the demise of bridge

[jogs]

In the Bridge Buttetin article Feb 2012 on Bridge Winners
on pages 28-9.

On Sept. 29, Bridge Base Online's Fred Gitelman forecasted
the demise of bridge within 40 years. He says within 20 years
bridge players will be dropping like flies.
On Bridge Winners Gitelman mentioned that poker is doing
well among younger players. Bridge may need a gambling
aspect to attract these players. I hope he is wrong about the
gambling part. Rubber bridge is a boring game.
I've actually spent more time playing poker than playing
bridge. Bridge is the only game I've ever played is which
is governed by laws rather than rules. This is the reason
the game is unpopular among younger players.
In the 60's and 70's lowball was the main poker game in
California. This game had difficulty attracting young players.
What lowball had in common with bridge was inexperienced
players often had their successes at the table reversed by
the floorman(director in bridge). Lowball like bridge eats
their young.
At the non-championship level, meaning events played under
the general convention card, bridge needs to ease up on the
penalties. Online there are no minor procedural infractions.
The computer doesn't allow them. I believe that as much as
possible minor procedural infractions should go unpunished.
The players calling the director for protection will no
longer be referred to as the non offending side. They are
the plaintiffs. The burden of proof that injury occurred will
be on the plaintiffs. As much as possible the results on the
table should stand.
This change to rules instead of laws would increase the
chances of bridge attracting and retaining younger players.
The ACBL must stop assisting their regulars in bullying new
players. Rules for events under the GCC. Laws for
championship events.

jogs

[richlp]

That's a personal observation with which a large number of bridge
players would disagree. Besides, there are other forms of the game
(Chicago, for example) that have this gambling component.
And for gambling I would probably substitute "monetary interest."
Significant prize money could be one way to pique interest. Whether
it would work or not is a different question.

"Bridge is the only game I've ever played is which is governed by laws
rather than rules."

Sorry, I don't understand the distinction.

"This is the reason the game is unpopular among younger players."

And I also fail to understand the connection.

> In the 60's and 70's lowball was the main poker game in
> California. This game had difficulty attracting young players.
> What lowball had in common with bridge was inexperienced
> players often had their successes at the table reversed by
> the floorman(director in bridge). Lowball like bridge eats
> their young.

I've heard this argument for the past 40+ years. I didn't believe it
then and I don't believe it now. Young players are not (IMO) turned
away from the game because the rules are too complex. To continue
your poker analogy, you would be losing poker players in droves the
first time they get called on a string bet, lose a pot because they
failed to protect a hand - even if it's retrievable, or fell to some
angle shoot by a more experienced player. What we've seen in practice
is these younger players learning the rules, protecting their hands,
and not falling for the angle shoots. If younger players had a true
interest in bridge the same thing would happen. They would simply
learn the rules of the game. It was true 50 years ago (when all minor
infractions you mention in the next paragraph were already in place)

> At the non-championship level, meaning events played under
> the general convention card, bridge needs to ease up on the
> penalties. Online there are no minor procedural infractions.
> The computer doesn't allow them.

Correct. You can't revoke, you can't lead out of turn, you can't make
an insufficient bid etc. Since you CAN do all those things in live
bridge, there needs to be a mechanism to deal with them.

"I believe that as much as possible minor procedural infractions
should go unpunished."

Do you simply ignore them?????

> The players calling the director for protection will no
> longer be referred to as the non offending side. They are
> the plaintiffs. The burden of proof that injury occurred will
> be on the plaintiffs. As much as possible the results on the
> table should stand.

So what do you do when somebody commits one of these "minor"
infractions?

"This change to rules instead of laws would increase the chances of
bridge attracting and retaining younger players."

Since I still don't understand the distinction, I don't see how this
could be true.

"The ACBL must stop assisting their regulars in bullying new players."

Absolutely. But enforcing the laws/rules/regulations (or whatever) is
not the same as bullying.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<8b70a3fa-2695-41e4...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

richlp <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Bridge may need a gambling aspect to attract these players. I hope
> he is wrong about the gambling part. Rubber bridge is a boring game."
>
> That's a personal observation with which a large number of bridge
> players would disagree. Besides, there are other forms of the game
> (Chicago, for example) that have this gambling component.
> And for gambling I would probably substitute "monetary interest."
> Significant prize money could be one way to pique interest. Whether
> it would work or not is a different question.

A few years ago someone tried to get a Bridge Pro Tour going. It failed
miserably.

>
> "Bridge is the only game I've ever played is which is governed by laws
> rather than rules."
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the distinction.

I suspect the intent is to distinguish the basic structure of the game
versus procedures for penalizing violations of the rules. For instance,
do the rules of backgammon say what happens if someone moves their
pieces a different number of spaces than the roll of the dice dictated?

I've never played in a backgammon tournament, but I'll bet they have
procedures for dealing with such irregularities, which casual players
never even think about.

>
> "This is the reason the game is unpopular among younger players."
>
> And I also fail to understand the connection.

Me, either.

Sports like baseball and football have many rules comparable to those in
our Laws of Duplicate Bridge. It doesn't hurt their popularity. But
maybe Little League is more lax about applying the rules than college
and professional leagues are. That might support he hypothesis.

> "I believe that as much as possible minor procedural infractions
> should go unpunished."
>
> Do you simply ignore them?????

Perhaps you deal with them similarly to rubber bridge.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Adam Beneschan]

On Feb 28, 1:07 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In the Bridge Buttetin article Feb 2012 on Bridge Winners
> on pages 28-9.
>
> On Sept. 29, Bridge Base Online's Fred Gitelman forecasted
> the demise of bridge within 40 years.  He says within 20 years
> bridge players will be dropping like flies.
> On Bridge Winners Gitelman mentioned that poker is doing
> well among younger players.  Bridge may need a gambling
> aspect to attract these players.

Naaah. I think the way to attract younger players is to create a
version that can be played on an Xbox with a controller, and if you
trump your opponent's winner, your trump card turns into an alien
zombie that eats your opponent's card. Or something like that. I'll
bet it would make the game more attractive to my 13- and 14-year-old
sons, at least.

I can't do that because I have higher priorities, such as figuring out
how to put their homework on the Xbox.

-- Adam

[jogs]

Correct. You can't revoke, you can't lead out of turn, you can't make
an insufficient bid etc. Since you CAN do all those things in live
bridge, there needs to be a mechanism to deal with them.

"I believe that as much as possible minor procedural infractions
should go unpunished."

Do you simply ignore them?????

*************************

Yes, even through it is against the Laws. I refuse
to call the director against inexperienced players.
I starting doing this after playing online bridge.

I ignore inefficient bids. Don't accept them. Just
allow opponents to withdraw the inefficient bid
and make a proper call with no restrictions on his
partner.

Leads out of turn. I allow the proper leader to
lead as he or she pleases. No penalty card.

I never call opponents on BIT. Didn't notice it.

Once in a regional an expert revoked on a doubled
contract against me. I didn't even call the director
on him. I wasn't injured. No harm, no foul.

jogs

[jogs]

I've heard this argument for the past 40+ years. I didn't believe it
then and I don't believe it now. Young players are not (IMO) turned
away from the game because the rules are too complex. To continue
your poker analogy, you would be losing poker players in droves the
first time they get called on a string bet, lose a pot because they
failed to protect a hand - even if it's retrievable, or fell to some
angle shoot by a more experienced player. What we've seen in practice
is these younger players learning the rules, protecting their hands,
and not falling for the angle shoots. If younger players had a true
interest in bridge the same thing would happen. They would simply
learn the rules of the game. It was true 50 years ago (when all minor
infractions you mention in the next paragraph were already in place

richlp
____________________

First remember I stated to enforce the Laws when
playing in championship events. By then you should
be able to follow the Laws.

In poker the vast majority of the time a string bet is
made because the player is inexperienced with live
play. Many times they should have known better.
If the buy-in is $1000 or more, enforce the rules on
them.
I really think the inexperienced players are rarely
shooting an angle. Mostly they just don't know
any better.

jogs
********************************

"The ACBL must stop assisting their regulars in bullying new players."

Absolutely. But enforcing the laws/rules/regulations (or whatever) is
not the same as bullying.

richlp
__________________________

It doesn't matter whether you think it's bullying.
They will think it's bullying.

jogs

[sbt]

In article
<a8144890-e6a4-4f0c...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

jogs <vsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In the Bridge Buttetin article Feb 2012 on Bridge Winners
> on pages 28-9.
>
> On Sept. 29, Bridge Base Online's Fred Gitelman forecasted
> the demise of bridge within 40 years. He says within 20 years
> bridge players will be dropping like flies.
> On Bridge Winners Gitelman mentioned that poker is doing
> well among younger players. Bridge may need a gambling
> aspect to attract these players. I hope he is wrong about the
> gambling part. Rubber bridge is a boring game.

I beg to differ, here. I found rubber bridge, particularly Chicago, to
be quite engrossing. There is an aspect of "putting your money where
your mouth is" that piques interest. In fact, in the 70s (when I was
one of the "young" players, in my 20s), we often played for cash
between and after sessions at tournaments. Similarly, when we had
Calcuttas and other duplicate events with a cash incentive, the
interest was intense...the participation was lower as the stakes got
higher, but there was usually an army of rapt kibitzers, which resulted
in more attendance at the club for the non-monetary events.

> I've actually spent more time playing poker than playing
> bridge. Bridge is the only game I've ever played is which
> is governed by laws rather than rules. This is the reason
> the game is unpopular among younger players.
> In the 60's and 70's lowball was the main poker game in
> California. This game had difficulty attracting young players.
> What lowball had in common with bridge was inexperienced
> players often had their successes at the table reversed by
> the floorman(director in bridge). Lowball like bridge eats
> their young.

