Larry Cohen's article in the Bridge World
Roger Bielawski
World really got my gander up. He implies that the US and England lost
their semifinal matches because their opponents (Poland and Italy)
played HUM, which he defines as Highly Unfamiliar Methods. He says
"Before Board 1 was placed on the table, we were mentally exhausted and
facing the psychological disadvantage of system-familiarity
gap". His claim is that the US had only 3 hours (between the quaterfinal
and semifinal) to prepare defences; and that it would be
counter-productive to do it in advance because there are too many
potential teams one might face. The obvious answer is that any team
which expected to win the Olympiad without having to face Poland or
Italy was living in a dreamland. Their systems are well-attested and
players of Cohen/Berkowitz statue must have played against them dozens
of times. Moreover, Polish or Blue Club are not HUM as Cohen well knows.
All of this could be dismissed as sore loser's gripes, if Cohen
wasn't making the usual demagogic argument about popularity of bridge.
He gives it a novel and unpleasant twist: "Can it help the popularity of
bridge to have so many, let's call them 'foreign', auctions?"
There: even if Polish Club is not illegal, it is certainly un-American.
ivan
but my English is not good enough to express my feelings about Larry
Cohen's article. I'm convinced he knows much better than he shows what
is Polish Club and how to defend against it. On the other hand, Polish
Club is so popular in Poland, that either Precision or Standard are kind
of conventional, but more important unfamiliar methods. I had the same
experience when I started playing here (in North America) and I
needed some time to adapt, although, besides Precision, I used to play
five card majors, which is considered natural. I also witnessed the
process of restricting the systems allowed in tournaments, which I doubt
would ever happen if it was not initiated in North America.
It is worth to mention that Round Robin is already "protected" by Brown
sticker, so what the hell is his point? We shall not allow any system
besides Standard even in the finals??? It really sounds like a "good"
American final. But, wait a second, isn't he playing Precision? Why
shall we consider Precision standard/familiar? I'm sure, it is quite
unfamiliar for average Polish player, but it's true the Guys
representing Poland and Italy know how to deal with Precision.
Is Larry Cohen implying that Meckstroth-Rodwell should be prohibited of
playing their system since it could be also consider "unfamiliar", and
the bridge world should agree to lose all the brilliance created by
them on the table? It is not only the system but it is also involved.
Not to mention the top WBF player who is aslo playing strong club with
canapes.
I hope it is only his personal opinion, unfortunately supported by the
most popular bridge journal, and it won't lead to further system
restrictions, which I believe is really unacceptable for bridge at the
very high level.
In article <3A630251...@maths.gla.ac.uk>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jim Dooley
Cohen, he wrote that Poland and Italy won their semifinal matches
because of their superior play ... I don't recall the precise wording.
--
Jim Dooley
John Sheeehan
care for HUM-ing in elite events. Suck it up or play local.
Johnny
www.prismsignals.com
In article <3A630251...@maths.gla.ac.uk>, r...@maths.gla.ac.uk
says...
Itea
"Maybe this mattered not at all, because my frank assessment of the
semifinal matches is that Italy and Poland (who were the consensus
pretournament favorites) clearly outplayed their opponents."
However, the overall tone of the piece is very anti-HUM. Where "HUM", of
course, depends upon who one is.
When I read it, made me recall an earlier comment he made in the Nov 99
issue where he writes (in the Spingold article):
"...BAZE made life easy on the journalists by knocking out the last of the
non-American pairs - it's burdensome to understand and to ask questions
about their methods, and my xenophobic spell-checker complains..."
It's American-centric. I don't know why he's complaining. Obviously, at
different times in bridge history it's been Americans introducing "Highly
Unusual Methods", and other countries that have had to cope.
I've never met Larry, and the quote at the bottom of the section displays
that he realizes there's a flip side. I think that mostly, he was
frustrated because he'd lost. But I wish he'd chosen different words. The
gist of his article is that he's equating "foreign" with something he thinks
is bad - very specifically in fact.
I do think it's hypocritical. The rules of bridge are imperfect, and there
is always an advantage to people who have highly developed systems, and also
long experience with a particular partner. Larry has benefitted from both
of those advantages many times.
- I
Jim Dooley <jcdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93v81a$jsk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Charles Blair
a significant disclosure-preparation issue. If I had to face an
opponent who was using (for example) a 1-spade opening to show less
than 7 points and less than 4 spades, I would like a very complete
explanation of what responder's bids would mean, both after a pass and
a double by next player, and would like to have at least a few days
to digest the information.
Of course, if the opponents were using a published system with
few modifications that was not especially obstructive (I would put
Blue Team Club in this category), then a few hour's preparation
time might be sufficient. However, suppose my team then decided
on a highly artificial and unusual system of interference of their
one-club opening. It might now be my opponents who would be complaining
about insufficient preparation time.
Bob Richardson
Isn't there a middle ground in this argument? Perhaps the problem isn't
HUM but just the short time to prepare. Why not give a full day off for
rest and preparation, rather than just a few hours. The quality of
bridge would be improved. Same goes for the finals - have a day off
between the semi's and the finals.
Adam Beneschan
> World really got my gander up.
It got my dander up, to a certain degree. My gander didn't particularly
care, since he doesn't read Bridge World, and none of my female geese do
either.
> He implies that the US and England lost
> their semifinal matches because their opponents (Poland and Italy)
> played HUM, which he defines as Highly Unfamiliar Methods. He says
> "Before Board 1 was placed on the table, we were mentally exhausted
> and facing the psychological disadvantage of system-familiarity
> gap". His claim is that the US had only 3 hours (between the
> quaterfinal and semifinal) to prepare defences; and that it would be
> counter-productive to do it in advance because there are too many
> potential teams one might face.
My feeling was that those remarks might make sense when applied to a
regional, or even most events at an NABC, in the ACBL. There, we don't
want to limit the events to full-time professionals; and for most of us,
requiring us to prepare for a wide variety of HUM systems before an
event would definitely be too much to ask. I can't spend all my time
studying HUM systems and learning effective defenses, since I have a
real job.
But Cohen *is* a full-time bridge professional bridge, so I don't see
why he and his teammates couldn't spend some extra time studying the
various systems and devising defenses against them. I don't think it's
ridiculous to expect players *at* *this* *level* to spend this kind of
time to learn to defend against systems they may well encounter. So my
impression was that Cohen's remarks were rather whiny.
-- Adam
Paul Friedman
1) Are the systems really HUM?
Polish Club is hardly a destructive system (the old 2D opening is, I
agree, a bear to play against). Further it has been around for quite some
time -- at all levels of play and there is
a very good book about it (in English even).
Nightmare is a bit "different" but, I would maintain, that its 1C
opening is no "stranger" then Cohen's 1D opening. While there is no system
book in English, it has been played (successfully) in top international
events for awhile.
For the record, my definition of HUM is not necessarily the WBFs.
2) Should HUMs be limited?
Not going there. This is like religion...the two sides will never agree.
"Charles Blair" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:F_G86.145$Rl5....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
Matthew L. Ginsberg
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
>In article <3A630251...@maths.gla.ac.uk>,
> Roger Bielawski <r...@maths.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Larry Cohen's article on Maastricht in the January issue of the Bridge
>> World really got my gander up.
>
>It got my dander up, to a certain degree. My gander didn't particularly
>care, since he doesn't read Bridge World, and none of my female geese do
>either.
[snip]
>But Cohen *is* a full-time bridge professional bridge, ...
I know Larry and he's not nearly big enough.
Those that live by the sword, die by the sowrd.
Matt Ginsberg
1-800-PISSANT
Jim Fox
Why doesn't he just apply the LAW (LOTT [The law of total tricks])?
Mmbridge
:) Posted to the newsgroup R.G.B.O. If you want the complete
:) discussion on time, read and post directly to R.G.B.O.
"Roger Bielawski" <r...@maths.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A630251...@maths.gla.ac.uk...
Paul Friedman
"Jim Fox" <jimf...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:93vj4e$d7o$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
David desJardins
> Larry Cohen's article on Maastricht in the January issue of the Bridge
> World really got my gander up. He implies that the US and England lost
> their semifinal matches because their opponents (Poland and Italy)
> played HUM, which he defines as Highly Unfamiliar Methods.
Actually, he says exactly the opposite: "Maybe this mattered not at all,
because my frank assessment of the semifinal matches is that Italy and
Poland clearly outplayed their opponents."
My own conclusion from reading Mr Cohen's grousing is that the US
selection procedure for international competition should be designed to
preferentially select teams that are prepared for the conditions of
contest that they will encounter, and are willing and able to compete on
those terms. Rather than players who will encounter exactly what they
expect, and then whine about being unprepared.
> He gives it a novel and unpleasant twist: "Can it help the popularity of
> bridge to have so many, let's call them 'foreign', auctions?"
I agree, this is pretty laughable.
David desJardins
richard e. willey
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>My own conclusion from reading Mr Cohen's grousing is that the US
>selection procedure for international competition should be designed to
>preferentially select teams that are prepared for the conditions of
>contest that they will encounter, and are willing and able to compete on
>those terms. Rather than players who will encounter exactly what they
>expect, and then whine about being unprepared.
Hmm
My own read on the situation is that Cohen was insinuating that the
two teams that employed what he consider to be standard methods should
meet each other in the semis (to spare themselves the trouble of
potentially having to familiarize themselves with HUM systems in both
the semi finals and the finals). Correspondingly, the two HUM teams
should be forced to play each other.
Ron Johnson
>World really got my gander up. He implies that the US and England lost
>their semifinal matches because their opponents (Poland and Italy)
>played HUM,
You obviously missed the bit where he says that Poland out-played them.
And that Italy out-played England.
--
RNJ
Ron Johnson
>why he and his teammates couldn't spend some extra time studying the
>various systems and devising defenses against them.
Because the don't want to whip something unsound up. And at the same
time they don't want to risk ending up on a different page. As good
as Cohen and Berkowitz are the risk of ending up in a dumb contract
because of insufficient discussion is pretty high. There aren't many
partnerships as well prepared as Martel/Stansby and they had one
complete disaster against Britain in an unfamiliar situation.
My reaction to this was - why not hire somebody like Eric Rodwell or
Eric Kokish.
I mean Rodwell's already got good defences to all of those systems
worked out.
>I don't think it's
>ridiculous to expect players *at* *this* *level* to spend this kind of
>time to learn to defend against systems they may well encounter. So my
>impression was that Cohen's remarks were rather whiny.
I do agree about the tone, but that's an awful lot of systems.
I'd suggest spending the time required to deal with teams that are
both good and play styles that you don't know well.
--
RNJ
David Stevenson
What does everyone else do between the semi-finals and final?
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK
For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum
at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm
cranky bridge crab
> Larry Cohen's article on Maastricht in the January issue of the Bridge
> World really got my gander up.
Dander. This sounds almost lewd!
Thomas Dehn
"Charles Blair" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I don't know the details of this specific case, but there is indeed
> a significant disclosure-preparation issue. If I had to face an
> opponent who was using (for example) a 1-spade opening to show less
> than 7 points and less than 4 spades, I would like a very complete
> explanation of what responder's bids would mean, both after a pass and
> a double by next player, and would like to have at least a few days
> to digest the information.
That's what coaches are for: they will prepare countermeasures
against such systems, and the players then only have to
discuss them before the match. Note that against HUM
the players can bring their complete write-up about defense
agreements to the table.
