[arrows]

Quote

Getting back to bridge. If I understand your proposals correctly, bridge would become a much more boring game, especially at the higher levels. The side with the majority of cards would bid to their best game, and when they had bad cards they would leave their opponent's alone in the auction.

Where's the fun in that?

Yes, absolutely. I think it's no fun at all.

But the truth is in ACBL, the first item in the "disallowed" table is

"Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy
the opponents’ methods."

Isn't preventing opponents from bidding the best contract as important as bidding best contract of your own?

and another item explicitly disallows you to bid without cards. here we go:

"Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer
than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" is disallowed.

Also, I would like to try forcing pass system, but of course, it's disallowed.

So, ACBL is trying hard to make this game boring, isn't it?

I propose we don't play with these crapy politics, modify the penalty table
and what those people don't like will disappear automatically. Then at least
we wouldn't bother to come up with this ridiculous idea of providing defense to one's own method, at least we can call ourselves "sane"

I wish ANY method is allowed, but it definitely won't happen in this insane world.

it's so obvious, this is not about what is "good" for bridge, or even what is "destrutive" method at all, this is all about what they think can maximize
their profit.

[EricK]

arrows, on Sep 22 2004, 04:58 AM, said:

Quote

Getting back to bridge. If I understand your proposals correctly, bridge would become a much more boring game, especially at the higher levels. The side with the majority of cards would bid to their best game, and when they had bad cards they would leave their opponent's alone in the auction.

Where's the fun in that?

Yes, absolutely. I think it's no fun at all.

But the truth is in ACBL, the first item in the "disallowed" table is

"Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy
the opponents’ methods."

Isn't preventing opponents from bidding the best contract as important as bidding best contract of your own?

and another item explicitly disallows you to bid without cards. here we go:

"Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer
than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" is disallowed.

Also, I would like to try forcing pass system, but of course, it's disallowed.

So, ACBL is trying hard to make this game boring, isn't it?

I propose we don't play with these crapy politics, modify the penalty table
and what those people don't like will disappear automatically. Then at least
we wouldn't bother to come up with this ridiculous idea of providing defense to one's own method, at least we can call ourselves "sane"

I wish ANY method is allowed, but it definitely won't happen in this insane world.

it's so obvious, this is not about what is "good" for bridge, or even what is "destrutive" method at all, this is all about what they think can maximize
their profit.

I think you are under a misapprehension about e.g. Strong pass systems.

They reason they work has little to do with the how big the penalties they might suffer are.

When the bid is anything other than the Fert, they are more accurate and so less likely to suffer a penalty. And when one opens 1♦ showing 0-7, one often gets into some sort of playable contract at the 1 level.

However, if one adjusted the scoring table so that doubling 1 level contracts was quite often more beneficial than scoring your own game, it would simply ruin defensive bidding. It would become dangerous to overcall on much less than an opening bid, and would lead to unopposed auctions for the side with cards.

Also, I don't think the ACBL equate "making it difficult for opponenets to bid their contract" with desttroying opponent's methods". I am not sure exactly what they do mean, but they have no intention of outlawing your opening 3♠ on ♠KQJTxx x xxxx x, if you want.

Eric

[arrows]

Quote

When the bid is anything other than the Fert, they are more accurate and so less likely to suffer a penalty. And when one opens 1♦ showing 0-7, one often gets into some sort of playable contract at the 1 level.

As I understand, you are saying this method gets banned because
it has too much merits to be tolerated by those mediocres. This is self-proven
why bridge is a game for nuts. Not only you have to provide defense against
your own methods, but also effective methods are not allowed! Jesus.

And yet another example is wilkosz 2♦

[EricK]

arrows, on Sep 28 2004, 05:02 AM, said:

Quote

When the bid is anything other than the Fert, they are more accurate and so less likely to suffer a penalty. And when one opens 1♦ showing 0-7, one often gets into some sort of playable contract at the 1 level.

As I understand, you are saying this method gets banned because
it has too much merits to be tolerated by those mediocres. This is self-proven
why bridge is a game for nuts. Not only you have to provide defense against
your own methods, but also effective methods are not allowed! Jesus.

And yet another example is wilkosz 2♦

Strong pass is entirely different to everything else.

What does a double of the opening pass show?! This example demonstrates that you can't simply take your defense to eg a strong club and move it over to the strong pass situation.

And in general, the situations which arise are entirely different to those that arise in other systems. I think the methods were banned not because thay were better but because they were simply too different.

Eric

[the hog]

"I think the methods were banned not because thay were better but because they were simply too different."

Actually no I don't think this is right, Eric. The methods were officially banned because Damiani and a few members of the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons decided that pairs playing FP were giving insufficient disclosure of their methods. I suspect this was a pretext, however. Marston - Burgess brought this matter to a head in one Bermuda Bowl, can't remember exactly which one, but I could look it up.

To Dugite - don't worry too much regarding Brown Sticker conventions. I discussed this with Laurie Kelso, (on the panel which framed the regulations), and he said he expected BS conventions to be allowed in most events, including club events. I suspect congresses may ban them. We'll see!

To ArcLight - I think your idea of 2 leagues is a great idea, one for sooks and one for those who take the game seriously and I know which one I'll be playing in. (if you were a resident in Australia, I suspect you would be alone in your league as even lols here play Brown stickers).

[luke warm]

ron, did i already say welcome back? hehe

[Free]

EricK, on Sep 28 2004, 06:22 AM, said:

What does a double of the opening pass show?! This example demonstrates that you can't simply take your defense to eg a strong club and move it over to the strong pass situation.

And in general, the situations which arise are entirely different to those that arise in other systems. I think the methods were banned not because thay were better but because they were simply too different.

Eric

Seems like you never came up against transfer ideas... If your opps play strong pass, you can consider it as a transfer to 1♣. So bidding 1♣ will be your Dbl over 1♣ opening. Isn't it simple?

However, strong ♣ systems came out of strong pass systems, so actually all other crap comes from banned systems! Consider 2 opening systems:

pass = 14+
1♣ = 4+♥, 9-13
1♦ = 4+♠, 9-13
1♥ = 0-8 any
1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-13
1NT = (9)10-13 bal
2♣ = 6+♣, 9-13

and

pass = 0-8(10)
1♣ = 15+ any
1♦ = 4+♥, 9-14
1♥ = 4+♠, 9-14
1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-14
1NT = 11-14 bal
2♣ = 6+♣, 9-14

see the comparisson between pass-1♥?

[mikestar]

Free, on Sep 28 2004, 11:35 AM, said:

...
However, strong ♣ systems came out of strong pass systems, so actually all other crap comes from banned systems!  Consider 2 opening systems:

pass = 14+
1♣ = 4+♥, 9-13
1♦ = 4+♠, 9-13
1♥ = 0-8 any
1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-13
1NT = (9)10-13 bal
2♣ = 6+♣, 9-13

and

pass = 0-8(10)
1♣ = 15+ any
1♦ = 4+♥, 9-14
1♥ = 4+♠, 9-14
1♠ = 4+♦ unbal, 9-14
1NT = 11-14 bal
2♣ = 6+♣, 9-14

see the comparisson between pass-1♥?

This is a correct description of MOSCITO, which was derived from a FP system. Strong Clubs in general date back to the Vanderbuilt System, invented concurrently with Contact Bridge, and had been experimented with in the days of Auction Bridge. Some authors mentioned a strong spade opening back in the earliest Auction days when spades were the low ranking suit!

Clearly at this time no one had even conceived of FP.