO!
Banning something because it is hard to defend against is against the
spirit of the game.

Todd

I agree with your reasoning Todd - EXCEPT in BBO (and other online sites) where a LOT of us players have few (if ANY) regular partnerships --- where it's IMPOSSIBLE in the short time available to play hands to agree on defence to really esoteric systems - GEE it's ALMOST impossible to even agree on ?System-transfers? NT range? carding? blackwood or RKCB 0314 or 1430? ---

and that's why I TRULY believe that those folks who want to play "guess what opps have and HOW in the H*** do we defend against them " should get a private "anything goes " club

BTW - are "fert" bids another name for psyches?

[the hog]

"BTW - are "fert" bids another name for psyches? "
No!

[paulhar]

Both sides have their points. While it's great to allow innovation in creating a bidding system, the playing of that bidding system will win IMPs and matchpoints simply by the confusion of their opponents. Heck, you don't have to play against rabbits to win extra IMPs, you can play against ACBL members with thousands of masterpoints who just haven't been exposed to your methods and haven't had time to discuss a defense and still win points. (And one of these rabbit-killers just stated, "I prefer to win because we played better than the field!" in a thread concerning cheating.) I'm sure he/she doesn't realize how many IMPs fall into his/her lap because the opponents don't understand their sequences well enough to (1) defend properly, (2) take advantage of opportunities when our heroes are in trouble, (3) compete effectively, etc. But hey, I guess that taking the time to learn a system unfamiliar to some is part of 'playing better.'

Someday, both sides can have it all. Anything can be allowed, as long as a reasonable defense is suggested. In an ideal world, maybe 30 years down the line, an ACBL pair unfamiliar with everything that is outlawed here playing against a MOSCITO pair will be able to click a buttton and get a document on his screen (with easy to find sections) discussing an excellent defense to most MOSCITO openings and responses in terms easy enough for the rabbits to understand.

I have a very ethical friend who went one step further. He wanted to play a forcing pass system. He offered to let the opponents come up with the defense on the fly, after seeing their cards! Even then, there were opponents who grumbled (he said that most grumbled in the U.S. time zones.)

[hrothgar]

paulhar, on Jul 31 2004, 06:39 PM, said:

Someday, both sides can have it all. Anything can be allowed, as long as a reasonable defense is suggested. In an ideal world, maybe 30 years down the line, an ACBL pair unfamiliar with everything that is outlawed here playing against a MOSCITO pair will be able to click a buttton and get a document on his screen (with easy to find sections) discussing an excellent defense to most MOSCITO openings and responses in terms easy enough for the rabbits to understand.

Comment the first:

The concept that you suggest could be created today relatively easily. Three things are required

1. The convention card application needs to be based on a Hypertext viewer so that players can link to recommended defenses.

2. Appropriate defenses to different classes of openings need to be defined.

3. Defenses need to be stored on a web site.

None of this is rocket science.

Comment the second:

My belief is that problem is more cultural than technical. Lets looks at one of those nasty MOSCITO opening bids...

1♦ = 4+ hearts, ~9-14, might have a longer minor

Its trivial to specificy a "simple" yet effective defense against this method. With this said and done, the exist players who are still going to encounter problems competing over this opening because they are going to get confused during follow-up auctions.

Case in point

Suppose that the auction starts

(1♦) - 2♣ - (P) - ???

What is the cue bid in this sequence? To me, its obvious that bidding 2♥ - the opponent's known suit - is the cue bid. However, I know for a fact that there are some players who believe that 2♦ - the opponent's bid suit - is the cue bid.

In short, there are some players that have been so sheltered that removing them even slightly from their comfort zone represents a catestrophic problem.

[DrTodd13]

Whenever I play forcing pass against someone, I have suggested defenses available and I let them discuss the first time it comes up how they want to defend against it.

Like hrothgar says, people get so set in their ways that they think that the cue-bid of the suit actually bid is forcing rather than the implied suit. This is just a failure to think and to be stuck in a bridge rut. However, this rut is no reason to disallow such systems. People will quickly learn how to defend correctly against transfer oriented systems. After all, nobody plays 1N-2H! (transfer)-(2S) as natural. People have learned this is non-sensical. People will learn to adapt to other methods as well.

