[helene_t]

benlessard, on Dec 12 2008, 02:46 PM, said:

So in my view any system where partneship understanding and inference are much more complex than the information you ll give to the opps can be banned and i wont lose sleep at all.

You would have to ban all systems with the possible exception of some very simple relay systems such as Moscito. But even a pair playing Moscito would have some understanding about overcall style etc. which they couldn't disclose completely, because it's too vague.

[Free]

Quote

Back to discussion, I bought a new car. It has definitions, manuals etc etc. Can I drive it "f r e e" like a Jet? When parts of it are "restricted", am I not automaticaly restricted in usage?

Ofcourse you're restricted, but doesn't affect HOW you have to drive your car. You press the gas and it goes forward or backwards (depending on the gear). The performance restrictions have nothing to do with the way you get your car to move (you also can't make more than 13 tricks in a bridge game). We're not in the matrix where some of these rules can be bent

Quote

Moreover, my car is a speedy one. But there's a highway patrol.

Regulations my friend, similar to "no HUM allowed". You're still driving the same way if you're going 100 or 160km/h, but you're not allowed to drive 160. In an unrestricted event (like a circuit) you'd be able to drive as fast as your car can.

[HeavyDluxe]

I've watched... Now it's time for the crappy beginner perspective:

1) I find myself fascinated with bridge for the following reasons:
- The beauty of cardplay and how card combinations work is fascinating.
- The innovative ways people use a limited language to communicate info is geeklicious.
- Everyone at the table has some information, and the rest is based on reasoning and skill (and luck)

2) It strikes me that cardplay - both managing dummy and defense - is far more important to your long term success than bidding. Meckwell or 'Hammood' could beat me into the ground by only putting down the green card.

3) To the degree to which 'unusual' bidding methods communicate information that is clear for both defenders and declarer, I think they should be allowed at some level. The innovation of the use of the bidding language is part of the game... And we've all benefited (think blackwood).

4) In 90% of bridge settings or more, the main advantage of HUMs simply lies in their obscurity. The leave virgin opponents flummoxed and frustrated.

5) I'm one for gamesmanship, so if you can get ops steaming a little and take advantage you should. So, a psyche or a 'misleading' lead are all in good fun. However, if you repeatedly make non-systemic leads all while telling your opps you play standard leads you're cheating. I can't help but think that a lot of the purpose in these bidding systems is simple obfuscation/confusion of the situation so people on the other side of the auction are simply stuck. At that point, play become more akin to poker than bridge.

6) I've thought the chess illustrations have been good. It's worth reemphasizing, however, that chess and bridge *are* different. If you surprise me by playing an unorthodox opening/defense at the chessboard, I still *see* everything you're trying to do. I have a shot at thinking it out and coming up with a solution. That's not true for bridge. Also, most chess games still start 1. e4 because time has shown that most of the classical principles of the game (control the center, knights in closed positions, etc) are sound. I'd wager that the same is true of 'natural' bidding methods in bridge.

In closing... I don't mind playing against people who play something wacky. But, at the amateur level at least, there needs to be clear explanations and defenses available so we keep playing bridge rather than spades.

[glen]

HeavyDluxe, on Dec 12 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

... at the amateur level at least, there needs to be clear explanations and defenses available so we keep playing bridge rather than spades.

Thanks for your comments - they are very useful in moving this discussion forward.

The need for clear explanations extends beyond systems. For example here's a conversation I see repeated too often:

Q. what carding do you play?
A. standard, and roman first discards
Q. what are roman first discards?
A. odd/even
Q. what does that mean?
A. odd we like the suit, even we don't

Now it is left at that, with never a mention that even will often be suit preference, or what subsequent discards show

[MFA]

benlessard, on Dec 12 2008, 08:46 AM, said:

Bridge is a hidden information game where players communicate information with bids that they defined themselves, yet all players are entitled to the same informations. So you have to rely that agreements and styles that was accumulated over the years can be explained in simple terms to the opponents.

