Bridge bidding & play theory
#1
Posted 2014-February-16, 02:49
Now its probably true that since the 1930's there has been greater development in bidding than in play but I think this could merely mean that play was already analysed under whist, plafond and auction bridge?
I don't expect many posters can recall the 1930's but in your experience is it true that development in play hangs behind bidding, or is bidding development merely catching up?
#2
Posted 2014-February-16, 12:05
Based on Bob Hamman and that statement, I think I can safely say bidding development is still catching up.
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself."
"One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts."
-Alfred Sheinwold
#3
Posted 2014-February-16, 12:30
The success rate of possible lines of play of a hand can relatively easily be calculated. Those odds haven't changed. Bidding theory is much more complicated, it changes all the time, and has made a lot of progress because of that. But percentage-wise I'd say play theory may be in the high 90s while bidding theory is completely uncertain. For all we know, bidding theory may still be in its infancy and we're on the wrong track without knowing it. (Perhaps) system regulations stand in our way to develop the optimal bidding system. Who knows...
Edit: added brackets around 'perhaps'
#4
Posted 2014-February-16, 13:11
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#5
Posted 2014-February-17, 01:42
Free, on 2014-February-16, 12:30, said:
Great thought!
#6
Posted 2014-February-17, 14:56
#7
Posted 2014-February-17, 15:32
1. "The Mathematical Theory of Bridge", by Emile Borel and Andre Cheron. A bridge statistics book from the 1940s. It's out of print in english, but you can order it in french.
2. Vernes article on The Law of Total Tricks. Foundation of many modern bidding ideas.
3. "I Fought the Law", by Mike Lawrence and Anders Wirgren. Criticism of law of total tricks abuses.
4. "Winning NT/suit contracts leads", by David Bird and Taf Anthias. Major modern work on opening leads. Validates some of the results of Borel & Cheron.
5. "Partnership Bidding at Bridge", by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal. One of the very few systematic books on bidding. A masterpiece.
6. "Capitancy for Advancing Bridge Players", by Denis Klein. Leadership principles on bidding and defense debated.
#8
Posted 2014-February-17, 15:34
-gwnn
#9
Posted 2014-February-17, 23:08
"To use these techniques one must have a good evaluation fubction; but no one has been able to find such a function for Bridge......the overall quality of card playing has not improved substantially since the invention of Bridge......I believe this stagnation is due to lack of research.If more time was spent in developing card playing theories both humans and computer programs would benefit."
Here's a link to Aspen (if I've got it right):
My link
Sorry I do not know why it does not work. Can anyone help, please?
Best to just Google aspen+nygate
This post has been edited by Scarabin: 2014-February-18, 19:55
#10
Posted 2014-February-18, 06:28
If so, I'm not sure whether cardplay can be cast into multi-attribute problem form. It it's not like chess, which is purely inductive. Cardplay has inferences.. it's an inductive-deductive procedure.
#11
Posted 2014-February-18, 08:09
In bridge you have to value the effect of having additional information against closing off some layouts where you will make. And also weight probabilities depending on a range of factors. There is nothing here that could not be done with enough investment and involvement of top players though, at least imo. Funnily enough, if bridge had its surge of popularity now rather than after the war this investment would almost certainly be forthcoming and possibly allow the game to leap forwards. But bridge is not only in decline in terms of numbers but is also played primarily by the one of the least marketable demographic groups. Add to that that the most important national body actively discourages any change or advancement and you have a very bad combination for attracting investment.
#12
Posted 2014-February-18, 14:15
A typical theoretical advance in chess might win you 1 game out of 30. It will never cost you a game.
A typical theoretical advance in bridge wins you 4 boards out of 100 but also costs you 3 boards out of 100. Over a week-long event the theoretical advance is pretty sure to gain, but when playing events on the order of 50 boards, the advance will cost you 3 events for every 4 it wins you. Most people seem to feel more pain over losing 3 events they would have won than they feel pleasure over winning 4 events they would have lost.
#13
Posted 2014-February-18, 20:06
I think too many books on play are written as entertainments (good for sales) and too few as textbooks. Let me take Forquet's "Bridge with the Blue Team" as an example. As an entertaining puff for the Blue Team it's magnificent but as a textbook it stresses the "shock,golly" at the expense of straightforward explanations.