I also dealt poker in Las Vegas (where I grew up), including the 1972
World Series of Poker at the Horseshoe. Having gone to Gardena when I
was in Southern California, my take was that the younger players
weren't discouraged by lowball nearly as much as by the hustlers and
the floormen who turned a blind eye to the transgressions of their
regulars. I frequently saw collusion (e.g. middling) ignored by the
cardroom staff that would have had the perpetrators barred from a Las
Vegas cardroom.

> At the non-championship level, meaning events played under
> the general convention card, bridge needs to ease up on the
> penalties. Online there are no minor procedural infractions.
> The computer doesn't allow them. I believe that as much as
> possible minor procedural infractions should go unpunished.
> The players calling the director for protection will no
> longer be referred to as the non offending side. They are
> the plaintiffs. The burden of proof that injury occurred will
> be on the plaintiffs. As much as possible the results on the
> table should stand.
> This change to rules instead of laws would increase the
> chances of bridge attracting and retaining younger players.
> The ACBL must stop assisting their regulars in bullying new
> players. Rules for events under the GCC. Laws for
> championship events.
>

The portion of this with which I will agree is that the penalties
frequently imposed are out of all proportion and have nothing to do
with the professed goal: restoring equity. For example, a player
revokes on a trick his partner wins with the trump ace and they
subsequently win another trick with a high trump...both of these tricks
are transferred, even though the revoke had absolutely no effect on the
result. There are parallels with various exposed card, call out of
turn, and lead out of turn mechanical errors that completely distort
reality when the results are tabulated.

With the Laws Commission meeting to revise and update, I would hope
that all involved encourage the participants to focus on fixing the
penalty clauses to restore equity rather than penalize mechanical
errors.

--
Dennis Cohen

[jogs]

Sportsmanship.

In swiss teams, at the end of a match the
opposing team captains should shake hands.
This is done is most sports.

In knockout matches, the entire team should
shake hands after the match.

jogs

[Adam Lea]

As a relatively young person (age 34) I'd like to offer my insights,
based on my own experience of bridge over the last 12 years or so.

One of the biggest issues, I feel, is that the whole method of playing
bridge is so rigid, in that when you play at a club, you HAVE to arrive
at a particular time and you HAVE to stay for the whole duration. That
arrival time is typically not very far away from when people like me get
home from work, which leaves the issue of getting home, grabbing
something to eat and then dashing out again. Most times I don't have
time for a proper meal, having to make do with a snack to get me through
the evening, which means I have to eat something substantial when I get
home. Try eating a full meal after 11 pm and see how well you sleep. For
those who have young children to look after or who have a significant
commute then it is a non-starter. A similar situation occurs with county
competitions. I used to play in the local league and other teams events
and some of them require getting back from work early then, after an
eight hour working day, doing a 100 mile round trip then four hours of
bridge getting home near midnight. Once, we got drawn with opponents
nearly 100 miles away, so that is 4 hours bridge and 4 hours driving!
The fatigue I used to get just made the whole thing unenjoyable, so I
stopped playing competitive bridge. Even with the weekend congresses,
you can be out for seven hours or more, which wipes out half the weekend.

One of the clubs I play at has recently issued a survey about putting
the start and finish times back half an hour. If that goes ahead, then
that pretty much restricts the club to retired people only.

So in summary, the reason I believe that younger people don't tend to
play bridge is that it is optimised for retired people, and does not fit
easily into a lifestyle with a full time job and a family to look after.

[Frances]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything else written elsewhere,
but certainly for KO matches we always do approximately that (I got a
hug & a kiss after winning a match last December, but that's generally
atypical).

[rhm]

While I sympathize with some of your attitudes, I very much doubt that etiquette and how we deal with infractions has much to do with the popularity of the game.
The game is simply an intellectual challenge, just like chess, which is also more popular in some regions than in others.
The popularity of poker has more to do with the lure of getting rich quickly without having to work than with the intellectual challenge contained in poker.
Bridge is very competitive and requires a lot of intellectual investment and time to succeed and this competes with alternatives, some of them in my mind as worthy, like learning to play a music instrument well, and others, which are not.
Some alternatives look superficially attractive and seem to be popular, because they require no challenge at all, like spending your time in front of the latest soap operas or an XBOX for that matter.

Rainer Herrmann

[derek]

I agree with everything you said (I couldn't figure out how much of
what Jogs posted was his own and how much was Gitelman's).

Particularly, what needs to be made far more clear to beginning
players is that the rules are for _their_ protection, and that they
should call _more_ often, not less.

IF "inexperienced players often [have] their successes at the table
reversed by the.... director", and it is not because they're failing
to obey the rules, the directors need to be fixed, but I don't believe
that's generally true. Rather, when inexperienced players break the
rules (intentionally or otherwise), experienced players call the
director and get their rightful correction, but when experienced
players break the rules - even when the inexperienced players know
they have done so, they don't call! A case in point, a sweet LOL (C-
player) we know, told us how a very experienced shyster from my own
club made a defective claim against her at a sectional; she questioned
it, and dummy (!!!) told him "you have to play a diamond". Which he
did, making a slam for Average+, when he should have gone down for a
bottom. They all knew this was illegal, but declarer thinks cheating
is no different from psyching (and dummy may not be capable of
learning the difference), and defenders are just too timid to call the
director.

In addition, I simply don't accept the assertion that "within 20 years
bridge players will be dropping like flies. " People keep saying that
(and have done at least since the '80s), and I keep asking for any
evidence that the average age of bridge players is really increasing.
I can't find any truth of that in the ACBL, and nobody else has taken
me up on the challenge. Yes, we have an older demographic. but we
have had since the 60s (at least); and yes, we need to continually
work to attract younger players, but that doesn't mean we can't
operate very successfully as an organization primarily composed of
retirees.

[Björn Westling]

On 28 Feb, 22:07, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the Bridge Buttetin article Feb 2012 on Bridge Winners
> on pages 28-9.
>
> On Sept. 29, Bridge Base Online's Fred Gitelman forecasted
> the demise of bridge within 40 years.  He says within 20 years
> bridge players will be dropping like flies.
> On Bridge Winners Gitelman mentioned that poker is doing
> well among younger players.  Bridge may need a gambling
> aspect to attract these players.  I hope he is wrong about the
> gambling part.  Rubber bridge is a boring game.
> I've actually spent more time playing poker than playing
> bridge.  Bridge is the only game I've ever played is which
> is governed by laws rather than rules.

What happens in Poker if a player accidentally shows one of his cards?
What happens if someone places a bet out of turn?
What if someone is fiddling with his chips while thinking whether he
should join, and accidentaly drops chips on the table?
Is it allowed to state "I call..... [pause] ... and raise [whatever
amount]"
What about other irregularities? Such as insufficient raises or raises
which are too high? What if there is a call, and someone mistakenly
thinks that his hand turned out to be losing and he threw his cards?
What if there is collusion?

Are you saying that there are nothing in poker tournaments that deals
with these kind of irregularities?

[Björn Westling]

On 29 Feb, 02:12, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Correct.  You can't revoke, you can't lead out of turn, you can't make
> an insufficient bid etc.  Since you CAN do all those things in live
> bridge, there needs to be a mechanism to deal with them.
>
> "I believe that as much as possible minor procedural infractions
> should go unpunished."
>
> Do you simply ignore them?????
> *************************
>
> Yes, even through it is against the Laws.  I refuse
> to call the director against inexperienced players.
> I starting doing this after playing online bridge.
>
> I ignore inefficient bids.  Don't accept them.  Just
> allow opponents to withdraw the inefficient bid
> and make a proper call  with no restrictions on his
> partner.

Why not accept them?
Fo rinstance: Partner opens 1S, RHO bids 1H.
Now you can bid 1S, showing spade support and nothing much else.

[derek]

On Feb 29, 4:44 am, Adam Lea <lea...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> So in summary, the reason I believe that younger people don't tend to
> play bridge is that it is optimised for retired people, and does not fit
> easily into a lifestyle with a full time job and a family to look after.

You're entirely right, and unfortunately that isn't ever going to
change. Bridge is never going to be a "young person's" game - if for
no other reason that it requires a fair amount of both disposable
income and time - and the clubs are always going to cater to the
larger portion of their membership. Even my wife and I, with no
problem with the cash side, have a hard time finding the time to play.

[jogs]

What happens in Poker if a player accidentally shows one of his cards?
What happens if someone places a bet out of turn?
What if someone is fiddling with his chips while thinking whether he
should join, and accidentaly drops chips on the table?
Is it allowed to state "I call..... [pause] ... and raise [whatever
amount]"
What about other irregularities? Such as insufficient raises or raises
which are too high? What if there is a call, and someone mistakenly
thinks that his hand turned out to be losing and he threw his cards?
What if there is collusion?

Are you saying that there are nothing in poker tournaments that deals
with these kind of irregularities?

..................................

No, I'm not saying poker doesn't punish irregularities.
Only that irregularities occur more frequently in bridge.
Most Laws over compensate the 'innocent' side.

jogs
******************************************

Why not accept them?
Fo rinstance: Partner opens 1S, RHO bids 1H.
Now you can bid 1S, showing spade support and nothing much else.

...................
I don't have a problem with that. But I think it's
against the Laws to have such an agreement.

jogs

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<f7d4c42e-30eb-4b9d...@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

Jogs, please use proper quoting, it's hard to tell the difference
between your response and the original material. Has GG broken this
feature?

[derek]

I admit I know nothing about competitive poker, but most of these are
irrelevant (or at least less so) because Poker is not a partnership
game. In non-competitive games, most of those "irregularites" would
be considered on a par with a bluff. Conceding a hand you should have
won is perfectly legal. The only one that seems serious is
"collusion" - and that will get you banned, or worse, from any game
anywhere.

