[Tomi2]

fred, on May 5 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

I strongly suspect that the organizers believe that keeping the bidding relatively simple will make their tournament more attractive to the general public (and thus to the media and to potential corporate sponsors). These things would be good for both bridge and for the Cavendish itself.

I don't like the way this all is made.

8 Minutes of Bridge contain Bidding and Cardplay. In both the best plaers in the world, but many average players too, put efforths to increase their chances to do well. Both parts of the game are VERY complicated and they try to make one of this "simple"

Now we have the very best players in the world and you disallow some of these methods.

I just try to think of other sports where there are events that disallow some key parts of the game for making it more attractive to kibitzers.

maybe you should disallow bluffs in poker? because its hard to explain somebody why a player makes a bet without having good cards (=?bidding 2♦ with having a weak hand and 6♥)

maybe disallow playing Billard with spin?

maybe disallow playing the ball backwards in Football/Basketball/(Ice)Hockey etc... (why playing the ball back while the goal is in front?)



same is with my (meant as kind of joke but maybe it is not) exapmle about cardplay...
AKQxx - AQ - ATx - xxx vs JTxxx - xx - KJ9 - AKQ
you play 6 spades, get a club lead, pull trumps play all clubs, play a small heart and then REFUSE the finesse and play towars the ace and exit with a heart... hard to explain that to somebody who is a bit familiar with trick-taking cardgames.
to keep the game simple the organisators the could disallow every cardplay technique, defensive methods. Players could be forced to play either their highes or lowest card. so in every trick you have 2 possible cards, that would be easy to understand

so we have some group of kibitzers who won't be able to follow the game no matter how bidding and play will be, thats 95% of the world's population or so
one (imo very small group) of players who would understand the so called natural bidding but would have no chance to follow the game if one bids 2♥ after partners 1NT and has ♠
and (I think this group is bigger then group 2) lots of players, who will at least understand, that players who play "artifical" methods try to increase their results, same as the declarer in 6 spades does by making bids/plays that he thinks, will work better

[barmar]

Tomi2, on May 6 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

fred, on May 5 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

I strongly suspect that the organizers believe that keeping the bidding relatively simple will make their tournament more attractive to the general public (and thus to the media and to potential corporate sponsors). These things would be good for both bridge and for the Cavendish itself.

I don't like the way this all is made.

8 Minutes of Bridge contain Bidding and Cardplay. In both the best plaers in the world, but many average players too, put efforths to increase their chances to do well. Both parts of the game are VERY complicated and they try to make one of this "simple"

I think Fred may have chosen the wrong word. It's not that the bidding needs to be simple, but it needs to be familiar.

Have you ever tried kibitzing a pair that's playing a system very different from the ones you know? It's confusing if you don't understand what's going on. It's like going to a play in a language you don't know.

And when these games are on VuGraph, the commentators have to spend much of their time deciphering the bidding for the audience, rather than commenting on it. Sometimes none of the commentators are familiar with the system, either, so they end up guessing. If you're lucky the VuGraph operator is able to transcribe the alerts, but as a frequent operator I can tell you that this is difficult (when screens are in use, explanations are scribbled on a note pad, which I can't read unless I bother the player to hand it to me, and I try not to interrupt players during a hand).

All the analogies you gave are not really similar. Bluffing in poker is something just about every player and spectator is familiar with, not a strange technique only used by experts. So no commentator would have to answer the question of why someone bets without good cards; they might want to explain why the player chose that particular situation to bluff, i.e. comment on strategy. That's what commentators should be doing, not explaining the basics of the game.

[Codo]

I liked the discussion about the regulations for the Cavendish, but the last tpart is getting boring, we had been there millions of times before.

Some players and officals belive that we would attract more people with simpler methods. Some disagree.

I wonder how easy to understand offside from soccer and american football, the limitations in formular one and the complete rules of cricet are. But still these games are much more popular then bridge. The openings in chess are not limited either but still there are more players in chess then in bridge.