Some players dont like preempting with 3 card in the other majors they ll rarely do it, yet some will find any excuse to make a weak 2. Yet if you ask for information to both of them they will likely say the same old *****... we are white so we can be pretty agressive tend to be 6 card but could be 5 with 5-10hcp. One partnership will preempt on Jxxxx,x,KJxxx,xx and the other will pass AQTxx,xxx,x,Qxxx . Did you get a correct information ? In a strict sense yes. Did you get all the information ? Surely not. Wheiter we like or not this happen all the time at all the level. We will never be able to give information clear enough to compensate specific knowledge that is accumulated through years of partnerships.

While we surely are striving for "full disclosure", we must be realistic.

Very often a bid is being made, just because the bidder thinks his hand is worth it. Surely his partner has a better feel for the requirements than the opponents, but this could be next to impossible to explain in detail.

Explaining about style is a relative description. But very often the player and his partner won't know where they are, relatively! They are trying to bid sensibly, but may, in a specific situation, have an unconscious style of for instance:

- paying more or less attention than usual to the vulnerability
- paying more or less attention than usual to suit quality
- paying more or less attention than usual to point count
- generally being aggressive or passive
and so on.

They know what to expect in an absolute but not in a relative sense, which makes it very hard to descripe to the opponents.
This is a partnership advantage, I don't think there is any reason to deny the existence of it. It's a part of the game.

Quote

So in my view any system where partneship understanding and inference are much more complex than the information you ll give to the opps can be banned and i wont lose sleep at all.

I read this as an out of context attack on unusual (convoluted) systems.
I don't share the paranoia. Typically one can get all the relevant information by asking about what other options, the bidder had. This is what they know and therefore what I am entitled to know.

[Gerben42]

Now we're talking about disclosure again. I hate to repeat what others have said but: With few exceptions, I get better disclosure from pairs playing something nonstandard than from pairs who claim to play something standard. This happens from the club level to the natural level. Yesterday I checked some convention cards from the German leagues (1st and 2nd). Most Precision, Polish, 2/1 etc. cards were filled out completely, but...

[RANT]

One CC stuck out, it basically said:

1C opening shows 3+ Clubs. Responses are NATURAL.
1D opening shows 3+Diamonds. Responses are NATURAL.
Only 1NT said something extra: 1N opening shows 15-17. Responses are Stayman & Transfers.

My first reaction is "what on Earth does that mean?!" How dare you claim that your method is standard, and some other is not? I mean you're playing in the German 1st national league, yet you do not bother to write some simple things on your convention card because you feel your methods are natural and standard!

BTW this pair better not have me as TD, or I would let them fill out their convention card on the spot.
[/RANT]

[Gerben42]

Now that I got that out of the way, what I really wanted to say:

I agree that it's probably not very good for your bridge if you get overloaded with conventions. However, as a defense for someone who has probably played most existing bidding systems, and some that don't really exist:

I don't like complex bidding systems. Unusual and complex are like apples and pears. If I was going to start a new partnership with a forcing pass system, it would fit on 2 pages. I'm not someone who wants to optimize the responses to new minor forcing just to get a better result on 1 hand.

On the other hand, playing a natural system in a serious partnership requires just the same work as some weird system: You have to make your "system book". Write down what things mean! Most of your work should be about the 1st and 2nd round of bidding.

Simple things like:

1NT (p) 2♠: Shows what? (note that the CC in my prev. post doesn't say)
1N (2♥) Dbl: TO or penalty?
1♣ (1♠) 2♦: Forcing or not?
1♠ (Dbl) 3♠: Invitational (if so, how many trumps), preemptive?
1♦ (p) 2♠: Strong, invitational, weak, preemptive? Requirements for the bid? What if it's a passed hand?

First-round bidding situations come up all the time. They are the most important part of your system. Get them right. And I admit that I DO want to optimize these kinds of 1st round auctions with regular partners, rather than agreeing that it's natural and hope that it means the same for partner and for me.

