Polish Club
Piotr Radzikowski
> Thanks!
>
>
You should find at Marcus Buchhorn's Internet Bridge Archive
(http://rgb.anu.edu.au as I recall).
But note that there isn't one very well defined Polish club system.
Here in Poland most people claim they use it, but almost every pair
(or even single players in the pair) play it slightly differently.
For instance: one of the two existing Polish bridge magazines
(BRYDZ) uses the following in its bidding constest:
openings:
1C - 12-14 balanced, 15+ unbalanced with clubs, 18+ any (forcing)
1D - 12-17, 5+ or 4441 or 4D and 5C (some prefer any 4+, or 12-21 range,
me too)
1H/S 12-17, 5+
1NT 15-17 (many use 15-18, 16-18, 14-16)
2C Precision (many older players use ACOL here)
2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
so, may be replaced with Multi)
2H/S weak two (or two-suiters if playing Multi)
2NT 5-10, both minors (many variations here)
3x preemptive
3NT gambling with a side stopper
4C/D about 9 playing tricks in H/S
4H/S preemptive
After 1C opening, 1D is 3-way: artificial negative (0-6), 7-11 unbalanced
with diamonds (not suitable for 1NT response), 16+ balanced, no 4 major.
1C-1D-1H/S rebids only promise 3 cards if 12-14. 1C-1D -1NT/2NT rebids
are strong (18-20 and 21-22). 1C-1D-2D rebid is artificial game force
1C-1H/S-2D rebid is artificial ask for responder's strength and suit
length (some play it as natural reverse). 1C-1D-2C rebid is strong (15+).
After 1H/S openings 1NT answer is non-forcing, two-over one 1R force (10+)
(Some people play 2/1 game force and 1NT response forcing or semi-forcing).
Regards
Piotr Radzikowski
P. S. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to mail me
(rad...@if.uj.edu.pl)
Mariusz Kruk
On 14 Aug 1998 06:39:48 GMT, Piotr Radzikowski <rad...@if.uj.edu.pl>
wrote:
>2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
> banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
> so, may be replaced with Multi)
Why is Wilkosz banned ? I suppose it has something to do with the
definition of an artificial system, right ? Unfortunately I didn't
manage to get my hands on the WBF or polish regulations regarding
systems and conventions.
If anyone could mail me the URL of WBF rulez (not only about systems)
or/and URL to polish bridge regulations (if there are any on the net)
I would be very grateful... TIA :-)))
The worst player of all times (well...I know few even worse than me;)
Mariusz Kruk
B.Y.
-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
-| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
-| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
-| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it. An
Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Moot points are, alas, often much mooted at the time." --- Jeff Rubens |
| ***Professor.WHO***, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeremy Mathers
B.Y. <yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw> wrote:
>-| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
>-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
>-| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
>-| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>-| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>
>In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
>the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
>matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
>against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it. An
>Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
>would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
Two comments:
1) There are several conventions/actions/treatments/whatever
that are just "too good" - that is, that are simply
impossible to defend against (ethically). It is an open
question whether it is better for everyone to adopt them or
for no one to adopt them (kinda like the bomb).
2) I believe the Poles were playing Wilkosz (or something similar)
in the recent Spingold.
************************************************************************
Documentation is the castor oil of programming. Managers know it must
be good because the programmers hate it so much.
- py...@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
AuntieSpm2
>-| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
>-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
>-| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
>-| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>-| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>
>In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
>the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
>matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
>against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it.
It may be good, but too good? That can lead to banning, but there is a better
reason, at least for matchpoints or short matches: unfamiliarity in a
competitive situation.
After the 2D opening, what? Good defenses can be found, but they must also be
practiced in the heat of battle. Outside its habitat, even top players will
seldom have the opportunity to practice defending against the bid. That puts
them at a practical disadvantage. Given the weakness of the bid, they will
want to defend against it very often. Part of the good results it shows is the
result of its unfamiliarity.
Best,
Bill
>An
>Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
>would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
>
>--
>+------------------------------------
Ed Sheldon
>-| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
>-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
>-| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
>-| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>-| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>
>In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
>the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
>matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
>against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it.
I have seen this argument for the merit of the Wilkosz 2D before, and
don't find it particularly impressive - if I played 2D to show precisely
KQJ10/AK/none/QJ109876, I would expect to gain IMPs whenever it came up,
but that doesn't make it a good convention.
>An
>Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
>would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
I feel that there must be some limits to what agreements about bidding
are permitted, certainly when the opponents are likely to want to be
in the auction.
Which side of the line a popular and readily understandable convention
such as the Wilkosz 2D should fall on is another matter of course.
Cheers,
Ed
David desJardins
>> Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>
> In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
> the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
> matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
> against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it.
I find these numbers very hard to believe. If the convention were
really gaining 3 IMPs/board, that is almost prima facie evidence that
the opponents either weren't competent to deal with it, or weren't
prepared for it, or both. I can't believe that it would be worth
anywhere near that much against a well-prepared team of equal skill. I
don't even believe it could be worth that much against opponents who had
never seen it before, but whom are provided with a complete and
appropriate suggested defense.
If B.Y. really believes that the convention is worth 3 IMPs/board on
which it occurs, I'm tempted to propose some sort of set match to test
that proposition. (Or would B.Y. agree that these numbers indicate
that, for whatever reason, the opponents *weren't* defending properly
against it?)
David desJardins
Robert Nordgren
>-| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
>-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
>-| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
>-| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>-| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>
>In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
>the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
>matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
>against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it. An
>Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
>would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
>
And that ayatollah is now in the ACBL killing the game.
It is an EASY convention both play and defend against basically the
same as a 2 major overcall al a Capp. and that is legal still i or??
:) you never know it might get banned someday when they find out it is
close too the same convention :)
Why not play with 13 cards face up ? will solve all psyches and
similiar things.
And for my own opinion I'm an X acbl member since the game they
promote is not bridge.
Think they should be more careful with the few players under 60 they
have. They lost me because of the crazy system, convention rules they
enforce on people.
and i doubt i am the only one that have left the ship for this reason.
Robert
to reply via e-mail, remove "gogators" from above address
Robert Nordgren
>Dear Yangboy,
>
>>-| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
>>-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
>>-| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
>>-| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>>-| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>>
>>In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
>>the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
>>matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
>>against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it.
>
>It may be good, but too good? That can lead to banning, but there is a better
>reason, at least for matchpoints or short matches: unfamiliarity in a
>competitive situation.
>
>After the 2D opening, what? Good defenses can be found, but they must also be
>practiced in the heat of battle. Outside its habitat, even top players will
>seldom have the opportunity to practice defending against the bid. That puts
>them at a practical disadvantage. Given the weakness of the bid, they will
>want to defend against it very often. Part of the good results it shows is the
>result of its unfamiliarity.
>
Anyone that are qualified to play be forced to play in Flight A should
KNOW how to handle weak openings of different types they are after all
Life MASTERS but wonder what they can master?
AuntieSpm2
>It is an EASY convention both play and defend against
What is your recommended defense?
Thanks,
Bill
Michael Kopera
(The ACBL has 2 suggested defenses)
aunti...@aol.com (AuntieSpm2) wrote:
Mike Kopera
Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95
B.Y.
-| > the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
-| > matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
-| > against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it.
-| I find these numbers very hard to believe. If the convention were
-| really gaining 3 IMPs/board, that is almost prima facie evidence that
-| the opponents either weren't competent to deal with it, or weren't
-| prepared for it, or both. I can't believe that it would be worth
-| anywhere near that much against a well-prepared team of equal skill.
[Digging through some old paper]
When I was at the Bridge World HQ one morning in 1988, I went
through all records the late EK had for Poles at two different world
championships (I think it was 1984 and another one that I don't know
which it was) that I was able to count up, and discovered that the
Wilcosz 2D opening occurred 44 times out of around 1000 hands in first
and second positions (both tables) and totalled about +200 imps. I
arbitrarily discounted some hands against teams and pairs which I
considered to be second-rate, all of which involved some atrocity by
the opponents, and came to 81 IMPs out of 26 tries. I remember that
old Harry was in a bit of a hurry to boot me out of the door at the
end of the day, having drunk all the Coke he had in the fridge ...
In 19 cases the opposing team could not open the hand with an
appropriate preempt and in 7 it was opened somehow anyway, either with
a light 1-bid or with an off-color preempt in general to bad results:
29 IMPs total. In 12 cases where the opposing team had stayed silent,
the Poles got generally good results because even though the opponents
were good and kept their heads, only once did they go for anything and
were +27 IMPs in dribs and drabs, large swings cancelling out. In the
remaining 7 cases where the opponents opened some 2-suited preempt of
their own, usually a Lucas-2-bid (2M showing major-minor), the Poles
were 25 IMPs ahead. Note that in no instance did an opponent make an
outrageously bad mistake, at most errors in judgment.
My theory for the gains of the Wilcosz 2D are:
[A] It is nice to hand a bid for the almost-opening 5-5 hands; you
gain competitive leverage and may enjoy a nice non-competitive
auction when you would otherwise have to bid against an enemy
opening. If the urge to open these hands is irresistible, it is
clearly advantageous not to have misdescribed your hand.
[B] It is very good not to have a specified suit yet often be able to
pass it as a non-forcing call because of that threat (this is the
same reason that the Minimulti beats the Multi, magnified).
[C] Opening 5-5 hands with a 2-suited bid that has unspecified 4-card
or longer suits is a losing proposition. The 5-5 2-suiter breaks
even roughly speaking in my simulations no matter how you open it;
You can use CRASH 2-suiters, Lucas, or some other combo.
[D] I compared the efficiency of the Wilcosz 2D to a similar gadget of
great popularity in Taiwan: the `CK2' with 2D= H or S+m; 2H= S or
H+m; 2S= M's or m's-- the Wilcosz 2D comes out ahead because the
CK2 opening 2D and 2H are dominated by the 1-suited component, so
it is harder to take care of the 5-5 hands when bidding.
-| If B.Y. really believes that the convention is worth 3 IMPs/board on
-| which it occurs, I'm tempted to propose some sort of set match to test
-| that proposition. (Or would B.Y. agree that these numbers indicate
-| that, for whatever reason, the opponents *weren't* defending properly
I freely concur that most people are not defending properly
against the Wilcosz 2D and could do a lot better. But then again they
are not defending properly against the Standard American or French 1C
opening or the Standard American takeout double or ...
When the opponents were not defending competently, they were
not only getting beat, they were getting slaughtered. On the 18 hands
which someone did something stupid (i.e. qualifying as not defending
against it properly, in my opinion), they lost about 120 IMPs, and the
opponents were not Joe Shmoes -- they WERE internationals.
BTW, I should mention that the frequency above seemed high to
me because when I did a Borel simulation later, it appeared to me that
a hand eligible for a Wilcosz 2D opening in first or second position
comes up once every 50 hands or so, and surely the Poles doesn't open
every single one of them. But perhaps it was a statistical fluke.
I was suitably impressed, to the point that when I later was
coaching some friends for the local Junior trials I taught them this
convention and stuck samples into their bidding scrimmage (that is,
they bid the hands at two tables, and the hand is adjusted after the
opening lead is made); it appears to me at the end of the exercises
that my friends are scoring about 4 imps a board for each appearance
in a set of hands that was rather heavily dosed with the Wilcosz 2D.
--
| "A tyro might just have a case for not wanting to face strange methods; |
| for a self-professed expert to whine about not being able to deal with |
| innovations would be, at the very least, unbecoming." -Ralph Hirshberg |
| **Professor.WHO**, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
B.Y.
-| -| >> Why is Wilkosz banned ?
-| -| > In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
-| -| > the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
-| -| > matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
-| -| I find these numbers very hard to believe.
-| [Digging through some old paper] When I was at the Bridge
-| World HQ one morning in 1988, I went through all records the late
-| EK had for Poles at two different world championships [...] 81 IMPs
-| out of 26 tries. [...] 19 cases the opposing team could not open
-| the hand with an appropriate preempt and in 7 it was opened somehow
-| anyway, [...] 29 IMPs total. In 12 cases where the opposing team
-| had stayed silent, [+27 IMPs]. remaining 7 cases where the
-| opponents opened some 2-suited preempt of their own [...] Poles
-| were 25 IMPs ahead.
When I said, `the opposing team had stayed silent' above, I
had meant `where the hand passed instead of opening with something.'
-| My theory for the gains of the Wilcosz 2D are:
-| [A] It is nice to have a bid for the almost-opening 5-5 hands;
-| [B] It is very good not to have a specified suit
-| [C] Opening 5-5 hands with a 2-suited bid that has unspecified 4-card
-| or longer suits is a losing proposition. The 5-5 2-suiter breaks
-| even roughly speaking in my simulations no matter how you open it;
-| You can use CRASH 2-suiters, Lucas, or some other combo.
I must amend that. There is one bid which, when actually used, is a
little better than Wilcosz: an opening bid which showed two specific
suits, at least one specified as five-long and one of which is the
actual bid suit. A bid which showed two specified suits neither of
which is the bid suit does not do very well in comparison.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! Yangster (yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw): define "Green's Function". !
! Graduate(!) student: Something which will turn people green on sight. !
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
B.Y.
-| >-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major
-| >In short, it was too good
-| It may be good, but too good? That can lead to banning, but there
-| is a better reason, at least for matchpoints or short matches:
-| unfamiliarity in a competitive situation.
When I was still actively playing tournaments as of a year and a half
ago with a regular partnership, we were using a strong club system [of
my own devising] and we regularly practice bidding against all strange
kinds of nuisance bids over a strong club, even conventions that I had
no expectation of meeting over the table; we used generated hands and
had teammates play the part of the bothersome opponents. Seldom were
the hands played out, but we had the results adjudicated by friends.
