[awm]

The issue with defending light openings is that you suddenly need to have methods to bid constructively after the opponents open the bidding at the one-level. This is definitely possible; after all we all need to bid constructively after opponents open at the two-level and having more space should only help us. But there are a number of issues with many people's approach to bidding after the opponents open:

(1) Most people pretty much give up on slam after opponents open one. This is usually right (barring a huge fit) after a standard opening, but not necessarily right after a light opening.

(2) Most people don't play a lot of forcing bids after opponents open one. Big hands have to start with double (which creates a lot of issues if not the "right" shape for a takeout double) or start with a one-level overcall (which now has a ridiculous range of values). A forcing hand for advancer after partner's overcall often has to start with a nebulous cuebid (which partner could easily mistake for support). Usually you don't notice these issues because the really big hands after opponents sound opening are few and far between, but they become more common when opponents open light.

(3) Many people will jump into an auction with a very wide range of values after a fit is shown. For example, 1♥-P-2♥-3♣ could be a lousy hand with good clubs and short hearts, or a moose with moderate clubs. Again the assumption is "we probably don't have game on values, so let's try and make a partial or push the opponents up." Reasonable enough if 1♥ showed 12+ and 2♥ showed 6+. But if 1♥ could be 8 points and 2♥ could be 5, you could easily have a 3NT on values (without even having running clubs) and it's going to be hard to reach if 3♣ could be "anything with clubs."

Again, I don't believe these issues are insurmountable, but they do require a close look at your methods after the enemy opens. The light openers often get themselves in trouble too, either because their openings are too wide-ranging (making their own constructive bidding difficult) or because their opening (or their pass) helps locate values for the opponents in the bidding and play, or because in order to avoid the "wide-ranging opening" problem they play a nebulous forcing club (or diamond, or pass) which exposes them to preemption. It's true that the light opening style tends to randomize results a bit, but any number of ploys that have been part of bridge from time immemorial randomize results (any action that might or might not work out and likely won't be taken at another table randomizes results, including virtually every opening lead you can make as well as all psychs, preempts, penalty doubles, sacrifices). The trick is to randomize while improving your own likely score.

The only real reason to ban certain methods is the unfair advantage that can be gained due to the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. It seems clear that if I play something weird that has a lot of inferences which can't be explained briefly and requires devising a defense that's pretty different from a good defense to anything else, opponents will be at a significant disadvantage (at least if they don't have several hours to prepare for the match in advance). Bridge is not a game of secret messages, or of "who can play the weirdest stuff" and so there is some incentive to ban certain things especially in the context of short matches (pair games, less serious events, etc). How far to go with this is a matter of opinion, as is what exactly to expect people to be familiar with.

[pbleighton]

Quote

The only real reason to ban certain methods is the unfair advantage that can be gained due to the opponents' unfamiliarity with the methods. It seems clear that if I play something weird that has a lot of inferences which can't be explained briefly and requires devising a defense that's pretty different from a good defense to anything else, opponents will be at a significant disadvantage (at least if they don't have several hours to prepare for the match in advance). Bridge is not a game of secret messages, or of "who can play the weirdest stuff" and so there is some incentive to ban certain things especially in the context of short matches (pair games, less serious events, etc). How far to go with this is a matter of opinion, as is what exactly to expect people to be familiar with.

Adam, would you give some examples of aggressive systems/bids which (regardless of their present ACBL regulatory status):
1. Should be GCC legal, and
2. Should be GCC illegal?

Specifically, how do you feel about
a. Very light openings in standardish systems, and
b. Very light openings in *mainstream* strong club systems (define as you wish)
c. Moscito
d. Forcing pass

Your statement above, while I disagree with it, seems like it might be reasonable, but it's vague enough so that I don't quite know what to think.

Peter

[Free]

foo, on Jun 26 2007, 08:30 PM, said:

Changing the playing conditions so that Bridge is more of a crap shoot and less a contest of skill devalues those major themes and elevates the randomness element from its proper place to an inappropriate importance greater than the major themes of concentration, logic, and skill.

