[helene_t]

Free, on Dec 24 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

Has anyone informed them about this topic and that people want their opinions?

Do we? If they have more important things to do I am happy with them to ignore this thread. It is perfectly consistent to care for bridge while not caring for a particular marginal issue such as what is discussed here.

[RichMor]

dburn, on Dec 24 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Lew Stansby bid 1♠ over a pass that showed an opening bid; Chip Martel raised him to 2♠ and he bid 2NT, which would have been an artificial force if he had opened the bidding, but was natural and non-forcing if he had overcalled (as in effect he had). Both of these mishaps led to ridiculous results that cost the USA several IMPs.

I felt then, as I feel now, that such occurrences are an undesirable effect of highly unusual systems. But the way to eliminate them is not to abolish these systems at the highest level - it is to ensure that your team has done enough preparation against them to negate as much as possible the aspect of unfamiliarity. Before the British team left for Jamaica, each of its pairs played more than a hundred boards against all manner of unusual methods (there was no shortage of volunteers prepared to give the team some practice) so that we were equipped to deal with Brazil, New Zealand, Sweden and the other countries we encountered who were using strange systems.

David,

Thanks for a good post. But I still have a few questions in my simple mind.

1)
The second paragraph refers to 'undesireable' effects of unusual systems.
Undesireable to whom?

To the pairs playing unusual systems, I think the effects are highly desireable.

In an event where 'anything goes' for bidding methods, wouldn't the optimal strategy of the unusual system players be one that maximizes misunderstandings between the opponents ? Additionally, when the opponents hold the balance of strength the gain from misunderstandings will increase.

2)
You state than preparation is the way to eliminate undesireable effects. While that is most certainly true, it seems to change the nature of the game. Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the ususual systems of all the potential opponents.

Doesn't this change the fundamental nature of bridge contests?

RichM

[jdonn]

RichMor, on Dec 24 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

1) The second paragraph refers to 'undesireable' effects of unusual systems.
Undesireable to whom?

To the pairs playing unusual systems, I think the effects are highly desireable.

In an event where 'anything goes' for bidding methods, wouldn't the optimal strategy of the unusual system players be one that maximizes misunderstandings between the opponents ? Additionally, when the opponents hold the balance of strength the gain from misunderstandings will increase.

It's one thing to hope for misunderstandings because the opponents forgot to discuss an auction, or discussed so many that they couldn't keep track of their agreements, or took a chance on something they hadn't discussed explicitely. But hoping your opponents have a misunderstanding because they accidentally thought the auction looked like something it wasn't strikes me as rather dispicible. That is no different from playing a heart and hoping your opponent thinks it was a diamond and revokes. Of course when it happens it happens, but I don't think it's right to design your system with the intent of maximizing such an occurence.

[glen]

[quote name='RichMor' date='Dec 24 2008, 04:05 PM'] [quote name='dburn' date='Dec 24 2008, 02:33 PM']Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the ususual systems of all the potential opponents.

Doesn't this change the fundamental nature of bridge contests? [/quote]
Right now we have:

Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the systems of all the potential opponents.

I don't see why adding the word unusual (or the less used ususual) and bolding the word "all" twice results in: "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests"

[ulven]

dburn, on Dec 24 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

As to my views on forcing pass and other highly unusual systems, I believe that they should be permitted at national championship level and above, but not below that unless there is local demand.

It irks me somewhat to read, for example, Larry Cohen describing some misfortune that befell a pair when a dastardly opponent responded 1♥ to 1♣ to show a spade suit. Surely, the world's leading players do not need molly-coddling to the extent that they never have to cope with anything other than the totally familiar.

I agree on the quoted views. The whining regarding unfamiliar methods, when coming from professionals and it refers to WC level is lame, IMO. Most take the wrong mental approach. This is probably because they never get any practise because of overprotection.

I don't care if opp's play strange methods. I played against Dwurka twice at the Europeans in Pau (the most 'funny' system in that contest, played by a Polish pair) with minimal defensive agreements and we won both matches (24-6 and 19-11) without any problems because of "strangeness".

The majority of gains for unusual methods comes because these push their opponents out of their comfort zone and they therefore tense up and have concentration lapses or make unforced errors as a result, directly or indirectly. HUM's doesn't produce better results per se - they make you perform worse by beating you in the mental game. To counter this, you have to adjust mentally. The key factor when playing against these methods is not in endless hours of preparations, as many seem to think; it's how you respond psychologically to the setting.

