Wisdom from 1953
Kieran Dyke
worthy of discussion by adults...since championships are conducted to
determine the most skillful players, it follows that the contestants must be
given free reign....The complaints usually emanate from players whose
abiding fear is that someone might wield the axe with more deadly effect
than they can...they are irked by the alleged obscurities of Roth-Stone for
one or more reasons: (1) Inferior IQ; (2) Laziness; (3) Smugness; (4) Fear
of loss of Prestige." Baron Waldemar Von Zedwitz.
"I, in common with most other players, have received my share of bad boards
from players using little-known systems, but feel that for the good of
bridge now and in the future we must lean over backwards to permit full
exploration under field conditions of each new theory as it is advanced. I
will doggedly oppose the barrying of any new system from organized bridge."
Don Oakie.
Quotes are from The Bridge World, reproduced in the September 1975
editorial.
Tiggrr
Barry Rigal
I take it very personally
Barry
Raija
"Barry Rigal" <barry...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9fH0d.19699$Wv5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I resent that misquote...
> I take it very personally
>
> Barry
I have to confess ignorance or simplemindedness. What do you mean, Barry?
N. Silver
> Barry Rigal wrote:
>>Tiggrr wrote:
>> I resent that misquote...
>> I take it very personally
> I have to confess ignorance or simplemindedness.
> What do you mean, Barry?
See below.
>> > "I...will doggedly oppose the barrying
Eric Leong
As I understand it with Kaplan, the issue was not one of barring new
systems or methods. Rather, the issue was one of fair and adequate
disclosure well in advance so one could prepare defenses. I believe,
Kaplan thought some players from Australia were a little deficient in
this regard.
Eric Leong
Yury
"Eric Leong" <ewleo...@hotmail.com> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
news:db571a5d.04091...@posting.google.com...
But now it IS.
> Rather, the issue was one of fair and adequate
> disclosure well in advance so one could prepare defenses.
So, of course, with fair and adequate disclosure I'm free to play strong
pass in ACBL land ?
Regards, Yury
Martin Ambuhl
> "Barry Rigal" <barry...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:9fH0d.19699$Wv5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>I resent that misquote...
>>I take it very personally
>>Barry
> I have to confess ignorance or simplemindedness. What do you mean, Barry?
[...]
>>> I will doggedly oppose the barrying of any new system from
^^^^^^^^
>>> organized bridge."
Got it now?
richard willey
wrote:
>As I understand it with Kaplan, the issue was not one of barring new
>systems or methods. Rather, the issue was one of fair and adequate
>disclosure well in advance so one could prepare defenses. I believe,
>Kaplan thought some players from Australia were a little deficient in
>this regard.
If you obsess long enough about something, you can usually find some
nits to pick...
N. Silver
> Eric Leong writes:
>> As I understand it with Kaplan, the issue was not
>> one of barring new systems or methods.
> But now it IS.
>> Rather, the issue was one of fair and adequate
>> disclosure well in advance so one could prepare
> defenses. So, of course, with fair and adequate
> disclosure I'm free to play strong pass in ACBL land ?
We all know that the use of artificial systems confounds
and alienates most all but the strongest players. Bridge
does not need any more help to stay on life support.
Peter Leighton
"N. Silver" <mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qqL0d.579967$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"We all" don't know anything of the sort.
Speak for yourself, especially if you are going to make
such an idiotic comment.
Peter
>
>
richard willey
If you are going to troll, please learn to do it with some style.
This is just painful to watch...
Ron Lel
"N. Silver" <mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qqL0d.579967$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
This is another totally stupid comment based on no evidence whatsoever. It
appears you are continuing your trolling tendencis from the inane remarks
you made on the cheating thread.
Ron Lel
Bill Jacobs
news:db571a5d.04091...@posting.google.com:
With regard to the quote above, you are quite wrong.
The issue was that in 1975, the ACBL barred EHAA (Every Hand An Adventure),
a natural but super-light-opening style. Kaplan brought out these quotes
regarding Roth-Stone to prove how wrong in principle such a barrying would
be.
Cheers ... Bill
David Stevenson
God yes, we better bar all those artificial calls like Stayman,
Jacoby, 5-card majors, Forcing no-trump, takeout double and ....
The list is endless.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
N. Silver
> This is another totally stupid comment based
> on no evidence whatsoever. It appears you
> are continuing your trolling tendencis from
> the inane remarks you made on the cheating
> thread.
Please don't tar me with the same brush from one
thread to another.
My comment is based partly on my experience in
the 1960's playing against a Roman Club system
as a novice in a flighted event. Being younger,
I was not turned off but took it as a challenge.
However, most of the field registered complaints.
They said it did not feel like they were playing bridge.
I agreed that it was much different than playing against
a pair using standard bridge conventions. It was like
they were talking in a foreign language. (Italian?)
My point is: the ACBL and other conservative
governing bodies are trying to nurture bridge.
If they have erred too much on the side of caution,
remember that those who post here are a very
small percentage of bridge players.
Some of you imagine yourselves capable of
holding your own against the very best in the
world, which may or may not be the case.
You are overreacting to prohibitions, which
prevent you from honing your latest bidding
brainchild if allowed in a totally open field
competition.
Reef Fish
> I take it very personally
>
> Barry
LOL!
How do you know Oakie wasn't referring to the Pulitzer-prize winning
humorist, Dave Barry?
-- Bob.
Peter Leighton
> Ron Lel wrote:
>
>> This is another totally stupid comment based
>> on no evidence whatsoever. It appears you
>> are continuing your trolling tendencis from
>> the inane remarks you made on the cheating
>> thread.
>
> Please don't tar me with the same brush from one
> thread to another.
He didn't - you did.
>
> My comment is based partly on my experience in
> the 1960's playing against a Roman Club system
> as a novice in a flighted event. Being younger,
> I was not turned off but took it as a challenge.
> However, most of the field registered complaints.
> They said it did not feel like they were playing bridge.
> I agreed that it was much different than playing against
> a pair using standard bridge conventions. It was like
> they were talking in a foreign language. (Italian?)
>
> My point is: the ACBL and other conservative
> governing bodies are trying to nurture bridge.
> If they have erred too much on the side of caution,
> remember that those who post here are a very
> small percentage of bridge players.
Complete non sequitur.
>
> Some of you imagine yourselves capable of
> holding your own against the very best in the
> world, which may or may not be the case.
> You are overreacting to prohibitions, which
> prevent you from honing your latest bidding
> brainchild if allowed in a totally open field
> competition.
I imagine no such thing.
I would, however, like to be able to use the
Multi, for example - neither recent nor my own :))
Questions:
Are you drunk when you write this stuff?
Or are they acid flashbacks from the sixties?
Syphylitic frothings at the mouth?
Where o where does it itch so bad?
On the other hand...don't tell us.
Get a nice life.
Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
N. Silver
"Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:
"Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are
too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
"Make bridge comprehensible to the general public -
another way of addressing the language issue. Golf is
a good example. I don't play golf, but I know what the
objective is. I can watch golf on television and know
what's going on, because it's simple - players are
trying to knock the ball into the hole.
"The same is not true with bridge. Can you imagine
trying to broadcast a match involving teams playing
forcing pass systems? People would recoil in horror.
*Why are they opening the bidding with bad cards
and passing with good cards? What's going on here?*
"Eliminate devices such as the Smith Echo, which can
be utilized reprehensibly, and put restrictions on other
conventions ripe for abuse, such as super-weak 1NT
openers and the Multi 2-diamond. I'm not saying get
rid of them but some controls should be established,
since the potential for abuse is so great.
"Establish a commissioner of bridge - someone like
...David Stern, N[ational] B[asketball] A[ssociation]
commissioner..."
N. Silver
> I would, however, like to be able to use the
> Multi, for example - neither recent nor my own :))
No Multi for you, bub; sorry.
<abusive irrelevant tirade snipped>
Peter Leighton
I play a 10-13 NT when NV, seats 1-3.
What sort of "controls" would you recommend to
ease the pain of my opponents, who must decide whether
to bid knowing a great deal about my shape and strength?
Horrors! I can't believe I use such an instrument of evil!
My opponents actually have to use their BIDDING
JUDGEMENT!
What's the game coming to?
There is an old, established card game you'd like
a lot. It would suit both your temperament and intellect.
It's called Go Fish.
Peter
N. Silver
> I play a 10-13 NT when NV, seats 1-3.