At that point, you may still have a fun game; but it is no longer Bridge. For increasing the randomness element past a certain point changes the fundamental emphasis of what is going on ATT.

What a load of bull. What is bridge? It's a game, described with 93 articles in a little booklet. It has NOTHING to do with randomness of any kind of bids or plays, it has nothing to do with HCP, it doesn't care how good you concentrate, what your skills are,...

However it describes HOW you can win: by scoring points based on the contract bid and the number of tricks taken, and what other people have achieved with the same cards. It does NOT describe how you have to get to that contract, and how you have to make sure you get that number of tricks.

So what is bridge all about? It's a game, and everybody wants to win, end of story. It doesn't matter how, as long as we win. So we use methods that give us, with our limited amount of skills, the best results. If this is includes pure random methods, so what? Why should we play methods that give us worse results than we could achieve? Why should we help our opponents? Why should we decrease our chances to win? Why do we have to limit our capabilities with our bidding system?

You claim that you can hardly make logical deductions when opps make certain bids (like light openings). Why? These players use such systems so they can actually make better decisions! So the problem is not with the players, not with their system, but with you...
And what about random bids, like a 2M opening that shows 0-7HCP with 4+M (= Lorenzo two's)? Well ok, suppose it's really solid and you get bottom after bottom after such openings. Then why don't you apply these methods yourself? You know from experience that it works, so improve your chances to win, don't whine because you lose. And if it's not such a great method after all, again it's your own problem, because you don't defend well enough against it.

[foo]

All this is clearly quite off topic for the original intent of this thread.

Let's start another one to pursue the important issues being raised if people wish to give this the careful consideration and deliberation it deserves.

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Jun 26 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

>Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range.


Good.

I don't enoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play.

I am reminded of an earlier thread regarding mathematicians and lawyers and, more specifically, the hypothesis that the lawyers drove the mathematicans out of the game.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I don't enoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play. Many of you are really into bidding systems, yet you are not competent card players (neither am I yet  )
Many of you can't draw inferences. I would much rather play with/against great players where we all use a simpler system that is not destructive/obstructive.
Playing "your idea" of bridge doesn't appeal to me. I don't enjoy playing against "junk" bids where sometimes we get screwed (missing out on a game) and sometimes we set the opps for 1400.

How do you define "simpler" system? What makes a system simple or complicated? Simple is "what I'm used to"?

EVERY system has obstructive / destructive bids. They are called preempts. The most agressive system I've played is Magic Diamond:

In 1st 2nd:

1♣: 13 (14 if bal.) - 16, any
1♦: 17 (18 if bal.)+ any
1♥: 8 - 12, 4+♥
1♠: 8 - 12, 4+♠
1NT: 10 - 13
2m: 8 - 12, 5-4m or 6+ cards
2M, 2NT: 8 - 12, 5-5 distribution

This means that all 10-counts are opened (vuln. you may pass 10 bal.), and all unbalanced 9 and most unbal. 8 counts. Agressive? Sure! Destructive? No. Complicated? Not at all. We started out with 3 handwritten pages.

[ArcLight]

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive. (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)
A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot. It might be effective, it might not. But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much. Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP. It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting. It becomes more random. Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

[the hog]

ArcLight, on Jul 5 2007, 09:21 AM, said:

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive.  (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)
A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot.  It might be effective, it might not.  But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much.  Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP.  It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting.  It becomes more random.  Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

I disagree. I think it offers you an intellectual challenge you have to solve. Where are you going to draw the line with your argument - a 6 card suit headed by 3 of the top 5, 2 of the top 5, 1 of the top 5, etc? Why is openeing very light a crapshoot? Where are you going to draw the line here, 11, 12, 13HCP? More?

You could also argue that someone who makes a play that is even obviously wrong to a beginner is creating a crapshoot, and yet this happens not infrequently.

[EricK]

ArcLight, on Jul 5 2007, 02:21 AM, said:

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive. (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)
A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot. It might be effective, it might not. But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much. Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP. It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting. It becomes more random. Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

What exactly do you mean by "random" in this context?