That much said, Larry did not complain about HUM,
he did complain about fairly common methods which
are played in large parts of Europe. I wonder how
Larry would feel if the Europeans would demand that
the "highly artificial" Standard American with
its "destructive" Flannery opener and forcing 1NT,
and its quite uncommon GF 2/1 which requires days of
extra preparation to understand the nuances of the
system be banned from international competition.
Larry, please play something familiar to us European,
I.e. Blue Club, Polish Club, majeur cinque, or Acol ;-)
Thomas
Roger Bielawski
I did not miss it. He says that (he could hardly say less), but the
implication of the article is as I stated it: they were outplayed because
they were exhausted from having to spend 3 hours preparing defences to
Polish Club.
What I don't understand is why so many American players never lose
because their opponents were simply better,
but because either a) opponents cheated, or b) used unfamiliar methods,
or c) they were jet-lagged etc.
Bob Hamman's autobiography is another example.
RB
axman
No comments on Larry's article until I've read it. But...
The preparation for tournament bridge begins at birth and is ongoing.
If one believes that he can get prepared in a few hours or days when he
is not prepared then what he does is more likely to disperse focus than
sharpen the weapons. If players believe that they can become
comfortable in competition by participating in the 3 or 4 events a year
in America that permit HUM but where only a few will use HUM then
disappointment will come. If preparation is wanted then there need to
be hundreds of thousands of events where learning and testing take
place.
axman
ewleongu...@my-deja.com
Roger Bielawski <rog...@maths.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > In article <3A630251...@maths.gla.ac.uk>,
> > Roger Bielawski <r...@maths.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >Larry Cohen's article on Maastricht in the January issue of the
Bridge
> > >World really got my gander up. He implies that the US and England
lost
> > >their semifinal matches because their opponents (Poland and Italy)
> > >played HUM,
> >
> > You obviously missed the bit where he says that Poland out-played
them.
> >
> > And that Italy out-played England.
> >
> > --
> > RNJ
>
> I did not miss it. He says that (he could hardly say less), but the
> implication of the article is as I stated it: they were outplayed
because
> they were exhausted from having to spend 3 hours preparing defences to
> Polish Club.
> What I don't understand is why so many American players never lose
> because their opponents were simply better,
> but because either
> a) opponents cheated,
Let's just say a number of top American experts strongly believe,
before screens were introduced in team events in the early 1970's,
there were certain European pairs who bid and played like Gods. After
screens were introduced, they began to bid and play a little more like
mortals.
Eric Leong
>or b) used unfamiliar methods,
> or c) they were jet-lagged etc.
> Bob Hamman's autobiography is another example.
>
> RB
>
>
DavJFlower
top); I think that Larry Cohen has a fair point when he refers to the three
hour break between the quarter final matches and the semifinal matches hardly
giving players time to prepare.
At no point does he suggest that the HUMs not be allowed,
Dave Flower
DavJFlower
>before screens were introduced in team events in the early 1970's,
>there were certain European pairs who bid and played like Gods. After
>screens were introduced, they began to bid and play a little more like
>mortals.
>
>Eric Leong
>
And many Europeans believe that the normal reaction of Americans losing is to
accuse their opponents of cheating,
Dave Flower
Adam Beneschan
Bill Spight
> > a) opponents cheated,
>
> Let's just say a number of top American experts strongly believe,
> before screens were introduced in team events in the early 1970's,
> there were certain European pairs who bid and played like Gods. After
> screens were introduced, they began to bid and play a little more like
> mortals.
The implication of cheating needs to be mitigated by the phenomenon
called "regression towards the mean." If you examine the history of any
pain who, for a period, seem to bid and play like Gods, and then compare
it with a subsequent period, the odds are great that they will appear to
play more like mortals in the second period. The effect is similar if
they appear to play like idiots in the first period. You can also
reverse the time order.
The point is that there is a fair amount of chance in the extremes.
Best,
Bill
Adam Beneschan
> I did not miss it. He says that (he could hardly say less), but the
> implication of the article is as I stated it: they were outplayed
> because they were exhausted from having to spend 3 hours preparing
> defences to Polish Club.
> What I don't understand is why so many American players never lose
> because their opponents were simply better,
> but because either a) opponents cheated, or b) used unfamiliar
> methods, or c) they were jet-lagged etc.
> Bob Hamman's autobiography is another example.
I tend to agree with you about the tone of Cohen's comments. However,
I've read Hamman's autobiography and, from my recollection, don't see
how this is an example of what you're talking about. I don't recall
anywhere in his book where he claimed (or implied) that losses by
Americans were the result of cheating or HUM systems. Then again, it's
been a while since I read the book, so perhaps there's something in it I
don't remember. Could you provide a specific example?
-- thanks, Adam
ivan
> > a) opponents cheated,
>
> Let's just say a number of top American experts strongly believe,
> before screens were introduced in team events in the early 1970's,
> there were certain European pairs who bid and played like Gods. After
> screens were introduced, they began to bid and play a little more like
> mortals.
If my memory is ok, then Hamman also mentions in the book mentioned
about a pair, which was prohibited by ACBL to play in one of the finals
(North America) because there were some suspicions about cheating. If
that was the story you will find one of the players name pretty
intriguing... And this is not the only "cheating" story his name was
involved in...
Yes, It sounds like there was Italian pair that was cheating, but
reading the coverage, it also sounds like Terence Reeses was cheating. I
really do not believe that. That's my personal opinion. As a result from
the scandal, however, the bridge world lose one of the biggest stars of
that time. Is it worth? Were the proof so strong? I think, everything
finished with apologies, but the damage was done, wasn't it?
I do believe, that Americans are usually represented by a very strong
teams and they are not outplayed by their opponents, it is just
impossible. Usually there is a side factor that is not in their favor.
Bob Silverman
ivan <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> That was my reaction too! I was considering writing an article to BWS,
> but my English is not good enough to express my feelings about Larry
> Cohen's article.
I agree with you. Allow me, however, to ask one question I think is
relevent. (below)
>that either Precision or Standard are kind
> of conventional, but more important unfamiliar methods. I had the same
> experience when I started playing here (in North America) and I
> needed some time to adapt, although, besides Precision, I used to play
> five card majors, which is considered natural. I also witnessed the
> process of restricting the systems allowed in tournaments, which I
doubt
> would ever happen if it was not initiated in North America.
Yup. I don't like it either.
>
> It is worth to mention that Round Robin is already "protected" by
Brown
> sticker, so what the hell is his point? We shall not allow any system
> besides Standard even in the finals??? It really sounds like a "good"
> American final. But, wait a second, isn't he playing Precision? Why
> shall we consider Precision standard/familiar?
See below.
> I'm sure, it is quite
> unfamiliar for average Polish player, but it's true the Guys
> representing Poland and Italy know how to deal with Precision.
Precision, as a system has been widely PUBLISHED. It makes it
easy for someone to learn about it; just pick up a book and read it.
Is the same true of Polish Club?
--
Bob Silverman
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Bob Silverman
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> In article <3A630251...@maths.gla.ac.uk>,
<snip>
> But Cohen *is* a full-time bridge professional bridge, so I don't see
> why he and his teammates couldn't spend some extra time studying the
> various systems and devising defenses against them.
I agree. However, allow me to ask:
Did they get full system notes before the tournament started?
If, as Cohen claims, they were only able to get full notes a few
hours before the match, then I would say that the playing field is
NOT level. Precision and its variations have been widely published.
It is available to everyone well before the start of a tournament.
But if Polish Club is NOT similarly available, then I agree with Cohen.
Both sides need equal access to the other's methods.
Is there a book on Polish Club?
I don't think it's
> ridiculous to expect players *at* *this* *level* to spend this kind of
> time to learn
ABSOLUTELY! The question I have is: did both sides have the same
amount of time?
--
Bob Silverman
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
ivan
Bob Silverman <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Precision, as a system has been widely PUBLISHED. It makes it
> easy for someone to learn about it; just pick up a book and read it.
>
> Is the same true of Polish Club?
Indeed there are a few books on Precision, but there is NOT a single
book, that describes for example the structure after 1c-1d as it is
played by Berkowitz-Cohen and Meckstroth-Rodwell (probably "Precision in
the 90s" does but I haven't had the chance to read it yet). And there
are some other "Standard Precision" stuff played by experts which has
never been published in a book (2c openning is another example). In
other words, there are lots of books about "Standard Precision" and
alike, but there are NO books about the precision played by the
experts:) On the other hand, there is a book by Matula, called "Polish
Club" and available ONLY in English, which describes the system and goes
much beyond what is standard even amongst top Polish players. I haven't
seen such a good book even about Standard.
Playing precision you really allow your opponents to preempt you
whenever you open 1c. Playing Polish or alike (they are very popular
also in Russia and some scandinavian countries) the common hand is
balanced minimum with at least two clubs. So just consider them natural
and no problem playing against them, unless you have problems playing
against Standard:) The problem is that you can not preempt them without
taking considerable amount of risk. I think this approach has its merits
and is superior in a long run compared to precision. My personal
preference, however, is Precision, for it really allows you to use very
light openings.
richard e. willey
wrote:
>Precision, as a system has been widely PUBLISHED. It makes it
>easy for someone to learn about it; just pick up a book and read it.
>
>Is the same true of Polish Club?
This is a somewhat difficult question to answer.
There is an excellent book available in English no less that provides
an excellent discussion of one specific flavour of Polish Club.
Unfortunately, as Matula himself notes in his book, there are a wide
variety of different versions of this system being played, all of
which are often described as Polish Club.
I've looked through a number of the old World Championship books.
They range of systemic approaches described as Polish Club is quite
remarkable.
My personal belief is that Larry Cohen has a special place in his
heart for Polish Club. As I recall, he also complained about the
difficulty in comprehending this particular system in a recent artical
about a European Pairs event (Lille?). If I had to hazard a guess,
I'd wager that a combination of the wide variety of systems labelled
as Polish Club and the fact that some of the Polish pairs are
notoriously bad regarding providing written systems summaries is
largely to blame.
Charles Blair
Different pairs may play "modifications" of a highly obstructive
method. The countermeasures one wishes to use may depend in a
crucial way on the nature of those "modifications". Example:
does a pair playing a system in which a pass shows values absolutely
guarantee a reopening by the player in 4th seat after 3 passes?
Availability of a book or summary that only approximates the
opponent's system may not provide adequate basis for preparation.
Of course, this issue does not apply (or at least not so much), to
a pair tinkering with their responses to 4NT or similar constructive
auction methods.
Jim Dooley
ivan wrote:
> If my memory is ok, then Hamman also mentions in the book mentioned
> about a pair, which was prohibited by ACBL to play in one of the
finals
> (North America) because there were some suspicions about cheating. If
> that was the story you will find one of the players name pretty
> intriguing... And this is not the only "cheating" story his name was
> involved in...
>
Since I have not read Hamman's book, I am just guessing here ... but, I
suspect the allusion is to Larry Cohen of California and of the
partnership Cohen-Katz. Larry Cohen, the author of the BW article,
lives in Florida, has played in the partnerships Gerard-Cohen,
Bergen-Cohen, and Cohen-Berkowitz, and is not the same person as Larry
Cohen of California.
--
Jim Dooley
Andy Lewis
>If my memory is ok, then Hamman also mentions in the book mentioned
>about a pair, which was prohibited by ACBL to play in one of the finals
>(North America) because there were some suspicions about cheating. If
>that was the story you will find one of the players name pretty
>intriguing... And this is not the only "cheating" story his name was
>involved in...
If you're referring to Richard Katz/Larry Cohen, it's a different,
unrelated Larry Cohen.