> What sort of "controls" would you recommend to ease the pain of my
> opponents, who must decide whether
> to bid knowing a great deal about my shape and strength? Horrors! I can't
> believe I use such an instrument of evil!
> My opponents actually have to use their BIDDING JUDGEMENT!
> What's the game coming to?
You just don't get it. Just because you
delight in punishing your lesser opponents
in this way does not mean it's good for
the game. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
Poor boy can't have all his toys.
N. Silver
> I play a 10-13 NT when NV, seats 1-3.
> What sort of "controls" would you recommend to ease the pain of my
> opponents, who must decide whether to bid knowing a great deal about my
> shape and strength? Horrors! I can't believe I use such an instrument of
> evil! My opponents actually have to use their BIDDING JUDGEMENT!
> What's the game coming to?
You don't get it. Just because you
Peter Leighton
Do you actually know how to play bridge? None of your posts have
confirmed this. At first I thought you were sincere, if obnoxious and
not very bright.
Now, I think Ron and Richard are right - you're just a troll.
I'm done with you.
Peter
>
>
>
Mmbridge
> I'm done with you.
Good.
Mmbridge
Mike Oliver
> In his 1996 book "At The Table," Bob Hamman wrote:
> "Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:
>
> "Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are
> too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
> much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
> putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
Certainly there's a place in bridge for the clever
fellow who enjoys solving problems at the table but
doesn't feel like memorizing 1000 counterstrategies
to 300 gadgets from 50 different bidding systems.
My suggestion: Schedule more Individual events,
assigning partnerships randomly at the start of
the game.
> "Make bridge comprehensible to the general public -
> another way of addressing the language issue. Golf is
> a good example. I don't play golf, but I know what the
> objective is. I can watch golf on television and know
> what's going on, because it's simple - players are
> trying to knock the ball into the hole.
>
> "The same is not true with bridge. Can you imagine
> trying to broadcast a match involving teams playing
> forcing pass systems? People would recoil in horror.
> *Why are they opening the bidding with bad cards
> and passing with good cards? What's going on here?*
OK, so we won't all agree what bridge most needs, but
I hope most of us can agree that whatever it is, it's
not more golf fans. Bridge is inherently an intellectually
elitist game, and it ought to stay that way.
Bridge is more like chess than it is like golf. Would
you expect your typical beachside chess player to follow
a match between GMs? Wouldn't he wonder why they offer
draws in positions he thinks are superior, why they resign
in positions he thinks are equal?
> "Eliminate devices such as the Smith Echo, which can
> be utilized reprehensibly, and put restrictions on other
> conventions ripe for abuse, such as super-weak 1NT
> openers and the Multi 2-diamond. I'm not saying get
> rid of them but some controls should be established,
> since the potential for abuse is so great.
Of course none of this makes bidding *simpler*--it makes
it more *legalistic*. Take a player who doesn't want to
learn how to bid against Multi--is he really going to
be happier memorizing a page of rules, for each such
gadget, about when it's legal to bid, so he knows when
to call the director? And how many directors are going
to want to learn when a gadget is legal, when a psych
is legal?
This is why I like the idea of Individual events--they
elegantly defeat gadgetry, without turning the Laws into
the US Tax Code.
> "Establish a commissioner of bridge - someone like
> ...David Stern, N[ational] B[asketball] A[ssociation]
> commissioner..."
... or more NBA fans.
N. Silver
Bob Hamman wrote:
>> "The same is not true with bridge. Can you imagine
>> trying to broadcast a match involving teams playing
>> forcing pass systems? People would recoil in horror.
>> *Why are they opening the bidding with bad cards
>> and passing with good cards? What's going on here?*
> OK, so we won't all agree what bridge most needs, but
> I hope most of us can agree that whatever it is, it's
> not more golf fans. Bridge is inherently an intellectually
> elitist game, and it ought to stay that way.
> Bridge is more like chess than it is like golf. Would
> you expect your typical beachside chess player to follow
> a match between GMs? Wouldn't he wonder why they offer
> draws in positions he thinks are superior, why they resign
> in positions he thinks are equal?
Forget golf. The key is to have mainstream bridge conventions
that are simple. Then maybe it could run like poker on network
television, sparking a bridge-playing-explosion online, etc.
Ron Lel
"Peter Leighton" <pblei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AJO0d.27256$bE1.13...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
snipped
He wants to ban the Smith echo, Peter. Maybe we should ban 4th best leads as
well. This invidious convention means you can use the rule of 11....or is it
12?
Cheers
Ron
N. Silver
> He wants to ban the Smith echo, Peter.
Is Peter one of your enablers?
Hamman's problem with the convention is
that information can be passed by either
defender's tempo. You have to make a
split-second decision. Sometimes even a
slight hesitation will relay exactly what
you hold in a suit to partner.
Eric Kehr
What does "simple" mean in this context?
Do you have an objective definition in mind, or does it just mean
anything you understand?
To me, a "simple convention" is one which does one or more of the
following, and nothing else
1) Shows minimum strength of hand (eg Precision 1C)
2) Show maximum strength of hand (eg 1D response to Precision 1C)
3) Shows minimum length in one (or more) specified suits (eg transfer 2D
or unusual 2NT)
4) Shows maximum length in one (or more) specified suits (eg splinter bid)
5) Shows a control in one (or more) specified suits
6) Denies a control in one (or more) specified suits
7) Asks partner one (or more) specific questions whose answers are of
the above types.
This is the minimum list I can come up with which covers most of the
conventions which novices *want* to play but doesn't arbitrarily say
"*this* is allowed, but *that*, which is similar, isn't". This is
important, because arbitrariness is never simple to understand.
Eric Kehr
London, England
Douglas Newlands
:N. Silver wrote:
:
:> In his 1996 book "At The Table," Bob Hamman wrote:
:> "Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:
:>
:> "Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are
:> too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
:> much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
:> putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
:
:Certainly there's a place in bridge for the clever
:fellow who enjoys solving problems at the table but
:doesn't feel like memorizing 1000 counterstrategies
:to 300 gadgets from 50 different bidding systems.
I think going for rhetorical overkill destroys the argument.
Do you really bid differently over a 1H opening whether it is
SA
KS
SAYC
Roth-Stone
Acol (in any flavour)
part of a strong club system
part of a strong diamond system
natural but possible canape(moscito type systems, Roman)
Even if it is a transfer opening (some flavours of moscito),
you only have to have met it once and you have a generic understanding
(or should have) covering bids which are likely. One can pretend they
have opened 1S and do nothing not covered by that agreement and the next level
of sophistication covers new 1S/2S and immediate and delayed doubles.
(their pet transfer toy allows you to have both a to and a penalty double if you wish
and you can use the 1 level cue as a form of raptor which you've never played because
you wanted to keep 1N natural - thank you opps!)
Does the opponents' NT range cause any problems? All you need is a definition
as to what's weak and what's strong in terms of ranges (if you _really_
must use a variable defence). Play some member of the astro family and leave
behind all problems of tending to play in the minor instead of the major
and of appearing to play the French defence when you ask and then pass.
What's your defence to natural weak 2's? Why won't it do for
2M = 5M+5m
2M = 5M+4m
2M = 5M+ another
What's your defence to multi 2D? Why won't it do for
wilkosz
RCO/OCR etc
Tend to play generic defences rather than supposedly optimised (probably
only in their creater's mind) ones. e.g. there are always some misguided souls
around here who play "wonder bids" against a strong club and are infatuated
with the amount of confusion they think they cause the strong clubbers.
If they asked the strong clubbers, they would find the defence to wonder
bids is to ignore them!
Transfer preempts are not difficult to deal with; be thankful since
your partners should be giving a harder problem in the other room with
the natural preempt e.g.
(3C*) X (4D) ? is not too difficult if your defence is
X = TO with both majors H>=S and
3D= TO with both majors S>H
compared to
(3D) X (4D) ? now you have no idea of relative major lengths and
can easily land in the wrong suit.
They play 7 way multis? The natural weak 2 is probably the most common
meaning so just defend as if is. The weakness of their method is that it
is difficult to preemptively raise so don't give them a round to sort
out what it is and make the proper preempt before you bid.
Jaimie and Leigh who got a mention here before, do this and the LOLs
just look at them through the long and winding explanation and then bid a
somewhat unsound 2S or the like and the boot is often on the other foot now
as the preemptors try to work out what to do.
I have little sympathy for the head in the sand view. People here have
played strong 1C with 1H and 1S interchanged as a rabbit killer. If you don't
freeze in the headlights you'll be OK.