But however, the sponsors of the Cavendish set the conditions of contest and they decided like they did.
So we may critisze that the rules are not understandable, but at the end of the day it is their descission and we have to be lucky that they arrange and support this tournement.

[the hog]

Agree with you totally Tomi2. The laws of the game clearly do not give more weight to one of bidding and card play. Why not ban complex squeezes which the average player will never execute and probably not understand. The situation is exactly the same. I found that people never bother to answer this question, or skirt the issue.

Fred stated, "I think that one of the reasons why so many excellent players enjoy the Cavendish so much is because of the unusual (for a pairs event) high premium on skill inherant to that event." Now this is a comment I cannot understand at all. It suggests that Fred believes there is no skill in system design or in coping with the unusual. I strongly disagree with that contention.

However there is little point in discussing this - this is a perennial and people have widely differing views. I do not understand Gridiron at all; that does not stop me from watching it. As Codo says, however, the organisers have the right to set the conditions of the contest. It is interesting to see how few regular partnerships play in this event; to me that is an indictment that the tournament does not work as well as Fred says it does.

Barmar, I actually PREFER to watch pairs using different systems. It gives me an intellectual kick to work out what their sequences mean. I understand however that many do not like to do this. In my view its because they can't be bothered thinking. Others will no doubt disagree.

[awm]

While there are probably a few regular pairs who don't play in the Cavendish because of system restrictions (I think Meckwell made some comment to this effect at some point) the auction format has a lot more to do with this.

A top-notch pair will tend to go for a lot at auction. While the top players are well-compensated, it's not clear that they will be eager to pay a hefty fee to buy a percentage of themselves. Much easier to play with a sponsor, simultaneously reducing the fee and making sure that the pro player isn't required to pay it.

Even without a sponsor, a pair that doesn't have the reputation of good results as a pair (like say Hampson-Rodwell) will probably go for a less inflated price than a regular pairing (like say Hampson-Greco or Meckstroth-Rodwell).

[655321]

The_Hog, on May 7 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

I actually PREFER to watch pairs using different systems.  It gives me an intellectual kick to work out what their sequences mean. I understand however that many do not like to do this. In my view its because they can't be bothered thinking. Others will no doubt disagree.

It is good that you enjoy guessing the meaning of a bid when you can see the cards held by the bidder, but don't know the system. As you say, others are unlucky enough to find this less stimulating. It is interesting that you believe it means we can't be bothered thinking. Unkind persons may even wonder if the opposite is true...

For example. Picture a vugraph match on BBO. Board 1. The rest of us see a simple auction to a tricky 4♠ contract. We wonder if declarer should play for the opening lead to be a singleton, can he handle 4-1 trumps, who should he play for the king of diamonds...

But what do we see chez Hog? Look, South opened the bidding with 1NT on a balanced hand with 17 points. North now bids 2♣ with only 2 clubs in his hand. South does not raise the clubs even though he has 4 of them, but bids his 4 card spade suit instead. North now bids 4♠. Could it be? Could it be? YES! STRONG NOTRUMP AND STAYMAN! QUICK WATSON, THE NEEDLE!

To be fair, I actually don't mind at all if I am watching different systems, but to me anyway it is more enjoyable if I know what the bids mean.

[Gerben42]

Quote

To be fair, I actually don't mind at all if I am watching different systems, but to me anyway it is more enjoyable if I know what the bids mean.

Sure, but that is why commentators should have access to the system description. Still in slam auctions we are usually guessing about the pair's agreement, never mind how simple their system seemed to be at the start.

Dare I say "here we go again..." ?
I am campaigning for CLEAR regulations, never mind what they are, but always someone comes up and changes the subject to how restrictive the regulations are.

[the hog]

655321, on May 8 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

The_Hog, on May 7 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

I actually PREFER to watch pairs using different systems.  It gives me an intellectual kick to work out what their sequences mean. I understand however that many do not like to do this. In my view its because they can't be bothered thinking. Others will no doubt disagree.