Part of this was to get a feel for unfamiliar situations, and to make
ourselves at home on a very important battleground, part was my desire
that we, as aspirants to true championship, be genuinely proficient on
handling anything and everything that the opponents might throw. If I
an apprentice to the wizard could do this, and practice against all of
the gadgetry used by many international teams [we were punching bags,
both for some of our friends who were practicing their own wares, and
for some who were trying out their defenses to others' wares.] which
can be classified into about 7 types, each with a fairly good general
defense available, I fail to see why other so-called experts cannot.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|"Complaints [against systems] emanates from [...] (1) low IQ, (2) Smugness,|
| (3) Laziness, or (4) Fear of Loss of Prestige." ... Waldemar von Zedtwitz |
| >> Professor WHO??, Bridge Enthusiast (yan...@cauchy.math.ntu.edu.tw) << |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
amck...@my-dejanews.com
yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw (B.Y.) wrote:
> -| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
> -| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
> -| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
> -| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>
> Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
> would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
As an even more egregious example, we are generally not allowed to play
the Stauber 2D opening bid in ACBL sanctioned events: 4-10 pts, 9+ cards
in the majors, suits differ by at most one in length. My experience with
this bid was so favorable that I find the claims for the Wilkosz 2D to be
plausible. Some conventions have been banned by the ACBL unless at least
one suit is known. Here, BOTH are known.
Arch McKellar
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Andrzej Kolinski
have my own experience playing and not playing against 2D Wilkosz (not
Wilcosh, or whatever; Andrzej Wilkosz is one of the top Polish bridge
players). By comparing duplicate games between Canadian clubs and two
Polish clubs in Toronto that I have the privilege to direct, I found that
2D two-suiter (used in the latter) is a very powerful tool even when used
by not so experienced players. As a responder, you immediately find
yourself one or two steps behind the attacking side. They know more what's
going on from the beginning of the auction and you, quite often, have to
wait and watch before entertaining any effective counter action.
Should Wilkosz be allowed in NA? By all means, like all DONT's, Raptors,
etc. With its legalization, the defensive methods will eventually evolve.
Some authors will write articles, maybe even books ... I do not see a
problem. It's common knowledge, that you a in a driver's seat every time
you open the auction.
David desJardins
> Should Wilkosz be allowed in NA?
Yes, of course. I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who
agrees that it should not be allowed on the ACBL Super Chart. I don't
really think there's even a question here.
> By all means, like all DONT's, Raptors,
> etc. With its legalization, the defensive methods will eventually evolve.
Hmm. This is an interesting suggestion, that valid defensive methods
are only likely to be devised by players in ACBL events, and not those
elsewhere in the world. I can't say I agree with that.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> Seems like the right defense is whatever is played against a multi 2D.
> (The ACBL has 2 suggested defenses)
I think that attitudes like this are why the convention can be observed
to gain 3 IMPs/board. If one goes up against it with the attitude that
one can just casually adopt some generic, inappropriate defense, then of
course one is going to get bad results. (It seems completely obvious to
me that you can't defend against a 2D bid that might or might not show
diamonds in the same way that you defend against a 2D bid that never
shows diamonds.) And I think a lot of people do just that. I'm also
skeptical---based on my admittedly limited experience---that most
players provide decent "recommended defenses" to their own systems.
I don't have an ideal solution to these problems. Sometimes (ok, often)
the ACBL makes bad specific decisions about what to allow or not allow,
but I don't think their fundamental approach is so bad.
David desJardins
alan d frank
> When I was at the Bridge World HQ one morning in 1988, I went
>through all records the late EK had for Poles at two different world
>championships (I think it was 1984 and another one that I don't know
>which it was) that I was able to count up, and discovered that the
>Wilcosz 2D opening occurred 44 times out of around 1000 hands in first
>and second positions (both tables) and totalled about +200 imps. I
>arbitrarily discounted some hands against teams and pairs which I
>considered to be second-rate, all of which involved some atrocity by
>the opponents, and came to 81 IMPs out of 26 tries. I remember that
>old Harry was in a bit of a hurry to boot me out of the door at the
>end of the day, having drunk all the Coke he had in the fridge ...
Now what about the hands where the opponents opened 2D (e.g., Flannery,
Multi, weak with diamonds, etc.) and the Poles couldn't because it would
have been Wilkosz? One would expect them to lose IMPs on those hands. Did
they? Did it make up for the 81 that they gained?
--Alan Frank
B.Y.
-| Seems like the right defense [Against the Wilcosz 2D] is whatever
-| is played against a multi 2D. (The ACBL has 2 suggested defenses)
I would suggest that it is >not< the right defense. Imperative as it
is to make your double a semi-balanced-type against the multi, it is
even more so when the opponents' passing out in 2D is more likely.
Indeed, some of the disasters incurred that I referred to in a post
earlier came from [2D]-X-[P] with the advancer was in a quandary. It
can be minimised if doubler promises the equivalent of a >strong< NT
in defense of any suit.
My personal defenses includes 3 of a suit to show a lightish 1-suiter
with a good suit, 2N with a same strong single suit, more high cards,
or a hand too strong to make a non-forcing bid, short in diamonds; 2
of a major to show at least 4 of the bid major and an unbalanced hand,
double to show a balanced/semibalanced, or a hand too strong to pass
or take some other action with at least a few diamonds.
This general approach can be used against most unspecified 2-suited or
1-suited bids, with a few exceptions. However, experience both at the
table and in bidding practice reveals FOURTH and SIXTH seat actions to
be substantially different for artificial preempts whose dominant hand
type is a real 1-suiter (6+ cards) and ones not in this category.
Tony T. Warnock
tournament books for the effect of a weak (12-14) opening notrump vs a strong
(15-17,16-18,17-20,Arno). This is not really a good comparison as the Roman
Club and Arno behave like a weak notrump in some ways. The weak notrump was
worth about 2 imps per board (scaling the 53 and 55 scores). This includes
boards where weak notrump was opened as well as those where strong notrump was
opened. There was a gain for the weak notrump on both types.
The results may be misleading as the British team did very well in 1955
playing ACOL mostly.
In the same study the weak club (vs strong club and natrual club) looked good
but there were lots of Blue Team hands.
Tony
David desJardins
> As an even more egregious example, we are generally not allowed to play
> the Stauber 2D opening bid in ACBL sanctioned events: 4-10 pts, 9+ cards
> in the majors, suits differ by at most one in length.
I don't know what "generally not allowed" means. This convention is on
the Mid Chart, which means you should be able to play it in any
reasonable event assuming the organizers are sensible. If your problem
is that in your area the tournament organizers aren't using the Mid
Chart, that's their fault, not the ACBL's.
David desJardins
Donald A. Varvel
a...@world.std.com (alan d frank) wrote:
>Now what about the hands where the opponents opened 2D (e.g., Flannery,
>Multi, weak with diamonds, etc.) and the Poles couldn't because it would
>have been Wilkosz? One would expect them to lose IMPs on those hands. Did
>they? Did it make up for the 81 that they gained?
Hmm. It's my opinion you're better off never opening 2D than
using Flannery or Mini-Roman, and 17+ Roman occurs so seldom
as to be essentially the same as never opening 2D. (My recent
experience with M-R includes getting to a totally hopeless
game because partner evaluated his 11-pointer in an 11-14
range as a maximum. That doesn't say anything about the
method, I suppose.) Mini-Multi isn't as good for bidding
weak-two hands as weak 2's are, so the question has to be what
2H and 2S are used for here, and the investigation gets even
farther from the 2D opening.
Still, I suspect part of the gain from Wilkosz comes from not
doing something really silly with 2D.
-- Don Varvel
Jeremy Mathers
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
...
>I don't know what "generally not allowed" means. This convention is on
>the Mid Chart, which means you should be able to play it in any
>reasonable event assuming the organizers are sensible. If your problem
>is that in your area the tournament organizers aren't using the Mid
>Chart, that's their fault, not the ACBL's.
Funny you should mention this - because as far as I can tell, Mid Chart events
are quite rare - even at the Nationals, and I don't exactly live in Podunk.
The "Second Qualifying Round" Red Ribbon Pairs was GCC (I specifically asked
the directory whether it was Mid Chart, and was told it was not.)
************************************************************************
Are you joking? DOS applications in WinNT? WinNT is just a toy
you install on your machine, to give more shine to OS/2's glory.
- Mikael Wahlgren -
Jeremy Mathers
Donald A. Varvel <var...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hmm. It's my opinion you're better off never opening 2D than
>using Flannery or Mini-Roman, and 17+ Roman occurs so seldom
>as to be essentially the same as never opening 2D. (My recent
>experience with M-R includes getting to a totally hopeless
>game because partner evaluated his 11-pointer in an 11-14
>range as a maximum. That doesn't say anything about the
>method, I suppose.) Mini-Multi isn't as good for bidding
>weak-two hands as weak 2's are, so the question has to be what
>2H and 2S are used for here, and the investigation gets even
>farther from the 2D opening.
Flannery is another topic, but I will agree that MiniRoman (and its
variants) seems like a loser to me. I'm always quite happy when I see that my
opponents are playing it, since they never seem to get a good result from it.
************************************************************************
"We trained hard -- but it seemed that every time we were
beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I
was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new
situation by reorganizing. And what a wonderful method it
can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing
confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
-- Gaius Petronius Arbiter --
(First Century)
David desJardins
> Funny you should mention this - because as far as I can tell, Mid Chart events
> are quite rare - even at the Nationals, and I don't exactly live in Podunk.
No, they aren't. ACBL regulations specifically provide that the Mid
Chart will be used for all NABC+ events with no upper masterpoint
restrcitions, as well as all Flight A regional events at NABCs. That
means that anyone at an NABC can play in a Mid Chart event just about
whenever one chooses. (Looking at the Chicago schedule, there is only
one date, Friday, July 31, when there wasn't either an NABC+ event or a
regional Flight A event available on that date. Of course, one could
still play Mid Chart on Friday if one had qualified for one of the
continuing nationally rated events.)
I do believe it's true that some regionals don't have Mid Chart events
when they should. But the proper solution to that is to get those
organizers to change their policy. There isn't a problem with the Mid
Chart at Nationals. (I do think the Super Chart should be more widely
used at Nationals, e.g. in regionally rated knockout events. But since
all of the knockouts are bracketed these days, I wouldn't really
consider playing in them anyway---that's a bigger problem than the
convention charts.)
> The "Second Qualifying Round" Red Ribbon Pairs was GCC (I specifically asked
> the directory whether it was Mid Chart, and was told it was not.)
The Red Ribbon Pairs isn't an open event; it seems reasonable to conduct
it under the same rules as the events that serve as qualifiers for it.
Players who only play in open events wouldn't be in the Red Ribbon
Pairs.
David desJardins
Robert Nordgren
>In article <6t5nn7$e11$1...@gemini.ntu.edu.tw>,
> yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw (B.Y.) wrote:
>> -| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
>> -| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
>> -| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
>> -| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>> -| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>>
>> In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
>> the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
>> matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
>> against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it. An
>> Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
>> would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
>
>As an even more egregious example, we are generally not allowed to play
>the Stauber 2D opening bid in ACBL sanctioned events: 4-10 pts, 9+ cards
>in the majors, suits differ by at most one in length. My experience with
>this bid was so favorable that I find the claims for the Wilkosz 2D to be
>plausible. Some conventions have been banned by the ACBL unless at least
>one suit is known. Here, BOTH are known.
>
Same with Ekrens 2Di and 2He
Yeah but you are violating the holy rule of never open with less than
13 hcp's that ACBL bridge is based on.
Robert Nordgren
Mathers) wrote:
>In article <vohd893...@bosco.berkeley.edu>,
>David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
>...
>>I don't know what "generally not allowed" means. This convention is on
>>the Mid Chart, which means you should be able to play it in any
>>reasonable event assuming the organizers are sensible. If your problem
>>is that in your area the tournament organizers aren't using the Mid
>>Chart, that's their fault, not the ACBL's.
MID CHARTS and above is RARE in the ACBL.
And regarding carding for instance in some tournaments i was allowed
playing Vinjes trump discards and in others they are banned.
Robert Nordgren
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Jeremy Mathers <py...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>> Funny you should mention this - because as far as I can tell, Mid Chart events
>> are quite rare - even at the Nationals, and I don't exactly live in Podunk.
>
>No, they aren't. ACBL regulations specifically provide that the Mid
>Chart will be used for all NABC+ events with no upper masterpoint
>restrcitions, as well as all Flight A regional events at NABCs. That
>means that anyone at an NABC can play in a Mid Chart event just about
>whenever one chooses. (Looking at the Chicago schedule, there is only
>one date, Friday, July 31, when there wasn't either an NABC+ event or a
>regional Flight A event available on that date. Of course, one could
>still play Mid Chart on Friday if one had qualified for one of the
>continuing nationally rated events.)
NABC occur at 3 times in a yr if i remember correct i DON'T concider
that being often.
When playing a national event EVERYTHING allowed should be the normal
approach regarding systems and conventions
GCC is for club playing
midchart on sectional games
superchart on ALL regional events
and EVERYTHING allowed when it is a NABC
Simple and it protects mama papa too.
David desJardins
> [A] It is nice to hand a bid for the almost-opening 5-5 hands; you
> gain competitive leverage and may enjoy a nice non-competitive
> auction when you would otherwise have to bid against an enemy
> opening. If the urge to open these hands is irresistible, it is
> clearly advantageous not to have misdescribed your hand.
>
> [B] It is very good not to have a specified suit yet often be able to
> pass it as a non-forcing call because of that threat (this is the
> same reason that the Minimulti beats the Multi, magnified).
These are certainly substantial advantages. I just think that +3
IMPs/board seems like a very large number. (From your description, it
sounds like the Poles might well have been plus on average against the
opponents they were playing, regardless of the opening. If they were +1
IMP/board on general skill, and +2 IMPs/board additional after the
Wilcosz 2D opening, I would find that more reasonable.)
> I freely concur that most people are not defending properly against
> the Wilcosz 2D and could do a lot better. But then again they are not
> defending properly against the Standard American or French 1C opening
> or the Standard American takeout double or ...
Perhaps a valid point. However, the "unfamiliarity" factor can be
measured in other ways. The question in my mind is: suppose that you
told the same opponents that they were going to play an entire match
where their opponents would be dealt a Wilcosz 2D opening every time,
and gave them a day or two to prepare for that. Would they still lose 3
IMPs/board, or would that loss be substantially reduced? If it's much
less, then some amount of the difference is the advantage that the
convention gains by unfamiliarity or unpreparedness, rather than
intrinsic merit. It would be interesting to know how large those
numbers are.
(As I've said, I certainly believe that the Wilcosz 2D should be allowed
in any event where the opponents have a reasonable chance to prepare a
defense against it. I just want to make that clear, that the fact that
I suspect some amount of its gains come from unfamiliarity is not itself
a reason to ban it.)
