[Flem72]

The structure is 1M-2C = Cs or inv+ M raise. Kitty & Steve Cooper recently wrote "It is illegal to combine 2C as a limit raise or better with possible real clubs and no support. That is because Barry Crane used to play that way." I think they meant only that it is not GCC: Isn't this structure midchart?

[mgoetze]

Flem72, on 2012-June-03, 07:19, said:

The structure is 1M-2C = Cs or inv+ M raise. Kitty & Steve Cooper recently wrote "It is illegal to combine 2C as a limit raise or better with possible real clubs and no support. That is because Barry Crane used to play that way." I think they meant only that it is not GCC: Isn't this structure midchart?

Midchart: 3. All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted [...]

[Vampyr]

Flem72, on 2012-June-03, 07:19, said:

That is because Barry Crane used to play that way.

So it's considered kind of like retiring a sportsperson's jersey number?

[mycroft]

It's more like the Infield Fly Rule...

There are several of these in the ACBL GCC, the one that comes to mind being 1NT forcing response cannot *guarantee* INV+ values.

[ArtK78]

mycroft, on 2012-June-05, 10:17, said:

It's more like the Infield Fly Rule...

There are several of these in the ACBL GCC, the one that comes to mind being 1NT forcing response cannot *guarantee* INV+ values.

I remember playing against a pair that used this treatment. Their 2/1 bids were nonforcing and denied as many as 10 HCP. They bid 1NT on all hands of 10+ HCP.

[Flem72]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-04, 18:26, said:

So it's considered kind of like retiring a sportsperson's jersey number?

or maybe closer to something like widening the free-throw lane in basketball b/c Wilt Chamberlain dominated (uber-dominated?) the game when the original and smaller one was regulation.

[Vampyr]

Flem72, on 2012-June-05, 12:57, said:

or maybe closer to something like widening the free-throw lane in basketball b/c Wilt Chamberlain dominated (uber-dominated?) the game when the original and smaller one was regulation.

It's a little different in bridge, though, isn't it. There are no advantages to be gained by height or physical prowess; there are no innate barriers to anyone's success.

If a method is effective, most pairs will adopt it; the playing field is still level, but the game has improved. This is, after all, how all of the popular modern treatments and conventions, many of them played almost universally, came into being.

[Cthulhu D]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-05, 19:55, said:

It's a little different in bridge, though, isn't it. There are no advantages to be gained by height or physical prowess; there are no innate barriers to anyone's success.

If a method is effective, most pairs will adopt it; the playing field is still level, but the game has improved. This is, after all, how all of the popular modern treatments and conventions, many of them played almost universally, came into being.

I'm not saying this is occuring here (it's not), but it is possible for a game to become worse despite the playing field still being level through people adopting superior treatments/systems/whatever.

A real life example is the card game, magic in which you build decks and then pit them against other people in best of 3 matches. There is a big tournament scene. Banning of particular cards etc occurs regularly because this happens:

At the start of the lifecycle there are 5 options, A, B, C, D, E. Deck A 'beats' (goes 60:40 to 70:30 ish) against deck B which beats C which beats D, which beats E. E vs B may be a toss up. This is fine, but then someone comes up with F. F is ludicrously superior to all other options, so everyone plays F. Someone eventually comes up with Anti-F which beats F and loses to anything else.

Then you have a metagame of F, Anti-F and the weird holdouts who refuse to play 'popular' stuff (who get crushed by F and beat anti-F). Top 8 of all tournaments are made up of F or Anti-F and nothing else. When this has happened before you regularly play 8 round swiss matches all against F or maybe see anti-F once or twice.

This is sickeningly degenerate and bad for the game because everyone plays F or Anti-F. However, the playing field is still 'level' and it will be a test of execution skill when two Fs come up against each other, this is still super bad for the game.

[Vampyr]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-June-05, 21:25, said:

I'm not saying this is occuring here (it's not), but it is possible for a game to become worse despite the playing field still being level through people adopting superior treatments/systems/whatever.

This was interesting, but as you say it is not happening here.

This 2♣ treatment, by the way, is not at all popular around here, where it is not prohibited.

[Cthulhu D]

I doubt this has occurred ever in bridge - only a system with a fert could achieve the sort of degenerate metagame being spoken of above - and none of those have ever achieved the sort of tournament results that can be posted by Combo winter decks, SF2: Turbo Akuma or Toxic tunnel rushes in C&C generals - decks, characters and strategies so powerful that they achieved total domination of the metagame, some within days of their discovery.

I was just pointing out it is hypothetically possible.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-05, 10:53, said:

I remember playing against a pair that used this treatment. Their 2/1 bids were nonforcing and denied as many as 10 HCP. They bid 1NT on all hands of 10+ HCP.

That's (almost) precisely what I do over a 1♠ opening. Over a 1♥ opening I prefer to use 1♠ for that (with 1NT being weak with spades) and similarly for 1♥ over a 1♦ opening (with 1NT being weak with hearts). This method works best if your openings are limited.

The discussion reference to MtG's meta-game seems completely pointless for bridge. In bridge one can play F and anti-F at the same time since we are allowed to change our system (deck) when the opponents open the bidding. The issues in MtG were actually ones of game design - the card designers missed some ways some of the early cards could be used, in particular zero cost mana-producing artifacts. That led to a situation where if you were not playing a particular blue or black deck you had already lost. As it happened the players liked the ability to abuse cards so the card designers deliberately introduce them now but add enoug options to create a lively meta-game with more than 2 options. And if there are 10 possible decks then this is not so dissimilar from bridge systems (5 card majors, 4 card majors, strong club, mixed club, strong diamond, Fantunes) is it?

The bridge equivalent would be adding a 6th denomination (misere?) to the bidding or something like this that completely changes the nature of the game. No convention in the history of bridge has ever been so important as to become a must-play, even Wilcosz despite some claims about it, let alone become so game-changing as to make otherwise good systems obsolete.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-06, 03:06, said:

No convention in the history of bridge has ever been so important as to become a must-play,

Really? Can you do without 1/1 forcing?

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-06, 03:28, said:

Really? Can you do without 1/1 forcing?

See my post above about playing 1♦ - 1♠ as weak and natural.
I take your point though and if you had said takeout doubles instead I would have had to agree with you.

[Cthulhu D]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-06, 03:06, said:

The discussion reference to MtG's meta-game seems completely pointless for bridge. In bridge one can play F and anti-F at the same time since we are allowed to change our system (deck) when the opponents open the bidding.

A HUM with a fert could achieve this though (certainly it could achieve the levels of dominance) - the point though was to establish that despite a level playing field the game can be degenerate. Using Akuma or tunnel rushes are more relevant examples to bridge.

[BCTR]

Where to write dont know sorry if its in wrong topic "ACBL directors are not good they are not sufficient"