It is good that you enjoy guessing the meaning of a bid when you can see the cards held by the bidder, but don't know the system. As you say, others are unlucky enough to find this less stimulating. It is interesting that you believe it means we can't be bothered thinking. Unkind persons may even wonder if the opposite is true...

For example. Picture a vugraph match on BBO. Board 1. The rest of us see a simple auction to a tricky 4♠ contract. We wonder if declarer should play for the opening lead to be a singleton, can he handle 4-1 trumps, who should he play for the king of diamonds...

But what do we see chez Hog? Look, South opened the bidding with 1NT on a balanced hand with 17 points. North now bids 2♣ with only 2 clubs in his hand. South does not raise the clubs even though he has 4 of them, but bids his 4 card spade suit instead. North now bids 4♠. Could it be? Could it be? YES! STRONG NOTRUMP AND STAYMAN! QUICK WATSON, THE NEEDLE!

To be fair, I actually don't mind at all if I am watching different systems, but to me anyway it is more enjoyable if I know what the bids mean.

Well oh numeric one, all you need to do is a little homework beforehand. You know who is going to play, so look up their system card or read a bit abut them. Is that so hard? You may even find you enjoy it.

[fred]

The_Hog, on May 9 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

Well oh numeric one, all you need to do is a little homework beforehand. You know who is going to play, so look up their system card or read a bit abut them. Is that so hard? You may even find you enjoy it.

This is a pairs tournament.

The concept of studying the systems of the 47 other pairs you will face in this event just in case something comes up in the 3 boards you play against each pair does not sound very enjoyable to me.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Trinidad]

When a European pair, playing a system that they can play against two grannys in Europe, is invited to participate in the Cavendish it is reasonable that they expect that they can play that system in the Cavendish.

Then they get the system regulations. They want to follow those regulations, they try to read them but they don't understand them. That is not because they can't read English. It is because the organization of the Cavendish has written fuzzy regulations. And they have done that on purpose. Their idea is: "Everybody knows what we mean and this gives us the maximum room to intervene if someone plays something that we don't like." But in reality, not everybody knows what they mean (hence Gerben's question).

Fred makes it sound like that doesn't matter. In practice, it always goes right. That's true. It always goes Fred's right. He knows that his system will be deemed fine, basically whatever he decides to play. But his foreign colleagues are nervous that a TD will interfere in the middle of the tournament when they open 2♠ showing a weak hand with five spades and a 4+ minor. (And they are quite right in being nervous, given the horror stories about ACBL TD's interpreting system regulations.) Therefore, it would be important to work with clear system regulations. Then, it would always go right for everybody.

My next suggestion (but, as Gerben points out, is not part of this discussion) would be to losen the system regulations, so that not only SAYC and 2/1 are allowed, but also other common systems from around the world. Then Fred will see that it doesn't matter, not even in an event of 47 rounds of 3 boards. He will have to play against systems that European grannys play against every day. I think that he will cope just fine, just like my mother is coping just fine.

Finally, designing a bidding system is as much a bridge skill as executing a throw in or a squeeze. Bidding is a crucial part of bridge and the general public understands that. There is a reason why contract bridge is much more popular than whist. Therefore, limiting bridge systems has lead to less interest from the general public, rather than more.

Rik

[fred]

Trinidad, on May 9 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Fred makes it sound like that doesn't matter. In practice, it always goes right. That's true. It always goes Fred's right. He knows that his system will be deemed fine, basically whatever he decides to play. But his foreign colleagues are nervous that a TD will interfere in the middle of the tournament when they open 2♠ showing a weak hand with five spades and a 4+ minor. (And they are quite right in being nervous, given the horror stories about ACBL TD's interpreting system regulations.) Therefore, it would be important to work with clear system regulations. Then, it would always go right for everybody.

Of course I agree that clear regulations can only be good, but the nervousness situation you describe is absurd.