[TimG]

HeavyDluxe, on Dec 12 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

Also, most chess games still start 1. e4 because time has shown that most of the classical principles of the game (control the center, knights in closed positions, etc) are sound. I'd wager that the same is true of 'natural' bidding methods in bridge.

Natural bidding methods may well be sound, but other methods (such as Precision, which is less natural) have also proven to be sound.

But, the existence of a single sound approach should not preclude experimentation with other approaches.

[blackshoe]

I still don't see why a system with a strong artificial 2♣ opening should be considered "natural" and a system with a strong artificial 1♣ opening should not.

Hm. Romex has four strong and forcing opening bids, only one of which (2NT) is not artificial. Is Romex a "natural" system? George Rosenkranz certainly seems to think so!

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Dec 12 2008, 04:07 AM, said:

What you describe doesn't sound at all like bridge as I know it.

In bridge you know the other options because the opponent (deception aside - psyches) must tell you in advance what their methods are.

In bridge I don't decide at my turn to bid what my defense is to the opponents contraption whatever it is. I make arrangements with my partner in advance. Currently if my opponents methods are ruled too unusual I even have the advantage of writing down my defense to give my side an advantage.

Unless I know your system as well as you do, I don't know your 'other options'. Sure by law you can't hide stuff from me, but we don't have a month to explain the whole thing either. So you tell me the most common aspects, or the parts most in need of me devising a defense, and against everything else good luck me.

[awm]

blackshoe, on Dec 12 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

I still don't see why a system with a strong artificial 2♣ opening should be considered "natural" and a system with a strong artificial 1♣ opening should not.

Hm. Romex has four strong and forcing opening bids, only one of which (2NT) is not artificial. Is Romex a "natural" system? George Rosenkranz certainly seems to think so!

It's a frequency argument. The strong 2♣ opening comes up once every few hundred boards, and all the other openings in standard show length in the bid suit.

In contrast a precision 1♣ comes up several times a session and many precision pairs use artificial 1♦ and 2♦ openings too.

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Dec 12 2008, 01:28 AM, said:

Look, you can say my observations don't mean anything but I'm speaking from personal experience.

I certainly never did or would say that. All I can say is they are inherently biased, just like mine would be in the same situation. It would be hard for someone in your position to separate any bad contracts your opponents reach from 'ridiculous results' to 'normal bad results caused by my very superior system which are ok because people get bad results against any system'.

I should also mention your opponents would probably be oppositely biased. It really would take a neutral third party.

Quote

People were mentioning chess and I thought the situation was somewhat analogous.

...

Quote

Sometimes people can just be making conversation and don't have to have an agenda.

You have a preference. You made an argument that supports it. If you want to keep insisting you just did so because it was interesting conversation but you weren't dare trying to convince anyone of anything, then whatever.

Quote

If I believed that they should be removed then I would argue that they should be removed.

As I have pointed out, you did. Also this quote of yours seems to contradict the last one.

Quote

I was responding to multiple people and posts, not just you.  I didn't to imply that you argued it wasn't feasible.

Ok no problem. I may have been confused by the response being at the end of a long passage beginning "with respect to jdonn".

[csdenmark]

If you want to go to New York your captain will have no problems landing in calm weather. He will use the autopilot. In bad weather it is different, storm or snow, the captain will take control using his skills and his instruments to optimize his options for a safe landing. Thats not all, he also needs to minimize his risks; preparing for a lift off if something goes wrong. For that he will use the odds to decide.

In bridge we call this offensive and defensive bidding. We only talk about borderline decisions(bad-weather landings). For calm weather we assume to be in safe heaven without problems. For that we assume all ordinary methods will do the job.

In competitive millieus you will try to optimize your competitive advances. You will try to optimize the parameters of your controls.

In business you have a wide range of such and you use an interest analyze trying to grip the challenges.
Costumers, banks, staff, machinery etc. are what you will be able to influence performance of.