Andy
Thomas Dehn
Matula's Polish Club, for example.
Anyway, if you compete in international
tournaments, you know that you'll play against
Polish Club pairs quite frequently. As the system is not
that different from other 5card major systems,
it is easy to set up a defense. Do you need a
special defense against Standard American?
Polish Club and Standard American are
similarly "highly unusual" ;-). There is exactly one brown
sticker convention contained in standard Polish
Club, the routine 2D Wilkosz opener.
Some of the home-brewn systems which are quite
common on this side of the Atlantic probably would give
Larry a heart attack ;-). See, e.g.., the system the Swedes
are playing.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
"Bob Silverman" <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <93v5bk$hh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ivan <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I'm sure, it is quite
> > unfamiliar for average Polish player, but it's true the Guys
> > representing Poland and Italy know how to deal with Precision.
>
> Precision, as a system has been widely PUBLISHED. It makes it
> easy for someone to learn about it; just pick up a book and read it.
There are at least 20 different flavors of precision.
Compare, e.g., Jannersten's book on precision with
"matchpoint precision" and "power precision".
You thus have to study opponents' system notes
to check up the details for their precision-based system.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
"ivan" <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I do believe, that Americans are usually represented by a very strong
> teams and they are not outplayed by their opponents, it is just
> impossible. Usually there is a side factor that is not in their favor.
You should kibitz, say, Bobby Wolff playing
against the Swedes. After just a few boards, you will
wonder how Bobby ever won anything. It is not that the
Swedes are particularly strong, but Bobby is not
only outbid and outplayed, he is
completely helpless against the artificial system the Swedes play.
There is huge difference between competing at the
top level in one's
own country, where many people will be the same familiar
system (Standard American in the US, Polish Club in
Poland, Blue Club in Austria), and coping
with the different methods from top experts from another continent.
Thomas
Adam Beneschan
Bob Silverman <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <93veg7$q10$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > In article <3A630251...@maths.gla.ac.uk>,
>
> <snip>
>
> > But Cohen *is* a full-time bridge professional bridge, so I don't
> > see
> > why he and his teammates couldn't spend some extra time studying the
> > various systems and devising defenses against them.
>
> I agree. However, allow me to ask:
>
> Did they get full system notes before the tournament started?
> If, as Cohen claims, they were only able to get full notes a few
> hours before the match, then I would say that the playing field is
> NOT level. Precision and its variations have been widely published.
> It is available to everyone well before the start of a tournament.
>
> But if Polish Club is NOT similarly available, then I agree with
> Cohen. Both sides need equal access to the other's methods.
>
> Is there a book on Polish Club?
Greg Matula wrote one, I believe. (Of course, that would assume that the
Polish team was playing basically the same system as Matula described,
but I suspect that's a pretty good assumption.)
> > I don't think it's
> > ridiculous to expect players *at* *this* *level* to spend this kind
> > of time to learn
>
> ABSOLUTELY! The question I have is: did both sides have the same
> amount of time?
Cohen's comments seemed to imply that they *could* *have* prepared in
advance (i.e. far in advance) for all the systems they might have run up
against. His excuse was that since they didn't know which teams they
were going to meet, it seemed like a waste of time to prepare against
maybe sixteen possible HUM systems (I don't know the exact number, I'm
just making one up) when they were only going to have to deal with a
couple. That seems to be a lame excuse, at this level (it would be a
valid excuse for the typical player in a regional, though), and that's
one of the main reasons his remarks struck me as whiny.
If I misinterpreted Cohen's remarks, and they had no access to key
aspects of the opponents' systems until a few hours before they had to
defend against them, then I might agree that it would be unfair. (I say
"might", because it might be possible, for a top pair, to devise and
practice some good defenses to some *categories* of multiple-meaning
bids, so that a pair could be adequately prepared for, say, the
Italians' system even without knowing the exact details until later. I
don't have any idea whether this is really possible.)
-- Adam
ewleongu...@my-deja.com
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote:
>
> "ivan" <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I do believe, that Americans are usually represented by a very
strong
> > teams and they are not outplayed by their opponents, it is just
> > impossible. Usually there is a side factor that is not in their
favor.
>
> You should kibitz, say, Bobby Wolff playing
> against the Swedes. After just a few boards, you will
> wonder how Bobby ever won anything. It is not that the
> Swedes are particularly strong, but Bobby is not
> only outbid and outplayed, he is
> completely helpless against the artificial system the Swedes play.
Just where and when did you kibitz Bobby Wolff playing the Swedes to
gain this impression? Just what are you trying to prove about American
experts?
Eric Leong
>
> There is huge difference between competing at the
> top level in one's
> own country, where many people will be the same familiar
> system (Standard American in the US, Polish Club in
> Poland, Blue Club in Austria), and coping
> with the different methods from top experts from another continent.
>
> Thomas
>
>
David desJardins
> At no point does he suggest that the HUMs not be allowed,
Quote: "The challenge is how to allow progress without unduly disrupting
current events."
"Without unduly disrupting current events" means "without putting me at
a disadvantage from facing unfamiliar methods".
David desJardins
richard e. willey
>
>Just where and when did you kibitz Bobby Wolff playing the Swedes to
>gain this impression? Just what are you trying to prove about American
>experts?
>
>Eric Leong
>
Unfortunately, its quite difficult for residents of the good old USA
to get good coverage of international events where the US teams don't
fare too well.
For example, I recall that the Nickell Team was dismantled the last
time they ran into Team Magic (representing Sweden). I was very
interested in trying to get hand records for this event since I've
been laying around with the Magic Diamond bidding system. There was
no coverage of the match available in any of the usual sources. Quite
frustrating.
I don't think that Wolff was playing on Nickell at that point in
time,however. However, the main point still holds. I'd expect that
some of the Europeans might have better access to tournament records
where their own teams excelled.
Sid Ismail
: Did they get full system notes before the tournament started?
CC's with full explanatory notes were to be submitted by July 1st to the WBF and
were available to all competitors.
http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/bib/b9/Maastricht/system_regs1.asp#submission
How come the mention of the duties of the non-playing captain were never
mentioned at all in this lonnng thread?
===================
Sid Ismail Love is grand;
http://fly.to/elsid divorce is a hundred grand.
===================
Ed Reppert
> How come the mention of the duties of the non-playing captain were never
> mentioned at all in this lonnng thread?
Actually, they were. Once. :-)
There seem to be a lot of elderly players in the clubs around here who
are set in their ways, and hate it when somebody rocks the boat. I'm a
little surprised to see people with the reputations of Hamman and Cohen
joining that crowd. I thought playing bridge was supposed to keep the
mind flexible. :-)
Larry Cohen
controversial topic, but I'd like to clear up a few things:
1) I'm sorry if my writing sounded like "sour grapes." I tried to be
balanced when I pointed out:
a) Poland and Italy won their semifinal matches because they played
better -- not because of system unfamiliarity.
b) there is a good case to permit "foreign" methods so that science
can march on.
2) By calling them "foreign" methods, I thought I was using a cute
play on words. In ACBL (North America), there are no "Highly Unusual
Methods" permitted. So, to we North Americans, these methods are
indeed "foreign."
3) This issue about what to allow or not allow always seems to fall
along national lines. It's a shame that a "WE (North America) against
THEM (mostly Europe)" attitude seems to prevail.
4) I truly believe that it makes it hard for bridge to progress when
the public can't follow our championship events. I believe in limiting
what should be allowed along the ACBL lines. BUT -- I definitely
understand the other side of the argument. I like to see progress.
Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid
sides!
5) I'm sorry if I sound like an "UGLY AMERICAN." I'm anything but! I
consider the Polish and Italian team members my good friends -- I've
had nothing but positive experiences with them at and away from the
table. My experiences playing in Europe and against Europeans have
been nothing but friendly and cordial.
6) I am not the Larry Cohen referred to in Hamman's book in regard to
cheating allegations. I've always hoped there wouldn't be a mix-up!
7) Yes, I am a "professional," but no, I was not prepared for the
Polish system. Yes, their convention/system card was available well in
advance. Yes, I could have guessed we might have eventually faced
their team. I've faced Polish club a few times, but I am totally
confused by all of the nuances. I admit it! I never have a good feel
for what my opponents have when they open 1C. Even though everything
is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few
YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field
with European experts that have faced this system their entire
careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them
hard to play against. I also would like some experience against their
specialized 2-bids. I never face such systems in that they are barred
in our National Tournaments.
8) I look forward to a continued debate (in this forum and in print)
about what methods should and should not be allowed.
Larry Cohen
e-mail : l...@larryco.com
website: www.larryco.com
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:59:45 +0000, Roger Bielawski
<r...@maths.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>Larry Cohen's article on Maastricht in the January issue of the Bridge
>World really got my gander up. He implies that the US and England lost
>their semifinal matches because their opponents (Poland and Italy)
>played HUM, which he defines as Highly Unfamiliar Methods. He says
>"Before Board 1 was placed on the table, we were mentally exhausted and
>facing the psychological disadvantage of system-familiarity
>gap". His claim is that the US had only 3 hours (between the quaterfinal
>and semifinal) to prepare defences; and that it would be
>counter-productive to do it in advance because there are too many
>potential teams one might face. The obvious answer is that any team
>which expected to win the Olympiad without having to face Poland or
>Italy was living in a dreamland. Their systems are well-attested and
>players of Cohen/Berkowitz statue must have played against them dozens
>of times. Moreover, Polish or Blue Club are not HUM as Cohen well knows.
>
> All of this could be dismissed as sore loser's gripes, if Cohen
>wasn't making the usual demagogic argument about popularity of bridge.
>He gives it a novel and unpleasant twist: "Can it help the popularity of
>bridge to have so many, let's call them 'foreign', auctions?"
>There: even if Polish Club is not illegal, it is certainly un-American.
>
Michal Rosa
"Bob Silverman" <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:941ump$tsk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> But if Polish Club is NOT similarly available, then I agree with Cohen.
> Both sides need equal access to the other's methods.
>
> Is there a book on Polish Club?
Yes there is..
> I don't think it's
> > ridiculous to expect players *at* *this* *level* to spend this kind of
> > time to learn
>
> ABSOLUTELY! The question I have is: did both sides have the same
> amount of time?
The system played by Larry Cohen is not well known in Poland, it there is
a book oh his system?
Michal
Michal Rosa
"ivan" <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9421ne$q7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <941u8o$tj2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Bob Silverman <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Precision, as a system has been widely PUBLISHED. It makes it
> > easy for someone to learn about it; just pick up a book and read it.
> >
> > Is the same true of Polish Club?
"Polish Club" by Matula. This book is available in all good bridge book
stores.
Michal
Bill Spight
> Even though everything
> is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few
> YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field
> with European experts that have faced this system their entire
> careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them
> hard to play against. I also would like some experience against their
> specialized 2-bids. I never face such systems in that they are barred
> in our National Tournaments.
There, it seems to me, is the crux of the problem. Top players have no
chance to compete against methods in fairly common use in other parts of
the world, and they (and bridge) suffer as a result. Perhaps some
reciprocal agreements might be a good idea.
Best regards,
Bill
Michal Rosa
"Larry Cohen" <l...@larryco.com> wrote in message
news:n4f96toj9sd47jngr...@4ax.com...
> 7) Yes, I am a "professional," but no, I was not prepared for the
> Polish system. Yes, their convention/system card was available well in
> advance. Yes, I could have guessed we might have eventually faced
> their team. I've faced Polish club a few times, but I am totally
> confused by all of the nuances. I admit it! I never have a good feel
> for what my opponents have when they open 1C. Even though everything
> is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few
> YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field
> with European experts that have faced this system their entire
> careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them
> hard to play against. I also would like some experience against their
> specialized 2-bids. I never face such systems in that they are barred
> in our National Tournaments.