:OK, so we won't all agree what bridge most needs, but
:[snip]
:Bridge is inherently an intellectually
:elitist game, and it ought to stay that way.
Of course it is and the only way to have novel amusing problems is to either play
or play against new and different systems. You find new bidding inferences,
new play and new defence inferences. It's fun.
And you can go and explain to everyone how clever you were afterwards!
Dougie
Eric Kehr
Isn't this just wrong? A Smith echo, as I understand it, is played on
the second trick by either defender to show whether he likes the suit
which was led to the first trick.
If you play it, it is one of things you think about when dummy goes
down. There is no split-second decision to make at all.
Eric Kehr
John Hall
all?
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon
Nigel
players for whom bridge is a social recreation.
They don't want to tackle anything unfamiliar.
Events for such players should be restricted to a
"standard" system.
IMO, Bob Hamman also makes an excellent point. To
attract a wide audience, a bridge event would have
to involve top players in a world championship,
using systems which commentators can grasp and
explain. The ideal would probably be an individual
where all players (even when in familiar
partnerships) had to play the same "standard"
system.
IMO, however, the majority of players are
fascinated by any innovation that enhances the
partnership aspect of bridge: developing a rapport
with partner; and thwarting opponents'
communications. In my experience of teaching
Bridge, this is what holds beginners in thrall.
So most players would be excited by wide-open
events -- even HUMs allowed -- provided that
their opponents could consult approved defences.
In summary, there are two equally important
interest groups. Hence the WBF should recommend
two (but only two) levels of licensing:
A. Standard system
B. Anything goes.
Peter Leighton
"Nigel" <gut...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2b1b5653.04091...@posting.google.com...
This has been proposed before, and I agree 100%,
as long as there are "Anything goes" events
at every tournament. I think that almost all of us who favor
liberalizing system restrictions would gladly settle for this.
I think that this would be the best solution to a tough problem.
IMO, it would, however, quickly lead to "Anything goes" becoming
the de facto standard for "A" events, as few "A" players would
choose to play in the "A" "Standard System" event.
I think you might see a continuing large numbers of players in the
"B" "Standard System", depending on how tightly "Standard"
was defined to be. SAYC failed because it was too restrictive.
An alternative might be to have "B" events continue to have the
system restrictions they presently have, and to have "A" events be
"Anything goes".
Peter
Steve Grant
> fascinated by any innovation that enhances the
> partnership aspect of bridge: developing a rapport
> with partner; and thwarting opponents'
> communications. In my experience of teaching
> Bridge, this is what holds beginners in t hrall.
> So most players would be excited by wide-open
> events -- even HUMs allowed -- provided that
> their opponents could consult approved defences.
In my experience, when someone resorts to "a majority of players" and "most
players," what he really means is "I."
David Stevenson
So take the toys away, and make the game boring. No Stayman,
Transfers, Negative Doubles ....
Oh, you mean take the toys you do not use away and leave yours? *Now*
you have the majority of people on your side.
David Stevenson
>My suggestion: Schedule more Individual events,
>assigning partnerships randomly at the start of
>the game.
Perhaps we should consider what players actually want?
One thing they don't want is individual events: they have become rarer
because of their lack of popularity.
Peter Clinch
hardly be viewed as intimidating if played within stated boundaries.
If I were to pick a weak opening bid that is overused at club-plus level
against poor opponents, however, it would be the Precision 1D. Players
delight in opening any trashy balanced 10 or 11 count with hands they
would not be seen dead bidding on in "standard" . It's the ambiguity of the
bid that seems to give them this sense of adventure.
(Just an observation on "toys", I'm not suggesting anything should be
banned.)
Peter.
New York, NY.
Frances Hinden
> N. Silver wrote:
>
> > In his 1996 book "At The Table," Bob Hamman wrote:
> > "Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:
> >
> > "Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are
> > too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
> > much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
> > putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
>
> Certainly there's a place in bridge for the clever
> fellow who enjoys solving problems at the table but
> doesn't feel like memorizing 1000 counterstrategies
> to 300 gadgets from 50 different bidding systems.
>
> My suggestion: Schedule more Individual events,
> assigning partnerships randomly at the start of
> the game.
>
Well I don't know about your part of the world, but Individuals are
_massively_ unpopular round here. Scheduling more Individual events
would (possibly) solve the conventional-proliferation issue but at the
cost of having fewer overall entries.
Mike Oliver
> Mike Oliver <mike_...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<2qi8qsF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>assigning partnerships randomly at the start of
>>the game.
>>
>
>
> Well I don't know about your part of the world, but Individuals are
> _massively_ unpopular round here. Scheduling more Individual events
> would (possibly) solve the conventional-proliferation issue but at the
> cost of having fewer overall entries.
Well, all I can say is, if so, that's a pity. It's such
an elegant solution. But of course if people don't want
to play in them there's nothing to be done about it.
Julian Lighton
Nigel <gut...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>In summary, there are two equally important
>interest groups. Hence the WBF should recommend
>two (but only two) levels of licensing:
>A. Standard system
>B. Anything goes.
Based on the ACBL's experience, "Standard System" events are extremely
unpopular. People want to be able to play with their toys.
DavJFlower
'standard' system with no variation whatsover required.
It migh separate the godd players from the good memorisers
Dave Flower
Peter Leighton
"DavJFlower" <davjf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040912155717...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>I rather like the idea of an event in which top experts are required to
>play a
> 'standard' system with no variation whatsover required.
I believe the word is "permitted", not "required".
>
> It migh separate the godd players from the good memorisers
Hee hee.
Peter
>
> Dave Flower
Julian Lighton
N. Silver <mat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In his 1996 book "At The Table," Bob Hamman wrote:
>"Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:
>
>"Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are
>too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
>much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
>putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
The variety of bidding systems is hardly a barrier to entry. Most
people are going to be completely unaware of the possibility while
they are learning the game.
It can be argued it causes a problem in retaining new players, but
that's not the same thing.
>"Make bridge comprehensible to the general public -
>another way of addressing the language issue. Golf is
>a good example. I don't play golf, but I know what the
>objective is. I can watch golf on television and know
>what's going on, because it's simple - players are
>trying to knock the ball into the hole.
>
>"The same is not true with bridge. Can you imagine
>trying to broadcast a match involving teams playing
>forcing pass systems? People would recoil in horror.
>*Why are they opening the bidding with bad cards
>and passing with good cards? What's going on here?*
Golf is a far less complex game than bridge, making it a far better
spectator sport. You can sum up the objectives of golf in a sentence
or two. You can't do the same for bridge.
Golf is also more visually exciting. (Which says rather a lot about
how bad a spectator sport bridge is.)
Complex games are not interesting to watch unless the audience have
some idea how to play. Many people have picked up at least a passing
familiarity with chess and poker at some point in their lives. The
same is not true of bridge.
Saying "simplify the game, make it more acessible to spectators, and
those spectators will take up the game" is getting it exactly
backwards. Teach them the game, then worry about how to make it appeal
to spectators once you actually have some.
Weren't the matches getting the most public attention in the game's
heyday (Culbertson-Lenz, for instance) all about whose bidding system
was better? That suggests that bridge players have an interest in
different systems.
The game seems to be faring better in those countries which have less
regulation of methods, not more. (Yes, correlation is not causation,
but it's certainly something to think about.)
And even if he is correct, Hamman is hardly blameless himself, as his
own preferred methods are somewhat unusual.
>"Eliminate devices such as the Smith Echo, which can
>be utilized reprehensibly, and put restrictions on other
>conventions ripe for abuse, such as super-weak 1NT
>openers and the Multi 2-diamond. I'm not saying get
>rid of them but some controls should be established,
>since the potential for abuse is so great.
It's been a long time since I read the book. (It was quite bad, so I
have no desire to reread it.) Does he go into any detail about why
these agreements are evil, or simply assert that they are?
>"Establish a commissioner of bridge - someone like
>...David Stern, N[ational] B[asketball] A[ssociation]
>commissioner..."
I wonder who Hamman might have in mind...
Eric Kehr
than others? A full set of system notes for even a standard system is
huge. Or are you suggesting that many sequneces are undefined, and hence
not usable (as no variation is allowed)?
Eric Kehr
N. Silver
>Nat wrote:
>>"Eliminate devices such as the Smith Echo, which can
>>be utilized reprehensibly, and put restrictions on other
>>conventions ripe for abuse, such as super-weak 1NT
>>openers and the Multi 2-diamond. I'm not saying get
>>rid of them but some controls should be established,
>>since the potential for abuse is so great.