[jogs]

On Feb 29, 7:51 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <f7d4c42e-30eb-4b9d-b733-ea83b53f2...@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

I enter this website through google groups rec.games.bridge.
When I use it's normal methods, everything seems
to disappear from me.

jogs

[Adam Beneschan]

On Feb 29, 11:55 am, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I enter this website through google groups rec.games.bridge.
> When I use it's normal methods, everything seems
> to disappear from me.

If you click on the "Reply" link at the bottom of the post, things get
screwed up. If you click on "More options" near the top of the post,
and then click on the "Reply" that shows up near the top, the quoting
is correct. At least that's how it used to work. I haven't tried
clicking on the bottom "Reply" lately, so if they've fixed things, I
wouldn't know. But if that's what you're doing, you should try doing
it the other way and see if that works better.

-- Adam

[Björn Westling]

On 29 Feb, 16:21, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What happens in Poker if a player accidentally shows one of his cards?
> What happens if someone places a bet out of turn?
> What if someone is fiddling with his chips while thinking whether he
> should join, and accidentaly drops chips on the table?
> Is it allowed to state "I call..... [pause] ... and raise [whatever
> amount]"
> What about other irregularities? Such as insufficient raises or raises
> which are too high? What if there is a call, and someone mistakenly
> thinks that his hand turned out to be losing and he threw his cards?
> What if there is collusion?
>
> Are you saying that there are nothing in poker tournaments that deals
> with these kind of irregularities?
> ..................................
>
> No, I'm not saying poker doesn't punish irregularities.
> Only that irregularities occur more frequently in bridge.
> Most Laws over compensate the 'innocent' side.

You don't think it could have something to do with complexity?
In poker there is no playing of cards, for instance. So nobody can
make a lead out of turn. In bridge it's of course possible. Even in
simple games of cards, people can make mistakes.

And the betting is less complex than bidding in bridge, although it's
difficult to decide what to bet.

[Björn Westling]

On 29 Feb, 16:21, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

It's not an agreement at all. It's common sense!

[derek]

> I enter this website through google groups rec.games.bridge.

So do I - I've never had a problem with quoting.

[derek]

On Feb 29, 4:29 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:

> If you click on the "Reply" link at the bottom of the post, things get
> screwed up.  If you click on "More options" near the top of the post,
> and then click on the "Reply" that shows up near the top, the quoting
> is correct.  At least that's how it used to work.

That's never how it's worked for me - it's always quoted correctly.

[derek]

You can't have an agreement that 1S shows something specific in that
sequence, but I agree it's common sense that 1S surely doesn't show
the same thing as 2S, and it's equally common sense that it might not
even show the 6 pts that you might expect in a sequence like 1C (1H)
1S or 1S (2H) 2S.

[Adam Beneschan]

Then perhaps they've fixed it. A lot of us noticed the problem many
years ago and figured out the workaround, and I've used that ever
since, without trying the bottom Reply link. However, I tried it just
now to post this response. We'll see how well it works.

Google seems to be really good at breaking things. In the past, I've
used "Show original" sometimes to see what the headers of someone's
post looked like (often so I could see if they were using Google
Groups or Eternal September or Mozilla or what). Now, when I try it,
it doesn't work at all.

-- Adam

[blackshoe]

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:48:08 PM UTC-5, Adam Beneschan wrote:

> Google seems to be really good at breaking things. In the past, I've
> used "Show original" sometimes to see what the headers of someone's
> post looked like (often so I could see if they were using Google
> Groups or Eternal September or Mozilla or what). Now, when I try it,
> it doesn't work at all.

Funny, it works for me, using the "new" GG. <shrug>

[jogs]

I just clicked reply. What did I get?

[Herb]

Just what it should look like - two previous nested quotes followed by
your 'What did I get'

[Will in New Haven]

On Feb 28, 4:07 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the Bridge Buttetin article Feb 2012 on Bridge Winners
> on pages 28-9.
>
> On Sept. 29, Bridge Base Online's Fred Gitelman forecasted
> the demise of bridge within 40 years.  He says within 20 years
> bridge players will be dropping like flies.
> On Bridge Winners Gitelman mentioned that poker is doing
> well among younger players.  Bridge may need a gambling
> aspect to attract these players.  I hope he is wrong about the
> gambling part.  Rubber bridge is a boring game.
> I've actually spent more time playing poker than playing
> bridge.  Bridge is the only game I've ever played is which

> is governed by laws rather than rules.  This is the reason
> the game is unpopular among younger players.
> In the 60's and 70's lowball was the main poker game in
> California.  This game had difficulty attracting young players.
> What lowball had in common with bridge was inexperienced
> players often had their successes at the table reversed by
> the floorman(director in bridge).  Lowball like bridge eats
> their young.

Lowball eats bad players and it has very little to do with rules
technicalities. Unless you are talking about some idiot thinking 23456
is a winning hand playing Deuce to Seven. It is a wonderful game,
especially single-draw NL, if you can find players worse than you are
to play it but games at any skill level are hard to find. I never
played it as a tournament game but I would.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

In spirit, I agree. I used to love drinking with my opponents after a
rugby game, teeth being spit out and all.

[Will in New Haven]

The analogy with baseball always strikes me. It is hard to learn to
hit a baseball and kids find it hard to catch one. And every time you
are supposed to DO one of those things there are people watching you.
You are on stage and you aren't very good at what you are doing.
Contrast that with youth soccer, where some of the players just run
around and have fun and never get to the ball.

Also, the bridge-poker comparison has another factor. No one, even the
_opponents_ likes to see terrible bids and plays in bridge. When you
mess up in poker, sensible opponents are pleasant about it and no one
really minds. Except Phil Helmuth and his wannabes. And they only mind
if your mistake turns around and bites THEM.

[Dave Flower]

I do not think that the complexity of the Laws is a major problem with new players; however, learning the game takes a lot of time, especially remembering the meanings of bids. What to do in the case of irregularities comes up rarely; what to do whan partner opens 1NT comes up far more frequently

Dave Flower

[Co Wiersma]

Op 29-2-2012 1:34, Adam Beneschan schreef:

> On Feb 28, 1:07 pm, jogs<vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In the Bridge Buttetin article Feb 2012 on Bridge Winners
>> on pages 28-9.
>>
>> On Sept. 29, Bridge Base Online's Fred Gitelman forecasted
>> the demise of bridge within 40 years. He says within 20 years
>> bridge players will be dropping like flies.
>> On Bridge Winners Gitelman mentioned that poker is doing
>> well among younger players. Bridge may need a gambling
>> aspect to attract these players.
>

> Naaah. I think the way to attract younger players is to create a
> version that can be played on an Xbox with a controller, and if you
> trump your opponent's winner, your trump card turns into an alien
> zombie that eats your opponent's card. Or something like that. I'll
> bet it would make the game more attractive to my 13- and 14-year-old
> sons, at least.
>
> I can't do that because I have higher priorities, such as figuring out
> how to put their homework on the Xbox.
>
> -- Adam


I think you got it all wrong
Why does chess still appeal to young people?
Because its on a X-box? No, they play on a real board with real pieces
and against other young people
Why is poker so popular amongst young people? Same story!
Colonists of Catan? you name it
Main difference with bridge is that there are no other young people to
play it with!

Now I know that there must have been reasons that somewhere about 25
years ago young people stopped playing bridge. And computergames may
well have played a part.

But as long as young people still play rl games, its up to the
bridgeworld to make sure that bridge is attractive for young people

And where I live , most bridgeclubs dont care about young people
And the Dutch bridge federation never cared much for young people
And the World Bridge Federation did not either, I am afraid

[Barry Margolin]

In article <4f4f6709$0$6870$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

Co Wiersma <Wi...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Now I know that there must have been reasons that somewhere about 25
> years ago young people stopped playing bridge. And computergames may
> well have played a part.
>
> But as long as young people still play rl games, its up to the
> bridgeworld to make sure that bridge is attractive for young people

Until a few decades ago, almost *everyone* played bridge -- watch TV
shows from the 50's and 60's -- it was a normal activity on shows like I
Love Lucy and Dick Van Dyke. It was just kitchen bridge, not duplicate,
but it was a game that everyone knew.

Read interviews with bridge champions -- they mostly learned the game
from their parents, or they learned it in college or the military from
colleagues who learned from their parents.

I suspect the difference now is that families don't play games together
as much as they did in those days. There are more working mothers who
are too busy, and kids have their own TVs, computers, and/or video
games. So the game doesn't get passed along from generation to
generation as much as it once did. We're now about 2 generations
removed from that time, and it's an exponential decay; that's probably
what prompted Fred to make his prediction about the total demise in a
few decades.

This is why bridge organizations need to take a more active role in
creating new bridge players -- they're not picking the game up
naturally, like they used to. It's kind of like ecologists stepping in
to save a species on the verge of extinction.

[jogs]

On Mar 1, 6:45 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <4f4f6709$0$6870$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

>  Co Wiersma <W...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Now I know that there must have been reasons that somewhere about 25
> > years ago young people stopped playing bridge. And computergames may
> > well have played a part.
>
> > But as long as young people still play rl games, its up to the
> > bridgeworld to make sure that bridge is attractive for young people
>

>

> This is why bridge organizations need to take a more active role in
> creating new bridge players -- they're not picking the game up
> naturally, like they used to.  It's kind of like ecologists stepping in
> to save a species on the verge of extinction.
>
> --
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA

That's exact it. Bridge organizations need to try
harder than organizations of other games.

Poker, chess, go, scrabble.

All are difficult games to master. But after only a few
minutes of instruction a beginner can start playing.
Bridge requires lessons just to become a beginner.

WSOP(world series of poker) main event final
table start with 9 players. In the last two years
17 of the final 18 have been players 29 years
or younger.

The world chess number one Magnus Carlsen is
21-years old.