- Use generic agreements, not optimal but easy to apply, without need for notes to consult (at the table).
- Repeat these between the two of you just before game-time.
- If you get fixed on a deal, just let it go without dwelling.
- The HUM's are invaribly flawed somewhere in their design and exploit those instead - or expect the law of averages to produce deals where those flaws will hand you gains that offset the 'fixes'.
- Losing a swing because a low percentage vulnerable game came in or because an artificial opening put you on the spot shouldn't make a difference. They just got lucky. Next time the game fails or the opening back-fires. But you better be in your 'zone' or you won't be able to capitalize.

[TimG]

RichMor, on Dec 24 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

1)
The second paragraph refers to 'undesireable' effects of unusual systems.
Undesireable to whom?

To the pairs playing unusual systems, I think the effects are highly desireable.

In an event where 'anything goes' for bidding methods, wouldn't the optimal strategy of the unusual system players be one that maximizes misunderstandings between the opponents ? Additionally, when the opponents hold the balance of strength the gain from misunderstandings will increase.

I think there are two very different effects of unusual systems.

1) Uncertainty caused by the methods. As a very simple example, after a multi 2D opening, not knowing whether heart and/or spade bids are cue-bids. Discussion and creation of a defense should get around this effect. Though the nature of the method may make it more difficult to defend than standard methods, whether they be familiar or unfamiliar.

2) Uncertainty caused by confusion about which defense applies, or how a defense applies. To use David's example, the Martel-Stansby auction where they "overcalled" 1S and were now unsure whether their agreements over a 1S overcall or a 1S opening bid were in play.

One is uncertainty caused by the specific method; the other is uncertainty that might arise from having any unusual method in play.

It is my opinion that the uncertainty caused by 1) is good system design and that the uncertainty caused by 2) is the "undesirable" effect.

[RichMor]

[quote name='glen' date='Dec 24 2008, 04:39 PM'] [quote name='RichMor' date='Dec 24 2008, 04:05 PM'] [quote name='dburn' date='Dec 24 2008, 02:33 PM']Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the ususual systems of all the potential opponents.

Doesn't this change the fundamental nature of bridge contests? [/QUOTE]
Right now we have:

Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the systems of all the potential opponents.

I don't see why adding the word unusual (or the less used ususual) and bolding the word "all" twice results in: "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests" [/quote]
Glen,

1)
Because unusual is not the same as usual, or even the same as ususual.

I bet you and your regular partners have discussed your defense to mini, weak, and strong 1NT openings. You may even play diffferent defenses based on the strength of the opening. Which defense applies when a 1NT opening is split range? Are you sure your pard is on the same wavelength?

2)
Because all means more than one.

I believe that preparing a defense to one ususual system is easier that preparing defenses to three very different ususual systems all being played by various pairs in a multi-team event.

Do you disagree ?

RichM

[the hog]

dburn, on Dec 25 2008, 02:33 AM, said:

I felt then, as I feel now, that such occurrences are an undesirable effect of highly unusual systems. But the way to eliminate them is not to abolish these systems at the highest level - it is to ensure that your team has done enough preparation against them to negate as much as possible the aspect of unfamiliarity. Before the British team left for Jamaica, each of its pairs played more than a hundred boards against all manner of unusual methods (there was no shortage of volunteers prepared to give the team some practice) so that we were equipped to deal with Brazil, New Zealand, Sweden and the other countries we encountered who were using strange systems.

And we were not all professional players with vast amounts of time and energy to devote to such practice - Kirby, Armstrong and Brock all had full-time jobs. In these days, when most top players devote all or most of their time to bridge, I can see no real reason why such methods should be prohibited or greatly circumscribed. It irks me somewhat to read, for example, Larry Cohen describing some misfortune that befell a pair when a dastardly opponent responded 1♥ to 1♣ to show a spade suit. Surely, the world's leading players do not need molly-coddling to the extent that they never have to cope with anything other than the totally familiar.

Yea verily, a Daniel come to judgement.

[Free]

helene_t, on Dec 24 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

Free, on Dec 24 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

Has anyone informed them about this topic and that people want their opinions?

Do we? If they have more important things to do I am happy with them to ignore this thread. It is perfectly consistent to care for bridge while not caring for a particular marginal issue such as what is discussed here.

My point exactly. People think they should come here to discuss this, I don't.

[nige1]

ulven, on Dec 24 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

- The HUM's are invaribly flawed somewhere in their design ...

Systems have strengths and weaknesses; but I don't believe that HUMs necessarily have more flaws than familiar methods.

• A new HUM may not yet have sufficient expsure to iron out its wrinkles.
  
• But most HUMs were conceived to counter perceived drawbacks in traditional methods.