Thanks for you post. I would just like to comment the above point.
I really don't understand your, self-confessed, inability to understand
Polish Club. One think I could suggest - why don't you try playing it for
a while?
Michal
richard e. willey
wrote:
>
>"Bob Silverman" <bo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:941ump$tsk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> But if Polish Club is NOT similarly available, then I agree with Cohen.
>> Both sides need equal access to the other's methods.
>>
>> Is there a book on Polish Club?
>
>Yes there is..
I will note once again that Polish Club is not a distinct system but
rather a family of systems. While Matula's books provides a good
description of one particular variant of Polish Club, it is by no
means a suitable reference for other versions.
Right now, I'm looking at my copy of the World Championship book for
Yokohama in 1991. The Poles fielded two pairs playing "Polish Club"
Gawrys and Lasocki played (essentially) the same system described by
Matula. However, Martens and Szymanowksi played a weak NT, extremely
weak 1D/1H/1S openings and a STRONG 2C opening.
There is no way that simply reading the Matula book can be considered
to be an adequate preparation to face multiple system variants. Its
disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
At the same time, I don't think that the nuances of Polish 1C are any
more complicated than those surrounding a Precision 1D opening.
Michal Rosa
"richard e. willey" <rwi...@isi.com> wrote in message
news:3a64ca95...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Gawrys and Lasocki played (essentially) the same system described by
> Matula. However, Martens and Szymanowksi played a weak NT, extremely
> weak 1D/1H/1S openings and a STRONG 2C opening.
So they didn't play Polish Club. "The definition" of Polish Club is:
strong NT, five card majors, artificial and forcing 1C.
> There is no way that simply reading the Matula book can be considered
> to be an adequate preparation to face multiple system variants. Its
> disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Polish Club has been around for 30 or so years. How long can one claim
unfamiliarity with a system that has been played for so long?
> At the same time, I don't think that the nuances of Polish 1C are any
> more complicated than those surrounding a Precision 1D opening.
So what's the problem?
Michal
Thomas Dehn
<ewleongu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <9426up$7rs$5...@news.okay.net>,
> "Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote:
> >
> > "ivan" <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > I do believe, that Americans are usually
> > > represented by a very strong
> > > teams and they are not outplayed by their opponents, it is just
> > > impossible. Usually there is a side
> > > factor that is not in their favor.
> >
> > You should kibitz, say, Bobby Wolff playing
> > against the Swedes. After just a few boards, you will
> > wonder how Bobby ever won anything. It is not that the
> > Swedes are particularly strong, but Bobby is not
> > only outbid and outplayed, he is
> > completely helpless against the artificial system the Swedes play.
>
> Just where and when did you kibitz Bobby Wolff
> playing the Swedes to gain this impression?
Bobby did play in Lille and in Hammamet, and in
various other international competitions. Please
also remember the extensive discussion about one
recent appeal's committee decision which resulted in
one US team not having to play the Swedes
in the quarterfinals. Now
why do you think there were rumours that the US
team did have to fear the Swedes so much that
an appeals committee would decide against the Swedes
to get them out of the competition?
> Just what are you trying to prove about American
> experts?
This is not just about American experts. It is about
any bridge expert who usually plays only on his
home turf against familiar opponents, playing
familiar methods. Especially, this is not about top
experts like Meckwell who have become familiar with their
international opponents' methods instead of condemning
them as un-American.
In Germany, we have some top experts, too,
who will never win anything in
an international tournament because they have failed
to gain the necessary experience.
Can you imagine a double digit national championship
winner not to know the LoTT? One top expert from my
home town is really good, but I love to
play against him because he is totally unfamiliar
with modern methods. He did get concept of the LoTT,
of course, after we explained it to him when he had failed
to bid one more in an obvious LoTT situation (his side
had nine trumps, but he sold out for 2S).
He then spent the whole session counting total tricks ;-).
Thomas
Ed Reppert
<mmr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "The definition" of Polish Club is:
> strong NT, five card majors, artificial and forcing 1C.
Interesting. By this definition, the system I play with one occassional
partner is not Schenken, as we're calling it, but Polish Club.
I don't think so. :-)
Michal Rosa
"Ed Reppert" <erep...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ereppert-487B3B...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
> > "The definition" of Polish Club is:
> > strong NT, five card majors, artificial and forcing 1C.
>
> Interesting. By this definition, the system I play with one occassional
> partner is not Schenken, as we're calling it, but Polish Club.
>
> I don't think so. :-)
I was oversimplifying just to point out that one pair in question was not
playing "Polish Club", the point I was making is that a system with weak
1NT is not a Polish CLub system - not a traditional one anyway.
Michal
Thomas Dehn
thank you very much for participating in this discussion.
"Larry Cohen" <l...@larryco.com> wrote:
> I expect there will be more in future Bridge World's about this
> controversial topic, but I'd like to clear up a few things:
> 2) By calling them "foreign" methods, I thought I was using a cute
> play on words. In ACBL (North America),
> there are no "Highly Unusual
> Methods" permitted. So, to we North Americans, these methods are
> indeed "foreign."
Neither Polish Club nor the Italian strong Club systems
are in any way HUM. Most of the methods of those
systems are not even brown sticker. Apart from the Wilkosz
opener, standard Polish Club is pretty much GCC legal.
It is just not popular in the US. Furthermore
Polish Club, Blue Club, Neapolitan Club and
so on have been in use for about
30 years now. Those are well-established
systems which have passed the test of time.
Those are systems unfamilar to you, just as Standard
American with its GF 2/1, forcing NT, strong raises, Flannery,
and comparatively solid opening bids will be unfamiliar to many
European players. But they are not HUM. HUM
would be something like
- strong pass
- 1H 8-12, either 0-2 or 6+ hearts
- 1S 0-7, any distribution.
Such systems are not allowed on most tournaments.
Please do not confuse Polish Club with the HUM system
some Polish pairs are playing when they are legal,
such as in the semifinals and finals of a world
championship.
> 7) Yes, I am a "professional," but no, I was not prepared for the
> Polish system. Yes, their convention/system card was available well in
> advance. Yes, I could have guessed we might have eventually faced
> their team. I've faced Polish club a few times, but I am totally
> confused by all of the nuances. I admit it!
No reason to worry. I bet the Poles are confused by
some nuances of Standard American, too.
The key to playing against unfamiliar methods is that
you need general agreements which do not require
a full understanding of all nuances of opponents' bidding.
In fact, if you play against an expert US pair such
as Meckwell, you won't understand all of the
nuances of their system either. You just don't notice,
as you play against them quite frequently, and their
CC isn't marked with Polish Club, Magic Diamond,
or some other system popular in another country
but quite uncommon in ABCLand.
Then, it is useful experience to play a totally different
system once in a while. Over the years
I have played Goren, Acol, Swiss Acol, Precision,
Blue Club, and a few home-brewn systems including
one with three card major suit canape openers.
> I never have a good feel for what my opponents have
> when they open 1C. Even though everything
> is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few
> YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field
> with European experts that have faced this system their entire
> careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them
> hard to play against. I also would like some experience against their
> specialized 2-bids. I never face such systems in that they are barred
> in our National Tournaments.
Don't you think that the difficulty you have with such
unfamiliar methods arises exactly from the fact that you don't
get much experience playing against such methods,
and thus the flaw is not that they are allowed in international
champtionships, but that their use is discouraged
in ACBL tournaments? (They are legal, but you might
have all rulings go against you)
In Germany, we do not have such restrictions, basically
anything which somehow defines a four card suit is legal.
Hence we have practise playing against different methods, and
after a while one has developed enough experience
that only really weird systems will require additional
defense preparations.
There is no way the other countries will agree to
play Standard American on international tournaments,
as this would give the US pairs an unfair advantage.
I don't understand why there aren't more expert pairs
in the US who play methods significantly
different from SAYC.
Thomas
Marvin L. French
Larry Cohen writes:
> Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid
> sides!
>
I have the answer, which is a two-tier system of equal prestige, one
tier for each side.
Tier 1 is for those who wish to play bridge as a card game rather
than engage in a cryptographical exercise that requires an
inordinate amount of memory work for just one phase of the game. The
three components of bridge--bidding, play of the hand, and
defense--would be kept roughly in balance, with no one component
dominating the other two, as bidding does today. In any sport or
game, the main elements (e.g., defense/offense) should be kept in
balance. This policy leads to maximum enjoyment for the majority of
participants.
Tier 1 does not mean the elimination of all conventions, as one
Competition and Conventions committee member told Hamman his desire
for less complexity would lead to. All it means is the limitation of
conventions to those that do not require cribsheets to consult
during the auction and play. That's what Hamman seems to favor, and
it is not a lot to ask. His opinion is that permitting conventions
so complex that they require such cribsheets is destroying the game.
I would say rather that it is creating a new game, one that an
increasing majority of potential players do not wish to play.
Tier 2 is for those who enjoy cryptology, allowing them to HUM to
their hearts' content. I do not mean to denigrate those who would
prefer Tier 2. The intellectual powers required to create and combat
complex HUMs are quite impressive, and it is understandable that
those who enjoy this battle of wits would not want their fun
curtailed. Let them continue in this direction, until each player
will have a laptop computer to consult for every bid and play, with
the only limitation 1 Gb of hard drive space.
I would like to see Tier 1 events going up all the way to NABC+ or
even WBF championships, with the same prestige (and masterpoints!)
as Tier 2. Those who think Tier 1 would be a dull game should be
reminded that the Lenz-Culbertson match (Dec 1931-Jan 1932), with no
conventions except takeout doubles, was headline stuff in all
American newspapers of the time.
--
Marv
San Diego, CA, USA
Charles Blair
Schenken wrote a book, BIG CLUB, in which he referred to
trying to incorporate 5-card majors into his system as "a mad notion."
Lucas Karpiuk
"Ed Reppert" <erep...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ereppert-586BED...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
Lucas Karpiuk
to be labeled HUM, which disallows them from being used for anything but
personal use.
We cannot get to an international level with our "significantly different
methods", which is the only level we can ever use them. The catch-22 of
bridge-systems.
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote in message
news:942mmk$i4u$3...@news.okay.net...
Lucas Karpiuk
http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Bidding/Systems/Italian-Blue-Club
"Michal Rosa" <mmr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:oj396.4168$65.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Lucas Karpiuk
http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Bidding/Systems/Polish-Club
"Michal Rosa" <mmr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:oj396.4168$65.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
Sandy Barnes
this past weekend you would notice that 2 really fine teams were outplayed
by a wide margin, a margin unlikely to be repeated in a rematch. This is in
itself not too great a surprise since both winners have great defenses.
Why would it be such a surprise if any American team is outplayed by any
non-American team, in any particular event? Why would we be shocked by such
a happening, to the point of needing hand records or some other form of
proof about their poor play in that moment of time?
Hey!, Minnesota scored ZERO! When do you expect to see that happen again?
America will lose again in the future, perhaps by a big margin. Oh well
(sigh).
Sandy Barnes
"richard e. willey" <rwi...@isi.com> wrote in message
news:3a64b16c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Colin Ward
wrote:
>In article <93v5bk$hh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> I'm sure, it is quite
>> unfamiliar for average Polish player, but it's true the Guys
>> representing Poland and Italy know how to deal with Precision.
