[Cave_Draco]

Misho said "Bridge is only game, but is clear war game. How in any war better weapons and better training normally win."

I would ask; have you read "The Art of War"?

The key to war is deception! Best is to win without fighting, :-D.

Bridge is NOT war, deception has its place in bridge but "Never give a sucker an even break" is not the bridge I play.

[the hog]

This is a difficult area. To a large extent, unfamiliarity is a problem brought about by the legislators themselves. If you legislate against methods then how can you be expected to cope with those very same methods in an arena where they are allowed? I noted with interest the comments made in letters to the editor in "The Bridge World" 2002, - forget the edition, where complaints were made against the methods used by some European teams in the Spingold.

If you confront these methods at least on a semi regular basis then it is possible to devise meta agreements to cope with generalities, as suggested by Hrothgar. eg we can devise a method that would work adequately over most "funny two bids". If I fail to do so, then it is my laziness and inaction that has contributed to my poor result. I see nothing wrong with this at all and this is the point Luis and Misho are making. Re defense databases - I have no strong feelings either way. I am reminded of some amusing stories told by a group of visiting Australians to the US early this year. They played in a number of major events. Once they were kibbitzing a very well known US player. His rho opp opened 2D multi and this guy searched and searched through the def database looking for a defence to this terror weapon. This is absolutely ridiculous! Another one had a major altercation with Meckstroth because of a 2C Ekrens that he, (the Aussie) was playing. M was playing with a client and didn't want his client put under pressure. Again this is ridiculous.

It is because of my reasoning in the penultimate paragraph that I totally disagree with the Dragon's comment:
Playing a bizarre system because it messes up opponents would be unethical; No its not. If the opps know what we are playing and decide they can't be bothered to work out a defence, then that is their problem. Obviously they must be given enough time to do this which is why systems such as strong pass systems are not permitted in pairs events. This does NOT excuse opps for not having meta agreements to cope with generalities, however. We played against Stephen Burgess playing something totally bizarre in a major event a few years ago. I asked him how he came to play this and he said that he basically thought of the stuff he would most hate playing against and cobbled together a system. (1H = 0-2 or 5+, Pass = 17+ or 0-5 etc etc) All perfectly legal and not at all unethical. We coped because we had previously discussed how to cope with "either or" bids on a number of occassions.

There is no doubt that such methods DO need pre alerts; however once the pre alert is given that is it. When we play strong pass, teams of 14+ boards only), we have to submit a system copy to the director a week before the event. All opps can peruse the system and plan a defence, and I find that emminently fair. What is not fair is for me to sut down against a pair, the bid (3H) THEN alerted as a t/f to S.

The question arises as to what happens in an on line game where some play just to while away the time and have a bit of fun. Those who want to play seriously should certainly warn opps of our methods both when asking for opps and also when they sit. Hrothgar, my reg pd and I have certainly had a number of opps leave after 1 hand even when we pre announced or system; I guess they just don't listen or pay attention.

Ron.

[Cave_Draco]

Obviously you don't disagree, Hog, pre-alert any system where opps may need to discuss a "meta-defence", :-D.

I do my homework & decide, against Precision, my 1S opening shows either a 6-card minor or a 5-card minor & a 4-card major?

If I "spring" it on opps? Unfair? No chance to discuss defence?

Hoist by their own petard?

Nah, my ob is to have no secrets, no deception unless P is decieved too.

[the hog]

Obviously you don't disagree, Hog, pre-alert any system where opps may need to discuss a "meta-defence", :-D.

I do my homework & decide, against Precision, my 1S opening shows either a 6-card minor or a 5-card minor & a 4-card major?

No problems at all Draco, as long as you tell me beforehand. seriously compared to what some people play against our big Club this is rather tame. ;D

[Cave_Draco]

Total agreement, :-D.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I agree that the opponents should be warned beforehand of personal potentially disruptive conventions, such as hrothgar's Frellings, the Aussie's 2C Ekren, or my 2C as a weak two in a major or a weak two-suiter with at least a major.

But 2C strong or weak with diamonds, 2D minimulti, 2D/H Ekren, 2D Wilkosz, 2H and 2S as alternatives to Wilkosz, even 2D hearts or spades and a minor, 2H spades or hearts and a minor and 2S majors or minors, maybe 2H weak in hearts or spades, surely 2S as a weaker or stronger preempt and transfer preempts all have been played by several pairs at the highest level.

In my view, it is reason enough not to prealert them if they are explained on your convention card. Nor should the strong club, the Precision nebulous diamond, the Polish Club or the weak notrump be prealerted.