You have fewer options, but similar kind of problems, in a game. A game has a strict focus on how well you will be able to optimize. To choose your best tennis rackett, to string it hard or soft depending you prefer groundline og volleyplay. You rackett is of great importance for your success - therefore you need to care. If you are doing well - the market will recognize as well your personal skills as your rackett as successful. Price will rise. OK this can nowadays be much influenced by marketing maneuvres - so try thinking about a horse for jump riding instead. Here you only has one item. The market value will rise if you win tournaments. You will receive price money, invited to more tournaments. As a person your personal fitness for the job matters a lot. But that is not the only thing which matters. Your horse must be well prepared too. Your responsibility is to see to that you and your horse together will be successful. As you win more tournaments the market value of your horse will raise too. If your horse one day is no longer fit, maybe a disease, the market value will tumble of course.

In bridge you are also dependent of something else than yourself. You are dependent of optimizing what you have influence of. Your knowledge, you physical and physic balance, your motivation etc. But you are also dependent of what remedies you have available to help you. Your tools are your bridge system and the odds(mathematical assumptions).

As a game bridge has never been able to create interest for the game outside those directly involved. Therefore there is no market value to refer to in bridge. Neither for persons nor for remedies used.

Does this mean there is no correlation between a player as a person and the tools he is using to achieve his objectives? Does it make sense to say that something does not exist only because I cannot see it?

A blind person cannot see this world. A blind person cannot see the blue color. Despite that we all know that this world exists and that there is something called a blue color. Why making assumptions for one thing you can see and a different assumption for another, but similar, you cannot see? Certainly this makes no sense. You need to recognize all tools you are dependent of as important - no matter you can see them or not. You have learned so where there is a market value you can refer to - so you need some kind of proof for rejecting such a correlation to be valid where there is no market value.

How to optimize in bridge?

- If you are poor on interference handle - you may use hammers as an important tool
- If you are good in NT play - you will ask for stoppers
- If you are bad in NT play - you will ask for shortness
- If you prefer declarer play - you will lower opening threshold
- If you hate defensive bidding - you will play a pass system
- If you prefer defensive play - you will increase trapping options

[IdiotVig]

It's interesting that no one agreeing on any analogies is somewhat analogous to system agreements/full disclosure itself. The analogies are attempting to take a broad, complex system of statements, and boil it down into something understandable and manageable itself.

And, as we've seen, despite best efforts to describe something complex in a simple set of statements, ambiguity still remains.

I don't want to choose sides, as I think the discussion (vitriol and all) has been fascinating. However, if it's difficult to come to an agreement on a proper analogy, then it certainly must be difficult to 1) explain unusual/complex systems, 2) understand them as an opponent, 3) synthesize the information and come up with an appropriate counter.

[awm]

Perhaps an easy way to obtain some agreement here is to state the following:

Bridge is not a game of secret information. As long as we agree on that, methods require disclosure.

But when do the methods need to be disclosed? This really depends on the nature of the methods. Some things are fine being disclosed only "when the bid comes up at the table." These are generally calls in auctions where opponents are unlikely to want to compete, or calls that are pretty common and any serious player should be experienced in dealing with. Other things may require disclosure "before the start of the auction." These are things like an unorthodox general approach, that might require a few minutes of discussion in order to be on the same page with a defense. And then there are things that require disclosure "seriously in advance of the round" because they are highly unusual and/or require some serious thought about a reasonable defense. It seems fairly clear that a forcing pass system falls in this last category, although perhaps that would change if forcing pass systems were more common.

Really, the point of banning methods is an acknowledgment that for certain types of event, it is not really possible to disclose a method in a sufficient way. Even things that need to be disclosed "before the start of the auction" can cause a heavy burden in a timed pairs event where there are many short rounds and having to spend five minutes to hear the pre-alert and discuss defense can get a pair behind the clock (in particular the pair playing the unusual method will always be behind because every opposing pair must hear the pre-alert and discuss defense). Methods which need to be disclosed "seriously in advance" are even more of a problem, because in a large but short event (like swiss teams) you often do not know who your opponents will be until a few minutes before the start of play. While any one such set of "methods that require seriously in advance disclosure" could be dealt with in a few hours of discussion, in an event with hundreds of teams it is not practical to have such discussion for every single team's such methods regardless of whether you will face them or not.