It doesn't require gambling to attract younger players.
Bridge must make sure there is a welcome mat for
newcomers.

jogs

[Thomas Dehn]

On 03/01/2012 03:59 PM, jogs wrote:
> On Mar 1, 6:45 am, Barry Margolin<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> In article<4f4f6709$0$6870$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>> Co Wiersma<W...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Now I know that there must have been reasons that somewhere about 25
>>> years ago young people stopped playing bridge. And computergames may
>>> well have played a part.
>>
>>> But as long as young people still play rl games, its up to the
>>> bridgeworld to make sure that bridge is attractive for young people
>>
>
>>
>> This is why bridge organizations need to take a more active role in
>> creating new bridge players -- they're not picking the game up
>> naturally, like they used to. It's kind of like ecologists stepping in
>> to save a species on the verge of extinction.
>>
>> --
>> Barry Margolin
>> Arlington, MA
>
> That's exact it. Bridge organizations need to try
> harder than organizations of other games.
>
> Poker, chess, go, scrabble.
>
> All are difficult games to master. But after only a few
> minutes of instruction a beginner can start playing.
> Bridge requires lessons just to become a beginner.

Sorry, but you got your comparison wrong. Back when
my group of players learned bridge, we just got ourselves
an introductory book, dealt the cards, and began playing.
Wasn't a problem. Initially, nobody there who had
ever played bridge before.
Two weeks later, we began terrorizing the local bridge
clubs. We quickly figured out at which club the competition
was fierce, and then we visited only that club.

You need to compare learning which moves are
legal at chess with learning the basics of scoring
at bridge, and which bids are legal to make.
Not with mastering a complex bidding system - the equivalent
of that in chess is memorizing the complexities of existing
knowledge of all the common openings.

Just play 1950s style bridge. Bid what you think
you can make, and pass if you like.
1suit - 3suit is forcing. 1suit - 2suit is not forcing. All doubles
and redoubles are penalty. Cuebids in opponent's suite are forcing.
That's it. No transfers, Stayman, Blackwood. Nothing of that.

Any player experienced in similar trick taking card games such as
four-handed Binocle, Doppelkopf or Skat can get there in a few hours
of self study. There then is nothing special to the card play other than
"after the opening lead has been made, dummy comes down".

Beginners will get into a few foolish contracts,
but no worse than beginner's mistakes at chess,
such as scholar's mate.



Thomas

[John Blubaugh]

On Feb 28, 3:07 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the Bridge Buttetin article Feb 2012 on Bridge Winners
> on pages 28-9.
>
> On Sept. 29, Bridge Base Online's Fred Gitelman forecasted
> the demise of bridge within 40 years.  He says within 20 years
> bridge players will be dropping like flies.
> On Bridge Winners Gitelman mentioned that poker is doing
> well among younger players.  Bridge may need a gambling

I know this will not be view that will be accepted by a lot of people
but the fact is that the ACBL doesn't deserve to survive. They do not
promote the game and they ignored people like me and many others that
pointed the potential for the demise of bridge for the last 20 or 30
years. The whole game is run for old people so why is it any surprise
that you get what you promote for, lots of old people playing bridge
and very few young people. There are many reasons for it and some of
those reasons have been brought up here. Bad management is still the
biggest problem. The last dollar collected by the ACBL will be spent
by a member of the Board of Directors phoning home. I can assure you
that Fred did not come to this conclusion last month. He knows a great
deal about the mismanagement I am talking about and I had discussions
with him about some of the issues many years ago about the hierarchy
and how they were impacting the game of bridge here.

JB

[sbt]

In article
<f32c4a7f-6e0e-48c1...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

John Blubaugh <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> They do not
> promote the game and they ignored people like me and many others that
> pointed the potential for the demise of bridge for the last 20 or 30
> years. The whole game is run for old people so why is it any surprise
> that you get what you promote for, lots of old people playing bridge
> and very few young people.

"20 to 30 years" understates the duration by quite a bit...I've been
playing ACBL (off and on) for 40+ years and the decisions made have
been focused on the entrenched and not on attracting young players for
that entire time. ACBL occasionally makes noises about youth and so
forth, but nothing substantive is accomplished. Forty years ago, the
bulk of the active membership was in their late 30s to mid-40s. Now,
the bulk of the active membership is in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

"Seniors" is the biggest farce...55 is almost 15 years younger than the
median age of the membership. There's something inherently wrong with a
seniors classification that includes the majority of the top players in
the organization...Meckstroth became a Senior last year and Rodwell
will in a couple of months; Hamman, Zia, Cayne, and other perennial
champions aren't just Seniors, but "Super Seniors."

--
Dennis Cohen

[Eric Leong]

There are two aspects for the game of bridge. There is social bridge and there is tournament bridge. Players in tournament bridge started in social bridge. With the pool of social bridge players declining it is no wonder that the number of players feeding into tournament bridge is much lower than it was. If bridge is more popular as a social game then the number of tournament players should naturally increase.

Eric Leong

PS: I don't think rubber bridge is boring if it is played for money. I played money bridge playing either Chicago or Imp teams starting in university. The competition is much stronger and dollars are much more tangible and useful than master points any day. Many of the best known players played money bridge regularly in there early days such as Hamman, Zia, Soloway, Rosenberg etc.

[Chris]

On Mar 3, 10:58 pm, sbt <dogbre...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <f32c4a7f-6e0e-48c1-8765-c20b9aab0...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

If only the biggest problem were seniors who are the world's top
players. A much bigger problem is all the seniors who can no longer
play. 20-25 years ago, when I started playing, at least it was true
that a big motivation for going to clubs and tournaments was to learn
from people who were better than you. But the quality of players at
clubs and tournaments (except for nationals) is *way* down. Why drive
2-3 hours to a tournament when you can get a stronger game on-line or
with 4 or 8 friends at home?

Now, I'm certainly not saying that people should quit the game when
their faculties first begin to decline, but you have to admit it's a
big turnoff to younger players, and something should be done to
compensate. An idea: a tournament with child care on the weekend and
with *no* side events. One big two-day event with a cut after the
first day (or potentially after each session) and nothing to do on
Sunday if you got cut except kibitz or go home (or play rubber
bridge). Actually, let me rephrase that. You can do anything you
want on Sunday if you got cut, but it won't involve masterpoints. The
idea is to discourage masterpoints grubbers, who were hoping to earn
some masterpoints in a weak consolation field, from showing up at
all. Frankly, I'd like to see all tournaments run that way--no
masterpoints in consolation events and side games. If you really want
to keep playing bridge, fine. But don't pretend it's anything but the
consolation event.

A flat entry fee, rather than one that penalizes for success, would
also be welcome. (I'm not sure it's fairer, but it is easier to
explain. The notion that you pay more every time you advance is so
inured in ACBL players that I think we forget how strange it seems to
everyone the first time they run into it.)

Another idea would be KOs bracketed (and pairs games sectioned) by
median age rather than by masterpoints. At least get the younger
players a chance to play against each other and get to know each
other. If they form those social links, they'll better be able to
determine how they think tournaments should look.

I don't know the situation in other countries, but bridge doesn't have
long to figure this out in the US. Until I see things headed in a
direction that convinces me there will still be bridge tournaments
when I retire, I have very little incentive to spend my precious time
participating in them even today.

Christopher Monsour

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<194b30bd-64bd-4f63...@i6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Chris <cmon...@msn.com> wrote:

> A flat entry fee, rather than one that penalizes for success, would
> also be welcome. (I'm not sure it's fairer, but it is easier to
> explain. The notion that you pay more every time you advance is so
> inured in ACBL players that I think we forget how strange it seems to
> everyone the first time they run into it.)

It's never seemed strange to me. You pay for the number of sessions you
play. Why should someone who only plays two sessions pay as much as
someone who plays 4 sessions?

[Andrew B]

On 03/03/2012 17:07, Thomas Dehn wrote:

> Any player experienced in similar trick taking card games such as
> four-handed Binocle, Doppelkopf or Skat can get there in a few hours
> of self study. There then is nothing special to the card play other than
> "after the opening lead has been made, dummy comes down".

That may be helpful in continental Europe... I doubt it'd help many
players in the UK - not sure about the US. I don't think that having
played Knock-out Whist (the only trick-taking game I remember playing at
school) is going to be much help with learning Bridge.

(I did actually play with a Bridge beginner recently who had some
experience at playing Koenigsrufen, but I would say that she's the
exception).

[David Babcock]

On Saturday, March 3, 2012 10:58:15 PM UTC-5, sbt wrote:

> ACBL occasionally makes noises about youth and so
> forth, but nothing substantive is accomplished. Forty years ago, the
> bulk of the active membership was in their late 30s to mid-40s. Now,
> the bulk of the active membership is in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Cause and effect may be operating in both directions. ACBL's programs (not just "noises") for youth bridge depend on work in the field by its players. Think of the public or private school nearest to you. We would all love to see bridge in there, but does some ad campaign from Horn Lake do that? Maybe, but not nearly as well or as cost-effectively as local players - read: taxpayers or donors - making it happen using ACBL resources. The older folks having more time *should*, arguably, more than offset the younger ones having more energy, but it seems not to work that way.

Barring a change in plans, I'll be attending one of the morning youth bridge workshops in Gatlinburg. I'll report here on how many of the players who found the time to travel to way-eastern Tennessee to play bridge, and who would surely say that they think youth bridge is important, turn out to be actually willing to play one less morning session in order to participate in one of the workshops.

DavidB

[derek]

On Mar 4, 12:39 am, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There are two aspects for the game of bridge. There is social bridge and there is tournament bridge. Players in tournament bridge started in social bridge.

That's quite the sweeping statement. I started in tournament bridge.
Canada's current youngest life master started in tournament bridge. I
imagine there are more.