David desJardins
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> I totally agree with B.Y. I am not even close to be an international, but I
> have my own experience playing and not playing against 2D Wilkosz (not
> Wilcosh, or whatever; Andrzej Wilkosz is one of the top Polish bridge
> players). By comparing duplicate games between Canadian clubs and two
> Polish clubs in Toronto that I have the privilege to direct, I found that
> 2D two-suiter (used in the latter) is a very powerful tool even when used
> by not so experienced players. As a responder, you immediately find
> yourself one or two steps behind the attacking side. They know more what's
> going on from the beginning of the auction and you, quite often, have to
> wait and watch before entertaining any effective counter action.
>
> Should Wilkosz be allowed in NA? By all means, like all DONT's, Raptors,
> etc. With its legalization, the defensive methods will eventually evolve.
> Some authors will write articles, maybe even books ... I do not see a
> problem.
Well, so far this HAS been a problem.
I've had to play against convention a lot of times and it was almost
always a major struggle to get a decent explanation what the bid showed
(exact range, can 2D be opened with both majors (some pairs do, some pairs
don't), any requirements on suit quality, etc). Some of this was caused
by language problems, of course.
Also, until Matula published his book on Polish Club a couple of years
ago, I had not seen one publication in a language other than Polish
describing the convention in with enough detail to develop a defence.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445
1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305
The Netherlands Pager: +31.6.57626855
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.
B.Y.
BY> B.Y. <yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw> writes:
BY> [A] It is nice to hand a bid for the almost-opening 5-5 hands; [...]
BY> [B] It is very good not to have a specified suit yet often be able to
BY> pass (... reason that the Minimulti beats the Multi, magnified).
BY> [C] ... [D] ...
DdJ: Thus spake David desJardins (de...@math.berkeley.edu):
DdJ: These are certainly substantial advantages. I just think that +3 IMPs
DdJ: per board seems like a very large number. (From your description, it
DdJ: sounds like the Poles might well have been plus on average against the
DdJ: opponents they were playing, regardless of the opening. If they were
DdJ: +1 IMP/board on general skill, and +2 IMPs/board additional after the
DdJ: Wilcosz 2D opening, I would find that more reasonable.)
You are quite correct-- this is a common fallacy that I fall into sometimes
myself. The late EK once said, in an analysis of various artificial 2D bid
then in use, that when he analysed all the hands played by the U.S. against
the Blue Team over 15 years, they were losing out on all opening bids, so a
casual analyst might suggest that the Americans just pass all hands out :)
But the opponents included some of the best pairs in the world at the time
so despite the Poles being world championship class, surely their advantage
in this aspect could not have been too large. A full IMP a board is a big
advantage in the Olympiad against all but the worst teams said Jeff Rubens.
My best guess is that the Wilcosz opening is worth at least 1.5 IMPs/bd; I
believe I have taken into account the Poles' prowess and familiarity here.
I also have factored in the usage factor of the 2D opening call-- there is
simply very few good options to use for this bid. I have even toyed with
such terrors as the Bloody Mary (2D= 4+D 4+H, 0-10), the Red Flash (a weak
2D or weak 2H), either of which is better than Multi, and still I cannot in
conscience recommend either over Wilcosz. [I may simply have a fixation!]
However, I will freely concede that a huge advantages of Wilcosz in a large
and mixed field is its sucker killing effect. In general, the weaker pairs
and even strong pairs who did not have either a feasible generic defense or
a specific defense to Wilcosz were getting murdered, to a scale that is far
worse than anything else I have seen [per appearance], even Fert openings.
BY> I freely concur that most people are not defending properly against the
BY> Wilcosz 2D ... [but they are not defending properly against anything].
DdJ: [...] "unfamiliarity" factor can be measured in other ways. [...]
DdJ: suppose that you told the same opponents that they were going to play
DdJ: an entire match where their opponents would be dealt a Wilcosz 2D
DdJ: opening every time, and gave them a day or two to prepare for that.
DdJ: Would they still lose 3 IMPs/board [...]?
I will dig up some old notes and do more analysis on how my team dealt with
various germ warfare weapons and get back to you. My guess is that this is
not an easy experiment to do. For example, people would resort to opening
light in first chair just so that a Wilcosz 2D opening cannot take place!
DdJ: (As I've said, I certainly believe that the Wilcosz 2D should be
DdJ: allowed in any event where the opponents have a reasonable chance to
DdJ: prepare a defense against it. I just want to make that clear,
Although this is old news for most, I still say that
Those aspiring to the highest level should form tight
partnerships with prepared defense against all comers.
Allow EVERYTHING and they will soon be forced to do that.
--
| "How can Mr. Becker, or anyone for that matter, assume to dictate which |
| `features' may or may not be used? Are we YOUNGER players to be res- |
| tricted to so-called Standard methods, methods invented by players long |
| out of competition, methods which we KNOW to be out of date?" A. Roth |
| ** Professor.WHO **, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
B.Y.
as to continue to misspell the name of Polish expert and former World
Champion, Andrzej Wilkosz, whose name does not contain the letter C!!
[But is pronounced pretty much like Will Cosh, IIRC.]
--
| "It would seem to me that the capability to psych safely is a feature, |
| an intrinsic superiority of a system that is to be lauded, not to be |
| barred as the powers that be in the country want to." -- Edgar Kaplan |
| **Professor.WHO**, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
B.Y.
-| I've had to play against convention a lot of times and it was almost
-| always a major struggle to get a decent explanation what the bid showed
-| [...] until Matula published his book on Polish Club a couple of years
-| ago, I had not seen one publication in a language other than Polish
-| describing the convention in with enough detail to develop a defence.
This is extremely strange because one of the earliest issues of Bridge
Today had contained a description of the opening bid and developments;
the journal was just starting out in 1989 I believe. I lost my Bridge
Today collection to flood damage and have yet to replace it, but I am
sure that you as one of the better erudite contributors to this forum
has the relevant issue, from the second half of 1989 [may be 90/91].
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Moot points are, alas, often much mooted at the time." --- Jeff Rubens |
| ***Professor.WHO***, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Konrad Ciborowski
: I would like to apologise to all Poles and others for being so stupid
: as to continue to misspell the name of Polish expert and former World
: Champion, Andrzej Wilkosz, whose name does not contain the letter C!!
: [But is pronounced pretty much like Will Cosh, IIRC.]
It's pronounced much like Vill Cosh (whatever vill means :).
Konrad Ciborowski
Andrzej Kolinski
Konrad Ciborowski <cibo...@ii.uj.edu.pl> wrote in article
<6tb8sr$3dn$1...@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl>...
Andrzej Kolinski
would like to practice it in not just NABC events where such a system would
be allowed. Id doesn't make much sense for an aspiring player to use two
different systems, one for club games and another for a very occasional top
level events.
It is not practical to enter highest possible competition with a bidding
system that hasn't been tested and experimented sufficiently.
That's why players in NA are generally not so good in developing and
implementing bidding systems and conventions, unless they fit into the most
basic ACBL Chart. There are some exceptions, of course.
David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in article
<vohpvd3...@bosco.berkeley.edu>...
> Jeremy Mathers <py...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
> > Funny you should mention this - because as far as I can tell, Mid Chart
events
> > are quite rare - even at the Nationals, and I don't exactly live in
Podunk.
>
> No, they aren't. ACBL regulations specifically provide that the Mid
> Chart will be used for all NABC+ events with no upper masterpoint
> restrcitions, as well as all Flight A regional events at NABCs. That
> means that anyone at an NABC can play in a Mid Chart event just about
> whenever one chooses. (Looking at the Chicago schedule, there is only
> one date, Friday, July 31, when there wasn't either an NABC+ event or a
> regional Flight A event available on that date. Of course, one could
> still play Mid Chart on Friday if one had qualified for one of the
> continuing nationally rated events.)
>
Robin Michaels
: wrote:
: >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
: > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
: > so, may be replaced with Multi)
The general method of 'multi way X over multi way bids' seems to work well
here:
X = Sound overcall in H or S, responses as to a multi 2D or a big hand
(not big, 3 suited tho)
2H = balanced, 15-18, stops in both majors -> 2S, invitational or a big
3 suited hand
2S = Sound overcall in C -> 2N, invitational
2N = Ditto for D -> 3C, invitational
3C = preemptive
3D = preemptive
3H = Good, but shape one suit hand- intermedeiate JO with a good stui
3S = ditto, with S
3N = Both minors, about 10hcp
Pass on all 3 suiters, and most 2 suiters, with no other bid available.
Robin
alan d frank
the context of a strong club system, where no 1-level bid is available
with a 4x1 hand. My personal belief is that it's superior to open 1H with
4=4=1=4 and 1D with other 4x1s, but there are certainly some fine
theoreticians who think otherwise.
--Alan Frank
Jeremy Mathers
>> the directory whether it was Mid Chart, and was told it was not.)
>
>The Red Ribbon Pairs isn't an open event; it seems reasonable to conduct
>it under the same rules as the events that serve as qualifiers for it.
>Players who only play in open events wouldn't be in the Red Ribbon
>Pairs.
Counterexample (upon which I based my question/wonder about the RR):
The NAOP is GCC at the local levels, but becomes MidChart at the
Nationals level.
************************************************************************
Please post to the newsgroup - I don't read my email that often...
David desJardins
> Id doesn't make much sense for an aspiring player to use two different
> systems, one for club games and another for a very occasional top
> level events.
It doesn't make much sense for an aspiring player to play in club games
in the first place. I don't know of any strong players in the US who do
this very frequently. There might be individual exceptions who have
partciular clubs that they play in. But, of course, those clubs are
free to adopt the ACBL Super Chart (or indeed something even less
restrictive) for their events if they so choose.
> It is not practical to enter highest possible competition with a bidding
> system that hasn't been tested and experimented sufficiently.
You may say it's not practical, but in fact, many of the top players in
the USA do in fact play most of their tournament bridge only at the top
levels of competition. And they do seem to enter and even win that
"highest possible competition" from time to time.
Is 30 days per year of top-level competition really so little? In a
typical European country (e.g., Poland), can a top-level pair really
enter more than 30 days per year of top-level tournament competition
against all of the other best players in the country? If not, why is
the USA any worse off?
David desJardins
David desJardins
> Counterexample (upon which I based my question/wonder about the RR):
>
> The NAOP is GCC at the local levels, but becomes MidChart at the
> Nationals level.
Well, I'm happy to agree that the NAOP should use the Mid-Chart. My
recollection (certainly from several years ago) is that District 21 does
use the Mid-Chart for the district finals. Perhaps the the ACBL needs
to explicitly mandate this for all districts.
As I've said many times, the ACBL doesn't do a perfect job with its
regulations. But the problems (like this one) seem to me to lie more in
the realm of implementation than concept.
And your statement about there not being lots of Mid-Chart events at the
Nationals is just wrong.
David desJardins
Andrzej Kolinski
>
> It doesn't make much sense for an aspiring player to play in club games
> in the first place. I don't know of any strong players in the US who do
> this very frequently. There might be individual exceptions who have
> partciular clubs that they play in. But, of course, those clubs are
> free to adopt the ACBL Super Chart (or indeed something even less
> restrictive) for their events if they so choose.
SO, we have a problem. An aspiring player (but not strong enough) has no
place in the ACBL system. He should play frequently, but the level of an
average duplicate game and its restrictions are not good for him. How can
he then become a strong player, equipped with an efficient (aggressive)
bidding system? All clubs I know _do_not_ adopt the Super Chart by
definition, period. They have their reasons not to.
> You may say it's not practical, but in fact, many of the top players in
> the USA do in fact play most of their tournament bridge only at the top
> levels of competition. And they do seem to enter and even win that
> "highest possible competition" from time to time.
>
> Is 30 days per year of top-level competition really so little? In a
> typical European country (e.g., Poland), can a top-level pair really
> enter more than 30 days per year of top-level tournament competition
> against all of the other best players in the country? If not, why is
> the USA any worse off?
In Poland, in addition to regular weekly games at clubs and regular
"Regionals" there are enormously popular Bridge Leagues: First Division
(National level) with all Balickis, Zmudzinskis, Kwieciens and Pszczolas,
Second Division, Regional and Sectional Divisions. It is like English
soccer, if you know what I mean. Player at any levels compete with equals
frequently, many times a year playing IMP matches.
Why don't we the same situation in NA, beats me. To me, lack of team
competitions is one of the sources of ACBL weaknesses. Anybody, who at
least once participated in such a form of competitive bridge would tell you
that being a team member and playing weekly or biweekly matches is the best
a bridge player can think of. In Toronto, for example there are bridge
leagues organized by individual clubs. They are not so popular, there are
drastic differences between in levels of teams and players. Neither them
nor Canadian or American Nationals are not the same, believe me.
I live for to short here to know what has been or what is an official
position of ACBL in reference to truly national, regional, sectional, etc.
bridge leagues.
>
> David desJardins
>
David desJardins
> My best guess is that the Wilcosz opening is worth at least 1.5 IMPs/bd; I
> believe I have taken into account the Poles' prowess and familiarity here.
> I also have factored in the usage factor of the 2D opening call-- there is
> simply very few good options to use for this bid.
I don't understand what this means. There is some number X such that
the Wilkosz 2D opening is worth X imps when it occurs to the opening
side (i.e., on average, that side expects to win X imps from the other
side). I believe that X is what we have both been discussing. This
number is completely independent of what other uses do or don't exist
for the 2D opening.
Anyway, 3.0 IMPs is a lot different than 1.5 IMPs. I don't have any
trouble believing the latter.
> My guess is that this is not an easy experiment to do. For example,
> people would resort to opening light in first chair just so that a
> Wilcosz 2D opening cannot take place!
Obviously, as in any other set match to test a proposition, you would
enforce the conditions of the proposition (i.e., give the hand in first
seat only hands with which that player would systemically pass, and then
require that player to in fact pass). If some hands are accidentally
included which the dealer believes should be opened, you can just throw
out those boards.
I don't believe there's any difficulty at all in conducting such
experiments, so long as all of the participants have the same goal (to
determine the actual value of the opening, as opposed to screwing around
to intentionally break the experiment). No difficulty, of course,
except for the time required.
> Although this is old news for most, I still say that
>
> Those aspiring to the highest level should form tight
> partnerships with prepared defense against all comers.
