Re: Digest for usbf-ittc@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 1 topic

[Aviv Shahaf]

Maybe instead of tiptoeing around defining bids as "Natural" or "Artificial" or "Semi/Quasi/Maybe... Natural", for the sole purpose of allowing certain defenses against them, we tackle the real problem which is that some defenses are only allowed against one type of bids but not the other.

Let's take a 2!d "Multi" bid as an example.

For the life of me I can't understand why we...

Allow it over a "Natural" 1NT openings but...

Don't allow it over a "Natural" 1!c opening but...

Allow it over an "Artificial" 1!c opening...

Why not simply remove all degrees of Naturality from the definitions of what is allowed or not allowed.

Either you allow a bid or you don't allow it.

If you allow it, then let everyone use it.

The next logical step obviously is to allow everything, as long as you can explain it.

[Howard Weinstein]

The big reason to segregate what is played over 1N and over 1m (especially a nebulous 1C) is 1N has already described a hand type and range.  Over a precision 1D, the range is relatively described, but not the hand type.  Over a nebulous 1C, neither the hand type nor the range (say 10-20+) is defined.  These 1m calls are quasi-natural (don’t recall who coined that term, but it makes sense to me).

In theory, just as with HUM or brown sticker, in a perfect environment of disclosure and preparation, anything should go.  However, allowing anything goes (even in many ACBL pair events) over natural or quasi-natural calls changes the playing field, in many ways worse than HUM/brown sticker stuff, because these defenses are not required to be pre-alerted/disclosed or to provide suggested counter defenses (along with the vetting of these by a systems committee).

It would be a sea change, but I could make an argument that certain unusual defenses against a strong 1C should require a pre-alert and/or suggested countermeasures.   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Aviv Shahaf]

"because these defenses are not required to be pre-alerted/disclosed or to provide suggested counter defenses (along with the vetting of these by a systems committee)."

Isn't this just an argument for requiring that such defenses would be Pre Alerted and that a suggested counter defenses should be provided?

It still doesn't explain the logic of selectively allowing or disallowing these methods, against the same opening bid, based on the meaning of that Opening bid.

[Bill Pollack]

I don't think we should allow -everything-, such as methods that require inordinate preparation or force opponents to adopt new methods (forcing pass, for instance), as long as full disclosure is enforced.  We shouldn't quibble about what may or may not be a short minor or the like.  And it's OK that a 3rd seat Precision 1D opener won't gut 'hung' by partner; that's a legit system advantage (with trade-offs) with full disclosure.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Howard Weinstein]

In a perfect world it would be anything goes.  It would be a 120+ board match with a captain and coach, over a month of lead time to examine systems where all inferences and tendencies are perfectly disclosed, suggested defenses which would be comprehensive, sound, fully vetted, easy to apply, and could be consulted at the table.  The best system would then prevail in a perfectly level field employing optimal countermeasures with full understanding of the opponents methods.   

Just having pre alerts and suggested counter defenses barely touches the requirements for a level playing field and is not pragmatic for the vast majority of play. 

This is not a perfect world, never will be, and there have to be some lines drawn and trade-offs made to fairness and level playing fields and that sort of thing.  We need to preclude becoming a dystopian bridge hell of terrorist bridge actions which gain largely due to unfamiliarity.  Light openers do not essentially change bridge language — and consequently should be provided a great deal of leeway.  Many other actions largely gain thru the opponent’s unfamiliarity and lack of preparation, rather than having merit in the action itself — these are the areas which need lots of restrictions on what is allowed and if allowed, when and where appropriate.

On Oct 12, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Aviv Shahaf <avi...@gmail.com> wrote:

"because these defenses are not required to be pre-alerted/disclosed or to provide suggested counter defenses (along with the vetting of these by a systems committee)."

Isn't this just an argument for requiring that such defenses would be Pre Alerted and that a suggested counter defenses should be provid

It still doesn't explain the logic of selectively allowing or disallowing these methods, against the same opening bid, based on the meaning of that Opening bid.

[Chris Compton]

Howard, 

I spent the first 30 years of my career unable to bid like I believe I should because the administrators sacrificed my creative freedom in the name of what, in their (misguided and incorrect) opinion, was best for for bridge. During that time, someone was always cheating. I lost my one of my two Vanderbilt finals to Buratti Lanzarotti. You personally lost a world championship semi-final to the same pair. Now, you expect me to agree with what has been a miserable failure --- administrators catching cheats --- as a reason to continue to be oppressed at the table. The reason you ask for this is the same reason as has been used for the last 30 years. All this while we made drastic improvement in catching collusion. Sad. Really what you think? 
Chris 

[Howard Weinstein]

If I am understanding you correctly, I don’t understand what one thing has to do with the other — I think you are making an incredible stretch at equivalency here.

I am not implying in the least that there is anything the least bit unethical in playing difficult to defend methods.  I have even tried to imply that I think being able to use HUM and brown sticker may be appropriate for the trials KO stage — or certainly worth discussing.

Not having cheating is best for bridge.  Not allowing pairs be able to play things which gain primarily because the opponents are unfamiliar with those methods is best for bridge.  Allowing those things when the unfamiliarity edge is sufficiently minimized is best for bridge.

[Chris Compton]

" ...methods which gain primarily because the opponents are unfamiliar with those methods" how and who will judge that? 

Chris 

[Marty Fleisher]

I'm 100% with Howard here.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Martin Fleisher

7 Times Square

27th floor

New York, NY 10036-6516

(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

[Mike Passell]

A giant  cluster f---

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.

[Greg Humphreys]

It's okay, Mike, you can say "clusterfert" on this list. 

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Mike Passell <mnpa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

A giant  cluster f---

Sent from my iPhone

--

Greg Humphreys

ɯoɔ˙lıɐɯƃ@ɹǝdɯnɥ