Kieran Dyke wrote: > Am I the only one who thinks that the distinction between legal and > illegal systems is pure sophistry?
So, if my system relies on having 1-level bids available to show 90% of openings (like most do), and you come at me first seat with a forcing pass system where your 1N shows only that you're not going to let me use my bidding system. Why should the game let you do that?
The point of illegal bids, in general, is you're depriving your ops of a fair chance to compete for partscore. Thus, no one cares what you do when you have all the points.
>> Am I the only one who thinks that the distinction between legal and >> illegal systems is pure sophistry?
> So, if my system relies on having 1-level bids available to show 90% > of openings (like most do), and you come at me first seat with a forcing > pass system where your 1N shows only that you're not going to let me use > my bidding system. > Why should the game let you do that?
> The point of illegal bids, in general, is you're depriving your ops > of a fair chance to compete for partscore. Thus, no one cares what you do > when you have all the points.
> -- > tussock
The opponents methods don't invalidate the scoring table, the final arbiter of good and bad methods. And if you restrict when they can play their methods, I think you lose your right to complain that it's unfamiliar - that's a self-fulfilling prophecy that you've created.
Playing natural methods, when I open 3C it's because I don't want you to use your methods. Shall we ban preempts too, or shall we just acknowledge that making the auction hard for the opponents is just an important part of the game. Pretty much like in tennis, where an important part of the game is trying to hit to parts of the court that the opponent can't reach.
>> Am I the only one who thinks that the distinction between legal and >> illegal systems is pure sophistry?
> So, if my system relies on having 1-level bids available to show 90% >of openings (like most do), and you come at me first seat with a forcing >pass system where your 1N shows only that you're not going to let me use >my bidding system.
Defensive bidding is part of every pair's methods.
Anyway, based on your logic, first we ban weak twos and weak threes.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB EBL TD Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>>> Am I the only one who thinks that the distinction between legal and >>> illegal systems is pure sophistry?
>> So, if my system relies on having 1-level bids available to show 90% >> of openings (like most do), and you come at me first seat with a >> forcing pass system where your 1N shows only that you're not going to >> let me use my bidding system. >> Why should the game let you do that?
>> The point of illegal bids, in general, is you're depriving your ops >> of a fair chance to compete for partscore. Thus, no one cares what you >> do when you have all the points.
> The opponents methods don't invalidate the scoring table, the final > arbiter of good and bad methods.
That's why they let you open any old rubbish at the four level, it's too easy to go down more than a grand without a very long specified suit that's usually superfit. The problem is opening secrets at 1 or 2, cutting space without divulging anything.
> And if you restrict when they can play their methods, I think you > lose your right to complain that it's unfamiliar - that's a self- > fulfilling prophecy that you've created.
There's plenty of methods that /only/ work because they're unfamiliar. The forcing pass isn't really any good, it just makes good scores against people who don't know it. That's not the makings of a fair game.
> Playing natural methods, when I open 3C it's because I don't want you > to use your methods.
Showing a (6)7-card suit with few points lets me bid game or 3M quite easily with assumed fits and point distributions, especially when op's partner passes, or mine doubles.
> Shall we ban preempts too, or shall we just acknowledge that making > the auction hard for the opponents is just an important part of the > game.
Known suit, known length, fairly narrow point range: quite the opposite of the sort of things that are banned, eh, because I can still compete in part-score with reasonable intelligence.
> The GCC, refenced in the MC defines "relay system" in terms of relay, > but does not that I can see define "relay".
This is the ACBL; what do you expect?!
> Going by the definition > of "relay" in the alert definitions I would think that a relay (1) > indicated no specific suit, and (2) that it had a "none of the above" > response at the next level.
The text from the "Alert Procedures" document is "A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some cases)." This is not what anybody else I know thinks "relay" means. If you adopt the ACBL definition, none of the asking bids in Symmetric Relay systems is a relay because the responses are very often higher than the next step. The ACBL definition seems to correspond to what _The Bridge World_ calls a marionette ("a transfer, after which partner will usually make the cheapest bid but is permitted to bid higher with special hands").
TBW defines relay as "an artificial call, very often the cheapest bid, possibly nondescriptive or at most partially descriptive, that asks or allows partner to offer a description." That's the definition I'd use for any discussion of bidding methods.