>
>Precision, as a system has been widely PUBLISHED. It makes it
>easy for someone to learn about it; just pick up a book and read it.
>
>Is the same true of Polish Club?
Yes.
pwi...@my-deja.com
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> In article <3A6454F1...@maths.ed.ac.uk>,
> Roger Bielawski <rog...@maths.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I did not miss it. He says that (he could hardly say less), but the
> > implication of the article is as I stated it: they were outplayed
> > because they were exhausted from having to spend 3 hours preparing
> > defences to Polish Club.
> > What I don't understand is why so many American players never
lose
> > because their opponents were simply better,
> > but because either a) opponents cheated, or b) used unfamiliar
> > methods, or c) they were jet-lagged etc.
> > Bob Hamman's autobiography is another example.
>
> I tend to agree with you about the tone of Cohen's comments. However,
> I've read Hamman's autobiography and, from my recollection, don't see
> how this is an example of what you're talking about. I don't recall
> anywhere in his book where he claimed (or implied) that losses by
> Americans were the result of cheating or HUM systems. Then again,
it's
> been a while since I read the book, so perhaps there's something in
it I
> don't remember. Could you provide a specific example?
>
> -- thanks, Adam
>
Also, are you sure you're not thinking of John Swanson's book "Inside
the Bermuda Bowl"? He throws accusations of cheating out against
almost everyone who ever beat the US in BB.
Regards
Pete
--
pwi...@my-dejanews.com
Robb's Law It's impossible to devise a foolproof system as Nature
will simply evolve a more perfect fool.
Naeser's Law You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it
damnfoolproof.
Sandy Barnes
new conventional ideas, by providing some form of contest at our
tournaments, say a pair event, where there are no limitations on system or
convention. They could at least try as an experiment such an event. We
could call it the "Truly Open Open Pairs".
Sandy Barnes
"Larry Cohen" <l...@larryco.com> wrote in message
news:n4f96toj9sd47jngr...@4ax.com...
Charles Blair
>The ACBL has options to expand our expertise in defending HUM's, or simply
>new conventional ideas, by providing some form of contest at our
>tournaments, say a pair event, where there are no limitations on system or
>convention. They could at least try as an experiment such an event. We
>could call it the "Truly Open Open Pairs".
Please not a pair event! It's clearly absurd to try to cope with
the pet methods of ten different pairs for two boards each.
Still, I like this idea. Imagine spending years developing a system
in which pass shows an opening bid, only to find that your opponents
are using a method in which they NEVER pass.
Paul Friedman
"Charles Blair" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:nN996.405$Rl5....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
Lucas Karpiuk
"Charles Blair" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:nN996.405$Rl5....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> Still, I like this idea. Imagine spending years developing a system
Gordon Rainsford
> My partner never passes. It's a style, not a system. :))
Never passing - it's your right! You did pay your table money, didn't
you?
--
Gordon Rainsford
London, UK
Steve Grant
>
> there
> is always an advantage to people who have highly developed systems
You misspelled "unfamiliar."
Steve
--
http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/sjgrant
ICQ #37620434
Seven months, two weeks, three days, 13 hours, 10 minutes and 40
seconds. 6946 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,476.39. Life saved: 3
weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 50 minutes.
Roger Bielawski
accusations. For example, when Hamman describes his feelings when the US
finally beat the Blue Team , he says something like "Yeah, the cheaters
finally lost!". Without qualifying he means only "the foot soldiers".
He also makes very specific cheating allegations against Roger Trezel
giving just two "suspicious" hands; one of which looks completely normal
to me and the other one can be easily explained by a lapse of judgement
turning out profitably. There are also comments against unfamiliar
methods in the book.
The tone of the book struck me as definitely whiny.
David Burn
> I don't know the details of this specific case, but there is indeed
> a significant disclosure-preparation issue. If I had to face an
> opponent who was using (for example) a 1-spade opening to show less
> than 7 points and less than 4 spades, I would like a very complete
> explanation of what responder's bids would mean, both after a pass and
> a double by next player, and would like to have at least a few days
> to digest the information.
I'm afraid I did not see the original posts in this thread - a pity, since
I would have welcomed the chance to read Larry Cohen's views. I did read
the Bridge World editorial, and as one of the poor benighted English who
had to spend the period between the quarter-finals and the semis racking
our brains over the Italian convention cards, I would say this.
First of all, we didn't actually rack our brains over the Italian
convention cards. Though none of us has any direct experience of the
Italian methods, we are familiar enough with strong club and relay systems
not to find them especially difficult to play against. It is important,
obviously, to know what to do when the opponents bid a suit they might not
have - for example, 1H-2D showing a weak heart raise or a diamond suit and
a game force. It is also important to know when you are bidding "their
suits" naturally and when you are cue-bidding - for example, over 1C (2+
cards) -1D (hearts), what will your bids of 1H, 2C and 2H mean? But this is
really a matter of establishing principles, rather than having to work out
a number of detailed agreements. Dealing with two-level openings that show
either this or that is similarly a matter of constructing a generic defence
that will work - or at any rate, that you will understand - more or less
whatever their opening bid means. If you know what to do when the opponents
open 2D, weak in either major, then you have a method that will be quite
adequate if they open 2S, weak in any suit, or 2NT to show the reds or the
blacks.
We lost to the Italians by a lot of IMPs, but we lost 0.00 of those IMPs
because they used a bid that we did not know how to defend against, or
because their auctions were such that we did not know how to defend the
final contract. Even Hallberg and Simpson, who had never played against any
of the Italian conventions before, were able to adapt fairly easily on the
basis of one or two suggestions that I made before the tournament started.
We lost because the Italians were a much better team than we were, purely
and simply. We lost to the USA in the bronze medal playoff for the same
reason.
> Of course, if the opponents were using a published system with
> few modifications that was not especially obstructive (I would put
> Blue Team Club in this category), then a few hour's preparation
> time might be sufficient. However, suppose my team then decided
> on a highly artificial and unusual system of interference of their
> one-club opening. It might now be my opponents who would be complaining
> about insufficient preparation time.
Not really. Strong club players at international level do not really care
what your overcall of their opening bid might mean - they are, or ought to
be, equipped with enough generic stuff not to face any specific problems.
Moreover, if you are playing a strong club system you must expect that the
opponents will try anything and everything to prevent you from using it to
best effect - you would have no right at all to complain about lack of time
to prepare specific counter-measures. The best way to mess up a
Burn-Callaghan strong club sequence is actually to pass throughout - we
will do the rest. And the best way to fix Cohen and Berkowitz is to make a
natural one diamond overcall on three to the jack :)
My real concern is that even if it were hard to do these things, to win a
world championship is not supposed to be easy. Olympic athletes train for
six or seven hours a day, every day, for many years in order to win (or
even come last in) the 100 metres or the shot put. I am fairly sure that if
Larry Cohen put in six hours a day for even a couple of months, he would
know how to defend against the Polish Club (that terrifying weapon). Now,
if bridge is really to become an Olympic sport, bridge players should
perhaps have to start practising like Olympic sportspeople. But at the
moment, it seems to me that we want all of the benefits that Olympic
recognition would bring, without having to do any of the work.
In fairness, Larry Cohen did say that maybe the methods about which he was
talking were the right way to play the game; maybe they would become
"standard" one day, just as negative doubles or keycard Blackwood are
"standard" nowadays when not so long ago they were totally unheard of. But
this will not happen unless and until a lot of senior figures in the world
game get rid of the notion that our generation has the right to
freeze the game of bridge at its present level.
David Burn
London, England
jan kamras
David desJardins wrote:
>
> DavJF...@aol.com writes:
> > At no point does he suggest that the HUMs not be allowed,
>
> Quote: "The challenge is how to allow progress without unduly disrupting
> current events."
>
> "Without unduly disrupting current events" means "without putting me at
> a disadvantage from facing unfamiliar methods".
>
Exactly - and "how to allow progress" means "how to further refine the
basic methods I'm familiar with".
Michael Farebrother
the time to respond, clearly and intelligently, to the grumblings on
rgb. I know it's sometimes a chore slogging through everything here,
and every strong opinion. That's what Killfiles and Scorefiles are for,
but it was obvious that he read all the posts in this thread.
In article <942mmk$i4u$3...@news.okay.net>,
Thomas Dehn <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote:
>"Larry Cohen" <l...@larryco.com> wrote:
>
>Neither Polish Club nor the Italian strong Club systems
>are in any way HUM. Most of the methods of those
>systems are not even brown sticker. Apart from the Wilkosz
>opener, standard Polish Club is pretty much GCC legal.
Well, there was the canape overcalls Bocchi-Duboin were playing -
they're brown-sticker (when frequently on a 3-card suit).
>It is just not popular in the US. Furthermore
>Polish Club, Blue Club, Neapolitan Club and
>so on have been in use for about
>30 years now. Those are well-established
>systems which have passed the test of time.
>
In fact, there are two or three pairs that play Polish Club at our club,
which isn't exactly known for its love of unusual methods (i.e. not SA
or 2/1, and no conventions invented after 1960, either). Obviously,
they play a GCC-legal 2-bid structure.
BTW, I'm in Waterloo, Ontario, Northern ACBLland :-)
>> 7) Yes, I am a "professional," but no, I was not prepared for the
>> Polish system. Yes, their convention/system card was available well in
>> advance. Yes, I could have guessed we might have eventually faced
>> their team. I've faced Polish club a few times, but I am totally
>> confused by all of the nuances. I admit it!
>
>> I never have a good feel for what my opponents have
>> when they open 1C. Even though everything
>> is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few
>> YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field
>> with European experts that have faced this system their entire
>> careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them
>> hard to play against. I also would like some experience against their
>> specialized 2-bids. I never face such systems in that they are barred
>> in our National Tournaments.
>
This is an interesting statement to hear from USA National champions,
and I admire the courage it takes to so admit. It is also probably true
that to get as familiar as those who play against it continuously, it
would take years of practice. OTOH, 80-90% of that familiarity could
probably be acquired in weeks on some on-line bridge service against a
reasonable Polish pair willing to be beaten up for your benefit (and
since you'd be you, you'd probably not even have to pay for the
privilege).
There are many pairs playing two-way Clubs (and even some playing
Polish-style "natural, balanced, or strong" Clubs) in GCC events in the
ACBL. Have you not run into them?
>Don't you think that the difficulty you have with such
>unfamiliar methods arises exactly from the fact that you don't
>get much experience playing against such methods,
>and thus the flaw is not that they are allowed in international
>champtionships, but that their use is discouraged
>in ACBL tournaments? (They are legal, but you might
>have all rulings go against you)
>
Thomas, here's what the ACBL GCC has to say about 2-level openers:
3.TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a.a strong hand.
b.a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.
4.STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks
for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids, trump quality
and responses thereto.
5.TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID showing one of:
a.both majors with a minimum of 10 HCP.
b.a strong hand.
c.a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.
6.OPENING SUIT BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two
known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution
in the suits.
That's it. That's all you can play.
Note that the GCC is the system under which almost all of our
tournaments are held. You only get a freer chart in *separate Flight A*
events (and there aren't very many of those, everything's Stratified
here) and the "top bracket of bracketed KOs" (a more condescending
requirement than that I've never heard. It means that Pros can play
Mid-chart systems, but anyone else can't, or at least has to prepare a
GCC-legal one in case they don't quite have the monsterpoint total to
make the first bracket cut. Oh, and anyone young? No dice. You're
gonna need 2500 "attendance points" at least).
