[nige1]

kenberg, on Nov 27 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

I try to play this out in my mind: a young person decides  to give bridge a try. He learns standard bidding, enjoys the game, has some success, meets people he likes. Then he learns of the Cyclops 2D (or whatever).  It sounds interesting but he learns that that this is not allowed. So he says screw it, I'm giving up bridge. If someone ells me that's what he did I guess I have to accept it but it seems like a golf player giving up golf because of regulations governing the type of golf ball or club that can be used. It seems extremely unlikely to me that this would drive away players in large numbers.

It's not just learning new conventions, it's inventing them and integrating them into coherent systems. Some get as much fun out of devising systems as playing. I agree it's a minority interest. And No. We don't all give up Bridge when we find we can't play with our latest toy. Forty years ago, there were fewer restrictions, so we could play strong club, "loose" diamond, intermediate two openers, fit showing jumps, asking bids and so on to our hearts content. Much of what was avant-garde then is now passé. Similarly, nowadays, when an interesting new convention manages to scrape past the censors, it seems to be adopted with enthusiasm and enjoyed by the mass of ordinary players.

I think such innovation is a *positive good* for Bridge. Arguably, when a game ceases to evolve, it starts to die.

[ggwhiz]

For every player you would gain by loosening system restrictions, you would lose many more. It's not possible to defend against home-cooked or souped up methods in any timed event without advanced preparation.

The scientists can play whatever they want in the Main Bridge Club and in certain events (our National Finals) with disclosure required about 2 months(?) in advance. Anything goes in Flight A of our local IMP league too.

Maybe the answer is to offer more of these opportunities but giving a large advantage to mumbo jumbo instead of skill in mainstream competitions doesn't cut it.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Nov 27 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

I have no objection to allowing most if not all systems in upper level games. Bringing in hi tech stuff to beat the crap out of a bunch of retirees who just learned transfers over no trump openings seems tacky. I have no objection to telling people that if they want to bring in their supersystems then they need to bring them to a suitable game.

One hurdle to this is that there often aren't "suitable games". Pair games are not suitable because of the short rounds and team games are often bracketed so that newer players* can't play in (or think they can't play in) the higher brackets where "supersystems" are permitted.

* A team of players with 1000-2000 masterpoints each would not be in the top bracket of nearly any team event on ACBL's calendar. So, we're really not talking about newcomers.

[helene_t]

Reading this forum, and to some extent even the letters-to-the-editors of bridge magazines, one might get the impression that system regulation is an important controversy and maybe club nights and festivals should be stratified into low-tech and hi-tech.

But it is a vary small, but vocal, minority that have strong opinions either way. Most don't care.

Even in areas where almost everything is allowed, the vast majority will play vanilla methods. You can play transfer openings in the Netherlands but I have never encountered it. The weirdest thing I have ever encountered outside the Looier Club is Lorenzo 2-openings, Crazy Diamond, and the random 1♠ overcall against strong club. Each of those I have encountered once in my life.

I have been playing some rather crazy things myself when I lived in NL, and we got a lot of negative reactions when we gave vague disclosure or it turned out that we have screwed up the auction. People are generally less forgiving when we screw up T-Walsh or Raptor than when another pair of strangers screw up Jacoby Transfers. I think that's understandable. As long as we disclose well people have few issues with it.

Noobs don't care since they just bid and play their own hands and don't want to know what our bids and carding means. Therefore I don't understand why people think noobs need protection. They have those "simple systems" events at some EBU congresses. The only sense I can make of that is that the organizers want to get the weakest players out of the main event because they don't want the frequency tables of serious events to be full of random results.

[nige1]

helene_t, on Nov 27 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

They have those "simple systems" events at some EBU congresses. The only sense I can make of that is that the organizers want to get the weakest players out of the main event because they don't want the frequency tables of serious events to be full of random results.

IMO, simple system competitions have a lot going for them -- especially as a way of publicising Bridge. Cavendish style teams, pairs, and individuals, or perhaps prestige Bermuda Bowl type international events, with top players all playing the same simple system would be more fun for the public to watch because the explanations would be shorter and simpler.

NB: as well as, not instead of current top-level competitions. Although the latter could be liberalised to permit any method.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on Nov 28 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

Why do I think there was more history behind the eruption and unpleasantness involving Meck and Well and the Australian players?

There wasn't aqua.

"But it is a vary small, but vocal, minority that have strong opinions either way. Most don't care."

Do you have any evidence for this comment, Helene?

