[hrothgar]

I'm trying to find an old thread. Might have been on BBO, might have been rec.games.bridge.

There was an Australian pair playing MOSCITO in the US Nationals.
They were using a suggested defense from the ACBL web site..
They ran up against a member of the conventions committee who informed them that the defense wasn't approved.

Can anyone point me at the thread?
(I know that Josh Sher was involved in the discussion)

[Zelandakh]

Post 23.

[Zelandakh]

Incidentally, I find it completely appropriate that you made the email public. I would be interested why Meck thinks Moscito is something not wanted in the ACBL but an incredibly complex and artificial relay system is something that should be welcomed. I understand Fred's position more easily - he seems to be generally and consistently against almost any innovation outside of a narrow band.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-02, 05:03, said:

Post 23.

Thanks VERY much

Quick question. How did you find this so bloody fast? Any hints about the BBO search system...

[Zelandakh]

I used Google. Put http://www.bridgebase.com/forums into the domain section and then add keywords, here: moscito acbl nationals australians defence or defense.

[fred]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-02, 05:15, said:

Incidentally, I find it completely appropriate that you made the email public. I would be interested why Meck thinks Moscito is something not wanted in the ACBL but an incredibly complex and artificial relay system is something that should be welcomed. I understand Fred's position more easily - he seems to be generally and consistently against almost any innovation outside of a narrow band.

I am not sure how you got that impression. My position would be more accurately described as "give the players what they want". I am certainly not against innovation in and of itself, but if the likely result of certain types of innovations is to drive large numbers of players away from the game then that's another story. The same would be true of non-innovation.

My opinion of what the players want: an overwhelming majority of ACBL members prefer to play against methods that they are (more or less) familiar with.

While it is true that I include myself in this group, that is not relevant to my position - I am only one person. What is relevant is the "overwhelming majority" part.

Besides that, I happen to be (more or less) familiar with a lot of methods and, as a professional player, it doesn't really matter what I prefer or how much fun I have when I play bridge - it is part of my job to function under whatever rules happen to be in place.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Zelandakh]

The overwhelming majority of ACBL players play quite happily under GCC regulations so that is largely irrelevant. More relevant would be some large-scale polls done of players in midchart events plus those, like Richard, who would like to be playing in Midchart events but feel they cannot. Even that is not really the right approach though - for example, I know many chess players who hate playing against the Sicilian Defence. If a majority of US chess players would prefer not to play against this, should the USCF ban its use in their events?

The real question is what is the best approach to the development and evolution of the game. I doubt there is a great deal of good data in this area either so it comes down to a judgement call. Clearly you and I would probably come down on different sides of that judgement. But let us make sure that we are asking the right questions here. Of the overwhelming majority, how many will ever play in a midchart event? Of those that do play in midchart events, how many would quit playing bridge under the ACBL if the regulations were relaxed? Of those who do not play in midchart events, how many would do so if system regaulations were relaxed? But most of all the question I wrote before: what is the best approach to the development and evolution of the game?

I cannot say for sure that relaxing system regulations would be best. I am fairly confident that an Australian-style set of regulations or anything allowing HUMs and Brown Sticker conventions would not be right for the ACBL at this time. Nonetheless, the argument that midchart should be so heavily restricted because ordinary club players do not like playing against it is surely one that is laughable.

One final point. One of the reasons I got hooked on bridge as a child is that I enjoyed being able to think creatively about how I could use the available bidding space to convey the information. This was many years before I ever heard about system regulations. The very first system against which I regularly played (private games) was a forcing pass method - a hugely enjoyable experience. If I had been learning in America and learned about ACBL regulations I would probably never have continued playing and just continued with chess only. No great loss perhaps; but how many other children are there out there like me not taking up bridge? Perhaps you think my story is highly unusual and does not apply to American children - but does anyone actually know? It surely would not take many to add some much needed young lifeblood. Perhaps the long term health of bridge is better served by getting such children hooked. Can you say for sure that system relaxation would not be beneficial in the long term?

[fred]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-02, 06:48, said:

Can you say for sure that system relaxation would not be beneficial in the long term?

Of course not, but neither can you say for sure that it would not be harmful in the long term.

I agree with something you seem to be saying - that trying to decide such questions in a "scientific way" (if that is possible) makes more sense than just guessing.

I don't buy your attracting new players argument. New players have more than enough trouble already just learning the basics of "standard bidding" - to many it is like learning fizzbin (do a web search if you don't know what that means).

However, there is a possible argument for relaxing systems restrictions in terms of retaining newish players (if it is the case that significant numbers of very new players who, after spending months or years learning the basics, are unlikely to play much unless they are given a lot of latitude to experiment with methods).

And I have no idea what you mean by "the development and evolution of the game". If you mean something other than maximizing the number of people-hours spent playing bridge, then I think you are grasping at straws.

Sorry but I see your chess analogy as a comparison between apples and oranges.

Quote

Nonetheless, the argument that midchart should be so heavily restricted because ordinary club players do not like playing against it is surely one that is laughable.

I agree, but I never made that argument. Like I said, the bottom line for me is giving players what they want. If club players want something different than midchart event players, I am completely in favor of giving different things to both groups.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

fred, on 2012-October-02, 07:40, said:

Like I said, the bottom line for me is giving players what they want. If club players want something different than midchart event players, I am completely in favor of giving different things to both groups.

A great argument for having "rated" and "unrated" areas in BBO!

[hrothgar]

Anyone else having trouble accessing threads from more than a few months back?

[TimG]

I've just had a look at the EBU Tangerine Book's description of the permitted methods at different levels.

Am I correct to understand that a 1H transfer opening (showing 4+ spades and opening bid strength) would be allowed only at Level 5?

Level 4 allows 1C or 1D opening bids that promise 4+ cards in a specific suit, but says that 1H and 1S openings must promise 4+ in the bid suit. So it seems you could play a 1D transfer opening, but not a 1H transfer opening. Just checking to make sure I've read things correctly.

Thanks.

[Cthulhu D]

TimG, on 2012-October-03, 19:01, said:

I've just had a look at the EBU Tangerine Book's description of the permitted methods at different levels.

Am I correct to understand that a 1H transfer opening (showing 4+ spades and opening bid strength) would be allowed only at Level 5?

Level 4 allows 1C or 1D opening bids that promise 4+ cards in a specific suit, but says that 1H and 1S openings must promise 4+ in the bid suit. So it seems you could play a 1D transfer opening, but not a 1H transfer opening. Just checking to make sure I've read things correctly.

Thanks.

It's a new edition after some people played groove is in the heart.

Discussion here: http://ebulaws.blogs...-play-that.html

[gnasher]

TimG, on 2012-October-03, 19:01, said:

I've just had a look at the EBU Tangerine Book's description of the permitted methods at different levels.

Am I correct to understand that a 1H transfer opening (showing 4+ spades and opening bid strength) would be allowed only at Level 5?

Yes, that's correct.