[arrows]

I have been reading some debate about Brown Sticker Convention, or
generally, destructive methods.

I found that people who supporting regulations on this issue keep
ignoring the very fact that destructive methods are attactive
because current score methods FAVORS them.

It's just that simple. Suppose tomorrow doubled down one will get
you -500, and more undertricks -1000 each. it won't take a genius
to foresee that these system worms will vanish in seconds.

Remember the score methods we use is evolved from rubber bridge, it
may not be fair for duplication bridge. In rubber bridge, asking for
-500 is insane, and taking +300 sure money is always a good way to
make living. In duplicate bridge, not any more.

Also I strongly believe that regulation is silly idea for any game,
because it opens the door for politics and all kind of craps like
that. If we think something is wrong in this game, we should attune
the rule of the game, not seek regulations.

If to change the score methods is too radical, how about we do this:

At the first trick, the opening leader is allowed & required to lead
TWO cards face down, after s/he seeing the dummy, s/he chooses one
of them to lead and picks up the other one.

Defense play has long been known much harder than the declaring play.
espicially the opening lead, many time it's no better than a blind
guess.

The opening lead is the only card-playing decision made
without seeing 26 cards. This is what those worm-lovers want to
take advantage of, they like to bid with no cards. Most of time it's
not a bad idea to double and let them play the hand. The contract, of
course, is insane usually. However, again and again, they
escaped with ease because the first shot of defense is not even close
to the target.

Don't be fooled by "they are protected by THE LAW". Trump is not
everything, With accurate opening lead, Most of these insane contracts
would get slaughtered even under current score methods due to shorting
of high card strength.

I hope the proposed opening lead procedure may in some degree help
to eliminate those system worms. what do you think?

[DrTodd13]

Bidding in such a way as to make the opening lead difficult is an art and should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Relay systems, that I'm sure you hate and classify as destructive, only reveal one of the hands and if the dummy is the hand that has fully described itself then your approach of choice of opening leads will still be totally worthless since you won't gain any new information. So, basically, my summary to you is, step into the modern era - be aggresive and preemptive and cause as much hell for the opponents as you can. Why play this game if you don't want to think and learn and get better over time?

That is just my opinion but I know there are thousands who don't want to get better and to keep playing the same game they learned 30 years ago. We need two bridge leagues. One for people who want to stay stagnate...we'll call it crippled bridge...and another for people who aren't afraid of the new bridge.

[paulhar]

DrTodd13, on Aug 27 2004, 04:04 PM, said:

we'll call it crippled bridge

Try another name. With that one, you'll still have the people that belong in what you call 'crippled bridge' playing in your game, still trying to change it (for the worse from your standpoint.)

I speak from experience. When we ran a student game, we separated it into two sections, the 'speedy yellow section' and the 'green section'. The speedy section played 21 boards in 2 1/2 hours, while the green section played 18 with many late-plays and no-plays. A fair number of people played in the 'speedy' section whose speed of play didn't warrant. That section averaged 11 tables, while the 'slow' section averaged 6. The implication was that the players who played in the green section were inferior.

Then we started calling the green section the 'sociable green section'. Almost immediately, the yellow section became 7 tables a week and the green section became 10 as the players who belonged there no longer felt a stimga attached to the section. The speedy section played faster (and occasionally got 24 boards in) and the other people were happy playing at a pace more comfortable for them.

So, if you don't want the 'stagnant' players in your game trying to change it, you'd better call their game something that doesn't make it sound inferior (even though it might be.)

[arrows]

Quote

Bidding in such a way as to make the opening lead difficult is an art and should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Relay systems, that I'm sure you hate and classify as destructive, only reveal one of the hands and if the dummy is the hand that has fully described itself then your approach of choice of opening leads will still be totally worthless since you won't gain any new information. So, basically, my summary to you is, step into the modern era - be aggresive and preemptive and cause as much hell for the opponents as you can. Why play this game if you don't want to think and learn and get better over time?

Don't be so sure. who told you relay system==destrcutive methods?
In a relay system, you relay because you HAVE cards. Only nuts bid destructively
when their side holds stronger cards. I cannot see what your point is.