Todd

[paulhar]

DrTodd13, on Jul 31 2004, 01:32 PM, said:

People will quickly learn how to defend correctly against transfer oriented systems.  After all, nobody plays 1N-2H! (transfer)-(2S) as natural.

I disagree. I'll bet if you polled the beginners and could really get them to answer, many of them would think that 2S was natural. And many of these play in our tournaments.

Many years ago, I played with the 'best player in my home town.' She did bid 2S natural in exactly the sequence you discussed. She had lots of masterpoints. Holding 0-5-3-5, it seemed that this was likely and I passed.

Against a MOSCITO 1D opening showing 4 hearts, it's not unlikely that partner could overcall hearts naturally and find me with 3 or 4 so it wouldn't be obvious whether their 1H overcall was natural or not. If I guess wrong, I'm in trouble.

And it doesn't matter whether I've discussed it with partner or not, as long as other pairs in the tournament haven't discussed it, pairs playing these methods have an advantage.

So what is the best system? Seems like under the current BBO standards, any reasonable system that will confuse SOME opponents is better than one that won't confuse anybody. SAYC is woefully deficient in the realm of opponent confusion. 2/1 isn't much better. If MOSCITO catches on and becomes very popular, it may be a great system now but it will fall prey to some new concoction when the rabbits know how to defend MOSCITO but not somebody's new pet system. For now, though, MOSCITO has a lot going for it.

Quote

hrothgar Jul 29 2004, 09:07 AM
So, let me get this straight: You're looking for a game in which you can be

(A) Lazy
( Competitive

If you're in the same tourney that I'm in, it doesn't matter whether I'm lazy as long as some of the pairs you play against are. If your partnership and my partnership play equally well but yours plays a more unfamiliar system, you have an advantage in that tournament which manifests itself when we play against weak (lazy?) pairs that will be confused by your methods but not by mine. Is it a deserved advantage?

Jtfanclub, you said it well in your post on this thread. I just wanted to let you know that you have somebody on your side.

Incidentally IMO:
It's OK if you get an advantage if your system preempts the opponents or makes it hard for an optimum countersystem to reach a good contract.
It's OK for your system to get to a contract without giving information about the declarer's hand so the defense is in the dark.
It's OK to psyche as long as your partner is fooled too. As far as I'm concerned, it's okay to psyche an opening strong 2C, strong 1C, or strong pass! If people want to come up with destructive methods to handle your strong club or pass, that's OK, but it should be OK if you psyche that strong bid so that their decision to not have constructive methods costs them.
In fact, it's OK to have ANY system that gains an edge in ANY way EXCEPT through the fact that the opponents don't know how to defend against it, OR that they don't know what each other's bids mean because you've thrown them in an unnatural situation.
What's NOT OK is that people have an edge simply because the opponents can't read each other's minds on what certain bids should mean, whereas they have standard meanings against well-known systems.

[Rebound]

paulhar, on Aug 1 2004, 04:25 PM, said:

It's OK if you get an advantage if your system preempts the opponents or makes it hard for an optimum countersystem to reach a good contract.
It's OK for your system to get to a contract without giving information about the declarer's hand so the defense is in the dark.
It's OK to psyche as long as your partner is fooled too. As far as I'm concerned, it's okay to psyche an opening strong 2C, strong 1C, or strong pass! If people want to come up with destructive methods to handle your strong club or pass, that's OK, but it should be OK if you psyche that strong bid so that their decision to not have constructive methods costs them.
In fact, it's OK to have ANY system that gains an edge in ANY way EXCEPT through the fact that the opponents don't know how to defend against it, OR that they don't know what each other's bids mean because you've thrown them in an unnatural situation.
What's NOT OK is that people have an edge simply because the opponents can't read each other's minds on what certain bids should mean, whereas they have standard meanings against well-known systems.