So, it's very likely that Mr. Cohen rarely runs across opening weak
2-bids that show something other than the suit bid (only).
Oh, and one more "gem" of ACBL thinking that might interest (amuse,
disgust) you:
The Conditions of Contest for the International Team Trials (the event
that determines the USA teams for international competition) runs under
the ACBL Mid-Chart for the round-robin, ACBL Superchart for the KOs. So
unless you're good enough to be seeded for the KOs, if you want to play
a SUM (Superchart-legal Unusual Method), you'd better have two, and
practice the Mid-Chart legal one often enough to win into the KOs. Note
that at no time during this event do they play under WBF restrictions
(even though they are trying to qualify for a WBF event!) and will never
see, for instance, a 9-12 1NT opener (ok, one played with conventions.
That doesn't mean they're going to see one), or a 12-17 1NT opener, for
that matter.
In other words, in the ACBL, it just doesn't pay to get experience with
or against "strange", "foreign" systems. That's why I (and Mr. Cohen)
don't see many, and why most of the complaints about "weird systems"
come from ACBL territory.
As for the "bridge following", I loyally watched the entire vugraph
final from Maastricht. I had a copy of both sides' CCs and
supplementary notes, and had little trouble following along. Yes, I'd
have had trouble actually *playing* against these, but I didn't have 4
months warning on them (and I don't play like a National Champion). I
also watched the vugraph reports of Fredin-Lindqvist with their
2-way Club system. Didn't drive me away in droves.
>I don't understand why there aren't more expert pairs
>in the US who play methods significantly
>different from SAYC.
>
Well, a lot of them play with clients most of the time, and their one or
two competitive partners do too, so it would be even more difficult to
remember and practice non-SA based systems.
Having said that, there are several good pairs in NA who play Strong
Club based systems.
Michael.
Jim Dooley
Larry Cohen wrote:
... <snip> ...
> 4) I truly believe that it makes it hard for bridge to progress when
> the public can't follow our championship events. I believe in limiting
> what should be allowed along the ACBL lines. BUT -- I definitely
> understand the other side of the argument. I like to see progress.
> Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid
> sides!
... <snip> ...
I am glad that Larry Cohen wrote that there are 2 valid sides. Indeed,
he wrote more or less the same thing in the Bridge World article.
Perhaps ironically, Cohen was once on the other side of the fence. The
situation is not precisely analagous, but ... In the 1980's,
Bergen-Cohen had a string of successes in ACBL events using methods that
included very light and artificial preempts. Non-vulnerable weak twos
on Txxxx of spades and out, for example. The ACBL reacted by passing a
regulation banning any weak two with less than 5 hcp or less than 5
cards in the suit. Perhaps part of the ACBL's reasoning was that the
methods were unfamiliar to most opponents. At the time, an editorial in
the Bridge World argued strongly against the 5-and-5 regulation,
pointing out that the regulation contravened the Laws. Soon thereafter,
the ACBL 5-and-5 regulation was rescinded.
Since I am writing from a dim memory, I might have some of the facts of
the 1980's events incorrect. In addition, I realize that very light and
artificial preempts are less unfamiliar than some of the methods used by
Poland and Italy in the Bermuda Bowl.
--
Jim Dooley
richard e. willey
>I've faced Polish club a few times, but I am totally
>confused by all of the nuances. I admit it! I never have a good feel
>for what my opponents have when they open 1C. Even though everything
>is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few
>YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field
>with European experts that have faced this system their entire
>careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them
>hard to play against.
>I also would like some experience against their
>specialized 2-bids. I never face such systems in that they are barred
>in our National Tournaments.
One important point that is probably worth noting: In my experience,
the tournament bridge community has evolved towards a much more
homogenous approach towards bidding than is common in many other parts
of the world. For example, strong club systems like Precision and two
way club systems like Polish or Carrot are legal (with minor
modifications) even at the GCC level. However, I see relatively few
pairs who chose to experiment with these types of methods. From what
I can tell, the movement is actually in the opposite direction. Years
ago there were a wide variety of regional styles of bidding in use in
different parts of the country. Today, many of these seem to be
disappearing. I'm not sure whether simply liberalizing the bidding
conventions will necessarily increase the variety of systems being
played in the US.
I'm not sure what is the root cause of the difference, though I have
my suspicions.
There is a large demographic bulge working its way through the ACBL
membership. At the moment, the ACBL membership rolls are dominated by
an elderly and conservative and intellectually lazy set of players who
have very little interest in being forced to compete with anything
different This trend is exacerbated by the fact that they ACBL's
efforts at membership recruitment are very much focused on positioning
bridge as a simple game. The ACBL is trying its best to remove
complexity from the game in a mistaken belief that this will increase
its popular appeal.
I would argue that this is a mistake and that the key to building a
healthy and growing community of bridge players is to attempt to
attract players who will appreciate the complexity and challenge of
the game. I think that there is ample evidence that this approach is
succeeding in other parts of the world. The demographic bulge which
currently dominates the ACBL was created when Culbertson and Goren,
great promoters both, succeeded in making the game abnormally popular.
Since they left the scene, no-one has succeeded in sustaining the same
type of growth rates. I think that in the long run, the game would be
better off if there have been a slower and more steady growth rate
over the course of the last 70 years. Its going to be very interesting
to see what happens in 10 years when these players are too old to
continue to participate in organized play.
Larry Cohen
wrote:
Jim -- Your recollections are correct! And, I toyed with some funny
2-level openings as well -- and fought the good (but unsuccessful)
fight against the ACBL to allow them. It's a bit of an over-
generalization, but it seems that young players AND non-American
players favor "anything goes."
Everyone needs to keep in mind, that although I said it was a "pet
peeve," -- I never once said that the Polish and Italian systems were
illegal or should be barred. Not at all. The problem is that the
"world" is not on the same page. I play all year in our U.S. Nationals
and Team Trials facing only "Standard" (Standard to me) systems. Then,
for just 1 event (and the most important event of all), I all of a
sudden am facing a different (and unfamiliar) situation. Who is to
blame? For one, I am to blame for not putting in a lot of hours to
learn more about systems that are not allowed in ACBLland. You could
also blame the ACBL or the WBF, but there really is no solution, is
there?
-- Larry Cohen
ewleongu...@my-deja.com
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote:
>
> <ewleongu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <9426up$7rs$5...@news.okay.net>,
> > "Thomas Dehn" <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "ivan" <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > I do believe, that Americans are usually
> > > > represented by a very strong
> > > > teams and they are not outplayed by their opponents, it is just
> > > > impossible. Usually there is a side
> > > > factor that is not in their favor.
> > >
> > > You should kibitz, say, Bobby Wolff playing
> > > against the Swedes. After just a few boards, you will
> > > wonder how Bobby ever won anything. It is not that the
> > > Swedes are particularly strong, but Bobby is not
> > > only outbid and outplayed, he is
> > > completely helpless against the artificial system the Swedes play.
> >
> > Just where and when did you kibitz Bobby Wolff
> > playing the Swedes to gain this impression?
>
> various other international competitions.
You didn't answer my question. I asked where specifically did you
personally kibtiz Wolff where he was completely "helpless" against the
Swedes? Can you give any specific example hands?
> Please
> also remember the extensive discussion about one
> recent appeal's committee decision which resulted in
> one US team not having to play the Swedes
> in the quarterfinals. Now
> why do you think there were rumours that the US
> team did have to fear the Swedes so much that
> an appeals committee would decide against the Swedes
> to get them out of the competition?
I don't see how Wolff's participation on an appeals committee indicates
his weakness as a player especially against the Swedes. I don't think
he thought about or cared who the US team would be playing in the next
round. I am certain he wouldn't have jumped at the opportunity to be on
any ad hoc appeals committee. Who wants to serve on a committee if no
matter how you rule, you are either going to be called an idiot by the
Swedes or the Austrians depending upon who loses? He probably would
have found going to an early dinner or getting some sleep to be much
more appealing. Moreover, while I am sure many rabid Swedes attach a
great deal of national pride, honor, and prestige to winning a world
bridge championship, I am certain many more maturer Americans,
including Bobby Wolff, who would attach a great deal less for a team
from the US to win a world championship.
>
> > Just what are you trying to prove about American
> > experts?
>
> This is not just about American experts. It is about
> any bridge expert who usually plays only on his
> home turf against familiar opponents, playing
> familiar methods. Especially, this is not about top
> experts like Meckwell who have become familiar with their
> international opponents' methods instead of condemning
> them as un-American.
I would think the issue of fairness through meaningful disclosure and
adequate time for preparation would be an issue for all players
anywhere. I would hope this would apply even for players -- from Sweden.
>
> In Germany, we have some top experts, too,
> who will never win anything in
> an international tournament because they have failed
> to gain the necessary experience.
>
> Can you imagine a double digit national championship
> winner not to know the LoTT? One top expert from my
> home town is really good, but I love to
> play against him because he is totally unfamiliar
> with modern methods. He did get concept of the LoTT,
> of course, after we explained it to him when he had failed
> to bid one more in an obvious LoTT situation (his side
> had nine trumps, but he sold out for 2S).
> He then spent the whole session counting total tricks ;-).
Perhaps, you might answer why in spite of his "unfamiliarity with
modern methods" this top expert managed to win so many more national
championships compared to you. Maybe, you think he was just lucky. I am
certain though, your ego is big enough to delude yourself that you
should be good enough to walk in his shadow.
Eric Leong
>
> Thomas
Paul Lanier
Bob Silverman wrote:
> In article <93v5bk$hh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ivan <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > That was my reaction too! I was considering writing an article to BWS,
> > but my English is not good enough to express my feelings about Larry
> > Cohen's article.
>
> I agree with you. Allow me, however, to ask one question I think is
> relevent. (below)
>
> >that either Precision or Standard are kind
> > of conventional, but more important unfamiliar methods. I had the same
> > experience when I started playing here (in North America) and I
> > needed some time to adapt, although, besides Precision, I used to play
> > five card majors, which is considered natural. I also witnessed the
> > process of restricting the systems allowed in tournaments, which I
> doubt
> > would ever happen if it was not initiated in North America.
>
> Yup. I don't like it either.
>
> >
> > It is worth to mention that Round Robin is already "protected" by
> Brown
> > sticker, so what the hell is his point? We shall not allow any system
> > besides Standard even in the finals??? It really sounds like a "good"
> > American final. But, wait a second, isn't he playing Precision? Why
> > shall we consider Precision standard/familiar?
>
> See below.
>
> > I'm sure, it is quite
> > unfamiliar for average Polish player, but it's true the Guys
> > representing Poland and Italy know how to deal with Precision.
>
> Precision, as a system has been widely PUBLISHED. It makes it
> easy for someone to learn about it; just pick up a book and read it.
>
> Is the same true of Polish Club?
> --
> Bob Silverman
> "You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
There is an online Polish Club System site, it has lots of information and
also links to other Polich Club sites:
http://home1.gte.net/yweare/pc.htm
Adam Beneschan
"Lucas Karpiuk" <sco...@drunkenbastards.com> wrote:
> Some of us do; however, these systems are usually so different from
> SAYC as to be labeled HUM, which disallows them from being used for
> anything but personal use.
>
> We cannot get to an international level with our "significantly
> different methods", which is the only level we can ever use them. The
> catch-22 of bridge-systems.