[derek]

On Mar 4, 1:58 am, Chris <cmons...@msn.com> wrote:

> If only the biggest problem were seniors who are the world's top
> players.  A much bigger problem is all the seniors who can no longer
> play.  20-25 years ago, when I started playing, at least it was true
> that a big motivation for going to clubs and tournaments was to learn
> from people who were better than you.  But the quality of players at
> clubs and tournaments (except for nationals) is *way* down.  Why drive
> 2-3 hours to a tournament when you can get a stronger game on-line or
> with 4 or 8 friends at home?
>
> Now, I'm certainly not saying that people should quit the game when
> their faculties first begin to decline, but you have to admit it's a
> big turnoff to younger players, and something should be done to
> compensate.

No, I definitely don't have to admit that. Most of the "old" players
who are not as strong as me never were. We lost one of our best
players last year at 96. There's no doubt that in the last couple of
years his playing went downhill - but the only turnoff there was
listening to him berate himself for his mistakes. On any given day,
he was still usually better than me.

> A flat entry fee, rather than one that penalizes for success, would
> also be welcome. (I'm not sure it's fairer, but it is easier to
> explain. The notion that you pay more every time you advance is so
> inured in ACBL players that I think we forget how strange it seems to
> everyone the first time they run into it.)

That's just weird. Where's the "penalize for success"? You pay for
the sessions you play. It would only make sense if when someone
enters a 4-round KO, for instance, you gave them entries for 4
sessions - which they could then use in other events if they're
knocked out. Oh wait, that's essentially what we already do but with
less paperwork!

> Another idea would be KOs bracketed (and pairs games sectioned) by
> median age rather than by masterpoints. At least get the younger
> players a chance to play against each other and get to know each
> other. If they form those social links, they'll better be able to
> determine how they think tournaments should look.

Ugh. I should play against players of widely varying ability just
because they're closer to my age? It may, in fact, be just as fair as
regular bracketing, since MPs are a lousy way to judge skill, but it's
like making the little kids eat in the kitchen when Mummy and Daddy
have guests for dinner.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <6943aaf4-a606-4882...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

You first game *ever* was in a tournament? You had never touched a card (in
a bridge setting) before then? Wow.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as foolish,
and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

[Co Wiersma]

Op 3-3-2012 18:07, Thomas Dehn schreef:

> Just play 1950s style bridge. Bid what you think
> you can make, and pass if you like.
> 1suit - 3suit is forcing. 1suit - 2suit is not forcing. All doubles
> and redoubles are penalty. Cuebids in opponent's suite are forcing.
> That's it. No transfers, Stayman, Blackwood. Nothing of that.

tbh, 1H-3H as forcing sounds rather artificial to me

1H-2H is to play
1H-4H is to play
seems to make sense to me to have 1H-3H as in between
(limit raise)

But maybe I am bias due to the Acol approach that I grew up with

[Fred.]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:23:49 PM UTC-5, jogs wrote:
> I've heard this argument for the past 40+ years. I didn't believe it
> then and I don't believe it now. Young players are not (IMO) turned
> away from the game because the rules are too complex. To continue
> your poker analogy, you would be losing poker players in droves the
> first time they get called on a string bet, lose a pot because they
> failed to protect a hand - even if it's retrievable, or fell to some
> angle shoot by a more experienced player. What we've seen in practice
> is these younger players learning the rules, protecting their hands,
> and not falling for the angle shoots. If younger players had a true
> interest in bridge the same thing would happen. They would simply
> learn the rules of the game. It was true 50 years ago (when all minor
> infractions you mention in the next paragraph were already in place
>
> richlp
> ____________________
>
> First remember I stated to enforce the Laws when
> playing in championship events. By then you should
> be able to follow the Laws.
>
> In poker the vast majority of the time a string bet is
> made because the player is inexperienced with live
> play. Many times they should have known better.
> If the buy-in is $1000 or more, enforce the rules on
> them.
> I really think the inexperienced players are rarely
> shooting an angle. Mostly they just don't know
> any better.
>
> jogs
> ********************************

> "The ACBL must stop assisting their regulars in bullying new players."
>

> Absolutely. But enforcing the laws/rules/regulations (or whatever) is
> not the same as bullying.
>
> richlp
> __________________________
>
> It doesn't matter whether you think it's bullying.
> They will think it's bullying.
>
> jogs

I think the manner of the person calling the director
and the manner of the director have a lot to do with
whether or not the call is percieved as bullying.

A key point with new players is explaining that
unintentional infractions are commonplace and that this
is a routine part of the game.

Fred.

[Chris xxxxx]

On Mar 4, 10:48 am, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:58 am, Chris <cmons...@msn.com> wrote:
> > A flat entry fee, rather than one that penalizes for success, would
> > also be welcome.  (I'm not sure it's fairer, but it is easier to
> > explain.  The notion that you pay more every time you advance is so
> > inured in ACBL players that I think we forget how strange it seems to
> > everyone the first time they run into it.)
>
> That's just weird.  Where's the "penalize for success"?  You pay for
> the sessions you play.  It would only make sense if when someone
> enters a 4-round KO, for instance, you gave them entries for 4
> sessions - which they could then use in other events if they're
> knocked out.  Oh wait, that's essentially what we already do but with
> less paperwork!

What amateur sports leagues operate on that basis? If you play in a
softball league and your team makes the playoffs, do you need to pay
more? Or did your team's initial signup fee include all that?

> > Another idea would be KOs bracketed (and pairs games sectioned) by
> > median age rather than by masterpoints.  At least get the younger
> > players a chance to play against each other and get to know each
> > other.  If they form those social links, they'll better be able to
> > determine how they think tournaments should look.
>
> Ugh.  I should play against players of widely varying ability just
> because they're closer to my age?  It may, in fact, be just as fair as
> regular bracketing, since MPs are a lousy way to judge skill, but it's
> like making the little kids eat in the kitchen when Mummy and Daddy
> have guests for dinner.

I was trying to shake things up a bit with that suggestion. I agree
that it would be a horrible way to run most tournaments. It might be
nice as an occasional change of pace, however. (We do have other
tournament formats, like mixed pairs, that exist for perfectly good
social reasons, so this isn't breaking completely new ground.) It
might also be nice to run mid-chart/super-chart and GCC events
simultaneously.

A much bigger suggestion I have is that events that start during the
week at a regional not continue into Saturday and Sunday. Ssturday
and Sunday should stand on their own, since working people typically
aren't attending the other days. Negotiating extra-low Saturday night
rates on hotel rooms at regionals would also make regionals more
attractive to working people.

Christopher Monsour

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jj06t1$b20$2...@news.xmission.com>,

gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> In article
> <6943aaf4-a606-4882...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >On Mar 4, 12:39 am, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There are two aspects for the game of bridge. There is social bridge
> >and there is tournament bridge. Players in tournament bridge started in
> >social bridge.
> >
> >That's quite the sweeping statement. I started in tournament bridge.
> >Canada's current youngest life master started in tournament bridge. I
> >imagine there are more.
> >
>
> You first game *ever* was in a tournament? You had never touched a card (in
> a bridge setting) before then? Wow.

Maybe what he actually meant was that he started in duplicate bridge
(e.g. bridge clubs), not tournaments.

I think I played about a month or two of social bridge before I found a
duplicate club, and that's what hooked me.

[derek]

On Mar 4, 2:11 pm, "Fred." <ghrno-goo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think the manner of the person calling the director
> and the manner of the director have a lot to do with
> whether or not the call is percieved as bullying.
>
> A key point with new players is explaining that
> unintentional infractions are commonplace and that this
> is a routine part of the game.

Very much so. I try always to tell new players that I "need some help
from the director" before I actually make the call.

[derek]

On Mar 4, 12:57 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article <6943aaf4-a606-4882-b518-5cac5d3d1...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
> derek  <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >On Mar 4, 12:39 am, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> There are two aspects for the game of bridge. There is social bridge
> >and there is tournament bridge. Players in tournament bridge started in
> >social bridge.
>
> >That's quite the sweeping statement.  I started in tournament bridge.
> >Canada's current youngest life master started in tournament bridge.  I
> >imagine there are more.
>
> You first game *ever* was in a tournament?  You had never touched a card (in
> a bridge setting) before then?  Wow.

My first _game_ ever was competitive, not social. I had, of course,
"touched cards in a bridge setting". I'd even had lessons.

[derek]

On Mar 4, 3:33 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <jj06t1$b2...@news.xmission.com>,

>  gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <6943aaf4-a606-4882-b518-5cac5d3d1...@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> > derek  <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > >On Mar 4, 12:39 am, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> There are two aspects for the game of bridge. There is social bridge
> > >and there is tournament bridge. Players in tournament bridge started in
> > >social bridge.
>
> > >That's quite the sweeping statement.  I started in tournament bridge.
> > >Canada's current youngest life master started in tournament bridge.  I
> > >imagine there are more.
>
> > You first game *ever* was in a tournament?  You had never touched a card (in
> > a bridge setting) before then?  Wow.
>
> Maybe what he actually meant was that he started in duplicate bridge
> (e.g. bridge clubs), not tournaments.
>
> I think I played about a month or two of social bridge before I found a
> duplicate club, and that's what hooked me.

Well that leads to the other huge generalization in Eric's post - if
by "tournament" he really didn't mean "duplicate", what the hell does
he consider club play? It's not "social" in the games I play (though,
there _are_ social games).

[derek]

On Mar 4, 1:36 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:48 am, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 1:58 am, Chris <cmons...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > A flat entry fee, rather than one that penalizes for success, would
> > > also be welcome.  (I'm not sure it's fairer, but it is easier to
> > > explain.  The notion that you pay more every time you advance is so
> > > inured in ACBL players that I think we forget how strange it seems to
> > > everyone the first time they run into it.)
>
> > That's just weird.  Where's the "penalize for success"?  You pay for
> > the sessions you play.  It would only make sense if when someone
> > enters a 4-round KO, for instance, you gave them entries for 4
> > sessions - which they could then use in other events if they're
> > knocked out.  Oh wait, that's essentially what we already do but with
> > less paperwork!
>
> What amateur sports leagues operate on that basis?  If you play in a
> softball league and your team makes the playoffs, do you need to pay
> more?  Or did your team's initial signup fee include all that?

