[thepossum]

Hey

I am not sure how to write this. Everyone knows by now I tend to avoid the unpleasantness of clubs and even most BBO online tables
I am forced to play robots
I know I am old fashioned but a fairly good judge of a hand and average card player

Why. The game seems to be full of a combination of those who value complex systems over something to enjoy
People who are also very aggressively "rules" based
people who would hurt you big time and make you never want to sit at a table again

I am no judge. I know the world has people like that. But why are they all playing Bridge

I am desperate for some fun decent level cards without any obnoioxusness

It's not about complexity and tricking opponents or confusing partner

I doubt I will ever find 3 fun people atb a table at the same time again

I value the moments I did Imagine still remembering them in so much detail all those years later

4 random pickup players. No agreements at all. No stress. No conflict. Just fun

If I showed up at a random club would I have to deal with some complex relay system defence or be put in some boring beginner or interemediate class

[hrothgar]

Have you considered games other than bridge?

In particular, there are a lot of games out there that are much more designed for collaborative play amongst a group of players

Some friends and I just completed Gloomhaven
We're currently moving on to "Spirit Island".

We play F2F when we can and online when we can't

We lighten things up with Valheim

A good friend (and and old bridge partner from here in Massachusetts) gave up on bridge a few years back
She was MUCH better than me

Her claim: She just didn't like the people she had to deal with...

So the issue might very well not be you, but rather the dynamics of the game itself

[jillybean]

possum, try a non sanctioned, friendly game.

[barmar]

 thepossum, on 2025-April-08, 06:17, said:

4 random pickup players. No agreements at all. No stress. No conflict. Just fun

That's how Rubber Bridge is usually played -- everyone plays the same system, and it's generally very simple. When I used to play RB with friends, the conventions were limited to Stayman, Blackwood, takeout doubles, and weak 2 bids.

Quote

If I showed up at a random club would I have to deal with some complex relay system defence or be put in some boring beginner or interemediate class

I think that at least 90% of players in a random US club play 2/1 or Standard American, and the rest usually play some variant of Precision. There are some totally weird systems out there, but the chance that you'll run into them at a typical club is very small. There may be a bunch of people playing these systems, but they're spread over many clubs, not all in the same place.

[jillybean]

 thepossum, on 2025-April-08, 06:17, said:

If I showed up at a random club would I have to deal with some complex relay system defence or be put in some boring beginner or interemediate class

What exactly are you looking for? Not leading edge excitement and fun, not boring beginner, intermediate bridge. You may be looking for a game where people play just like you do?

[blackshoe]

I was surprised yesterday when I overheard one of the better players in the club say that her favorite system is EHAA. I've never seen her play anything other than 2/1.

[mikl_plkcc]

 barmar, on 2025-April-08, 15:16, said:

That's how Rubber Bridge is usually played -- everyone plays the same system, and it's generally very simple. When I used to play RB with friends, the conventions were limited to Stayman, Blackwood, takeout doubles, and weak 2 bids.

I think that at least 90% of players in a random US club play 2/1 or Standard American, and the rest usually play some variant of Precision. There are some totally weird systems out there, but the chance that you'll run into them at a typical club is very small. There may be a bunch of people playing these systems, but they're spread over many clubs, not all in the same place.

Here in London, all of the following are commonly seen, from the most commonly used to less common systems:

2/1 Game Forcing or Standard American
Acol
Precision
Polish Club

I haven't seen anyone using strange systems (i.e. WBF Red systems) yet.

[blackshoe]

I may be mistaken but I think Romex is a red system. And no, you don't see it. But it's a good system and IMO fun to play. Then there's EHAA (Every Hand An Adventure).

[mycroft]

Polish Club is also WBF Red (Blue if it *promises 13+, even with a balanced hand or natural clubs. Never seen that), much to the consternation of the Poles (who use WBF classification, except that "a 1♣ opening that is natural or strong is considered GREEN" (from memory, which may have changed in the last 15 years. Thankfully, their coaches (at least) have learned, and no longer submit it as GREEN in WCs).

[paulg]

The WBF Red definition is very bland and has diverged from the EBL definition.

The EBL Redefinition is now:

RED: A "warning" signal that the system contains elements that may need advance preparation by opponents or explanations by the user of the system. This includes systems that include transfers, relays, switch bids
or artificial elements (including in competition). EXCEPTION: Transfers over No Trump bids.

This means a lot of 'standard' pairs playing transfer responses and transfers in competition should now be marking their cards RED instead of GREEN.

[mikl_plkcc]

Why is Polish Club red? Isn't it just a strong club system that should be categorised as blue?

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2025-April-11, 06:52, said:

This means a lot of 'standard' pairs playing transfer responses and transfers in competition should now be marking their cards RED instead of GREEN.

This I keep telling them and receiving only abuse, even from my own club ("why are you giving the guests a hard time?")