If the regulations are fuzzy and if playing a given convention is going to make a pair nervous, there is an easy answer: confine your nervousness to before the tournament starts and ask a TD if the convention is question is legal or not. The Cavendish employs some of the best TDs in the world and these TDs have a strong tendency to consult with one another in fuzzy cases. Still, it sounds like you have a basic distrust of TDs. Again there is an easy answer: if they tell you your convention is legal ask them to put it in writing.

If you take these simple steps (and I personally believe the "in writing" step is not necessary in the Cavendish context) then there is no need to be nervous.

Quote

My next suggestion (but, as Gerben points out, is not part of this discussion) would be to losen the system regulations, so that not only SAYC and 2/1 are allowed, but also other common systems from around the world. Then Fred will see that it doesn't matter, not even in an event of 47 rounds of 3 boards. He will have to play against systems that European grannys play against every day. I think that he will cope just fine, just like my mother is coping just fine.

I do not disagree with your suggestion. For example, if it were up to me to draw the line, I would choose to include multi (and no doubt some other things that European grannies are used to dealing with). But the point is that there has to be a line *somewhere* and, in a pairs tournament, most of the players will not be happy if the line is drawn too liberally. Probably drawing the line to include systems that grannies from *any* given part of the world are familiar with would constitute "too liberal" for most players in the Cavendish.

You are wrong about only SAYC and 2/1 being allowed. Yesterday I played against pairs playing various flavors of strong club systems, Polish-style club systems, and systems that varied according to vulnerability and position. One pair of opponents was playing their 2NT range as 12-14 HCP.

Quote

Therefore, limiting bridge systems has lead to less interest from the general public, rather than more.

IMO if you really believe this then you are completely out of touch with reality. The general public are people who barely know (or don't know at all) how to count their points. If they understand concepts like takeout doubles or Stayman then they qualify as "advanced" members of the general public. Probably upwards of 90% of the world's bridge players have neither played a single hand of duplicate bridge nor are they this "advanced".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

fred, on May 9 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

... One pair of opponents was playing their 2NT range as 12-14 HCP. ...

This was the Zia Mahmood - Charles Wigoder partnership.

There was another player who opened 1NT with 6♠s and quite a weak hand.

[Trinidad]

fred, on May 9 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

Trinidad, on May 9 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Fred makes it sound like that doesn't matter. In practice, it always goes right. That's true. It always goes Fred's right. He knows that his system will be deemed fine, basically whatever he decides to play. But his foreign colleagues are nervous that a TD will interfere in the middle of the tournament when they open 2♠ showing a weak hand with five spades and a 4+ minor. (And they are quite right in being nervous, given the horror stories about ACBL TD's interpreting system regulations.) Therefore, it would be important to work with clear system regulations. Then, it would always go right for everybody.

Of course I agree that clear regulations can only be good, but the nervousness situation you describe is absurd.

If the regulations are fuzzy and if playing a given convention is going to make a pair nervous, there is an easy answer: confine your nervousness to before the tournament starts and ask a TD if the convention is question is legal or not. The Cavendish employs some of the best TDs in the world and these TDs have a strong tendency to consult with one another in fuzzy cases. Still, it sounds like you have a basic distrust of TDs. Again there is an easy answer: if they tell you your convention is legal ask them to put it in writing.

If you take these simple steps (and I personally believe the "in writing" step is not necessary in the Cavendish context) then there is no need to be nervous.

I will take your word for that. I will also admit that I exagerated a little bit to get the point across. (Not unlike yourself when you painted the horror picture of having to study 47 systems for 3 board rounds. You have probably played against 95% of the players before, leaving very few systems to study).

Just to clarify: I do not have a basic distrust for TD's. I happen to be one myself. I do have a basic distrust for organizers who write fuzzy regulations. You don't have to search very long on BBF to find the horror stories of how fuzzy regulations are misused in the ACBL (e.g. requirements for approved defenses, but then not approving any defense). You also read stories over and over again how one TD allows a certain system where another disallows it. Here again, I don't blame TD 1 or TD 2. I blame the authors of the regulations.