Worthless? Ok, suppose you play relay system and I am on lead, are you willing to
read every spots in the "fully described" dummy before I make my lead?

I didn't say I hate or love destructive motheds. But definitely I am against regulation on this issue, since it won't be fair by its nature and I believe everyone should be treated in the same way, whether you love or hate these mothed.

[jtfanclub]

Doesn't matter.

Somebody told me yesterday that it was Jeff Rubens who once said that playing anti-field is the way to go because you tend to come in first or last, and while on the average you might have a lower place than an expert playing with the field, who cares when you can get more wins?

It doesn't matter if a loss causes you to lose a million points and get a spanking. You're counting on that one time in X when they go right to give you a win in the event.

[1eyedjack]

jtfanclub, on Aug 27 2004, 07:39 PM, said:

Doesn't matter.

Somebody told me yesterday that it was Jeff Rubens who once said that playing anti-field is the way to go because you tend to come in first or last, and while on the average you might have a lower place than an expert playing with the field, who cares when you can get more wins?

It doesn't matter if a loss causes you to lose a million points and get a spanking. You're counting on that one time in X when they go right to give you a win in the event.

Depends whether it is a one-off event or long term league. In the latter, consistent good performance (whilst not winning any individual component) could win you the laurels. In the former, playing a technically inferior but uncommon method might win but the chances become vanishingly small if the event is of sufficient length. Not that "the field" is necessarily playing the technically superior method, of course.

I know that it is an unpopular viewpoint but I believe that if you have an uncommon method that is technically superior then you do best to play this in any format of event, even if you are an expert who might expect to win when playing with the field.

[1eyedjack]

DrTodd13, on Aug 27 2004, 04:04 PM, said:

Bidding in such a way as to make the opening lead difficult is an art and should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

I have a lot of sympathy for this viewpoint but there are also ethical dangers.

For example, there are players who consistently open their weaker or shorter minor, supposedly to inhibit that lead. They figure that they never intend to play in the minor, so opening the suit as a stop-gap route to bidding NT to clarify point range might as well be used to inhibit the lead.

I don't suggest that there is a great deal of artistry in this technique, but as an extreme it serves to illustrate the point. Any defender of experience should be alive to the possibility of this manoeuver. However, if habitual then responder will be less surprised than defenders and an implicit agreement is in force. If responder is sufficiently ethical to alert this habit to the opponents then it loses its advantage.

[Free]

Bridge is a simple game: there are 52 cards, 4 suits, 4 players, 13 tricks, a bidding order, and a scoretable. After the bidding, there's one player assigned as declarer, and his LHO has to lead 1 card. After the play, you look at your scoretable and fill it in.

I don't see any reason to change any of these rules, it's the basic concept of the game. Why don't you ask for a 5th person at the table, holding 0 cards, which can tell you if your lead will kill the contract?

For many years (I don't know how much exactly) the scoretables have been changed, so downscores cost more! And apparently some people are still not happy about it. These changes were made before real destructive bidding came along btw! If you keep the rules steady for a while, you make the game a real science, which is imo a wonderful thing! Look at what bidding systems have come along the last couple of years, look at the systems being developed at this very moment, look at how many ways you can lead a suit, look at how many ways you can discard and give signals to your partner,...
These days, destructive bidding is a bit attractive since it's the winning line in many cases. But who gives you the right if you have good cards to bid freely without intervention? Why should opps, with the bad cards, be quiet and let the game go like you want it? When you're playing a contract with the good cards, you actually decide how the game is going to end for a big part. So why can't opps control some part of the bidding? Make the game fun, let everyone tell his story, penalize them if they talk too much, and have a happy ending
Bridge is competition, not a joyride, so learn how to deal with all parts of the game!

About the relay=destructive, there was (I hope I convinced him otherwise) someone on the forum (but can't remember his name) who actually thought relaysystems were destructive. Ofcourse this person had no idea what relay systems are, but this proves you wouldn't be the first one to think this way. I'm happy you're not
This person however also complained about the scoring methods, and destructive bidding, that's probably why DrTodd thought you classified relaysystems as destructive...