[655321]

The_Hog, on Nov 26 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions. 
[...]

  Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

It's not "poppycock". I know of many who have stopped precisley because of these reasons.

If I might also quote another post from you in this thread, do you have any evidence for this comment?

I find it very hard to believe. How many is many? Do you know these players personally, or do you just have a general impression (caused by threads such as this) that such players exist?

[ggwhiz]

Nobody has ever or will do a survey that gives hard data but I'm betting a LOT on the "most don't care" option.

Only if you bug beginners with poor disclosure and/or headache auctions, will they care and so they should.

[the hog]

655321, on Nov 28 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 26 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions. 
[...]

   Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

It's not "poppycock". I know of many who have stopped precisley because of these reasons.

If I might also quote another post from you in this thread, do you have any evidence for this comment?

I find it very hard to believe. How many is many? Do you know these players personally, or do you just have a general impression (caused by threads such as this) that such players exist?

I normally ignore this sort of adversial post, however I am bored and just to humour you -
I know of at least 3 youth players who had the potential to be very fine players indeed who gave up because they were bored with system regulations and not allowed to play SP.
I also know of 2 more mature players who gave up due to the same grounds. Finally, "yes", I do know them all personally.

Finally, when I played regularly, partner and I boycotted regional events where the system regulations did not permit the use of our BSCs.

I have frequntly suggested that there should be two tier events; you could have for example, the "Restricted Systems" World Championships where Stayman is about it, and the "Anything Goes" World Championships. Countries could decide which ones in which to compete. Why not?

[onoway]

In my experience, the multitudinous systems and conventions feed into those who wish to remain big frogs in a small puddle and do have a restricting effect on new players. I agree with Helene_t that most newbies retreat into Iamgoingtopretend youdidntevenbidbecauseIdontunderstandwhatanyofitmeansorwhatIamsupposedtodoaboutit mode. That doesn't solve the problem though.

I'm not trying to suggest that everyone who enjoys tinkering with or playing complex systems wants to be a big frog in a little puddle; far from it! But imo these players (the good ones) are operating on a different level than most people who enjoy the game. Most people can admire top basketball players without it affecting the fun they have in a pickup game behind the house, which may be pretty bad basketball, or might actually be very good, but for sure won't have the complexity of plays and so forth of the pro game.

In the past, it seems that rubber bridge has been regarded by many duplicate players as the equivilent of the pickup game, and as such has been held in a degree of disdain. But....I think that the love of the game might well often start there. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of reconciliation between the two faces of the game with rubber bridge possibly being severely restricted in terms of conventions at least at the beginner level, and duplicate bridge being more of a freeforall.

I have read that the reason bridge became so popular was that Goren marketted a version of it which took away the feeling of inadequacy that most people felt about learning the game. In fact, there was actual prestige in learning how to play the game as it was regarded as a game for smart people. When someone could get the basics of it 10 minutes, enough to play a game even, it made them feel good about themselves. In this way it was like chess..it's very easy to get the basic rules and start to play. You may not play well, but at least it gets you playing. I dont see that happening now. Even in BIL, which is as supportive and nurturing a place as you can get, I have met people who are afraid to play with other people for months. People dont like to feel stupid or overwhelmed and certainly are unlikely to pursue an activity for pleasure for very long which makes them feel inadequate. If however, they can take a version of it and become competent enough quickly at least to play a game, then some at least will want to get into the more complex and challenging versions.

You don't have to be a mechanic to enjoy driving a car or to get where you want to go (usually). You just need to know a few basic things about what the vehicle needs and how to handle it. If you want to be a Grand Prix driver, or to drive a 16 wheeler, you will need to know rather a lot more. It would be silly to assume that everyone looking for their first driver's licence seriously aspires eventually to be a Grand Prix driver. It would be equally silly to regard with scorn anyone (who drove only an automatic transmission car) who didn't know how to handle the double geared system of a 16 wheeler truck.

The reason I suggested rubber bridge is that it seems to me that duplicate is too much competition for most total newbies. Also, it should be relatively easy to have some sort of ranking in rubber bridge as to what conventions are allowed at which version, ending up with any and all perhaps. People understand versions of things ranking from simplest to most complex. Duplicate bridge is appears to be already too institutionalized to be able to do that.

The main problem many people used to have..finding 3 other people..has been taken care of by the internet. Now just need to bring them to the table in a way which makes them think that they can do this and have fun.

.