These regulations are a pain for players from outside ACBL. They are used to regulations that are reasonably clear and then enter a culture where they cannot rely on the regulations because they are inconsistent. Then they need to ask the organizers (who wrote these regulations) up front whether the system is allowed. Do you think that they will expect a clear and definite answer?

Rik

[Trinidad]

fred, on May 9 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

Trinidad, on May 9 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Therefore, limiting bridge systems has lead to less interest from the general public, rather than more.

IMO if you really believe this then you are completely out of touch with reality. The general public are people who barely know (or don't know at all) how to count their points. If they understand concepts like takeout doubles or Stayman then they qualify as "advanced" members of the general public. Probably upwards of 90% of the world's bridge players have neither played a single hand of duplicate bridge nor are they this "advanced".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Maybe I am out of touch, but I truly believe this. In my experience, one of the things that fascinates the general public about bridge is the possibility to bid a hand with different systems. Obviously, in the USA, this fascination is completely absent since basically there is only one system that is played and the general public will see only one system when they read about bridge.

The idea that lives with the organizers of the Cavendish (among others) is that simplicity is attractive to the general (or potential) bridge public. I think that is misguided. If this audience would find simplicity attractive, they wouldn't be interested in a complicated game like bridge to begin with. They would go for Freecell, Yathzee or nothing at all.

Of course, a beginner in bridge won't understand what a strong 1♣ (or a forcing Pass for that matter) means. But when a VuGraph commentator explains that for this pair 1♣ promises 16+ HCPs and that the 1♥ response shows a game forcing balanced hand, this beginner will be fascinated by the fact that there are bidding systems other than SA (or whatever system he learned) and that later, he may design his own bidding system, if he wants to.

This is one of the beauties of bridge and it is one of the things that makes bridge unique. Whenever I explain bridge to non bridge playing friends and colleagues, it actually is this part that intrigues them and gets their attention. But followers of 'Simplicity makes bridge attractive' completely ignore this (as well as the fact that it's the complexity of bridge that makes it attractive).

Rik

P.S. When it comes to your 90% of the world's bridge players have never played duplicate bridge, I think you are missing the mark. (I cannot claim to have an overview over the world's bridge population, but I have lived and played bridge in the USA, and a couple of European countries.)

A large part of the world's bridge population has learnt to play bridge in a course organized at a duplicate bridge club. They have basically started duplicate from day 1. If you ask them what '100 honors' means, they don't have a clue. I know for a fact that my mother doesn't know it, but she can tell me everything about Stayman, transfers, and how to misuse Gerber, Blackwood and fourth suit forcing, as well as the bidding tricks that she devised herself. And she can tell me how her partner earned them a cold bottom on board number 13.

[blackshoe]

One thing I'd add to that. It's my perception (and yeah, maybe I'm wrong) that a lot of people in bridge (I'm thinking of some club owners, club TDs, and bridge teachers I know) who've been around a long time are of the opinion that beginners are not capable of assimilating more than a very few conventions, and are even more incapable of assimilating multiple bidding systems. These leads to "don't teach beginners anything except plain vanilla SA" and the like. Some of this may arise from the experience of these people that "newcomers" to duplicate bridge are mostly older folk. There's a perception that these folk have a hard time learning new things. I don't think I buy this attitude, but it exists.

[the hog]

Trinidad, on May 10 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

fred, on May 9 2009, 10:59 AM, said:

Trinidad, on May 9 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Therefore, limiting bridge systems has lead to less interest from the general public, rather than more.