I think this sums up my feelings on the enitre subject very well. There are many people who use these methods, not because they are superior, but because they are unfamiliar.

I mistakenly included psychic bids in this category, and have since recanted.

[the hog]

"What's NOT OK is that people have an edge simply because the opponents can't read each other's minds on what certain bids should mean, whereas they have standard meanings against well-known systems. "

Now, what is the definition of a "well known" system or a well known convention? This is where you run into trouble. What is well known in one country may certainly not be well known in another. Very few know/play those abominations Sayc or Flannery over here eg. Yet most play some form of crash/ocr/rco two opening that you mentioned.

[the hog]

I am going to argue a case which, based on many of the posts in this thread to date, is going to get me totally howled down.

I see nothing wrong with getting an edge by confronting opponents with the unfamiliar. (I will modify this by saying that in 2/3 board rounds I think the restrictions should be greater, but in teams matches of 8 boards+, anything should be allowed).

Why? To me bridge is an intellectual exercise; if I spend hours devising and learning a complex system, then that is time I have put into improving my bridge results. My partners and I spend hours on defensive agreements, so that for example, if we encounter a pair using Flannery, (which literally might happen once a year), we know what defense we play, without even having to reiterate it at the table.

We can literally sit down and have no need to discuss rco/ocr 2 bids, transfer openings/pre empts or Ekrens or 1H ferts or whatever. We have general agreements that cover all eventualities. That is because we have put in time and effort to discuss these.

If regular partnerships don't put in that time and effort, then I would argue that that is their problem. Even in casual or pickup partnerships, this should not be a major problem -it is possible to play easy generic defenses. The June issue of Australian Bridge, for example had an article on "One Size Fits All" - an easy generic defense to anything unusual you are likely to come across.

Further, in a previous post, Richard stated that over time many exotics will disappear because they are inherently unsound. I agree with this; if I play that a 2S opening can be a 20-22 NT OR a weak hand with C, OR 4-10 points with 5/5 Majors OR 14-16 points with 5/5 Majors, then you should be delighted as these combinations are totally unplayable and you can expect great results against me. (Incidentally, I am not kidding; in the last congress I played a very weak pair played precisely what I have just described.) Over time you will be left with methods that have a sound theoretical base, like the Ekrens 2H opening, which is derided by Paul.

The problem is that there has to be a desire to put in a little effort. I guess, based on one particular post early on, that some are not prepared to do that. Well, some don't read books on squeeze play either.

OK. Now I am going to wait for the flaming to begin.



Ron

[1eyedjack]

I take the view that a set of meta-defences is never going to be as effective as a set of custom defences. So if I were designing a system in which there were no restrictions, and no advance notice was required to be provided of the methods being employed, for 2-board round pairs events, I would design a system which I know to be inferior against optimum defensive methods but which deficiency should be more than made up for by opponents' unfamiliarity and reliance on their meta defences. I don't believe that it is in the interests of the future of bridge for that environment to thrive.

I also believe that it is virtually impossible for a pair to give full disclosure in the time available, in a 2-board round. The potential for subtle inferences is huge, and opponents are unlikely to be presented with a complete explanation of a bid. The complete explanation would in some cases require a description of the meanings of every other call that was available.

Take a very simple, natural system, for example. Auction goes (uncontested)
1C-1H-1N.
You ask for an explanation and you are advised that everything is natural and the 1N rebid shows "15-17". No mention is made in the explanation as to whether opener has denied (for example) holding a 4 card Spade suit. No mention is made of whether opener would prefer to open 1D with 4-4 in the minors, or whether opener may have a singleton Heart on this bidding. This information is available if you press for it, but you have to know to press for it. If you have a general feel for their basic system then you know. If they are playing a totally alien system then you do not know.

It is true that those who play artificial methods generally (in my experience) go to greater lengths to try to disclose their methods than those who profess to play natural methods (and who have a narrow view of what constitutes "natural" which they wrongly assume is shared by all). Nevertheless, with the best will in the world, complete disclosure is rarely possible and is extremely time consuming, when faced with opponents who have absolutely no clue about the philosophy of your system.