Whatever. Fortunately (imho) most people don't agree with you about
what the nature of the game should be. You could certainly run bridge
tournaments which test, for example, the ability of the players to react
to and defend against new and unexpected conventions and agreements.
Much as, for example, chess players have to prepare to defend against
new and unexpected variations. It's just that most of the people
involved in tournament bridge don't think that that particular aspect of
the game is what should be emphasized. Since it's a matter of pure
opinion (there's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" answer), there
seems little more to say.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> All clubs I know _do_not_ adopt the Super Chart by
> definition, period.
You're wrong about the definition of club bridge in North America. An
ACBL club has the independent authority to determine what regulations
apply to the use of conventions in its games.
> They have their reasons not to.
Then, if you want to change that, you should concentrate on those
reasons, rather than blaming the ACBL for something that it does not
control.
The clubs are giving the people who go to those clubs what they want.
The fact that you want something different isn't their fault.
> I live for to short here to know what has been or what is an official
> position of ACBL in reference to truly national, regional, sectional, etc.
> bridge leagues.
Units and districts can organize such events. If league match formats
were more popular, there would be more of them.
David desJardins
AuntieSpm2
>However, I will
>state categorically that any double against an artificial preempt with
>no promise of length (AT LEAST two cards) in the suit actually opened
>is inferior, on my own personal experience and bidding theory work.
You mean that the double does not promise at least 2 cards in the suit, right?
Not that the preempt does not promise at least 2 cards in the suit.
Best,
Bill
No reply necessary if I am right. <s>
Michael Kopera
well have diamonds is well taken. However, each ACBL suggested defense
has some reference to diamonds. Their "simple" defense plays a double
as takeout of spades (presumably with some d length) and their
"complex" defense plays a double as 13-15 balanced (presumably at
least 2 d) or any strong hand. Maybe the latter defense should be
modified to require at least 3 d, but it does seem like a starting
point. Given the issue of diamonds being a more likely spot than with
say a multi 2D, the Granovetter defense of double showing a major suit
overcall probably isn't a good idea :)
BTW, I do have all the issues of Bridge Today--I looked through the
table of contents and couldn't see any titles of articles about
Wilkosz 2D (I looked thru some articles I thought might have contained
reference to the 2D opening, but didn't find anything). If you happen
to remember anything more about it, I would be happy to look thru them
again, and post whatever I can find.
yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw (B.Y.) wrote:
>-| Thus spake Michael Kopera (miko...@worldnet.att.net):
>-| Seems like the right defense [Against the Wilcosz 2D] is whatever
>-| is played against a multi 2D. (The ACBL has 2 suggested defenses)
>
>I would suggest that it is >not< the right defense. Imperative as it
>is to make your double a semi-balanced-type against the multi, it is
>even more so when the opponents' passing out in 2D is more likely.
>
>Indeed, some of the disasters incurred that I referred to in a post
>earlier came from [2D]-X-[P] with the advancer was in a quandary. It
>can be minimised if doubler promises the equivalent of a >strong< NT
>in defense of any suit.
>
>My personal defenses includes 3 of a suit to show a lightish 1-suiter
>with a good suit, 2N with a same strong single suit, more high cards,
>or a hand too strong to make a non-forcing bid, short in diamonds; 2
>of a major to show at least 4 of the bid major and an unbalanced hand,
>double to show a balanced/semibalanced, or a hand too strong to pass
>or take some other action with at least a few diamonds.
>
>This general approach can be used against most unspecified 2-suited or
>1-suited bids, with a few exceptions. However, experience both at the
>table and in bidding practice reveals FOURTH and SIXTH seat actions to
>be substantially different for artificial preempts whose dominant hand
>type is a real 1-suiter (6+ cards) and ones not in this category.
>
>--
>| "A tyro might just have a case for not wanting to face strange methods; |
>| for a self-professed expert to whine about not being able to deal with |
>| innovations would be, at the very least, unbecoming." -Ralph Hirshberg |
>| **Professor.WHO**, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
>
Mike Kopera
Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95
B.Y.
-| B.Y. <yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw> writes:
-| > My best guess is that the Wilcosz opening is worth at least 1.5 IMPs/bd; I
-| > believe I have taken into account the Poles' prowess and familiarity here.
-| > I also have factored in the usage factor of the 2D opening call-- there is
-| > simply very few good options to use for this bid.
-| I don't understand what this means. There is some number X such that
-| the Wilkosz 2D opening is worth X imps when it occurs to the opening
-| side (i.e., on average, that side expects to win X imps from the other
-| side). I believe that X is what we have both been discussing.
My bad; something like this often happens when I go without sleep for
a night-- I was thinking of something quite different than X, such as
[Gain of imps using Wilkosz - loss of imps not using something else]
Y= --------------------------------------------------------------------
[Total number of boards on which Wilkosz occur]
So I was referring to the difficulty of increasing that second term.
-| Anyway, 3.0 IMPs is a lot different than 1.5 IMPs. I don't have any
-| trouble believing the latter.
I still think that X is closer to 2; but I am glad that you can agree
that X can at least be 1.5, and that Wilkosz and weak two's are likely
to be better than Multi and Lucas 2-suited two's :) Point that I was
trying to make is that I do not see unfamiliarity and inexperience as
accounting for as much as half of the net value of X.
-| > My guess is that this is not an easy experiment to do.
-| as in any other set match to test a proposition, you would enforce
-| the conditions of the proposition [...] don't believe there's any
-| difficulty at all in conducting such experiments, so long as all of
-| the participants have the same goal
I was thinking more along the lines of `some people opened 1S instead
passing with S:AQxxx H:x D:Kxxxx C:xx and got into trouble on a misfit
hand; if partner KNEW that this was a Wilkosz hand, s/he can hardly be
blamed for some innocent and unconscious but relevant use of UI.' I'm
sure that given enough incentive people can get around it.
-| > Those aspiring to the highest level should form tight
-| > partnerships with prepared defense against all comers.
-| Whatever. Fortunately (imho) most people don't agree with you about
-| what the nature of the game should be. You could certainly run bridge
-| tournaments which test, for example, the ability of the players to react
-| to and defend against new and unexpected conventions and agreements.
But I never claimed that the game should be about how to handle new
and unexpected conventions and agreements. What I have always said is
that (A) innovation is good and should not be restricted, and if some
pairs were to get the worst of the process that's unfortunate; but (B)
they should have been prepared anyways with a generic countermeasure,
such any disruptive convention would have enough of its unfamiliarity
and novelty offset to the point that intrinsic unsoundness shows; and
(C) such generic methods do exist and can be mastered reasonably fast.
Anyway, I am sure that as reasonable people we can agree to disagree!
Michal
>I have seen this argument for the merit of the Wilkosz 2D before, and
>don't find it particularly impressive - if I played 2D to show precisely
>KQJ10/AK/none/QJ109876, I would expect to gain IMPs whenever it came up,
>but that doesn't make it a good convention.
Excuse me?
Wilkosz shows 5+ 5+, at least one major and LESS than opening hand!
B.Y.
-| that any defense must take into account that the opener may well
-| have diamonds is well taken. However, each ACBL suggested defense
-| has some reference to diamonds. Their "simple" defense [X= t/o of
-| spades] and their "complex" defense [X= 13-15 BAL or any 19+ value]
-| Maybe the latter defense should be modified to require at least 3D,
-| but it does seem like a starting point.
Yup; IIRC, something like this happened to two Brits: [2D*]-X-[P*]-
and responder was looking at a 10 count with 4 diamonds. He passed
and partner had a strong 2-4-1-6. 2Dx=2 when it was their game. I
remember this one very vividly, because EK remarked that this was a
known hazard way back when (an American) Wagner invented Mini-Multi.
Actually, I have discovered that if you require a medium-to-strong
no-trump (good 14 up) for doubling all the multi 2D variants, you can
often get by doubling on two and leaving in on three, because you can
often force declarer out of using hir second suit. YMMV, of course.
The point is that if you could have a stiff it really is dangerous.
-| BTW, I do have all the issues of Bridge Today--I looked through the
-| table of contents and couldn't see any titles of articles about
-| Wilkosz 2D (I looked thru some articles I thought might have
-| contained reference to the 2D opening, but didn't find anything).
-| If you happen to remember anything more about it, I would be happy
-| to look thru them again, and post whatever I can find.
As I said it was an article about a Junior Bridge Camp in 89 or 90, in
Europe-- around when 89 World Juniors had been taken by the Brits ...
--
| " You have a deeply-held, philosophical opposition to any tinkering in |
| bridge bidding laws. I see now you liken it to restrictions on |
| research, on experimentation, on knowledge itself. You view the |
| ACBL as a sort of Spanish Inquisition ferreting out heretics, a |
| Vatican Council viciously attacking Galileo for daring to question |
| accepted dogma." ... Nick Straguzzi describing yours truly .... |
Michal
Michael Kopera wrote in message
<35f9e837...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>Your point that any defense must take into account that the opener may
>well have diamonds is well taken. However, each ACBL suggested defense
>has some reference to diamonds. Their "simple" defense plays a double
>as takeout of spades (presumably with some d length) and their
>"complex" defense plays a double as 13-15 balanced (presumably at
>least 2 d) or any strong hand. Maybe the latter defense should be
>modified to require at least 3 d, but it does seem like a starting
>point. Given the issue of diamonds being a more likely spot than with
>say a multi 2D, the Granovetter defense of double showing a major suit
>overcall probably isn't a good idea :)
Defending against Wilkosz is a bit tricky. Part of the problem lies with
the fact that Wilkosz seems to have an in-build anti-defence feature -
basically, no matter what the interference, it's quite easy for Wilkosz
players to get out of trouble. Let me illustrate, we open Wilkosz 2D and
than opps:
Double (no matter what the meaning) - pass 3+D, pass with D big without,
xx - i have no diamonds pls bid your suit, 2M natural, please pass.
Overcall with 2H/S - double, pass or correct (this sequence means, most of
the time +420/+620 or +500/800)
etc...
The only sensible defence I can recommend is to keep it reasonably simple
(probably the simplest part of my system):
X - T/O, i would suggest 4+ 4+ in both majors or 5+major
2M - natural, not-forcing. Dont overcall on rubbish, rember that most of
the time if you'll find a 5-3 fit trumps will break 5-nil...
2N - natural, 16-18 or so.
Sue Picus/Barry Rigal
> Now what about the hands where the opponents opened 2D (e.g., Flannery, Multi, weak with diamonds, etc.)
> --Alan Frank
Personally I would expect the 2D Flannery to lose IMPs, and those
opening 3D as opposed to 2D to gain. But that is naked prejudice.
Multi vs Wk2H/2S starts getting more complex to value. what about thwe
2H/S bids the Multiers used...etc etc...
Barry
Sue Picus/Barry Rigal
> Flannery is another topic, but I will agree that MiniRoman (and its
> variants) seems like a loser to me. I'm always quite happy when I see that my
> opponents are playing it, since they never seem to get a good result from it.
Of copurse different people have different experiences, but the opening
2C (not 2D) in a strong club system as a three-suiter worked very well
for me. Does that extra bid make a difference? Well having a 2D relay to
identify major-suit lengths at the 2-level did seem important.
It was also a great bid to psyche incidentally.
Barry Rigal
Donald A. Varvel
Those are pretty much my thoughts, in general. I would be a
lot more confident in my opinion of Flannery if Chip Martel
weren't so certain I'm wrong.
The weak 2D is another matter. I like it, a lot.
I have a vague recollection of a number of hands from world
championship competition where the side that could
open a weak 2D (a substantial minority at that level) did
very well. It has the advantage of taking up space without
telling the opponents (as 2M does) that there's a major suit
they need not consider using as their trump suit. Also, as
a matter of principle, I would think the effectiveness of 3D
would be reduced with the decreased sharpness of definition.
Let's say you're happy to open 3D on x xxx KQTxxxx xx. Are
you also happy with xx xxx KQTxxx xx? How about xx Kxx KQTxxx xx?
Ax xxx KQTxxx xx? Or is that a 1-bid? And then there's
x xxx AQJxx xxxx, which I'd love to open 2D, but opening 3D
is kind of scary, at least for me. For me, 3D is a long suit
with very little defense. 2D is a shorter suit and/or more
defense. Opening all of them 3D (or even some of them 1D)
seems less effective. (Using a weak 2D, I open the first two
3D and the rest 2D, at least at suitable vulnerability.)
I believe mini-Multi is a better preempt than Multi
with a strong component because responder is more able to
pass with some diamonds. This forces second hand to act
immediately, rather than waiting a round. Still, unless
holding *both* majors, responder can't bounce the bidding.
Given a relatively good defense to Multi, and I believe
several exist, I believe it's clear that being able to open
these hands 2M is an advantage, and attention must turn to
the alternate uses of 2M when using Multi. That is,
Multi < Mini-Multi < weak 2M, for bidding weak-2-type hands.
If the alternative uses of 2M are Wilkosz hands, we have a
clear choice, though.
Wilkosz:
2D shows a 2-suiter including at least 1 major.
2M shows a weak 2 in the bid suit.
Multi:
2D shows a weak 2 in either major.
2H shows hearts and another suit.
2S shows spades and a minor.
Assuming both suits must be 5-5 in the second scheme, these
two cover the same ground. I believe the Wilkosz scheme
has a slight advantage for all of these hands! Weak 2's are
more effective than Multi, and Wilkosz is harder to defend,
intrinsically, than 2-suited 2M bids.
And shouldn't we all be encouraged to play better bridge?
Yeah, I know. We shouldn't be forced to face unfamiliar
methods with insufficient preparation time.
-- Don Varvel
Donald A. Varvel
I kept getting dealt KJxxx Kxx Qxx xx and having to decide, over 2D,
whether the risk of playing 3H opposite x Jxxx AKxx Kxxx was greater
than the risk of playing 2H opposite AQxx QJxx AJxx x. I can see how
opening 2C, allowing a 2D relay, might help a lot.
Note that *not* using Mini-Roman, the bidding will go 1D-1S; 2C-2D
with the first hand, and 1D-1S; 3S (probably) with the second. That's
bridge.
-- Don Varvel
David desJardins
> [Gain of imps using Wilkosz - loss of imps not using something else]
> Y= --------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Total number of boards on which Wilkosz occur]
There are a couple of problems with using Y as a measure of goodness.