IMO if you really believe this then you are completely out of touch with reality. The general public are people who barely know (or don't know at all) how to count their points. If they understand concepts like takeout doubles or Stayman then they qualify as "advanced" members of the general public. Probably upwards of 90% of the world's bridge players have neither played a single hand of duplicate bridge nor are they this "advanced".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Maybe I am out of touch, but I truly believe this. In my experience, one of the things that fascinates the general public about bridge is the possibility to bid a hand with different systems. Obviously, in the USA, this fascination is completely absent since basically there is only one system that is played and the general public will see only one system when they read about bridge.

The idea that lives with the organizers of the Cavendish (among others) is that simplicity is attractive to the general (or potential) bridge public. I think that is misguided. If this audience would find simplicity attractive, they wouldn't be interested in a complicated game like bridge to begin with. They would go for Freecell, Yathzee or nothing at all.

Of course, a beginner in bridge won't understand what a strong 1♣ (or a forcing Pass for that matter) means. But when a VuGraph commentator explains that for this pair 1♣ promises 16+ HCPs and that the 1♥ response shows a game forcing balanced hand, this beginner will be fascinated by the fact that there are bidding systems other than SA (or whatever system he learned) and that later, he may design his own bidding system, if he wants to.

This is one of the beauties of bridge and it is one of the things that makes bridge unique. Whenever I explain bridge to non bridge playing friends and colleagues, it actually is this part that intrigues them and gets their attention. But followers of 'Simplicity makes bridge attractive' completely ignore this (as well as the fact that it's the complexity of bridge that makes it attractive).

Rik

P.S. When it comes to your 90% of the world's bridge players have never played duplicate bridge, I think you are missing the mark. (I cannot claim to have an overview over the world's bridge population, but I have lived and played bridge in the USA, and a couple of European countries.)

A large part of the world's bridge population has learnt to play bridge in a course organized at a duplicate bridge club. They have basically started duplicate from day 1. If you ask them what '100 honors' means, they don't have a clue. I know for a fact that my mother doesn't know it, but she can tell me everything about Stayman, transfers, and how to misuse Gerber, Blackwood and fourth suit forcing, as well as the bidding tricks that she devised herself. And she can tell me how her partner earned them a cold bottom on board number 13.

I agree with pretty much everything you say Ric.

[the hog]

fred, on May 9 2009, 08:46 PM, said:

The_Hog, on May 9 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

Well oh numeric one, all you need to do is a little homework beforehand. You know who is going to play, so look up their system card or read a bit abut them. Is that so hard? You may even find you enjoy it.

This is a pairs tournament.

The concept of studying the systems of the 47 other pairs you will face in this event just in case something comes up in the 3 boards you play against each pair does not sound very enjoyable to me.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It is for me, Fred. De gustibus non est disputandum.

By the way, don't you think that having "fuzzy" regulations is a little dishonest?

[david_c]

The Cavendish is a unique event in many ways. If it has particularly restrictive system regulations, then maybe that's part of what makes it special. Surely we can live with having one event a year like this. I see nothing wrong with having a bit of variety in conditions of contest.

Clearly the regulations are a mess - they have out-ACBLed the ACBL - but again, this event's special status means that it won't be a problem. There are only a small number of pairs taking part, all of whom know what they are doing; so I'm sure the organisers would be more than happy to answer their questions. And there shouldn't be a problem with consistency as the event is so small.

Of course I still agree with Gerben. There is no excuse for poorly-written regulations. It sets a bad example to other tournament organisers.

[Trinidad]

david_c, on May 10 2009, 03:18 AM, said:

The Cavendish is a unique event in many ways. If it has particularly restrictive system regulations, then maybe that's part of what makes it special. Surely we can live with having one event a year like this. I see nothing wrong with having a bit of variety in conditions of contest.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this. I don't object at all to having a big tournament where only the simplest of bidding systems are allowed. If someone once wants to organize a tournament where only 100% natural bids are allowed (no Stayman, no Blackwood, no TO doubles, four card majors only), that is also fine with me. I might well participate.