> Thus, I would think, though I might well be wrong, Stayman would be > considered a relay, given the 2D rebid for no major,
_I_ think it's a relay, and it is with TBW definition, but it's far from obvious with the ACBL definition. In particular, the 2D bid is not "usually" the response. And while the 2C bid doesn't "guarantee any specific suit," for many pairs it does guarantee a 4cM. That probably isn't a problem, but some in the ACBL might think it is.
> but most people's > fouth suit forcing would not be because all the rebids are at least > semi-natural.
There's nothing in either definition that requires rebids to be artificial.
> (Fourth suit forcing would not, in any event, be > considered part of a relay system since it comes after opener's first > rebid).
Yes, relays are permitted; what's prohibited is "relay systems," which have a very specific (and very odd) definition. Among other things, the definition seems to prohibit an immediate ace-ask then king-ask by responder (1any-4NT-5any-5NT). Good luck getting that one enforced! However, you can play a relay system (by "everyone's" definition) after opening bids of 1NT and higher and also if the first relay is opener's rebid or later.
You don't think any of this makes sense? Did I mention it's the ACBL?
-- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@nhcc.net Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
> >>> Am I the only one who thinks that the distinction between legal and > >>> illegal systems is pure sophistry?
> >> So, if my system relies on having 1-level bids available to show 90% > >> of openings (like most do), and you come at me first seat with a > >> forcing pass system where your 1N shows only that you're not going to > >> let me use my bidding system. > >> Why should the game let you do that?
> >> The point of illegal bids, in general, is you're depriving your ops > >> of a fair chance to compete for partscore. Thus, no one cares what you > >> do when you have all the points.
> > The opponents methods don't invalidate the scoring table, the final > > arbiter of good and bad methods.
> That's why they let you open any old rubbish at the four level, it's > too easy to go down more than a grand without a very long specified suit > that's usually superfit. The problem is opening secrets at 1 or 2, > cutting space without divulging anything.
> > And if you restrict when they can play their methods, I think you > > lose your right to complain that it's unfamiliar - that's a self- > > fulfilling prophecy that you've created.
> There's plenty of methods that /only/ work because they're > unfamiliar. The forcing pass isn't really any good, it just makes good > scores against people who don't know it. That's not the makings of a fair > game.
> > Playing natural methods, when I open 3C it's because I don't want you > > to use your methods.
> Showing a (6)7-card suit with few points lets me bid game or 3M quite > easily with assumed fits and point distributions, especially when op's > partner passes, or mine doubles.
> > Shall we ban preempts too, or shall we just acknowledge that making > > the auction hard for the opponents is just an important part of the > > game.
> Known suit, known length, fairly narrow point range: quite the > opposite of the sort of things that are banned, eh, because I can still > compete in part-score with reasonable intelligence.
> -- > tussock- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Tussock, when you state: "The forcing pass isn't really any good, it just makes good scores against people who don't know it. That's not the makings of a fair game." I assume you are referring to Forcing Pass systems.
On what are you basing your comment? How many of these systems have you played/played against and for how long? I don't know SAYC and have no desire to learn this. I am unfamiliar with it. Does this mean that it is not a fair game? How many US players are unfamiliar with Polish Club? Does this mean it is an unfair system?
Please do not post nonsense or of things of which you have absolutely no knowledge. Ron
> > The GCC, refenced in the MC defines "relay system" in terms of relay, > > but does not that I can see define "relay".
> The text from the "Alert Procedures" document is "A bid which does not > guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step > bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a > diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some > cases)." > > Thus, I would think, though I might well be wrong, Stayman would be > > considered a relay, given the 2D rebid for no major,
> _I_ think it's a relay, and it is with TBW definition, but it's far from > obvious with the ACBL definition. In particular, the 2D bid is not > "usually" the response.
I think it's clearly a relay by ACBL definition - perhaps 2D is not "usual" (I don't know - what are the odds opener doesn't have a 4-card major?) but it couldn't be called "unusual", and the other responses certainly would be "another descriptive bid".
> And while the 2C bid doesn't "guarantee any > specific suit," for many pairs it does guarantee a 4cM. That probably > isn't a problem, but some in the ACBL might think it is.
Quite a few find it problematic that we don't promise a 4cM - even though we alert appropriately (ie, pretty much any continuation by responder after the 2C bid)
> Yes, relays are permitted; what's prohibited is "relay systems," which > have a very specific (and very odd) definition. Among other things, the > definition seems to prohibit an immediate ace-ask then king-ask by > responder (1any-4NT-5any-5NT). Good luck getting that one enforced!
Gack! I hope you're wrong ... but it _is_ the ACBL.
|