So what? I ask again, where are you penalized for success? But you
would like to penalize failure.

>
> A much bigger suggestion I have is that events that start during the
> week at a regional not continue into Saturday and Sunday.  Ssturday
> and Sunday should stand on their own, since working people typically
> aren't attending the other days.

Why? There are always events starting on Saturday. The ones that
have continued from earlier in the week are generally down to pretty
small fields by Saturday, so they're not even seriously affecting the
table count in the main game.

[vsp...@hotmail.com]

I've only played money bridge a few times in San Francisco. It was either in the late 70's or early 80's. I prefer natural to

I played rubber bridge a few times at the club in San Francisco in the late 70's. I generally prefer natural to articial bids. But limited to only stayman and blackwood is a bit restrictive. Also zero tolerance have not arrived to rubber bridge. The game atmosphere was extremely unpleasant.

jogs

[Eric Leong]

Well I played 3-4 times a week at the Jones street club myself mainly in the 70's and early 80's. You had to learn how to have a tough hide to play in the games. Insults were routine. You had to learn how to pay back. Flame exchanges in rec.games.bridge is really kids stuff compared to exchanges we sometimes had at the club. I knew most of the people playing there as the group was rather small but I don't think I knew you unless you give me your real name or better yet your nick name at the club. Some nick names were "Genius", "Wild Billy", "Big John" , "Wally the Fox", "Fast Eddie" etc. Grant Baze was a one time owner. Martin Dangott was another bridge player. He was really a hustler. He once propositioned Grant Baze and Peter Pender to play for high stakes against himself and some weak player in the club like say 20 below the line in a Chicago game while Baze and Pender could use their own designed system. Baze and Pender lost badly in the first match. In order to get them to play again he would take an even weaker player and lower the amount below the line, Baze and Pender lost again. The player and scores were changed again and they still lost. Finally, they just gave up. Joe Conforte was another regular. He was a brothel owner of the Mustang Ranch. He would be driven down is a stretch limo from Reno and spend 2-3 weeks just playing cards at the Jones street club. Joe often bought a couple of his girls with him and they sat on the couches either sleeping or watching TV until Joe dismissed them. One time he hired Belladonna and Forquet to play in a team game in a sectional in Reno. His trade mark was a large cigar about a foot long and an inch in diameter that he always held. When he stopped in the middle of he bidding to light his cigar you could always tell what kind of hand he hand. On Friday nights I sometimes played all night in a rubber bridge game maybe playing from say 9 pm to 10 am. Afterwards, the players in the game would break for breakfast and Joe would pick up the tab. Afterwards, I would go home to sleep. Joe would head back to the club to play more cards. Bernie Bergovoy was another player at the club. Once I was his partner and I misplayed a hand. He called me an alchemist. Bernie said "Only you can turn a hand of gold into a pile of shit." One time Bernie was told by his doctor that he had AIDS so he proceed to gamble at sports until he owned his bookie hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now his doctor tells Bernie he made a mistake and he did not have AIDS so now Bernie has to disappear for his own safety. I hadn't heard from Bernie but Hugh Ross or Kyle Larsen would keep me posted. If any of name players such as Jacoby, Hamman, Soloway, Kantar, Lawrence, Larsen etc came to town they always headed to the club to at least socialize and talk bridge.

Eric Leong

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<13f4c78b-a150-460b...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 1:36 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 4, 1:58 am, Chris <cmons...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > A flat entry fee, rather than one that penalizes for success, would
> > > > also be welcome.  (I'm not sure it's fairer, but it is easier to
> > > > explain.  The notion that you pay more every time you advance is so
> > > > inured in ACBL players that I think we forget how strange it seems to
> > > > everyone the first time they run into it.)
> >
> > > That's just weird.  Where's the "penalize for success"?  You pay for
> > > the sessions you play.  It would only make sense if when someone
> > > enters a 4-round KO, for instance, you gave them entries for 4
> > > sessions - which they could then use in other events if they're
> > > knocked out.  Oh wait, that's essentially what we already do but with
> > > less paperwork!
> >
> > What amateur sports leagues operate on that basis?  If you play in a
> > softball league and your team makes the playoffs, do you need to pay
> > more?  Or did your team's initial signup fee include all that?
>
> So what? I ask again, where are you penalized for success? But you
> would like to penalize failure.

How is being eligible to play more a "penalty"?

[Dave Flower]

If, as Director, I am called to a table where there is a new player, I try to start off with some remark like: 'I think that the penalty for this involves boiling oil!'. That usually relaxes everyone

Dave Flower

[John Crinnion]

Joe Conforte is still alive and has his own facebook page.

> Well I played 3-4 times a week at the Jones street club myself mainly in the 70's and early 80's. You had to learn how to have a tough hide to play in the games. Insults were routine. You had to learn how to pay back. Flame exchanges in rec.games.bridge is really kids stuff compared to exchanges we sometimes had at the club. I knew most ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Björn Westling]

On 1 mar, 01:18, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> You can't have an agreement that 1S shows something specific in that
> sequence, but I agree it's common sense that 1S surely doesn't show
> the same thing as 2S, and it's equally common sense that it might not
> even show the 6 pts that you might expect in a sequence like 1C (1H)
> 1S or 1S (2H) 2S.

If 1S (2H) 2S shows 6 pts, then your partner surely wouldn't mind
disallowing the insufficient bid, and when opponent bids 2H he can bid
2S.
But if he actually has a rubbish hand with spade support, why not take
the opportunity to show this by allowing the bid?

You can also bid 1NT showing that you would have called 1 NT (but
adding that you have a stopper in hearts), and you can bid 2C or 2D,
showing the suit (but not enough for bidding 3X).
You can even bid 2H, something you couldn't do over 2H.


I once asked my partner with 4NT, and he happened to reply 4H.
As opponent passed, I tried king-asking with 4 NT.

[derek]

On Mar 5, 1:59 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article

> <13f4c78b-a150-460b-af3f-a8c6ad13a...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

He's suggesting one fee for a KO - no matter how many rounds you play
- so if you're knocked out in round 1 of a 4-round KO, you get to pay
twice for your next three sessions. Sounds like a penalty to me.
It's also pretty much a guarantee of getting fewer people to play in
KOs.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<786664fa-8e52-4948...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

That's the exact *opposite* of the penalty he's talking about. He
thinks that you're being penalized for *winning*, because you have to
pay to continue in the next round.

How about something like the Spingold -- do you think that entrants
should have to pay for 7 days of bridge at the outset? I think that
would be a good way to turn it into at most a 4-day event.

[Frisbieinstein]

On Mar 5, 11:34 am, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well I played 3-4 times a week at the Jones street club myself mainly in the 70's and early 80's. You had to learn how to have a tough hide to play in the games. Insults were routine. You had to learn how to pay back. Flame exchanges in rec.games.bridge is really kids stuff compared to exchanges we sometimes had at the club. I knew most ...
>
> read more »


Bridge must be the only team sport where the insults go to your own
team members. I will never understand this.

[vsp...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, March 4, 2012 9:59:44 PM UTC-8, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article
> <13f4c78b-a150-460b...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 1:36 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mar 4, 1:58 am, Chris <cmons...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > > A flat entry fee, rather than one that penalizes for success, would
> > > > > also be welcome.  (I'm not sure it's fairer, but it is easier to
> > > > > explain.  The notion that you pay more every time you advance is so
> > > > > inured in ACBL players that I think we forget how strange it seems to
> > > > > everyone the first time they run into it.)

We are trying to increase attendance. Many if not most top teams are sponsored.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 6:05:45 AM UTC-8, Frisbieinstein wrote:
>
> Bridge must be the only team sport where the insults go to your own
> team members. I will never understand this.

From what I read in the sports pages regularly---no, I don't think bridge is the only team sport like this. (Does Gisele Bundchen count as part of the "team"?
:) :) :)

-- Adam

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

A monetary aspect of the game would greatly enhance its viability. United States Chess Federation offers small prizes even in its duffer events.

Bridge outside of ACBL land often has a monetary aspect. I am told that, in Australia, for instance, the equivalent of 299er events ALWAYS have a small prize involved.

Bridge in the ACBL, rather than using the World Poker Tour, USCF, or EBF model, uses what I refer to as the "America's Cup" model -- People willing to spend large sums of money to acquire a championship that has only prestige attached in order to be able to say that they won it (and maybe keep a trophy in their club's case until they have to defend it).

If ACBL Regional 2-session events that drew 50 tables, collected an extra $1 per head per session for a prize fund, that would give $400 to distribute in prize money. In District 21, which has the lowest Regional Table fees at $10 per head per session, you could award prizes (using the same decay scale as with masterpoints for overalls) to about 4 places in a pairs game and about 3 places in a team game. Make it $2.50 per head per session and you can go about 5 places in a team game and 7 or 8 in a pairs game. If people were willing to match their entry fees for prize money, a 50-table pairs game would pay about $1000 to first place (that's $500 each) and be able to pay 12 places. Keep in mind that, the average cost to the average player would not increase at all with this, but the maximum cost would.

I suspect that the prize contributions for KO events would have to depend upon the number of rounds to the finals, but the prizes (but for bracket size variations) would be the same in bracket 36 as in bracket 1. Tweak that, if you want. The fun part of this is that to collect $2.50 per head in prize money, you would pay $80 at the first round and then only the $40 for each additional round.

