[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on Jul 6 2007, 12:32 PM, said:

But I don't know anyone whose primary purpose in playing unusual systems is opponent error.

But how can you tell, outside of mind reading?

Regardless of why I claim to have chosen to play Precision, the effect is that "many weaker players...gain advantage by playing unfamiliar methods in short pair or teammatches" accurately describes me, and people like me.

So is all the complaining simply because of the (deleted) words 'seek to' in the post of Mike's I'm quoting? Am I to be insulted because he has ascribed motive to me, instead of it being happy happenstance? Because to the rest of the world, it all looks the same.

[pbleighton]

Quote

So is all the complaining simply because of the (deleted) words 'seek to' in the post of Mike's I'm quoting? Am I to be insulted because he has ascribed motive to me, instead of it being happy happenstance? Because to the rest of the world, it all looks the same.

Here is Mike's quote:

Quote

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.

There are three issues here:
1. A putative "consensus in the articles I have read over the decades", which Mike has failed to back up.
2. The imputation of what I consider to be an unethical motive as the implied primary motive is something I personally don't take lightly. You may not care, I do.
3. The implication that players who play unusual systems tend to be weaker players. This is a consistent theme among the bidding reactionaries. My personal experience is the opposite - most strong club players I know are good players. I don't make this claim for myself, BTW, I'm just a decent club player.

This kind of crap is posted all the time.

To put the shoe on the other foot, with nothing other than my own experience:

The players who I have encountered who have had strong objections to unusual stuff (by me, all GCC legal) have mostly not been strong players. They tend not to be beginners. They can play the cards reasonably well, but they freak out when they are confronted with light openings, or weak/mini notrump, or strong club, or aggressive preempting, etc.

The truth be told, they spend WAY too much time worrying about our bids, and not enough time using common sense and bidding judgement. They don't have an *optimal* defense to our methods? They don't have an *optimal* defense to 2/1, either.

There are complex systems out there, which will benefit defenders from study, but these are few and far between. Most of the people who don't like them would like to ban weak notrump, as well.

Peter

[Cascade]

foo, on Jul 6 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

So, an idea based on a suggestion of Cascade as a modification of the regulations on allowed methods at the ACBL GCC or other "general playing member" level:

"If the opening is systemically 'light' enough that it has less than a 75% chance of resulting in a makable contract (example: Frelling Two's with a low enough HCP range), then the pair using it
a= must play the opening strictly within it's stated shape and value range
(IOW, they may pass hands they consider poor in the stated range, but they may not use this opening with hands that have more or less HCP than the stated range; nor with hands that are off-shape for the stated description.)
AND
b= every time a pair uses such an opening the hand is declared XX."

Thus there will be a built-in dis-incentive against being more "random" than Usual Practice.

75% may not be the correct value. The mathematicians can figure out where the cut-off should exist such that people playing too Destructive a method end up having a large negative overall expectation on the scoring table.
Certainly any methods having a 55% or less expectation of leading to a making contract should end up being long term losers if this idea is adopted, but I'm not mathematically adept enough to figure out what the optimal exact percentage should be in the proposed regulation above.

Repeat of my post from last night (perhaps not word for word) ...

I do not see how this is based on any suggestion that I made.

EDIT:

Oh I see now the original post of Foo's was made in two different forums.

[Antoine Fourrière]

The people who are ruling conventions are, quite logically, of the convention-ruling ilk, and tend to rule against new conventions, which means banning them. (Of course, they don't mind at all, they view their kind of bridge as the only true bridge.) But (although it never was their problem), I think it would be fairer to merely permit an opponent to know the longer suit. Say you open 2♦ Multi (or Wilkosz) and a poor newbie (or ACBL player) is unable to come up with a defence. Instead of granting him the right to force you to play his system, why not give him only the right to force you to disclose your longer suit(s) when he has a hand which he feels would be otherwise too difficult to bid? There would be no ambiguity, but your pair would still retain some advantage of your convention (opening more hands, right-siding some of them, allowing responder to preempt immediately when overcaller insists on extra disclosure). I guess Multi or Wilkosz would remain valuable bids, contrary to a 2♥ opening showing a weak two-bid in either major (see Martel's interview on Glen Ashton's site for another, possibly well-founded, complaint about insufficient disclosure), or a 2♠ opening showing a weak preempt in any suit. (I am not implying that such a rule would be better than an anything goes approach, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the present situation.)

[mike777]

edit.

Weaker players do play unusual systems. Weaker means below Hamman or Rosenberg. Sure some strong players do also but given there are 25 million weaker players, the vast majority tend to be the weaker players.