Of course there is arguably a line between system and conventions and/or construction versus competition.
So Transfer Walsh is red anyway, but Rubehnsohl is arguably only a gimmick with transfers.
It would be nice to have some guidance here too.

[mycroft]

• Polish Club is RED because it uses a Forcing, but multi-meaning 1♣ call (the most common meaning is "weak NT", the next most common is "11+ with clubs"). It is not strictly Strong (or, using the EBL definition, "guarantees 13 HCP").
  
• Wow, that's a definition for the ages. Right up there with the WBF's policies (that "we all know" what we mean, because it's only used in International Top-Flight Competition). So, my Meckwell Lite is BLUE, because it's just a Strong Club (even though System after 1♣-1♦ is 'like, wow', and 1♥ is also artificial (minimum game force by UPH) - but my Precision with Transfer Responses and Asking Bids is what? BLUE (strong club, the only transfers or relays are after 1♣)? RED (1♣-1♥ is spades, and if opener's rebid is 1♠, none of the rest of opener's calls will say anything about their hand)? What about Symmetric Relay? How far down artificiality does it have to go before the "warning" is needed? Sure, transfers after NT don't apply, but Stayman Is A Relay™. What about PDR? Non-lead-directing doubles? Kickback? Are they artificial enough to make a system RED?
  
• How about "switch"ing double (15+) and 1NT overcalls (3-suited takeout)? Does that make my very natural system RED? How do I know?
  
• More fun, we're going back to the old Polish Club Is Green days, but now all of Zone 1. The EBL has decided to use all the WBF terminology, but redefine them for its purposes. So the poor USAnians are going to be looking at this strange RED system that's just "what they play, obviously GREEN" looking for the artificiality that makes it (WBF) RED. Or the English team that qualified for the BB with a RED system have to know to make it GREEN when submitting to Anna. Or... This is *incredibly* dangerous, unless the same wording is in front of the WBFLC right now as a proposal.
  
• Also, is there any competition that puts limitations on RED systems in the EBL? Because if I am not sure if my system is artificial enough to be considered RED, fine, mark it RED, point out all the "things opponents should note" in the box, and if we're actually GREEN at least the opponents aren't thrown. But if that means I'm not sure if I can play in this event...

Please note, I do believe that the intentions are good, and the policy *should be* where the EBL thinks they've put it. But wow, that's both dangerous in implementation and almost GCC-like in specificity.

[blackshoe]

You know, there might have been a time when I would have liked to have been one of the cool kids who travels around the world playing (and getting paid to play) in high level tournaments, but these days if I can't figure out whether I can play my preferred system in some big deal tournament on the other side of the world I'll just stay home.

[awm]

I haven’t seen any serious tournaments in Europe that put any restriction on Red systems. There is sometimes a restriction against brown sticker/HUM stuff (and sometimes not). So while I agree that the line as to what qualifies as Red is unclear, this doesn’t matter much for serious international players. What restrictions countries put on systems in “intermediate” tournaments probably varies but these are unlikely to be open to international visitors anyway.

[mycroft]

I agree. However, if places like the YC are going to use those same definitions, and maybe do restrictions on nights, then the border should be less nebulous than it currently is. Again, not sure if that is actually happening, I just don't like nebulous edges.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-April-19, 08:36, said:

I agree. However, if places like the YC are going to use those same definitions, and maybe do restrictions on nights, then the border should be less nebulous than it currently is. Again, not sure if that is actually happening, I just don't like nebulous edges.

I don't like nebulous edges either, and do hope that WBF 2027 will be aligned to EBL.

I also agree that if transfers are kosher in the NT subsystem but not in the primary system, then we need more guidance about the underlying logic of this decision and how to implement it in practice. It seems logical to me that if the NT subsystem can be exempted then so should all interference and defence against interference, which are situations that do not modify the natural nature of the constructive bidding system and are clearly suited to artificial developments (and are already dominated by such, even at low level competition, just like the NT subsystem).

But having said that, I think you overstate the problem a bit. Not sure about YC/EBU, but here in my club/FIGB (still EBL land) you can play a Red system in any event, you are just held to higher standards of disclosure (not that anyone except me seems to care).

I also find the EBL rule clear as far as it goes (perhaps too clear, or at least that is what seems to irritate those who do not conform) and I don't see any difficulty in deciding that Polish Club / Transfer Walsh / Symmetric Relay are Red. I would just like someone to confirm that things like MultiLandy or Rubensohl or your 1NT as a takeout inversion do not change the system colour, as would seem logical.

[mycroft]

Which is exactly my point. Where's the borderline?