>
> It's been a long time since I read the book. (It was quite bad, so I
> have no desire to reread it.) Does he go into any detail about why
> these agreements are evil, or simply assert that they are?
Hammon says that pair games are an incredible minefield.
Complex methods are a bar to full disclosure.
Playing two boards a round, you have an unfair
advantage against everyone...That leaves me a choice:
Come up with my own unfathomable crap or get beat.
Hamman says that:
The Smith Echo is used primrily against NT contracts.
Either member of the partnership can signal in the suit
played by declarer. whether the opening leader's suit
should be continued by the next defender who gets in.
Here's an example:
DUMMY
S 9 2
H A 9 4
D Q 10 2
C Q J 10 5 4
YOU
lead S J 8 7 6
4S H 8 4 3
D K 7 6
C 9 6 2
Trick 1
4 2 J K
Trick 2
Kc from declarer
Trick 3
club from declarer
Your club plays will be
interpreted as Smith Echo,
since the ace of hearts is in dummy
and you do not have to give count.
If you don't play a smooth card on the Ac,
partner will know you have some kind of
problem. What problem could you have?
If you started with 3 spades to the QJ,
you wouldn't have a problem playing the 9c.
If you held Jxx in spades, you would drop
the 2c without a hitch. The only real problem
would be if you were holding the cards above
and your tempo has given partner that information.
Kieran Dyke
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:X3$axAFwl...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> N. Silver wrote
> >Peter Leighton wrote:
> >
> >> I play a 10-13 NT when NV, seats 1-3.
> >> What sort of "controls" would you recommend to ease the pain of my
> >> opponents, who must decide whether to bid knowing a great deal about my
> >> shape and strength? Horrors! I can't believe I use such an instrument
of
> >> evil! My opponents actually have to use their BIDDING JUDGEMENT!
> >> What's the game coming to?
> >
> >You don't get it. Just because you
> >delight in punishing your lesser opponents
> >in this way does not mean it's good for
> >the game. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
> >Poor boy can't have all his toys.
>
> So take the toys away, and make the game boring. No Stayman,
> Transfers, Negative Doubles ....
>
> Oh, you mean take the toys you do not use away and leave yours? *Now*
> you have the majority of people on your side.
Isn't this what your local SO does when it says you can play this Multi but
not this one, this defense to 1NT but not this one, etc.
Tiggrr
Gordon Rainsford
> I rather like the idea of an event in which top experts are required to play a
> 'standard' system with no variation whatsover required.
Didn't they do something like that with the Macallan?
>
> It migh separate the godd players from the good memorisers
Didn't it just lead to some of the good players deciding not to attend
(Meckwell IIRC). Before the whole event was withdrawn.
--
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
Bill Jacobs
He essntially argues that generic defensive methods can be used successfully against all variations of conventional openings. He has the
benefit of experience, because in our part of the world, there is very little restriction on conventions.
I agree with him, and have put this point forcefully to the Bridge World magazine on several occasions. Jeff Rubens (and people like Bob
Hamman) disagree: they believe that to counter these conventions you need to discuss them individually in order to optimize the defensive method
against each particular convention.
If you accept this premise, then it is necessary to heavily restrict usage, because it implies that they carry an unfair advantage when used
without sufficient warning.
You can see an example of this argument directly in the pages of the Bridge World, where Rubens argues that considerably different defensive
methods are needed against a Multi that has a strong option opposed to the Multi that has no strong option.
I think Hamman has a point at World Championship level, where it behooves partnerships to develop the best possible defences. On the other
hand, at this level, there is advance distribution of systems, so maybe it is acceptable for players to have to prepare.
At all other levels, I think Rubens has succumbed to a culture of fear of the unknown. He of course has little experience of these conventions,
as they are so restricted in ACBL-land. Those of us who are exposed to them find that generic defences are not only adequate, but confer a non-
stressful atmosphere to the auction, whereby you may get killed by the convention (and any preempt can do that to you), but you are unlikely to
suffer a disastrous misunderstanding with your partner.
Cheers ... Bill
Bill Jacobs
>
>We all know that the use of artificial systems confounds
>and alienates most all but the strongest players. Bridge
>does not need any more help to stay on life support.
>
>
I think you need to refer yourself back to the start of this thread, which
refers to 1953.
At that time, your exact argument about "artificial systems confounding and
alienating all but the strongest players" was brought to bear to try to ban
Roth-Stone (a natural system involving artificial devices such as negative
doubles).
Looking back 50 years later, we can only be grateful that the ban didn't
stick!
So your statement may well be true, but that is not necessarily an adequate
reason to ban artificiality. Banning new methods may help in the short
term, but could be rather damaging to the game in the longer term.
One more point: I'm not sure where you live, but I live in an area where
there is little restriction on artificiality, and I see no evidence that it
is stunting popularity. What tends to happen is that clubs evolve where
there are no nasty conventions, and people play happily at them. At the
larger clubs and associations, these conventions are allowed, and people are
happy to play at them. Those uncomfortable with the artificiality gravitate
back to the clubs where standard methods rule.
But the ACBL uses a hammer ...
Cheers ... Bill
Raija
"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message
news:10k97kp...@corp.supernews.com...
Agree, that is what the toys are for, to play with!. But enforce full and
complete disclosure when opponent asks. The toy specialists sometimes gloss
over important details about what a call promises AND what it denies.
Ron Lel
"Bill Jacobs" <bill....@oz.quest.com> wrote in message
news:Xns956395611bill...@203.10.110.105...
Well thought out post Bill.
Ron
Eric Leong
I think more top experts would enter an individual event if all the
contestants were very strong. I remember a small invitation only
individual event in the Bay Area about 12 years ago that consisted of
mostly previous world and national championship winners such as Mike
Lawrence, Hugh Ross, Grant Baze, Eddie Kantar, Zia, Chip Martel, Lew
Stansby, Kit Woolsey, Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, Kyle Larsen, Alan
Sontag, Sharon Osberg, Kay Schulle, Gaylor Kasle among others. The
allowed conventions were basic and I think the experts welcomed the
chance to socialize and play with each that they would not normally
play together. Despite, the convention restrictions there were a wide
variety of different results and a number of interesting and
entertaining disasters that lesser players could understand and relate
to. I think a bridge journalist would have a gold mine of hands to
write about.
Eric Leong
Kieran Dyke
"Raija" <must...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ka9ce...@corp.supernews.com...
methods.
Two other points - I think that alerting for what something denies (or can
include) can be badly overdone. If you accept that a natural (say,
precisionish) 2C opening doesn't need an alert, an alert shouldn't be
required for "if it's only five it has a four card major, or denies a major,
or can include a four card major). They're essentially petty details which
can be available to people who ask or look at a convention card. The primary
effect of alerting petty details is that the real alerts go unquestioned,
like a 2C opening which shows a weak hand with hearts and spades.
The most stunning example of this that I know of is in New Zealand, where a
strong notrump must be alerted. So, if the opponents open 1NT and it's
alerted, hardly anybody asks. If 1NT was something different, like Romex or
10-14 both majors or 11+ 3-suited, nobody will ever know.
The other point is that system cards need to be designed with non-standard
systems in mind as well as standard systems. The WBF card works well for
this purpose, but the standard ABF card, while excellent for natural-based
systems, falls over for systems which, for example, have 1H and 1S openings
showing completely different things. Probably a choice of two models of card
is in order.
Tiggrr
Ian Payn
"Gordon Rainsford" <grscre...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gk0vxj.u1uashes2n28N%grscre...@yahoo.co.uk...
++++Two questions expecting the answer "Yes". And getting it.
Mike Preston
wrote:
>fhi...@orange.net (Frances Hinden) wrote in message news:<d30df517.04091...@posting.google.com>...
>> Mike Oliver <mike_...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<2qi8qsF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> > N. Silver wrote:
>> >
>> > > In his 1996 book "At The Table," Bob Hamman wrote:
>> > > "Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:
>> > >
>> > > "Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are
>> > > too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
>> > > much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
>> > > putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
>> >
>> > Certainly there's a place in bridge for the clever
>> > fellow who enjoys solving problems at the table but
>> > doesn't feel like memorizing 1000 counterstrategies
>> > to 300 gadgets from 50 different bidding systems.
>> >
>> > My suggestion: Schedule more Individual events,
>> > assigning partnerships randomly at the start of
>> > the game.