Mostly, that Y depends on the system you are playing. Because the value
of using "something else" as your 2D call depends on what other hands
you are/are not able to describe using calls other than 2D. So you get
complicated interactions.
But, of course, the decision of whether to use Wilkosz or "something
else" must ultimately be based on one's assessment of (the sign of) Y.
> I was thinking more along the lines of `some people opened 1S instead
> passing with S:AQxxx H:x D:Kxxxx C:xx and got into trouble on a misfit
> hand; if partner KNEW that this was a Wilkosz hand, s/he can hardly be
> blamed for some innocent and unconscious but relevant use of UI.' I'm
> sure that given enough incentive people can get around it.
As I said, such an exercise should include participants whose goal is to
determine the truth, not to "get around" it.
> But I never claimed that the game should be about how to handle new
> and unexpected conventions and agreements. What I have always said is
> that (A) innovation is good and should not be restricted, and if some
> pairs were to get the worst of the process that's unfortunate; but (B)
> they should have been prepared anyways with a generic countermeasure,
> such any disruptive convention would have enough of its unfamiliarity
> and novelty offset to the point that intrinsic unsoundness shows; and
> (C) such generic methods do exist and can be mastered reasonably fast.
If you agree that the difference between a typical defense and a
well-prepared defense can be 1 IMP/board or more, then certainly it's
not the case that "intrinsic unsoundness" will show---there will be lots
of substantially unsound conventions which nevertheless lose less than 1
IMP/board, and therefore actually gain against unprepared opponents.
But the bigger problem is that you ignore the fact that in the common
forms of bridge (matchpoints, swiss teams, round robins) the competitors
don't play directly against one another, for the most part. Instead,
they are primarily ranked on their respective performance "against the
field". And if the field can't be expected to be "prepared anyways with
a generic countermeasure", as we know that in fact the typical field
will not (and you just posted further evidence to support that, even at
the world championship level), then such forms of competition introduce
an enormous bias in favor of unfamiliar methods which gain by lack of
preparedness rather than intrinsic merit. I see no reason at all to
believe that "intrinsic unsoundness" will be punished in such settings.
(I feel that this discussion should focus on matchpoint and similar
events, because everyone is in broad agreement that conventions like the
Wilkosz 2D should be well within the bounds of what is permitted for
long knockout matches. The disagreement, if any, focuses on short
rounds in matchpoint and similar events.)
David desJardins
David desJardins
> Isn't that the point of this thread? It all started as a question why was
> Wilkosz banned? Don Varvel says that no one should be forced to use
> *unfamiliar* methods. OK, what the hell is the definition of *unfamiliar*?
> Wilkosz the convention was devised by Wilkosz the player in the 60s - it has
> been played in both domestic (Polish) and international competition ever
> since. Isn't 30 years really enough to familiarise with arguably a good
> convention?
There are thousands of conventions about which one could say exactly the
same. The fact is that the typical pair in your typical low-level
matchpoint event isn't going to be prepared for every one of those
thousands of conventions---even though you might wish otherwise.
My view is that the most sensible approach is to allow a broad range of
conventions in long knockout events, in which players have a reasonable
time to prepare defenses. And then to take the most successful and
widely used conventions from those events, and use that to indicate
which players should be expected to be prepared for in lower-level
events.
That is more or less what the ACBL does, although their implementation
of this ideal can often be faulted. I don't think you will find anyone
defending the exclusion of the Wilkosz 2D from the ACBL Super Chart.
But the fact that it's not on the GCC, and allowed in every single club
game and novice game, makes perfect sense to me.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> OK, so how does a convention get onto that GCC thingy? I guess it's not the
> question of its complexity but rather of its popularity - but how can it
> become popular if it cannot be played in most events.. etc.. ad nauseam...
As I wrote, a convention might enjoy success in less restrictive events,
and therefore become a good candidate for inclusion in more restrictive
events. Was there something unclear about that explanation?
> It would appear that all bridge players of the great USofA have
> decided a long time ago that there is nothing more to be invented in
> bridge - the development stopped just after Roth invented his negative
> double.
Hmm. One sees top US pairs playing strong club systems, even relay
systems. I've played against quite a few pairs playing various sorts of
artificial preempts. (I had an unpleasant experience in the LM Pairs
where I ended up defending against a two-suited preempt using a totally
unsatisfactory "suggested defense"---in fact, very reminiscent of the
suggestion in this newsgroup to defend against the Wilkosz 2D with
"whatever you do against Multi 2D".) Your statement seems to lie in the
realm of "gross exaggeration".
Given the range of what is permitted in the top events, one might well
draw the opposite conclusion---that the failure of many conventions to
appear even where they are permitted is evidence that their primary
virtue comes from beating up weak players and/or those who don't have
time to prepare for them.
> Oh well, anyway, I always thought it was quite funny that the Second
> Amendment protects free speech but does not allow for freedom of bidding :)
Hmm, it seems that the details of the US Constitution have been a bit
garbled in transmission. The Second Amendment is the one that says that
I have the right to shoot you if you look at me funny.
David desJardins
Michal
>Yeah, I know. We shouldn't be forced to face unfamiliar
>methods with insufficient preparation time.
>
>-- Don Varvel
Isn't that the point of this thread? It all started as a question why was
Wilkosz banned? Don Varvel says that no one should be forced to use
*unfamiliar* methods. OK, what the hell is the definition of *unfamiliar*?
Wilkosz the convention was devised by Wilkosz the player in the 60s - it has
been played in both domestic (Polish) and international competition ever
since. Isn't 30 years really enough to familiarise with arguably a good
convention?
Michal
Michael Kopera
the Sept/Oct 1989 Bridge Today, in an article "The Juniors in Poland"
described the 2D bid and developments as:
"five-five shape, at least one major, and 6-10 points. Two notrump by
responder is strong and asks for clarification. Then: 3C=clubs plus
another (3D asks); 3D=diamonds and hearts; 3H=hearts and spades;
3S=spades and diamonds. Responder can now try for slam by agreeing on
any suit below game. If the suit he likes cannot be bid below game, a
new suit is used as the slam try."
BT didn't say, but one would assume (at least some) other responses
are pass or correct. BT also didn't address what was done over
interference.
yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw (B.Y.) wrote:
>-| Thus spake Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) (he...@ripe.net):
>-| I've had to play against convention a lot of times and it was almost
>-| always a major struggle to get a decent explanation what the bid showed
>-| [...] until Matula published his book on Polish Club a couple of years
>-| ago, I had not seen one publication in a language other than Polish
>-| describing the convention in with enough detail to develop a defence.
>
>This is extremely strange because one of the earliest issues of Bridge
>Today had contained a description of the opening bid and developments;
>the journal was just starting out in 1989 I believe. I lost my Bridge
>Today collection to flood damage and have yet to replace it, but I am
>sure that you as one of the better erudite contributors to this forum
>has the relevant issue, from the second half of 1989 [may be 90/91].
>
>--
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| "Moot points are, alas, often much mooted at the time." --- Jeff Rubens |
>| ***Professor.WHO***, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michal
>That is more or less what the ACBL does, although their implementation
>of this ideal can often be faulted. I don't think you will find anyone
>defending the exclusion of the Wilkosz 2D from the ACBL Super Chart.
>But the fact that it's not on the GCC, and allowed in every single club
>game and novice game, makes perfect sense to me.
>
> David desJardins
OK, so how does a convention get onto that GCC thingy? I guess it's not the
question of its complexity but rather of its popularity - but how can it
become popular if it cannot be played in most events.. etc.. ad nauseam...
The problem here lies, in my opinion, with the American bridge-xenophobe. A
quick look at standard American bidding methods clearly shows that not a
single non-American convention or system is popular over there. It would
appear that all bridge players of the great USofA have decided a long time
ago that there is nothing more to be invented in bridge - the development
stopped just after Roth invented his negative double.
Oh well, anyway, I always thought it was quite funny that the Second
Amendment protects free speech but does not allow for freedom of bidding :)
Michal
Michal
Michael Kopera wrote in message
>For those who might be interested in the description alluded to below,
>the Sept/Oct 1989 Bridge Today, in an article "The Juniors in Poland"
>described the 2D bid and developments as:
>
>"five-five shape, at least one major, and 6-10 points. Two notrump by
>responder is strong and asks for clarification. Then: 3C=clubs plus
>another (3D asks); 3D=diamonds and hearts; 3H=hearts and spades;
>3S=spades and diamonds. Responder can now try for slam by agreeing on
>any suit below game. If the suit he likes cannot be bid below game, a
>new suit is used as the slam try."
>
>BT didn't say, but one would assume (at least some) other responses
>are pass or correct. BT also didn't address what was done over
>interference.
>
Responses to 2D Wilkosz:
Pass 6+D, less than 2H, less than 3S
2H 2+H, pass or correct (P/C)
2S 3+S, P/C
2N Game-forcing relay
3C Natural+not forcing
3D Fits in both majors or any 3-suiter, invitational
3H Both majors or 3-suiter with short S, pre-emptive
3S 3-suiter with short H, pre-emptive
3N To play
4C+ No fixed meaning, depends on partnership understanding
Bidding after 2D-2N:
3C Shows 5+C 5+M, 3D asks for clarification, 3M is natural and forcing
3D Shows D+H, 3H sets H, 4D sets D, depending on understaing 3S/4C are
either natural or cues agreeing hearts
3H Shows H+S, 3S sets S, 4m sets H - cue bid
3S Shows H+S, 4C sets H, 4D sets S
Bidding after interference:
2D (X) Pass 3+D
XX No D, promises fit in major(s)
2M Natural and not-forcing
2N FG relay
3C Natural and not forcing
2D (2M) X P/C
Bid Natural+not forcing
2D (3A) X Blood
Michal
Michal
>Hmm. One sees top US pairs playing strong club systems, even relay
>systems. I've played against quite a few pairs playing various sorts of
>artificial preempts. (I had an unpleasant experience in the LM Pairs
>where I ended up defending against a two-suited preempt using a totally
>unsatisfactory "suggested defense"---in fact, very reminiscent of the
>suggestion in this newsgroup to defend against the Wilkosz 2D with
>"whatever you do against Multi 2D".) Your statement seems to lie in the
>realm of "gross exaggeration".
Well, as far as I know, Strong Club *is* American invention! And I stand by
my point, please name one *popular* convention that is widely played in
America that was not invented by Americans - Multi 2D excepted I guess.
The point is that the Americans were always slow and reluctant when it came
to adopting new bridge idea, let's just look at the opposition that was
created by many top players when Roth-Stone was unleashed.
>> Oh well, anyway, I always thought it was quite funny that the Second
>> Amendment protects free speech but does not allow for freedom of bidding
:)
>Hmm, it seems that the details of the US Constitution have been a bit
>garbled in transmission. The Second Amendment is the one that says that
>I have the right to shoot you if you look at me funny.
Sorry. The Second One, the First One - I meant the one about freedom of
speech. Sorry if I offended anyone by my lack of knowledge of the American
Constitution.
Michal
B.Y.
BY> B.Y. <yan...@math.ntu.edu.tw> writes:
BY> [Gain of imps using Wilkosz - loss of imps not using something else]
BY> Y= --------------------------------------------------------------------
BY> [Total number of boards on which Wilkosz occur]
DdJ: Thus spake David desJardins (de...@math.berkeley.edu):
DdJ: There are a couple of problems with using Y as a measure of goodness.
DdJ: [...] of course, the decision of whether to use Wilkosz or "something
DdJ: else" must ultimately be based on one's assessment of (the sign of) Y.
As I said, I was confused at the time. However, I will restate that a
factor making Wilkosz much more attractive is that: of the reasonably
frequent alternatives, the only other which isn't a loser when opened
is the good old weak two, and Wilkosz improves the rest of your system
(relieving stress) quite a bit more than the weak 2D (IMNSHO, YMMV).
BY> I was thinking more along the lines of `some people opened 1S instead
BY> passing with S:AQxxx H:x D:Kxxxx C:xx and got into trouble on a misfit
BY> hand; if partner KNEW that this was a Wilkosz hand, s/he can hardly be
BY> blamed for some innocent and unconscious but relevant use of UI.' I'm
BY> sure that given enough incentive people can get around it.
DdJ: As I said, such an exercise should include participants whose
DdJ: goal is to determine the truth, not to "get around" it.
Sorry if I was confusing again; I was hoping to say that if people are
determined enough, they can filter this out. If you remember, several
articles ago I said I made my friends practice on a set of hands dosed
heavily with, not consisting primarily of, Wilkosz openings. That is
one of the ways to `get around' the problem of UI in the experiment.
BY> But I never claimed that the game should be about how to handle new
BY> and unexpected conventions and agreements. What I have always said is
BY> that (A) innovation is good and should not be restricted, and if some
BY> pairs were to get the worst of the process that's unfortunate; but (B)
BY> they should have been prepared anyways with a generic countermeasure,
BY> such any disruptive convention would have enough of its unfamiliarity
BY> and novelty offset to the point that intrinsic unsoundness shows; and
BY> (C) such generic methods do exist and can be mastered reasonably fast.
DdJ: [...] difference between a typical defense and a well-prepared
DdJ: defense can be 1 IMP/board ... substantially unsound conventions
DdJ: which nevertheless lose less than 1 IMP/board, ... actually gain
DdJ: against unprepared opponents. ... bigger problem ... the common
DdJ: forms of bridge (...) competitors don't play directly against
DdJ: one another ... primarily ranked on their respective performance
DdJ: "against the field". ... typical field will not [... be "prepared
DdJ: anyways with a generic countermeasure"] (... even at the world
DdJ: championship level), then such forms of competition introduce an
DdJ: enormous bias in favor of unfamiliar methods ... no reason at all
DdJ: to believe that "intrinsic unsoundness" will be punished ...
If anyone except Nick S, (hi Nick!) remembers, I never said that it is
not in principle a bad thing to restrict the game based on playability
concerns, only if it's unnecessarily and clearly out of self-interest.
I consider it unnecessary because of all the conventions employed in a
typical ACBL event so very few are actually defended CORRECTLY, by the
`typical field' (think Cappelletti/Hamilton, DONT, Unusual No-trump as
usually played, Flannery, Mini-Roman, even the TAKEOUT DOUBLE!); it is
not just conventions-- the single most common preempt (the 1NT opener)
gains quite some edge from unpreparedness [not UNFAMILIARITY], and one
that is likely to be comparable to if not greater than an IMP a board.