[the saint]

I'm getting frustrated with all these continual calls to change the game or adjust the scoring because people don't like the way the game has evolved. Lets put all this in perspective. The world is 5 billion years old, man has been on the face of the planet for only a few tens of thousands of years of which civilisation has been around for even less, and the very pinnacle of civilisation - bridge (of course) - has been around in its current form for less than a century. It is a young game and it is still evolving. People forget that the methods we take for granted and play as standard now would be completely alien to those playing only 50 years ago. If you analyse World Championships, the number of unintelligible systems played by the very top pairs has actually declined dramatically from their late 80's early 90's heyday. This has happened as players have re-evaluated their priorities at the table and their methods with them. I have no doubt that such things will return, as these processes are always cyclical, but by then we may have yet more methods as standard that we cannot comprehend today.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the game that requires any shift in the rules as suggested. Destructive bidding is a skill and an artform. The reason why (IMHO) Bridge is superior to chess and poker is that it combines the best of both and then places it within the context of having to do it with the ox sitting opposite you. To complain about destructive bidding is akin to complaining about inventive false carding in defence or deceptive declarer play. These are lauded as fine technique - surely this also applies to fine judgement in destructive bidding. If the player up against you can read you better than you can read them and backs their judgement in the auction, this too deserves some accolade.

There are many ways and styles of playing this game, and it is the temperament and intellect of each player that determines which approach they take and which works best for them. It is for us all to understand ourselves better that we work out the best approach for ourselves and our partnership. This self-discovery and the hard work it entails is one of the joys of the game and creates the myriad of differing players that we see. To castrate one aspect of the game because it is deemed undesirable by a facet of players is to remove the cultural diversity. If everyone looked the same, what a boring place this world would be.

Alan

[ArcLight]

>Destructive bidding is a skill and an art form.

I agree.

However, what attracts me to Bridge is the deductive reasoning, as opposed to the art of bluffing, like Poker. Poker requires skill, but I have no interest in playing it. I play Bridge because I find dedcutive reasoning interesting, not to "win a game at all costs". If winning was the most important element (rather than the game itself) then I would be better off sticking to a different game, like BackGammon where I could win more often.

I find all the bidding systems and conventions fascinating. It's interesting to see all thee new systems being developed. There are some very clever people spending a lot of time inventing these systems, and in the long run the better systems will win out and bidding will probably become better. But I have no interest in having to study all these systems, to know how to deal with them when I play. To borrow a quite from Bobby Hamman from his book "At the Table", - "Bridge has become a game of language rather than deductive reasoning". I agree. I don't want to stop anyone from experimenting, but I do want a place where I can play and not have to face scores of systems I've never heard of and not know what to do. For me the answer is to play in ACBL tournaments.

I've seen people say that the ACBL tournaments are for the lazy, timid, dumb, who don't want to or cant learn better systems. I think its more that people want to play a deductive reasoning game and don't want to invest a huge amount of time studying all these systems. I don't particularly care what system I use, as long as many people use it where I play. If I lived in the UK and they use ACOL, I'd play ACOL. If in Poland and they use Polish Club, that's what I'd use. Maybe Precision in India? MOSCITO in a swampy area (hahaha).

I don't like the idea of destructive bidding because it shifts the emphasis from deductive reasoning to bluffing. That doesn't mean that skill is no longer required, just that the skill needed doesn't interest me.

I think the solution is very simple and obvious (and is already in place).
Have 2 gaming venues, one where everything goes, and a restricted venue where systems are limited. I can play in the later and be happy, and others can play in the former.


I think it wrong to stifle innovation. I want people to experiment and come up with better systems.

I think it wrong to force everyone to learn a huge number of systems - remember many people who play Bridge do it for fun and have a social life outside of Bridge. (Some Bridge players don't have a life outside of Bridge.)

I think changing the penalty table may work, but I wouldn't be so quick to make a radical change. It's probably better to have 2 venues and self select the members.