It seems like a few people have this idea that we can't get familiar
with unfamiliar systems because the ACBL doesn't allow them in its
tournaments. Has anyone ever heard of OKBridge? Or even kitchen
tables? If I were part of a team trying to prepare for an international
event in which I might have to face the Northeastern Kampuchean Forcing
Pass system or something, I'd be getting my team members together for a
few set games on OKB (or even around my kitchen table) so that we can
practice playing against this system. This sort of thing is something
interested and motivated players can do on their own; I don't see why
they need to wait for the ACBL to provide this for them.
-- Adam
David Stevenson
>
>> Gawrys and Lasocki played (essentially) the same system described by
>> Matula. However, Martens and Szymanowksi played a weak NT, extremely
>> weak 1D/1H/1S openings and a STRONG 2C opening.
>
>So they didn't play Polish Club. "The definition" of Polish Club is:
>strong NT, five card majors, artificial and forcing 1C.
Is it? I have never heard this definition before!
The corner-stone of Polish Club is an Either/or Club. There are
several systems that include them, and WC level teams should be used to
playing against them.
As far as versions of Polish Club are concerned, the versions of
Standard American or 2/1 that the Americans were playing will have as
much diversity as the versions of Polish Club.
Basically, a top pair playing top-level bridge would be expected to
defend without much discussion against the normal basic approaches
played around the world, ie 4-card majors, 5-card majors, Strong Club
and Either/or club.
Of course, they would need to work defences out against the peripheral
bits, but those are going to be considerable in all systems by all pairs
[with *very* few exceptions].
My guess is that for an American Pair to defend against a system
played by a Polish pair if fully disclosed would take no more work than
for a Polish pair to play against an American par if fully disclosed.
Of course, there is at least one Polish pair with a reputation for not
disclosing fully, but the same is true of at least one top American pair
as well.
What about HUM systems? Well they take more time, of course, but
Polish Club is not a HUM system. OK, so some of its adherents play a
strange 2D bid. So?
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK
For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum
at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm
David Stevenson
>
>Larry Cohen writes:
>
>> Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid
>> sides!
>>
>tier for each side.
>
>Tier 1 is for those who wish to play bridge as a card game rather
>than engage in a cryptographical exercise that requires an
>inordinate amount of memory work for just one phase of the game. The
>three components of bridge--bidding, play of the hand, and
>defense--would be kept roughly in balance, with no one component
>dominating the other two, as bidding does today. In any sport or
>game, the main elements (e.g., defense/offense) should be kept in
>balance. This policy leads to maximum enjoyment for the majority of
>participants.
Presumably you would not permit complicated systems like Standard
American and 2/1 which would be Tier 2? I think you are looking for
something impossible.
>Tier 1 does not mean the elimination of all conventions, as one
>Competition and Conventions committee member told Hamman his desire
>for less complexity would lead to. All it means is the limitation of
>conventions to those that do not require cribsheets to consult
>during the auction and play. That's what Hamman seems to favor, and
>it is not a lot to ask. His opinion is that permitting conventions
>so complex that they require such cribsheets is destroying the game.
>I would say rather that it is creating a new game, one that an
>increasing majority of potential players do not wish to play.
>
>Tier 2 is for those who enjoy cryptology, allowing them to HUM to
>their hearts' content. I do not mean to denigrate those who would
>prefer Tier 2. The intellectual powers required to create and combat
>complex HUMs are quite impressive, and it is understandable that
>those who enjoy this battle of wits would not want their fun
>curtailed. Let them continue in this direction, until each player
>will have a laptop computer to consult for every bid and play, with
>the only limitation 1 Gb of hard drive space.
>
>I would like to see Tier 1 events going up all the way to NABC+ or
>even WBF championships, with the same prestige (and masterpoints!)
>as Tier 2. Those who think Tier 1 would be a dull game should be
>reminded that the Lenz-Culbertson match (Dec 1931-Jan 1932), with no
>conventions except takeout doubles, was headline stuff in all
>American newspapers of the time.
>--
>Marv
>San Diego, CA, USA
Alex Martelli
news:WmH86.359$Mn1.2...@news.uswest.net...
> I think there are at least two issues here:
>
> 1) Are the systems really HUM?
> Polish Club is hardly a destructive system (the old 2D opening is, I
> agree, a bear to play against). Further it has been around for quite some
> time -- at all levels of play and there is
> a very good book about it (in English even).
But is there a book about the exact variant that was played in
Maastricht? Preparing against a "vaguely similar" system is not
the same thing.
> Nightmare is a bit "different" but, I would maintain, that its 1C
> opening is no "stranger" then Cohen's 1D opening. While there is no system
> book in English, it has been played (successfully) in top international
> events for awhile.
No system book available in Italian, either -- just like Meckwell's
system book is not made available generally, AFAIK.
> For the record, my definition of HUM is not necessarily the WBFs.
>
> 2) Should HUMs be limited?
> Not going there. This is like religion...the two sides will never
agree.
My take on it: I would have no problem if anything was banned if not
described in complete detail in a "book" made available to all potential
opponents at least (say) 6 months in advance of the event; as for
language, well, I believe English is standard in the WBF, isn't it?
Or, a range of languages might be deemed acceptable, if that is
politically necessary, but I really think English would be best for
everybody -- not because it's a good language (they all are), but
because it's SO widespread as a second language. Getting a Chinese
system understood by Polish players, and vice versa, will be easiest
if English is used as the meeting-point.
Level of detail should be enough to play the system, because that is
the best way to prepare against it - have friends use the system
(with notes) against you is part of it. Suggested defenses should
also be included. If some agreement or subtle inference is used at
the table that is not in the "book", that should be grounds for (_at
*least*_, i.e. assuming good faith & everything) wiping out any
advantage that might be thus gained, if not actual IMP penalties.
How the 'made available' part is obtained might have been a problem
once, but thanks to the web, no more. Decent machine-readable formats
up for download will impose no significant cost-burdens. Which is why
I put "book" in quotes up above.
Conventional _countermeasures_ to 'unusual' conventions would need
a far-shorter lead-time.
Restrictions should still apply when many opponents are met over a
few boards each, or for competition not at the highest level. But
it would be great to know that the world championships go to who is
best at the table, with no restrictions but also no undue burden of
unfamiliarity (I think if one avoids studying and preparing any
needed countermeasure to the system of top prospective opponents,
any burden resulting is not really "undue").
All commentators and analysts should also get similar access to
the system (and countermeasures) descriptions -- that is key to
letting the public understand... having a good commentator digest
the meanings and inferences and explain them, just as he or she
has to do for fine points of play and defense!
Alex
Ron Johnson
Thomas Dehn <thomas...@myokay.net> wrote:
>
>"ivan" <pop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I do believe, that Americans are usually represented by a very strong
>> teams and they are not outplayed by their opponents, it is just
>> impossible. Usually there is a side factor that is not in their favor.
>
>You should kibitz, say, Bobby Wolff playing
>against the Swedes. After just a few boards, you will
>wonder how Bobby ever won anything. It is not that the
>Swedes are particularly strong, but Bobby is not
>only outbid and outplayed, he is
>completely helpless against the artificial system the Swedes play.
When did this happen?
I'm thinking back over the major matches that Hamman/Wolff lost.
The most complex system that I can recall them losing to was the
Austrian version of Blue Club. At that, Hamman/Wolff were plus in
that match. They lost the match primarily in the segment they
sat out.
--
RNJ
Charles Blair
>But this is
>really a matter of establishing principles, rather than having to work out
>a number of detailed agreements. Dealing with two-level openings that show
>either this or that is similarly a matter of constructing a generic defence
>that will work - or at any rate, that you will understand - more or less
>whatever their opening bid means.
My experience actually playing against really obstructive
systems is essentially zero, but I fear there are some things
my opponents could use which would make any "generic" countermeasure
I thought up before seeing their system in detail grossly inferior.
Alex Martelli
> 3) This issue about what to allow or not allow always seems to fall
> along national lines. It's a shame that a "WE (North America) against
> THEM (mostly Europe)" attitude seems to prevail.
>
> the public can't follow our championship events. I believe in limiting
> what should be allowed along the ACBL lines. BUT -- I definitely
Good point in the abstract, BUT... isn't it exactly in North America,
where ACBL lines of system limitations are in use, that bridge is
somewhat stagnating in terms of public interest and support -- isn't it
booming in China or Holland, with fewer such restrictions applied in
top championships? I don't really know (have been swamped by work and
mostly off touch with bridge recently), but that was the definite
impression I was getting (e.g. by WBF by-country membership counts).
> understand the other side of the argument. I like to see progress.
> Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid
> sides!
I agree -- more than two, actually (some of us think that widespread,
full-detailed-content, full-in-advance dissemination is absolutely
crucial -- others, on the 2 sides of permissiveness and prohibition,
seem to de-emphasize this point).
Alex
John (MadDog) Probst
<ad...@irvine.com> writes
The rottweiller plays with his U25's pard against the Dutch juniors on
okb. the table note just says "Only on okb; England vs Holland u25's".
there's standing room only in the gallery. The methods are arcane and
always changing, but will be giving the 4 of them a phenomenal advantage
in any world field over the next few years as they will have had the
opportunity to develop defences, both intuitive and agreed, against some
pretty strange methods.
btw the system I hate defending against most is EHAA. ... and that is
pretty much all natural. It wrecks my balancing judgement.
--
John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947
451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk
John (MadDog) Probst
Barnes <sandyb...@home.com> writes
>The ACBL has options to expand our expertise in defending HUM's, or simply
>new conventional ideas, by providing some form of contest at our
>tournaments, say a pair event, where there are no limitations on system or
>convention. They could at least try as an experiment such an event. We
>could call it the "Truly Open Open Pairs".
"Shoot yourself in the foot pairs?"
You could try the Young Chelsea on a Friday night too.
Ed Reppert
<l...@larryco.com> wrote:
> Who is to
> blame? For one, I am to blame for not putting in a lot of hours to
> learn more about systems that are not allowed in ACBLland. You could
> also blame the ACBL or the WBF, but there really is no solution, is
> there?
Well, there is, but fixing blame ain't it. :-) I think the solution is
to open more tournaments to "unusual" (for the ACBL) systems or
conventions. This might require an additional level in the convention
charts, or perhaps allowing more at SuperChart and MidChart, and making
more events available using those charts. I dunno. "I am only an egg,"
as the Man From Mars said, but while there would probably be a lot of
howling initially if we (that is, the ACBL) did that, I suspect it would
work out well in the end.
Ed Reppert
<spam...@farebrother.cx> wrote:
> Having said that, there are several good pairs in NA who play Strong
> Club based systems.
And some not so good. :-)
Amusing anecdote: I was standing in line at the local club a year or two
ago, waiting to pick up an entry slip/table assignment. I was playing
Precision almost exclusively at the time. I overheard one LoL say to
another "oh, nobody plays Precision anymore!" Perhaps I should have
introduced myself: "hello, I'm Nobody." :-)
Ed Reppert
Karpiuk" <sco...@drunkenbastards.com> wrote:
> Ed, have I got a system for you!
Okay, I admit it, I'm a system junkie. Lay it on me. :-)
Ed Reppert
<mmr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> the point I was making is that a system with weak
> 1NT is not a Polish CLub system - not a traditional one anyway.
Okay. :-)
Traditional Schenken is 4 card majors, not 5 card, so maybe we aren't
playing Schenken, either. :-) I guess my point is that labelling any
system - with *any* label - (with the possible exception of Bridge World
Standard, and even that has some permissible variations) is at best an
approximation.
Ed Reppert
(Charles Blair) wrote:
> Schenken wrote a book, BIG CLUB, in which he referred to
> trying to incorporate 5-card majors into his system as "a mad notion."