>> >
>>
>> Well I don't know about your part of the world, but Individuals are
>> _massively_ unpopular round here. Scheduling more Individual events
>> would (possibly) solve the conventional-proliferation issue but at the
>> cost of having fewer overall entries.
>
>I think more top experts would enter an individual event if all the
>contestants were very strong.
I think the event is doomed to failure in the absence of a
particularly appealing reward for victory. Sponsored by Mr. Gates or
Mr. Buffett it might qualify.
mike
Peter Koch Larsen
"Mike Oliver" <mike_...@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:2qi8qsF...@uni-berlin.de...
> N. Silver wrote:
>
> > In his 1996 book "At The Table," Bob Hamman wrote:
> > "Here are some ideas for helping the game grow:
> >
> > "Remove the perceived barriers to entry: that there are
> > too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
> > much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
> > putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
>
> Certainly there's a place in bridge for the clever
> fellow who enjoys solving problems at the table but
> doesn't feel like memorizing 1000 counterstrategies
> to 300 gadgets from 50 different bidding systems.
>
> My suggestion: Schedule more Individual events,
> assigning partnerships randomly at the start of
> the game.
Some of us do not consider play the only interesting part of the game. We
find the bidding just as enjoyable and as important as the play (if not
more).
Playing an individual event with strangers more or less removes this aspect
of the game.
/Peter
David Stevenson
>"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:X3$axAFwl...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>> N. Silver wrote
>> >Peter Leighton wrote:
>> >
>> >> I play a 10-13 NT when NV, seats 1-3.
>> >> What sort of "controls" would you recommend to ease the pain of my
>> >> opponents, who must decide whether to bid knowing a great deal about my
>> >> shape and strength? Horrors! I can't believe I use such an instrument
>of
>> >> evil! My opponents actually have to use their BIDDING JUDGEMENT!
>> >> What's the game coming to?
>> >
>> >You don't get it. Just because you
>> >delight in punishing your lesser opponents
>> >in this way does not mean it's good for
>> >the game. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
>> >Poor boy can't have all his toys.
>>
>> So take the toys away, and make the game boring. No Stayman,
>> Transfers, Negative Doubles ....
>>
>> Oh, you mean take the toys you do not use away and leave yours? *Now*
>> you have the majority of people on your side.
>
>Isn't this what your local SO does when it says you can play this Multi but
>not this one, this defense to 1NT but not this one, etc.
NO, they are doing what *other* people want, not what htey personally
want and play.
Mike Preston
Why?
mike
Peter Koch Larsen
"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:41459caf....@news.INDIVIDUAL.NET...
> >Some of us do not consider play the only interesting part of the game. We
> >find the bidding just as enjoyable and as important as the play (if not
> >more).
> >Playing an individual event with strangers more or less removes this
aspect
> >of the game.
>
> Why?
>
> mike
If a bidding system is forced upon us, we do not have the option to use a
system that fits our way of thinking and our mental capacity (or the lack
thereof). Apart from that: how are we going to agree on what system to use?
Should it be Bridge World Standard, Acol, SAYC, 2/1..... Polish Club,
Moscito, Precision,....? This is only the basic discussion. What about
conventions? What kind of .... Lebensohl, negative doubles, Blackwood etc.
will you use?
If it is not, we will only have time to play two boards an hour -
considering the need to discuss system. This is not enough for my taste ;-)
/Peter
Mike Oliver
> I think more top experts would enter an individual event if all the
> contestants were very strong. I remember a small invitation only
> individual event in the Bay Area about 12 years ago that consisted of
> mostly previous world and national championship winners such as Mike
> Lawrence, Hugh Ross, Grant Baze, Eddie Kantar, Zia, Chip Martel, Lew
> Stansby, Kit Woolsey, Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, Kyle Larsen, Alan
> Sontag, Sharon Osberg, Kay Schulle, Gaylor Kasle among others. The
> allowed conventions were basic and I think the experts welcomed the
> chance to socialize and play with each that they would not normally
> play together. Despite, the convention restrictions
Oh, there were convention restrictions? That's a bit disappointing;
kind of wrecks my whole idea. My notion was that you'd be allowed
to play anything you wanted--provided you could hash it out with
partner on the spot, in the five minutes or so between finding out
who he was and the start of the game.
That would make it difficult for people to play things no one
had ever heard of--but would not require distateful regulation.
Mike Preston
While clearly no one system would satisfy everyone, either BWS or
something like BBO 2/1 seems to have enough bells and whistles in it
to satisfy those that prefer scientific auctions over those that
aren't. But that is really besides the point. The fact is that
whatever system is in use calls for bidding judgement. In fact, one
could argue that the less conventional the overall system the more one
has to exercise that judgment. Far from removing that aspect, it
enhances it.
mike
Tim West-Meads
Bidding with a wide variety of strangers, semi-strangers, and known
players of widely different abilities is a vital part of real bridge.
This fascinating aspect of the game is absent from pairs/team events but
surfaces in Individuals.
Tim West-Meads (TimWM online)
Ron Johnson
Meckstroth has said that Meckwell will never play together in a
an event with conventional restictions.
--
RNJ
Todd A. Anderson
> pass in ACBL land ?
I actually have played strong pass in ACBL land. When my strong pass
pd and I go to our local club and meet our friends at the table, most of
them will allow strong pass if we ask them.
Larry Lowell
> >Nat wrote:
> >>"Eliminate devices such as the Smith Echo, which can
> >>be utilized reprehensibly, and put restrictions on other
> >>conventions ripe for abuse, such as super-weak 1NT
> >>openers and the Multi 2-diamond. I'm not saying get
> >>rid of them but some controls should be established,
> >>since the potential for abuse is so great.
> >
> > It's been a long time since I read the book. (It was quite bad, so I
> > have no desire to reread it.) Does he go into any detail about why
> > these agreements are evil, or simply assert that they are?
Having done my thinking at Trick 1, I play the 2 Clubs in tempo to
deny the Q or Jxxxx. Partner has about 10 hcp and probably will be
able to figure out the defense when next in. I play the 6 clubs next,
suit preference for D. I guess we might miss beating 3NT if partner
has ATxxx without an entry. Oh, well ...
Hamman also talks about why odd-even signaling is not allowed by the
ACBL (except for first discard). While it is true that the rank and
file may have tempo problems in using these carding agreements, I have
never seen a Director call for varying tempo in carding. IS THIS A
MAJOR PROBLEM?
Larry Lowell
Knoxville, TN, USA
Todd A. Anderson
> > you expect your typical beachside chess player to follow
> > a match between GMs? Wouldn't he wonder why they offer
> > draws in positions he thinks are superior, why they resign
> > in positions he thinks are equal?
>
> Forget golf. The key is to have mainstream bridge conventions
> that are simple. Then maybe it could run like poker on network
> television, sparking a bridge-playing-explosion online, etc.
"Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
consumption of bridge on TV? Even starting from that premise,
whether an average joe can understand what bridge experts are doing
is irrelevant. The only issue is bridge health and attracting new players
and keeping the game going. We don't want to overload people at
first or they won't join so we need some way to ease people into all
of the complexity.
Somebody in this thread said the ACBL was concerned with bridge
health. I think a better way to say it is that the ACBL is concerned with
making money as is the case with all good companies. This entails
attracting as many people to play as possible. There is lots of debate
over whether this approach is best for the health of bridge. I think what
the ACBL may be missing is an opportunity to attract high school and
college kids into the game with the free-wheeling anything-goes approach
which they would probably like better. If you had "junior" only events
with no restrictions then you might attract a whole new crowd and get
rid of the "grandma's game" mentality.
Ron Johnson
Todd A. Anderson <drt...@aaahawk.com.N0SPAM> wrote:
>> > Bridge is more like chess than it is like golf. Would
>> > you expect your typical beachside chess player to follow
>> > a match between GMs? Wouldn't he wonder why they offer
>> > draws in positions he thinks are superior, why they resign
>> > in positions he thinks are equal?
>>
>> Forget golf. The key is to have mainstream bridge conventions
>> that are simple. Then maybe it could run like poker on network
>> television, sparking a bridge-playing-explosion online, etc.
>
>"Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
>anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
>consumption of bridge on TV?
I suppose it could happen. Lots of people watched Fischer/Spassky.
I do agree that it's very unlikely. I mean that one match is the
only time chess was successful on TV in the US.
>Even starting from that premise,
>whether an average joe can understand what bridge experts are doing
>is irrelevant.