[nige1]

The_Hog, on Nov 28 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

I normally ignore this sort of adversial post, however I am bored and just to humour you - I know of at least 3 youth players who had the potential to be very fine players indeed who gave up because they were bored with system regulations and not allowed to play SP. I also know of 2 more mature players who gave up due to the same grounds. Finally, "yes", I do know them all personally. Finally, when I played regularly, partner and I boycotted regional events where the system regulations did not permit the use of our BSCs. I have frequntly suggested that there should be two tier events; you could have for example, the "Restricted Systems" World Championships where Stayman is about it, and the "Anything Goes" World Championships. Countries could decide which ones in which to compete. Why not?

I agree with the_Hog that it is reasonable for pairs to avoid events where their systems are illegal. I'm told that Rodwell and Meckstroth refused an invitation to the "Sunday Times" for that reason. And I too advocate the 2-tier approach.

[barryallen]

hanp, on Nov 27 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

I don't dare to repeat Eugene's word but I also agree. System regulations are completely irrelevant to the beginning player, but club atmosphere is very important.

I believe that club atmosphere could be the reason for the demise of bridge amongst younger players and there is little that can be done about it. The interest stems from an early age in games, especially cards and in my day the pinnacle of all was bridge. Chess many will say is the intellectually superior but cannot match bridge for it's combination of intellectual requirement alongside the skills of a snake oil salesman.

Today's youth are brought up in a totally different environment where play stations and online activities have dictated their outlook. Take poker for example, people learn all the nuances of the game online until they finally take the step of actually playing face to face. When they take that step in poker it is another level of the enjoyment ladder, it is more of a spectacle rather than less. When you take that step in bridge that is not the case for many younger players, it is not a step up on the enjoyment ladder and in many cases the opposite.

Over the years I have had many graduate students work for me from all over the world and have been surprised in how many become interested in poker. And when they actually take the step to play in a tournament the thrill seems to last them for a good while. Bridge does not seem to generate the same interest but always gets a limited interest but nothing like previous generations.

By it's very nature, club / tournament bridge is always going to suffer in this regard and I don't think you can make sufficient improvements from that aspect to make a difference, without diminishing the end product. What I believe can make the biggest inroads into this area is online bridge where if you can manufacture sufficient skill and interest it can be carried through to club / tournament environment without it becoming a brick wall.

[hrothgar]

onoway, on Nov 28 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

I have read that the reason bridge became so popular was that Goren marketted a version of it which took away the feeling of inadequacy that most people felt about learning the game. In fact, there was actual prestige in learning how to play the game as it was regarded as a game for smart people. When someone could get the basics of it 10 minutes, enough to play a game even, it made them feel good about themselves. In this way it was like chess..it's very easy to get the basic rules and start to play. You may not play well, but at least it gets you playing.

This marketing strategy may contain the seeds of its own defeat:

You end up with a population of bridge players who like to pretend that they are smart but who feel threatened if they are ever expected to think and/or work...

[Hanoi5]

I agree with the people who say the atmosphere drives more noobs away than the system regulations. I have personally seen this in my country.

I have also witnessed pro's taking care of their clients by raising hell to some conventions or systems. But that didn't drive anyone away.

I also think rubber bridge should be more publicized and promoted, and right now I'm thinking the reason this is not done is because of money reasons. But just imagine 4 beginners playing 3 Chicago Rubbers and having one winner at the end. Picture them agreeing on the system the four would play, which might include the Minotaur's 2♦ opening or whatever they fancy. That I think would be more fun than having to pay to play a tournament where Mrs. Smith will complain about your looks, ideas, behaviour, system or card play technique. I think this should give some food for thought to organizers and teachers...

Finally I will give my advice one more time: Bridge needs all the promotion it can get, and probably more. Anything goes, do you remember how Ely Culbertson used the bridge murder case to his advantage? We could use some of that, too. (I'm not telling anyone to kill his/her spouse in the name of bridge but some stuff like this has already happened and could be used). What about making a bridge movie (not the ones in Bridge World though)? Getting sitcoms and series characters to play bridge (how come Grissom from CSI doesn't play?), giving things away (the US took two teams to Istanbul, wouldn't it have been nice to get a third team of noobs who complied with certain demands? like taking x amount of classes and playing y amount of tourneys and getting z results?), how many teachers, parents of teachers, grandparents of teachers play bridge? Why don't they try to promote bridge in their schools, highschools and/or universities?

My 2 cents...

[helene_t]

onoway, on Nov 28 2009, 06:56 AM, said:

I agree with Helene_t that most newbies retreat into Iamgoingtopretend youdidntevenbidbecauseIdontunderstandwhatanyofitmeansorwhatIamsupposedtodoaboutit  mode. That doesn't solve the problem though.

My point was that they are always in that mode, even if we play exactly the same system as they are supposed to.

Say we pre-alert 1♣ as 2+. In UK this is uncommon in many clubs so it may not be immediately obvious to opps what it means and how they should defend against it. The following reactions are typical (yes, the field is extremely mixed as this is the only club in town):

Noobs: Don't listen to prealerts. Since a 2♣ overcall would show 10-15 points and 5+ clubs even if we were playing Acol or Precision, they don't care, and they are right in not caring, since it has no impact on their bidding.

Intermediates: Try to listen but give up. May make a 2♣ overcall which is either Michaels or natural depending on what they have in their hand. Don't realize that they need to discuss this with p, not even in the postmortem.

Advanced: "Thanks, we will treat it as natural"

Experts: Ask for clarification as they have different defense against it depending on how likely it is to be a doubleton.

So some of the intermediates, rather than the noobs, may need some protection. I estimate that in the UK (where most club players are pretty vanilla), far less than 1% of intermediate player's bidding misunderstandings are related to complexity, artificiality or weirdness of opps' methods. In NL, where stuff like short club and multi are standard and t-walsh and raptor etc. occurs occasionally, it may be as high as 2%. I could be underestimating this, or it could be a problem because it is perceived as a bigger problem than it is. I just don't think it's much of a problem.

Quote

Even in BIL, which is as supportive and nurturing a place as you can get, I have met people who are afraid to play with other people for months. People dont like to feel stupid or overwhelmed and certainly are unlikely to pursue an activity for pleasure for very long which makes them feel inadequate

Yes, but I think this is more related to the idea that beginners have to learn to use all kind of crazy gadgets like transfers, capp, cuebids and negative doubles before they are ready to play at the club. I don't think it has anything to do with what opponents play. It's what their teacher, textbook and partner forces them to play.

Maybe beginners should not learn a system at all, just "bid what you think you can make".

It is similar to the way foreign languages are taught in Denmark (at least the way I learned it, it may be different now). In English lessons, teachers just start speaking English to the students, if they don't understand it the teacher will augment with finger language. Students are encourages to try to say something in English, they will start by using the few words they know, mixed up with Danish words which they try to pronounce in an English-like way. In German lessons, we were taught a bunch of grammar tables before we started talking and most students would after a few years still never try to say anything for fear that they might use a wrong infliction or a wrong article.

Personally I picked up German much quicker than English but most students found English more fun and learned it quicker.

[kenberg]

the "Could be short" 1C is somewhat common hre (I don't much care for it) abd hardly a big deal, but it happens that it illustrates some things that can go wrong.


In the Nationals here, the daily bulletin publishes smoe of the committee hearings. At one table the following happened:

1C (alert)
Please explain
Could be short.
On what type of hands?
We play five card majors.
Further questins, and eventually the cc is examined.


Usually, here, players who play "could be short" open 1C when they are 4=4=3=2 but otherwise the club opening will be on 3+. In this case, the pair was playing that 1D promised five as well. It took quite a bit to get that fact out of them.


Now it developed that the auction continued something like 1C-1M-1N
after two passes fourth hand made a rather agressive balancing double. The opponents complained that all the interest shown by second habd in the club opening made the balancing double more likely to be right.

The committee upheld this view and punished the doubling side, telling then that in the future they must pre-alert their tendency to make aggressive balancing doubles.

My onwn view is that the opening side needed to be instructed to give fuller explanations of "Could be short" and that if they fail to do so they take their chances on opponents asking follow-up questions and picking up their cc.


It's all a tough thing to get right, but not all complaints about artificial or unusual systems are BS. In something earlier about 2C showing the majors, I think again i come in on the side of Meck if I understand the situation correctly. The rules. I expect, require that a written defense be supplied. Maybe the players don't like those rules, but we don't get to follow only the rules that we like. "Written defense: does not mean "Sure, I'll write one up for you". It means a written defense that has been pre-approved as reasonable.

If people think the "written defense" rule is a bad rule (I like it for reasons that are probably obvious: I can play against a system that I have never heard of with some confidence my calls will be understood.) then they can argue their case. Until they convince others of their case, they could follow the rules like the rest of us.

[ggwhiz]

I recall the above committee hand and think they got it wrong. It was mentioned as a language issue but if I have to extract at length or for any reason the disclosure I'm entitled to, who's responsibility is that?

It seems bizarre that the disclosure issue was turned against the wrong side to my mind. I should probably pre-alert that I balance more aggressively when I'm annoyed.

It reminds me of my favorite committee ruling of all time though from the days of zero system restrictions.

One pair opened 2 hearts (a home cooked gadget) alerted and explained as "Could be this, could be that, could be something else".

This guy asked 2 or 3 more times for an explanation and got the same yada yada, finally bid 3nt, wide open in hearts but making after a spade lead. When the committee asked why he bid 3nt, he said, "I figure that if he didn't have the courtesy to explain the bid, he didn't have the courtesy to lead his partners suit".

Won the ruling after the shortest deliberation in history.

[onoway]

"You end up with a population of bridge players who like to pretend that they are smart but who feel threatened if they are ever expected to think and/or work... "


So what if a lot of them do? What difference does it make? Should nobody play basketball unless they are willing to work at reaching NBA standards no matter how unrealistic that might be?

[Trinidad]

655321, on Nov 28 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 26 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions. 
[...]

   Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

It's not "poppycock". I know of many who have stopped precisley because of these reasons.

If I might also quote another post from you in this thread, do you have any evidence for this comment?

I find it very hard to believe. How many is many? Do you know these players personally, or do you just have a general impression (caused by threads such as this) that such players exist?

I realize that the numbers that I will give are small. But that is because the overall number of starting bridge players that I met in the USA is very small.

I learnt to play bridge at a university in the Mid West. At the tiny student bridge club with about 10 members, anything was allowed. That was the case for us and for foreign visitors. As soon as we got into bigger games, such as the local bridge club, we hit the system restrictions.

Of those 10 members, my wife and I are the only ones still playing bridge. The other 8 stopped playing, for various reasons not related to bridge. For 2 of those 8, system regulations played a large role in their decision to quit. My wife and I knew that we were going to move back to Europe, so we just had to "wait it out". Otherwise we would have quit too. That means that out of these 10, 6 stopped for various reasons (career, etc.). There is little you can do about that. Of the remaining ones 4 out of 4 stopped or would have stopped because of system restrictions.

Constructing systems is a particular part of bridge that certain people enjoy, particularly in some stage in their bridge career. And that last part is the irony of it all. If you look in Europe, many of these "used to be system inventors" play absolute standard expert methods, because they don't want to go against the field. I now play Vanilla 2/1 GF with my regular partner (but still strong club with some funky stuff with my wife).

Rik

[nige1]

kenberg, on Nov 28 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

1C (alert) Please explain. Could be short. On what type of hands? We play five card majors. Further questions, and eventually the cc is examined. Usually, here, players who play "could be short" open 1C when they are 4=4=3=2 but otherwise the club opening will be on 3+. In this case, the pair was playing that 1D promised five as well. It took quite a bit to get that fact out of them. Now it developed that the auction continued something like 1C-1M-1N. After two passes fourth hand made a rather aggressive balancing double. The opponents complained that all the interest shown by second habd in the club opening made the balancing double more likely to be right. The committee upheld this view and punished the doubling side, telling then that in the future they must pre-alert their tendency to make aggressive balancing doubles. My own view is that the opening side needed to be instructed to give fuller explanations of "Could be short" and that if they fail to do so they take their chances on opponents asking follow-up questions and picking up their cc.

I suppose the committee could establish whether the 1♣ opener's LHO always asks about alerted calls. IMO: if so, then it should tend to rule for him. If he asks selectively or "randomly" then it should consider ruling against him.

kenberg, on Nov 28 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

It's all a tough thing to get right, but not all complaints about artificial or unusual systems are BS. In something earlier about 2C showing the majors, I think again i come in on the side of Meck if I understand the situation correctly. The rules. I expect, require that a written defense be supplied. Maybe the players don't like those rules, but we don't get to follow only the rules that we like. "Written defense: does not mean "Sure, I'll write one up for you". It means a written defense that has been pre-approved as reasonable.

In principle, I agree with Ken that written defences are a good idea; and in any case, players must obey the rules.

In the UK, however, we give some lee-way to foreigners playing systems popular in their own countries, provided they are pre-alerted. I think many UK players would allow a foreigner to supply a belated written defence.

In any case, the time (for both sides) to call the director was at the start of the match. At least it would have saved argument and hassle.