DdJ: (... this discussion should focus on matchpoint and similar
DdJ: events, because everyone is in broad agreement that conventions
DdJ: like the Wilkosz 2D should be well within the bounds of what is
DdJ: permitted for long knockout matches. The disagreement, if any,
DdJ: focuses on short rounds in matchpoint and similar events.)
I agree with your premises; I know as everyone else does that I am an
out-and-out extremist, and arguing with you (of all people) really is
not my intention, although I have posted more to this thread than I'd
done for the rest of 1997, and so perhaps I should shut up now! :-)
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "... He is in favor of progress, provided he has the right to define |
| progress in his way." Alvin Roth on a critic of his system, 1953. |
| **Professor.WHO**, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
David desJardins
> I consider it unnecessary because of all the conventions employed in a
> typical ACBL event so very few are actually defended CORRECTLY, by the
> `typical field' (think Cappelletti/Hamilton, DONT, Unusual No-trump as
> usually played, Flannery, Mini-Roman, even the TAKEOUT DOUBLE!)
Well, I think you are exaggerating a bit. There's quite a bit of room
between "correctly" and "hopelessly". The current system *does* work to
cause the evolution and broadspread adoption of "reasonable" methods in
most cases: you don't see many pairs playing penalty doubles of Weak 2D,
for example. Whereas I have no doubt that if you sprung the Wilcosz 2D
on the typical field, you'd see stuff much worse than that.
You yourself said that in examining the records of *world championships*
you saw several gross abortions perpetuated in "defending" against the
Wilcosz 2D. I think if you took a similar sample of hands where the
Takeout Double was employed (or even the Weak 2D), you simply wouldn't
see the defenders quite so much at a loss for what to do.
Now, there's a chicken and egg problem. If you don't generally force
players to play against new and unfamiliar stuff, then they won't be
prepared for it, which makes them look bad when they do play against it,
thus supporting the argument that it shouldn't be sprung on them with
little warning. Whereas you might claim that in an environment where
players are routinely faced with all sorts of new stuff all the time,
they would develop more skills for dealing with it, and thus fewer
restrictions would be necessary. The well-known effect of ACBL players
faring relatively poorly (compared to players from other nations) in
events where they face a large number of different systems in a short
time, is evidence supporting this effect. But it's equally possible to
come to opposite conclusions about which conclusion this supports.
There's probably no way to make the typical ACBL event a "meaningful"
evaluation of system merit. If you let people play whatever they want,
the people who play wild stuff *will* get a disproportionate edge.
(I've certainly seen that on the occasion when I've played fairly "tame"
stuff, like a 10-12 1NT.) If you don't, then of course you won't give
superior but proscribed systems a chance to prove themselves---but so
what since it wouldn't have been a "real" test?
My own attitude is that the right thing to do is whatever gives the
greatest enjoyment to the greatest number of participants, since no
alternative really stands out as more "meaningful". No doubt there are
some potential participants who would prefer a more wide-open format,
and there are others who would hate it. What little data we have
indicates that there are certainly a lot of the latter in the ACBL.
(For example, some regionals have run simultaneous events with heavy and
loose restrictions on conventions; the former are invariably much more
popular.) Of course, that could well be an effect of the years of
adjustment to the status quo. There seems no obvious way to "know" what
would work best in the long run.
David desJardins
Jan Kamras
I do think you misinterpret B.Y.
I have also come to the same conclusion, and play a direct double as a
balanced/semi-balanced hand.
Donald A. Varvel
"Michal" <mic...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>Well, as far as I know, Strong Club *is* American invention! And I stand by
>my point, please name one *popular* convention that is widely played in
>America that was not invented by Americans - Multi 2D excepted I guess.
If I'm not mistaken, that's an American invention as well. 8^)
-- Don Varvel
Donald A. Varvel
"Michal" <mic...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>OK, so how does a convention get onto that GCC thingy? I guess it's not the
>question of its complexity but rather of its popularity - but how can it
>become popular if it cannot be played in most events.. etc.. ad nauseam...
>The problem here lies, in my opinion, with the American bridge-xenophobe. A
>quick look at standard American bidding methods clearly shows that not a
>single non-American convention or system is popular over there. It would
>appear that all bridge players of the great USofA have decided a long time
>ago that there is nothing more to be invented in bridge - the development
>stopped just after Roth invented his negative double.
>
>Oh well, anyway, I always thought it was quite funny that the Second
>Amendment protects free speech but does not allow for freedom of bidding :)
While I think there is some truth to these remarks, I would like
to defend the exclusion of Wilkosz.
The *usual* defenses to weak openings and overcalls involve using
a cuebid at some point, possibly in a later round. The ACBL has
therefore been reluctant to include on the GCC any opening bid
that does not allow an obvious cuebid (and allows such overcalls
only over notrump openings and forcing clubs). That's why Multi
is excluded, as well.
That is, there's reasoning behind their position, and they have
applied it with at least *some* consistency.
We can argue whether the reasoning is correct (I have no strong
opinion either way) and whether inconsistencies favor American
inventions (I suspect this is the case).
-- Don Varvel
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> In article <35fb6...@tpg.com.au>,
> "Michal" <mic...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Well, as far as I know, Strong Club *is* American invention! And I stand by
> >my point, please name one *popular* convention that is widely played in
> >America that was not invented by Americans - Multi 2D excepted I guess.
How about:
* Limit raises: 1x-3x, 1x-2NT, 1x-1y-1z-2NT, 1x-1y-?-3y have been played
as limit raises in Europe long before this became standard practice in
the US.
* Transfers over 1NT, a Swedish invention published in the US by Oswald
Jacoby.
* And probably Stayman. Stayman himself agreed that he only published
his partner's convention but a few years before that, the British
player Edward Kempson had already had and published the same idea in
the UK. It is not clear if this was known in the US though.
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.ui...@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445
1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305
The Netherlands Pager: +31.6.57626855
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.
Michal
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Donald A. Varvel wrote:
>
>> In article <35fb6...@tpg.com.au>,
>> "Michal" <mic...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, as far as I know, Strong Club *is* American invention! And I
stand by
>> >my point, please name one *popular* convention that is widely played in
>> >America that was not invented by Americans - Multi 2D excepted I guess.
>
>How about:
>
>* Limit raises: 1x-3x, 1x-2NT, 1x-1y-1z-2NT, 1x-1y-?-3y have been played
> as limit raises in Europe long before this became standard practice in
> the US.
>
>* Transfers over 1NT, a Swedish invention published in the US by Oswald
> Jacoby.
>
>* And probably Stayman. Stayman himself agreed that he only published
> his partner's convention but a few years before that, the British
> player Edward Kempson had already had and published the same idea in
> the UK. It is not clear if this was known in the US though.
>
OK, I didn't make myself clear, my fault. But first let me answer the above
points:
Limit raises - oh, come on, limit raises? They are what I would consider
just part of bridge, not a convention per se, but point taken.
Transfers? Ask any America bridge players who invented "Jacoby" transfers?
:) It honestly doesn't matter where a convention or a system was invented
or by whom it was invented - it only matters what expert has published it!
For example - most people will tell you that the concept of negative double
was first included in Roth-Stone. That's not quite true, its was invented
well before that by Polish theoretician of Weak Opening Systems but of
course the language barrier and then existing "Iron Curtain" prevented them
from publicising it.
Stayman. OK, I give in on this one.
Let me get back to my point. I think that most America bridge playing
public is much more conservative than their English/European/Australian, etc
counterparts. It is reflected in their choice of systems (or rather of
their choice of one system!) and their choice of conventions. I would like
to see the result of an interesting experiment: to compare the number of
systems and conventions used in a big American event and its European
"equivalent".
Without taking anything from American players and theoreticians who have
contributed immensely to the game, its is obviously clear that the
development of bridge in that part of the world has stopped some years ago
and there are absolutely no signs of that changing any time soon.
American experts, safe in their seats, basically rehash some old concepts
and ideas, develop theories invented by others ("the LAW") and see no reason
why that should ever change.
I am not even trying to take a shot at the ACBL and/or America - what they
do in their own country is their bloody business, I just hate to see that
backwardness being forced onto others!
Michal
Robert Nordgren
wrote:
Not in ACBL they need more than 50 yrs i believe. :)
Robert
to reply via e-mail, remove "gogators" from above address
Robert Nordgren
wrote:
>>
>>That is more or less what the ACBL does, although their implementation
>>of this ideal can often be faulted. I don't think you will find anyone
>>defending the exclusion of the Wilkosz 2D from the ACBL Super Chart.
>>But the fact that it's not on the GCC, and allowed in every single club
>>game and novice game, makes perfect sense to me.
>>
>> David desJardins
>
>OK, so how does a convention get onto that GCC thingy? I guess it's not the
>question of its complexity but rather of its popularity - but how can it
>become popular if it cannot be played in most events.. etc.. ad nauseam...
>The problem here lies, in my opinion, with the American bridge-xenophobe. A
>quick look at standard American bidding methods clearly shows that not a
>single non-American convention or system is popular over there. It would
>appear that all bridge players of the great USofA have decided a long time
>ago that there is nothing more to be invented in bridge - the development
>stopped just after Roth invented his negative double.
VERY WELL SAID, just reminds me of some "famous" quotes from people in
the past.
CEO for IBM said that the market for home computers was 10 or so on a
global basis.
another one said everything we need is already invented the 20th
century will not bring much new things to invent.
>
>Oh well, anyway, I always thought it was quite funny that the Second
>Amendment protects free speech but does not allow for freedom of bidding :)
AuntieSpm2
>Isn't 30 years really enough to familiarise with arguably a good
>>convention?
>>
>
>Not in ACBL they need more than 50 yrs i believe. :)
There is a saying, "Science marches on, funeral by funeral." Maybe the ACBL
needs some funerals. <g>
Bill
Sue Picus/Barry Rigal
> >America that was not invented by Americans - Multi 2D excepted I guess.
>
A joke? Not sure; but surely Flint and or Reese got to this first. No
american connection there.
Barry Rigal
Jeremy Mathers
Robert Nordgren <clai...@gogators.iag.net> wrote:
...
>VERY WELL SAID, just reminds me of some "famous" quotes from people in
>the past.
I think you've gotten these a little wrong - see below:
>CEO for IBM said that the market for home computers was 10 or so on a
>global basis.
This was a quote about the total number of computers needed worldwide, not
the number of "home computers" - first of all, the quote was from sometime
in the 50's before there even was the concept of a home computer - and,
second, think about it - if you are talking about home computers, you've got
to be talking about some kind of mass market (perhaps not mass by 1998
standards, but certainly by 1978 ones).
>another one said everything we need is already invented the 20th
>century will not bring much new things to invent.
There is actually some truth to this. I haven't seen much invented lately
that is *needed* - the biggest growth sector is entertainment. As they say,
the Internet is driven by porn and spam (er, I mean, "electronic commerce")
************************************************************************
Evangelists do more than lay people.
- py...@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
David desJardins
> Let me get back to my point. I think that most America bridge playing
> public is much more conservative than their English/European/Australian, etc
> counterparts.
Well, of course. They are also twice the age, on average. This is
hardly a stunning discovery.
> Without taking anything from American players and theoreticians who have
> contributed immensely to the game, its is obviously clear that the
> development of bridge in that part of the world has stopped some years ago
> and there are absolutely no signs of that changing any time soon.
> American experts, safe in their seats, basically rehash some old concepts
> and ideas, develop theories invented by others ("the LAW") and see no reason
> why that should ever change.
So why haven't you beaten that old fogy Hamman yet, since he's so
archaic and stupid in his ways?
David desJardins
B.Y.
-| > >America that was not invented by Americans - Multi 2D excepted I guess.
-| > If I'm not mistaken, that's an American invention as well. 8^)
-| A joke? Not sure; but surely Flint and or Reese got to this
-| first. No american connection there. Barry Rigal
Actually, the `Mini-Multi'-- a 2D opening showing either a weak 2H or
2S-- was invented by Sandy Wagner (an American) no later than mid-60's
and re-invented or re-discovered or `modernised' into the Multi as is
usually played [with one or more strong option(s)], by Reese and Flint
in the early 70's. I suspect that Reese and Flint would have not had
a strong option aside from the troublesome hands in their system.
[Actually, it is not so clear-- Flint is a great theorist, but he may
not have realised how much easier a FORCING artificial preempt can be.]
--
| "Bridge is a Science, they said hopefully." ... of M. Miles & E. Kantar. |
| "ACBL is for Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons." ... Edgar Kaplan. |
| "System is to Judgment as Strategy is to Tactics." ... Eric Rodwell. |
| "Only wimps are afraid to prepare!" ... <after '90 WOPC> Adam Zmudzinski. |
| >>>> Professor WHO??, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
jones...@my-dejanews.com
kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl (Mariusz Kruk) wrote:
> On 14 Aug 1998 06:39:48 GMT, Piotr Radzikowski <rad...@if.uj.edu.pl>
> wrote:
>
> >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
> > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
> > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>
> Why is Wilkosz banned ? I suppose it has something to do with the
> definition of an artificial system, right ? Unfortunately I didn't
> manage to get my hands on the WBF or polish regulations regarding
> systems and conventions.
I don't have any special information, just what I can find on the
web. What I am about to say may therefore be from outer space.
The WBF Systems Policy can be found for example at
<URL http://www1.bridge.gr/dept/systems/policy.htm>
The WBF web site has a couple of servers with links at
<URL http://www.bridge.gr/>
Nothing in the definition of the Wilkosz 2D makes it a HUM.
The Wilkosz is close to being non-Brown Sticker except for the
extra inference that in addition to the major there is another
side suit. Therefore Wilkosz does not qualify for the Multi 2D
exemption which allows 2D "showing a weak two in either major".
Wilkosz isn't singled out for special discrimination in the
sense that it isn't mentioned specifically by name. The WBF
Systems Policy applies the label of Brown Sticker uniformly
to any opening bid from 2C through 3S that "could be weak"
and "does not promise at least four cards in a known suit",
with an exemption for the Multi.
As a Brown Sticker convention, the Wilkosz can be played in
Category 2 events which include the following: Bermuda Bowl
including the initial round robin stage; Olympiad, including
the initial round robin stage; Rosenblum Cup, knockout stage
only. That is, the only one of the top World Championship team
events where a Wilkosz would be banned is the initial
qualification phase of the Rosenblum Cup.