However, as everybody with a little more than average interest in bridge knows, this part of the discussion extends beyond the Cavendish. It is about bidding restrictions in general. The faulty arguments that are used to restrict bidding systems in those discussions are copied here (see below). I think it is necessary to point out every now and then that these arguments are flawed. Otherwise people might take them for granted and might actually start to believe them.

Rik (who, for the record, plays 2/1 GF with a few of the standard gadgets and every now and then a strong club system)

Some of the flawed arguments used are:
- Artificial systems are unfriendly to the general public. They will repell people from bridge.
- Artificial systems require an enormous amount of work to defend against.
- Artificial systems are randomizing the field, making it hard to recognize the players with the best 'skill' in bridge. (In this sence 'skill' is defined as skill in card play, you know: the type of skills that you use in dozens of other trick based card games like whist or hearts. Designing a good bidding system is not perceived as a bridge skill.)

[fred]

Trinidad, on May 10 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Some of the flawed arguments used are:

Sorry, Rik, but I think you are either mistating these arguments or you are do not understand them.

Quote

- Artificial systems are unfriendly to the general public. They will repell people from bridge.

Artificial systems clearly make the game seem more complicated to a COMPLETE BEGINNER. For sure there are some people (physics professors come to mind) who could deal with this and who might find it intriguing, but even without artificial systems one hears frequent complaints from bright people who have tried bridge and think that the barrier for entry is too high.

Of course many people who stick with bridge will become interested in system development, but (in my view) it is really foolish to expose most humans who have never played bridge, or have only played socially to the full extent of this aspect of the game. You will only serve to confuse them. Most people find getting confused to be a turnoff.

If, from their watching the Cavendish, you can teach these people to understand why weak 2s make more sense then strong 2s, you will have accomplished something. Maybe some of these people will take up duplicate and maybe some of them will go on to become great designers of systems, but the first order of business has to be to get them in the front door.

And even the physics professors do not need to be exposed to the full extent of artificiality in lesson one in order to be intrigued. They allow (far) more than enough system in the Cavendish to give even the brightest and keenest new players a serious taste of system design.

Quote

- Artificial systems require an enormous amount of work to defend against.

Agree (that this is a flawed argument).

But it does take an enormous amount of work to defend against them effectively.

I know some of you will disagree with this and I am not going to get into another debate on this subject - all I will say is that I know from experience (which I have a lot of) that I am right about this. If you think you know better then good for you.

Quote

- Artificial systems are randomizing the field, making it hard to recognize the players with the best 'skill' in bridge. (In this sence 'skill' is defined as skill in card play, you know: the type of skills that you use in dozens of other trick based card games like whist or hearts. Designing a good bidding system is not perceived as a bridge skill.)

I can't speak for anyone else's perceptions, but I certainly perceive that designing a good bidding system is an important bridge skill. It seems fairly clear to me that you did not understand my use of the word "random"...

Some types of artificial systems and conventions are primarily designed to increase volatility thus giving lesser pairs a chance to perform much better than expectation if they happen to get lucky. Such methods often turn "normalish" deals deals into deals in which either side, more or less randomly, will win or lose 100s of IMPs.

Suppose an "average Cavendish pair" that would normally not have much of a chance to do well in the event is allowed to play a convention that 50% of the time will win 300 IMPs and 50% will lose 300 IMPs. Suppose this convention comes up once in each of the 5 sessions. If the pair gets lucky and wins 300 IMPs on all 5 occasions (a 1 in 32 chance) they rate to come in the money. But regardless of how much luck that pair gets, the impact of their random convention on the rest of the field is extreme - 5 random pairs will get either a 300 IMP gift or a 300 IMP penalty, purely by luck of the draw.

I would not want to play in a pairs event in which the field was littered with such pairs playing such conventions and I suspect that neither would most (all?) of the "premium pairs" in the Cavendish.

Luck is important at bridge regardless and even some system design issues involving purely natural methods (weak notrump versus strong notrump for example) will result in considerable randomness. That being said, disallowing highly volatile methods decreases the premium on luck thereby increasing the premium on skill.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com