Yes, he did. In 1968, IIRC. I wonder what he'd say today, if he were
still around?
Ed Reppert
French" <mfre...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> I have the answer, which is a two-tier system of equal prestige, one
> tier for each side.
[snip description of two tiers]
What's in a name? If you drastically restrict the "usual" methods, then
the set of "highly unusual methods" will include some, at least, that
are so only because the usual methods are drastically restricted. Seems
rather circular, to me.
> I would like to see Tier 1 events going up all the way to NABC+ or
> even WBF championships, with the same prestige (and masterpoints!)
> as Tier 2. Those who think Tier 1 would be a dull game should be
> reminded that the Lenz-Culbertson match (Dec 1931-Jan 1932), with no
> conventions except takeout doubles, was headline stuff in all
> American newspapers of the time.
I think part of the problem is that we almost have your Tier 1 scenario
now (in the ACBL). There aren't, in my experience (which is admittedly
limited) many tournaments here which allow even Mid-Chart conventions
until you get to the Nationals. And there are some mid-chart conventions
which, IMO, are so simply *because* they are unfamiliar.
When I played in England, I was a bit bemused that Drury, which was
widespread in the US, was illegal, but that the Multi, which is *still*
illegal at GCC here (I think) was widespread and level 2, I think it is
(their equivalent to the GCC, I guess). Multi seems much more difficult
to handle (either playing it or defending against it) than Drury.
Granted, the reason for the EBU ban on Drury (it might be used to field
a psyche) is different to the reason for the ACBL ban on Multi (it's
just, like, too hard, okay?), still, it seemed strange that the two
bodies would take such disparate views. And I didn't like the Multi,
then, being unfamiliar with it. Now, it wouldn't bother me to play
against it, and I might even enjoy playing it, if I could do so at GCC
level. I note with some amusement that the situation is now changed:
Drury is legal at level 2 in the EBU.
The point, I guess, is that when you ban a convention because it's
unfamiliar, you only perpetuate that unfamiliarity. There has to be a
better way. I'm not at all sure your two tier suggestion is it. Maybe
it's a matter of not enough tiers. Maybe it's a matter of not enough
exposure to "tier 2" at lower level tournaments. Maybe it's something
else. I dunno.
Michal Rosa
"Alex Martelli" <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:944ip...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > 1) Are the systems really HUM?
> > Polish Club is hardly a destructive system (the old 2D opening is,
I
> > agree, a bear to play against). Further it has been around for quite
some
> > time -- at all levels of play and there is
> > a very good book about it (in English even).
>
> But is there a book about the exact variant that was played in
> Maastricht? Preparing against a "vaguely similar" system is not
> the same thing.
There are convention cards provided by the players.
Are the books available about the excat variants of all systems that were
played in Maastrich? Preparing against "vaguely similar" systems in not
the same thing.
Michal
Colin Ward
<mfre...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Larry Cohen writes:
>
>> Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid
>> sides!
>>
>I have the answer, which is a two-tier system of equal prestige, one
>tier for each side.
>
>Tier 1 is for those who wish to play bridge as a card game rather
>than engage in a cryptographical exercise that requires an
>inordinate amount of memory work for just one phase of the game. The
>three components of bridge--bidding, play of the hand, and
>defense--would be kept roughly in balance, with no one component
>dominating the other two, as bidding does today. In any sport or
>game, the main elements (e.g., defense/offense) should be kept in
>balance. This policy leads to maximum enjoyment for the majority of
>participants.
>
>Tier 1 does not mean the elimination of all conventions, as one
>Competition and Conventions committee member told Hamman his desire
>for less complexity would lead to. All it means is the limitation of
>conventions to those that do not require cribsheets to consult
>during the auction and play. That's what Hamman seems to favor, and
>it is not a lot to ask. His opinion is that permitting conventions
>so complex that they require such cribsheets is destroying the game.
>I would say rather that it is creating a new game, one that an
>increasing majority of potential players do not wish to play.
>
>Tier 2 is for those who enjoy cryptology, allowing them to HUM to
>their hearts' content. I do not mean to denigrate those who would
>prefer Tier 2. The intellectual powers required to create and combat
>complex HUMs are quite impressive, and it is understandable that
>those who enjoy this battle of wits would not want their fun
>curtailed. Let them continue in this direction, until each player
>will have a laptop computer to consult for every bid and play, with
>the only limitation 1 Gb of hard drive space.
>
>I would like to see Tier 1 events going up all the way to NABC+ or
>even WBF championships, with the same prestige (and masterpoints!)
>as Tier 2. Those who think Tier 1 would be a dull game should be
>reminded that the Lenz-Culbertson match (Dec 1931-Jan 1932), with no
>conventions except takeout doubles, was headline stuff in all
>American newspapers of the time.
Were we to substitute "ACBL" for "Tier1" and "WBF" for
"Tier2" you would have given a reasonably good (if oversimplified)
description of the status quo, Marvin. While your defence of
"conventionless" bridge may seem luddite to many, it is, at least,
well stated. The problem, of course, would arise when the ACBL
representatives encounter any of the other Sponsoring Organizations.
What is considered basic and standard in North America may not be
what is considered basic and standard in other areas.
Parenthetically, the Lenz and Simms-Culbertson matches drew
attention in North American newspapers at a time when bridge was at
its zenith in terms of popularity. Two things are worth considering
in regard to the Simms-Culbertson match, especially::
1. It occured when there were NO conventional restrictions.
2. It was billed as a battle between systems.
I close by asking: "How effective have the ACBL's stringent
conventional restrictions been in bringing back those `good old
days' of the 30s, 40s and 50s? And how effective have these
restrictions been in preparing North American pairs for international
competition?"
Colin Ward
>I expect there will be more in future Bridge World's about this
>controversial topic, but I'd like to clear up a few things:
>
>1) I'm sorry if my writing sounded like "sour grapes." I tried to be
>balanced when I pointed out:
> a) Poland and Italy won their semifinal matches because they played
>better -- not because of system unfamiliarity.
> b) there is a good case to permit "foreign" methods so that science
>can march on.
>
>2) By calling them "foreign" methods, I thought I was using a cute
>play on words. In ACBL (North America), there are no "Highly Unusual
>Methods" permitted. So, to we North Americans, these methods are
>indeed "foreign."
Just as our North American systems may be "foreign" to them,
of course.
>3) This issue about what to allow or not allow always seems to fall
>along national lines. It's a shame that a "WE (North America) against
>THEM (mostly Europe)" attitude seems to prevail.
What do you mean by "we", kemo sabe? :)
It should surprise no one to learn that North Americans are not
only not unanimous is calling for such restrictions but that, among
the expert population, those calling for them may not even comprise
a majority *within North America*. I would hazard a guess that a
poll of experts in regards to regulations against "foreign systems"
at the national level might reveal that a majority would do away
with most of the system-related restrictions. Just a guess, though.
>4) I truly believe that it makes it hard for bridge to progress when
>the public can't follow our championship events. I believe in limiting
>what should be allowed along the ACBL lines. BUT -- I definitely
>understand the other side of the argument. I like to see progress.
>Anyone who claims to know the answer is lying. There are 2 valid
>sides!
If there are to be two sides then the side calling for
standardization of systems would have to propose a single
system or set of systems which would exclude none of the
other competitors. I agree that we may argue about the
desireability of such standardization. I would not expect
us to argue about its impracticality.
<Snip>
>7) Yes, I am a "professional," but no, I was not prepared for the
>Polish system. Yes, their convention/system card was available well in
>advance. Yes, I could have guessed we might have eventually faced
>their team. I've faced Polish club a few times, but I am totally
>confused by all of the nuances. I admit it! I never have a good feel
>for what my opponents have when they open 1C. Even though everything
>is documented and properly alerted, I feel that I would need a few
>YEARS of experience before I could compete on a level playing field
>with European experts that have faced this system their entire
>careers. It's the either/or nature of certain bids that makes them
>hard to play against. I also would like some experience against their
>specialized 2-bids. I never face such systems in that they are barred
>in our National Tournaments.
I cannot think of a better argument for undoing any ban
on such systems at the National level than the one you just gave,
Larry. Thank you for making this point so eloquently.
For what it is worth, at our Canadian National Team Championships
the Canadian Bridge Federation allowed the very Polish Club system
to which we refer. Indeed, my team encountered a number of pairs
using it. I viewed it as a wonderful learning opportunity. We asked
a lot of questions and had no problems with disclosure. Ironically,
we had fewer problems understanding the bids of Polish Club pairs
than those of some of the SA and 2/1-GF pairs! This was due to
the fact that against an SA or 2/1-GF pair we often made the mistake
of PRESUMING to know what their bids meant--only to discover later
that their understanding of "standard methods" differed somewhat from
our own. Indeed, it often differed from their partner's! :)
The day that the Canadian Bridge Federation bans the Polish Club
would be the day that I and others with whom I have spoken would
withdraw from participation in the CNTCs, joining our Polish-Canadian
friends in exclusion. I maintain that ethnocentricity in this regard
is the problem, not the solution.
>8) I look forward to a continued debate (in this forum and in print)
>about what methods should and should not be allowed.
I think that any discussion about barring *systems* simply
because they are not common at North American tables may
be presumptuous, alienating and unproductive. For many,
a re-examination of restrictions on destructive *pre-emptive*
opening bids may be far more useful and more likely--although
far from certain--to produce a modicum of consensus.
I, personally, view all such restrictions at this level with the
same jaundiced eye that I regarded the move to outlaw the zone
defence in basketball. Add nationalism to the mix and it becomes
even more unpalatable to my tastes, at least.
Signed,
Ex-basketball fan
David Stevenson
>I don't see how Wolff's participation on an appeals committee indicates
>his weakness as a player especially against the Swedes. I don't think
>he thought about or cared who the US team would be playing in the next
>round. I am certain he wouldn't have jumped at the opportunity to be on
>any ad hoc appeals committee. Who wants to serve on a committee if no
>matter how you rule, you are either going to be called an idiot by the
>Swedes or the Austrians depending upon who loses? He probably would
>have found going to an early dinner or getting some sleep to be much
>more appealing. Moreover, while I am sure many rabid Swedes attach a
>great deal of national pride, honor, and prestige to winning a world
>bridge championship, I am certain many more maturer Americans,
>including Bobby Wolff, who would attach a great deal less for a team
>from the US to win a world championship.
He did not choose to be on such an AC anyway. Arrangements as to who
served on which Committee and when were in the hands of Grattan
Endicott. On the evening of the Sweden appeal there were only ten
available members of the WBF Appeals Committee: we were formed into two
Committees by Grattan. Eventually we discovered there were to be three
appeals, all from the same match. My group was allocated to one, the
group containing Bobby to the other two. The appeal for my group was
withdrawn at the last minute [no-one ever told me why] so our group did
nothing, and the other groups heard two appeals.
The suggestion that Bobby made any choice is unworthy: he basically
did as he was told. When the ten of us turned up at the allotted time
we had no idea what appeals there would be and from which matches.
David Stevenson
There are some top events in Europe: the Spring Foursomes run by the
EBU at the end of May comes to mind. American teams could participate
in prestige events of that kind.
Ed Reppert
<c...@escape.ca> wrote:
> This was due to
> the fact that against an SA or 2/1-GF pair we often made the mistake
> of PRESUMING to know what their bids meant--only to discover later
> that their understanding of "standard methods" differed somewhat from
> our own. Indeed, it often differed from their partner's! :)
Rule 1. There's no such thing as "Standard".
Rule 2. When someone tells you "it's standard," see rule 1.