Lastly, ask yourself this question - If you were learning Bridge today, what would you do? Would you be overwhelmed by the number of systems? How did you learn bridge and from whom? Would those people who taught you have been playing if Bridge was as complex as it is today? Is Bridge so complex that new "recreational" players are not coming into the field at a rate high enough to sustain the hobby? I think that most of today's experts got into Bridge not by deciding that they wanted to be Bridge experts, but by playing recreationally and realizing that they liked the game and had an aptitude for it.

I have no interest in playing destructive or bluff bridge so I'd like to play with others who have a similar view. And those who want to experiment should also play with those who like those elements. Simple, 2 venues.

[ng:)]

ArcLight, we are on the same boat. See topic: Poker bridge

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...wtopic=3919&hl=

except:

"I think changing the penalty table may work, but I wouldn't be so quick to make a radical change."

Why not?

Gabor (ng)

[helium]

Someone sayd that its no longer a risk to bid at the 1 level,no matter pts. suitlength or voulntrability.
I really dont agree whit this , playing at the bridgehouse in oslo we play dobbeld 1 level contracts atleast 2 times in a 28 board turney. whit 500-1100 in downs.

[Cascade]

arrows, on Aug 28 2004, 07:25 AM, said:

I have been reading some debate about Brown Sticker Convention, or
generally, destructive methods.

I found that people who supporting regulations on this issue keep
ignoring the very fact that destructive methods are attactive
because current score methods FAVORS them.

Perhaps if the scoring method favours them then they are not destructive.

I am in favour of anything that legitimately gets a better score for my side.

And being fun to play is a bonus.

[ArcLight]

>>"I think changing the penalty table may work, but I wouldn't be so quick to make a radical change."

>Why not?


I think that those who enjoy playing with destructive bidding should be able to do so in their venue, free of interference (provided I dont have to play with them)
Having said that, if I were to play with destructive/bluff bidders then a raise of the penalty might worthwhile. I was playing against a pair who was very aggressive in their pre-empts, bidding 2X with 5 cards. Even if we set them on occasion and did ok, it wasn't all that enjoyable. [while I like to win, I also want to enjoy the game I'm playing]


I think some of the success of any new system, regardless of how good it is, is due to its newness. The opponents dont know how to counter it. So the system is initially very successful and a lot of smart people start thinking up ways to defeat it. Over time a defense evolves and the new system, while still good is perhaps no longer the killer it once was. If there were an immediate ban on a system, then a defense would never evolve.

[arrows]

I am not against any methods.
I am against regulation.

if you let me decide what methods are allowed, surele I will rule out those I
am not familiar with. got my point?

BTW, why people have to use methods you are familiar with? Tell me why?

My point is no more regulation, let the game itself decide what method has merit.

I was really amused by the profound stupidity of the idea that one must provide
defense against one's own method. This absurdness is inconceivable in any other
intellegenent game, but sadly it's the reality of bridge!

For example, playing chess, I prapared some variations home, and I know they
are perhaps unsound moves, but I also know they are probably effective this time
because my opponent has never seen it. Now you require me to tell my
opponent how to defend it???

Is bridge a game for nuts??

[EricK]

arrows, on Sep 12 2004, 06:16 PM, said:

I am not against any methods.
I am against regulation.

if you let me decide what methods are allowed, surele I will rule out those I
am not familiar with. got my point?

BTW, why people have to use methods you are familiar with? Tell me why?

My point is no more regulation, let the game itself decide what method has merit.

I was really amused by the profound stupidity of the idea that one must provide
defense against one's own method. This absurdness is inconceivable in any other
intellegenent game, but sadly it's the reality of bridge!

For example, playing chess, I prapared some variations home, and I know they
are perhaps unsound moves, but I also know they are probably effective this time
because my opponent has never seen it. Now you require me to tell my
opponent how to defend it???

Is bridge a game for nuts??

In chess, you spring a surprise variation on me and I have a chance of working out my best counter.

In bridge, if you spring a surprise on us, we each have to come up with a counter and hope it is the same one.

That is the difference.

Obviously, a well-practised pair should have generic methods to deal with anything they may come across. But what if it is a pick-up partnership? Should they be denied the chance to compete?