Transfers over NT are so common that *not* playing them might be something you want to "warn" about these days.
But then there's Transfers/1Mx.
Or as you said, as a defence (direct only) to 1NT.
Or a defence to anything, for that matter (note the "including in competition").
Is "rolling Gerber" (ugh over ugh), where response+1 (if not trump) is the K ask, "relay" enough to be RED?
"artificial elements". Again, does 1♣-1♦; 1♥-2♣ showing "6-7 HCP, <3 hearts", with responses like ...; 2♦ "min, waiting, forcing, asking for 4c♠ or 2c♥" sufficient to count as "artificial elements"?

I absolutely hope that the WBF and EBL align their definitions.

I absolutely hope that the EBL doesn't consider this, without *serious* examples and case
law, to be sufficient for *anybody* to know what to do.

I'm happy to believe that "there's no negatives to playing a RED system, so it's not a big deal if we don't know where the line is, you can just say it's RED if it's even close and it's just a warning to the opponents." I am not European, I have no idea how games are regulated in Europe, if the Europeans say that there's no "no RED systems allowed" or "no more than X RED systems can be submitted for a team" games I'll believe them.

But I worry.

[mycroft]

As an idea where I would want the line for "ART enough for RED (on a GREEN or BLUE base)"; there's a big box front centre of the card, marked "SPECIAL BIDS THAT MAY REQUIRE DEFENCE". I can not believe that if there's anything in there, it's RED; that's clearly too far (frankly, are there any pairs that shouldn't have something in there?) Goes back to "every meaning for 2♣ over 1NT is Alertable, because it's either Artificial or incredibly surprising because it isn't". If *every system* you run into is RED, how do you tell the difference between "we play transfers after 1M is doubled and Rubensohl after reverses and doubles of weak 2s" (yeah, so does half the field) and "our 1♣ is 10-12 BAL or 17+any" (or "11-16 with clubs, 12-14 BAL, or 19+ any" if you're on the other side of the Baltic), or "our responses to 1♣ are all Artificial", or even "we play Herbert Negatives over our 8-15 1-suit openers" or "our 1-suit openers are Forcing and Unlimited"?

If it's full of stuff, and MEGO if I look at it at the beginning of the round, then yeah, probably RED.

Somewhere in the middle there should be a line where "yeah, this thing that 'require[s] defence' also 'may need advance preparation'." But where?

I could see specifically that "transfers (except over NT) may need advance preparation". Or even "'suits bid that show solely other suits' may need advance preparation". Or "'relay systems' (using the old GCC definition or similar) may need advance preparation".

But there's a *massive* open field here, *somewhere* in which is the line the EBL wants. But again, Not my circus, not my elephants. I'm just surprised that people who obviously are thinking about trying to help opponents against ambiguity aren't aware of "yeah, this will be interpreted totally differently in Paris than in Pula, Berlin or Brindisi - and that's bad."

Actually, now that I think about it, my big issue is hiding "GREEN" and "BLUE" systems (because they "basically" are) because of something later on. I would actually prefer another "sticker" instead ("my strong club system (BLUE) plays a lot of transfers and asking bids after 1♣, and PDI at the 4level or higher and ... (sticker)" or "my natural opener system (GREEN) plays transfers after 1♣ 'clubs or balanced', and Capp/1Mx, and Rubensohl (sticker)". But again, not my circus, not my elephants.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-April-20, 12:31, said:

Which is exactly my point. Where's the borderline?

Transfers over NT are so common that *not* playing them might be something you want to "warn" about these days.
But then there's Transfers/1Mx.
Or as you said, as a defence (direct only) to 1NT.
Or a defence to anything, for that matter (note the "including in competition").
Is "rolling Gerber" (ugh over ugh), where response+1 (if not trump) is the K ask, "relay" enough to be RED?
"artificial elements". Again, does 1♣-1♦; 1♥-2♣ showing "6-7 HCP, <3 hearts", with responses like ...; 2♦ "min, waiting, forcing, asking for 4c♠ or 2c♥" sufficient to count as "artificial elements"?

I absolutely hope that the WBF and EBL align their definitions.

I absolutely hope that the EBL doesn't consider this, without *serious* examples and case
law, to be sufficient for *anybody* to know what to do.

I'm happy to believe that "there's no negatives to playing a RED system, so it's not a big deal if we don't know where the line is, you can just say it's RED if it's even close and it's just a warning to the opponents." I am not European, I have no idea how games are regulated in Europe, if the Europeans say that there's no "no RED systems allowed" or "no more than X RED systems can be submitted for a team" games I'll believe them.

But I worry.

I worry more about other things (like obligatory System documentation and formalized disclosure) but I agree there is a problem that should be solved in 2027.

I would suggest three borderlines, the first two of which I imagine are not contentious:
1) anything goes for a Green system in a contested auction
2) anything goes for a Green system in a constructive auction after a natural NT opening (not by logic but because that ship has sailed)
2) a system becomes Red if there is significant (WBF please define well for 2027) use of transfers/relays/canape' or other artificial treatments in low level constructive developments over a 1 in suit opening.