[glen]

RichMor, on Dec 24 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

glen, on Dec 24 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

I don't see why ... results in: "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests"

1) Because unusual is not the same as usual, or even the same as ususual.

I bet you and your regular partners have discussed your defense to mini, weak, and strong 1NT openings. You may even play diffferent defenses based on the strength of the opening. Which defense applies when a 1NT opening is split range? Are you sure your pard is on the same wavelength?

Yes, with my regular partner I'm sure that we are on the same wavelength. We play agreements that are not focused on being optimal, but on being certain.

RichMor, on Dec 24 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

2) Because all means more than one.

I believe that preparing a defense to one ususual system is easier that preparing defenses to three very different ususual systems all being played by various pairs in a multi-team event.

Do you disagree ?

No, I agree that preparing 1 defense is easier than preparing 3. However that does not "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests", but just makes some contests easier than others.

Even the systems that "standard" experts play require some prep work on understanding. For example in the 08 Worlds, we had:

England - J&J Hacketts: natural. non-weak NT
France - Bompis-Quantin: mostly natural, non-weak NT

However their systems & style are very very different:

J&J:
14-16 NT in 1,2, 5cM possible
4 card majors, can be canape if weak
frequent light openings
semi-forcing NT response to 1♦/♥/♠
5 card weak twos 2♦/♥/♠, very wide range

B&Q:
15-17 NT, usually no 5cM
5 card majors, 4♦s unless 4-4-3-2 exactly
likely playing forcing NT and 2/1, but cc does not state - there is mention of 2♣/♦ relays, no details given
2♦ Multi in 1,2,3 positions, 6 card major, 5-10
2M 5-5 weak in 1,2,3 positions, 5-10
3X openings are transfers in 1,2 positions

Thus prep work for two mostly natural systems is quite different. Still allowing J&J and B&Q in the event did not result in your "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests".

Note this post was written while listening to the Vince Guaraldi Trio.

[foo]

It's easier to prep for natural systems like those above than it is to prep for FC systems; and it's =much= easier to prep for FC systems than for Dominant systems like those that contain Strong Passes and Ferts.

Remember, this is the highest levels of Bridge competition we are talking about. As JanM has repeatedly said, proper systems prep is considerably more detailed and thorough at this level than for your local club game or regional!

The issue this brings up is, "just how much should unfamiliarity with the opponents methods be allowed as a factor in deciding who wins at Bridge?"

Jeff Meckstroth once defended a hand where They only took 4 tricks while Meckwell was cold for a grand. The pair in question got a Top. Jeff then had a long talk with Edgar Kaplan.
The result was a change in the scoring tables to give a dis-incentive for that sort of "bridge".

If we can figure out how to change the scoring table to further punish silly contracts, it may be the best approach to convention regulation.
After all, precedent for the approach exists and it's been shown to be effective.

OTOH, if we take this approach, we have to be careful to not change the scoring table so much that people will stop balancing with their 22 HCP hand because they know they will score better by passing the auction out at the one level!

It's not clear to me how much we can do to ameleorate the one without making the other unacceptably worse.
Of course, striking the appropriate balance on issues like this is the sort of thing groups like the C&C =should= be good at.

[glen]

foo, on Dec 25 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

It's easier to prep for natural systems like those above than it is to prep for FC systems ...

Actually its not as clear as you make it out to be. For example, the Hacketts are tougher to prep for than Jianming-Lixin's Precision.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Dec 25 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

Jeff Meckstroth once defended a hand where They only took 4 tricks while Meckwell was cold for a grand.  The pair in question got a Top.  Jeff then had a long talk with Edgar Kaplan.
The result was a change in the scoring tables to give a dis-incentive for that sort of "bridge".

Hmmm

I recall a story where Meckwell bid a grand as a sacrifice, went down lots and received a good score.

As I recall, the scoring tables were changed.

I don't recall hearing the converse (that this happened to Meckwell). Nor anything about them running off and whining to Kaplan.

Can you please point to secondary sources that document this story...

[csdenmark]

--------------

This post has been edited by csdenmark: 2008-December-25, 13:32

[fred]

csdenmark, on Dec 25 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

No - Jan's only intension is to find an excuse for the judicial mess which nobody any longer is able to see the point of or able to justify.

The system that exists in the ACBL is easy to justify and has been justified repeatedly in this thread. Since apparently you remain completely out of touch with reality, I will spell it out for you again:

The ACBL has something like 150K members. Probably upwards of 140K of these are content with the current state of affairs.

Justified.