There remains a huge scope for the exercise of skill and judgement in an environment in which players have advance notice of the methods that they may be expected to encounter and in which those methods are not so varied that a pair has effectively no chance of preparing a custom defence.

There are a large number of highly skilled players who would be driven away from the game if they had to play in the two board round anything goes events. You may question their motives. You may accuse them of being lazy. You may accuse them of hanging on to their "comfort". But these accusations sound rather hollow when you consider that allowing them to play in their chosen environment rather than your chosen environment they would beat you. Again and again.

There are certainly two sides to the argument. Evolution of systems is good for the game, provided that opponents are not caught by surprise. Evolution can only take place when the authorities allow a method that was not previously permitted. The only way so far devised that this can be achieved is by the application by players for permission to use specified new methods. A panel of experts can reject out of hand any method that against a good custom defence would likely be seriously flawed, and players are then protected from having to use inferior meta defences.

There is certainly a problem with this regime, in that the panel of experts stand open to the accusation of a hidden agenda ... of pandering to the wishes of the subscription-paying majority rather than to the interests of the evolution of the game.

Come up with an alternative method that overcomes the other objections mentioned above and hopefully someone will listen.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Aug 2 2004, 01:31 AM, said:

Now, what is the definition of a "well known" system or a well known convention?

I don't think stringent definitions are necesary. If your experience is that opps can't defend themselves against your methods, they are obviously not well-known. This may apply even to a weak notrump, Jacoby transfers and Roman carding. Depends on the field. Here in the Netherlands there are people who don't know the defence against short minor suit openings ("is (1♣)-2♣ Michael's or natural?")

If you play in a field where everybody has equally adequate defence against Moscito and against SAYC, you can make a fair comparison between the SAYC players and the Moscito players. Otherwise, you can't. This is not to suggest that Moscito should be forbidden. Just that the Moscito players should realize that some of their victories may neither be due to superior play nor to a superior system.

[irdoz]

Quote

There are certainly two sides to the argument.

There are many sides to the argument... and while ever you frame the problem as one of binary opposites and sides no solution is likely and gridlock certain.

At the moment

1. highly motivated skilled players who like systems and innovation feel disenfranchised if there are too many restrictions placed on what they can play and in the sometimes bizarre and inconsistent ways in which those restrictions are formulated. While these players are a minority - they are a really important and highly motivated minority who usually contribute a lot to the game.

2. people very keen about bridge but for any number of reasons (lack of time, lack of motivation) who may not play a lot (and may also play a lot) and are very uncomfortable when confronted with unusual systems and would prefer not to have to face them frequently. These probably consitute the majority of bridge players - and they exist in Italy, USA and Australia too! (Ive met lots of them...). It is not good for the game to make uncomfortable the majority of players unless there are policies and practice to deal with that discomfort in a useful way.

But disenfranchising both populations or either population is not a great idea. Yet these do not consitute two 'sides'.

There are also highly motivated players who like systems who believe that the restrictions are in the best interests of the game. There are people who do not have the time to invest in studying defenses to unfamiliar methods - yet are comfortable with dealing with unfamiliar methods and have enough skills and knowledge of the laws to insist on adequate disclosure or ask for defenses. There are also people who are on a spectrum between both groups. I work 50+ hrs a week in a profession that also requires 15+ hours of reading in non-work times each week - yet I spend a lot of time on bridge - but there are only 112 non-sleep hrs a week... I dont have time to familiarise myself or do the reading to keep myself totally up to date. I also believe the generic defense argument is somewhat "hog"wash - not entirely but at least partly.. there's a million miles between a generic defense and bidding against a method that you know well and where you are informed enough to also ask the necessary style questions.

But if you want to have a useful discussion the starting point has to be that the needs of both groups 1 and 2 above are important for the game, and that there are a lot of players who do not fit into these 'binary opposed' groups - yet as a starting point solutions have to take into account both these groups and their problems and needs as real. This seems to be a more respectful place to start rather than one that seems like a 'war' of sides and misunderstanding and abuse...

