[gwnn]

In chess sometimes there are players who play obscure moves to move their opps from their comfort zone. In bridge you are not generally allowed to do this to an arbitrary extent with your bidding system because there are some restrictions. In fact the regulators very often cite lack of familiarity as a criterion to disallow certain methods. What are the main reasons why this half baked analogy doesn't work? Please do not think I am bashing the ACBL or praising FIDE. I just think that the similarity of the two situations is obvious but to the best of my knowledge there has been no prior thread about it.

[TylerE]

I think the reason is that the non-standard chess openings range somewhere between mildly inferior to near-suicidal compared to the standard, where as many disallowed bids may well be superior to what's allowed.

[hanp]

One could say that the partnership portion makes it harder to improvise at bridge. Of course this is true to a certain extend, but I'd say that the main difference is that bridge is viewed by many as a social activity. What percent of bridge players read books about systems? The average club chess player is much more serious about the game then the average club bridge player.

[ArtK78]

As a matter of fact, there is quite a bit of this in the bids that are allowed at all levels of bridge competition.

Certainly, weak (and mini) 1NT openings are often employed as much for their technical merit (whatever that may be) as for the fact that they take the opps out of their comfort zone, forcing them to deal with a situation that they don't deal with most of the time.

One of the points Marty Bergen raised when he and Larry Cohen promoted DONT was that interfering with the opponents' strong 1NT opening took them out of their comfort zone. Competitive auctions after a strong 1NT opening are more involved than uncontested auctions after a strong 1NT opening.

[Free]

The partnership makes this a huge difference. In chess, you don't have to agree with anyone before you make your move. So when something new comes up, you just have to deal with it. You can figure something out and make your move.

In bridge this is completely different. You can't discuss at the table with your partner what to do against this new system, you have to prepare this after the pre-alert. Afterwards you can work on a better solution, but by then you might have lost a match because of these new demonic methods. Meta or general agreements can help (for example against transfer openings at various levels).

Imo lack of familiarity shouldn't be an argument to ban methods. It should be based on certain types of systems, like the WBF does with color codes. New methods of a certain type will usually have some stuff in common with other methods of the same type (example namyats, transfer preempts and transfer openings at 1-level). This way, if something new comes up, you'll probably have a defense to something similar, you can just use it and you'll probably get along just fine. This won't be the case in "anything goes", although the more you'd play the more methods you get familiar with, so chances increase that you'll have defenses to something similar after a while. Still, there's no guarantee (look at the Poles who all of a sudden passed with opening hands and bid with less).

[jdonn]

I think it's because of the partnership aspect in bridge. In chess if something unfamiliar happens you can decide what is best and just do it. In bridge that doesn't work because your partner may think something else is best, or may not know what you think is best, etc.

Certainly there are a lot of other differences but I think that one is the main one to explain what you brought up. And LOL at the people like tyler who think things are disallowed at bridge because they are better.

[hrothgar]

No one has (yet) raised what I view as the most important issue: Variance
Variance manifests itself in a lot of different ways

First
Chess is (in theory) deterministic
Bridge has a lot of random elements, most notably, the specific set of cards that are held on any given hand.

Second
Chess is a head-to-head event. Your primary opponent is the person sitting across the table from you.
Most forms of bridge involve comparing the score generated at one table with the scores generated at some set of other tables

From my perspective, clamping down on the variance from bidding is the driving force behind much (if not most) convention regulations.

Players with a strong edge in declarer play and defense want to ensure these skills are rewarded to the greatest extent possible. In turn, they want a regulatory system that maximizes the chance that everyone in the room is playing the same contract.

[hotShot]

I'd like to add:

Playing chess you can see everything there is to know on the board, and you can take as much of your time slot to react as you need.

Playing bridge your time is much more limited and to understand all of the implications of the bid made, you also need informations about the bids that where not made. Each board you have about 4 minutes for the bidding and 4 minutes for the play. There is not enough time to understand an unfamiliar system.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Jul 23 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

I'd like to add:

Playing chess you can see everything there is to know on the board, and you can take as much of your time slot to react as you need.

Playing bridge your time is much more limited and to understand all of the implications of the bid made, you also need informations about the bids that where not made. Each board you have about 4 minutes for the bidding and 4 minutes for the play. There is not enough time to understand an unfamiliar system.

Personally, I don't think that "time" is a salient consideration. If we are really worried about time, we could always just introduce chess clocks to bridge. Yes, there is a lot to think about in bridge, however, things are every bit as bad when someone springs something completely unexpected on you at cheese.

25 years ago, when I was playing chess semi-seriously I spent lots of time studying weird openings and defenses like the English opening and Alekhine's defence. These methods could provide a crucial edge even playing against much stronger players.

I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't bring up partnership considerations.

If you get surprised by some completely unexpected situation, you need to worry about two completely different issues

1. The best possible response to this specific situation
2. Ensuring that partner is on the same wavelength

[gwnn]

♥ Alekhine's defence btw studying the Bird now, in harmony with my avatar.

I hope the OP doesn't mind me hijacking his thread.

[paulg]

hrothgar, on Jul 23 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Yes, there is a lot to think about in bridge, however, things are every bit as bad when someone springs something completely unexpected on you at cheese.

Presumably the French, Brie Variation?

[hrothgar]

cardsharp, on Jul 23 2010, 06:26 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 23 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Yes, there is a lot to think about in bridge, however, things are every bit as bad when someone springs something completely unexpected on you at cheese.