The first hand describes how Chiaradaia made 6 spades on the following:
Forquet, who is one of my favourite writers, waxes eloquent on how Chiaradia "played as if he could see through the backs of the cards" instead of just saying he assumed everything was favourable.
Ch unblocked the spades and created an extra entry to dummy. F describes this as a farsighted unblocking play instead of saying Ch needed another entry to dummy and the unblocking play could not lose and might provide this.
The whole effect is to suggest Ch exercised inimitable genius and not to instruct you how to play a hopeless hand.
The only genuine textbooks I can remember are Love's "Bridge squeezes complete", Mollo & Gardiner's "Card Play Technique" and, perhaps Culbertson's Blue Book.
This post has been edited by Scarabin: 2014-February-18, 22:52
#14
Posted 2014-February-18, 23:20
whereagles, on 2014-February-17, 15:32, said:
1. "The Mathematical Theory of Bridge", by Emile Borel and Andre Cheron. A bridge statistics book from the 1940s. It's out of print in english, but you can order it in french.
2. Vernes article on The Law of Total Tricks. Foundation of many modern bidding ideas.
3. "I Fought the Law", by Mike Lawrence and Anders Wirgren. Criticism of law of total tricks abuses.
4. "Winning NT/suit contracts leads", by David Bird and Taf Anthias. Major modern work on opening leads. Validates some of the results of Borel & Cheron.
5. "Partnership Bidding at Bridge", by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal. One of the very few systematic books on bidding. A masterpiece.
6. "Capitancy for Advancing Bridge Players", by Denis Klein. Leadership principles on bidding and defense debated.
An excellent list. I would be tempted to get the Borel, even in French, but my French is very, very rusty. I have the third and the last two. I should look for the Bird and Anthias.
I have two other books on leads that might fit in: Journalist Leads, by Rubens and Rosler (aka "the Journalist") and Reese's translation of Vinge's book, the title of which escapes me.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2014-February-18, 23:23
Scarabin, on 2014-February-17, 23:08, said:
Best to just Google aspen+nygate
Try this one.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#17
Posted 2014-February-19, 03:14
Lorne50, on 2014-February-17, 14:56, said:
But a lot of that is down to interference by the opposition. One of the advances in bridge bidding theory, since the early days of bridge at any rate, is that it is much harder to reach the optimum contract if the opponent's interfere, and interfering is much safer in practice than it might first appear.
#18
Posted 2014-February-19, 05:43
Scarabin, on 2014-February-18, 20:06, said:
There are very few textbooks in english, but in french you can find a couple. Bridge is an optional course at secondary school (as chess, teams sports, etc), so they do have textbook-like stuff. French bridge textbooks are good, pedagogically speaking, and have reasonable systematics. See e.g. works by Roudinesco, Lebel, Bessis or Cronier. However, they have a tendency to flee from borderline hands and I found a few systemic lapses (some due to "holes" in the system, others due to different theoretical trends). Textbooks go all the way, up to university level stuff.
In english I would add Willam Root's "How to play a bridge hand" to your list.
I am in the process of writing one myself, in my native language (portuguese). Problem is, work keeps getting in the way LOL
#19
Posted 2014-February-19, 05:50
blackshoe, on 2014-February-18, 23:20, said:
I have two other books on leads that might fit in: Journalist Leads, by Rubens and Rosler (aka "the Journalist") and Reese's translation of Vinge's book, the title of which escapes me.
Borel probably classifies as the only academically-oriented work on bridge (that I know of). The amount of effort put on it was gargantuan. Remember that was before pocket calculators, and numbers were put out with 6(!!) significant digits.
"Journalist Leads" is a great book, but it is somewhat hard to digest. Some sentences seem incomplete It's interesting to see that simulations of Bird/Anthias go completely in line with Rubens/Rosler's arguments in favor of Rusinow leads: A from Axx, K from AKx. Borel's book also corroborates that (1) ace leads are less harmful than suggested by standard lore, and (2) king/queen underleads more dangerous.
#20
Posted 2014-February-19, 14:36
Free, on 2014-February-16, 12:30, said: