[Free]

Ok,

before some other weirdo TD's want to kick people with the reason "u are NOT welcome here. The rules state reads no HUM!" when the kicked pair doesn't even play a HUM, this is the definition:

A Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:
a ) A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities
b ) By parntership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass
c ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below avarage strength
d ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
e ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another
EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

So don't kick anyone that plays MOSCITO anymore, since it clearly is NOT a HUM!!!

[hrothgar]

Needless to say, I was one of the players involved in this incident.
I've played in a large number of tournaments hosted by this director, and had always been impressed by the quality of the directing.

In this case, I think that trouble occured because of simple confusion regarding the expression "HUM". My guess is that the director intended "HUM" in an informal manner, referring to any uncommon methods, while we interpreted this to mean the "formal" definition of a HUM as defined by the WBF and international regulations.

In any case, there is a reason why I tend to be "stickler" regarding definitions... As standard definitions are broadened/mis-applied, it tends to create confusion.

[DrTodd13]

You think all the TDs read this forum? I highly doubt it. We need to come up with an independent BBO director's quiz that would test a variety of things like what a HUM is, what UI is and how to deal with it, etc. Directors could take this quiz as often as they wanted and their latest score would be posted on a website for everyone to see. Make it a stamp of approval like UL is on the bottom of appliances.

Todd

[Gweny]

Actually yes TDs do read this forum but one comment I offer is probably more of them read it if you put it in Tournament discussion area instead of here.

However, if you are curious why tds avoid this forums it is because of striking lack of help from our "experts". We ask 2-3 times now for clinics from those of you who are so happy to report all of our faults but none of our good points.

We are still waiting and our invitation for you to talk to us is still open.

As far as taking test you are making HUGE assumption that all tds are interest in directing tournaments at high level. Some tournaments will NEVER fall in this catagory and I think good indicator of how serious some tournament is is to look at name.

What I think gets over look is it IS possible to play in tournament where main goal is good fun strong competition without getting to excite about how formal of tournament it is.

[paulhar]

I don't like it, but they're right. The following is a link to the WBF Systems Policy written in 2000.

http://www.blakjak.d...uk/wbf_sysp.htm

I couldn't find anything more recent that disputed this.

So, all be forewarned. These players will win tournaments because their opponents haven't disucssed what to do over an opening diamond bid which shows hearts! Sounds like usualmethods to me!

But you too can win by baffling and confusing your opponents! They will fight for your right to do so. As long as you don't enter into the realm of HUM... I guess if you can't beat 'em, you gotta join em

The funny thing is, these two are excellent card players, quite studious, and work hard at the game. They could win without making their opponents uncomfortable for reasons unrelated to playing good bridge.

[the hog]

"The funny thing is, these two are excellent card players, quite studious, and work hard at the game. They could win without making their opponents uncomfortable for reasons unrelated to playing good bridge. "

Paul, the posts you have made since you started posting to this forum have in the most been interesting and informative and I have enjoyed the arguments.
However this time you are way off line and I really think you owe Frederick and Richard an apology. Both of them play moscito for the same reason that Richard and I used to - we enjoy the system, and quite frankly I still think that the principles behind it are very sound. We do not play Moscito to make people uncomfortable, and frankly I resent those comments and I am sure they do as well. From your posts so far I would not have thought that you would print something of that nature.

I stopped playing Moscito basically because I could not stand the whingeing of so called "expert" players who should know better. (This comment does not refer to you btw).

Last night, (my time), I did the vue graph for the closed room in the current Aust National Champs between 2 states. One pair was playing a strong pass system. This caused no problems whatsoever, the other pair sat there and bid to their contracts; no fuss and no bother on either side. It was a totally natural occurence here. Moscito is far less difficult to play against.

Ron

[paulhar]

As usual, you are right on several counts. Despite the fact that we are frequently on opposite sides of the fence, I have also enjoyed your posts which are well thought out and based on much broader knowledge than I have.

I must admit that I didn't intend to offend either Richard or Frederick although it might seem to him that I'm specifically picking on them. If this is so, I'm truly sorry for all I wanted to express is my dismay that the WBF has set the rules up in such a way that pairs are going to be confused to another pair's advantage. Perhaps my dismay is misdirected - I've never seen MOSCITO in play and that is probably because I live in ACBLland. If it were allowed, there would be much less discussion on these boards about not knowing how to defend these things.

Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't seen it. As I look at the ACBL MidChart, it appears that their 1D and 1H opening bids are allowable in ACBLland! If this is true, I'm very surprised, but I think I'm reading it right. (I'm sure I'll be corrected here if I'm wrong.) Under 'ACBL Mid-Chart' under 'Allowed', item 4 reads:

Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5-4 distribution in those two suits.

Now, I haven't played in any event recently that allowed MidChart but I would have thought I would have seen reports of it in some of the Bulletins or Bridge Worlds (I must admit, I haven't read them all.)

I guess I overzealously tried to defend the players that play 'for fun' against the inevitable onslaught of unfamiliar conventions and systems that may spring up when pairs playing unfamiliar methods start winning a lot. And here's where Richard and Frederick come in. Most people could play their crazy stuff and nobody would notice. Richard and Frederick, if not already there, could get to be good enough to start winning some major events. (At least it appears that way from the thoughts behind their bridge hand postings.) When they start winning, others will think that the chaos they create with their system is responsible. While this may be a little bit true (there will always be some pairs that can't defend Moscito), a lot of their success will be just good bridge. But less perceptive pairs might not see it that way. There will be a lot that think that all their success is due to the confusion they cause. Now, you and I know that this is utter nonsense and not even possible, but people will think it anyway. Those that don't leave in a huff will try to win the same way (not the good bridge part) much to the detriment to themselves, but also to the game as they will create much chaos and random results.

Fortunately for me, they seldom seem to enter the arenas where my pickup partners and I play. But if weakish pairs try to win by creating confusion, the Main Bridge Club could become a place where pickup pairs fear to tread.

[the hog]

"Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't seen it. As I look at the ACBL MidChart, it appears that their 1D and 1H opening bids are allowable in ACBLland! If this is true, I'm very surprised, but I think I'm reading it right. (I'm sure I'll be corrected here if I'm wrong.) Under 'ACBL Mid-Chart' under 'Allowed', item 4 reads:"

I am not an authority on US regulations, but I do know that Paul Marston asked to play 1D=H at recent Nationals and this was refused.

If you want to see unusual stuff on line, look at the vue graph if/when West Australia (WA),is playing in the current Aust National Champs. They are playing the original Marston Burgess strong pass, but with a 1S Fert.

Alternatively play against Richard and Frederick or myself or and we will play Moscito against you. (Or Strong Pass if they can get their act together or I can convince an ex partner). Even send you a copy beforehand so you can work out a defence. More fun still would be a teams match with R+F and ex pd and me if we can organise a mutually acceptable time.

Or Wayne, (Cascade), who is inetersted in playing relay on line.

Ron

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Aug 4 2004, 01:42 PM, said:

Or Wayne, (Cascade), who is inetersted in playing relay on line.

I will play strong pass. Send me some notes and make a time.

The last time I played strong pass was in 1991 in the New Zealand Interprovincial Championships.

We gave up because there were too few places that we were allowed to play the system so it was a lot of work for only a few games.

[TimG]

paulhar, on Aug 3 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't seen it. As I look at the ACBL MidChart, it appears that their 1D and 1H opening bids are allowable in ACBLland! If this is true, I'm very surprised, but I think I'm reading it right. (I'm sure I'll be corrected here if I'm wrong.) Under 'ACBL Mid-Chart' under 'Allowed', item 4 reads:

Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit, except that weak openings at the two level or higher that show hands with two suits must be no less than 5-4 distribution in those two suits.

Most mid-chart methods require an approved suggested defense. With "approved" being the key word. The C&C Committee (Competition and Conventions, I think) which is responsible for approving defenses has refused to approve a defense for the MOSCITO transfer openings. Their stated reason was that it is too cimplicated to expect a pair in a two or three board ovement to have sufficient time to discuss an adequate defense.

The ACBL Board passed a resolution this summer that will brak the mid-chart up into different sections depending upon length of round against single opponents. So, the defenses might be approved for non-pairs play.

There are other parts of MOSCITO that are not mid-chart legal, like the Frelling two-bids, but those are not as essential to the system as the transfer openings and could easily be modified to pass muster.

Tim

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Aug 4 2004, 04:59 AM, said:

There are other parts of MOSCITO that are not mid-chart legal, like the Frelling two-bids, but those are not as essential to the system as the transfer openings and could easily be modified to pass muster.

Tim

Actually, Tim the Frelling 2 bids were Midchart legal as well, up until the point in time that the Conventions Committee refused to consider defenses to them.

Of course, the Conventions Committee also ruled that assumed fit preempt that didn't promise at least 5-4 shape was inherently destructive... But thats a different story.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2004, 10:15 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 4 2004, 04:59 AM, said:

There are other parts of MOSCITO that are not mid-chart legal, like the Frelling two-bids, but those are not as essential to the system as the transfer openings and could easily be modified to pass muster.

Tim

Actually, Tim the Frelling 2 bids were Midchart legal as well, up until the point in time that the Conventions Committee refused to consider defenses to them.

Of course, the Conventions Committee also ruled that assumed fit preempt that didn't promise at least 5-4 shape was inherently destructive... But thats a different story.

I'm aware, as you know. The ACBL Board passed a motion sometime in the last year affirming teh C&C Committee's determination that the weak two-level bids that might be 44 are indeed destructive. Or, at least took them off the mid-chart.

So, I am rigth that they are not mid-chart legal, and not just because the C&C Committee refused to approve a defense. And, you are right that they used to be legal.

Tim

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Aug 4 2004, 03:15 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 4 2004, 04:59 AM, said:

There are other parts of MOSCITO that are not mid-chart legal, like the Frelling two-bids, but those are not as essential to the system as the transfer openings and could easily be modified to pass muster.

Tim

Actually, Tim the Frelling 2 bids were Midchart legal as well, up until the point in time that the Conventions Committee refused to consider defenses to them.

Of course, the Conventions Committee also ruled that assumed fit preempt that didn't promise at least 5-4 shape was inherently destructive... But thats a different story.

Do they have a rigorous definition of "inherently destructive", or is it a vague term that they can use to ban whatever they want to?

Eric

[hrothgar]

paulhar, on Aug 4 2004, 04:28 AM, said:

And here's where Richard and Frederick come in. Most people could play their crazy stuff and nobody would notice. Richard and Frederick, if not already there, could get to be good enough to start winning some major events.

Come by and watch us at the table... You'll quickly lose any illusion that I'm Bermuda Bowl bound in this lifetime.

[hrothgar]

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 07:59 AM, said:

Do they have a rigorous definition of "inherently destructive", or is it a vague term that they can use to ban whatever they want to?

Eric

Regretfully, no objective definition has been provided for "Inherently Destructive".

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Aug 4 2004, 07:28 AM, said:

EricK, on Aug 4 2004, 07:59 AM, said:

Do they have a rigorous definition of "inherently destructive", or is it a vague term that they can use to ban whatever they want to?

Eric

Regretfully, no objective definition has been provided for "Inherently Destructive".

And, I doubt you could come up with one. I think it's like pornography: I know it when I see it.

[hrothgar]

paulhar, on Aug 4 2004, 03:02 AM, said:

The funny thing is, these two are excellent card players, quite studious, and work hard at the game. They could win without making their opponents uncomfortable for reasons unrelated to playing good bridge.

There has been a fair amount of speculation across a number of threads regarding why I prefer to play MOSCITO. Might as well address the topic head on:

Tempermentally, I am VERY unwilling to accept anything as "gospel truth". Before I am willing to accept/adopt anything, I need to understand "Why". This very often leads me to challenge the status quo.

Professionally, I do high level strategic planning for High Tech companies. I spend lots of time attacking existing business models and trying to identify weak points. I also develop predictive models that try to describe crucial market dynamics 3-5 years out. Its a niche market, but one that I enjoy, and one that supports me quite comfortably.

If we turn to bridge: Traditional bridge systems like SAYC, 2/1 Game Forcing, and Polish Club have assumed dominant positions in the market. However, I've never any kind of rigorous analysis that explains why these systems are constructed the way that they are. The most compelling reason that I've seen for the widespread proliferation of systems based 5 card majors is that 5 card majors is easier to teach because it requires less judgement.

One point that does seem quite clear is the following: Whenever I do run into fairly rigorous analysis in bridge, it inevitably seems to be within context of some kind of Weak Opening System.

Mathematically, these systems "make sense".
The fundamentals are sound.
They don't rely on "tradition" or "popularity" to justify themselves.

If I wanted to, I could sit down and memorize any one of a number of standard systems and compete effectively. However, quite honestly, I have little interest in doing so. I don't play bridge because I want to "win" tournaments. I play bridge because I am interested in bidding system design. Tournaments provide useful real world data that can be used to test different approaches.

If/when someone creates a "perfect" bidding system, I'll probably lose interest in the game.

[Frosty]

Helllllooooooooooooo!!!!

Did any of you happen to read Gwen's post??????

IMN2BHO, there is an inherent condescension here that precludes any real resolution. First of all - there is a LARGE group of bridge players who will never function on a highly intellectual level. This is not their goal. This group, while they may be interested in, and may work towards better bridge skills, are not likely to ever embrace the level of expertise or complexity that is apparent in this thread. Believe it or not, they play predominantly for the fun of it.

Many of the BBO TD's, myself included, volunteer to serve player of all levels. In doing so, we must come to some middle of the road approach that makes our events enjoyable for a mix of players/skills. While your system may be mathematically sound and intellectually logical - it may appear to others as if you are speaking a foreign language, so you'd better be prepared to make lots of alerts. WBF and ACBL policies notwithstanding - I just want players in my tournaments to do the best they can with the skills they have with the end result being that they get something out of the tournament - even if that is only 1.5 hours of fun.

Gweny is absolutely right - frankly its disingenuous to criticize the skills of the TD's if you are unwilling to do anything to contribute to improvement. It smacks of making yourself seem large by comparison when you de-edify others this way.

Frosty

[hrothgar]

Frosty, on Aug 4 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

Helllllooooooooooooo!!!!

Did any of you happen to read Gwen's post??????

IMN2BHO, there is an inherent condescension here that precludes any real resolution.   First of all - there is a LARGE group of bridge players who will never function on a highly intellectual level.  This is not their goal.  This group, while they may be interested in, and may work towards better bridge skills, are not likely to ever embrace the level of expertise or complexity that is apparent in this thread.  Believe it or not, they play predominantly for the fun of it.

Many of the BBO TD's, myself included, volunteer to serve player of all levels.   In doing so, we must come to some middle of the road approach that makes our events enjoyable for a mix of players/skills.   While your system may be mathematically sound and intellectually logical - it may appear to others as if you are speaking a foreign language, so you'd better be prepared to make lots of alerts.   WBF and ACBL policies notwithstanding - I just want players in my tournaments to do the best they can with the skills they have with the end result being that they get something out of the tournament - even if that is only 1.5 hours of fun.

Gweny is absolutely right - frankly its disingenuous to criticize the skills of the TD's if you are unwilling to do anything to contribute to improvement.   It smacks of making yourself seem large by comparison when you de-edify others this way.

Frosty

Comment 1: Please feel free to run whatever type of tournament that you want. In particular, I'm more than happy if folks want to run events that include system restrictions and I will most certainly respect the conditions of contents.

However, in this case the entire problem occured because the posted Conditions of Contest did not match the "actual" Conditions of Contest. If you look back to my original posting, I made two points:

(A) That I thought that [name removed by inquiry] normally did a very good job running tournaments.
( I wish that he had used more care when applying terms with formal and well understood definitions.

Comment 2:

>While your system may be mathematically sound and intellectually logical -
>it may appear to others as if you are speaking a foreign language, so you'd
>better be prepared to make lots of alerts.

What makes you think that we don't ???

Comment 3: Gweny's post contains her standard refrain:

>However, if you are curious why tds avoid this forums it is because of
>striking lack of help from our "experts". We ask 2-3 times now for clinics
>from those of you who are so happy to report all of our faults but none of
>our good points.

As I have noted several times in the past, there are any number of excellent sources of information on the net that novice tournament directors can use to get information and solict opinions from more experienced directors. The best include:

(A) The Bridge Laws Mailing list
( David Stevenson's Bridge Director's forum
© A wide variety of online case books
(D) rec.games.bridge

The quality and variety of advice that you are able to get from these sources is MUCH better than you will get here on the BBO forums. In particular, David Stevenson is a very senior director who is very experienced with online bridge and is going out of his way to help novice directors.

I don't recall seeing a single posting from a BBO director in any of these locations.
From my own perspective, I don't see much reason to go out of my way to develop special clinics for a group of individuals who aren't making use of whats already available.

Whats the old saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2004-August-09, 11:28

[TimG]

Frosty, on Aug 4 2004, 08:33 AM, said:

IMN2BHO, there is an inherent condescension here that precludes any real resolution.  First of all - there is a LARGE group of bridge players who will never function on a highly intellectual level.  This is not their goal.  This group, while they may be interested in, and may work towards better bridge skills, are not likely to ever embrace the level of expertise or complexity that is apparent in this thread.  Believe it or not, they play predominantly for the fun of it.

Believe it or not, those intellectually minded folks who work towards better bridge skills also play for the fun of it.

Quote

Many of the BBO TD's, myself included, volunteer to serve player of all levels.  In doing so, we must come to some middle of the road approach that makes our events enjoyable for a mix of players/skills.

IMO, there is no need to serve players of all levels at the same time. In fact, there are good reasons not to attempt to serve them all at once. Not the least of which is that they all have different ideas of what is fun.

Tim