[mike777]

Does random really have that many different meanings? Chance, luck?
Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.
If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.
If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.
Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\
Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random? We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.
I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.
You decide and you pay.

edit:

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

[Gerben42]

If so, why do people like to play games that are completely random like bingo? I cannot imagine EVER liking that. You also won't see me at a slot machine or a roulette table. It's simply not my kind of thing.

[EricK]

mike777, on Jul 5 2007, 07:25 AM, said:

Does random really have that many different meanings?  Chance, luck?
Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.
If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.
If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.
Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\
Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random?  We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.
I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.
You decide and you pay.

edit:

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

Consider the case of Cohen and Bergen. I really have only heard about their exploits in tales, but as I understand it they introduced (or at least made use of) a lot of these so-called "randomizing" pre-empts and they consistently did very well! Now if this is true then "random" is being used in an unusual sense when it comes to describing bidding methods.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Jul 5 2007, 02:40 AM, said:

If so, why do people like to play games that are completely random like bingo? I cannot imagine EVER liking that. You also won't see me at a slot machine or a roulette table. It's simply not my kind of thing.

Gerben, I rest my case, Bingo is not perceived as random, do you really know bingo players who pay money? Lots of money? Do they vote that what ever pleasure, fun, value they get out of Bingo is random? NO!

I would go farther and say if you measure value only in terms of dollars or euros you are making a measuring error of value(utility).

[mike777]

EricK, on Jul 5 2007, 02:43 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 5 2007, 07:25 AM, said:

Does random really have that many different meanings?  Chance, luck?
Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.
If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.
If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.
Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\
Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random?  We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.
I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.
You decide and you pay.

edit:

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

Consider the case of Cohen and Bergen. I really have only heard about their exploits in tales, but as I understand it they introduced (or at least made use of) a lot of these so-called "randomizing" pre-empts and they consistently did very well! Now if this is true then "random" is being used in an unusual sense when it comes to describing bidding methods.

ok so where is your proof they bid random and won based on random. Luck or chance? year after year? I am sceptical. But if you have proof they won on random chance and luck for years, cool please show me your paper.

I also note even if they did they stopped playing in fact Bergen stopped playing tourney bridge 100%. You seem to present strong evidence against random bidding?

[skjaeran]

ArcLight, on Jul 5 2007, 04:21 AM, said:

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive.  (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild)
A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot.  It might be effective, it might not.  But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much.  Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP.  It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting.  It becomes more random.  Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

I can't see how opening 1♠ changes the nature of the game, makes it less interesting nor more random.
The game is the same, you only get more challenges. IMO it's even more interesting with various methods. If it get's more random - I really don't know.

In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence. Over pass we just played our own system on, the same vs 1♣ (double=1♣ opening, T-Walsh on) etc. It was great fun, and we had very little trouble with opponents system. We lost the match with some margin, but that was, as it normally is, due to bad judgement in a couple of situations (and some bad luck).

[EricK]

mike777, on Jul 5 2007, 08:00 AM, said:

EricK, on Jul 5 2007, 02:43 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 5 2007, 07:25 AM, said:

Does random really have that many different meanings?  Chance, luck?
Bridge can have several types of games with different laws/rules.
If you prefer a game that is more random, then pay your money.
If you prefer a game that has less random, then pay your money.
Allowing some style of bids, conventions or systems allow more random or less?\
Does a bid, convention, system, or style allow more random?  We humans are rather poor at knowing this so we just vote with our dollars. We may vote wrong.
I repeat humans are rather poor at telling you if something adds more random or less, we just vote.
You decide and you pay.

edit:

I would add that we humans have a bias towards voting towards perceived less random. Note the word perceived.

Consider the case of Cohen and Bergen. I really have only heard about their exploits in tales, but as I understand it they introduced (or at least made use of) a lot of these so-called "randomizing" pre-empts and they consistently did very well! Now if this is true then "random" is being used in an unusual sense when it comes to describing bidding methods.

ok so where is your proof they bid random and won based on random. Luck or chance? year after year? I am sceptical. But if you have proof they won on random chance and luck for years, cool please show me your paper.