I would think that a $1000 first prize for a one-day event or the possibility to have played the entire KO event for free (and maybe even cover room and board for the night in between) might entice a little interest among the youth of North America and the North Atlantic. I suspect that we could get better media coverage (which would feed on itself) and general interest, if we even had only ONE event like this at each regional tournament. It could event turn some Premiere events from a "may have to change from Swiss to RR" to "Advanced Reservations Required" (or at least to "Show up early or it may sell out"). A slightly higher entry fee that includes a prize contribution might make some prestigeous events more so by keeping out those players who don't believe in their abilities enough to pay the extra amount.

[Chris xxxxx]

I like this idea, but I suggest that any tournament organizers
planning to try it get a feel for local laws first, to be sure they
don't get arrested for running an illegal gambling operation when the
story is printed in the paper. Unfortunately, although we imported
Puritans from England we never imported the Restoration....

Christopher Monsour

[Steve Willner]

>>>> Fo rinstance: Partner opens 1S, RHO bids 1H.

On 2012-02-29 7:18 PM, derek wrote:
> You can't have an agreement that 1S shows something specific in that
> sequence

Where does this widespread myth come from, and why is it so persistent?
I know of no jurisdiction that restricts agreements in the way Derek
describes. The ACBL doesn't, and I'm pretty sure the EBU doesn't either.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jj95v1$qlr$1...@dont-email.me>,

Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:

> >>>> Fo rinstance: Partner opens 1S, RHO bids 1H.
>
> On 2012-02-29 7:18 PM, derek wrote:
> > You can't have an agreement that 1S shows something specific in that
> > sequence
>
> Where does this widespread myth come from, and why is it so persistent?
> I know of no jurisdiction that restricts agreements in the way Derek
> describes. The ACBL doesn't, and I'm pretty sure the EBU doesn't either.

Election 7 in the ACBL edition of the Laws:

Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its
understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a
response to a question or any irregularity.

Now, I suppose you can argue that this is not "varying" your
understanding. There's no normal understanding of the auction 1S
<interference> 1S, so an agreement in this situation is not a variation
of it.

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

This is generally not a problem in California as long as the organizer has no stake in the outcome and all fees collected by the oragnizers are collected before any cards are dealt or fees are based upon number of hands or time. That sounds like the ACBL table fee structure to me. In fact, this sort of thing might be easier to run in California than in Nevada (where you would probably need a gaming license). License may be required and some cities may prohibit the concept, but not most. Other States, Provinces, Estados, and Districts have different laws.

[derek]

On Mar 7, 10:51 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <jj95v1$ql...@dont-email.me>,

>  Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
>
> >  >>>> Fo rinstance: Partner opens 1S, RHO bids 1H.
>
> > On 2012-02-29 7:18 PM, derek wrote:
> > > You can't have an agreement that 1S shows something specific in that
> > > sequence
>
> > Where does this widespread myth come from, and why is it so persistent?
> >   I know of no jurisdiction that restricts agreements in the way Derek
> > describes.  The ACBL doesn't, and I'm pretty sure the EBU doesn't either.
>
> Election 7 in the ACBL edition of the Laws:
>
> Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its
> understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a
> response to a question or any irregularity.
>
> Now, I suppose you can argue that this is not "varying" your
> understanding.  There's no normal understanding of the auction 1S
> <interference> 1S, so an agreement in this situation is not a variation
> of it.

You can certainly argue it, but Mike Flader wrote in "Ruling the Game"
that it meant exactly what I said.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<76d69be7-5249-445a...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

And Mike Flader is never wrong. How many times have we had threads here
discussing some of the loony things Flader has written in that column?

His answers generally reflect the way ACBL directors typically interpret
the Laws, but sometimes they aren't consistent with a literal reading of
the Laws.

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-03-07 9:51 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Election 7 in the ACBL edition of the Laws:
>
> Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its
> understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a
> response to a question or any irregularity.
>
> Now, I suppose you can argue that this is not "varying" your
> understanding. There's no normal understanding of the auction 1S
> <interference> 1S, so an agreement in this situation is not a variation
> of it.

Not only can you argue it, it seems obvious. What agreement are you
varying if you want 1S to mean something specific after the auction goes
1S-1H-? If Mike Flader has written something to the contrary, I'd like
to know when, but Barry's subsequent post pretty well sums up my opinion
of his columns. If such a column exists, though, that would explain
where the misunderstanding comes from.

What 'varying' means -- at least as far as I can tell -- is that if you
have an agreement about 1S-2H-2S (for example), you can't change your
agreement about 2S when 2H was a correction of a 1H IB. I think that's
a silly rule, but lots of things about the ACBL seem silly to me.

[Chris xxxxx]

On Mar 8, 9:40 pm, Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> On 2012-03-07 9:51 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > Election 7 in the ACBL edition of the Laws:
>
> > Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its
> > understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a
> > response to a question or any irregularity.
>
> > Now, I suppose you can argue that this is not "varying" your
> > understanding.  There's no normal understanding of the auction 1S
> > <interference>  1S, so an agreement in this situation is not a variation
> > of it.
>
> Not only can you argue it, it seems obvious.  What agreement are you
> varying if you want 1S to mean something specific after the auction goes
> 1S-1H-?  If Mike Flader has written something to the contrary, I'd like
> to know when, but Barry's subsequent post pretty well sums up my opinion
> of his columns.  If such a column exists, though, that would explain
> where the misunderstanding comes from.
>
> What 'varying' means -- at least as far as I can tell -- is that if you
> have an agreement about 1S-2H-2S (for example), you can't change your
> agreement about 2S when 2H was a correction of a 1H IB.  I think that's
> a silly rule, but lots of things about the ACBL seem silly to me.

Actually, if the rule is interpreted the way you mention in that last
paragraph, then I don't think it's entirely silly. A reasonable rule
would be that if you do not accept the insufficient bid, then the
insufficient bid, not now being part of the auction, is not something
on which subsequent calls can depend. However, you should still be
allowed to take advantage of the insufficient bid in the sense that
partner may have a negative inference from the fact that you might
have accepted the insufficient bid with certain types of hands (like a
weak raise in the example). You could even make a case that your
partner is under no obligation to disclose this to the opponents
because the information arose out of their irregularity and so is not
authorized for their side. On the other hand, if you accept the
insufficient bid, your partner needs to explain your new bid, but
(arguably) not negative inferences arising from your failure to insist
on a sufficient call being substituted.

A lot of attention is focused on this example, but it helps to
consider some analogous situations:

(1) Can you alter your agreements after some other irregularity by an
opponent, such as a break in tempo or a bid out of rotation? It feels
like the answer should be "no" to the first (though of course you can
alter your choice of call as long as you don't alter the meanings of
the calls) but "yes" to the second. It would be fun, though, to play
penalty doubles of out-of-tempo balances on certain types of auctions
(for a few sessions, until the opponents caught on).

(2) Can you alter your signaling methods after an irregularity in the
play by declarer has been corrected? I think the correct answer is
"No, you cannot alter your carding agreements [methods], but your
methods may now call for a different type of signal [e.g., suit
preference instead of count] or a different signal [e.g., discourage
instead of encourage] simply due to cards having been exposed that are
authorized information for your side.

(3) A trickier question: You are defending a five-level contract bid
in a competitive auction by the opponents, which the auction on its
face suggests was bid to make. Can you agree to lead K from AKx(x) if
the final contract was bid confidently (and king asks for count), but
ace (and king asks for attitude, ace for count) if it was bid slowly?

Christopher Monsour

[Chris xxxxx]

A tricky question arises as to what explanation you owe here. Do you
explain what your signal *would have meant* absent the irregularity,
since the impact of the irregularity is unauthorized for declarer, or
do you explain your methods (from which the declarer could presumably
surmise the true meaning of the signal)?

Christopher Monsour

[derek]

On Mar 8, 9:18 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article

> <76d69be7-5249-445a-a123-648f871cd...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 10:51 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <jj95v1$ql...@dont-email.me>,
> > >  Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
>
> > > >  >>>> Fo rinstance: Partner opens 1S, RHO bids 1H.
>
> > > > On 2012-02-29 7:18 PM, derek wrote:
> > > > > You can't have an agreement that 1S shows something specific in that
> > > > > sequence
>
> > > > Where does this widespread myth come from, and why is it so persistent?
> > > >   I know of no jurisdiction that restricts agreements in the way Derek
> > > > describes.  The ACBL doesn't, and I'm pretty sure the EBU doesn't either.
>
> > > Election 7 in the ACBL edition of the Laws:
>
> > > Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its
> > > understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a
> > > response to a question or any irregularity.
>
> > > Now, I suppose you can argue that this is not "varying" your
> > > understanding.  There's no normal understanding of the auction 1S
> > > <interference> 1S, so an agreement in this situation is not a variation
> > > of it.
>
> > You can certainly argue it, but Mike Flader wrote in "Ruling the Game"
> > that it meant exactly what I said.
>
> And Mike Flader is never wrong.  How many times have we had threads here
> discussing some of the loony things Flader has written in that column?

Well, that's exactly why I agreed that you could make that argument.

> His answers generally reflect the way ACBL directors typically interpret
> the Laws, but sometimes they aren't consistent with a literal reading of
> the Laws.

True enough, but if the Laws say one thing and Flader rules another,
who wins? In any case, this is, as you've pointed out, an RA
"election", and not inconsistent with Law.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<59126114-c70c-4cf2...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,

I thought we were questioning whether Flader was correctly interpreting
the election.

[derek]

On Mar 9, 10:46 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article

> <59126114-c70c-4cf2-9f56-1df6ea487...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,

I guess _you_ were, and I'm not at all sure whether he_was_, but I was
just defending my position that the ACBL _has_ said it's illegal to
have specific agreements about followups after an insufficient bid.

[Stu Goodgold]

Flader said in his Jan 2012 column: Clubs that run games sanctioned by the ACBL are not free to violate the Laws.

In another thread I pointed out that some members of the ACBL Board of Directors think otherwise. Who do you think will win that argument - the board or Mike Flader?