Like it or not, you need to realize that your views in this area would be considered highly radical, not only in the USA but in most of the rest of the world as well. If the ACBL were to adopt your (radical) ideas, then very few of their 150K members would be content.

You are certainly entitled to disagree with Jan, but please try to refrain from disparaging her intentions on this site. Jan has donated a great deal of time and effort to the betterment of bridge (serving as USBF President, serving on various ACBL committees, organizing vugraph, being a vugraph operator...). She deserves our thanks and she certainly does not deserve to have her intentions questioned.

Furthermore, as you yourself have pointed out, we should all be grateful that someone in her position and with her experience and knowledge has spent so much time contributing to this thread (and to Forums in general). You have complained that Jan is one of the few "bridge officials" who have been involved. I doubt she (or other bridge officials) will have much interest in contributing in the future if insults is what they get in return.

So please try to leave speculation of Jan's (and other peoples') intentions out of this. Not only are you not in a position to make such claims, but the very act of doing so is really not very nice.

And we all know you are basically a nice guy, even if you are a radical

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[foo]

glen, on Dec 25 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 25 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

It's easier to prep for natural systems like those above than it is to prep for FC systems ...

Actually its not as clear as you make it out to be. For example, the Hacketts are tougher to prep for than Jianming-Lixin's Precision.

You're right. I should've prefixed that point with the phrase "in general".

[foo]

hrothgar, on Dec 25 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 25 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

Jeff Meckstroth once defended a hand where They only took 4 tricks while Meckwell was cold for a grand.  The pair in question got a Top.  Jeff then had a long talk with Edgar Kaplan.
The result was a change in the scoring tables to give a dis-incentive for that sort of "bridge".

Hmmm

I recall a story where Meckwell bid a grand as a sacrifice, went down lots and received a good score.

As I recall, the scoring tables were changed.

I don't recall hearing the converse (that this happened to Mechwell). Nor anything about them running off and whining to Kaplan.

Can you please point to secondary sources that document this story...

We're very likely talking about the same board, but with who was on what side confused.

Edgar Kaplan was at the time a =very= powerful force in bridge officialdom on these matters and was indeed approached about the issue exemplified by the board in question and the person who drove the scoring changes through.
(Regardless of who approached him, I object to characterizing such an action as "whining". Most would say that the scoring change improved Bridge.)

I'll see if I can find a publicly available objective written source as a reference.

It may take awhile. It's the holidays and I have other obligations. Including some correspondence to other people on this site.

For those who want to look on their own in the meantime, I suggest as likely starting places for searching Jeff's autobiographical bridge book and _The Bridge World's_ book on EK.


Lest we get too distracted by a tangent, let me remind everyone that THE point of that little story is that we have historical precedent for changing the scoring tables of Bridge in a successful attempt to deal with methods or styles that generate ludicrous ATT results.

Another poster's suggestion of using this mechanism as a clean and fair way of dealing with many of the present problems in this area is therefore very worthy of serious consideration.

[csdenmark]

Fred I know quite well that Jan is doing a great job for american bridge. I am, like you, very impressed of what she is doing. I am only in a position to read what I can see from the USBF-web-site and I can see her influence and seriousity is highly admirable.

You read my comment as a personal insult - I am sorry it can be read that way. That was completely unintended. I dont know how to edit that out and still let the expression about the topic stay, which one I still stand to, stay - so I have deleted the post entirely.

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 25 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

The system that exists in the ACBL is easy to justify and has been justified repeatedly in this thread. Since apparently you remain completely out of touch with reality, I will spell it out for you again:

The ACBL has something like 150K members. Probably upwards of 140K of these are content with the current state of affairs.

Justified.

Fred the judicial principles are quite different over here Frances has told in this thread. They are according to ordinary judicial principles and therefore easy to justify. Bridgeplayers over here are just as happy with those rules as your assumption for american players. I think the basic reason simply is that only few bridgeplayers are affected of specific rules. To most the rules are the logic of the game - a priori rules. You say present situation is justified because 140/150 are satisfied. They are not affected, have never been and will never be.

Yes Fred I am radical - I hope you are too! Please name me a person who have accomplished anything without being seen as a radical one way or the other. Radicals are needed to be able to find the relevant responses to what the world need now. Administrators and mediators are needed too but without radicals their world would go under very quickly.

What the bridge world needs now is a radical turnaround. Even that will only affect a small part of the members - but it is those for whom bridge is more than just a social weekly community get-together.

Bridge needs to be exposed and must be changed to be fit for that. The general age for bridge players will always be relatively high but it must come down to be able to survive.