I happen to believe that in some places the lowest common denominator approach of over restriction is demonstratably not working very well - it does not however mean that an unfettered approach would work better. I don't buy all of the arguments and (ir)rationalisations those who argue for a totally unfettered approach use.

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Aug 2 2004, 01:11 AM, said:

If regular partnerships don't put in that time and effort, then I would argue that that is their problem. Even in casual or pickup partnerships, this should not be a major problem -it is possible to play easy generic defenses. The June issue of Australian Bridge, for example had an article on "One Size Fits All" - an easy generic defense to anything unusual you are likely to come across.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was asking for in another thread.

Unfortunately, I am not able to see the June edition of Australian Bridge from where I am sitting (South East England).

What do you suggest I do to make playing against unusual bids "not a major problem" for me and pick-up partner's from this side of the globe?

Eric

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on Aug 2 2004, 06:03 AM, said:

I also believe that it is virtually impossible for a pair to give full disclosure in the time available, in a 2-board round.  The potential for subtle inferences is huge, and opponents are unlikely to be presented with a complete explanation of a bid.  The complete explanation would in some cases require a description of the meanings of every other call that was available.

Take a very simple, natural system, for example.  Auction goes (uncontested) 1C-1H-1N.
You ask for an explanation and you are advised that everything is natural and the 1N rebid shows "15-17".  No mention is made in the explanation as to whether opener has denied (for example) holding a 4 card Spade suit.  No mention is made of whether opener would prefer to open 1D with 4-4 in the minors, or whether opener may have a singleton Heart on this bidding.  This information is available if you press for it, but you have to know to press for it.  If you have a general feel for their basic system then you know.  If they are playing a totally alien system then you do not know.

1EyedJack has raised an interesting example, however, I draw a very different conclusion: "Full Disclosure" is more a platonic ideal than a practical concept. The example of a 1NT rebid following the auction 1♣ - 1♦ is a great example. The negative inferences are completely different depending on whether or not the partnership in question is bidding suits up the line or plays a Walsh or MAFIA response structure.

In a similar fashion, some players exercise judgement regarding the set of hands that are worth a 1NT opening. Others base their decisions strictly on High Card Points.

From my perspective

(a) Full disclosure is nearly impossible even in the context of relatively standard environment.
(B) The players the demand the most protection are the ones least likely to understand the issues involved.

Case in point: Helene wrote

>I don't think stringent definitions are necesary. If your experience
>is that opps can't defend themselves against your methods, they
>are obviously not well-known. This may apply even to a weak notrump,
>Jacoby transfers and Roman carding. Depends on the field. Here in
>the Netherlands there are people who don't know the defence against
>short minor suit openings ("is (1♣)-2♣ Michael's or natural?")

Quite honestly, I have no sympathy for these individuals what-so-ever. If players aren't willing to invest a modicum of effort, they have no right to be able to compete effectively.

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2004, 08:11 PM, said:

I see nothing wrong with getting an edge by confronting opponents with the unfamiliar. (I will modify this by saying that in 2/3 board rounds I think the restrictions should be greater, but in teams matches of 8 boards+, anything should be allowed).

Well, clearly there has to be some sort of competition where weird stuff is allowed, otherwise how could something weird ever get the chance to become familiar? You say 8+ boards, the ACBL says 14+, I say as long as I and my partner get 10 minutes to look at the system notes and figure out a defense and negative inferences I'm happy (and I'll settle for 5). I think there's a lot of room for compromise within those.

It bothers me a lot when, say, a 1S overcall over 1C shows '13 cards' but in fact there's a dozen other bids which also have meanings, and by negative inference they aren't in the 1S bid. Those can be easily figured out with the system notes, and we all know the negative inferences for the more familiar systems, but it bothers me a lot when we don't have those available. The last regional Swiss game I played in, the last round we played against somebody playing a Canape system with a filled out card but no notes. It was virtually impossible to figure out the negative inferences on the fly.

I think that's why they played it. It didn't seem like it was a particularly good system.