If you disgree with me or my cites and the conclusion I reach fine. If you think that these weaker players are not trying to gain an advantage, fine. I thought that drives paying customers from the game. Disagree, I am not trying to convert anyone, I just stated what I concluded from the stuff I read over the decades.

If you are not claiming anything ok....end of discussion.

If you are claiming something else fine, I just have no idea what you are talking about but nevermind I lost interest.

My main point is if Arclight prefers to vote to ban unusual systems f2f players, those that pay, should get to vote. Those who disagree should continue to convince the rest of us. Just do it politely please.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Weaker players do play unusual systems. Weaker means below Hamman or Rosenberg. Sure some strong players do also but given there are 25 million weaker players, the vast majority tend to be the weaker players.

Eh? So you've just classified say 99.99% of bridge players as "weaker players". Say 5% of these players play unusual systems. Even though on average these players are better than say 85% of bridge players as a whole, this justifies your conclusion that people who play unusual systems are weaker??

Hamman himself plays an unusual system (strong club, 4 cd M, canape tendencies).
The tendency among the ruling elite to me seems to be "weird stuff that I like to play & am familiar with is fine, weird stuff others play I don't know should be banned". This makes sense since it tends to keep them at the top with less study required (though Hamman IMO would remain near top no matter what was allowed).

Quote

I thought that drives paying customers from the game.

I never hear complaints about people being driven from the game because they don't like to encounter opps playing weird stuff. I hear people say "I don't like to play against (Precision/weak NT/other "weird" stuff)", but I never hear them say "I'll quit the game because I don't want to play against it". Most complaints in my view are about opponent behavior (rules lawyering etc., newbies often being put off by experienced players calling the director, since the proprieties of the game were never adequately explained to them). The Zero Tolerance policies seem to be a good step in reducing that.

In Australia, where system regs are much more lax, the reports are that the LOL/LOMs just shrug their shoulders when they encounter weird stuff & just muddle through without too much whining. It would take awhile here, but IMO if regs were loosened everyone would eventually adjust.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Weaker players do play unusual systems. Weaker means below Hamman or Rosenberg.

1. A classic case of moving the goal posts. "Weaker" means the bottom 99.99% of bridge players? ROFL.
2. Even with that narrow definition, you are dead wrong on a percentage basis A few years back I looked at the cc of the final 16 teams in the BB. Something appraoching 30% of players were playing some sort of strong or mixed (Polish,Swedish), and there were a few unusual non-club systems as well.

Contrast that to a club game or regional, where less than 10% play something other than 2/1 or SA.

Quote

If you disgree with me or my cites and the conclusion I reach fine.

Yes, Mike, many of us disagree. I think it's pretty clear.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

Most complaints in my view are about opponent behavior (rules lawyering etc., newbies often being put off by experienced players calling the director, since the proprieties of the game were never adequately explained to them).

Agree absolutely.

Peter

[Cascade]

pbleighton, on Jul 7 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Quote

Most complaints in my view are about opponent behavior (rules lawyering etc., newbies often being put off by experienced players calling the director, since the proprieties of the game were never adequately explained to them).

Agree absolutely.

Peter

Me too

[ArcLight]

>My main point is if Arclight prefers to vote to ban unusual systems f2f players, those that pay, should get to vote. Those who disagree should continue to convince the rest of us. Just do it politely please


Woah! I didn't exactly say that. I said I don't enjoy destructive and randomizing methods. Id rather not play agaisnt all sorts of systems, though I would like to play against experts using systems I'm generally familiar with.

People who want to play their pet systems should have a place to do so also.
I just take exception to the posts that moan about how terrible it is that such and such is banned, and that its ruining the game. Allowing those systems would make the game less fun for many.

Solution - 2 venues. But since I don't play F2F right now, I don't really care.
And since you vocal group likes to complain about the harm the evil ACBL is doing, I say ...

good

Ban MOSCITO

Down with all your favorite systems

[pbleighton]

Quote

Woah! I didn't exactly say that. I said I don't enjoy destructive and randomizing methods. Id rather not play agaisnt all sorts of systems, though I would like to play against experts using systems I'm generally familiar with.

People who want to play their pet systems should have a place to do so also.
I just take exception to the posts that moan about how terrible it is that such and such is banned, and that its ruining the game. Allowing those systems would make the game less fun for many.

Solution - 2 venues. But since I don't play F2F right now, I don't really care.
And since you vocal group likes to complain about the harm the evil ACBL is doing, I say ...

good 

Ban MOSCITO 

Down with all your favorite systems

In the same spirit:

It's obvious that your head spends a lot of time burrowing where the sun don't shine

How is the dark, murky, sticky place known as SAYC-land?

Do you feel... well regulated?

Peter