You should be prepared against them (and maybe Fred could label a BBS defense against each of them).

[csdenmark]

You really don't need using very much power to take the air out of this balloon.

State your own suits in absolute terms and not in relative terms - and the problems are over. Truscott convention is created for such.

http://groups.msn.co...S/truscott.msnw

[mishovnbg]

Quote

Misho said "Bridge is only game, but is clear war game. How in any war better weapons and better training normally win."

I would ask; have you read "The Art of War"?

The key to war is deception! Best is to win without fighting, :-D.

Bridge is NOT war, deception has its place in bridge but "Never give a sucker an even break" is not the bridge I play.

Yes, i regular use deceptive play, it is part of my style. In my opinion bluff is normal play, like any other and is not unfair to use it. Ofcourse sometimes i go for my phone number . But how in poker, you mostly win not from bluffs, rather from opponents thinking about you MAY bluff ;D.
Anybody can play way he prefer and lose/win by this way. I can only quote Hog ( Victor Mollo book hero ): "Everybody care for losers ( my - little old ladies ). Why nobody care for winers? Do you think winers like executions?".
Misho

[DrTodd13]

The most ridiculous thing about the Meckstroth 2C Ekrens situation was
that 2D (or 2H I can't remember which one) Ekrens was allowed in the event
because the defensive database had a defense against that bid. However,
solely because 2C was used rather than 2D (thus making defense
theoretically easier) it was disallowed. Moreover, a subsequent "official"
defense to 2C Ekrens was vetoed even though a defense to 2D Ekrens was
on the books.

I disagree with official defensive databases because there are being used
to stop conventions from proliferating by refusing to accept an official
defense. This is in exact opposition to their initial purpose of allowing new
conventions but making sure adequate defense was available. If you are
going to have a defense database then you must mandate that the people
on that committee draft a defense to all submitted conventions in a timely
manner. As it is, the creation of the defense is a burden to the convention
creator and the committee can always say "not good enough."

It always confuses me that people who take up an intellectually difficult
game that requires serious study suddenly argue for the right to not to
have to think anymore. Confronting a new method, pairs should be given
a chance to discuss a defense. Start from the base of a meta-defense
and modify as appropriate. If the convention becomes popular enough
then defenses tailored to it will emerge and people should adopt them.
I'm not convinced that memorization should be required. Allowing a pair
to check their notes when opponents spring something on them I think
is fair. You shouldn't be able to check your notes in an uncontested
auction though.

[hrothgar]

I'm in complete agreement with DrTodd regarding his general theme, however, the case that he is bringing up is a bit more complicated:

The Australian Pair in question originally wanted to use a 2D opening showing 4+ cards in Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major, which is very close to the Frelling 2D opening that I play. The Aussies quickly ran into a problem based on a lack of sugegsted defense in the defensive database. The situation degenerated from there.

There is a more complete description available in the travel blogs from the trip.
[Sadly, I lost the URL]

[the hog]

There is a more complete description available in the travel blogs from the trip.
[Sadly, I lost the URL]


http://www.nswba.com...ews/letters.htm

The above is the URL which is a collection of letters detailing the Aussie's trip to the states.

[Free]

IMO bidding systems should be as they want. If someone wants to play 2C = 0-5HCP so be it. If you want to pass with 18 HCP who cares. Everybody can do the same thing: making a system like they feel it's best. I heard of some systems which open 1H with a 4 card S, and 1S with a 4 card H. It works for them, but it's a bit harder for the opponents to defend against that... It's like playing in defense: on the first trick you play obvious shift so your partner knows what suit he has to play. If opponents dont play that, they just dont know and that's too bad for them.

Now to stick on the topic, I've played transfer pre-empts for about 4 years now, and I haven't got a lot of troubles with it. The disadvantage is that ops have an extra bid, but the advantages are far better: the good hand normally plays and most importantly you can put strong hands in these biddings. Example how I play it:
2S or 2NT = pre-empt C OR FG 55+ C and another suit
3C = pre-empt D OR FG 55+ D and a major
3D = pre-empt H OR FG 55+ H-S
3H = pre-empt S OR FG with H (10 tricks), 3 card S
3S = FG S (10 tricks) with 3 card H
After the relay was bid, opener bids his second suit. If opponents intervene, you can still bid your suit or pass (as a trap) if ur strong.
Btw, a pre-empt doesn't keep good players out their best contract and a transfer pre-empt won't do it either. Not a big difference there...