I also note even if they did they stopped playing in fact Bergen stopped playing tourney bridge 100%. You seem to present strong evidence against random bidding?

I wasn't the person who originally used the word "random". I was commenting on the fact that pre-empts which are made on weaker hands or weaker suits than is traditional are often accused of randomising the game (as in the post from ArcLight which I responded to). I was just asking what was meant by "random". I mentioned Bergen and Cohen precisely because they kept on winning despite using these so-called randomising methods. It is not that I think these pre-empts are randomising - far from it, in fact. I think that they emphasise a different set of skills than traditional methods.

[ArcLight]

I'm not saying its "losing bridge" to use a method like a very weak preempt. Just that it changes the nature of the game. Some may say "winning the game it the main thing". To me, the game has to be interesting, and I find it less so with the super weak preempts (or other destructive bids)

Also, I'm not saying that those who enjoy this stuff should stop using it. They have every right to enoy the game as they like to play it. It does lessen my enjoyment, so I would like to have a venue to play with those who have similar views.

This post was orginally in response to hrothgars complain about restrictions on systems/methods.


>In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence.

Doesn't sound like fun to me


I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find taht less enjoyable.

[skjaeran]

ArcLight, on Jul 5 2007, 07:54 PM, said:

>In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence.

Doesn't sound like fun to me


I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find taht less enjoyable.

What on earth make you think the pair were weak players?
Don't jump to conclusions.

You can still draw interferences when playing against unfamiliar methods. But it's more work than when playing against familiar methods. And still fun.

[mike777]

Kehela and Murray, Canada's best players, quit bridge when the weak opening bids among other bidding styles seemed to require a coach to win at the top levels. This was over 20 years ago when they were quite young in bridge years.
Does placing limits on bids drive away more paying players than it keeps? Endless debate for over 25 years.

There does seem to be a consensus in the articles I have read over the decades that many weaker players seek to gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches. This does seem to contribute to a decline in paying customers. In any case the debate continues and should.

I do think the paying customers should have the final vote but I do think those that favor a more mathmatical allowed approach to bidding continue to press their case for change.

From what I read in the magazines I get the impression Open pairs is dying out at the tourney level. I note how many players seem to be going to Nashville to play in KO's but do not even bother to mention open pair games.

Arclight seems to say he does not and will not pay for f2f bridge given certain items. Richard has given up f2f brige for years for not being allowed to play moscito type styles. I have not played f2f bridge for other reasons.

I do think that those that continue to pay for f2f bridge should get a vote and a stronger voice.

[the hog]

ArcLight, on Jul 6 2007, 12:54 AM, said:

I'm not saying its "losing bridge" to use a method like a very weak preempt. Just that it changes the nature of the game. Some may say "winning the game it the main thing". To me, the game has to be interesting, and I find it less so with the super weak preempts (or other destructive bids)

Also, I'm not saying that those who enjoy this stuff should stop using it. They have every right to enoy the game as they like to play it. It does lessen my enjoyment, so I would like to have a venue to play with those who have similar views.

This post was orginally in response to hrothgars complain about restrictions on systems/methods.


>In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence.

Doesn't sound like fun to me


I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find taht less enjoyable.

Just a few points here: Why on earth does it have to be 2/1. You know that there are other natural systems in the Bridge World eg Acol. Your view seems to be very parochial.

Secondly you are actually not that far away from Richard, me and others in your opinions. We have always argued that there should be restricted events for those who want to play natural only, (but how do you define "natural?), and for those who enjoy the intellectual challenge of artificial systems. Naturally bridge at the top level should be "anything goes."

Thirdly you have not answered my comment that plays can be "random" as well. You can't trust a weker player to always make the right plays so that "you can draw inferences."

Finally as Harald has already pointed out, don't amke presumptions that those who play artificialiaties are weaker players. I can name a number of world class players who played these methods before they were legislated out of existence.

One last query - have you ever played against these methods? You might surprise yourself and enjoy having your intellect tested.