Eric

[Flame]

Regulations is a must, without it the game will turn out to be a game of finding wierd system which our opps doesnt know.
who need finneses, who need endplays, signaling, or anything that is bridge today, lets just play what they dont know.

[DrTodd13]

If someone springs something on you that you and your partner haven't seen then just bid naturally. That is the equivalent of using your knowledge of chess tactics to defend against a never-before-seen variation being sprung on you. After the round, you and partner can discuss how to better improve your defense the next time around.

If there is any place in the world that has a thriving bridge community that has very few bidding restrictions then I don't see how people can make the argument that restrictions are necessary for the health of bridge. AFAIK, there are several countries that have little or not bidding restrictions yet thriving bridge communities. To then say that restrictions are necessary in some other country is to as least partly insult the intelligence of the people in that country.

What I'll never understand are those people who take up such an intellectual game as bridge and then start trying to impose restrictions to keep themselves from having to think. There is a constant tension in those countries where systems restrictions are in place between those that have learned the predominant style of bidding and then just want to blissfully play that way until they die and those who view it as an intellectual pursuit and don't shy away from new systems and conventions.

For somebody with more time on their hands, it might be interesting to find out the average age of bridge players in various countries and correlate that to the amount of system restrictions. I'll bet that the older the average brdige player the more restrictions.

[Flame]

I take back what i said that there is no way to live without regulations,
The simple question is do we want to allow people to prepare a specific tool against whatever they meet at the table or not.
If we agree to let people prepare thier tools then they must know before the turnaments what they can meet there which mean regulations.
But there is another way, play without regulations, this as i see it will do 3 things, first it will give adv to unknown systems, second it will put meta systems (like the meta overcalls by misho or the nothing system) those two are fine, the last thing it will do is fastrate people usually not too young people who prefer to enjoy bridge and not to take place in the systems contest, i know DrTood like system inventing, i like it myself, but i know my mom doesnt, and i know most people her age doesnt, i think this will make the game unplayable for those people.
All in all if everything is legal it will change the game, some changes for the best some for the worst, imo the sum of all will be less then with regulations.
It might be smarter to just make some turneys with regulations and some without regulations.

[Free]

Flame, on Sep 12 2004, 08:41 PM, said:

Regulations is a must, without it the game will turn out to be a game of finding wierd system which our opps doesnt know.
who need finneses, who need endplays, signaling, or anything that is bridge today, lets just play what they dont know.

You're right that regulations is a must, but you make restrictions out of your regulations, which is the opposite of "a must" imo. Certain people might find some stuff weird, but are quite logic if they would think about it. Regulations should guide the game, not restrict it and stop all inventive possibilities.

In the early days of modern bridge, some weirdo (not meant as insult to the person we all know) came up with an idea to use 4NT to ask about how many Aces his partner has. Nobody EVER heard about it, it was über-weird, but these days many people use it, they even use it too much!

Using some protection for the advanced oldies who want to enjoy their game is necessary in a way, but it shouldn't punish all other players. I live in a country where most things are allowed in most tourneys. We have coloured cathegories, and only HUM (yellow) and brown sticker conventions are usually banned. All other artificial stuff is allowed. Rule of 18 usually in 1st & 2nd seat, sometimes also in 3rd & 4th seat. Only in top competition and on clubevenings the brown and yellow thingy's are allowed (although clubs probably wouldn't allow strong pass systems for a long time), but we can play a fair ammount of systems all over the country, so I should be happy. If I hear what you can play in Australia, I'm jalous, but if I hear what you can only play in the USA, then I'm overjoyed I don't live there!
Bridge is imo some sort of science. You can make numerous bidding systems, develop bether conventions and treatments, have thousands of styles, and this only with 38 possible bids and 52 cards! If you see what kind of evolution bidding systems have gone through, it's amazing what we've discovered. Just take a look at relay systems for example. If you would've told someone in the early days you could show exact shape on all hands (except the freaks) under 3NT, they would put you in a mental institution! I wonder where we will be in 30 years, but if we'd get restrictions like hell, we'll probably be playing the exact same systems like we do now...