I think the assertion the Wilkosz is banned at "many
international events" is somewhat of an exaggeration.
I haven't found an explicit reference on the web, but I doubt
the Wilkosz or other Brown Sticker conventions are banned at
either the European Championships or Cap Gemini World Top.
I also believe that whatever restrictions are placed on the
Wilkosz or similar conventions aren't having a practical negative
effect on the placing of Polish pairs/teams in international
events. The Wilkosz as a Brown Sticker convention is banned
in pairs events as high as World Open Pairs; however, Polish
pairs completely dominate such events having won the last two
World Open Pairs, one in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA in 1994.
The top Polish teams also don't seem to have much problem
surviving the qualification phase of the Rosenblum Cup, the
Zakrzewski team for example this year totally demolishing its
group.
In my opinion, whatever restrictions are placed on the Wilkosz
probably benefit Polish teams/pairs. The Polish players are
perfectly free to play and learn from such preemptive conventions
in their own country. That gives them more experience in
difficult areas such as when to overcall at the 2 or 3 level
and when to penalty double an opponent at the 2 or 3 level. The
Polish pairs with freer experimentation can learn which hands
are best suited for opening at the two or three level.
The adjustment of playing 2D as Multi and 2H/2S showing that
suit and another still gives Polish pairs arguably better
preemptive methods than those pairs from say the US or France
whose preemptive style would have developed in a less diverse
environment.
Henry Jones
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
> Let me get back to my point. I think that most America bridge playing
> public is much more conservative than their English/European/Australian, etc
> counterparts. It is reflected in their choice of systems (or rather of
> their choice of one system!) and their choice of conventions. I would like
> to see the result of an interesting experiment: to compare the number of
> systems and conventions used in a big American event and its European
> "equivalent".
If you define big as a large event with the entries a random mixture of
world champions, beginners and everything in between, then I don't think
that the results will be that much different. In an open US event, 95%
will 2/1 or SA with their favorite selection of 20 or so popular
conventions, in a Dutch event, 95% will play Dutch Acol with a subset of
20 popular conventions whereas when you try this in France, the whole
field will play Majeure Cinquime. And in all 3 cases 90% of the players
haven't heard of the other systems and would never consider opening a book
that discusses one of the other systems to see how they solve the problems
that one encounters in a natural system.
> Without taking anything from American players and theoreticians who have
> contributed immensely to the game, its is obviously clear that the
> development of bridge in that part of the world has stopped some years ago
> and there are absolutely no signs of that changing any time soon.
> American experts, safe in their seats, basically rehash some old concepts
> and ideas, develop theories invented by others ("the LAW") and see no reason
> why that should ever change.
I disagree. While Bergen/Cohen et al didn't discover the law, it was an
unused piece of theory gathering dust on a bookshelf UNTIL they found a
number of bids that made practical use of the LoTT. Rodwell has
contributed a lot to the game (support X, serious 3NT, LTTC) (and in
parallel there is the non-serious 3NT from Woolsey and Martel). Kokish
has ideas about pretty much everything, including training/coaching
methods.
Jeff Goldsmith
>
> In article <35fb6...@tpg.com.au>,
> "Michal" <mic...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Well, as far as I know, Strong Club *is* American invention! And I stand by
>
A bunch of non-American-made conventions are regularly
played in America. Drury (Canadian, if I recall correctly).
All Kokish's stuff (definitely Canadian). Rosenkranz redoubles,
doubles, what-have-you (Mexican). Precision (Chinese). 2NT
over takeout doubles to show raises and other Truscott stuff
(British). Odd/Even discards (Italian?) Is Roman Key Card
Blackwood American or Italian or both?
I don't have a reference handy, but I'm sure there are more.
--Jeff
--
# Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of
# the masses." ...what do you suppose that means?
# Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet.
# --Watterson
# ---
# http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff
Michal Rosa
>hardly a stunning discovery.
Escuse me? So now we have to excuse your average American player becouse he
is on average older than you average non-American player? So just becouse
the bridge is dying in America we should kill it in other counties too?
Great idea! Let Pax Americana extend to bridge as well!
Michal
Michal Rosa
>I disagree. While Bergen/Cohen et al didn't discover the law, it was an
>unused piece of theory gathering dust on a bookshelf UNTIL they found a
>number of bids that made practical use of the LoTT. Rodwell has
>contributed a lot to the game (support X, serious 3NT, LTTC) (and in
>parallel there is the non-serious 3NT from Woolsey and Martel). Kokish
>has ideas about pretty much everything, including training/coaching
>methods.
>
Well that's what I said really.
BTW, I have too much respect for Mr. Kokish to call him "American". :)
Isn't he Canadian?
Michal
David desJardins
> Escuse me? So now we have to excuse your average American player becouse he
> is on average older than you average non-American player?
With all due respect, the "average American player" doesn't need one
damn bit of "excuse" from you or anyone else. If I were 82 years old
and I enjoyed playing bridge once in a while, I sure as hell wouldn't
need your permission to do that, or care one bit about your approval.
David desJardins
Andrzej Kolinski
restrictions they are in place in NA. It is ACBL that poorly represents
true interests of the American bridge community.
Take this very thread as an example. The discussion on Wilkosz 2D, but in
reality on upgrading and modernizing bidding systems, lasts for at least
two weeks. I assume, that all very important bridge gurus affiliated with
the ACBL headquarters have had the opportunity to follow this discussion
and to present their (updated) positions. Did they? Bien sure que no.
Michal <mic...@tpg.com.au> wrote in article <35fb2...@tpg.com.au>...
>
>
> OK, so how does a convention get onto that GCC thingy? I guess it's not
the
> question of its complexity but rather of its popularity - but how can it
> become popular if it cannot be played in most events.. etc.. ad
nauseam...
> The problem here lies, in my opinion, with the American bridge-xenophobe.
A
> quick look at standard American bidding methods clearly shows that not a
> single non-American convention or system is popular over there. It would
> appear that all bridge players of the great USofA have decided a long
time
> ago that there is nothing more to be invented in bridge - the development
> stopped just after Roth invented his negative double.
>
> Oh well, anyway, I always thought it was quite funny that the Second
> Amendment protects free speech but does not allow for freedom of bidding
:)
>
> Michal
>
>
>
jones...@my-dejanews.com
"Andrzej Kolinski" <andr...@idirect.com> wrote:
> With its legalization, the defensive methods will eventually evolve.
> Some authors will write articles, maybe even books ... I do not see a
> problem.
As you have some experience with and against the Wilkosz,
could you or other readers suggest a defense to it?
Looking through this thread I have seen several claim they have
encountered very poor defenses. But I don't recall anyone
suggesting a reasonable defense. Presumably even these poor
defenses must have had some advantages over something like:
Direct double of 2D = good OR great opening hand, balanced.
Direct or balancing double of pass or correct 2H/2S = takeout.
2NT = strong notrump, balanced.
3NT = solid suit, to play?
Maybe 4C or 4D shows a powerful 2-suiter, that minor + a major?
Other bids natural.
Or would it be better to incorporate transfers?
Is a Wilkosz 2D often passed by responder? Would a double
after (2D) - P - (P) - ? show a good+ balanced hand?
David Burn
two-suited openings, have been as described below.
It is not wise to look for 4-4 major suit fits. Thus, if it is +ACI-our hand+ACI-,
we try to play in 3NT or something doubled by the opponents, unless we are
very distributional. The reason for this is fairly clear: if the opener is
5-5, then either our trump suit will break 4-1 or opener will have a
singleton and may get some ruffs.
It is very dangerous to have to pass with a good hand over a +ACI-pass or
correct+ACI- response. Tony Forrester in Killarney 1991 had something like: Ax
AQ109xx Axx Kx and had to pass over 2D (reds or blacks) - 2H (pass or
correct). When LHO unexpectedly bid 3S (though it might easily have gone
2S - 3S), he had no alternative to 4H, and missed a cold slam (facing a
well-fitting eight count). Thus, we play double of all P/C bids as two-way -
+ACo-either+ACo- takeout +ACo-or+ACo- penalty. This is not at all as dangerous as it might
seem, since the opening bidder dare not attempt a double-cross by passing
after 2D - 2H (Double) with the blacks.
Our defensive scheme is therefore:
Double +AD0- 13-16 or 20+- balanced, or a one-suited monster hand
2NT +AD0- 17-19 balanced, with Stayman for five-card majors only
Overcalls are natural, jump overcalls are strongish
4m +AD0- that suit plus a major (the major is deemed to be known)
3N +AD0- to play, source of tricks type hand (but not a solid suit)
After 2D-2H:
Double +AD0- hearts in a good hand or takeout of hearts
Overcalls (including 3H) are natural
If a P/C bid is passed by opener, sixth hand's double is for takeout. If a
P/C bid is corrected by opener, eighth hand's double is for takeout. Delayed
doubles cannot conceal good hands, which would have acted earlier. In
response to takeout doubles, we do +ACo-not+ACo- use Lebensohl (in keeping with the
aim of trying to play balanced hands in no trumps by us our something
doubled by them).
If an opening bid is doubled and third hand passes for correction, it is
right far more often than you think for fourth hand simply to pass.
Thomas Andrews
Robert Nordgren <clai...@gogators.iag.net> wrote:
>On 16 Sep 1998 00:31:49 -0700, jaf...@pobox.com (Alan Jaffray) wrote:
>
>>Andrzej Kolinski <andr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>
>>Unfortunately, part of the problem is the age gap. In my experience
>>younger players are much more likely to enjoy experimenting with systems
>>and not mind playing against unusual bidding methods. Since the ACBL is
>>much more heavily dominated by older players than bridge leagues in other
>>nations, the result, very strict restrictions on system, is predictable.
>
>Very correct IMO
>
One of the things about the age gap is that young people today have
grown up with computers, and have a better understanding of abstract
languages and protocols. That makes it easier for them to accept
widely divergent bidding systems.
As I've said before, bridge is an almost perfect game for the Information
Age, but the ACBL is stuck in the Industrial era, with players obligated
to stay within narrow lines of conformity...
--
Thomas Andrews thom...@yahoo.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
Ed Reppert
(Robert Nordgren) wrote:
> Very correct IMO
>
> In ALL Tournaments I have played over here I was the youngest player
> in the entire feild and i don't concider myself being a junior anymore
> got too old for junior bridge for several yrs ago.
>
> Almost everyone I played against asked what do you study when being in
> a college town.
A couple weeks ago, one of the board of the local bridge association came
up to my partner and I, and asked if either one of us knew anything about
putting together a web page. I was surprised as, while I'm not a web
designer, I _am_ a computer systems consultant (my partner is a musician).
I asked why he'd picked us to ask and he said "you look to be the youngest
pair in the room, so I figured you'd know something about computers."
I'm 51. My partner is in his 30's.
--
Ed Reppert
Rochester, NY, USA
Y. Buzjko
David desJardins wrote
>(It seems completely obvious to
>me that you can't defend against a 2D bid that might or might not show
>diamonds in the same way that you defend against a 2D bid that never
>shows diamonds.) And I think a lot of people do just that.
It's really obvious, but why people must not pay for their ignorance ?
>I'm also skeptical---based on my admittedly limited experience---that most
>players provide decent "recommended defenses" to their own systems.
IMHO, "recommended defence" is ill-brained rule, unimaginable in any other
intellectual game ! In any other game, for example, in chess, inventor gains
for his skill, but in bridge he must battle his own invention ! Unbelievable
!
Yury
> David desJardins
Robert Nordgren
>Andrzej Kolinski <andr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>American players should not be blamed for all those system/convention
>>restrictions they are in place in NA. It is ACBL that poorly represents
>>true interests of the American bridge community.
>
>Unfortunately, part of the problem is the age gap. In my experience
>younger players are much more likely to enjoy experimenting with systems
>and not mind playing against unusual bidding methods. Since the ACBL is
>much more heavily dominated by older players than bridge leagues in other
>nations, the result, very strict restrictions on system, is predictable.
Very correct IMO
In ALL Tournaments I have played over here I was the youngest player
in the entire feild and i don't concider myself being a junior anymore
got too old for junior bridge for several yrs ago.
Almost everyone I played against asked what do you study when being in
a college town.
>
>One of the standard arguments against odd systems is that "we need to
>protect the new players". I find this laughable; it's the new players
>who have the *least* investment in the highly complex and coded system
>known as (1998-era) Standard American! My officemate (age 27) knows
>the rules of bridge but never plays; she's frightened off because
>"the bidding is so weird, there's so much to know".
>
>But you don't have to know anything! You don't have to read any book,
>you don't have to study! You just have to agree on something with
>partner; sure, some methods are better than others, but at the level
>I'm talking about, that gets washed out in the noise. Besides, who
>on earth honestly believes that the methods that are best for players
>with many years experience must be best for players who picked up the
>game a few weeks ago?
>
>Maybe you'll eventually decide that you'll do better to go study and
>learn the approved standard methods; maybe you'll refine your methods
>and make them good; maybe you'll continue to fumble around; but at
>least you'll be playing. And you'll be bidding in ways that make
>sense to you, which is a lot more fun than following arbitrary rules.
>
>Unfortunately, in the ACBL, that's illegal.
>
It is sad but still true.
>
>former ACBL member
>
Same here, I have given up on them.
OKB is a million times better if you want to play bridge. First of all
because ALL SYSTEMS and CONVENTIONS allowed.
the day they put system restrictions on okb I say bye bye..
Robert
>
>--
>Alan Jaffray <jaf...@pobox.com>
>there's nothing you can do that can't be done
pwi...@my-dejanews.com
And don't be surprised to be whacked with a cane, have your toes mashed by a
walker or be zapped by a static discharge if you get between them and the
recap sheet at the end of the game. The competitive spirit isn't dead ;-).
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.
Donald A. Varvel
Bye-bye.
Well, depending on how you mean that, I guess.
"They" probably will never put system restrictions on okb in
general, if "they" is the management. For certain events
"they" reserve the right to do so; systems are rather severly
restricted in mentor-novice games, for instance.
If, however, you mean by "they" the players themselves, "they"
often impose system restrictions *far* more stringent than the
ACBL does. I have created a system that is GCC-legal
throughout. There are frequent servers who will not allow it
at their tables and there are people who join *my* table but
leave as soon as they discover I'm not playing vanilla 2/1 or
Yellow Card.