So the status quo is basically that methods which "need to be disclosed when the bid comes up" are allowed, methods which "need to be disclosed before the start of the auction" are occasionally banned in pairs events (depending on how "common" the methods are viewed to be) and methods which "need to be disclosed seriously in advance" are frequently banned except in long KO matches. Honestly this approach seems about right to me, although there is certainly some debate about which methods fall into which categories.

[H_KARLUK]

Free, on Dec 12 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

Quote

Back to discussion, I bought a new car. It has definitions, manuals etc etc. Can I drive it "f r e e" like a Jet? When parts of it are "restricted", am I not automaticaly restricted in usage?

Ofcourse you're restricted, but doesn't affect HOW you have to drive your car. You press the gas and it goes forward or backwards (depending on the gear). The performance restrictions have nothing to do with the way you get your car to move (you also can't make more than 13 tricks in a bridge game). We're not in the matrix where some of these rules can be bent

Quote

Moreover, my car is a speedy one. But there's a highway patrol.

Regulations my friend, similar to "no HUM allowed". You're still driving the same way if you're going 100 or 160km/h, but you're not allowed to drive 160. In an unrestricted event (like a circuit) you'd be able to drive as fast as your car can.

Mister,

You'll be free when the day comes you fear and hope for nothing. Until that day you'll live with given restricted choices.

[HeavyDluxe]

Gerben42, on Dec 12 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

Now we're talking about disclosure again. I hate to repeat what others have said but: With few exceptions, I get better disclosure from pairs playing something nonstandard than from pairs who claim to play something standard.

Thanks for that balancing comment, Gerben.

Let me say that I think my comment does (as Glen noted) extend to both non-natural and 'natural' players. Heck, on BBO I'm confident 50% of people think your bids are *secret* ("I don't have to tell you what that means!"). It also applies to carding, etc etc.

But, the topic of the thread was HUMs and BSCs. So, respectfully, I still stand by my comments. I think that most unusual systems main benefit is that people are ill-prepared to face them and they make inferences needed to play difficult. A la a southpaw in boxing, the advantage is simply that it's "different" and requires different preparation. In most levels of bridge, that preparation is simply not possible.

Note: I understand that part of the issue is that governing bodies (the ACBL in particular) are not playing ball with means for you guys to play Moscito, Gnat, or whatever you want to play. I admit that's possibly a problem, as has been beaten to death in the earlier part of the thread.

Is it possible that these methods are objectively better? I suppose so. However, if that's the case, I would expect to see more and more expert players adopting them and winning. Having done so, the sexy-new-convention-crazy masses would urge for adoption and the snowball starts rolling downhill. If these guys who get paid to win thought they could win *more*, they would.

If these things want to be played at the highest levels, great. If there is a way to open these to shorter events in a way that doesn't ridiculously disadvantage a 'average' player, cool.

[HeavyDluxe]

Wow.

What Adam said in his last post = great.

[Cascade]

H_KARLUK, on Dec 12 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

I thank you too tho in my view we disagreed.
"Chess opening theory developed since there were no restrictions on what openings could be played. Bridge bidding theory can benefit enormously by lifting arbitrary restrictions on what can be played."
I am sorry, there is also a restriction. Perhaps you skipped. Movement of the pieces aren't restricted?
...

In Chess they don't change the rules when someone starts having success with an innovative opening (or other set of rules).

I am sure Chess players would start complaining if they said "from now you can only move your bishop one square" or we are banning you from playing some particular opening.

And they would complain more if this ban came after certain players had started having success against the masters with the now banned opening.

[Cascade]

benlessard, on Dec 13 2008, 02:46 AM, said:

So in my view any system where partneship understanding and inference are much more complex than the information you ll give to the opps can be banned and i wont lose sleep at all.

Do you mean like SAYC or 2/1?