Again getting back to Fischer/Spassky, the bulk of the audience were
not capable of understanding many of the positions. The commentator
was able to give the audience a general sense of what was going on
and that's enough.
Barry Rigal or Eric Kokish or Kit Woolsey or ... can give the audience
a much better sense of what's happening in a Meckwell auction than
Shelby Lyman could give his audience about (say) the poisoned pawn
game Spassky won from Fischer (where Spassky broke from the main
line fairly early, leading to some very complex positions that hadn't
been well explored)
--
RNJ
Mike Preston
<drt...@aaahawk.com.N0SPAM> wrote:
>"Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
>anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
>consumption of bridge on TV?
Yes, if done properly. Who would have thought that poker would
achieve the popularity it has on TV? I think the primary reason for
the success of poker is that the "action" is shown via carefully
scripted videotape editing. If there were somebody able and willing
to take on that role vis-a-vis a bridge tournament, it could be just
as compelling. You tell me how the 1 imp finish in the most recent BB
(or was it the Olympiad), predicated on, IMO, an agitated dummy
leaving the table early so that his partner could expend energy on
relinquishing the lead could possibly be told without drama and
energy? At least by a competent TV director.
mike
zog
"Barry Rigal" <barry...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9fH0d.19699$Wv5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I resent that misquote...
> I take it very personally
>
> Barry
You cannot allow that slur to go unpunished. Sue him, sue him, SUE HIM
NOW!.
(ps my rates are very reasonable)
> > "I, in common with most other players, have received my share of bad
> boards
> > from players using little-known systems, but feel that for the good of
> > bridge now and in the future we must lean over backwards to permit full
> > exploration under field conditions of each new theory as it is advanced.
I
> > will doggedly oppose the barrying of any new system from organized
> bridge."
> > Don Oakie.
> >
> > Quotes are from The Bridge World, reproduced in the September 1975
> > editorial.
> >
> > Tiggrr
> >
> >
>
>
Ian Payn
"Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:ci4gpf$4...@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca...
++++Bully for them. Am I alone in not finding that terribly impressive? I
mean, they can do what they like, obviously, but...
Ron Johnson
But what? I'm glad they took this position.
--
RNJ
Frans Buijsen
>>>Bridge is more like chess than it is like golf. Would
>>>you expect your typical beachside chess player to follow
>>>a match between GMs? Wouldn't he wonder why they offer
>>>draws in positions he thinks are superior, why they resign
>>>in positions he thinks are equal?
>>
>>Forget golf. The key is to have mainstream bridge conventions
>>that are simple. Then maybe it could run like poker on network
>>television, sparking a bridge-playing-explosion online, etc.
>
>
> "Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
> anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
> consumption of bridge on TV?
Indeed. A few years ago (quite a lot really) the BBC had a robber cruise
match with Forrester, Hamman, Christian Mari and Zia. It was fun, but to
the casual observer most of the fun consisted of Hamman and Mari's
accent, and all of the participant's cool comments. It was quite good,
but it will never beat "Survivor" or whatever for ratings.
You have to appeal to the game-playing crowd. I'm guessing the poker
crowd would be quite receptive.
> Even starting from that premise,
> whether an average joe can understand what bridge experts are doing
> is irrelevant. The only issue is bridge health and attracting new players
> and keeping the game going. We don't want to overload people at
> first or they won't join so we need some way to ease people into all
> of the complexity.
Note that at the cruise thing, it was pretty much all natural, which
makes it televisable to anybody who understands the basic mechanics of
the game.
>
> Somebody in this thread said the ACBL was concerned with bridge
> health. I think a better way to say it is that the ACBL is concerned with
> making money as is the case with all good companies. This entails
> attracting as many people to play as possible. There is lots of debate
> over whether this approach is best for the health of bridge. I think what
> the ACBL may be missing is an opportunity to attract high school and
> college kids into the game with the free-wheeling anything-goes approach
> which they would probably like better. If you had "junior" only events
> with no restrictions then you might attract a whole new crowd and get
> rid of the "grandma's game" mentality.
Unlike many others, I don't think it's all bad for bridge to attract 50+
people in general -- one of the great things of the game is that you
can keep going thru old age.
Still you are right that the game should be made more atractive to young
game fanatics. This is a problem right now: they are actively made to
feel unwelcome in many places. Just ask any non-toop-level 23-year old
player, and they'll have stories. It's sometimes quite sickening.
--
Frans Buijsen (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
.. Mail to the address above is not read. Try this address instead: ..
.. fab dot usenet at unetmail.nl ..
Richard Pavlicek
> Todd A. Anderson wrote:
>
> >"Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
> >anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
> >consumption of bridge on TV?
>
> Yes, if done properly. Who would have thought that poker would
> achieve the popularity it has on TV? I think the primary reason for
> the success of poker is that the "action" is shown via carefully
> scripted videotape editing. If there were somebody able and willing
> to take on that role vis-a-vis a bridge tournament, it could be just
> as compelling...
I think the key difference is that poker is relatively simple
and easily understood by non-poker players. Bridge, however,
lacks that for non-bridge players, so any mass media attempt
is likely to fizzle.
> ...You tell me how the 1 imp finish in the most recent BB
> (or was it the Olympiad), predicated on, IMO, an agitated
> dummy leaving the table early so that his partner could
> expend energy on relinquishing the lead could possibly be
> told without drama and energy?
You make a good point. The only question is whether the BB
finish would sell as a "drama" -- or be more suitable for the
old Benny Hill series. :)
--
Richard Pavlicek
Alert! Don't miss my September bidding poll:
http://www.rpbridge.net/8w01.htm
Mike Preston
<ric...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
>Mike Preston wrote:
>
>> Todd A. Anderson wrote:
>>
>> >"Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
>> >anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
>> >consumption of bridge on TV?
>>
>> Yes, if done properly. Who would have thought that poker would
>> achieve the popularity it has on TV? I think the primary reason for
>> the success of poker is that the "action" is shown via carefully
>> scripted videotape editing. If there were somebody able and willing
>> to take on that role vis-a-vis a bridge tournament, it could be just
>> as compelling...
>
>I think the key difference is that poker is relatively simple
>and easily understood by non-poker players. Bridge, however,
>lacks that for non-bridge players, so any mass media attempt
>is likely to fizzle.
Bridge is a simple game. The object of the game is to do better than
your opponents. While it may not be so easy to describe what "better"
means in the context of a field-based BAM competition (or any game
where the ultimate winner is chosen by competition against the field,
such as a matchpoint event), it should be relatively easy to describe
what it means in a head-to-head knockout. Again, taking poker as an
example, how many people really understood things like: "blind", and
"river" before being exposed to it on TV? I actually think the
mechanics of the competition should be pretty simple to explain with
graphics, cut-aways and overlays these days. You may know that KK
has a 52% chance of beating AQ when all you know is that there are 5
cards left to play, but I sure didn't until I saw that overlay come up
time and again. Heck, it may not even be true, but it heightens the
suspense and clarifies that the individual betting on the AQ to win
the pot is an underdog (albeit not known to the better at the time
that they don't have the best hand).
Again, it depends on the artistry of the director. But I *think* it
could be done with a fair amount of flair with today's multimedia
capabilities.
Can I enlist you to be the color commentator?
>> ...You tell me how the 1 imp finish in the most recent BB
>> (or was it the Olympiad), predicated on, IMO, an agitated
>> dummy leaving the table early so that his partner could
>> expend energy on relinquishing the lead could possibly be
>> told without drama and energy?
>
>You make a good point. The only question is whether the BB
>finish would sell as a "drama" -- or be more suitable for the
>old Benny Hill series. :)
Agreed. Especially in the case mentioned. Or a Laugh-In
retrospective on this side of the pond. Or the classic scene from
Wide World of Sports known as "The Agony of Defeat" with the
ski-jumper landing badly.
But even when the suspense is virtually non-existent, the director can
CREATE suspense for the audience through careful editing. Tease,
tease, tease. "Stay tuned to see which 9-time world champion fails to
follow suit and see whether he can recover before it is too late!" the
announcer says in an excited, yet controlled tone.
mike
Kieran Dyke
Tiggrr
> --
> RNJ
N. Silver
>> Meckstroth has said that Meckwell will
>> never play together in an event with
>> conventional restictions.
> I guess that means they won't be playing any
> ACBL events. Or WBF.
AFAIK, they play but usually with others for green points,
unless it's one of the major team titles, etc.
David Stevenson
>Hamman also talks about why odd-even signaling is not allowed by the
>ACBL (except for first discard). While it is true that the rank and
>file may have tempo problems in using these carding agreements, I have
>never seen a Director call for varying tempo in carding. IS THIS A
>MAJOR PROBLEM?
It may not be a major problem, but it does occur. The ACBL would
argue that part of the reason why it is not a major problem is because
of their ban on odd-even signals.
Bruce Scott
"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:414626d2....@news.INDIVIDUAL.NET...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:43:28 -0400, "Richard Pavlicek"
> <ric...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
>
> >Mike Preston wrote:
> >
> >> Todd A. Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
> >> >anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
> >> >consumption of bridge on TV?
> >>
> >> Yes, if done properly. Who would have thought that poker would
> >> achieve the popularity it has on TV? I think the primary reason for
> >> the success of poker is that the "action" is shown via carefully
> >> scripted videotape editing. If there were somebody able and willing
> >> to take on that role vis-a-vis a bridge tournament, it could be just
> >> as compelling...
> >
> >I think the key difference is that poker is relatively simple
> >and easily understood by non-poker players. Bridge, however,
> >lacks that for non-bridge players, so any mass media attempt
> >is likely to fizzle.
>
> Bridge is a simple game. The object of the game is to do better than
> your opponents. While it may not be so easy to describe what "better"
> means in the context of a field-based BAM competition (or any game
> where the ultimate winner is chosen by competition against the field,
> such as a matchpoint event), it should be relatively easy to describe
> what it means in a head-to-head knockout.
I think Richard Pavlicek is right here.
> Again, taking poker as an
> example, how many people really understood things like: "blind", and
> "river" before being exposed to it on TV?
The announcers seem to do a fairly good job of explaining these things.
I think that they are considerably easier than bridge terms.
A finesse is a pretty simple play. You still need a little time to explain
it to someone who isn't a bridge player. (If they aren't a player
of trick-taking games at all, you are probably wasting your time.)
You don't need much time to explain a bluff to a non poker player.
The commentators actually seem to do a reasonable job of
explaining more complex poker plays (semi-bluffs, complex
representations, and pot odd calculations).
> I actually think the
> mechanics of the competition should be pretty simple to explain with
> graphics, cut-aways and overlays these days. You may know that KK
> has a 52% chance of beating AQ when all you know is that there are 5
> cards left to play, but I sure didn't until I saw that overlay come up
> time and again. Heck, it may not even be true,
It isn't true. AQ is a big underdog to KK (a 2-1 dog even with advantageous
suits).
Your 52% would be in the ballpark for an underpair (something smaller
than queens).
> but it heightens the
> suspense and clarifies that the individual betting on the AQ to win
> the pot is an underdog (albeit not known to the better at the time
> that they don't have the best hand).
>
> Again, it depends on the artistry of the director. But I *think* it
> could be done with a fair amount of flair with today's multimedia
> capabilities.
It might be regional, but I think that more people are vaguely familiar
with the basic of poker compared to the basics of bridge.
Ron Lel
"Ian Payn" <Ian....@CharterChambers.com> wrote in message
news:41461659.0@entanet...
>
snipped
> > Meckstroth has said that Meckwell will never play together in a
> > an event with conventional restictions.
>
> ++++Bully for them. Am I alone in not finding that terribly impressive? I
> mean, they can do what they like, obviously, but...
>
Ian this is somewhat hypocrital if they said this. When playing with
sponsors they are the first to jump up and down to protect their sponsor
from the invidious awful convention. It happened to a group of Aussies
visiting the US in the not too distant past.
Ron Lel
Bruce Scott
"Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:ci4gpf$4...@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca...
>
> an event with conventional restictions.
It seems to me that they already play in events with
restrictions on conventions. What part of this am I misunderstanding?
Peter Leighton
"Ron Lel" <ron...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g_r1d.30022$D7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I guess that makes them true professionals :)
Peter
>
> Ron Lel
>
>
Peter Koch Larsen
"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:414626d2....@news.INDIVIDUAL.NET...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:43:28 -0400, "Richard Pavlicek"
> <ric...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
>
> >Mike Preston wrote:
> >
> >> Todd A. Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
> >> >anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
> >> >consumption of bridge on TV?
> >>
> >> Yes, if done properly. Who would have thought that poker would
> >> achieve the popularity it has on TV? I think the primary reason for
> >> the success of poker is that the "action" is shown via carefully
> >> scripted videotape editing. If there were somebody able and willing
> >> to take on that role vis-a-vis a bridge tournament, it could be just
> >> as compelling...
> >
> >I think the key difference is that poker is relatively simple
> >and easily understood by non-poker players. Bridge, however,
> >lacks that for non-bridge players, so any mass media attempt
> >is likely to fizzle.
>
> Bridge is a simple game. The object of the game is to do better than
> your opponents.
The statement above is the same as saying "all games are simple".
/Peter
Peter Koch Larsen
"Todd A. Anderson" <drt...@aaahawk.com.N0SPAM> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ci4mqe$h26$1...@news01.intel.com...
> > > Bridge is more like chess than it is like golf. Would
> > > you expect your typical beachside chess player to follow
> > > a match between GMs? Wouldn't he wonder why they offer
> > > draws in positions he thinks are superior, why they resign
> > > in positions he thinks are equal?
> >
> > Forget golf. The key is to have mainstream bridge conventions
> > that are simple. Then maybe it could run like poker on network
> > television, sparking a bridge-playing-explosion online, etc.
>
> "Watchability" is never going to be an issue with bridge because does
> anyone really believe we're ever going to have general public
> consumption of bridge on TV? Even starting from that premise,
> whether an average joe can understand what bridge experts are doing
> is irrelevant. The only issue is bridge health and attracting new players
> and keeping the game going. We don't want to overload people at
> first or they won't join so we need some way to ease people into all
> of the complexity.
The BBO broadcasts have been quite successfull - the only problem is that
the game is too slow for a beginner to enjoy. Apart from that I do believe
that i could invoke the interest for someone unfamiliar with bridge watching
it.
Chris Ryall
> It may not be a major problem, but it does occur. The ACBL would
>argue that part of the reason why it is not a major problem is because
>of their ban on odd-even signals.
I knew ACBL were capricious, but to ban odd-even signals? Even odder!
--
Chris Ryall Wirral UK
Jürgen R.
The fact that they play the game according to current rules, and
exploit these rules, doesn't imply that they think the rules are any
good.
Similarly, Reese often sneers at conventions and there is a place
where he claims the game would be better without them (I'm not going
to look up where this occurs now); nevertheless he used very
artificial systems. I don't see a contradiction.
Jürgen
>
>Ron Lel
>
>
Mike Preston
That may very well be true. Providing one can articulate the measure
and can describe, in simple terms, how that measure is achieved. Just
as many people are familiar with poker on at least a casual basis, so
are many people familiar with the concept of taking tricks (hearts,
spades, etc.). The concept of scoring (0 to 25, or -26, points
available at hearts, etc.) is individualized, per game, but is not
unfamiliar in general. One unique aspect in bridge K-O's, that it is
two-tiered, does present some interesting communication issues. If
you "score" 90 points, you actually get 3 "real points" (imps). Not
so tough.
The concepts that are universal to trick taking games, such as being
the one to control what is led gains power as the distribution of
cards becomes better known, are easily communicated.
So, yes, I agree that games which can be simply described are indeed
simple games to communicate.
mike
mike
Gerben Dirksen
> too many languages (bidding systems), that it takes too
> much time to learn the languages, that being smart and
> putting in a lot of effort are not enough by themselves.
Instead, starting from the lowest level make people aware that in
bridge everyone is allowed to choose their own bidding language. Then
teach them such a language (whatever is the local teaching standard,
probably).
> "Make bridge comprehensible to the general public -
> another way of addressing the language issue. Golf is
> a good example. I don't play golf, but I know what the
> objective is. I can watch golf on television and know
> what's going on, because it's simple - players are
> trying to knock the ball into the hole.
In Bridge, people try to bid to a sensible contract and then try to
make as many tricks as possible.
Why someone bids 2C over 1NT without any clubs, or why a golf uses his
7-Iron at a certain hole, well, we need experts to explain this.
> "The same is not true with bridge. Can you imagine
> trying to broadcast a match involving teams playing
> forcing pass systems? People would recoil in horror.
> *Why are they opening the bidding with bad cards
> and passing with good cards? What's going on here?*
Why aren't people opening their longest suit? They have 4-4 in the
majors and yet they choose to bid their 3 small diamonds first!
You just need commentators to tell the audience that special bids
exist. Almost every bid in even the most natural system (what's that?)
has a certain meaning that will not be clear to the audience.
Let's say the auction goes 1D - 1S - 2H - 3NT - pass on board 1, and
1D - 1S - 2C - 2NT - pass on board 2. Try to explain the difference
why responder bid lower with better cards on board 2 to a layman
audience. Good luck...
> "Eliminate devices such as the Smith Echo, which can
> be utilized reprehensibly, and put restrictions on other
> conventions ripe for abuse, such as super-weak 1NT
> openers and the Multi 2-diamond.
> I'm not saying get
> rid of them but some controls should be established,
> since the potential for abuse is so great.
He's a great bridge player, but I think he's doing the game no good
with comments like this.
Why is 1NT = 8 - 10 balanced easier to abuse than 1NT = 15 - 17
balanced? It's not more complicated, it's just different.
> "Establish a commissioner of bridge - someone like
> ...David Stern, N[ational] B[asketball] A[ssociation]
> commissioner..."
What would he do?
Tell everyone that 15 - 17 NT is allowed but 8 - 10 NT is evil?
Or that 1C showing 16+ is okay but Pass showing 13+ any is
complicated?
1C (16+) pass 1D showing any 0-7 is okay, but 1D opening showing 0-7
directly is unmistakably evil and too complicated.
I agree that 1D fertilizer is hard to play against, but it is not hard
to understand what the bid means. And that's the key point.
"Hard to play against" can not be a reason to ban a certain convention
or treatment. "Hard to understand" might be, but is not applicable.
Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead, only try to
realize the truth. There is no spoon.
Gerben
Nigel
In my experience, when someone resorts to "a
majority of players" and "most players," what
he really means is "I."
[Nigel]
It is demeaning to reply to one-line insults
like Steve's, but here goes anyway :)
(1) By "A majority of..." I manifestly mean
more than "I...". For examople, I quoted
the majority view of the beginners I've
taught; my friends and aquantiances advocate
more liberal licensing; as do most
contributors to this thread.
(2) Of course I rarely meet purely social players
and there may be a larger "silent majority".
I don't have a poll of all bridge-players;
but I did preface my statement, with "IMO".
Oh dear... that is the trouble with a taunt like
Steve's. If you reply to it at all, you feel
he has won (:
Eric Leong
I think odd-even signals were allowed only after the first discard.
Bobby Wolff wrote a series of articles in the Bridge Bulletin about 20
years ago about certain ethical issues about odd-even discards which
were strongly influential in the ACBL restricting the use of odd-even
discards shortly thereafter.
Eric Leong
Ron Johnson
Sorry for the confusion.
--
RNJ
Ron Johnson
Actually what he said was more along the line of if we can't play our
full system we won't be playing together.
As somebody else in this thread noted they do play with clients
or friends in some events that don't permit the whole system.
--
RNJ
Ron Johnson
Ron Lel <ron...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>"Ian Payn" <Ian....@CharterChambers.com> wrote in message
>news:41461659.0@entanet...
>>
>snipped
>
>> > Meckstroth has said that Meckwell will never play together in a
>> > an event with conventional restictions.
>>
>> ++++Bully for them. Am I alone in not finding that terribly impressive? I
>> mean, they can do what they like, obviously, but...
>>
>Ian this is somewhat hypocrital if they said this. When playing with
>sponsors they are the first to jump up and down to protect their sponsor
>from the invidious awful convention.
Only in the sense that Rodwell knows what you're playing. One reason why
the Meckwell system notes are so huge is because they deal with opposition
treatments. (there was an appeal where the Meckwell system notes were
used to confirm that another pair had a particular agreement)
What you see as jumping up and down crying out for special treatment
looks to me like a request that the conditions of contest be followed.
Both Meckstroth and Rodwell appear to have the attitude of pretty much
anything can go provided we get adequate time to prepare. (And I wouldn't
be surprised if Rodwell helps Nickell and Freeman prepare as well. I know
Rodwell's a resource I'd want to take advantage of)
>It happened to a group of Aussies visiting the US in the not too distant past.
--
RNJ
Chris Ryall
>> > It may not be a major problem, but it does occur. The ACBL would
>> >argue that part of the reason why it is not a major problem is because
>> >of their ban on odd-even signals.
>>
>> I knew ACBL were capricious, but to ban odd-even signals? Even odder!
>
>I think odd-even signals were allowed only after the first discard.
>Bobby Wolff wrote a series of articles in the Bridge Bulletin about 20
>years ago about certain ethical issues about odd-even discards which
>were strongly influential in the ACBL restricting the use of odd-even
>discards shortly thereafter. Eric Leong
It's *unethical* to play an odd card?
David Stevenson
It is not odd-even discards that is the main problem. They are
allowed for the first discard, but few would want to use them after that
anyway. It is odd-even *signals* that is the problem.
If partner leads a heart and you hold [say] 864 you have to play
something. It is a bit tricky to find an encouraging [odd] card from
that lot, so the feeling is that people follow suit slower with that
holding. Note that i am not suggesting they do so deliberately.
When you discard, especially the first discard, you usually have more
choice. If declarer snaffles your opening lead and runs a club suit,
and you hold Q832 864 KJ753 in the other three suits you can
definitely find a discard to ask for whatever you want. Furthermore, a
bit of thinking over the first discard on the hand is not unusual
anyway.
Julian Lighton
Mike Preston <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:43:28 -0400, "Richard Pavlicek"
><ric...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
>>I think the key difference is that poker is relatively simple
>>and easily understood by non-poker players. Bridge, however,
>>lacks that for non-bridge players, so any mass media attempt
>>is likely to fizzle.
>
>Bridge is a simple game. The object of the game is to do better than
>your opponents.
By this argument, Magic: The Gathering is a simple game. Civilization
is a simple game. Everything's a simple game.
It misses the point of whether the audience knows how one does
better. For bridge, they don't, and it's not a simple matter to
explain.
>While it may not be so easy to describe what "better"
>means in the context of a field-based BAM competition (or any game
>where the ultimate winner is chosen by competition against the field,
>such as a matchpoint event), it should be relatively easy to describe
>what it means in a head-to-head knockout. Again, taking poker as an
>example, how many people really understood things like: "blind", and
>"river" before being exposed to it on TV?
No, but they've been exposed to poker before. They know that the high
hand wins the pot.
Ron Johnson
Come to think of it, what was it that they wanted to play? There isn't
a heck of a lot that's not permitted at the Spingold or Vanderbilt.
And now that I think about it, I'm fairly sure that Hamman would have been
the driving force behind any objections. He's know to utterly despise the
preparations required to play aginst (say) a team playing ferts.
(To be clear, I'm with Adam Zmudzinski -- I don't think anything should
be banned from a major event -- provided enough information is available
to allow the other team to prepare. It is worth noting that Zmudzinski
was found to have violated this stipulation at Albuquerque. The system
they were playing did not match the card they'd submitted in advance)
"Only wimps are afraid to prepare!" ... <after '90 WOPC> Adam Zmudzinski
--
RNJ
Tim Goodwin
wrote:
>>>It happened to a group of Aussies visiting the US in the not too distant past.
>
>Come to think of it, what was it that they wanted to play? There isn't
>a heck of a lot that's not permitted at the Spingold or Vanderbilt.
MOSCITO. And, they wanted to play it in events other than the
Spingold or Vanderbilt.
>(To be clear, I'm with Adam Zmudzinski -- I don't think anything should
>be banned from a major event -- provided enough information is available
>to allow the other team to prepare.
How do you measure "enough information" or determine what is adequate
preparation?
I'm not disagreeing with your position, merely suggesting it's not as
simple as you put it.
Tim
richard willey
wrote:
>Come to think of it, what was it that they wanted to play? There isn't
>a heck of a lot that's not permitted at the Spingold or Vanderbilt.
As I recall, the major problems involved a 2D opening showing 4+
Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major. The ACBL, in their infinite
wisdom, has decided that assumed fit preemptive methods like Ekrens 2D
are inherently destructive.
At the time the Aussies were visiting, the Conventions Committee was
sidestepping the issue by refusing to license defenses to assumed fit
methods. Regardless of what the Midchart says, if the ACBL Convention
Committee refuses to approve a suggested defense, you don't get to
play the methods. Since this point in time, the ACBL has officially
banned assumed fit preempts that don't promise 5+ cards in at least
one suit.