Presumably the French, Brie Variation?

I sprung an Epoisse on my guests at my last dinner party :-)

[helene_t]

I think all the points that have been made are valid but as Josh and Frederick say, the crucial difference is that you can't improvise a defense to opps unusual methods because p may not understand.

Also, in Bridge, you need to disclose your agreements. Now this ought not be linked to system restrictions because it is still possible to play very complex methods within the regulations, while many very simple methods would be banned. Nevertheless, I think one of the driving forces behind system regulations is that players don't like to be exposed to weird methods which they don't understand.

In chess you don't have to announce/disclose/alert your openings I suppose?

[bluecalm]

Quote

many disallowed bids may well be superior to what's allowed.

Quote

And LOL at the people like tyler who think things are disallowed at bridge because they are better.

[ ] reading comprehension

Anyway I think there is advantage in playing system which people are not used to especially in weak field. Weak NT, some kind of not common 2level openers (like very popular in poland 2♣ = majors at least 5-4) or multi against Norh America elite players who for some reason think it causes many problems :-)
It's for simple reason that people have less experience against those and are bound to make more mistakes in situations which are new to them.

[awm]

Disclosure is actually a big part of it, as well as the number of possibilities.

Chess has only 20 possible opening moves, and the number of non-ridiculous sequences of the first several moves numbers in the thousands at most. There is no requirement that your opponent has any familiarity with the opening you choose, and if you can pick one he doesn't know (and that is not dramatically inferior) then it's all to your advantage.

The number of possible bridge bidding systems is substantially larger. Keep in mind we're not talking about the number of bidding sequences which looks roughly like the number of chess openings -- we're talking about the number of assignments of sets of hands to bids. Further, there is a requirement that your opponents understand what your bids mean -- there are no secret agreements in bridge.

Certainly it's reasonable that if I'm going to play hrothgar's team for the world championship in a week and they play forcing pass, they can send me a copy of their system notes and I can familiarize myself with what they play and have some discussion with my partner. But if I show up at hrothgar's table for a two-board pairs round, never having seen or heard of his team before (and with dozens of other teams, also potentially playing unusual methods, to face in the same day) then it's questionable whether the minute or two of pre-alert and discussion I get with my partner is sufficient that his side doesn't benefit from "secret" agreements (i.e. because we don't understand all the inferences available, or because we were not able to discuss beforehand the meaning of our calls in competition).

Notice that it's quite frequently the case that there's a range of system restrictions, with almost anything allowed in "serious" events with long rounds (where it can be expected that time will be taken to pre-disclose and pre-discuss) and much more restrictive rules in less serious events and those with shorter rounds (where it's unlikely that people will have/take the time for this type of disclosure and discussion).

[Cyberyeti]

As a some time Sokolsky/Polish merchant over the chess table, I do play my bridge in that fashion too. 4 card weak 2s and WJOs, opening 1 bids as bad as allowed etc.

[hotShot]

hrothgar, on Jul 23 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't bring up partnership considerations.

Doesn't "I'd like to add" suggest that I wanted to introduce/emphasize an aspect that was not already introduced by others?

hrothgar, on Jul 23 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Personally, I don't think that "time" is a salient consideration. 

I'm impressed! I suppose you mean that after looking at opps CC at the beginning of the 2 board round, you can analyze opps system, develop a defense and explain it to partner before you take up the cards and still finish on time.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Jul 23 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 23 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Personally, I don't think that "time" is a salient consideration. 

I'm impressed! I suppose you mean that after looking at opps CC at the beginning of the 2 board round, you can analyze opps system, develop a defense and explain it to partner before you take up the cards and still finish on time.

Having played in large numbers of two board rounds, without once collapsing into a pile of jelly, I'd have to answer that in the affirmative. Indeed, almost by definition, anyone who has sat down and played duplicate had probably accomplished a similar feat.

I suspect that you were trying to comment on what might happen if I sat down and encounted some system that was completely foreign to me (the Estonian short heart system or some such).

All I can say is that there is a reason why serious partnerships develop meta agreements...

[junyi_zhu]

gwnn, on Jul 23 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

In chess sometimes there are players who play obscure moves to move their opps from their comfort zone. In bridge you are not generally allowed to do this to an arbitrary extent with your bidding system because there are some restrictions. In fact the regulators very often cite lack of familiarity as a criterion to disallow certain methods. What are the main reasons why this half baked analogy doesn't work? Please do not think I am bashing the ACBL or praising FIDE. I just think that the similarity of the two situations is obvious but to the best of my knowledge there has been no prior thread about it.

Well, bridge bidding is a tough matter if you want to handle well against any other systems. And averagely speaking, bridge players don't work hard at all to improve their game. Chess or go, or poker players work way more harder than bridge players.
And we have a system awarding laziness and bad players. Bridge itself is pretty much a dying game.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jul 23 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

And LOL at the people like tyler who think things are disallowed at bridge because they are better.

I don't think that's what Tyler said.

I think that it would be strange to believe that bidding theory is currently as good as it will ever get. I'd guess there are improvements to be made and that some of the improvements would run afoul of current system regulations in some jurisdiction or another.

I do think some things are disallowed because of randomness that comes with unfamiliarity. And, that randomness increases the likelihood that lesser players will win an event. If that's what you mean by "are better" perhaps we are actually in agreement.