So, while you can play anything you please, you may not be
able to find opponents if you do.
System restrictions exist because they are *popular* with the
majority of the members.
-- Don Varvel
Michal Rosa
B.Y. wrote in message <6t5nn7$e11$1...@gemini.ntu.edu.tw>...
>-| Thus spake Mariusz Kruk (kr...@prioris.im.pw.edu.pl):
>-| >2D "Wilkosz": 5-10, 55+ with at least one major (this convention is
>-| > banned in many international events, outside Poland of course. If
>-| > so, may be replaced with Multi)
>-| Why is Wilkosz banned ?
>
>In short, it was too good -- according to what records I perused at
>the Bridge World and what the late EK told me, it averaged 75% of the
>matchpoints and +3 imps per appearance in international competition
>against top experts who are supposed to know how to handle it. An
>Ayatollah who was too lazy a dog to learn new tricks decided that he
>would do better to bar innovations than to improve his own bidding.
>
>--
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| "Moot points are, alas, often much mooted at the time." --- Jeff Rubens |
>| ***Professor.WHO***, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
OK, this thread is getting soooo off-topic now...
I think I just found the perfect way to get Wilkosz recognised in the USofA.
First let's analyse the problem.
One. The name.
Think about it, how would that be possible for the Americans to embrace a
convention that has a name that is not only difficult to spell but also to
pronounce.
Two. Country of origin.
The convention is Polish. Polish, think about it... sounds almost like a
Polish Joke... not something any self-respecting American bridge player
would use...
Three, The solution.
All we need is to get some recognised expert - let's say Kokish - to
"invent" it! A nice 3 page article in the Bridge World, followed up by a
similar IPBM article should to the trick. All we need is to convince Mr.
Andrzej Wilkosz to relinquish the rights to his own convention but that
could be done I guess - after all "Kokish 2D" sounds so much better!
So here, the problem solved!
Michal
PS.
I am not serious, I have a lot of respect for Mr Kokish whom I consider the
greatest living bridge writer, I am Polish.
Please feel free to flame me.
M
Floyd McWilliams
>Andrzej Kolinski <andr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>American players should not be blamed for all those system/convention
>>restrictions they are in place in NA. It is ACBL that poorly represents
>>true interests of the American bridge community.
>
>Unfortunately, part of the problem is the age gap. In my experience
>younger players are much more likely to enjoy experimenting with systems
>and not mind playing against unusual bidding methods. Since the ACBL is
>much more heavily dominated by older players than bridge leagues in other
>nations, the result, very strict restrictions on system, is predictable.
Oh please. If you want "very strict restrictions on system", you
should teleport yourself to 1960 or so, when you got three choices:
Goren, Kaplan-Sheinwold, or Roth-Stone.
The ACBL prohibits forcing pass systems, preemptive bids where suits
are unknown, relay systems, wide-range notrump openings, and a few
other conventions. That still leaves scope for the following, which I
have played or seen played against me:
Standard American
12-14 notrump
10-12 notrump
2/1
2D 20-22 balanced and 2N weak, minors
Precision (with 10-12 notrumps)
Blue team club
Sukonek/Ekeblad
Strong diamond
Polish club (1C minimum or strong)
What's funny is that I have seen new players invent systems! The
results are of course hopeless, but the possibility of invention is
there if they want to try.
The methods that are banned would probably not occur to a new player
system-builder anyway.
>One of the standard arguments against odd systems is that "we need to
>protect the new players". I find this laughable; it's the new players
>who have the *least* investment in the highly complex and coded system
>known as (1998-era) Standard American!
People do not need to be protected because they play Standard American
and it is somehow vulnerable to funny openings. If protection is
needed, it is because the funny openings confuse them, and catch them
without specialized defenses.
>My officemate (age 27) knows
>the rules of bridge but never plays; she's frightened off because
>"the bidding is so weird, there's so much to know".
>
>But you don't have to know anything! You don't have to read any book,
>you don't have to study! You just have to agree on something with
>partner; sure, some methods are better than others, but at the level
>I'm talking about, that gets washed out in the noise.
Nice marketing, but I disagree. No matter what you play, no matter
how few conventions you play, you must know what is going on in
hundreds of situations. It's not a question of methods, it's a
question of what is forcing and non-forcing, what is takeout or
penalty, what is natural or a cue-bid. If you get it wrong, you go
-470 or -800 or +190 or you play in your three-one. That's no fun,
and makes you look stupid, and I imagine it's intimidating for new
players.
>Besides, who
>on earth honestly believes that the methods that are best for players
>with many years experience must be best for players who picked up the
>game a few weeks ago?
There are lots and lots of very good players who play Standard
American with 2/1, forcing notrump. Lots of gadgets, but the core of
their system is standard.
>Maybe you'll eventually decide that you'll do better to go study and
>learn the approved standard methods; maybe you'll refine your methods
>and make them good; maybe you'll continue to fumble around; but at
>least you'll be playing. And you'll be bidding in ways that make
>sense to you, which is a lot more fun than following arbitrary rules.
>
>Unfortunately, in the ACBL, that's illegal.
I find this very difficult to believe. As I have said, there are
plenty of non-stanard (American) systems and treatments that are
legal.
Floyd McWilliams
fl...@best.com
David desJardins
> Tangential rant:
>
> Why on earth aren't league teams more popular in the USA? Does
> anyone really find a two-board-round beat-up-the-drunks crapshoot
> more interesting than a 26-board head-to-head IMP or BAM match
> against another team?
Matchpoint events (and then swiss teams) are more popular because the
best players don't always win. Long matches are popular with the best
and most serious players, but not as much fun for the "average" player
who loses a lot. And most players are average or below.
Let me ask you the reverse question: given that you play the same amount
of bridge either way, and the only difference is in the determination of
the "winner", why do you prefer long matches? Why do you care who wins?
David desJardins
Chris Ryall
<Db...@btinternet.com> writes
>Our experiences in the British team, when preparing defences to +ACI-either-
>or+ACI-
>two-suited openings, have been as described below.
>Double +AD0- 13-16 or 20+- balanced, or a one-suited monster hand
>2NT +AD0- 17-19 balanced, with Stayman for five-card majors only
>Overcalls are natural, jump overcalls are strongish
>4m +AD0- that suit plus a major (the major is deemed to be known)
>3N +AD0- to play, source of tricks type hand (but not a solid suit)
>After 2D-2H:
>Double +AD0- hearts in a good hand or takeout of hearts
>Overcalls (including 3H) are natural
<snip>
Could David or someone else please enlighten me as to the +ACI
-AD0 etc shorthand terms - I have not come across them before
Although not entirely understood, this seems on of the most
comprehensive Wilkosz defences posted here in two years, and
I would like to reference it. chris
--
Chris An eclectic collection of weak two styles from Usenet and elsewhere
Ryall Emails with new ideas welcome. chris at cavendish .demon .co .uk
(UK) http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/weak.two/
Geoffrey Hopcraft
> What's funny is that I have seen new players invent systems! The
> results are of course hopeless, but the possibility of invention is
> there if they want to try.
>
> The methods that are banned would probably not occur to a new player
> system-builder anyway.
You must not have met very many. Different flight C players have asked
me whether any of the following are legal, and in each case I have had
to tell them no:
An opening bid showing HCP (1C=12-14, 1D=15-17, 1H=18-19, 1S=20-22,
2C=22+)
2C drury by an unpassed hand, as a cornerstone of an otherwise KS-like
system.
A 1N opening bid as a minor-suit pre-empt
A system wherein one player was very agressive (jump raises were
pre-emptive) and the other was more traditional (jump raises were
invitational).
A opening bid promising four cards in the bid suit and a longer side
suit (I needed to talk to the ACBL head director to confirm this was
illegal, since it is actually a subset of the hands opened 1H or 1S in
Blue Club).
Various relay systems (constructively-oriented new players often like
the ability to find out exact shape and honors because they are thrilled
to be able to bid good slams that the field cannot find).
Various other systems or gadgets played in world championships, because
the player has read about them and thinks they sound interesting,
entertaining, or cool.
Allowed methods include a number of possible systems, certainly. But
allowed methods are a tiny fraction of all possible methods, and a new
player who invents something of his or her own is likely to be attacked
for it whether or not it is legal. Flight B and C players aren't sure
what is allowed (other than strict standard), but they know plenty of
stuff is banned.
> >Andrzej Kolinski <andr...@idirect.com> wrote:
> >One of the standard arguments against odd systems is that "we need to
> >protect the new players". I find this laughable; it's the new players
> >who have the *least* investment in the highly complex and coded system
> >known as (1998-era) Standard American!
>
> People do not need to be protected because they play Standard American
> and it is somehow vulnerable to funny openings. If protection is
> needed, it is because the funny openings confuse them, and catch them
> without specialized defenses.
The point is, the 'protections' offered by the ACBL don't help new
players at all. A new player is just as confused by fifth-hand drury as
by third-hand drury, just as pre-empted by 3N showing either minor as by
3S showing either minor, and just as uncertain about whether to raise in
competition over a traditional or a transfer overcall. A new player in
a flight B field is required to play systems that everyone else knows,
but everyone else is allowed to play systems which confuse them.
The players who are protected by the ACBL are the people who have been
playing in flight B for years, who have learned that they need not
bother with defenses against unusual systems and conventions, and who
will put up a hell of a fuss if anyone tries something new. Of course,
since most people who come to tournaments are these players, the
occaisional less-restricted event has lower attendance. New players
aren't going to appear in droves for a one-session game with changes in
conditions of contest; instead, new players (such as Magic players
looking for a higher-skill game) will be gradually attracted when they
here that this game offers opportunity for innovation and a chance to
test your designs against the world.
> >Maybe you'll eventually decide that you'll do better to go study and
> >learn the approved standard methods; maybe you'll refine your methods
> >and make them good; maybe you'll continue to fumble around; but at
> >least you'll be playing. And you'll be bidding in ways that make
> >sense to you, which is a lot more fun than following arbitrary rules.
> >
> >Unfortunately, in the ACBL, that's illegal.
>
> I find this very difficult to believe. As I have said, there are
> plenty of non-stanard (American) systems and treatments that are
> legal.
Yes, but a new player doesn't know them, and a new player's own designs
probably aren't legal. I have seen a number of system designs by new
players, and never have they been legal as designed; all of them needed
modification or scrapping after checking the GCC. Young new players
(those who like innovation) are attracted to wierdness, and want to
experiment with a whole range of possible methods.
An analogy:
My apartment complex has 4 different floor plans (rearranging the
location of the living room and kitchen, and the relative size of the
two bedrooms). Within those, I can put the furniture in many
configurations. When someone who has many years experience in apartment
dwelling comes over, they will occaisionally discuss the best plan, the
preferred placement of the dining room table, etc. When someone who has
no experience apartment dwelling comes over, they'll say it's a fine
apartment, but all apartments look the same.
If I started a town which had the same 4 allowed floor plans, and no
houses permitted, there might be plenty of room for creativity in
furniture placement within the various apartments, and it may contain
plenty of nice people. If I set up a build-your-own-house competition
and advertised it to people who chose to live in my town, I wouldn't
expect to get a lot of response. But if I asked people in other towns
about my town, what would I hear?
"It only has apartments, and they all look the same. Why would
anyone want to live there?"
I fear this has happened to bridge in North America.
Geoff
Jan Kamras
>
> How about:
>
> * Transfers over 1NT, a Swedish invention published in the US by
> Oswald Jacoby.
And the "Jacoby 2NT" (forcing raise of 1M), yet another Swedish
invention.
Jacoby must have discovered that swedes are easy to "steal" from! :-)
Donald A. Varvel
jaf...@pobox.com (Alan Jaffray) wrote:
>Donald A. Varvel <var...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>clai...@gogators.iag.net (Robert Nordgren) wrote:
>>>
>>>the day they put system restrictions on okb I say bye bye..
>>
>>anything you please, you may not be able to find opponents if
>>you do.
>
>instead of one to find a game? I played a far weirder system
>on OKbridge back when there were perhaps a few hundred players
>instead of over 10000, and even then I could find a game
>pretty reliably.
Alan, as you well know, I played in those days as well, and both
used and played against some pretty weird stuff. I viewed it as
a feature. But in case you haven't noticed, times have changed.
And no, it isn't a matter of five minutes instead of one. It
can take so long to find opponents willing to play against an
essentially natural, 5-card major system, that my partner and I
give up. When we wait it out, it can be close to half an hour.
-- Don Varvel
Floyd McWilliams
I agree that there seems to be no reason to ban some of these
conventions. Probably an unexpected side effect of the way the
regulations are written.
The problem I think is that people get fixed. They don't like someone
wandering in, bidding badly, and getting lucky. That problem doesn't
exist in, say, chess.
Let's put it this way. You are about to play a board game against
someone. You believe yourself to be the better player; after normal
play, which includes some standard strategies and a lot of planning
and counter-planning, which you find enjoyable, you will win 55% of
the time.
To your dismay, your opponent chooses a simple and bad strategy. You
cannot counter this strategy, although you will beat it 75% of the
time. Basically you will spend some time waiting for die rolls to see
if you got the expected victory.
Wouldn't you feel disappointed? Even if you didn't, could you
understand how someone would feel disappointed?
If you looked at all of the allowed bidding systems, and all of
auctions that could occur on a hand, and all of the lead and declarer
and defense problems that could occur on a hand, and said, "This is
like a city that has apartments of only four types," then I would
think that you were missing out on something fundamental.
I saw an appeals case where Michael Rosenberg said something like
"cards were created by God, but signals by man." If you cannot
appreciate the beauty of card play then I think that there is
something seriously lacking in your bridge aptitude.
However: to each his own. You imply that bridge cannot attract young
players because there is not enough innovation allowed. I would like
to ask you, Geoffrey, and the other readers of this group:
Can you NAME anyone who has quit playing bridge, or who refused to
learn how to play bridge, because of the ACBL's system restrictions?
I do not know of any such persons. But maybe you do. This is not a
rhetorical question, I would honestly like to know.
Floyd McWilliams
fl...@best.com
p.s. A friend of mine in high school inherited some property and had
renters living in it. They asked if they could paint the interior and
he said sure, thinking he was getting work done for free. They
painted the inside walls black. That's my apartment-analogy for some
of the systems you mentioned :-)