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[derek]

It depends how many BoD members think otherwise, doesn't it? In the
end, he might change his tune, as directed by the Board, but it's
still going to be his word (now dictated from above) that has to be
obeyed by the hoi polloi.

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-03-08 10:26 PM, Chris xxxxx wrote:
> Actually, if the rule is interpreted the way you mention in that last
> paragraph, then I don't think it's entirely silly.

I meant silly in the sense of detracting interest from the game, not in
the sense of being unenforceable. But Chris raises some interesting points.

> A reasonable rule
> would be that if you do not accept the insufficient bid, then the
> insufficient bid, not now being part of the auction, is not something
> on which subsequent calls can depend.

That appears to be the ACBL's choice.

> However, you should still be
> allowed to take advantage of the insufficient bid in the sense that
> partner may have a negative inference from the fact that you might
> have accepted the insufficient bid with certain types of hands (like a
> weak raise in the example).

I agree that would be reasonable, but it's unclear whether the ACBL rule
allows it. In practice, if you don't do anything too blatant, you can
probably get away with such an understanding.

> You could even make a case that your
> partner is under no obligation to disclose this to the opponents
> because the information arose out of their irregularity and so is not
> authorized for their side.

I _hope_ Law 40B6a says you have to disclose everything, but Chris is
right that a case to the contrary could be made.

> On the other hand, if you accept the
> insufficient bid, your partner needs to explain your new bid, but
> (arguably) not negative inferences arising from your failure to insist
> on a sufficient call being substituted.

I think this second argument is inconsistent with L40B6a. The actual
auction, including acceptance of the IB, is AI to everyone.

> consider some analogous situations:
>
> (1) Can you alter your agreements after some other irregularity by an
> opponent, such as a break in tempo or a bid out of rotation? It feels
> like the answer should be "no" to the first (though of course you can
> alter your choice of call as long as you don't alter the meanings of
> the calls) but "yes" to the second.

I don't see any provision in the Laws either of these would violate,
though I may be missing something. There is still the ACBL's (and some
other jurisdictions') rule disallowing partnerships to "vary" their
understandings. That rule probably doesn't apply to the bid out of
rotation -- which is a different auction altogether than a normal one --
but I'm sure it applies if "any irregularity" is a break in tempo or
similar. That actually makes some sense: an IB or BOOT is an objective
reality that everyone at the table knows about, whereas a break in tempo
is subjective, and the players may not agree whether it occurred. Would
you be confident that you and your partner would always agree?

> It would be fun, though, to play
> penalty doubles of out-of-tempo balances on certain types of auctions
> (for a few sessions, until the opponents caught on).

Heh! I like the idea, though I'm not sure it's really practical.

My own favorite example is 1D!-2D, where 1D is artificial. In real
life, if LHO asks about 1D, the 2D bid is natural, whereas if he bids 2D
without asking, it's Michaels. This is not a bad method (except for
being flagrantly illegal). Unfortunately, the ACBL prohibits opener's
side from basing their understandings on whether a question was asked or
not, even though the question is an objective fact.

> (2) Can you alter your signaling methods after an irregularity in the
> play by declarer has been corrected? I think the correct answer is
> "No, you cannot alter your carding agreements [methods], but your
> methods may now call for a different type of signal [e.g., suit
> preference instead of count] or a different signal [e.g., discourage
> instead of encourage] simply due to cards having been exposed that are
> authorized information for your side.

Again I don't see anything in the Laws that makes such alterations
illegal, but that pesky ACBL regulation (which includes "or play") seems
to forbid it. I think, though, if the alteration is based on specific
cards exposed rather than the mere existence of an irregularity, it
_might_ be OK. In practice, you will probably get away with whatever
you want to agree on. Maybe the regulation is silly in the sense of
"unenforceable" after all.

> (3) A trickier question: You are defending a five-level contract bid
> in a competitive auction by the opponents, which the auction on its
> face suggests was bid to make. Can you agree to lead K from AKx(x) if
> the final contract was bid confidently (and king asks for count), but
> ace (and king asks for attitude, ace for count) if it was bid slowly?

Probably not, again based on regulation not Law. This seems to be a
great example of an encrypted signal, even aside from the regulation on
"varying."

[Chris xxxxx]

It's not an encrypted signal if declarer made the final bid. (The
key...his own tempo...is legally available to him.)

I suppose you could make a case that it is an encrypted signal if
dummy made the final bid, if you think that dummy's tempo in the
auction is UI to declarer after the dummy comes down (in which case
declarer would not legally have access to the key).

Christopher Monsour

[Chris xxxxx]

I don't recall the text of that regulation, but there's a difference
between having conditional understandings (fully set before the
session for every conceivable circumstance) and varying understandings
during a session (such as making a decision mid-session that the game
is going so poorly that you are switching to EHAA to try to catch
up...or that you are going back to standard signals because partner
keeps forgetting upside-down). I am only talking about conditional
understandings.

Christopher Monsour

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-03-09 10:56 PM, Chris xxxxx wrote:
> It's not an encrypted signal if declarer made the final bid. (The
> key...his own tempo...is legally available to him.)

That was true prior to the 2007 Laws, but it's far from clear it's true
now. At least I wasn't able to find anything that makes one's own tempo
AI. If that's the case, it represents a so far unmentioned (and
unenforced) but major change in the game.

On 2012-03-09 11:05 PM, Chris xxxxx wrote:
> I don't recall the text of that regulation,

Barry quoted it in this thread on Mar 7.

> but there's a difference
> between having conditional understandings (fully set before the
> session for every conceivable circumstance) and varying understandings
> during a session

We have very different understandings of what the regulation means.
There's a separate regulation about changing methods during a session.
The regulation relevant here says a partnership "may not vary its

understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a

response to a question or any irregularity." That seems to me to forbid
(in the ACBL) what you were suggesting.

[Chris xxxxx]

On Mar 11, 1:55 pm, Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 10:56 PM, Chris xxxxx wrote:
>
> > It's not an encrypted signal if declarer made the final bid.  (The
> > key...his own tempo...is legally available to him.)
>
> That was true prior to the 2007 Laws, but it's far from clear it's true
> now.  At least I wasn't able to find anything that makes one's own tempo
> AI.  If that's the case, it represents a so far unmentioned (and
> unenforced) but major change in the game.
>
> On 2012-03-09 11:05 PM, Chris xxxxx wrote:
>  > I don't recall the text of that regulation,
>
> Barry quoted it in this thread on Mar 7.
>
>  > but there's a difference
>  > between having conditional understandings (fully set before the
>  > session for every conceivable circumstance) and varying understandings
>  > during a session
>
> We have very different understandings of what the regulation means.
> There's a separate regulation about changing methods during a session.
> The regulation relevant here says a partnership "may not vary its
> understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a
> response to a question or any irregularity."  That seems to me to forbid
> (in the ACBL) what you were suggesting.

I had the other regulation in mind. I hadn't known about the new
one. (Obviously I didn't read the whole thread.)

Anyway, I was more interested in these questions in a bridge but non-
ACBL context.

I should add that I think there should be a way to avoid opponents
taking advantage of one's need for full disclosure, but I don't think
that the ACBL's regulation really does that anyway. Winkler's _Bridge
at the Enigma Club_ has some nice technological solutions to some of
those issues (to plug a book that was very enjoyable to read0>

Christopher Monsour

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-03-09 1:53 PM, derek wrote:
> the ACBL_has_ said it's illegal to

> have specific agreements about followups after an insufficient bid.

Are you thinking of an article in the Bulletin maybe 5-6 years ago?
There used to be a rule forbidding _all_ agreements after an opponent's
IB, but it was rescinded in 1997 or maybe before. Apparently Mike
Flader didn't realize that and quoted the rescinded rule. As I recall,
there was a correction published a couple of months later.

Of course the old rule never made any sense. Once you and your partner
have had an IB auction, you have at least some tacit agreement about
followups. Forbidding that is to forbid you to play as partners ever
again or at least you get avg- -- this is the ACBL, remember! -- any
time your opponents perpetrate an IB against you.

Still, this could explain why so many people think agreements after IBs
are illegal.

[ttw...@att.net]

On Mar 4, 5:01 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:11 pm, "Fred." <ghrno-goo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the manner of the person calling the director
> > and the manner of the director have a lot to do with
> > whether or not the call is percieved as bullying.
>
> > A key point with new players is explaining that
> > unintentional infractions are commonplace and that this
> > is a routine part of the game.
>
> Very much so.  I try always to tell new players that I "need some help
> from the director" before I actually make the call.

This has been one of the things that led me to give up playing much
over the last few decades. Some players use the "call the director"
from an infraction as a bullying technique. The perception is that
bridge is a game of lawyering (or barratry) as much as of game skills.

From my point of view, rubber was always more fun than duplicate (I
even designed a rubber-duplcate format, but no one was intereted).
Likewise, the infinite rules and regulations (many seeming arbitrary)
on systems and calls is rather off-putting. (Someone here many years
ago noted that some clubs have an rule, "post the convention at the
club and you can play it in a couple of weeks." I guess full systems
take longer. No one gets to play Roman or Leghorn but it would be
interesting to watch.)

[KWSchneider]

On Feb 28, 5:07 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Wow - Blubaugh and Crinnion in the same thread! Is it 1999?

[John Crinnion]

On Mar 23, 3:09 am, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:07 pm, jogs <vspo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wow - Blubaugh and Crinnion in the same thread! Is it 1999?

Talk is cheap. Play your part and 'friend' Joe Conforte on facebook.

[KWSchneider]

Alas, I do not have a facebook account. Is there any other way I can
Conforte you?

[John Crinnion]

Yes, please. If and when I succeed in persuading him to join rgb,
extend a hearty welcome and let him know we all know what a bridge
legend he is.